Re: [Foundation-l] WMF Engineering org charts

[Oliver Keyes]

So, Erik is best suited to speak for Engineering's wider attitude on
personal development: I can only talk about what I've seen, as an editor
who slaves away for our evil and monolithic overlords in their goal to
obliterate the commu-crud. wrong meeting.

I've been not just impressed but humbled and kinda touched by the attitude
I've seen from managers, or simply people with a day-to-day role directing
other staffers, when it comes to personal development. Obviously, the
software and the movement is the first priority, as well it should be, but
they've always tried to make me feel at home and, more importantly, make
sure I'm *learning*. It's a genuinely great environment to be in on that
front :)

On 5 April 2012 05:46, Thomas Dalton  wrote:

> On 5 April 2012 02:05, Erik Moeller  wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 5:45 PM, George Herbert 
> wrote:
> >> Has this been an observed issue within the WMF?
> >
> > In some areas. In my view, a well-functioning agile team is
> > self-organizing and self-managed, and it's a manager's job to
> > primarily set that team up for success, hire the right people, replace
> > the people who aren't working out, and help escalate/resolve blocker
> > or coordination issues outside the team's scope. Putting so much
> > responsibility on the team's shoulders is in my opinion a good thing,
> > because it treats them as adults accountable and responsible for the
> > success or failure of their own work.
>
> What about personal development? Do your managers play an active role
> in helping their reports develop with objectives, feedback, training,
> etc? I imagine doing that for so many reports would be extremely time
> consuming.
>
> _______
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
Oliver Keyes
Community Liaison, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Fwd: Announcement: New editor engagement experiments team!

[Oliver Keyes]

On 5 April 2012 22:42, Jan Kučera  wrote:

> You are still doomed as WMF with your new job probram unless you allow
> remote work or start a reasonable grant-program to general public...
> you will never find the best talents in a limited space... (mainly US
> now) go to the full globe instead...
>
>
Well, I've been working remotely since I took this job 6 months ago, and
plan to keep doing so :). Looking at the staff page, I see 18 other remote
workers, and that's just the ones I know of! They're distributed throughout
Europe, other bits of the Americas, and the Indian subcontinent. And we do
have a grants programme: check out http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grant :).

-- 
Oliver Keyes
Community Liaison, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] Does google favour WIkipedia?

[Oliver Keyes]

The answer, evidently, is "not as much as Bing" -
http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2161910/Bing-Not-Google-Favors-Wikipedia-More-Often-in-Search-Results-Study

Thought people might find it interesting :)

-- 
Oliver Keyes
Community Liaison, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] [WikiEN-l] Article Landing Pages - functional prototype to test and comment on

[Oliver Keyes]

> Oic, you can create your own account on the labs site.
>
> My thoughts:
>
> - The choices "use the article wizard", "create a draft", "create this
> article myself" are a bit confusing. Especially the first two - that's
> a really unusual distinction that doesn't make much sense to me. I'd
> expect the choices to be between "I'm a newbie" and "I'm experienced".
> - The "create a draft" option seems to just dump you in your sandbox.
> I think you need to add a lot of support to make that a useful thing
> to do (like telling them how to get from "first draft" to "published"
> - if there is such a mechanism).
>
> Here's an alternative mechanism:
>
> There are two choices:
> 1) "Help me create an article"
> 2) "Expert mode"
>
> Option 1 takes you to the article wizard (whatever that is...)
> Option 2 takes you to the "create a draft" (ie sandbox) editor. After
> you save, there's a button to request assistance in publishing it.
> That also provides information on how to activate the secret Option 3,
> which skips the sandbox altogether for future article creation.
> (Probably a preference somewhere...)
>
> Steve
>
>
> Great ideas all :). I agree there needs to be more of a distinction in
language, and an absence of support for drafts is something I noticed too.
I'm going to email round all the comments to the staffers working on it
come Monday morning PST, so keep em coming!


-- 
Oliver Keyes
Community Liaison, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] Article Landing Pages - functional prototype to test and comment on

[Oliver Keyes]

Hey guys

So, as you know, we have issues with how new pages are treated on
Wikipedia. A lot of the pages created by new editors simply aren't very
good; this is bad for the new editors, because their pages get deleted, and
bad for the new page patrollers who then have to wade through a tide of
junk. It’s also contributing to page patrollers being overworked.
 Recently, Engineering has been working on two projects that we hope will
hopefully improve the situation: Page Triage,[1] which is aimed at making
patrolling easier, and the Landing System:[2] a better way for new editors
to create articles. With these project we hope to both reduce the burden on
patrollers by making it easier to patrol, and by ensuring the articles that
are created are of higher quality.

The first of the two Engineering is working on, partly because it lends
itself to being broken out into smaller pieces of work, is the Landing
System. Currently, when a registered newbie clicks on a redlink, they get
automatically taken to an edit page where they can create the article, but
without any context as to what is actually happening.  With the proposed
system,  instead of seeing a blank edit window devoid of context, they'll
see a new page that gives them various options.[3] They can create an
article there, go through the article wizard, or go back to wherever they
were before if they didn't mean to end up at that URL. If a new editor
tries to create the article, they'll be informed that they need a
familiarity with policy, an absence of a COI and several references
(amongst other things) before the tool recommends they create it.[4] If
they don't have those things, they'll be directed to the Article Creation
Wizard.

This is an experiment. Our hypothesis is that this could help increase the
quality of new articles and reduce patrollers’ workload, while making the
process more welcoming at the same time.

What our devs would really love is if people could provide feedback on what
they've put together so far. There is an early prototype at
http://ee-prototype.wmflabs.org/ <http://ee-prototype.wmflabs.org/;> , and
I’d encourage everyone to test it out. The tool is currently targeted at
logged in users since an account is required for creating a pge, so you
have to be logged in to see it.  I’ve created a test account (username
“editor”, password “mailing list”) for people to work with. Then just go to
something like
http://ee-prototype.wmflabs.org/wiki/Special:ArticleCreationLanding/test,
and take a look at what you’re presented with.

We know that the prototype server is fairly slow (sorry about that!) and
the prototype could be a bit buggy, but if you have suggestions as to how
we should improve the tool itself, you can send them to me at
oke...@wikimedia.org, or to
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Article_Creation_Workflow/Landing_System,
where the devs are watching closely :).

Thanks!

-- 
Oliver Keyes
Community Liaison, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation


[1] http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/New_Page_Triage
[2] http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_Creation_Workflow/Landing_System
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Communicating effectively: Wikimedia needs clear language now

[Oliver Keyes]

On 18 February 2012 22:33, Tilman Bayer  wrote:

> Hi Tom,
>
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 6:27 PM, Tom Morris  wrote:
> > Since Wikipedia started in 2001, great effort has been put into
> > ensuring that it is readable, clear and understandable by visitors.
> > Good Wikipedia writing is clear, concise, comprehensive and
> > consistent. Excellent Wikipedia writing is, according to English
> > Wikipedia's featured article criteria, "engaging, even brilliant, and
> > of a professional standard". Wikipedia editors work hard to remove
> > buzzwords, unnecessary jargon, peacock terms, marketing-speak, weasel
> > words and other similar clutter from their work.
> >
> > And it's not just Wikipedia: all of the Wikimedia projects aspire to
> > write clearly, neutrally and factually. English Wikinews says simply:
> > "Write to be easily understood, to make reading easier."
> >
> > Sadly, documents and communication from the Foundation, from chapters,
> > from board members and so on often fall far short of these sentiments.
> >
> > There are certain places where it is to be expected that communication
> > won't necessarily be clear: I wouldn't expect a non-programmer to be
> > able to understand some of the discussions on Bugzilla or
> > mediawiki.org, but the Foundation's monthly report is something
> > editors should be able to understand.
> >
> > From January 2012, under Global development's list of department
> highlights...
> >
> > "India program: Six outreach workshops in January in partnership with
> > the community as part of an effort to increase outreach and improve
> > conversion to editing"
> >
> > An outreach workshop... to increase outreach.
> The style may be less than elegant, but isn't it entirely sensible
> that if you undertake a larger effort to increase outreach, you carry
> out, well, outreach workshops alongside other things?--
>

It's perfectly sensible; I believe what tom means is that if you're
undertaking a larger effort to increase outreach, it is fairly clear what
the workshops that are part of that effort are aiming to achieve. It could
have been phrased as "Six workshops were held in January in partnership
with the community as part of..."

Oliver Keyes
Community Liaison, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] My public aplogies to Jan-Bart (was Movement roles letter, Feb 2012)

[Oliver Keyes]

> Surely normal social convention applies; if someone raises the issue then
> "Don't be a dick" and take extra care. Otherwise slip
> ups/confusion/mistakes shouldn't be the end of the world...
>
>
If we're discussing this; my name is correctly pronounced "Oliver Keyes,
God of Delphi, Sol, and all Ethereal Planes Known and As-Yet Undiscovered"

(Don't worry if you've got it wrong before; the silent G catches everyone
out)
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Announcement: Building a new Legal and Community Advocacy Department & Promotion of Philippe Beaudette

[Oliver Keyes]

On 10 February 2012 02:32, Mono  wrote:

> I think the better question is "what will this department actually do?"
>
> " For details, please go to
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal/LCA_Announcement.";
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Feedback tab on the English Wikipedia

[Oliver Keyes]

On 9 February 2012 23:14, George Herbert  wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Oliver Keyes  wrote:
> > As said above...it is being moved ;p
>
> Where / on which lists were the location experiments discussed prior
> to implementation?  Both with regards to the locations to be tested
> and to the pages to test on?
>
> We've been holding discussions with the community at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5since
November, and have held a series of office hours during the past few
months (oy veh...ten, so far) during which things like the location
experiments have been discussed. In addition, when the localisation went
live, notices were sent to the major noticeboards and to both this mailing
list and wikiEN

-- 
Oliver Keyes
Community Liaison, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Feedback tab on the English Wikipedia

[Oliver Keyes]

I believe Brandon is going to give it the once-over pretty soon :)

On 9 February 2012 23:09, Mono  wrote:

> I say the design needs improvement; I suggest taking a look at
> Usernoise<http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/usernoise/screenshots/>
> for
> a bit of refinement.
>
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Howie Fung  wrote:
>
> > A couple quick comments:
> >
> > For folks that are interested in this topic, please consider attending
> > Oliver's Office Hours on the topic.  Oliver hosts an IRC Office Hours
> > approximately every week to discuss the project.  Some are about specific
> > topics (e.g.., today's is about oversight of comments and is thus limited
> > to oversighters), but most are general purpose discussion where we
> discuss
> > stuff like design direction, general workflows, and DATA.  Here's a link
> to
> > the WMF office hours schedule (Oliver's Office Hours are always listed
> > here): http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours
> >
> > One of the goals of this project is, as David states, increasing reader
> > engagement.  Ultimately, we hope that a percentage of the readers that
> > leave constructive comments will become editors.  We need to add feedback
> > loops where if someone leaves a great comment that's acted on by the
> > editors, that reader gets notified.  Hopefully that loop will work to
> draw
> > in readers by piquing their curiosity (and also providing some positive
> > feedback of "Hey look!  They took my suggestion -- and by the way, what
> are
> > they doing on this talk page thing. . ."  We need to get through a few
> more
> > baseline features before we start thinking more closely about the
> feedback
> > loop, but I at least wanted to put it out there.
> >
> > Also, there will be some readers that simply will not become editors,
> and I
> > think that's okay.  Having them provide constructive feedback about what
> > their information needs are as readers, I think, is better than having
> them
> > not involved at all.  There is, of course, the signal to noise ratio,
> which
> > is one of the things that Oliver, Aaron Halfaker, and Dario have spent
> > quite a bit of time researching.  Having said that, we do need to be
> > careful about creating a "someone else's problem" dynamic.  One way to do
> > this is to keep making sure these readers know that they can make the
> > change themselves.
> >
> > Howie
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 5:00 AM, Oliver Keyes 
> wrote:
> >
> > > That's the plan. Neil, this is a concern we've taken into account;
> we'll
> > be
> > > testing whether (for example) the presence of the feedback page adds
> > 2,000
> > > comments, but kills half of our anonymous edits, or whatever. If the
> harm
> > > outweighs the benefits, we'll go back to the drawing board.
> > >
> > > On 9 February 2012 10:38, David Gerard  wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 9 February 2012 09:04,   wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I guess my concern is that it may encourage readers to type in
> > > > suggestions and take it no further rather than take the next step and
> > > begin
> > > > editing themselves.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > At present, the average reader doesn't even fix typos.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Definitely important to watch for any changes in the rate of new
> > > editors
> > > > contributing. It also implicitly makes it "someone else's problem" to
> > fix
> > > > things compared to our current stock response of "if you see things
> > that
> > > > could be better, fix it yourself. " I'm not saying this is intended
> but
> > > it
> > > > runs the risk of making projects look they have people exercising
> > > editorial
> > > > control.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > If it's getting any increased reader participation in any way at all,
> > > > that's a big improvement over the present. Let's see how it works
> out.
> > > > (With numbers.)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > - d.
> > > >
> > > > ___
> > > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > &

Re: [Foundation-l] Feedback tab on the English Wikipedia

[Oliver Keyes]

That's the plan. Neil, this is a concern we've taken into account; we'll be
testing whether (for example) the presence of the feedback page adds 2,000
comments, but kills half of our anonymous edits, or whatever. If the harm
outweighs the benefits, we'll go back to the drawing board.

On 9 February 2012 10:38, David Gerard  wrote:

> On 9 February 2012 09:04,   wrote:
>
> > I guess my concern is that it may encourage readers to type in
> suggestions and take it no further rather than take the next step and begin
> editing themselves.
>
>
> At present, the average reader doesn't even fix typos.
>
>
> > Definitely important to watch for any changes in the rate of new editors
> contributing. It also implicitly makes it "someone else's problem" to fix
> things compared to our current stock response of "if you see things that
> could be better, fix it yourself. " I'm not saying this is intended but it
> runs the risk of making projects look they have people exercising editorial
> control.
>
>
> If it's getting any increased reader participation in any way at all,
> that's a big improvement over the present. Let's see how it works out.
> (With numbers.)
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
Oliver Keyes
Community Liaison, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Feedback tab on the English Wikipedia

[Oliver Keyes]

Sure..except we weren't asking contributors to use this feedback to fix up
the articles. I do know that even without any standing system to improve
it, several article improvements were made. All I can give you
quantifiably, though, is that editors saw the feedback, and thought a big
chunk of it was "stuff I can use".

On 9 February 2012 04:44, John Vandenberg  wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Oliver Keyes  wrote:
> > We'll experiment with wordings as the testing progresses. On your other
> > point - again, how can we find this out without testing it? If little is
> > done with it, we can look into junking it, but nothing ventured...
>
> you say that you have existing feedback, and contributors have seen
> this feedback.
> You *can* already determine whether that feedback (already in hand)
> resulted in article improvements.
>
> --
> John Vandenberg
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
Oliver Keyes
Community Liaison, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Feedback tab on the English Wikipedia

[Oliver Keyes]

We'll experiment with wordings as the testing progresses. On your other
point - again, how can we find this out without testing it? If little is
done with it, we can look into junking it, but nothing ventured...

On 9 February 2012 04:34, John Vandenberg  wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Oliver Keyes  wrote:
> > On the first one, no idea - if you have any idea how we can test this
> > without full deployment, please, go ahead.
>
> feedback was sent to contributors?
> did the contributor make use of the feedback?
> if not, why not?
>
> > On the second, it should scale;
> > we're using a randomised sample (minus DAB pages)
>
> I'm not talking about server scalability.  im suggesting that you dont
> know whether the community can use the feedback effectively without
> answering the first question.
>
> "Improve this page" is unfounded until there is evidence that the
> feedback *will* be used by the community.
>
> p.s. it should be "Improve this article"
>
> --
> John Vandenberg
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
Oliver Keyes
Community Liaison, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Feedback tab on the English Wikipedia

[Oliver Keyes]

On the first one, no idea - if you have any idea how we can test this
without full deployment, please, go ahead. On the second, it should scale;
we're using a randomised sample (minus DAB pages)

On 9 February 2012 04:17, John Vandenberg  wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 1:31 PM, Oliver Keyes  wrote:
> > Minata: I imagine the plan is "deploy on enwiki, and if other wikis ask
> for
> > it, they can have it too", but I'll find out :).
> >
> > In reply to "It allows readers to provide feedback; that feedback is not
> > likely to
> > result in improvements except in rare cases" - actually, no. We ran
> several
> > rounds of hand-coding, and between 35-70 percent (rounding; it depends on
> > which form you use, and which criteria) of feedback is deemed useful by
> > editors. This could be praise for the article, suggestions for new
> things,
> > or notes of errors with existing content.
>
> And what percentage of the feedback resulted in article improvements?
>
> And will that scale when feedback is being left about all articles?
>
> Even useful notes left on the talk page are unlikely to result in
> article improvements within a reasonable timeframe.
>
> --
> John Vandenberg
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
Oliver Keyes
Community Liaison, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Feedback tab on the English Wikipedia

[Oliver Keyes]

Well, has it ever been written down anywhere and solidified as Official
Standard Operating Procedure? If not, structured or not, it's informal ;)

On 9 February 2012 03:20, K. Peachey  wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Brandon Harris 
> wrote:
> >Let's be clear about our (admittedly informal) policy here:
>
> What is informal about our process?
>
> * Community gains consenus for feature to be activated (and the
> desired config if required)
> * Bug gets filled in BugZilla
> * Extension is translated if needed at TranslateWiki (If needed)
> * Eventually gets activated by a Shellie.
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
Oliver Keyes
Community Liaison, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Feedback tab on the English Wikipedia

[Oliver Keyes]

Okay, Minata: looks like I was right; if wikis want it after the design
process is finished, they can just ask for it.

