Re: [Foundation-l] Usability study in progress
Wikipedians should not be used to asses usabillity problems with Wikipedia, this is rule number one if you want to get information about why a newbie has problems with a system. A typical wikipedian is simply not a valid newbie. Ten participants are not nearly enough, they can only give you some clue about the real problem. John Naoko Komura skrev: Howdy. (adding wikien-l folks to this thread. my apology for not including wikien-l with my initial email.) The usability study has started today as scheduled. The usability team is monitoring the interviews and how ten test participants interact with Wikipedia when they are asked to edit an article at the lab facility in San Francisco today and tomorrow. The remote usability study on Thursday (March 26 PDT) will be done remotely, which means we recruit participants from Wikipedia through the site notice, and connect with them through web conferencing. Therefore the site notice for recruitment will appear again on Thursday. We expect to compile the results in a few weeks and the findings with you. Naoko Komura Program Manager, Wikimedia Foundation Naoko Komura wrote: One of the important components of the usability initiative is to conduct multiple rounds of usability tests. The plan is to conduct at least three rounds of tests for qualitative usability evaluation over the span of twelve months, i) the initial evaluation, ii) the progress evaluation, and iii) the final evaluation. The initial usability test is scheduled on March 24, 25th and 26th. In-person lab tests are conducted in San Francisco at the first two days, and remote tests will be conducted on the third day. As a preparation for the initial usability test, we incorporated the recruiting tool into English Wikipedia's site notice. You might have encountered site notice inviting for the participation. The target audience of testers are Wikipedia readers who have little or no experience in editing the Wikipedia articles. The banner is displayed within the range of 1:400 to 1:100 page views, and it will continue till early next week. We look forward to learning from the usability tests and sharing the result with you. Thanks. Naoko ... on behalf of the usability team. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Abuse filter
The abuse filter has some serious problems with logging of personal information, what to log and why. There are also the problems associated with the use of such a log, and who has access to it. In some jurisdictions it may be legal to log and use such information for arbitrary actions against the users but that is not generally the case. In Norway it is legal to log such actions for the administration of the system, but as soon as it is used for actions against the users it would need a license (konsesjon) to handle such information. Note that WMF may choose to neglect the Norwegian laws in this respect as it do not have to apply to Norwegian laws. I believe it is fairly easy to avoid all of those those problems, but I can't find any information that says that such adaptions of the code are done, or that any other measure is taken to avoid said problems. Can anyone clarify on the matter as it seems that nearly everyone just hurrays the implementation and there is no effort to solve those issues. John ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Usability study in progress
Ten is a low number indeed, however, if those people are indeed 'typical users' instead of Wikipedians and you given them a few specific tasks (say, searching for an article on a topic they are interested in and editing it to add some information) you will probably encounter lots of problems soon enough. On a different note: i'm not sure if this has been discussed before but will the usability study also take uploading media on Commons in account? Editing text is one thing, but adding media (and hence, using Commons) is almost as common and could also use *lots* of work on increasing usability. -- Hay On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 11:55 AM, John at Darkstar vac...@jeb.no wrote: Wikipedians should not be used to asses usabillity problems with Wikipedia, this is rule number one if you want to get information about why a newbie has problems with a system. A typical wikipedian is simply not a valid newbie. Ten participants are not nearly enough, they can only give you some clue about the real problem. John Naoko Komura skrev: Howdy. (adding wikien-l folks to this thread. my apology for not including wikien-l with my initial email.) The usability study has started today as scheduled. The usability team is monitoring the interviews and how ten test participants interact with Wikipedia when they are asked to edit an article at the lab facility in San Francisco today and tomorrow. The remote usability study on Thursday (March 26 PDT) will be done remotely, which means we recruit participants from Wikipedia through the site notice, and connect with them through web conferencing. Therefore the site notice for recruitment will appear again on Thursday. We expect to compile the results in a few weeks and the findings with you. Naoko Komura Program Manager, Wikimedia Foundation Naoko Komura wrote: One of the important components of the usability initiative is to conduct multiple rounds of usability tests. The plan is to conduct at least three rounds of tests for qualitative usability evaluation over the span of twelve months, i) the initial evaluation, ii) the progress evaluation, and iii) the final evaluation. The initial usability test is scheduled on March 24, 25th and 26th. In-person lab tests are conducted in San Francisco at the first two days, and remote tests will be conducted on the third day. As a preparation for the initial usability test, we incorporated the recruiting tool into English Wikipedia's site notice. You might have encountered site notice inviting for the participation. The target audience of testers are Wikipedia readers who have little or no experience in editing the Wikipedia articles. The banner is displayed within the range of 1:400 to 1:100 page views, and it will continue till early next week. We look forward to learning from the usability tests and sharing the result with you. Thanks. Naoko ... on behalf of the usability team. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Abuse filter
