Re: [Foundation-l] Feedback tab on the English Wikipedia
On 2/8/12 6:42 PM, Oliver Keyes wrote: Okay, Minata: looks like I was right; if wikis want it after the design process is finished, they can just ask for it. Let's be clear about our (admittedly informal) policy here: If a wiki wants to have it deployed, they will have to ensure that it has been localized to their language as well as determining any other configuration elements (for example, WikiLove requires a localized configuration file). -b. -- Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, 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] Fw: Strike against the collection of personal data through edit links
I'm not sure why this couldn't be done if that were all that is being measured. I suspect there's other behaviors being tracked. As I said, I'm not the person who knows most about this, so you have to take what I am saying with a grain of salt. On 2/4/12 5:21 PM, WereSpielChequers wrote: Hi Brandon, thanks for the explanation, but wouldn't it be easier to just analyse edit summaries? If you edit by section the edit summary defaults to start with the section heading... Were SpielChequers Message: 7 Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2012 14:51:49 -0800 From: Brandon Harris To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fw: Strike against the collection of personal data through edit links Message-ID:<4f2db685.70...@wikimedia.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed (This may not be 100% accurate; the person who knows most about this is on vacation, but I'll try to explain to the best of my understanding.) Those weird URLs are part of a clicktracking process. It's a test to see how people go about editing the page *most often* (by section, or by edit tab) and further to see how effective various calls-to-action (such as those given by Article Feedback) are. The longevity of the data isn't something I can comment to but I'd be surprised if it lasted even 3 months. I do not know if there are identity markers connected to them but I wouldn't be surprised. To that end, the data is only useful in roll-ups, and wouldn't be something published anywhere except in aggregate. On 2/4/12 2:27 PM, Philippe Beaudette wrote: MZ is correct: 3 months is the purge for Checkuser data. As to the rest of it, Diederick van Liere, our resident guru of data, will be checking into this, and will confirm back when we know exactly wht is intended by the devs for that data. I will say that generally speaking, the Foundation prefers to maintain the minimum data possible for the shortest period of time. Thanks, pb ___ Philippe Beaudette Head of Reader Relations Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 415-839-6885, x 6643 phili...@wikimedia.org To check my email volume (and thus know approx how long it will take me to respond), go to http://courteous.ly/hpQmqy On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 2:19 PM, MZMcBride wrote: Fred Bauder wrote: David Gerard wrote: 3 months I can live with :-) Can someone from WMF just confirm what data is kept for how long? The exact time is confidential. Err, no, I don't think so. It's not defined in the files at <http://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/>, which means it should be using the default, as defined at < http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/trunk/extensions/CheckUser/CheckU ser.php?revision=106556&view=markup>. From that file: --- # How long to keep CU data? $wgCUDMaxAge = 3 * 30 * 24 * 3600; // 3 months --- The last attempt to change this value (without community discussion) was summarily shot down: <http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki?view=revision&revision=40847 . That's only CheckUser data, though. I'm not sure what David wants confirmed from the Wikimedia Foundation. Different data has different expiries. A lot of it is permanent (e.g., revisions aren't going anywhere for the most part). I guess the question is specific to the ClickTracking extension: <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:ClickTracking>? MZMcBride ___ 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 -- Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, 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 -- Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, 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] Fw: Strike against the collection of personal data through edit links
(This may not be 100% accurate; the person who knows most about this is on vacation, but I'll try to explain to the best of my understanding.) Those weird URLs are part of a clicktracking process. It's a test to see how people go about editing the page *most often* (by section, or by edit tab) and further to see how effective various calls-to-action (such as those given by Article Feedback) are. The longevity of the data isn't something I can comment to but I'd be surprised if it lasted even 3 months. I do not know if there are identity markers connected to them but I wouldn't be surprised. To that end, the data is only useful in roll-ups, and wouldn't be something published anywhere except in aggregate. On 2/4/12 2:27 PM, Philippe Beaudette wrote: MZ is correct: 3 months is the purge for Checkuser data. As to the rest of it, Diederick van Liere, our resident guru of data, will be checking into this, and will confirm back when we know exactly wht is intended by the devs for that data. I will say that generally speaking, the Foundation prefers to maintain the minimum data possible for the shortest period of time. Thanks, pb ___ Philippe Beaudette Head of Reader Relations Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 415-839-6885, x 6643 phili...