On 9 February 2012 02:31, Oliver Keyes  wrote:

> Minata: I imagine the plan is "deploy on enwiki, and if other wikis ask
> for it, they can have it too", but I'll find out :).
>
> In reply to "It allows readers to provide feedback; that feedback is not
> likely to
> result in improvements except in rare cases" - actually, no. We ran
> several rounds of hand-coding, and between 35-70 percent (rounding; it
> depends on which form you use, and which criteria) of feedback is deemed
> useful by editors. This could be praise for the article, suggestions for
> new things, or notes of errors with existing content.
>
>
>
>
> On 9 February 2012 02:22, Minata Hatsune  wrote:
>
>> Uhm. Can I require to enable in any project through MediaZilla (such
>> as my homewiki)? Anyway, it should be deployment to many wiki, help
>> improve content quality.
>>
>> 2012/2/9, Oliver Keyes :
>> > We'll hopefully be finishing up development and testing within the next
>> > couple of months; I'm not sure how we plan to handle deployment to other
>> > wikis. Would you like me to find out?
>> >
>> > On 9 February 2012 02:09, Minata Hatsune  wrote:
>> >
>> >> When this feature is enabled in other projects? It is very useful, and
>> >> necessary for all Wikimedia wikis.
>> >> Thanks!
>> >>
>> >> 2012/2/9, Oliver Keyes :
>> >> > As said above...it is being moved ;p
>> >> >
>> >> > On 9 February 2012 01:18, MZMcBride  wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Oliver Keyes wrote:
>> >> >> > Well, that would be part of the Article Feedback Tool, Version 5.
>> >> We're
>> >> >> > experimenting around with new placements - personally, I *loathe*
>> >> >> > this
>> >> >> > design, but que sera. We'll be dropping it in a couple of weeks
>> and
>> >> >> playing
>> >> >> > around with others.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I think obstructing the content area (article area) should be
>> >> >> unquestionably
>> >> >> off-limits. I'm not sure how this ever even became negotiable.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> At a minimum, the tab needs to be moved to the sidebar side so that
>> >> >> it's
>> >> >> out
>> >> >> of the way. There's no feedback that you're soliciting that's so
>> >> important
>> >> >> that it should stand in the way of reading an infobox or other
>> actual
>> >> page
>> >> >> content.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> MZMcBride
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ___
>> >> >> foundation-l mailing list
>> >> >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> >> >> Unsubscribe:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > Oliver Keyes
>> >> > Community Liaison, Product Development
>> >> > Wikimedia Foundation
>> >> > ___
>> >> > foundation-l mailing list
>> >> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> >> > Unsubscribe:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> --Minh Huy (Minata Hatsune)
>> >> ---volunteer and translator of
>> >> the Wikimedia Foundation---
>> >>
>> >> ___
>> >> foundation-l mailing list
>> >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Oliver Keyes
>> > Community Liaison, Product Development
>> > Wikimedia Foundation
>> > ___
>> > foundation-l mailing list
>> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> --Minh Huy (Minata Hatsune)
>> ---volunteer and translator of
>> the Wikimedia Foundation---
>>
>> ___
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Oliver Keyes
> Community Liaison, Product Development
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
>


-- 
Oliver Keyes
Community Liaison, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Feedback tab on the English Wikipedia

[Oliver Keyes]

Minata: I imagine the plan is "deploy on enwiki, and if other wikis ask for
it, they can have it too", but I'll find out :).

In reply to "It allows readers to provide feedback; that feedback is not
likely to
result in improvements except in rare cases" - actually, no. We ran several
rounds of hand-coding, and between 35-70 percent (rounding; it depends on
which form you use, and which criteria) of feedback is deemed useful by
editors. This could be praise for the article, suggestions for new things,
or notes of errors with existing content.



On 9 February 2012 02:22, Minata Hatsune  wrote:

> Uhm. Can I require to enable in any project through MediaZilla (such
> as my homewiki)? Anyway, it should be deployment to many wiki, help
> improve content quality.
>
> 2012/2/9, Oliver Keyes :
> > We'll hopefully be finishing up development and testing within the next
> > couple of months; I'm not sure how we plan to handle deployment to other
> > wikis. Would you like me to find out?
> >
> > On 9 February 2012 02:09, Minata Hatsune  wrote:
> >
> >> When this feature is enabled in other projects? It is very useful, and
> >> necessary for all Wikimedia wikis.
> >> Thanks!
> >>
> >> 2012/2/9, Oliver Keyes :
> >> > As said above...it is being moved ;p
> >> >
> >> > On 9 February 2012 01:18, MZMcBride  wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Oliver Keyes wrote:
> >> >> > Well, that would be part of the Article Feedback Tool, Version 5.
> >> We're
> >> >> > experimenting around with new placements - personally, I *loathe*
> >> >> > this
> >> >> > design, but que sera. We'll be dropping it in a couple of weeks and
> >> >> playing
> >> >> > around with others.
> >> >>
> >> >> I think obstructing the content area (article area) should be
> >> >> unquestionably
> >> >> off-limits. I'm not sure how this ever even became negotiable.
> >> >>
> >> >> At a minimum, the tab needs to be moved to the sidebar side so that
> >> >> it's
> >> >> out
> >> >> of the way. There's no feedback that you're soliciting that's so
> >> important
> >> >> that it should stand in the way of reading an infobox or other actual
> >> page
> >> >> content.
> >> >>
> >> >> MZMcBride
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> ___
> >> >> foundation-l mailing list
> >> >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> >> Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Oliver Keyes
> >> > Community Liaison, Product Development
> >> > Wikimedia Foundation
> >> > ___
> >> > foundation-l mailing list
> >> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> --Minh Huy (Minata Hatsune)
> >> ---volunteer and translator of
> >> the Wikimedia Foundation---
> >>
> >> ___
> >> foundation-l mailing list
> >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Oliver Keyes
> > Community Liaison, Product Development
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> > ___
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
> --
> --Minh Huy (Minata Hatsune)
> ---volunteer and translator of
> the Wikimedia Foundation---
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
Oliver Keyes
Community Liaison, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Feedback tab on the English Wikipedia

[Oliver Keyes]

We'll hopefully be finishing up development and testing within the next
couple of months; I'm not sure how we plan to handle deployment to other
wikis. Would you like me to find out?

On 9 February 2012 02:09, Minata Hatsune  wrote:

> When this feature is enabled in other projects? It is very useful, and
> necessary for all Wikimedia wikis.
> Thanks!
>
> 2012/2/9, Oliver Keyes :
> > As said above...it is being moved ;p
> >
> > On 9 February 2012 01:18, MZMcBride  wrote:
> >
> >> Oliver Keyes wrote:
> >> > Well, that would be part of the Article Feedback Tool, Version 5.
> We're
> >> > experimenting around with new placements - personally, I *loathe* this
> >> > design, but que sera. We'll be dropping it in a couple of weeks and
> >> playing
> >> > around with others.
> >>
> >> I think obstructing the content area (article area) should be
> >> unquestionably
> >> off-limits. I'm not sure how this ever even became negotiable.
> >>
> >> At a minimum, the tab needs to be moved to the sidebar side so that it's
> >> out
> >> of the way. There's no feedback that you're soliciting that's so
> important
> >> that it should stand in the way of reading an infobox or other actual
> page
> >> content.
> >>
> >> MZMcBride
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ___
> >> foundation-l mailing list
> >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Oliver Keyes
> > Community Liaison, Product Development
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> > ___
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
> --
> --Minh Huy (Minata Hatsune)
> ---volunteer and translator of
> the Wikimedia Foundation---
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
Oliver Keyes
Community Liaison, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Feedback tab on the English Wikipedia

[Oliver Keyes]

As said above...it is being moved ;p

On 9 February 2012 01:18, MZMcBride  wrote:

> Oliver Keyes wrote:
> > Well, that would be part of the Article Feedback Tool, Version 5. We're
> > experimenting around with new placements - personally, I *loathe* this
> > design, but que sera. We'll be dropping it in a couple of weeks and
> playing
> > around with others.
>
> I think obstructing the content area (article area) should be
> unquestionably
> off-limits. I'm not sure how this ever even became negotiable.
>
> At a minimum, the tab needs to be moved to the sidebar side so that it's
> out
> of the way. There's no feedback that you're soliciting that's so important
> that it should stand in the way of reading an infobox or other actual page
> content.
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
Oliver Keyes
Community Liaison, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Feedback tab on the English Wikipedia

[Oliver Keyes]

Well, that would be part of the Article Feedback Tool, Version 5. We're
experimenting around with new placements - personally, I *loathe* this
design, but que sera. We'll be dropping it in a couple of weeks and playing
around with others.

On 9 February 2012 01:08, MZMcBride  wrote:

> The English Wikipedia has become "one of those sites with a feedback tab"?
> Example: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Russell_Burnham>.
>
> How did this happen?
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
Oliver Keyes
Community Liaison, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
___
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

[Oliver Keyes]

nk/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<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<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<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<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation
>>>
>>> Support Free Knowledge: 
>>> http://wikimediafoundation.**org/wiki/Donate<http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  __**_
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.**org 
>> Unsubscribe: 
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/foundation-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l>
>>
>
> --
> Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation
>
> Support Free Knowledge: 
> http://wikimediafoundation.**org/wiki/Donate<http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate>
>
> __**_
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.**org 
> Unsubscribe: 
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/foundation-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l>
>



-- 
Oliver Keyes
Community Liaison, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees

[Oliver Keyes]

And how will that work this year if, as I am understanding it, virtually
all the information about the candidates will be hidden?

On 1 February 2012 23:44, Béria Lima  wrote:

> Wikimedia Portugal held votes between their members to 2008 and 2010
> elections. I know WMFR, WMUK and WMAR do the same, and the list can go
> on...
> _
> *Béria Lima*
>  <http://wikimedia.pt/>(351) 925 171 484
>
> *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
> livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a
> construir esse sonho. <http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos>*
>
>
> On 1 February 2012 21:42, Oliver Keyes  wrote:
>
> > You're misunderstanding; I'm saying the Board of Trustees nominations
> > happening on the chapters wiki is open merely to the representatives of
> > chapters, not to the thousands of members apparently taking part. Please
> do
> > list those chapters who have an internal vote of the membership before
> > voting on the Chapter Representatives for the Board of Trustees; I would
> > imagine it's going to be *rather* small, particularly if you're not
> > actually allowed to tell your members who is running or anything about
> > them.
> >
> > On 1 February 2012 23:40, Theo10011  wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 4:50 AM, Oliver Keyes 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > No; it's open to several chapters. If you're planning on holding the
> > > > process in private, it's in no way open to thousands of members -
> it's
> > > open
> > > > to representatives of thousands of members who were not, I would
> wager,
> > > > selected because of their opinions on wider movement governance.
> > > >
> > >
> > > What?
> > >
> > > Chapters by definition have to have a board, and be open to membership.
> > The
> > > decision taken by the board and representatives, is usually vetted
> > > internally, it is representative of the entire chapter; as much as the
> > > community elected members are representative of the entire community,
> > > beyond just the individuals that voted. The community elected members
> > > aren't called, the community-who-voted board members.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Theo
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > (personal opinion, etc)
> > > >
> > > > On 1 February 2012 23:17, Theo10011  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 4:06 AM, Risker 
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > In what way do chapter-selected seats improve the running of the
> > WMF,
> > > > > > Thomas?  The Board has no say in who is being selected, and there
> > is
> > > no
> > > > > > basis in fact to say that those appointed by the chapters are any
> > > more
> > > > > > effective or helpful in meeting the Board's goals or running the
> > WMF
> > > > than
> > > > > > would community-elected Wikimedians.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Risker, you know the point applies to appointed members of the
> board
> > as
> > > > > well. They are selected through even a more private process for
> > > seemingly
> > > > > unlimited terms, they make up the other half of the board. I am
> > > surprised
> > > > > why questions about their interest and representation aren't raised
> > on
> > > > > every new appointment?
> > > > >
> > > > > The chapter selected member, at least go through a vetting and a
> > voting
> > > > > process that is open to several chapters and thousand of members.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards
> > > > > Theo
> > > > > ___
> > > > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Oliver Keyes
> > > > Community Liaison, Product Development
> > > > Wikimedia Foundation
> > > > ___
> > > > 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
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Oliver Keyes
> > Community Liaison, Product Development
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> > ___
> > 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] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees

[Oliver Keyes]

Oh, agreed. But what I'm interested in is not "should be", but whether the
rhetoric in internal chapter elections is usually dominated by, or even
includes, mention of the wider governance issues.

I think chapters have a crucial role to play in movement governance, and
that trustees of each chapter should be at the forefront of that. But are
they selected with that role in mind?

On 1 February 2012 23:44, John Vandenberg  wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Oliver Keyes 
> wrote:
> > No; it's open to several chapters. If you're planning on holding the
> > process in private, it's in no way open to thousands of members - it's
> open
> > to representatives of thousands of members who were not, I would wager,
> > selected because of their opinions on wider movement governance.
>
> I'll take your wager :P
>
> Chapter board members are *constantly* swimming in both local and
> wider movement governance issues.  The members of chapters should be
> looking for board members who are able to effectively represent them
> in those waters.
>
> --
> John Vandenberg
>
> ___
> 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] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees

[Oliver Keyes]

You're misunderstanding; I'm saying the Board of Trustees nominations
happening on the chapters wiki is open merely to the representatives of
chapters, not to the thousands of members apparently taking part. Please do
list those chapters who have an internal vote of the membership before
voting on the Chapter Representatives for the Board of Trustees; I would
imagine it's going to be *rather* small, particularly if you're not
actually allowed to tell your members who is running or anything about them.

On 1 February 2012 23:40, Theo10011  wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 4:50 AM, Oliver Keyes  wrote:
>
> > No; it's open to several chapters. If you're planning on holding the
> > process in private, it's in no way open to thousands of members - it's
> open
> > to representatives of thousands of members who were not, I would wager,
> > selected because of their opinions on wider movement governance.
> >
>
> What?
>
> Chapters by definition have to have a board, and be open to membership. The
> decision taken by the board and representatives, is usually vetted
> internally, it is representative of the entire chapter; as much as the
> community elected members are representative of the entire community,
> beyond just the individuals that voted. The community elected members
> aren't called, the community-who-voted board members.
>
> Regards
> Theo
>
>
> >
> > (personal opinion, etc)
> >
> > On 1 February 2012 23:17, Theo10011  wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 4:06 AM, Risker  wrote:
> > >
> > > > In what way do chapter-selected seats improve the running of the WMF,
> > > > Thomas?  The Board has no say in who is being selected, and there is
> no
> > > > basis in fact to say that those appointed by the chapters are any
> more
> > > > effective or helpful in meeting the Board's goals or running the WMF
> > than
> > > > would community-elected Wikimedians.
> > >
> > >
> > > Risker, you know the point applies to appointed members of the board as
> > > well. They are selected through even a more private process for
> seemingly
> > > unlimited terms, they make up the other half of the board. I am
> surprised
> > > why questions about their interest and representation aren't raised on
> > > every new appointment?
> > >
> > > The chapter selected member, at least go through a vetting and a voting
> > > process that is open to several chapters and thousand of members.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Theo
> > > ___
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Oliver Keyes
> > Community Liaison, Product Development
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> > ___
> > 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
>



-- 
Oliver Keyes
Community Liaison, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees

[Oliver Keyes]

No; it's open to several chapters. If you're planning on holding the
process in private, it's in no way open to thousands of members - it's open
to representatives of thousands of members who were not, I would wager,
selected because of their opinions on wider movement governance.