The problem is that something that previously was public (vandal moving the page George W. Bush to moron) will now be private (he get a message that hi isn't allowed to do that), this shifts the context from a public context to a private context. Then the extension do logging of actions done in this private context to another site. Users of this site will then have access to private information. It is not the information _disclosed_ which creates the problem, it is the information _collected_. It seems like the information is legal for administrative purposes, but as soon as it is used for anything other it creates a lot of problems. For example, if anyone takes actions against an user based on this collected information it could be a violation of local laws. (Imagine collected data being integrated with CU) If such actions must be taken, then the central problems are identification of who has access to the logs and are they in fact accurate. That is something you don't want in a wiki with anonymous contributors! :D The only solution I see is to avoid all logging of private actions if the actions themselves does not lead to a publication of something. Probably it will be legal to do some statistical analysis to administer the system, but that should limit the possibility of later identification of the involved users. There are a lot of other problems, but I think most of them are minor to this. John Domas Mituzas skrev: Hello John, done, or that any other measure is taken to avoid said problems. Can anyone clarify on the matter as it seems that nearly everyone just hurrays the implementation and there is no effort to solve those issues. I discussed this with Andrew (he is not on foundation-l), and apparently, AbuseFilter does not seem to disclose any information that would not be available elsewhere. Is there any particular information released by it you'd consider leaking private data? We love privacy, but we want to be consistent :) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Usability study in progress
One additional note, in Norway a lot of the newspapers used a layout like Monobook (sort of) but has lately dismissed the solution in favor of radically much simpler designs. Especially the list of links in a left bar has been abandoned in favor of more directed approaches with horizontal menus in the top of the pages. Some of the newspapers has reported instantaneous increase in click rates. It is thought provocative as most of the left bar is for wikipediams, and therefore is usable to only a small percentile of the total users (in page views). The rest of the users need navigational aids for the main space. John Hay (Husky) skrev: Ten is a low number indeed, however, if those people are indeed 'typical users' instead of Wikipedians and you given them a few specific tasks (say, searching for an article on a topic they are interested in and editing it to add some information) you will probably encounter lots of problems soon enough. On a different note: i'm not sure if this has been discussed before but will the usability study also take uploading media on Commons in account? Editing text is one thing, but adding media (and hence, using Commons) is almost as common and could also use *lots* of work on increasing usability. -- Hay On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 11:55 AM, John at Darkstar vac...@jeb.no wrote: Wikipedians should not be used to asses usabillity problems with Wikipedia, this is rule number one if you want to get information about why a newbie has problems with a system. A typical wikipedian is simply not a valid newbie. Ten participants are not nearly enough, they can only give you some clue about the real problem. John Naoko Komura skrev: Howdy. (adding wikien-l folks to this thread. my apology for not including wikien-l with my initial email.) The usability study has started today as scheduled. The usability team is monitoring the interviews and how ten test participants interact with Wikipedia when they are asked to edit an article at the lab facility in San Francisco today and tomorrow. The remote usability study on Thursday (March 26 PDT) will be done remotely, which means we recruit participants from Wikipedia through the site notice, and connect with them through web conferencing. Therefore the site notice for recruitment will appear again on Thursday. We expect to compile the results in a few weeks and the findings with you. Naoko Komura Program Manager, Wikimedia Foundation Naoko Komura wrote: One of the important components of the usability initiative is to conduct multiple rounds of usability tests. The plan is to conduct at least three rounds of tests for qualitative usability evaluation over the span of twelve months, i) the initial evaluation, ii) the progress evaluation, and iii) the final evaluation. The initial usability test is scheduled on March 24, 25th and 26th. In-person lab tests are conducted in San Francisco at the first two days, and remote tests will be conducted on the third day. As a preparation for the initial usability test, we incorporated the recruiting tool into English Wikipedia's site notice. You might have encountered site notice inviting for the participation. The target audience of testers are Wikipedia readers who have little or no experience in editing the Wikipedia articles. The banner is displayed within the range of 1:400 to 1:100 page views, and it will continue till early next week. We look forward to learning from the usability tests and sharing the result with you. Thanks. Naoko ... on behalf of the usability team. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Abuse filter legal/privacy implications
John, There are a lot of other problems, but I think most of them are minor to this. Well, this looks like lawyer thing then, not overall privacy policy discussion. -- Domas Mituzas -- http://dammit.lt/ -- [[user:midom]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Abuse filter legal/privacy implications
Privacy _is_ about law, but the extension creates the privacy problem and it must be solved. John Domas Mituzas skrev: John, There are a lot of other problems, but I think most of them are minor to this. Well, this looks like lawyer thing then, not overall privacy policy discussion. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Usability study in progress
Hoi, A newspaper wants people to read. We want very much that readers consider the option to edit. The approach is therefore different. When I goto Wikipedia as a reader, I might be enabled to change my role and consequently get a different layout. Thanks, GerardM 2009/3/25 John at Darkstar vac...@jeb.no One additional note, in Norway a lot of the newspapers used a layout like Monobook (sort of) but has lately dismissed the solution in favor of radically much simpler designs. Especially the list of links in a left bar has been abandoned in favor of more directed approaches with horizontal menus in the top of the pages. Some of the newspapers has reported instantaneous increase in click rates. It is thought provocative as most of the left bar is for wikipediams, and therefore is usable to only a small percentile of the total users (in page views). The rest of the users need navigational aids for the main space. John Hay (Husky) skrev: Ten is a low number indeed, however, if those people are indeed 'typical users' instead of Wikipedians and you given them a few specific tasks (say, searching for an article on a topic they are interested in and editing it to add some information) you will probably encounter lots of problems soon enough. On a different note: i'm not sure if this has been discussed before but will the usability study also take uploading media on Commons in account? Editing text is one thing, but adding media (and hence, using Commons) is almost as common and could also use *lots* of work on increasing usability. -- Hay On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 11:55 AM, John at Darkstar vac...