@wikimedia.org To check my email volume (and thus know approx how long it will take me to respond), go to http://courteous.ly/hpQmqy On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 2:19 PM, MZMcBride wrote: Fred Bauder wrote: David Gerard wrote: 3 months I can live with :-) Can someone from WMF just confirm what data is kept for how long? The exact time is confidential. Err, no, I don't think so. It's not defined in the files at <http://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/>, which means it should be using the default, as defined at < http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/trunk/extensions/CheckUser/CheckU ser.php?revision=106556&view=markup>. From that file: --- # How long to keep CU data? $wgCUDMaxAge = 3 * 30 * 24 * 3600; // 3 months --- The last attempt to change this value (without community discussion) was summarily shot down: <http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki?view=revision&revision=40847>. That's only CheckUser data, though. I'm not sure what David wants confirmed from the Wikimedia Foundation. Different data has different expiries. A lot of it is permanent (e.g., revisions aren't going anywhere for the most part). I guess the question is specific to the ClickTracking extension: <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:ClickTracking>? MZMcBride ___ 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 -- Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, 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] Politico: "Wikimedia foundation hires lobbyists on sopa, pipa"
On 1/22/12 7:32 PM, Theo10011 wrote: P.S. Hi Jorm, whatcha think? ;) I think that trying to school Mike Godwin on Citizens United and IP Law is colossally bad idea. But entertaining. -- Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, 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] A fundraiser for editors
On 1/3/12 3:30 PM, Michael Snow wrote: > On 1/3/2012 3:08 PM, Erik Moeller wrote: >> The Feedback Dashboard itself has response mechanisms, including >> now a "Mark as Helpful" feature for new users to quickly acknowledge >> whether a given response has been useful to them. > Not disputing that the talk page system might have bigger issues, but it > strikes me that adding "Mark as Helpful" specifically to user talk > messages could be a good addition as well, assuming that the current > implementation indicates the feature has a positive impact. The "Mark as Helpful" functionality was actually implemented as its own extension rather than a subset of the Feedback Dashboard with precisely this intent in mind (http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Mark_as_Helpful) We didn't want to lock the widget into only working on FBD responses; we think it might be useful to explore its effects on the quality of our help pages, for instance, or even possibly revisions themselves. Of course, the feature may not actually work at all or have so little impact as to be negligible. -- Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, 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] Fundraising update
On 11/30/11 6:11 PM, Sue Gardner wrote: > There was a brief outage due to that page, Nathan, a few days ago. > (Because of Brandon Harris's AMA on Reddit.) Sorry about that. -- Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, 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] Community consensus for software changes (Re: Show community consensus for Wikilove)
On 10/31/11 11:08 AM, Nathan wrote: > It sounds like Brandon misunderstood the > criteria for deploying WikiLove on various projects. Can you give us > the correct description of how that is being handled? Well. I wrote the criteria for additional deployment. You can read them here: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/WikiLove#Requests_for_Additional_Deployment -- Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, 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] Show community consensus for Wikilove
On 10/30/11 4:48 AM, Fae wrote: > Okay, my email and WSC's original email related to the primary > function as defined at<http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/WikiLove>. > Requests for help are probably better handled by something other than > a heart icon at the top of every user talk page. I would say that the > appropriately named Help link at the left of every page is more likely > to be used for this. I would not wish that "help" system to be used by my worst enemies. -- Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, 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] Show community consensus for Wikilove