(personal opinion, etc)

On 1 February 2012 23:17, Theo10011  wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 4:06 AM, Risker  wrote:
>
> > In what way do chapter-selected seats improve the running of the WMF,
> > Thomas?  The Board has no say in who is being selected, and there is no
> > basis in fact to say that those appointed by the chapters are any more
> > effective or helpful in meeting the Board's goals or running the WMF than
> > would community-elected Wikimedians.
>
>
> Risker, you know the point applies to appointed members of the board as
> well. They are selected through even a more private process for seemingly
> unlimited terms, they make up the other half of the board. I am surprised
> why questions about their interest and representation aren't raised on
> every new appointment?
>
> The chapter selected member, at least go through a vetting and a voting
> process that is open to several chapters and thousand of members.
>
> Regards
> Theo
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
Oliver Keyes
Community Liaison, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees

[Oliver Keyes]

(personal opinion); no, 39 chapter people voted. Hands up everyone who
voted for their chapter's trustees because they trusted their judgment in
appointing members of the WMF Board?

The rhetoric is most certainly not like that in the UK. Trustee elections
tend to be scoped as "and this is what [candidate] plans to do to extend
the wikimedia movement in the UK"; how they feel about wider governance
issues, last time, at least, didn't come into it. It is incredibly risky to
say that just because a group of individuals is trusted to run GLAM events
in a nation, we trust them to vote on board members - or we appointed them*
*for that reason.

On 1 February 2012 22:38, John Vandenberg  wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Risker  wrote:
> > On 1 February 2012 16:44, Stuart West  wrote:
> >
> >> I'll give my personal view on the question, and invite others on the
> board
> >> to jump in.  I think the difference between the specific expertise seats
> >> and the appointed seats is subtle but important.
> >>
> >> My sense is that the WMF Board specific expertise seats are more focused
> >> on board operations and governance.  so the Board might do a
> >> self-assessment and identify that it needs someone with financial/audit
> >> oversight experience to serve as Board Treasurer, and then go out and
> find
> >> it. That's me.  It's also reactive and designed to fill in the gaps.
>  So we
> >> as Board decided a few years ago that we lacked sufficient insight and
> >> perspective from outside North America and Europe, so we sought out and
> >> were incredibly luck to find Bishakha.
> >>
> >> The opportunity for the two seats appointed by movement organizations
> like
> >> the chapters is broader.  Many more people are involved in identifying
> and
> >> surfacing potential candidates, so it has the potential to cast a wider
> and
> >> more thoughtful net.  And there is less constraint to meet specific
> >> governance needs, which frees up the process to focus on the people and
> >> perspectives that can have the most positive impact on our movement's
> >> pursuit of the mission.
> >>
> >> -
> >>
> >
> > This is well and good, but it gives the impression that the current three
> > elected members of the board are somehow considered not representative of
> > the movement, and that the opaque selection and appointment process for
> the
> > "chapter" seats is somehow more representative of the movement.  It
> > concerns me a lot that the 97% of active Wikimedians who are not chapter
> > members seem to not be considered part of the movement.
>
> In the 2011 community board election, less than 3400 "users" voted.[1]
>
> In the 2012 chapter board election, 39 chapters consisting of more
> than 4000 identified people will be voting.[2]
>
> Unfortunately neither process captures a large percentage of the
> active Wikimedian community.
>
> 1. see bottom of
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2011/Results/en
>
> 2. see "members" column of
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters#Existing_chapters
>
> --
> John Vandenberg
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
Oliver Keyes
Community Liaison, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] Article Feedback Tool - Office Hours, 27th January, 19:00 UTC

[Oliver Keyes]

Hey guys

We'll be holding another AFT office hours session at 19:00 tomorrow, in
#wikimedia-office; hope to see a lot of you there :). If you can't make it,
drop me an email and I'll send you the logs.

Thanks!

-- 
Oliver Keyes
Community Liaison, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Adding a comment section under every Wikipedia article

[Oliver Keyes]

Sure; if the objective is to have comments by "people who are interested in
the subject, can identify the relevant venue, can identify how to edit the
relevant venue, are aware that they *can* edit, can handle wikimarkup and
can deal with the fact that a lot of editors see "wide-ranging discussions
on a subject" as utterly irrelevant and subject to removal unless they
directly suggest alterations to the article content" instead of, well,
"people who are interested in the subject".

On 24 January 2012 23:05, Ray Saintonge  wrote:

> On 01/22/12 3:44 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>
>> On 22 January 2012 23:39, Svip  wrote:
>>
>>> The name 'talk page' is also a terrible name and very ambiguous as to
>>> what it is.  A far more appropriate candidate for such a page's name
>>> would be 'collaboration page', 'work page', 'improvement page' and so
>>> on.
>>>
>> English Wikinews calls it "collaboration". On English Wikipedia it
>> used to be called "talk", this was changed to "discussion", and it was
>> recently changed back to "talk".
>>
>>
>>  I don't care what you call it. The talk page is still the best place for
> wide ranging discussions on a subject.
>
>
> Ray
>
> __**_
> 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] Adding a comment section under every Wikipedia article

[Oliver Keyes]

Note that we are adding a sorta-quasi-comments section, just not on the
articles; see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5

On 23 January 2012 17:31, Svip  wrote:

> On 23 January 2012 18:16, Yao Ziyuan  wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 12:15 AM, Gerard Meijssen
> >  wrote:
> >
> >> Having comments in your face at the bottom to me is not only something I
> >> would resent, it would also add more clutter that I have to download
> every
> >> time I read an article.
> >
> > I see this idea is unpopular among the maling list, but I still want
> > to point out that the "download" part is not true. Comments can be
> > dynamically downloaded (e.g. AJAX) on a on-demand basis (only when you
> > click "Show comments" would comments be downloaded and shown to you).
>
> Perhaps, but Wikipedia (and MediaWiki sites in general) are one of the
> few remaining websites that benefits from being Web 1.0 rather than
> Web 2.0, even if it has elements of the latter.
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
Oliver Keyes
Community Liaison, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Announcement: Maggie Dennis to continue with WMF

[Oliver Keyes]

+1 to all of that. Maggie is a rock, and always keeps me pointing in the
right direction; since I started contracting for the WMF, she's probably
the person I've relied on the most for advice. She's smart, she's good with
people, and she constantly makes me feel bad about "only" working 10 hour
days. Glad to know I can keep picking her brain in the future ;)

On 20 January 2012 19:55, Philippe Beaudette  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I'm thrilled to announce that Maggie Dennis, our community liaison, has
> agreed to transition to a permanent role with the Wikimedia Foundation.
>
> You may recall that Maggie was hired on a temporary contract, with the idea
> of rotating through community liaisons.  We still intend to hire another
> community liaison - in fact, her work has proven the value of the program
> to such an extent that we'll be expanding it - but Maggie will stay on to
> provide continuity.
>
> Maggie has been a godsend to me... she's a fount of knowledge, and
> incredibly hard working.  Most importantly, she is able to fluently speak
> "Philippe" and translate that to "real-people talk".  As
> User:Moonriddengirl, she is the maven of copyright for English Wikipedia,
> and has well over 100,000 edits.  In short, she's a rock star.
>
> Maggie will continue to report to me.
>
> Best,
> pb
>
> ___
> Philippe Beaudette
> Head of Reader Relations
> Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
>
> 415-839-6885, x 6643
>
> phili...@wikimedia.org
> _______
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
Oliver Keyes
Community Liaison, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Vietnamese Wikipedia join protest SOPA and PIPA

[Oliver Keyes]

On the Russian Wikipedia, the banner is showing you

(sorry, couldn't resist)

On 17 January 2012 15:56, David Gerard  wrote:

> On 17 January 2012 15:50, Minh Huy (WMF)  wrote:
>
> > Vietnamese Wikipedia community is planning to show banner on 18/1.
> > Similar to ItalianWiki, GermanyWiki, and Commons.
> > See
> https://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Th%E1%BA%A3o_lu%E1%BA%ADn/%C4%90%E1%BB%81_xu%E1%BA%A5t_tham_gia_ph%E1%BA%A3n_%C4%91%E1%BB%91i_SOPA
>
>
> Did we have Ukrainian and Russian Wikipedia too?
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
Oliver Keyes
Community Liaison, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] Article Feedback Tool, version 5 - additional testing deployments

[Oliver Keyes]

Hey guys,

Just keeping you in the loop; we're going to be testing another change to
the Article Feedback Tool on starting tomorrow, January 10.  So far, we've
done a bit of small-scale experimentation with the actual design of the
tool, as announced on the blog,[1]  the village pump, and on various
mailing lists. This has all been on a tiny fraction of articles (~22k total
articles, about 0.6% of the English Wikipedia), and a lot of really useful
data has been gathered without bothering the vast majority of editors or
readers. Ideally, that's what we'd aim for with all tests :).

Even with Wikipedia readership reaching half a billion users per month, the
feedback form its current position (at the end of the article) doesn’t see
a whole lot of activity [2].  In this test, we’ll be experimenting with a
more prominent way to access to tool.  When a user loads the page with the
test version of the Article Feedback Tool, they will see an “Improve this
article” link docked on the bottom right hand corner of the page (please
see [3] for a mockup).  Since this link is docked, it will stay with the
reader while they’re reading the article.  The introduction of this link
will undoubtedly increase the amount of feedback.  We need to, however,
understand how it affects the quality of the feedback.  We genuinely don't
know what the impact will be, which is why we're doing these tests :). As
with the last tests, it'll be on a very small subset of articles and
probably won't be noticed by most people.

If you do encounter it, and it does bug you, you can turn it off just by
going into Preferences > Appearance > Don't show me the article feedback
widget on pages. If you've already ticked this option, the new link
shouldn't appear at all; please do let me know if it does. We are working
on a way to disable it "in-line" as well so you can simply dismiss the link
without going to preferences.

We’ll also be doing some preliminary analysis on whether such a prominent
link cannibalizes editing behavior.  The team is very aware that the new
link may compete with the edit tab and section edit links.  Since the test
version of the tool is deployed on a limited number of articles, we will
only get a rough read on how much, if any, cannibalization takes place.
Per our research plan, we’ll continue to monitor the tradeoff between
giving feedback and editing.[4]

If any of you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me or
drop a note on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5

Thanks!

[1]
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/12/20/a-new-way-to-contribute-to-wikipedia/
[2] Overall activity for current version (AFT4) :
http://toolserver.org/~dartar/aft/; Activity for United States, one of the
most frequently rated articles:
http://toolserver.org/~dartar/aft2/?p=United_States
[3]
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AFT5-Feedback-Link-Option-D-12-28.png
[4]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Article_feedback/Data_and_metrics

--
Oliver Keyes
Community Liaison, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] Article Feedback Tool office hours - Friday 13th, 19:00 UTC, #wikimedia-office

[Oliver Keyes]

Hey guys and girls

As usual, the AFT5 team will be holding an office hours session this week;
Friday the 13th, despite the unfortunate associations, at 19:00 UTC in
#wikimedia-office. This'll be the first chance for everyone (including me!)
to take a look at a working, useable wireframe for the feedback page and to
provide feedback (hah) on it. Hope to see you all there :).

-- 
Oliver Keyes
Community Liaison, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Announcement: Fabrice Florin joins Wikimedia

[Oliver Keyes]

I'm happy to write something up, as the most recent community-sourced hire,
if my bosses and comms are okay with it :).

On 10 January 2012 21:59, Bod Notbod  wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 21:26, Federico Leva (Nemo) 
> wrote:
>
> > Personal perspectives are perhaps not very suitable for the "official
> > blog" (but may be),
>
> Ah. OK. I confess I'm more of a Signpost reader than of the blog, so I
> hadn't thought of it having a particular style or code.
>
> > anyway engineering reports are being published
> > regularly since a while and they're a very good way to know what's going
> > on at least in the technology department, without having to read MiB of
> > text.
>
> Yes. To clarify, it's not that I feel a sense of "I don't know what
> they get up to in that office"... I'm sure most things I'd be
> interested to know I could find out with judicious searching. I'm
> thinking more along the lines of not just putting names to faces but
> also a greater insight into what their current working day is like and
> projects of note.
>
> Maybe forget the blog and Signpost. If we go here:
>
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Staff_and_contractors
>
> We see that some staff don't yet have pictures. I would respect the
> choice of anyone who didn't want a pic up but they do go a long way in
> helping someone retain a name in their mind. Also some of the names
> are wikified but clicking through doesn't take you to anything
> substantive in some cases. Other names are not wikified at all. Some
> of the job titles are wikified and clicking takes you through to the
> job spec, which is great... but not all have that.
>
> So any work that could be done to standardise the page somewhat would
> be most welcome. And I would definitely welcome it if staff were to
> project a bit of their personality in some kind of statement of their
> own. It all adds to that sense of the Foundation being approachable
> folk working to help us volunteers.
>
> What I'm calling for, basically, is efforts to retain that feeling
> that you knew the staff which was easy to achieve when numbers were so
> small and will naturally lessen as the organisation grows, but a
> lessening which can be mitigated to some degree.
>
> Bodnotbod
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
Oliver Keyes
Community Liaison, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] the limits for fundraising. Was Blnk tag jokes are now obsolete.

[Oliver Keyes]

Check the IP history; Jan-Bart added them ;p

On 4 January 2012 16:21, Thomas Dalton  wrote:

> Check the page history - I don't think those bits were added by the
> foundation.
> On Jan 4, 2012 3:26 PM, "WereSpielChequers" 
> wrote:
>
> > Re Tom's suggestion that we have an RFC on meta to discuss what we are
> and
> > aren't prepared to do when fundraising; We already have a discussion at
> > Meta
> >
> >
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Draft_Guiding_principles_with_regards_to_fundraising
> > .
> > Funny thing is that debate has almost been the mirror of here with the
> > Foundation proposing things like "Fundraising in line with our mission
> and
> > values: Our fundraising activities should aim to raise a movement budget
> > using only methods that strengthen our mission and values and communicate
> > them to all of our users and the world" and even "All Wikimedia
> fundraising
> > activities should be truthful with prospective donors."
> >
> > May I suggest that we revive that overly quiet discussion?
> >
> > WSC
> >
> > > Message: 2
> > > Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 17:28:39 +
> > > From: Tom Morris 
> > > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blink tag jokes are now obsolete.
> > > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> > >
> > > Message-ID:
> > ><
> > caaqb2s-nypp7attk8aq6q2o9bgc3hcfk5+hxyya4b1ossmb...@mail.gmail.com
> > > >
> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 14:50, Stephen Bain 
> > wrote:
> > > > Fabricating a sense of urgency that donations are immediately
> > > > necessary at the end of the campaign to keep the projects operational
> > > > and freely available (ie, "Please help Wikipedia pay its bills in
> > > > 2012" [1], "Last day to make a tax-deductible contribution to keep
> > > > Wikipedia free in 2012" [2], etc) is as unethical now as it was in
> > > > last year's campaign ("Please donate to keep Wikipedia free" in the
> > > > banner you linked to [3], etc).
> > > >
> > > > This discussion about blinking banners might seem trivial but it
> > > > serves as a very obvious reminder, in style now as well as substance,
> > > > of the disjoint between the fundraising team's work and the norms and
> > > > ethos of the community and projects.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Would it be an idea to have some kind of RfC or something like that on
> > > Meta where community members could come up with a list of things we
> > > roughly agree are the limits for fundraising.
> > >
> > > I think the fundraising team have done really well, but there have
> > > been a few things we really need to fix for next year, starting with
> > > the limits that the community are comfortable with regarding banner
> > > length, tone, graphical style etc.
> > >
> > > The other thing I think we really need to fix before next year is
> > > making clear to OTRS volunteers exactly what the right channels and
> > > actions are to handle fundraiser-related emails. And maybe it would be
> > > useful if we could go through fundraiser-related emails in OTRS and
> > > somehow tag the feedback into categories (perhaps on OTRS Wiki) and
> > > then give back to the community some statistics about how many
> > > complaints and emails we have had about fundraising and what the
> > > nature of those complaints and emails are so the Foundation and
> > > community can better tune the banners and fundraising for next year.
> > >
> > > On a subjective level, there's lots of things I've seen in e-mail from
> > > people: they would like to buy a t-shirt rather than donate (the
> > > Foundation really need to sort out merchandise - other similar
> > > non-profits like Mozilla Foundation, Creative Commons and so on have
> > > really nailed merchandise), they want SMS donations in various
> > > European countries, they want it so that if they've donated it removes
> > > the banner for the rest of the fundraiser.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Tom Morris
> > > 
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > ___
> > 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] A fundraiser for editors

[Oliver Keyes]

One simple idea I had (personal capacity, etc etc) - we stick lots of
banners at the top of the article saying "this has X problem! Be
careful!". Would it be possible to have them appear differently to
say, anonymous IPs, and display a more friendly message encouraging
the users to register and deal with the problem themselves, linking to
a guide focused on that specific tag (an "unreferenced" tag would lead
to a "here's how to add references to articles" short guide, for
example)?