@jeb.no wrote: Wikipedians should not be used to asses usabillity problems with Wikipedia, this is rule number one if you want to get information about why a newbie has problems with a system. A typical wikipedian is simply not a valid newbie. Ten participants are not nearly enough, they can only give you some clue about the real problem. John Naoko Komura skrev: Howdy. (adding wikien-l folks to this thread. my apology for not including wikien-l with my initial email.) The usability study has started today as scheduled. The usability team is monitoring the interviews and how ten test participants interact with Wikipedia when they are asked to edit an article at the lab facility in San Francisco today and tomorrow. The remote usability study on Thursday (March 26 PDT) will be done remotely, which means we recruit participants from Wikipedia through the site notice, and connect with them through web conferencing. Therefore the site notice for recruitment will appear again on Thursday. We expect to compile the results in a few weeks and the findings with you. Naoko Komura Program Manager, Wikimedia Foundation Naoko Komura wrote: One of the important components of the usability initiative is to conduct multiple rounds of usability tests. The plan is to conduct at least three rounds of tests for qualitative usability evaluation over the span of twelve months, i) the initial evaluation, ii) the progress evaluation, and iii) the final evaluation. The initial usability test is scheduled on March 24, 25th and 26th. In-person lab tests are conducted in San Francisco at the first two days, and remote tests will be conducted on the third day. As a preparation for the initial usability test, we incorporated the recruiting tool into English Wikipedia's site notice. You might have encountered site notice inviting for the participation. The target audience of testers are Wikipedia readers who have little or no experience in editing the Wikipedia articles. The banner is displayed within the range of 1:400 to 1:100 page views, and it will continue till early next week. We look forward to learning from the usability tests and sharing the result with you. Thanks. Naoko ... on behalf of the usability team. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Abuse filter
The peculiarity in some respects of Scandinavian law seems to come up on this list fairly frequently, but it's usually short on specifics or actual cases. John, do you have any specific references to what you've described as a problem? Adhering to your interpretation on the possible limits on private information would effectively eliminate the abuse filter as a useful tool. I'm having a hard time seeing this as a widespread problem; there can't be many jurisdictions that define public and private in this way, or place such restrictions on what can be done with this data that blocking someone from a private website in another country could be a violation of the law. To my mind, private data of the sort we need to worry about is not private in the sense that it is owned by the Foundation or not publicly viewable, but private in the sense that it contains potentially sensitive details of individual editors and readers. Nothing in the abuse filter would seem to change the public availability of this sort of data, and I can hardly see Wikimedia being penalized simply for preventing vandalism instead of reacting to it. Nathan On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 8:35 AM, John at Darkstar vac...@jeb.no wrote: The problem is that something that previously was public (vandal moving the page George W. Bush to moron) will now be private (he get a message that hi isn't allowed to do that), this shifts the context from a public context to a private context. Then the extension do logging of actions done in this private context to another site. Users of this site will then have access to private information. It is not the information _disclosed_ which creates the problem, it is the information _collected_. It seems like the information is legal for administrative purposes, but as soon as it is used for anything other it creates a lot of problems. For example, if anyone takes actions against an user based on this collected information it could be a violation of local laws. (Imagine collected data being integrated with CU) If such actions must be taken, then the central problems are identification of who has access to the logs and are they in fact accurate. That is something you don't want in a wiki with anonymous contributors! :D The only solution I see is to avoid all logging of private actions if the actions themselves does not lead to a publication of something. Probably it will be legal to do some statistical analysis to administer the system, but that should limit the possibility of later identification of the involved users. There are a lot of other problems, but I think most of them are minor to this. John ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Tech updates: code updates going live to Wikimedia sites
After a few weeks of bug fixes, we've caught up with MediaWiki development code review and I'm pushing out an update to the live sites. This fixes a lot of little bugs, and hopefully doesn't cause introduce too many new ones. :) * Change logs: http://ur1.ca/2rah (r47458 to r48811) As usual in addition to lots of offline and individual testing among our staff and volunteer developers, we've done a shakedown on http://test.wikipedia.org/ -- and as usual we can fully expect a few more issues to have cropped up that weren't already found. Don't be alarmed if you do find a problem; just let us know at http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/ or on the tech IRC channels (#wikimedia-tech on Freenode). We should be resuming our weekly update schedule soon -- I won't be doing a mega-crosspost like this every week! -- and will continue to improve our pre-update staging and shakedown testing to keep disruption to a minimum and awesome improvements to a maximum. I'd also like to announce that we've started a blog for Wikimedia tech activity MediaWiki development, in part because I want to make sure community members can easily follow what we're working on and give feedback before we push things out: * http://techblog.wikimedia.org/ I'd very much like to make sure that we've got regular contacts among the various project communities who can help coordinate with us on features, bugs, and general thoughts which might affect some projects distinctly from others. -- brion vibber (brion @ wikimedia.org) CTO, Wikimedia Foundation San Francisco ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Usability study in progress
