On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 7:15 AM Gergő Tisza <gti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 21, 2022 at 8:22 AM Samuel Klein <meta...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> + Automatic translation of discussions is essential, tangibly useful for >> our communities, and very satisfying. >> --> how can we bring this to Mediawiki? This is a core question for >> community health, movement development, and tech. It is a straightforward >> concept, not exclusive to Discourse, and we should learn from it. >> > > I filed T309920 <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T309920> a while ago, > it has some technical details. IMO it's doable (although things usually > turn out harder than they look when they have to be built on top of an > unstructured soup of wikitext, but AIUI the Editing team has done some > great foundational work to make MediaWiki discussion pages more manageable, > so maybe these days that's less of an issue) but it would be a largish > project that would have to be slotted into the WMF's annual planning. > Thank you for this info. I hope it can be realistic and a priority for the next annual plan. > > >> + Forum threading and features (tags, emotes) are nice, beloved by some. >> > > They aren't "nice", they are essential for scaling discussion. Just like > you can't manage thousands of articles without some kind of category > system, you can't manage thousands of discussions without some kind of > tagging system. And likes or reacjis allow scaling up the number of > participants without excluding anyone from the discussion who is unwilling > to spend several hours a day on reading new comments - they both cut down > on the number of comments, and allow software to highlight the most > important or most representative comments. > Well said...will only add that even most simple option to add 'like'-like feedback makes huge difference as it at least partly cuts down on extra messages that feel like unnecessary spam in big mailing-lists and telegram groups (those that did not turned on that recent feature). > > --> how might we support integrating discourse into a) mediawiki, b) >> interwiki links? (so that a forum post could link to *m:Power_structure*, >> and a meta post could link to *f:Wikischool*) >> > > MediaWiki is concept-addressable; forum software aren't because they need > to deal with more and messier content. You could have something with like > *f:123* but I'm not sure it adds value over plain links. > >From what I learned as Drupal user is that having multiple (fixed and flexible) taxonomies for tagging could be super useful and I hope this feature gets developed in both core Discourse and MediaWiki (even if just on user end). > > >> – Wikimedia Space was closed after a year, and its links no longer >> resolve. >> > > I apologize for that. Space needs to be migrated from Debian Stretch to > Buster as part of a generic upgrade of Wikimedia Cloud infrastructure. I > volunteered to do it but it turned out to be non-straightforward, or > possibly I've been going at it wrong, I ran out of time, and then kinda > forgot about it. I'll try to wrap it up soon. > Thank you for volunteering for this, but I think it should be systematically done by more than one person and as part of WMF workflows. > > >> --> how can we add discourse into current versioning + archiving >> workflows? >> > > A good question regardless! There was some discussion in T235235 > <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T235235>, but it didn't go far. > > See also T262275 <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T262275>, which is > about a different Discourse site (which I didn't think was worth keeping > up), but it shows a minimal-effort solution for keeping discussion content > available and links working in perpetuity, although in a rather ugly format. > Think living with ugly is kind of bearable in Wikimedia world ;-p > > ~ what it might look like for this to later become a more standard part of >> our wikiverse (e.g., *forum.wikimedia.org/c/strategy >> <http://forum.wikimedia.org/c/strategy>*). >> > > There's a bunch of discussion at > https://forum.movement-strategy.org/t/what-do-you-think-about-the-proposed-name-and-domain/53 > on why a *.wikimedia.org domain is unlikely to be used anytime soon. > IMHO use of w.wiki subdomains, should not be bad option :-) > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines > at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/EUZF3B6AIG4NSFKQ3NEIM3K7YEX7LJPV/ > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/75K5NUAM2UZ2TR4YNZVMYRPCX7MVJ3JH/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