On 2 January 2012 21:24, Przykuta  wrote:
>> The fundraiser for money has been working exceedingly well with our
>> number of donors increasing 10 fold since 2008. What we need now is a
>> fundraiser for editors. I meet well educated professionals who use
>> Wikipedia but have no ideas that they can edit it. We need to run a
>> banner with the same energy we use to raise money to raise editor
>> numbers. This idea has been trialed to a limited extent here
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Invitation_to_edit but the
>> effort did not have sufficient data crunching behind it to determine
>> if it works.
>>
>
> Data in the file from 2011-01-26 is not too good
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ENnewEditors.jpg
>
> Look at December 2011 -> in the file <7k, on the site >7k:
>
> http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm
>
> Nov 2011 = 6734 now. These stats are not stable - last month is always the 
> worst.
>
> But invitation to edit is good idea. In pl wiki it works well. The last 
> edition (http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:10_prac_na_10_lat_Wikipedii 
> invitation by anonnotice only) gave us in July 2011 more active editors:
>
> http://www.wikistatistics.net/wiki/pl/activeusers/365
>
> Compare with ja, it, nl, sv, ru or es wikis
>
> http://www.wikistatistics.net/wiki/ja/activeusers/365
>
> http://www.wikistatistics.net/wiki/it/activeusers/365
>
> http://www.wikistatistics.net/wiki/nl/activeusers/365
>
> http://www.wikistatistics.net/wiki/sv/activeusers/365
>
> http://www.wikistatistics.net/wiki/ru/activeusers/365
>
> http://www.wikistatistics.net/wiki/es/activeusers/365
>
> These actions work well for a month. We ask readers for improve articles (the 
> quest must be specific -> What do we need to do / how could you help us)
>
> Przykuta
>
> ___
> 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] Article Feedback Tool Office Hours - 6 January, 19:00 UTC, #wikimedia-office

[Oliver Keyes]

Hey guys

Just a note to advertise the Article Feedback Tool 5 development
team's next office hours, which will be held in #wikimedia-office at
19:00 UTC this coming Friday. We'll be discussing quite a few
important or otherwise interesting things, including:

*Final selection of a feedback design;
*An upcoming RfC on what classes of user can use what features;
*And some initial peeks at what the feedback page itself will look like.

Hope to see you all there! If you can't make it, drop me a note
off-list and I'm happy to forward you the logs when it's over. I'll be
staying in the chan until 23:00 UTC to deal with any questions from
latecomers, so pop in if you have any questions and a free moment.

Thanks

--
Oliver Keyes
Community Liaison, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Article Feedback Tool 5 testing deployment

[Oliver Keyes]

I don't think there's any need to be facetious; at the moment you're
complaining about a feature in the thread in which we announced that
feature's replacement, so there's really not much of a productive end to
this conversation ;p. If anyone is interested in participating in any of
the testing or design, please feel free to email me. Other than that, merry
Newtonmas to all of you.

On 24 December 2011 18:20, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 8:09 PM, Oliver Keyes 
> wrote:
> > The option to self-identify as an expert is more to try and gauge where
> AFT
> > respondents are coming from, as opposed to excluding non-experts. Average
> > joes are asked to provide comment, and then asked to identify if they
> are,
> > for whatever reason, *not* average joes.
>
> How far would you go with this? "Are you of the nationality/race/ideology
> interested in this subject? Are your qualifications FUD, strawhorses,
> tenure
> resurrection, staying on the mailing list for pre-release data? Or are you
> just
> purely and simply COI'ng the shit out of our processes?"
>
> You will find that we are pretty inured against such approaches.
>
>
>
> --
> --
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
Oliver Keyes
Community Liaison, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Article Feedback Tool 5 testing deployment

[Oliver Keyes]

The option to self-identify as an expert is more to try and gauge where AFT
respondents are coming from, as opposed to excluding non-experts. Average
joes are asked to provide comment, and then asked to identify if they are,
for whatever reason, *not* average joes.

On 24 December 2011 16:43, MZMcBride  wrote:

> Oliver Keyes wrote:
> > To reply to Jussi; I think we're uniformly confused as to what you think
> is
> > the link between an encyclopedia written by experts, and an encyclopedia
> > that asks average joes to provide comments on articles (other than the
> > "encyclopedia" bit, of course :-)). If you want this thread to go
> anywhere
> > productively on that issue, you should probably start by explaining what
> > you see as the link.
>
> Past versions of this extension have included a call for people to
> self-identify as experts (or as "highly knowledgeable") in an article's
> topic.[1]
>
> It seems like version 5 no longer includes this checkbox,[2] but I think
> it's slightly unreasonable to suggest that only "average Joes" are being
> asked to provide comments on articles.
>
> I read Cimon's concerns as this tool (and future iterations) moving closer
> to the idea of expert-approved or expert-endorsed revisions (implicitly or
> explicitly). It's an interesting dichotomy between the extension's stated
> goal of trying to attract new users and the extension's past (and present?)
> interface that encourages self-identified expert commentary, isn't it?
>
> MZMcBride
>
> [1] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback#Version_3
> [2] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Version_5
>
>
>
> _______
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
Oliver Keyes
Community Liaison, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Article Feedback Tool 5 testing deployment

[Oliver Keyes]

I'm absolutely fine with that, sure.

On 24 December 2011 12:02, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Oliver Keyes 
> wrote:
> > Not...really. I'm not interested in getting more information on your
> > opinion *on* the AFT - we've got six emails on that so far in this
> thread -
> > but instead your opinion *of what the AFT is*. One possible explanation
> for
> > this divide is that you're misunderstanding what the tool is meant to do,
> > so I'd like to know what you think it is. So far you've instead said a
> lot
> > about how much you think it sucks, but nothing on what "it" is, and
> without
> > context your posts aren't, honestly, making that much sense.
> >
>
> Would you be happy to take this into private e-mail. I don't think any
> intelligent
> readers are much impressed by your logic...
>
>
> --
> --
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
Oliver Keyes
Community Liaison, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Article Feedback Tool 5 testing deployment

[Oliver Keyes]

Not...really. I'm not interested in getting more information on your
opinion *on* the AFT - we've got six emails on that so far in this thread -
but instead your opinion *of what the AFT is*. One possible explanation for
this divide is that you're misunderstanding what the tool is meant to do,
so I'd like to know what you think it is. So far you've instead said a lot
about how much you think it sucks, but nothing on what "it" is, and without
context your posts aren't, honestly, making that much sense.

On 24 December 2011 11:55, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Oliver Keyes 
> wrote:
> > The article feedback tool has nothing to do with approving edits, though.
> > Lets roll the conversation back; can you succinctly tell me how you
> > perceive the Article Feedback Tool, or what you know about it? That way
> > I'll know where you're coming from, and if there are any
> misunderstandings
> > which would explain why we're talking at cross-threads.
> >
>
> I freely admit I was being a bit flippant. But that was just because I knew
> I was in the right. Let us put it this succintly: "Being passive aggressive
> rather than aggressive about the way things are allowed as valid
> contributions
> to the encyclopaedia, is worse than being up front about it". Is that
> succint
> enough for you?
>
>
>
> --
> --
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
>
> _______
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
Oliver Keyes
Community Liaison, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Article Feedback Tool 5 testing deployment

[Oliver Keyes]

The article feedback tool has nothing to do with approving edits, though.
Lets roll the conversation back; can you succinctly tell me how you
perceive the Article Feedback Tool, or what you know about it? That way
I'll know where you're coming from, and if there are any misunderstandings
which would explain why we're talking at cross-threads.

On 24 December 2011 11:43, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Oliver Keyes 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >
> > To reply to Jussi; I think we're uniformly confused as to what you think
> is
> > the link between an encyclopedia written by experts, and an encyclopedia
> > that asks average joes to provide comments on articles (other than the
> > "encyclopedia" bit, of course :-)). If you want this thread to go
> anywhere
> > productively on that issue, you should probably start by explaining what
> > you see as the link.
>
> That is very useful as an attempt at bridging the approaches to
> encyclopaedia building. So just for the benefit of people joining us
> lately, but keeping things to the issue at hand rather than getting
> diverted...
>
> There is no link.
>
> But there is a grasping hand that wants to link, and wikipedia
> does not do that for things that are not working.
>
> The whole idea of making a "structure" around how you "approve"
> (or "reify" or whatever) an edit is the nucleus of the issue. It has
> failed, it will fail and no amount of trying to push on a string will
> make it succeed.
>
> --
> --
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
>
> _______
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
Oliver Keyes
Community Liaison, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Article Feedback Tool 5 testing deployment

[Oliver Keyes]

Yup; once we move on to full deployment, there's going to be a special
feedback page (updated wireframes to follow) which will list all the
feedback each article has been given, as well as a centralised one to avoid
things slipping through the cracks.

Actually, we get quite a few ratings; the problem is more that it's the
very definition of a "long tail". Something complicating this is an awkward
position for the feedback box itself - right at the bottom of an article,
after all the external links and references and other gubbins that readers
don't so often use. We'll hopefully have the chance (and time!) to
experiment with some new positions, a couple of which were user-suggested.

On 24 December 2011 11:38, David Gerard  wrote:

> On 24 December 2011 11:23, Oliver Keyes  wrote:
>
> > So, to reply to Liam's point first - no, that's not the "real reason",
> > that's something that I, personally, think should be taken into account
> as
> > a secondary consideration; as said, I've emailed people asking for more
> > concrete information on the data gathered, and so I can get the rationale
> > "from the horse's mouth", as it were. It's christmas eve, so there's no
> > guarantee that I'll get a response immediately, but I'll let you know
> when
> > I do.
>
>
> I liked the idea of AFTv4, having proposed such a thing as far back as
> 2005 (back when we were sure we were doing this to make a hard-copy or
> DVD encyclopedia):
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:David_Gerard/1.0
>
> The main problem with AFTv4 is that it appears no bugger uses it. Most
> articles have no ratings, a few have one or two.
>
> With v5, is the feedback readily and visibly available for article
> editors to refer to? The bit where we ask directly "what's missing?"
> looks potentially very useful.
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
Oliver Keyes
Community Liaison, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Article Feedback Tool 5 testing deployment

[Oliver Keyes]

So, to reply to Liam's point first - no, that's not the "real reason",
that's something that I, personally, think should be taken into account as
a secondary consideration; as said, I've emailed people asking for more
concrete information on the data gathered, and so I can get the rationale
"from the horse's mouth", as it were. It's christmas eve, so there's no
guarantee that I'll get a response immediately, but I'll let you know when
I do.

To reply to Jussi; I think we're uniformly confused as to what you think is
the link between an encyclopedia written by experts, and an encyclopedia
that asks average joes to provide comments on articles (other than the
"encyclopedia" bit, of course :-)). If you want this thread to go anywhere
productively on that issue, you should probably start by explaining what
you see as the link.

On 24 December 2011 11:20, Thomas Dalton  wrote:

> On Dec 24, 2011 8:55 AM, "Jussi-Ville Heiskanen" 
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Liam Wyatt 
> wrote:
> > > On 24/12/2011, at 17:38, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I hope you will forgive me for being a bit terse and blunt. It is the
> > > season
> > >> for unpalatable truths, and not just in Scotland. To an impartial
> observer
> > >> this whole exercise has all the earmarks of trying to dig up Nupedia
> from
> > >> the grave, give it the "kiss of life" and do all sorts of hocus pocus
> and
> > > arm
> > >> waving and say "It is alive! It is alive!"
> > >>
> > >> ... And then see it just fall on its face like the corpse it is.
> > >>
> > >> Cue even more bubbling vials with smoke and sparks. "Let's try again!
> > >> This time it will work!"
> > >> --
> > >> --
> > >> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
> > >>
> > >
> > > Jussie-Ville -  terse or blunt is fine IF it is accompanied by a
> reasoned
> > > argument and preferably also a proposed alternative. I find your posts
> on
> > > this thread to be both full of hyperbolic metaphor as well as being
> > > unclear. As such I don't think they are helping your argument, however
> > > strong you might hold your opinions on the topic.
> >
> > I don't really get the "unclear" bit.
>
> It is extremely unclear to me what connection there is between the AFT and
> Nupedia. It sounds like meaningless rhetoric to me.
>
> Also, please don't send four emails in response to one. It is completely
> unnecessary and makes it even harder to follow what you are trying to say.
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
Oliver Keyes
Community Liaison, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Article Feedback Tool 5 testing deployment

[Oliver Keyes]

Sure; we are doing those tests (I think this marks the fifth, or possibly
sixth time Dario and/or I have communicated this to you :p) and won't draw
any conclusions until we've gathered the data.

you say 'logic and the statistics make me think otherwise' - can you
explain what statistics? If you mean the below data, as I have already
explained to you, that logically doesn't fly. The data merely provides our
rate of decline - it does not provide any clues as to the reasons for that
rate, or possible factors retarding it.

On Friday, 23 December 2011, WereSpielChequers 
wrote:
> The theory that the Article Feedback Tool may be encouraging newbies to
> edit is an interesting one, though not in my view born out by the
> statistics. http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm
>
> Comparing the number of newbies in recent months with the same month last
> year I can't help but notice that last year we were getting rather more
> newbies. This current testing phase gives us the opportunity to test not
> just against the earlier version but against no AFT at all. Of course its
> possible that if we didn't have the AFT encouraging readers to rate rather
> than edit articles we would be having an even steeper decline in the
number
> of newbies. But logic and the statistics make me think otherwise.
>
> WereSpielChequers
>
>
>
>> --
>>
>> Message: 2
>> Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 10:58:42 +
>> From: Tom Morris 
>> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Article Feedback Tool 5 testing deployment
>> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>>
>> Message-ID:
>><
caaqb2s_bgkfaba1mlondrsxt7e+wxepwz+qqfcy3pnil-bv...@mail.gmail.com
>> >
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 02:41, Liam Wyatt  wrote:
>> > I'm NOT making the argument that the AFT is inherently bad (in fact I'm
>> really looking forward to the v5 of the tool to see how much good-quality
>> reader feedback we get, which will hopefully enliven a lot of very quiet
>> talkpages). I'm also NOT making the argument that the WMF needs to seek
>> some kind of mythical consensus for every single software change or new
>> feature test. What I AM saying is that now that v4 has been depreciated
it
>> is both disingenuous to our readers and annoying to our community to
have a
>> big box appear in such valuable real-estate simply because it will
>> eventually be replaced by a different, more useful, box. As you say, this
>> replacement is "still quite some time away" so it's a long time to leave
a
>> placeholder on the world's 5th most visited website.
>> >
>>
>> >From what I understood, part of the point of the article feedback tool
>> was that it increased the number of readers who edit - because they
>> click through the star ratings and then were invited to edit
>> (apparently, despite the phrase "the encyclopedia you can edit" and a
>> big link at the top of the article saying "Edit" and little links next
>> to each section that say "edit", and ten years of people in the news
>> media, academia and so on excoriating Wikipedia for being unreliable
>> precisely because anyone can edit it, there is some group who do not
>> know that you can edit Wikipedia).
>>
>> Even if we are no longer using the data collected from the previous
>> incarnation of the AFT (I've looked at a few articles I've written to
>> see what the AFTers think of it, and it is a minor curiosity), the
>> fact that it may be encouraging newbs to edit seems like a fairly good
>> reason for us to not jump the gun and switch it off prematurely.
>>
>> --
>> Tom Morris
>> <http://tommorris.org/>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

-- 
Oliver Keyes
Community Liaison, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Article Feedback Tool 5 testing deployment

[Oliver Keyes]

That's basically my rationale, yup; thanks for explaining so clearly, Tom
:P. Sleep deprivation makes me a poor writer.