according to the Usability home page initial focus on English Wikipedia, eventually this research and development will be implemented across all languages and possibly to other WikiMedia projectshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_projects#Wikimedia_projects so i would guess initially not. regards mark On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Hay (Husky) hus...@gmail.com wrote: Ten is a low number indeed, however, if those people are indeed 'typical users' instead of Wikipedians and you given them a few specific tasks (say, searching for an article on a topic they are interested in and editing it to add some information) you will probably encounter lots of problems soon enough. On a different note: i'm not sure if this has been discussed before but will the usability study also take uploading media on Commons in account? Editing text is one thing, but adding media (and hence, using Commons) is almost as common and could also use *lots* of work on increasing usability. -- Hay On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 11:55 AM, John at Darkstar vac...@jeb.no wrote: Wikipedians should not be used to asses usabillity problems with Wikipedia, this is rule number one if you want to get information about why a newbie has problems with a system. A typical wikipedian is simply not a valid newbie. Ten participants are not nearly enough, they can only give you some clue about the real problem. John Naoko Komura skrev: Howdy. (adding wikien-l folks to this thread. my apology for not including wikien-l with my initial email.) The usability study has started today as scheduled. The usability team is monitoring the interviews and how ten test participants interact with Wikipedia when they are asked to edit an article at the lab facility in San Francisco today and tomorrow. The remote usability study on Thursday (March 26 PDT) will be done remotely, which means we recruit participants from Wikipedia through the site notice, and connect with them through web conferencing. Therefore the site notice for recruitment will appear again on Thursday. We expect to compile the results in a few weeks and the findings with you. Naoko Komura Program Manager, Wikimedia Foundation Naoko Komura wrote: One of the important components of the usability initiative is to conduct multiple rounds of usability tests. The plan is to conduct at least three rounds of tests for qualitative usability evaluation over the span of twelve months, i) the initial evaluation, ii) the progress evaluation, and iii) the final evaluation. The initial usability test is scheduled on March 24, 25th and 26th. In-person lab tests are conducted in San Francisco at the first two days, and remote tests will be conducted on the third day. As a preparation for the initial usability test, we incorporated the recruiting tool into English Wikipedia's site notice. You might have encountered site notice inviting for the participation. The target audience of testers are Wikipedia readers who have little or no experience in editing the Wikipedia articles. The banner is displayed within the range of 1:400 to 1:100 page views, and it will continue till early next week. We look forward to learning from the usability tests and sharing the result with you. Thanks. Naoko ... on behalf of the usability team. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Usability study in progress
2009/3/25 John at Darkstar vac...@jeb.no: Wikipedians should not be used to asses usabillity problems with Wikipedia, this is rule number one if you want to get information about why a newbie has problems with a system. I'm not sure about your definition of Wikipedians above, but the recruiting procedure uses a screening process to recruit _readers_ of Wikipedia with no editing experience. Our goal here is to at the end of the day make improvements to convert more readers to editors. Ten participants are not nearly enough, they can only give you some clue about the real problem. There are different philosophies of usability, including a philosophy of agile testing with few test subjects ( http://www.useit.com/alertbox/2319.html ). There's general agreement that with these kinds of tests, you'll quickly see diminishing returns - adding many more people doesn't actually help you discover many more problems. Moreover, resources are not infinite: finding a good balance in terms of the number of testers allows you to conduct more tests later, with the goal of validating whether the changes you've made actually have had the intended effect. Erik -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Divergent Wiktionary logos
Elisabeth Anderl wrote: Hello all, this is a very old and often discussed issue, the problems raised with the logo were not yet addressed (such as copyright issues, which characters to use), and the new 'logo' is IMHO the most ugly thing I have ever seen. Btw.: from alexa.com: Where people go on Wiktionary.org: - en.wiktionary.org - 48.6% - old logo - de.wiktionary.org - 12.8% - old logo - fr.wiktionary.org - 9.7% - new logo - ru.wiktionary.org - 3.6% - old logo - es.wiktionary.org - 3.1% - old logo - ja.wiktionary.org - 2.9% - old logo - pl.wiktionary.org - 2.4% - old logo - pt.wiktionary.org - 2.3% - old logo - it.wiktionary.org - 1.6% - new logo - el.wiktionary.org - 1.5% - new logo Guess how many Wiktionarians apprently like the new logo... I didn't take part in the discussion and the vote, but this is a poor attempt to justify the old logo. People do not look at a web site like Wiktionary because of the logo. Best regards, E. Regards, Yann -- http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net http://fr.wikisource.org/ | Bibliothèque libre http://wikilivres.info | Documents libres ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Divergent Wiktionary logos
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Yann Forget y...@forget-me.net wrote: I didn't take part in the discussion and the vote, but this is a poor attempt to justify the old logo. People do not look at a web site like Wiktionary because of the logo. Best regards, E. Regards, Yann No, they don't, but since the more trafficked sites are likely to be more complete and with a larger community... You can infer that there are more people for the logo than against it, as demonstrated by which communities use it and which do not. If there were specific issues with the new logo that remain unaddressed, perhaps the best thing to do is design a new logo that may not have those same problems? The old logo is owned by the WMF, but the new logo doesn't appear in the Wikimedia Images category on the foundation wiki. Who owns the scrabble-like logo? As a last resort, would the Foundation impose a logo scheme on a project type where the communities couldn't come to consensus? Last - should be noted that the wikimediafoundation.org site and the www.wiktionary.org use the old 'logo' to represent all Wiktionary projects. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Usability study in progress
Hi, On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 4:12 PM, Casey Brown cbrown1023...@gmail.com wrote: As far as I know, *this* grant has to do with the English Wikipedia as its focus (that doesn't mean what they find can't be applied to other projects -- quite the opposite). However, I do recall Erik saying something about a grant that is being worked on for Commons, see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Case_for_Commons Michael Dale is also doing some pretty amazing job regarding the upload wizard: http://brianna.modernthings.org/article/184/media-handling-on-wikimedia-preview-the-future-part-1 http://brianna.modernthings.org/article/180/media-handling-on-wikimedia-preview-the-future-part-2 -- Guillaume Paumier [[m:User:guillom]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Abuse filter