On 10/30/11 4:14 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote: >> One take away from this experience of yours could be that the process >> of utilizing talk pages is extremely arcane and horrible from a user >> experience perspective, while using WikiLove to communicate - even >> though it is the "wrong" channel - is far easier and preferable to new >> users. > > Would it be then logical to hang a proper communication tool which > eventually would land the user on the talk page where Wikilove now hangs? Yes, and one has been designed. However, we have paused the process because the entire "talk page" process is just broken on so many levels and it was thought that adding a new possible point of confusion would be detrimental. (One of my favorite things about talk pages is that, for most people, *there is no talk page button*. There's a "Discussion" tab. So when someone says "Hey, just leave me a message on my talk page and I'll help you out!" that means. . . nothing.) -- Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, 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] Show community consensus for Wikilove
On 10/29/11 8:36 PM, Jorgenev wrote: > > So far my only experience with extension:wikilove is having a new user > prefer it to just editing my talk page, and so over the course of a > mundane conversation about sourcing I earned myself two civility > barnstars and three trophies. Hooray! One take away from this experience of yours could be that the process of utilizing talk pages is extremely arcane and horrible from a user experience perspective, while using WikiLove to communicate - even though it is the "wrong" channel - is far easier and preferable to new users. -- Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, 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] On certain shallow, American-centered, foolish software initiatives backed by WMF
On 10/28/11 3:27 PM, Etienne Beaule wrote:
> It's disabled on certain wikis because of technical problems.
>
Oh? I wasn't aware that it had been disabled anywhere as yet.
WikiLove was not rolled out "en mass"; the policy for deployment of the
tool is that it is by request only, and the requesting wiki must:
a) Make sure the tool is localized (via TranslateWiki);
b) Make sure they have a local configuration; and
c) Show community consensus.
So if it was enabled and then *disabled*, I have not heard of this. Is
there a bug report I can look to? Or if you know of a wiki where this
is the case, I can do a search.
Thanks!
-b.
--
Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, 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] Banner ads in sitenotice
On 8/2/2010 6:12 PM, MZMcBride wrote: > A lot of the complaints I heard regarding the Vector rollout were based in > the fact that the Wikimedia Usability team has subverted and bastardized the > term "usability" in an attempt to impose purely aesthetic choices on the > broader community. This reads to me like you're trying to start a fight with the Usability team, and I don't rightly cotton to that idea. The team is comprised of many people, all with different opinions to be sure - but they are all *dedicated to the mission.* So you should assume good faith, even if you disagree. > And in some cases, the Vector skin has demonstrably made > the site less usable for "long-term Wikimedia contributors." I haven't seen any studies or data that supports this claim but I'd be very interested in seeing this demonstrated. It is possible for long-term or power-users of Wikimedia software to change the skin they use if they find serious fault with Vector. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Did you say "usability" ?
On 6/15/10 12:17 AM, Teofilo wrote: > I finally found out how to log out, and I sometimes use different web > browsers, but it is difficult to say this is a nice experience. > Hello! As I'm certain you know, the testing of all browser/operating system/resolution/language combinations is a difficult undertaking. The behavior you are experiencing is not intentional. You've found a bug! Thanks! I am interested in getting some more accurate information about your system so that we can try to fix this issue. Based on the screen shot, it appears to me that you are running a variant of Windows 2000 (possibly XP with the "classic" theme), with either Internet Explorer 5.5 or an early version of 6.0. Could you provide me with the exact operating system and browser versions you are using? If you go to the browser and select "Help->About Internet Explorer", it will tell you what the exact version and operating system you are running (the "User Agent" string). Is your browser running in full screen mode? (This would mean that you are running in 800x600 pixel resolution.) If not, did the issue appear when you decreased the size of the browser window to 800 pixels in width? Does this behavior only occur for you on the Spanish Wikipedia or does it also happen on other sites as well? We can take the further process of solving this issue off line and out of list, but I wanted everyone to know the kinds of information that may be useful to us in the future. I'm located in San Francisco, California, and am about to go to sleep, so I won't be able to respond for another 8 hours so. Looking forward to hearing from you. -b. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