On 23 December 2011 10:58, Tom Morris  wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 02:41, Liam Wyatt  wrote:
> > I'm NOT making the argument that the AFT is inherently bad (in fact I'm
> really looking forward to the v5 of the tool to see how much good-quality
> reader feedback we get, which will hopefully enliven a lot of very quiet
> talkpages). I'm also NOT making the argument that the WMF needs to seek
> some kind of mythical consensus for every single software change or new
> feature test. What I AM saying is that now that v4 has been depreciated it
> is both disingenuous to our readers and annoying to our community to have a
> big box appear in such valuable real-estate simply because it will
> eventually be replaced by a different, more useful, box. As you say, this
> replacement is "still quite some time away" so it's a long time to leave a
> placeholder on the world's 5th most visited website.
> >
>
> From what I understood, part of the point of the article feedback tool
> was that it increased the number of readers who edit - because they
> click through the star ratings and then were invited to edit
> (apparently, despite the phrase "the encyclopedia you can edit" and a
> big link at the top of the article saying "Edit" and little links next
> to each section that say "edit", and ten years of people in the news
> media, academia and so on excoriating Wikipedia for being unreliable
> precisely because anyone can edit it, there is some group who do not
> know that you can edit Wikipedia).
>
> Even if we are no longer using the data collected from the previous
> incarnation of the AFT (I've looked at a few articles I've written to
> see what the AFTers think of it, and it is a minor curiosity), the
> fact that it may be encouraging newbs to edit seems like a fairly good
> reason for us to not jump the gun and switch it off prematurely.
>
> --
> Tom Morris
> <http://tommorris.org/>
>
> _______
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
Oliver Keyes
Community Liaison, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Article Feedback Tool 5 testing deployment

[Oliver Keyes]

I'm not going to reply to the *entire* email, because I don't have all the
data in front of me (and it's 3:40am - even if I did, I'm not going to
write anything massively coherent ;p) - I'll revisit when I've poked some
people to get some more info. However, one thing the current version has
been used for, productively, and is still used for, is the Calls to Action
- the notices that appear after you've submitted feedback that invite
contributors to edit. We've seen a fairly low conversion rate for this -
mostly due to a lack of ability to grok WP's rather outdated and
complicated interface, more than due to a lack of desire on the readers'
part - but it's still a valuable way to attract new edits and new editors,
and attract them it does. So, turning it off now is not just saying no to
the feedback; it's also saying no to a method of drawing in new editors, at
a time when we've got a dearth of such people.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think this is a perfect situation, and I'm a
bit on-the-fence about it myself (I had initially argued we should turn off
AFT4, at least for the users who are getting AFT5 on some articles) but
it's important to consider the impact of switching off a conduit for new
editors.

Hopefully I'll have something useful to say once I've got some shuteye.
Sorry if this raises more questions than it answers :)

On 23 December 2011 02:41, Liam Wyatt  wrote:

> Oliver, with regards to Geni's question and your response, this is what I
> understood was the situation too: that the use of AFTv5 was on a small
> subset of articles to ensure minimum disruption to the editing community
> whilst still being able to gain enough usage data from readers to know
> whether it's working. Then iterate, improve, rollout to a slightly larger
> set, repeat :-)
>
> However, I'd like to contest the two reasons you've given for not turning
> off AFTv4 in the mean time.
>
> On 23/12/2011, at 3:49, Oliver Keyes  wrote:
>
> > Actually, we're trying to avoid turning off AFT4. The reasoning is
> twofold.
> >
> > On a product development front, the AFT5 presence is for testing
> purposes,
> > and for testing purposes only; it will be up for around 2-3 weeks so we
> can
> > build a decent picture of the quantity and quality of feedback we're
> > getting. While this process is going on, we want to maintain a pretty
> > coherent interface for the readers to avoid confusion - and AFT4 is much
> > closer to AFT5 than no form at all is.
>
> Are you saying that AFTv4 (the 'star rating' system) is being used as the
> "control group" in this experiment? That is, if ONLY 0.3% of en.wp articles
> had a feedback tool enabled, then they would receive different kinds of
> feedback because they would look different to the vast majority if the
> encyclopedia. So you're trying to minimize that difference by keeping it
> running on all the rest? If that's the case, then surely you only need to
> run the "control" group at the same frequency as the new tests rather than
> giving them disproportionate visibility.
>
> On the other hand, what I think you're saying is that you want to preserve
> a consisten user-experience during this period of testing AFTv5, so that we
> don't go from 100% of v4, to 0.3% of v5 (with the rest having nothing), and
> then to 100% v5. If this is the case I find it a bit worrying that the
> current version of the tool - which has always been proposed as
> experimental - is now simply there as a placeholder awaiting improvement.
> Surely if we know that we're not using the current version any more, we
> should take it offline until the new one is ready. I would be very
> surprised if any members of the general public would be confused because I
> would be surprised if any members of the general public are actually
> looking for the feedback tool when they visit any articles. Quite the
> contrary, I think the public WOULD be confused if we told them that the big
> box at the bottom of every article is only there to "maintain a consistent
> interface" and we're not actually using the ratings data that the big box
> is asking them for.
>
> I'm NOT making the argument that the AFT is inherently bad (in fact I'm
> really looking forward to the v5 of the tool to see how much good-quality
> reader feedback we get, which will hopefully enliven a lot of very quiet
> talkpages). I'm also NOT making the argument that the WMF needs to seek
> some kind of mythical consensus for every single software change or new
> feature test. What I AM saying is that now that v4 has been depreciated it
> is both disingenuous to our r

Re: [Foundation-l] Article Feedback Tool 5 testing deployment

[Oliver Keyes]

I'm not seeing the problem there, actually; the feedback page itself isn't
up yet (again, just for testing) so editors aren't expected to do anything
with the feedback. Am I missing something?

On 22 December 2011 17:25, geni  wrote:

> On 22 December 2011 13:11, Oliver Keyes  wrote:
> > That's correct, Tom. 0.3 percent of the English language Wikipedia is
> being
> > used as a testbed for the *rest* of the English-language Wikipedia; a
> > tertiary testbed, since we've already run things through on both
> prototype
> > and labs :). Obviously if we decide "lets deploy to other projects" we'd
> > take localised concerns into account, and not just jump in. With the last
> > version, interestingly, we had several projects *request* that we switch
> it
> > on.
>
> Zee problem with 0.3% is that while it may be enough to get you data
> is isn't enough to be particularly sure that a reasonable number of
> wikipedians will actually see it.
>
> --
> geni
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
Oliver Keyes
Community Liaison, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Article Feedback Tool 5 testing deployment

[Oliver Keyes]

Actually, we're trying to avoid turning off AFT4. The reasoning is twofold.

On a product development front, the AFT5 presence is for testing purposes,
and for testing purposes only; it will be up for around 2-3 weeks so we can
build a decent picture of the quantity and quality of feedback we're
getting. While this process is going on, we want to maintain a pretty
coherent interface for the readers to avoid confusion - and AFT4 is much
closer to AFT5 than no form at all is.

On a data front, because the AFT5 presence is only for tests, and is only
temporary (at least at the moment) there's no question of AFT4 feedback
being ignored; the actual replacement of AFT4 with AFT5 on a wider scale is
still quite some time away, and until that happens, I hope any AFT4
feedback will be taken into account.

On 22 December 2011 14:06, Liam Wyatt  wrote:

> Good-o. That's what I also understood your & Erik's emails to mean :-)
>
> So - with regards to my original question?
> In summary it was:
> Now that the new versions (AFTv5) of the tool are being tested on 0.3% of
> en.wp, can you turn off the now-obsolete "5-star rating" version currently
> running on the remaining 99.7% of en.wp, please?
>
> -Liam
>
> Peace, love & metadata
>
> On 23/12/2011, at 0:11, Oliver Keyes  wrote:
>
> > That's correct, Tom. 0.3 percent of the English language Wikipedia is
> being
> > used as a testbed for the *rest* of the English-language Wikipedia; a
> > tertiary testbed, since we've already run things through on both
> prototype
> > and labs :). Obviously if we decide "lets deploy to other projects" we'd
> > take localised concerns into account, and not just jump in. With the last
> > version, interestingly, we had several projects *request* that we switch
> it
> > on.
> >
> > On 22 December 2011 13:02, Tom Morris  wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 02:56, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
> >>  wrote:
> >>> Sorry, did a double-take there. Tell me I read that wrong, please! My
> >>> eyes must be deceiving me or my reading comprehension not being
> >>> quite up to the task right now... But some weird brainfart made me
> >>> read that in such a way that you were suggesting that the english
> >>> language wikipedia would be used as a test bed for what should be
> >>> deployed side-wide. Please tell me I am hallucinating, misreading
> >>> you grotesquely, or there is some other clear communication disconnect!
> >>>
> >>
> >> Site-wide means "on all of English" not "on all projects" (which would
> >> be "cross-wiki" or "cross-project"). Currently AFT5 is deployed on a
> >> subset of enwp articles (about 11,000) for testing. From what I can
> >> gather, there is a fairly long process of testing planned to see
> >> whether the deployment on English is an improvement on the existing
> >> AFT. After that process, if it is deemed to be an improvement and the
> >> objections have been fixed, then it is possible to offer it to other
> >> wikis.
> >>
> >> The small deployment on English will be used to inform the decision as
> >> to whether to roll it out fully on English, not on all projects.
> >>
> >> It's a fairly major change, so I think the Foundation are (correctly)
> >> being conservative in their rollout on English, and being careful to
> >> collect data to inform a community decision in the future. It's not
> >> suddenly going to turn up on projects other than enwiki without a lot
> >> more discussion and consultation.
> >>
> >> But then I've just been watching the process quietly from the
> >> sidelines: I may have got this all wrong.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Tom Morris
> >> <http://tommorris.org/>
> >>
> >> ___
> >> foundation-l mailing list
> >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Oliver Keyes
> > Community Liaison, Product Development
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> > ___
> > 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
>



-- 
Oliver Keyes
Community Liaison, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Article Feedback Tool 5 testing deployment

[Oliver Keyes]

And thanks for bringing this up, Jussi! You're usually pretty on the ball,
so if you misunderstood what I wrote, it's most likely because my prose was
unclear :). I appreciate the chance to correct myself before the poor prose
leads others to get the wrong impression too :).

On 22 December 2011 13:11, Oliver Keyes  wrote:

> That's correct, Tom. 0.3 percent of the English language Wikipedia is
> being used as a testbed for the *rest* of the English-language Wikipedia;
> a tertiary testbed, since we've already run things through on both
> prototype and labs :). Obviously if we decide "lets deploy to other
> projects" we'd take localised concerns into account, and not just jump in.
> With the last version, interestingly, we had several projects *request*that 
> we switch it on.
>
>
> On 22 December 2011 13:02, Tom Morris  wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 02:56, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
>>  wrote:
>> > Sorry, did a double-take there. Tell me I read that wrong, please! My
>> > eyes must be deceiving me or my reading comprehension not being
>> > quite up to the task right now... But some weird brainfart made me
>> > read that in such a way that you were suggesting that the english
>> > language wikipedia would be used as a test bed for what should be
>> > deployed side-wide. Please tell me I am hallucinating, misreading
>> > you grotesquely, or there is some other clear communication disconnect!
>> >
>>
>> Site-wide means "on all of English" not "on all projects" (which would
>> be "cross-wiki" or "cross-project"). Currently AFT5 is deployed on a
>> subset of enwp articles (about 11,000) for testing. From what I can
>> gather, there is a fairly long process of testing planned to see
>> whether the deployment on English is an improvement on the existing
>> AFT. After that process, if it is deemed to be an improvement and the
>> objections have been fixed, then it is possible to offer it to other
>> wikis.
>>
>> The small deployment on English will be used to inform the decision as
>> to whether to roll it out fully on English, not on all projects.
>>
>> It's a fairly major change, so I think the Foundation are (correctly)
>> being conservative in their rollout on English, and being careful to
>> collect data to inform a community decision in the future. It's not
>> suddenly going to turn up on projects other than enwiki without a lot
>> more discussion and consultation.
>>
>> But then I've just been watching the process quietly from the
>> sidelines: I may have got this all wrong.
>>
>> --
>> Tom Morris
>> <http://tommorris.org/>
>>
>> ___
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Oliver Keyes
> Community Liaison, Product Development
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
>


-- 
Oliver Keyes
Community Liaison, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Article Feedback Tool 5 testing deployment

[Oliver Keyes]

That's correct, Tom. 0.3 percent of the English language Wikipedia is being
used as a testbed for the *rest* of the English-language Wikipedia; a
tertiary testbed, since we've already run things through on both prototype
and labs :). Obviously if we decide "lets deploy to other projects" we'd
take localised concerns into account, and not just jump in. With the last
version, interestingly, we had several projects *request* that we switch it
on.

On 22 December 2011 13:02, Tom Morris  wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 02:56, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
>  wrote:
> > Sorry, did a double-take there. Tell me I read that wrong, please! My
> > eyes must be deceiving me or my reading comprehension not being
> > quite up to the task right now... But some weird brainfart made me
> > read that in such a way that you were suggesting that the english
> > language wikipedia would be used as a test bed for what should be
> > deployed side-wide. Please tell me I am hallucinating, misreading
> > you grotesquely, or there is some other clear communication disconnect!
> >
>
> Site-wide means "on all of English" not "on all projects" (which would
> be "cross-wiki" or "cross-project"). Currently AFT5 is deployed on a
> subset of enwp articles (about 11,000) for testing. From what I can
> gather, there is a fairly long process of testing planned to see
> whether the deployment on English is an improvement on the existing
> AFT. After that process, if it is deemed to be an improvement and the
> objections have been fixed, then it is possible to offer it to other
> wikis.
>
> The small deployment on English will be used to inform the decision as
> to whether to roll it out fully on English, not on all projects.
>
> It's a fairly major change, so I think the Foundation are (correctly)
> being conservative in their rollout on English, and being careful to
> collect data to inform a community decision in the future. It's not
> suddenly going to turn up on projects other than enwiki without a lot
> more discussion and consultation.
>
> But then I've just been watching the process quietly from the
> sidelines: I may have got this all wrong.
>
> --
> Tom Morris
> <http://tommorris.org/>
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
Oliver Keyes
Community Liaison, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] Article Feedback Tool 5 testing deployment

[Oliver Keyes]

Hey guys

Just dropping everyone a note to let you know that the new version of the
Article Feedback Tool -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5 - is
now live on a subset of articles, in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Article_Feedback_5 :). This may not
impact as it may not be deployed on a page you edit, but I wanted everyone
to know just in case you do see the new designs and are unsure as to where
they come from (or in case you get queries from readers or newbies along
the same lines).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5/Helpshould
provide some more context, and answer questions; if you have any
comments or queries that aren't solved through that page, feel free to
email me and I'll try to get back to you promptly.

A reminder that this is a preliminary rollout to a very limited set of
articles - around 0.3 percent of enwiki's content. This is just to test
whether or not it's beneficial, and we don't plan on keeping every single
form in place :).

-- 
Oliver Keyes
Community Liaison, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] Article Feedback Tool office hours - Today, #wikimedia-office, 19:00 UTC

[Oliver Keyes]

Hey guys!

Just a reminder that there will be an office hours session at 19:00 UTC
today to discuss the new Article Feedback Tool. This is the last session
before the prototype is deployed, so if you have any last-minute requests
or issues, or want to find out precisely what is going on, this is probably
a good one to come to :).

-- 
Oliver Keyes
Community Liason, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] "Terms of use" : Anglo-saxon copyright law and Anglo-saxon lawyers : a disgrace for Continental Europeans

[Oliver Keyes]

I've actually been doing a lot of research on the history of copyright law
on-wiki - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ironholds/statute for
example - and I've been focusing on the Berne Convention, later on. The
rationale for encyclopaedias (something that is not just common law, but in
some nations, statutory) is essentially that; encyclopedias contain
thousands of tiny, two-line long articles, and attribution is a bitch.

On 14 December 2011 06:09, Ryan Kaldari  wrote:

> Sorry about the confusion. I was talking most recently about the GFDL,
> which does not mention moral rights. CC-BY-SA does mention moral rights
> (to state that it does not affect them). Interestingly, the U.S. port of
> the CC-BY-SA license does not include a disclaimer about moral rights,
> but this is irrelevant since the WMF uses the unported license, not the
> U.S. version. The unported license is designed to be legally useful in
> as many countries as possible, and during the 4.0 draft process they are
> hoping to improve this aspect of the license. From everything I've
> heard, Creative Commons is hoping to move away from ported licenses, as
> these have been a major headache for everyone, especially in regards to
> license compatibility. The idea to have numerous localized Terms of Use
> for Wikipedia (based on the laws of each country) is an interesting
> idea. It would probably be a nightmare to maintain, but we've managed
> worse. I would love to hear Geoff's thoughts on this.
>
> Getting back to your original point, I suppose it's true that the Terms
> of Service could affect the protection of moral rights (in certain
> countries), even if the license explicitly doesn't. However, after doing
> more research into this, it looks like it's a moot issue. Moral rights
> (per Common law) are for the protection of literary and artistic works,
> not factual reference works. Works like encyclopedias, dictionaries,
> newspaper articles, etc. are not covered by moral rights. I imagine the
> reasoning behind this is that such works entail a minimum degree of
> creative "authorship" and are often published without attribution. If
> I'm mistaken in this conclusion, please let me know.
>
> Ryan Kaldari
>
> On 12/13/11 7:56 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 11:37 PM, Ryan Kaldari
>  wrote:
> >> On 12/13/11 12:14 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> >>> Using an URL does allow the semblance of attribution, but does not
> >>> fulfil the legal requirements of moral rights. I find it mildly
> >>> distasteful, that
> >>> other jurisdictions laws are referred to as "exceptions for various
> cases",
> >>> when CC itself has committed itself to better internationalisation in
> its
> >>> 4.0 version.
> >> Actually, I was suggesting the opposite: that in many cases (in the GFDL
> >> days) we carved out exceptions (unofficially) to allow people to reuse
> >> our content without meeting the full requirements of the license (much
> >> less the moral rights requirements).
> > If it is unofficial, it sounds a bit grandiose to term the action as
> "carving
> > out". English language usage would be to use the phrase "turn a blind
> eye".
> >
> > And "if" as you previously claimed, the moral rights requirements are
> implicit
> > in the full licence requirements, why would you argue that stating them
> > in the TOS is redundant, but now seem to imply that the moral rights are
> > more stringent than the licence. Either moral rights are contained in the
> > licence, or not. I really hope 4.0 brings clarity, and also that WMF
> will go
> > forward from an unported licence to a fully internationalized TOS
> > implementation, the sooner the better.
> >
> >
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
Oliver Keyes
Community Liason, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] "Terms of use" : Anglo-saxon copyright law and Anglo-saxon lawyers : a disgrace for Continental Europeans

[Oliver Keyes]

Not really, in the UK at least. However this is a poor example; it's
important to note that UK moral rights legislation isn't
*actually*representative. we fail to comply with the Berne Convention
on attribution,
insofar as we don't mandate it except when the author makes clear he wants
it. It's also possible that our moral rights law doesn't actually apply to
Wikipedia, since it makes clear (see section 79(6) of the Copyright,
Designs and Patents Act 1988) that there isn't a right to attribution for
works published as part of an encyclopedia. Whoops ;).