It is not refusing to accept some kind of edit that creates the problem, it is the logging of the action because you then collect information about the users. Preventing the vandalism instead of reacting to it shifts the actions from a public context to a private context. By avoiding collecting such information and adhering to administration of the system most of the problem simply goes away. Its not about using or not using the extension, its about limiting the logging so that no one can gain access to any data to make later actions against the users (ie. the vandals). WMF may choose to log the information anyhow, like it may choose to not respect copyright laws in some countries. I don't think that is very wise, but I can only say what I believe is right. John Nathan skrev: The peculiarity in some respects of Scandinavian law seems to come up on this list fairly frequently, but it's usually short on specifics or actual cases. John, do you have any specific references to what you've described as a problem? Adhering to your interpretation on the possible limits on private information would effectively eliminate the abuse filter as a useful tool. I'm having a hard time seeing this as a widespread problem; there can't be many jurisdictions that define public and private in this way, or place such restrictions on what can be done with this data that blocking someone from a private website in another country could be a violation of the law. To my mind, private data of the sort we need to worry about is not private in the sense that it is owned by the Foundation or not publicly viewable, but private in the sense that it contains potentially sensitive details of individual editors and readers. Nothing in the abuse filter would seem to change the public availability of this sort of data, and I can hardly see Wikimedia being penalized simply for preventing vandalism instead of reacting to it. Nathan On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 8:35 AM, John at Darkstar vac...@jeb.no wrote: The problem is that something that previously was public (vandal moving the page George W. Bush to moron) will now be private (he get a message that hi isn't allowed to do that), this shifts the context from a public context to a private context. Then the extension do logging of actions done in this private context to another site. Users of this site will then have access to private information. It is not the information _disclosed_ which creates the problem, it is the information _collected_. It seems like the information is legal for administrative purposes, but as soon as it is used for anything other it creates a lot of problems. For example, if anyone takes actions against an user based on this collected information it could be a violation of local laws. (Imagine collected data being integrated with CU) If such actions must be taken, then the central problems are identification of who has access to the logs and are they in fact accurate. That is something you don't want in a wiki with anonymous contributors! :D The only solution I see is to avoid all logging of private actions if the actions themselves does not lead to a publication of something. Probably it will be legal to do some statistical analysis to administer the system, but that should limit the possibility of later identification of the involved users. There are a lot of other problems, but I think most of them are minor to this. John ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Usability study in progress
There are about 100 times more page views than edits, sometimes even more. John Gerard Meijssen skrev: Hoi, A newspaper wants people to read. We want very much that readers consider the option to edit. The approach is therefore different. When I goto Wikipedia as a reader, I might be enabled to change my role and consequently get a different layout. Thanks, GerardM 2009/3/25 John at Darkstar vac...@jeb.no One additional note, in Norway a lot of the newspapers used a layout like Monobook (sort of) but has lately dismissed the solution in favor of radically much simpler designs. Especially the list of links in a left bar has been abandoned in favor of more directed approaches with horizontal menus in the top of the pages. Some of the newspapers has reported instantaneous increase in click rates. It is thought provocative as most of the left bar is for wikipediams, and therefore is usable to only a small percentile of the total users (in page views). The rest of the users need navigational aids for the main space. John Hay (Husky) skrev: Ten is a low number indeed, however, if those people are indeed 'typical users' instead of Wikipedians and you given them a few specific tasks (say, searching for an article on a topic they are interested in and editing it to add some information) you will probably encounter lots of problems soon enough. On a different note: i'm not sure if this has been discussed before but will the usability study also take uploading media on Commons in account? Editing text is one thing, but adding media (and hence, using Commons) is almost as common and could also use *lots* of work on increasing usability. -- Hay On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 11:55 AM, John at Darkstar vac...@jeb.no wrote: Wikipedians should not be used to asses usabillity problems with Wikipedia, this is rule number one if you want to get information about why a newbie has problems with a system. A typical wikipedian is simply not a valid newbie. Ten participants are not nearly enough, they can only give you some clue about the real problem. John Naoko Komura skrev: Howdy. (adding wikien-l folks to this thread. my apology for not including wikien-l with my initial email.) The usability study has started today as scheduled. The usability team is monitoring the interviews and how ten test participants interact with Wikipedia when they are asked to edit an article at the lab facility in San Francisco today and tomorrow. The remote usability study on Thursday (March 26 PDT) will be done remotely, which means we recruit participants from Wikipedia through the site notice, and connect with them through web conferencing. Therefore the site notice for recruitment will appear again on Thursday. We expect to compile the results in a few weeks and the findings with you. Naoko Komura Program Manager, Wikimedia Foundation Naoko Komura wrote: One of the important components of the usability initiative is to conduct multiple rounds of usability tests. The plan is to conduct at least three rounds of tests for qualitative usability evaluation over the span of twelve months, i) the initial evaluation, ii) the progress evaluation, and iii) the final evaluation. The initial usability test is scheduled on March 24, 25th and 26th. In-person lab tests are conducted in San Francisco at the first two days, and remote tests will be conducted on the third day. As a preparation for the initial usability test, we incorporated the recruiting tool into English Wikipedia's site notice. You might have encountered site notice inviting for the participation. The target audience of testers are Wikipedia readers who have little or no experience in editing the Wikipedia articles. The banner is displayed within the range of 1:400 to 1:100 page views, and it will continue till early next week. We look forward to learning from the usability tests and sharing the result with you. Thanks. Naoko ... on behalf of the usability team. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Usability study in progress