On 13 December 2011 21:37, Ryan Kaldari  wrote:

> On 12/13/11 12:14 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> > Using an URL does allow the semblance of attribution, but does not
> > fulfil the legal requirements of moral rights. I find it mildly
> > distasteful, that
> > other jurisdictions laws are referred to as "exceptions for various
> cases",
> > when CC itself has committed itself to better internationalisation in its
> > 4.0 version.
>
> Actually, I was suggesting the opposite: that in many cases (in the GFDL
> days) we carved out exceptions (unofficially) to allow people to reuse
> our content without meeting the full requirements of the license (much
> less the moral rights requirements).
>
> If you've ever taken a look at...
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GFDL_Compliance
> and its associated talk page, you'll see that the en.wiki community at
> least treated license compliance as a fairly gray issue, i.e. there was
> some degree of allowance for "trying to comply" rather than actually
> complying, due to the fact that few reusers were willing to list all the
> contributors (even on websites, where space is cheap).
>
> I have no idea if the same was true for the position of the Foundation's
> legal department, but I suspect it was. (I'm just guessing though.)
>
> It looks like the main areas where URL attribution would be an issue are
> Commonwealth countries. In the rest of the world, moral rights are
> either non-existent, or not waivable. Is there any Commonwealth caselaw
> on what types of attribution are acceptable for satisfying moral rights?
>
> Ryan Kaldari
>
> _______
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
Oliver Keyes
Community Liason, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] [Internal-l] Regarding Berkman/Sciences Po study

[Oliver Keyes]

Speaking off the record and in my personal capacity - fuckin' A. Thank you
for being the one sane voice :p

On Sunday, 11 December 2011, Renata St  wrote:
>>
>> The problem is that the research committee made only a token effort
>> at finding or following relevant onwiki policy or consensus , nor did
>> they try to explain or correct their actions onwiki in a timely manner
>> as per WIARM. Or where they did, they didn't follow up.
>>
>> Any of those 3 elements (Policy, Consensus, WIARM/BRD) each could and
>> still can help bring people up to speed and reduce misunderstandings.
>> That's part of what they're for, after all! I'm sure that people will be
>> more supportive once things are sorted out in that way.
>>
>> Hmm, the research committee still hasn't made any onwiki statement at a
>> relevant location that I can find. If this were a court case, RCom
>> would pretty much have lost by default and/or forfeit already.
>>
>
> As I said, analyze and nitpick things to death. Does any of that above *
> really* matter?
>
> It distresses me to see the community turned into this insane
> policy-enforcing power-hungry gang. Everything must be approved by us
> (consensus)! Everything must follow each letter and comma of every goddarn
> policy out there! If there is a single comma missing we will shred you to
> pieces, treat you like a scum and public enemy number 1, whack you with
all
> kinds of warnings, AN threads, blocks... Yeah, you go back to where you
> came from and stay there![1]
>
> Since when doing something nice and interesting on WP should be treated
and
> compared to going to a court? Why and when did the community started to
> think that compliance with WP:IDHCWTSF[2] is more important than
> intentions, than doing the "right thing", than embracing new, different
> ideas? Why does everything have to go through nine circles of bureaucracy?
>
> I weep for the memory of Wikipedia that was *free*. Yes, it is still free
> [as in $ and *©*], but it is no longer free of the instruction creep that
> stifles and regulates your every movement. I weep for the memory of a
> feeling that you *can* change, you *can* edit, you *can* do... without
that
> gripping fear that you are violating some random policy and therefore will
> be whacked on your head with some large stick.
>
> Renata
>
> [1] Exaggerated, yes, but isn't this the typical newbie experience these
> days?
> [2] Wikipedia:I don't have a clue what this stands for
> ___
> 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] Article Feedback Tool office hours - 15 minutes

[Oliver Keyes]

Hey guys; the AFT office hours session will be starting at 11:00 (or
whenever Geoff finishes) :). Hope to see you all there!

-- 
Oliver Keyes
Community Liason, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Article Feedback Tool office hours - 2nd December, 19:00 UTC

[Oliver Keyes]

That's certainly an idea.

I don't think "post-its" are on the table right now - that's probably a bit
outside the project's scope.

On 29 November 2011 20:06, rupert THURNER  wrote:

> one usage could be to support photo competitions as wiki loves monuments,
> where a jury had to select good photos out of 16 submitted.
> On Nov 29, 2011 8:51 PM, "Oliver Keyes"  wrote:
>
> > It'd be good! I'm not sure what the usefulness would be, though. So, the
> > two aims behind the AFT:
> >
> >
> >   - To prompt greater feedback from readers on the quality of content;
> >   - To try (through the calls to action, which have actually been pretty
> >   successful) to prompt readers to edit.
> >
> > I'm not sure how applicable these would be to Commons. I mean, how many
> > "readers" per se does the project get? The interface doesn't really lend
> > itself to browsing. It'd also be awkward trying to work out what they
> could
> > actually do, or what the feedback would be useful for; with traditional
> > wikis, if people go "this article sucks" we can fix it. If people go
> "this
> > image sucks" we can't necessarily take a new one, or tweak the old one to
> > make it better.
> >
> > Still, it's an interesting idea. I do like the possibility of maybe
> having
> > a rating box that prompts readers "do you have an image of this? If so,
> why
> > not upload it?" or whatever if they provide a sucky rating for a photo.
> > I'll drop the devs a note and see what their plans are in this field :).
> >
> > On 29 November 2011 19:36, rupert THURNER 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > that looks really nice, as well the intention behind it! for pictures,
> or
> > > commons in general, a rating model like the one already implements
> would
> > be
> > > more appropriate, what you think?
> > > On Nov 29, 2011 8:20 PM, "Oliver Keyes"  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Well, if you've seen AFT5 (you may not have, so -
> > > >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5
> > )
> > > > we're moving away from "rating" articles.
> > > >
> > > > On 29 November 2011 19:13, rupert THURNER 
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > would it be possible to have a rating for pictures as well?
> > > > > On Nov 29, 2011 6:17 PM, "Oliver Keyes" 
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hey guys!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Another AFT session - this one will be in #wikimedia-office on 2
> > > > > December,
> > > > > > at 19:00 UTC. If you're vaguely interested in playing around with
> > > > > > prototypes, you should attend - we'll have a lot of cool stuff to
> > > poke
> > > > at
> > > > > > (and then complain about when something breaks and it goes all
> > > melty).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Oliver Keyes
> > > > > > Community Liason, Product Development
> > > > > > Wikimedia Foundation
> > > > > > ___
> > > > > > 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
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Oliver Keyes
> > > > Community Liason, Product Development
> > > > Wikimedia Foundation
> > > > ___
> > > > 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
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Oliver Keyes
> > Community Liason, Product Development
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> > ___
> > 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
>



-- 
Oliver Keyes
Community Liason, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Article Feedback Tool office hours - 2nd December, 19:00 UTC

[Oliver Keyes]

It'd be good! I'm not sure what the usefulness would be, though. So, the
two aims behind the AFT:


   - To prompt greater feedback from readers on the quality of content;
   - To try (through the calls to action, which have actually been pretty
   successful) to prompt readers to edit.

I'm not sure how applicable these would be to Commons. I mean, how many
"readers" per se does the project get? The interface doesn't really lend
itself to browsing. It'd also be awkward trying to work out what they could
actually do, or what the feedback would be useful for; with traditional
wikis, if people go "this article sucks" we can fix it. If people go "this
image sucks" we can't necessarily take a new one, or tweak the old one to
make it better.

Still, it's an interesting idea. I do like the possibility of maybe having
a rating box that prompts readers "do you have an image of this? If so, why
not upload it?" or whatever if they provide a sucky rating for a photo.
I'll drop the devs a note and see what their plans are in this field :).

On 29 November 2011 19:36, rupert THURNER  wrote:

> that looks really nice, as well the intention behind it! for pictures, or
> commons in general, a rating model like the one already implements would be
> more appropriate, what you think?
> On Nov 29, 2011 8:20 PM, "Oliver Keyes"  wrote:
>
> > Well, if you've seen AFT5 (you may not have, so -
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5)
> > we're moving away from "rating" articles.
> >
> > On 29 November 2011 19:13, rupert THURNER 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > would it be possible to have a rating for pictures as well?
> > > On Nov 29, 2011 6:17 PM, "Oliver Keyes"  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hey guys!
> > > >
> > > > Another AFT session - this one will be in #wikimedia-office on 2
> > > December,
> > > > at 19:00 UTC. If you're vaguely interested in playing around with
> > > > prototypes, you should attend - we'll have a lot of cool stuff to
> poke
> > at
> > > > (and then complain about when something breaks and it goes all
> melty).
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Oliver Keyes
> > > > Community Liason, Product Development
> > > > Wikimedia Foundation
> > > > ___
> > > > 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
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Oliver Keyes
> > Community Liason, Product Development
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> > ___
> > 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
>



-- 
Oliver Keyes
Community Liason, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Article Feedback Tool office hours - 2nd December, 19:00 UTC

[Oliver Keyes]

Well, if you've seen AFT5 (you may not have, so -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5)
we're moving away from "rating" articles.

On 29 November 2011 19:13, rupert THURNER  wrote:

> would it be possible to have a rating for pictures as well?
> On Nov 29, 2011 6:17 PM, "Oliver Keyes"  wrote:
>
> > Hey guys!
> >
> > Another AFT session - this one will be in #wikimedia-office on 2
> December,
> > at 19:00 UTC. If you're vaguely interested in playing around with
> > prototypes, you should attend - we'll have a lot of cool stuff to poke at
> > (and then complain about when something breaks and it goes all melty).
> >
> > --
> > Oliver Keyes
> > Community Liason, Product Development
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> > ___
> > 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
>



-- 
Oliver Keyes
Community Liason, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Article Feedback Tool office hours - 2nd December, 19:00 UTC

[Oliver Keyes]

Indeed; an hour beforehand :). We'll be jumping in right as he ends.

On 29 November 2011 17:23, Theo10011  wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 10:46 PM, Oliver Keyes 
> wrote:
>
> > Hey guys!
> >
> > Another AFT session - this one will be in #wikimedia-office on 2
> December,
> > at 19:00 UTC. If you're vaguely interested in playing around with
> > prototypes, you should attend - we'll have a lot of cool stuff to poke at
> > (and then complain about when something breaks and it goes all melty).
> >
> >
> Isn't there Geoff's IRC session on the same day? around the same time as
> that.
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours  (Also, link!)
>
>
> Regards
> Theo
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
Oliver Keyes
Community Liason, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] Article Feedback Tool office hours - 2nd December, 19:00 UTC

[Oliver Keyes]

Hey guys!

Another AFT session - this one will be in #wikimedia-office on 2 December,
at 19:00 UTC. If you're vaguely interested in playing around with
prototypes, you should attend - we'll have a lot of cool stuff to poke at
(and then complain about when something breaks and it goes all melty).

-- 
Oliver Keyes
Community Liason, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Error message

[Oliver Keyes]

We could call it the Fail Wales.

On Monday, 28 November 2011, John Vandenberg  wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 7:11 PM, David Gerard  wrote:
>> On 28 November 2011 07:38, Amir E. Aharoni 
wrote:
>>> 2011/11/28 Dirk Franke :
>>
>>>> Seriously: Could we please create something like the Twitter Fail
Whale?
>>>> Maybe a Sad Jimbo? Could help fundraising as well..
>>
>>> Scattered pieces of the puzzle globe.
>>
>>
>> +1
>
> I like it; a good image says a thousands words in every language.
>
> --
> John Vandenberg
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

-- 
Oliver Keyes
Community Liason, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] Office Hours - 18 November, 22:00 UTC

[Oliver Keyes]

Hey guys! As you've probably all come to expect, there'll be another office
hours session on the article feedback tool this week at 22:00 UTC (and yes,
I have checked :P). In attendance will be the full gamut of devs, managers
and technical specialists! Also me. It's deliberately scheduled to make it
possible for US east coasters to attend, so those of you who read
foundation-l and are interested in the AFT, please do come along (Risker,
I'm lookin' at you :P).

For those in Asia/Australasia, 3am UTC (you can check how that relates to
your timezones at
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?hour=3&min=00&sec=0&day=19&month=11&year=2011)
on Saturday will see an office hours session on the AFT aimed at you folk
;). It'll just be me, I'm afraid, but if you want to engage on the AFT,
have any suggestions, or just want to discuss it, you're welcome to attend
:).

-- 
Oliver Keyes
Community Liason, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] Article Feedback Tool office hours - 19:00 UTC, Thursday 10 November

[Oliver Keyes]

Hey guys; another office hours session with Howie, Fabrice and Dario
covering the Article Feedback Tool.

(and yes, I've got it right this time - I used
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?hour=19&min=00&sec=0&day=10&month=11&year=2011as
recommended :P)

This session will be at 19:00 UTC on Thursday, in the usual location -
#wikimedia-office. I hope to see you all there :). We'll be holding a later
session next week, hopefully, timed so that East Coast editors can attend,
and I'll also be setting one up for Asian/Australasian editors on a Friday
evening UTC.

Hope to see you lot soon!

-- 
Oliver Keyes
Community Liason, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Message to Fae

[Oliver Keyes]

It's a WP USCRIPT at WP:TLA/TL:DR/TTP. DL it on the QT because it's TS and
you'll get KP if found out.

:P

On 7 November 2011 16:10, Philippe Beaudette  wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 8:07 AM, Fae  wrote:
>
> > Oops, sorry Fred,
> >
> > On Wikipedia I have a nice acronym expanding script to make sure I
> > don't get locked into jargon, particularly useful when explaining
> > things to newer editors.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Fae
> >
> >
>
> Uhm... where can I get that script? :)
>
> pb
> ___
> Philippe Beaudette
> Head of Reader Relations
> Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
>
> 415-839-6885, x 6643
>
> phili...@wikimedia.org
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
Oliver Keyes
Community Liason, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Office Hours

[Oliver Keyes]

4:59 PST, sorry. It's been a very, very long day.

On 2 November 2011 18:45, Oliver Keyes  wrote:

> So, to correct then - 23:59 UTC, which is 23:59 GMT and 4:59 UTC :P.
>
>
> On 2 November 2011 14:31, Oliver Keyes  wrote:
>
>> Duly noted ;p.
>>
>>
>> On 2 November 2011 04:34, Theo10011  wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 12:45 AM, Oliver Keyes 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Hey guys
>>> >
>>> > Brandon, Howie, Fabrice and I will be holding a second Office Hours
>>> session
>>> > on the new Article Feedback Tool on Thursday 3 November. This will be
>>> at
>>> > 24:00 UTC, which works out at 4pm PST and 11pm GMT. This timing is
>>> designed
>>> > to allow east coast editors, who would be at work during the normal
>>> time
>>> > periods, to attend. I hope to see you all there :).
>>> >
>>> > Thanks
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Oliver Keyes
>>> > Community Liason, Product Development
>>> > Wikimedia Foundation
>>> > ___
>>> > foundation-l mailing list
>>> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>> >
>>>
>>> A relevant link might also help, something like this [
>>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours#Upcoming_office_hours].
>>>
>>> For other information like which channel, network, how to attend and what
>>> time-zone that might translate into for the rest of us. ;)
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Theo
>>> ___
>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Oliver Keyes
>> Community Liason, Product Development
>> Wikimedia Foundation
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Oliver Keyes
> Community Liason, Product Development
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
>


-- 
Oliver Keyes
Community Liason, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Office Hours

[Oliver Keyes]

So, to correct then - 23:59 UTC, which is 23:59 GMT and 4:59 UTC :P.