I've seen some of the results from agile testing, it seems like they have a tendency to lock in on specific suboptimal solution. What is an acceptable solution on a given limited state. John Erik Moeller skrev: 2009/3/25 John at Darkstar vac...@jeb.no: Wikipedians should not be used to asses usabillity problems with Wikipedia, this is rule number one if you want to get information about why a newbie has problems with a system. I'm not sure about your definition of Wikipedians above, but the recruiting procedure uses a screening process to recruit _readers_ of Wikipedia with no editing experience. Our goal here is to at the end of the day make improvements to convert more readers to editors. Ten participants are not nearly enough, they can only give you some clue about the real problem. There are different philosophies of usability, including a philosophy of agile testing with few test subjects ( http://www.useit.com/alertbox/2319.html ). There's general agreement that with these kinds of tests, you'll quickly see diminishing returns - adding many more people doesn't actually help you discover many more problems. Moreover, resources are not infinite: finding a good balance in terms of the number of testers allows you to conduct more tests later, with the goal of validating whether the changes you've made actually have had the intended effect. Erik ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Abuse filter
I see the actions as 100% public. Just because the edit that was attempted was not allowed does not mean it was not meant to be public. The Logs are just another avenue that an edit may take if it meets some conditions. the only difference between logging and previous behavior is the edit never made it to the live page. this is very similar to flagged revisions behavior of not showing an edit until its approved. On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 11:35 AM, John at Darkstar vac...@jeb.no wrote: It is not refusing to accept some kind of edit that creates the problem, it is the logging of the action because you then collect information about the users. Preventing the vandalism instead of reacting to it shifts the actions from a public context to a private context. By avoiding collecting such information and adhering to administration of the system most of the problem simply goes away. Its not about using or not using the extension, its about limiting the logging so that no one can gain access to any data to make later actions against the users (ie. the vandals). WMF may choose to log the information anyhow, like it may choose to not respect copyright laws in some countries. I don't think that is very wise, but I can only say what I believe is right. John Nathan skrev: The peculiarity in some respects of Scandinavian law seems to come up on this list fairly frequently, but it's usually short on specifics or actual cases. John, do you have any specific references to what you've described as a problem? Adhering to your interpretation on the possible limits on private information would effectively eliminate the abuse filter as a useful tool. I'm having a hard time seeing this as a widespread problem; there can't be many jurisdictions that define public and private in this way, or place such restrictions on what can be done with this data that blocking someone from a private website in another country could be a violation of the law. To my mind, private data of the sort we need to worry about is not private in the sense that it is owned by the Foundation or not publicly viewable, but private in the sense that it contains potentially sensitive details of individual editors and readers. Nothing in the abuse filter would seem to change the public availability of this sort of data, and I can hardly see Wikimedia being penalized simply for preventing vandalism instead of reacting to it. Nathan On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 8:35 AM, John at Darkstar vac...@jeb.no wrote: The problem is that something that previously was public (vandal moving the page George W. Bush to moron) will now be private (he get a message that hi isn't allowed to do that), this shifts the context from a public context to a private context. Then the extension do logging of actions done in this private context to another site. Users of this site will then have access to private information. It is not the information _disclosed_ which creates the problem, it is the information _collected_. It seems like the information is legal for administrative purposes, but as soon as it is used for anything other it creates a lot of problems. For example, if anyone takes actions against an user based on this collected information it could be a violation of local laws. (Imagine collected data being integrated with CU) If such actions must be taken, then the central problems are identification of who has access to the logs and are they in fact accurate. That is something you don't want in a wiki with anonymous contributors! :D The only solution I see is to avoid all logging of private actions if the actions themselves does not lead to a publication of something. Probably it will be legal to do some statistical analysis to administer the system, but that should limit the possibility of later identification of the involved users. There are a lot of other problems, but I think most of them are minor to this. John ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Abuse filter
I asked this in the last e-mail, but I'll make it the primary point of this one - do you have specific references that led to your current understanding of the problem? Has the distinction you describe in the collection of information been litigated somewhere else, or the subject of a law in any jurisdiction? As it stands, the logging is a crucial element of the filter. It's probably possible to obscure IP data from the log, but I don't see why that would be necessary at this point. Nathan On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 11:35 AM, John at Darkstar vac...@jeb.no wrote: It is not refusing to accept some kind of edit that creates the problem, it is the logging of the action because you then collect information about the users. Preventing the vandalism instead of reacting to it shifts the actions from a public context to a private context. By avoiding collecting such information and adhering to administration of the system most of the problem simply goes away. Its not about using or not using the extension, its about limiting the logging so that no one can gain access to any data to make later actions against the users (ie. the vandals). WMF may choose to log the information anyhow, like it may choose to not respect copyright laws in some countries. I don't think that is very wise, but I can only say what I believe is right. John ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Usability study in progress