On 2 November 2011 14:31, Oliver Keyes  wrote:

> Duly noted ;p.
>
>
> On 2 November 2011 04:34, Theo10011  wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 12:45 AM, Oliver Keyes 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hey guys
>> >
>> > Brandon, Howie, Fabrice and I will be holding a second Office Hours
>> session
>> > on the new Article Feedback Tool on Thursday 3 November. This will be at
>> > 24:00 UTC, which works out at 4pm PST and 11pm GMT. This timing is
>> designed
>> > to allow east coast editors, who would be at work during the normal time
>> > periods, to attend. I hope to see you all there :).
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> >
>> > --
>> > Oliver Keyes
>> > Community Liason, Product Development
>> > Wikimedia Foundation
>> > ___
>> > foundation-l mailing list
>> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>> >
>>
>> A relevant link might also help, something like this [
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours#Upcoming_office_hours].
>>
>> For other information like which channel, network, how to attend and what
>> time-zone that might translate into for the rest of us. ;)
>>
>> Regards
>> Theo
>> _______
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Oliver Keyes
> Community Liason, Product Development
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
>


-- 
Oliver Keyes
Community Liason, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Office Hours

[Oliver Keyes]

Duly noted ;p.

On 2 November 2011 04:34, Theo10011  wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 12:45 AM, Oliver Keyes 
> wrote:
>
> > Hey guys
> >
> > Brandon, Howie, Fabrice and I will be holding a second Office Hours
> session
> > on the new Article Feedback Tool on Thursday 3 November. This will be at
> > 24:00 UTC, which works out at 4pm PST and 11pm GMT. This timing is
> designed
> > to allow east coast editors, who would be at work during the normal time
> > periods, to attend. I hope to see you all there :).
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > --
> > Oliver Keyes
> > Community Liason, Product Development
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> > ___
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
> A relevant link might also help, something like this [
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours#Upcoming_office_hours].
>
> For other information like which channel, network, how to attend and what
> time-zone that might translate into for the rest of us. ;)
>
> Regards
> Theo
> _______
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
Oliver Keyes
Community Liason, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] Office Hours

[Oliver Keyes]

Hey guys

Brandon, Howie, Fabrice and I will be holding a second Office Hours session
on the new Article Feedback Tool on Thursday 3 November. This will be at
24:00 UTC, which works out at 4pm PST and 11pm GMT. This timing is designed
to allow east coast editors, who would be at work during the normal time
periods, to attend. I hope to see you all there :).

Thanks

-- 
Oliver Keyes
Community Liason, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Ideas for newbie recruitment

[Oliver Keyes]

2% of the 17, I believe (don't quote me on that), and yeah, saving an edit
is the metric. I think we could probably improve things by providing
guidance on markup or something; I imagine for the other 14.6 percent the
process goes something along the lines of "oh, it says I can make the
changes myself, lets do thaWAUGH, WHAT IN CTHULU'S NAME DOES ALL THIS TEXT
MEAN"

On 31 October 2011 12:39, David Gerard  wrote:

> On 31 October 2011 12:30, Oliver Keyes  wrote:
>
> > Not sure about that specific change, but one illustration might be the
> > Article Feedback Tool, which contains a "you know you can edit, right?"
> > thing. Off the top of my head I think 17.4 percent of the 30-40,000
> people
> > who use it per day attempt to edit as a result of that inducement.
> > Admittedly only 2 percent of them *succeed*, but it's not a lack of
> > motivation, methinks.
>
>
> What's the definition of "succeed" there - they save an edit with a change?
>
> Is that 2% of the 17.4%, or 2% of those giving feedback?
>
> I wonder if there's a way to detect a failure to edit and ask what went
> wrong.
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
Oliver Keyes
Community Liason, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Ideas for newbie recruitment

[Oliver Keyes]

Not sure about that specific change, but one illustration might be the
Article Feedback Tool, which contains a "you know you can edit, right?"
thing. Off the top of my head I think 17.4 percent of the 30-40,000 people
who use it per day attempt to edit as a result of that inducement.
Admittedly only 2 percent of them *succeed*, but it's not a lack of
motivation, methinks.

On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
wrote:

> David Gerard, 31/10/2011 12:59:
> > On 31 October 2011 11:55, Federico Leva (Nemo)  wrote:
> >
> >> What's the impact of changes like
> >>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Tagline&diff=20130615&oldid=17050524
> >> ?
> >> (Probably minimal, readers don't actually read our invitations to edit
> >> anyway, usually.)
> >
> > Do we have knowledge of anyone actually starting to edit because of this?
>
> I don't remember if we ever asked, in our general surveys, how and when
> contributors discovered that they /could/ edit. But perhaps after
> they've edited it's too late becauser they've already fallen in the
> category "I don't remember, I've always known it".
>
> Nemo
>
> ___
> 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] the choice of what is going to be developed is very much a management issue;

[Oliver Keyes]

I'm not saying that they would *ignore* readers, just that consistently
taking outside parties into account is something every group finds
difficult. I can see the community noting, in such discussions, that
readers have a stake. I can even see them taking this stake into account
when making decisions. I cannot see this becoming standard operating
procedure - as ACTRIAL, amongst other things, demonstrates.

Even simply "ringfencing" part of the budget wouldn't work. It would
require technical changes that impact on readers and technical changes that
impact on editors to be completely distinct, to the point where a change
for one group doesn't impact on the other. This is not the case. Again,
ACTRIAL - if the staff were forced to enact things or give them certain
priorities because the editors demanded it, that would not be in force.
Ringfencing budgets only works if liabilities and consequences are also
ringfenced, and reality just doesn't work like that.

Again, it also requires that particularly vocal and vehement members of the
community represent the community as a whole, which they do not in any way,
shape or form. To subject technical development for all editors to the
control of the people who shout the loudest is a Bad Thing. I'm going to
take the jump now and point out that the Foundation's staffers do not
answer to editors. Editors, such as myself, do not control what staffers
do, and they do not *get* to control what staffers do - that's the board's
job. If you have a problem with this, run for the board of trustees and
campaign to change that. Until such a decision gets made, however, there is
no requirement for engineering to prioritise things based on what the
editors want. Such a requirement would inevitably leave staff in a position
where the editors are demanding X, and the people who pay their salary are
demanding Y, causing chaos.

This is not to say staff do not take editors into account - of course they
do. As said, I'm working on engaging editors myself as a contractor, and
the staff genuinely care what editors think of features in order to make
them the best features they can possibly be. However, wanting an editorial
perspective into features design does not and should not extend to
editorial *governance*.

In my personal capacity, as always.

On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 7:37 PM, WereSpielChequers <
werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Re OKeyes "Switching authorisation and prioritisation over to the editors
> completely ignores readers, and assumes that editors will act outside their
> own/interests to ensure that reader-specific features do get some
> traction;" I'm not convinced that the community would want to ignore
> readers, I'm aware that many editors are motivated by the desire to see
> their work read. But I could accept a compromise with part of the
> development budget being ringfenced for initiatives proposed and
> prioritised by the community.
>
>
> Re Gerard "the community was involved in defining our strategy. Making our
> community more friendly is a strategic choice defined by the strategy
> project and endorsed by the board." I took part in the Strategy project,
> and I agree with some of what came out of it, especially the bit about
> making our community more open. But just because some of us took part in
> the Strategy exercise doesn't mean that we can't usefully comment now. Nor
> does a strategy of being nicer mean that every development intended to
> achieve that will actually do so, or indeed be the best way to do so. I'm
> pretty confident that if the community was to prioritise potential
> developments as to whether they would make things friendlier and easier for
> the sort of newbies that we want, then wikilove would be a long way from
> the top of the list. The GLAM sector is a case in point, reading
>
> http://futureofmuseums.blogspot.com/2011/10/building-better-fishing-pole-how.htmlI
> don't get the impression that the ability to give each other kittens
> would make Commons as attractive as Flickr for museums to upload image
> collections. Developments to match flickr's "robust tagging and search
> tools" would, but what chance is there of us getting IT resources for that?
>
> WereSpielChequers
> ___
> 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] Show community consensus for Wikilove

[Oliver Keyes]

As for empowering users and letting them play a role - speaking
professionally now, that's exactly what tech is trying to do. I should
know, they've hired me on a short-term basis to help out :P. If you want to
get involved, my inbox is always open. Drop me an email and I'll send you
links to what I'm currently working on.

On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 11:17 AM, WereSpielChequers <
werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > --
> >
> > Message: 8
> > Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 21:40:37 +0200
> > From: Gerard Meijssen 
> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove
> > To: f...@wikimedia.org.uk,   Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> >
> > Message-ID:
> > uwegsjzgtbk24d69zgd4eowogpypkbdqnjqxseq...@mail.gmail.com
> > >
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> >
> > Hoi,
> > I am happy to make a distinction of what I do officially and what I say
> > because I am personally of a particular opinion. This is very much my
> > personal opinion.
> >
> > There have been LOADS of opportunities where the community is asked,
> begged
> > to be involved in what will be the way forward. The most obvious
> > opportunity has been the Strategy project. At this time the Wikimedia
> > Foundation is looking for all sorts of volunteers that are asked to help
> > determine what future functionality will be like. Specifically I want to
> > mention the need for "language support teams" and volunteers for our
> mobile
> > development.
> >
> > The position of the WMF as I know it is that it wants very much an
> involved
> > community. To be effective, it is important for the community to be
> > involved early in the process. Sadly many people want to be only involved
> > at the end of the process. This does not help much and particularly not
> on
> > issues that are not the bread and butter of working on content by the
> > existing community.
> >
> > I made points in my previous mail. They have not been addressed. We agree
> > on the need for community involvement. The WMF has a strong tradition on
> > involving its communities. My argument is that the programs that are
> > discussed are very much monitored for their effect, based on the results
> > the functionality will be tweaked. My argument is that these programs are
> > the result of community consultation and therefore community involvement
> is
> > the origin of the functionality we are discussing.
> > Thanks,
> >  GerardM
> >
> >
> > Hi Gerard,
>
> What changes do and do not require consensus is a fascinating issue, but
> not I think related to my query re Wikilove. Brandon has told us that the
> devs are only installing wikilove on wikis where there is a consensus for
> it.  Hence my request for a link to the discussion that established
> consensus for the introduction of Wikilove on EN wikipedia, as I seem to
> have missed that debate and was having difficulty finding it. I'm not
> trying to reopen the debate, I'm not actually opposed to wikilove if that's
> what a bunch of editors want to volunteer their time for. If it was tweaked
> as per Geni's proposal it might actually become a net positive. I just
> wanted to read the discussion and see how that consensus was achieved. If
> it's true that every wiki except for the EN Wikipedia gets the chance to
> decide whether or not they want it then I wonder why that was the case, and
> what that says about the Foundation's attitude to our largest community of
> editors.
>
> If wikilove was developed on Foundation money then I think it sad that this
> was prioritised above so many more important things. For example a big part
> of any welcome template is this bizarre looking instruction to sign posts
> on talkpages with . Aside from the signing business the original design
> of talkpages is way superior and more newby friendly than liquid threads,
> but it could do with one small enhancement; Autosign on talkpages, with the
> preference defaulted to off for anyone who has signed a talkpage and on for
> anyone who hasn't, including of course all new accounts from now onwards.
> Implement that and we can easily improve the welcome templates, and greatly
> reduce the number of newbies who raise a query on a talkpage only to be
> responded with an admonition about their failure to sign their posting.
> Then there is that one little bug in Cat a lot that prevents if from being
> used to tackle the Commons categorisation backlog
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Gadget-Cat-a-lot.js#Hidden_categories_and_GLAMEither
> of those would be way more important than Wikilove, the Article
> Feedback tool or the image filter. On a different scale altogether is the
> question of whether Museums and other GLAMS should skip us and go directly
> to Flickr. Balboa Park has set out fairly clearly why they've taken the
> decision to use Flickr rather than Commons
>
> http://futureofmuseums.blogspot.com/2011/10/building-better-fishing-pole-how.htmlI'd
> like to kn

Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove

[Oliver Keyes]

Speaking personally, the tech department develops features that benefit the
community. The difference is that they, quite rightly, see the "community"
as consisting of both readers and editors. They are developing
editor-specific new features, such as the Zoom interface for
Special:NewPages, as I explained to you in Office Hours just last Thursday.

Switching authorisation and prioritisation over to the editors completely
ignores readers, and assumes that editors will act outside their own
interests to ensure that reader-specific features do get some traction;
given that the last time enwiki reached consensus on a tech development it
was to turn off new page creation for new editors. This is
*clearly*self-interest, and short-sighted self-interest at that - the
stated benefit
was "it cuts down on our workload". You should recognise the dangers of
editor consensus on tech matters given that you voted against it.

Letting editors also assumes that editorial consensus on tech represents
what the vast majority of editors want, and not what a vocal minority of
those few editors who turned up want. Now, a lot of editors are very vocal
about the AFT being a waste of time. Is this representative? No - an actual
survey, rather than a trawling of community pages to see what those editors
who had vocalised their opinions in a specific venue thought, showed that a
*vast* majority consider it A Good Thing.

On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 11:17 AM, WereSpielChequers <
werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > --
> >
> > Message: 8
> > Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 21:40:37 +0200
> > From: Gerard Meijssen 
> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove
> > To: f...@wikimedia.org.uk,   Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> >
> > Message-ID:
> > uwegsjzgtbk24d69zgd4eowogpypkbdqnjqxseq...@mail.gmail.com
> > >
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> >
> > Hoi,
> > I am happy to make a distinction of what I do officially and what I say
> > because I am personally of a particular opinion. This is very much my
> > personal opinion.
> >
> > There have been LOADS of opportunities where the community is asked,
> begged
> > to be involved in what will be the way forward. The most obvious
> > opportunity has been the Strategy project. At this time the Wikimedia
> > Foundation is looking for all sorts of volunteers that are asked to help
> > determine what future functionality will be like. Specifically I want to
> > mention the need for "language support teams" and volunteers for our
> mobile
> > development.
> >
> > The position of the WMF as I know it is that it wants very much an
> involved
> > community. To be effective, it is important for the community to be
> > involved early in the process. Sadly many people want to be only involved
> > at the end of the process. This does not help much and particularly not
> on
> > issues that are not the bread and butter of working on content by the
> > existing community.
> >
> > I made points in my previous mail. They have not been addressed. We agree
> > on the need for community involvement. The WMF has a strong tradition on
> > involving its communities. My argument is that the programs that are
> > discussed are very much monitored for their effect, based on the results
> > the functionality will be tweaked. My argument is that these programs are
> > the result of community consultation and therefore community involvement
> is
> > the origin of the functionality we are discussing.
> > Thanks,
> >  GerardM
> >
> >
> > Hi Gerard,
>
> What changes do and do not require consensus is a fascinating issue, but
> not I think related to my query re Wikilove. Brandon has told us that the
> devs are only installing wikilove on wikis where there is a consensus for
> it.  Hence my request for a link to the discussion that established
> consensus for the introduction of Wikilove on EN wikipedia, as I seem to
> have missed that debate and was having difficulty finding it. I'm not
> trying to reopen the debate, I'm not actually opposed to wikilove if that's
> what a bunch of editors want to volunteer their time for. If it was tweaked
> as per Geni's proposal it might actually become a net positive. I just
> wanted to read the discussion and see how that consensus was achieved. If
> it's true that every wiki except for the EN Wikipedia gets the chance to
> decide whether or not they want it then I wonder why that was the case, and
> what that says about the Foundation's attitude to our largest community of
> editors.
>
> If wikilove was developed on Foundation money then I think it sad that this
> was prioritised above so many more important things. For example a big part
> of any welcome template is this bizarre looking instruction to sign posts
> on talkpages with . Aside from the signing business the original design
> of talkpages is way superior and more newby friendly than liquid threads,
> but it could do with one small enhancem

Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove

[Oliver Keyes]

I was saying that the WL layout > posting on talkpages ;p.