2009/3/25 Casey Brown cbrown1023...@gmail.com: However, I do recall Erik saying something about a grant that is being worked on for Commons, see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Case_for_Commons Yep, that's correct. We've submitted a grant proposal specifically with regard to uploading usability (which also involves the complexity of licensing templates and such), and hope to hear back soon. Uploading is not included in these first user tests. -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Usability study in progress
Thanks Erik, and to those who posted links. I'm very glad that Commons is also taken into account with the usability enhancements. -- Hay On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 5:10 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: 2009/3/25 Casey Brown cbrown1023...@gmail.com: However, I do recall Erik saying something about a grant that is being worked on for Commons, see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Case_for_Commons Yep, that's correct. We've submitted a grant proposal specifically with regard to uploading usability (which also involves the complexity of licensing templates and such), and hope to hear back soon. Uploading is not included in these first user tests. -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Divergent Wiktionary logos
You do get me wrong, I am not justifying the old logo, it is not a logo, but the new logo is not accepted by many communities and there is a dispute going on for long time now [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and I do not recommend to force all these communities with something ugly like that after all these failed attempts to get them to accept it. If there would be someone able to design a new one from the scratch, something that looks more serious and not like a kindergarden sign, maybe that might get more projectwide acception. E. [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wiktionary/logo#Trademark_infringement [2] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiktionary-l/2007-November/subject.html [3] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiktionary-l/2007-February/subject.html [4] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiktionary-l/2007-January/subject.html [5] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiktionary-l/2006-September/subject.html 2009/3/25 Yann Forget y...@forget-me.net Elisabeth Anderl wrote: Hello all, this is a very old and often discussed issue, the problems raised with the logo were not yet addressed (such as copyright issues, which characters to use), and the new 'logo' is IMHO the most ugly thing I have ever seen. Btw.: from alexa.com: Where people go on Wiktionary.org: - en.wiktionary.org - 48.6% - old logo - de.wiktionary.org - 12.8% - old logo - fr.wiktionary.org - 9.7% - new logo - ru.wiktionary.org - 3.6% - old logo - es.wiktionary.org - 3.1% - old logo - ja.wiktionary.org - 2.9% - old logo - pl.wiktionary.org - 2.4% - old logo - pt.wiktionary.org - 2.3% - old logo - it.wiktionary.org - 1.6% - new logo - el.wiktionary.org - 1.5% - new logo Guess how many Wiktionarians apprently like the new logo... I didn't take part in the discussion and the vote, but this is a poor attempt to justify the old logo. People do not look at a web site like Wiktionary because of the logo. Best regards, E. Regards, Yann -- http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net http://fr.wikisource.org/ | Bibliothèque libre http://wikilivres.info | Documents libres ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Wiktionary-l] Divergent Wiktionary logos
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Cary Bass c...@wikimedia.org wrote: I'd also like considerable help in advertising it throughout the projects and managing the page, as well. CentralNotice on all wiktionaries? :-) -- Casey Brown Cbrown1023 --- Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to this address will probably get lost. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Wiktionary-l] Divergent Wiktionary logos
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Casey Brown wrote: On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Cary Bass c...@wikimedia.org wrote: I'd also like considerable help in advertising it throughout the projects and managing the page, as well. CentralNotice on all wiktionaries? :-) When we get the discussion on a firm page and not refresh :-) Cary -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJymG7yQg4JSymDYkRAqRdAJ9OjB6pn2Fs3ciYlb4EivilvuKDhQCfWvjQ +bJxyW5kFpJahYE5p8h+hD4= =X2kj -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Divergent Wiktionary logos
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:52 PM, Cary Bass c...@wikimedia.org wrote: Of course Meta participants can vote; Wiktionary isn't solely owned by the people who most actively use it. It's a Wikimedia project, first and foremost. I generally expect most people who use Meta to respectfully give weight to the Wiktionarians, however, and not just vote on impulse. Most of us do that. Sure - the first part of what I wrote (discussing a conflict of vote outcomes) related specifically to Wiktionary, the second part was more general. Given the status of the logos as marks of the Foundation, can the meta community vote to change any logo? If not, what is the 'right way' to pursue a logo change - using a staff driven process like this one, where the vote is more confirmatory than determinant? Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Abuse filter
Bence Damokos wrote: On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote: Just so everyone is clear: 1) The abuse log is public. Anyone, including completely anonymous IPs, can read the log. 2) The information in the log is either a) already publicly available by other means, or b) would have been made public had the edit been completed. So abuse logging doesn't release any new information that wouldn't have been available had the edit been completed. (Some of the information it does release, such as User ID number and time of email address confirmation, is extremely obscure though. While public in the sense that it could be located by the public, some of the things in the log would be challenging to find otherwise.) Is it a wild assumption on the part of an editor, that after he has been warned for an abuse and not pursued it (by forcing a save if the save button is available) to assume that his action was lost, and thus possibly surprising to see it publicly logged? In my opinion pressing the preview button and then not saving is a similar use case as being warned by the abuse filter and not saving -- you should not expect the lost edit in either case to be publicly available. I think at the least the abuse warning should make it clear that the action and *x,y,z data of the user * were publicly logged. Except his assumption when clicking save, before ever seeing the abuse filter warning, was that his edit would be publicly viewable immediately. Unless the user was purposely intending to do something that he knew would be disallowed by the abuse filter, he was fully intending for whatever he wrote to be made public. -- Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Wiktionary-l] Divergent Wiktionary logos
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: With the refusal of the logo by many wiktionaries, a precedent was set. If a precedent was set then, then it was reversed by the successful Wikibooks logo change: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikibooks/Logo As should be the case, when that happened it was enforced and all the projects were updated -- if they had no translation, they were given a plane version without any words (this could later be translated and requested on bugzilla). The Wikibooks way is probably the best way to go about it. On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 1:36 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: Sure - the first part of what I wrote (discussing a conflict of vote outcomes) related specifically to Wiktionary, the second part was more general. Given the status of the logos as marks of the Foundation, can the meta community vote to change any logo? It's not the Meta community. If a vote is held on Meta-Wiki in the mainspace (not Meta: space), then it has to do with multiple projects and we use Meta-Wiki because it is the Wikimedia project coordination wiki. This means that the vote is intended for all communities and they are the ones who vote and discuss. If not, what is the 'right way' to pursue a logo change - using a staff driven process like this one, where the vote is more confirmatory than determinant? IMO, the process doesn't need to be staff-*driven*, but they need to be involved and know about the progress of the change. This being said, their input would be valuable and would mean a lot -- if Jay says no, this isn't going to happen, I think that would either make it so that the proposal wouldn't move forward or people would be less likely to vote in favor of it. -- Casey Brown Cbrown1023 --- Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to this address will probably get lost. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Wiktionary-l] Divergent Wiktionary logos
Gerard Meijssen wrote: When I read what is proposed, the impression is given that a process will start with a compulsory outcome. I understand the rationale for one shared logo and favicon. The problem is that it is people outside of Wiktionary that want to improve the Wiktionary brand and the last time it was very much these outsiders that made the selection. Exactly. Despite the fact that fr.wikt and a few others eventually adopted the logo, the logo debacle was not en.wikt's making. It wasn't a refusal to accept the the outcome of the proposal, it was a reluctance to be dictated to by people who weren't a part of the community. I'm afraid this will be interpreted the same way, if we're proposing to just slap a sitenotice on all the Wiktionaries telling them to discuss a new logo. There needs to be community impetus for the change, so that the meta discussion evolves out of actual community desire for a new logo. We should start at places like en.wikt's [[Wiktionary:Beer parlour]], fr.wikt's [[Wiktionnaire:Wikidémie]], and es.wikt's [[Wikcionario:Café]], not foundation-l. Dominic ___ Wiktionary-l mailing list wiktionar...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Wiktionary-l] Divergent Wiktionary logos
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Dominic wrote: Gerard Meijssen wrote: When I read what is proposed, the impression is given that a process will start with a compulsory outcome. I understand the rationale for one shared logo and favicon. The problem is that it is people outside of Wiktionary that want to improve the Wiktionary brand and the last time it was very much these outsiders that made the selection. Exactly. Despite the fact that fr.wikt and a few others eventually adopted the logo, the logo debacle was not en.wikt's making. It wasn't a refusal to accept the the outcome of the proposal, it was a reluctance to be dictated to by people who weren't a part of the community. I'm afraid this will be interpreted the same way, if we're proposing to just slap a sitenotice on all the Wiktionaries telling them to discuss a new logo. There needs to be community impetus for the change, so that the meta discussion evolves out of actual community desire for a new logo. We should start at places like en.wikt's [[Wiktionary:Beer parlour]], fr.wikt's [[Wiktionnaire:Wikidémie]], and es.wikt's [[Wikcionario:Café]], not foundation-l. I have to respectfully disagree that a proposal that will affect all these projects has to originate in thirty different places. Since there is no central Wiktionary community, the Meta project, and Foundation-l as well as Wiktionary-l (which was cross-posted) is the place to get the discussion going. While the English Wiktionary community may or may not be satisfied with the logo as-is, in the interest of maintaining a visual identity, one logo has to be used across projects, whether or not the English Wiktionary wants it or not. The discussion has to get started, no matter where it is, and meta and the two mailing lists are, in fact, the appropriate place to start the discussion. I do expect (and have asked) that links to that discussion are made from those projects (and in the Central Notice as well) I would find it sad if the English Wiktionary were to choose not to involve itself in a process that will ultimately affect its appearance; however, I don't anticipate this will actually be the case. Cary -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJyqJryQg4JSymDYkRAu66AJ9r9a+40/NZGJbXYV0J0ETzcRDcqQCdFrtQ ljKyb5L0MwIDNM+M+oiCbEM= =SiCa -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Wiktionary-l] Divergent Wiktionary logos
Cary Bass wrote: While the English Wiktionary community may or may not be satisfied with the logo as-is, in the interest of maintaining a visual identity, one logo has to be used across projects My impression is that the current split is a natural result of the fact that nobody has yet put forward a satisfactory solution. The classic logo is not a logo at all, but has the inertia of long use. The new logo would give some consistency but is not compelling, a mixture of good ideas and serious flaws. Since it's not a clear upgrade in the way that the Wikipedia logo was, it's not surprising that different parts of the project have decided not to go with it. Given that background, I would conclude that neither of the current options is desirable, and we need to develop a new Wiktionary logo. I think a well-executed logo would not have much difficulty securing adoption across the project. My own suggestion would be to use individual blocks but to have them be like type pieces from a printing press. This would incorporate some aspects of both current logos - from the older one the feel of a dictionary, and from the newer one the more logo-like benefits, while dropping the appearance of game pieces. As I'm not a graphic designer, I'm not going to attempt to actually create the logo, but I would be very interested to see what someone with professional skills could come up with using this concept. --Michael Snow ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