On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Theo10011  wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Oliver Keyes  >wrote:
>
> > You seem to be missing my point - that the WL tool serves an ulterior
> > function of allowing users who do not understand markup to communicate
> and
> > request help in a way they can understand. I *am* saying that most of
> those
> > with few or no edits will have problems understanding markup, which is
> why
> > it's important, even without WL's core purpose, that the tool remain
> > available to new editors.
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Fae  wrote:
> >
> > > On 30 October 2011 08:06, Oliver Keyes  wrote:
> > > > Surely making it only available to those users who understand markup
> > > > completely undermines one of the great unintended consequences - that
> > > it's
> > > > really useful for posting talkpage messages?
> > >
> > > I did not equate "users with 10 edits" with those that understand
> > > markup, these are different things. My use of the word "template" is
> > > generic, in that Wikilove provides standard templates for user talk
> > > pages, this does not imply anything about the ability of users to
> > > understand wiki markup or html.
> > >
> > > Apologies if my language was not plain enough to avoid
> > > misinterpretation in unexpected ways.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Fae
> > >
> > > ___
> > > 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
> >
>
> Those are two separate things. One, the delivery mechanism for Wikilove, a
> pop-up window on top of the userpage to select and click on a pretty
> picture and add a message. Second, the actual content, the
> barn-star/kitty/food template.
>
> I disagree with Ironholds that it would be easier for a new users to
> navigate the hundreds of pages of commonly used templates and then find the
> right one to use and then use it correctly after customizing it, as opposed
> to you know, leaving a message in plain English. Last I checked,
> "pseudo-HTML markups" weren't a necessity for posting on a talk page.
>
> It prob. takes someone at least a good 50-100 edits before they even know
> what a template is, then using and customizing the right one might take
> longer.
>
> The delivery mechanism on the other hand is what I think is very useful for
> new users. There is an enormous amount of benefit if that could be
> customized for new users pre-loaded with some generic help templates they
> can actually use to edit, rather than spam love.
>
> Theo
> ___
> 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] Show community consensus for Wikilove

[Oliver Keyes]

You seem to be missing my point - that the WL tool serves an ulterior
function of allowing users who do not understand markup to communicate and
request help in a way they can understand. I *am* saying that most of those
with few or no edits will have problems understanding markup, which is why
it's important, even without WL's core purpose, that the tool remain
available to new editors.

On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Fae  wrote:

> On 30 October 2011 08:06, Oliver Keyes  wrote:
> > Surely making it only available to those users who understand markup
> > completely undermines one of the great unintended consequences - that
> it's
> > really useful for posting talkpage messages?
>
> I did not equate "users with 10 edits" with those that understand
> markup, these are different things. My use of the word "template" is
> generic, in that Wikilove provides standard templates for user talk
> pages, this does not imply anything about the ability of users to
> understand wiki markup or html.
>
> Apologies if my language was not plain enough to avoid
> misinterpretation in unexpected ways.
>
> Cheers,
> Fae
>
> ___
> 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] Show community consensus for Wikilove

[Oliver Keyes]

Not my call, but I'd totally support that.

On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 9:35 AM, geni  wrote:

> On 30 October 2011 08:06, Oliver Keyes  wrote:
> > Surely making it only available to those users who understand markup
> > completely undermines one of the great unintended consequences - that
> it's
> > really useful for posting talkpage messages? New users can use those
> > templates in a *perfectly* meaningful way - as a way of communicating
> > instead of relying some pseudo-HTML markup language they're too new to
> > understand. They could communicate...ohh, I don't know, just off the top
> of
> > my headmaybe "can someone please explain to me how markup works?"
>
>
> Zee logical attack line would be to make one of the wikilove options
> (probably the first one) a simple "a message for you" rather than "a
> kitten for you" or "an ironclad battleship for you" or whatever the
> options are.
>
>
> --
> geni
>
> ___
> 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] Show community consensus for Wikilove

[Oliver Keyes]

Surely making it only available to those users who understand markup
completely undermines one of the great unintended consequences - that it's
really useful for posting talkpage messages? New users can use those
templates in a *perfectly* meaningful way - as a way of communicating
instead of relying some pseudo-HTML markup language they're too new to
understand. They could communicate...ohh, I don't know, just off the top of
my headmaybe "can someone please explain to me how markup works?"

On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 7:18 AM, Fae  wrote:

> There is a general view amongst Wikipedia admins that excessive
> templating on user pages is poor practice. I frequently use an initial
> (customized) welcome template for new users and do use standard user
> warning templates for vandalism, though not for "regulars". However
> these templates are not available to brand new users as tools such as
> Twinkle will only be discovered after an editor has had a chance to
> learn the basics.
>
> Wikilove has been implemented differently as a user sees the tab as
> another early toy to play with and we now see a lot of new users
> trying it out on their own talk pages as their first edit. At the
> moment Wikilove works on an opt-out basis rather than an opt-in basis.
>
> PROPOSAL
>
> Let's change the Wikilove tab to only be visible to users after their
> first 10 edits. Before this point, it is unlikely that new users will
> be able to use templates in a meaningful way and this would also help
> to keep the interface as simple as possible for the first few edits
> made and targeted more on article content rather than user page fluff.
>
> Cheers,
> Fae
>
> ___
> 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] Article Feedback Tool office hours

[Oliver Keyes]

Hey guys

So, Office Hours for the AFT is now over; thanks to all who attended. The
logs can be found at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours/Office_hours_2011-10-27 for
those who missed it - we're talking about trying to hold a second session at
a more North America-friendly time. Is that something that interests anyone?
Meanwhile, the plans for the new AFT version can be found at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AFT5 - if you have any opinions, just
drop a note on the talkpage. All comments and perspectives are welcome :).

Thanks
Oliver Keyes
Community Liason, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Office Hours on the article feedback tool

[Oliver Keyes]

On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:33:30 +0100, WereSpielChequers
>  wrote:
>
> >
> > Can we make sure that any new generation Article Feedback tool is
> properly
> > tested, and that testing includes:
> >
> >1. Implementing it on a random group  of articles and comparing them
> >with
> >a control sample to see which group of articles had the more edits
> from
> >newbies;
> >2. Whether the collecting of feedback on ways to improve the article
> >generates additional comments or diverts some editors away from
> actually
> >fixing the article.
> >3. Which group of articles recruited the most new editors to the
> pedia.
> >
> > Please don't implement it if the testing shows that it diverts people
> from
> > fixing articles to pointing out things that others can fix.
> >
>
> And I think this time showing it to the Research Committee prior to
> running the tests would be a good idea.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
> I'll bring these points up with the folks :). If you have any others, do
come to office-hours.

O.

> ___
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Office Hours on the article feedback tool

[Oliver Keyes]

On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Risker  wrote:

> On 26 October 2011 06:04, Oliver Keyes  wrote:
>
> > Hey guys
> >
> > So, on Thursday we're going to be holding an Office Hours session on IRC
> > .The session will be held in
> > #wikimedia-office at 19:00 GMT/UTC, and I hope to see a lot of you there
> > :).
> >
> >
> I realise that sometimes it is a challenge to arrange these Office Hours in
> a more spread out way; however, of the last five sessions (including this
> one), four of them have occurred at a time that severely limits
> participation from North and South American editors, as they come during
> our
> "business day".  This particular topic area is very much of interest to our
> N/S American editors who work on projects where the Article Feedback Tool
> is
> in use and has raised concerns, and ones where the "new and improved"
> version will be placed.
>
> I'd very much urge trying to spread out the time of Office Hours generally.
> I'd also like to suggest consideration be given to doing a "double" office
> hour session for topic areas that impact projects globally and involve
> editors from just about every time zone.  Reading IRC "minutes" is not the
> same as being involved in the discussion.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Risker
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
That's certainly true - I'll see if we can hold a second and more N/SA
orientated one next week :).
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Office Hours on the article feedback tool

[Oliver Keyes]

On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:

>
>
>
> I personally can not attend but I guess there are many users interested in
> the topic, and some brief update on a dedicated Meta page (or even
> publication of the IRC log) would be much appreciated.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
>  Sure; we're sticking some content up at the moment, and I'll be sure to
log the hours (and then stick them up at the usual location

Oliver
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Office Hours on the article feedback tool

[Oliver Keyes]

No, the data will remain; you can find it at
http://toolserver.org/~catrope/articlefeedback/ (we really need to advertise
that more widely, actually).

To be clear, we're not talking about junking the idea; we will still have an
"Article Feedback Tool" that lets readers provide feedback to editors. The
goal is more to move away from a subjective rating system, and towards
something the editors can look at and go "huh, that's a reasonable
suggestion as to how to fix the article, I'll go do that" or "aw, that's
really nice! I'm glad they liked it so much"

O.

On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 11:09 AM, David Gerard  wrote:

> On 26 October 2011 11:04, Oliver Keyes  wrote:
>
> > So, on Thursday we're going to be holding an Office Hours session on IRC
> to
> > discuss the Article Feedback Tool and what we're planning to do with it -
> > namely, scrapping it and replacing it with an entirely new version ;).
>
>
> *slaps own forehead*
>
> So is the data to be thrown away too?
>
> (Is there anywhere to look up the data en masse?)
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> 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] Office Hours on the article feedback tool

[Oliver Keyes]

Hey guys

So, on Thursday we're going to be holding an Office Hours session on IRC to
discuss the Article Feedback Tool and what we're planning to do with it -
namely, scrapping it and replacing it with an entirely new version ;).
Attending will be Fabrice Florin, the contractor leading development on the
new version, Howie Fung, the WMF's product manager, and myself. If you're
interested in the AFT, whether because you think the existing version is
good or because you think it's really bad, we'd love for you to attend -
every opinion and viewpoint is welcome. The session will be held in
#wikimedia-office at 19:00 GMT/UTC, and I hope to see a lot of you there :).

Thanks

Oliver Keyes
Community Liason, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Organization on Wikipedia that deals with content issues.

[Oliver Keyes]

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:

>
> On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 22:30:38 -0600, James Heilman  wrote:
> > A Committee to Deal with Content Issues
> >.
>
For instance, would such committee (if ever created) tell Arabic Wikipedia
> what
> has to be written in the article Al-Quds/Jerusalem? Would it tell smth to
> English Wikipedia that has any chance to be accepted? I doubt it.
>
> Well, you're probably looking at it the wrong way; if something mediation
committee-like is being talked about, telling X or Z what to do is not the
purpose. Instead it's to get X and Z to (grudgingly) meet at Y. I agree that
the general scope of this needs to be clarified, however. If it's being
talked about in the same vein as the global arbitration committee, there are
problems (the same problems, in fact).
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Organization on Wikipedia that deals with content issues.

[Oliver Keyes]

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:16 AM, Keegan Peterzell wrote
>
>
> Let's linky here, Oliver: 
> --
> ~Keegan
>
> My bad. Anyway, to quote "The role of the Mediation Committee is explicitly
to try to resolve disputes, especially those *involving content*" (italics
not added by moi).
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Organization on Wikipedia that deals with content issues.

[Oliver Keyes]

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 5:30 AM, James Heilman  wrote:

> A Committee to Deal with Content Issues
>
> Wikipedia does not seem to have any formal arbitration committee that deals
> with content.
>
The Mediation Committee?
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Call for Volunteers: Wikimedia Research Committee

[Oliver Keyes]

So your peer reviewed experience iiis. the co-authoring of a single paper
published in a supplement? Less than say, a particularly good management
undergrad. Forgive me; a director of marketing at that level does exactly
how much direct marketing?

On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Gregory Kohs  wrote:

> Gerard M. says:
>
> Dear Greg,
> This is not about criticism but about research. With respect I have not
> seen
> your research papers, I am not aware of your credentials that would make
> you
> a choice to be considered for being part of a research committee.
>
> Given that the work of the committee includes work on policies that have to
> do with access to confidential data, it seems to me only natural that your
> status as being banned from several Wikis is an other reason why you are
> easily disqualified from participating in a research committee.
>
> At that you have had your "test" several times and as a result you are a
> known entity.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> 
>
> Allow me to make you aware of my credentials, Gerard, since you asked
> "with respect".
>
> I'm the Director of Market Research for a company valued at $52
> billion.  I've been making a living with market research for 18 years
> now.
>
> One of my co-authored research papers was published in a scientific
> journal supplement:
> http://www.ajronline.org/cgi/data/183/3/DC1/1
>
> I've written a white paper about research for public relations:
> http://www.icrsurvey.com/docs/MR%20for%20PR.doc
>
> For the more casual reader, I've maintained an occasional blog on
> research since 2005:
> http://insidemr.blogspot.com/
>
> And, I've conducted numerous informal but systematic research studies
> about Wikimedia properties:
> http://www.mywikibiz.com/Wikipedia_Vandalism_Study
> http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/watcher/
> 
> (You'll have to ask around
> about that one.)
> http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Survey_about_Wikipedia  (Currently, a
> bit slow-going on the analysis, due to editing parameters imposed on
> the Wikiversity community by Jimmy Wales)
>
> I am curious about this "access to confidential data" of which you
> speak.  This presupposes that other members of the vast Wikimedia
> community do currently have access to this confidential data.  Have
> they been vetted in some way that you can be assured that they won't
> do something with that data more monstrous than what I would ever do
> with such data?  I'm trusted with confidential customer account data
> by a $52 billion company.
>
>
> **
> Meanwhile, D. Gerard says:
>
> Trolling blogs probably isn't the best resume item, no. HTH!
>
> **
>
> No, it's probably not, if only I were "trolling".
>
> Hope that helps!
>
> ---
> Greg
> ___
> 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] Fwd: [Internal-l] Pre-Strategy Finalization Goals Survey (Community)

[Oliver Keyes]

Well, that would unfortunately mean involving Australians and Americans in
the wiki. Doesn't sound like a good idea to me :P

On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 11:47 PM, David Gerard  wrote:

> On 6 August 2010 20:14, Sue Gardner  wrote:
>
> > I sent this to an internal Wikimedia mailing list earlier today to
> surface
> > any bugs, and it seems to be working fine.  So, please do fill out this
> > survey, if you've got time :-)
>
>
> [X] I'd like us to have as long as five years to double our unique
> global accesses, as our servers might not melt before then
>
> So we going to get broadband to deprived areas (like Australia and the
> US), or what?
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> 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] Why should Wikimedians meet?

[Oliver Keyes]

OMG I MET ROBERT I LUV HIM SO is disruptive. "Does anyone know where he was
educated? It isn't listed" is potentially helpful. And so on.

On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 1:44 AM, Ray Saintonge  wrote:

> Oliver Keyes wrote:
> > Agreed. A good example; on the English Wikipedia, I'm a massive law nerd
> > with 40-something legal GAs and FAs to my name. I'd never even have
> studied
> > the subject if it wasn't for a group of Wikipedians, some of whom have
> later
> > helped me with or collaborated on articles. The importance of social
> > interaction cannot be understated, and it's why I have no truck with some
> of
> > the more severe "OMG WIKIPEDIA IS NOT MYSPACE" people. People come here
> to
> > build a collaborative encyclopaedia, yes, not to socially interact - but
> the
> > key word there is "collaborative". Social contact is inevitable and
> > incredibly helpful to us as a community; hells, it's what *makes us* a
> > community and not just a hundred thousand people who independently agree
> > that Wikipedia is nifty.
> One of the more annoying of the anti-social species is the kind that
> becomes annoyed when talk page comments wander a little off topic, and
> claim that this is contrary to the talk page's single purpose of
> improving what's in article space.  The improvement to the article from
> these off topic comments may be somewhat oblique, but it can improve
> one's understanding of the topic and of the person commenting.
>
> Ray
>
> ___
> 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] FBI Seal and Wikimedia

[Oliver Keyes]

Another cease-and-desist, perchance? Hopefully the Streisand Effect will
take hold and every news organisation reporting this will reproduce the seal
in loving, high-definition detail.

On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 12:33 AM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Incidentally, britannica.com removed the seal today from their article on
> the FBI.
>
>
> http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/203351/Federal-Bureau-of-Investigation
>
> You can see the edit in the "Article History". However, at the time of
> writing, the seal is still included in the "Media" section of the article
> (in the panel on the left), where it is zoomable to Full Size and also has a
> "Save to My Workspace" option.
>
> A.
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Why should Wikimedians meet?

[Oliver Keyes]

Agreed. A good example; on the English Wikipedia, I'm a massive law nerd
with 40-something legal GAs and FAs to my name. I'd never even have studied
the subject if it wasn't for a group of Wikipedians, some of whom have later
helped me with or collaborated on articles. The importance of social
interaction cannot be understated, and it's why I have no truck with some of
the more severe "OMG WIKIPEDIA IS NOT MYSPACE" people. People come here to
build a collaborative encyclopaedia, yes, not to socially interact - but the
key word there is "collaborative". Social contact is inevitable and
incredibly helpful to us as a community; hells, it's what *makes us* a
community and not just a hundred thousand people who independently agree
that Wikipedia is nifty.

On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 7:50 AM, James Alexander  wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 2:09 AM, Keegan Peterzell  >wrote:
>
> > This has been an interesting thread to follow, there should be one
> > non-Wikimania, because it does matter.  I've met several Wikimedians at
> the
> > couple meet-ups I've been to with whom on-wiki I had many disagreements
> > with.  Meeting face to face clears that air with the human contact.
>  James
> > Forrester is the champion of meetups for good reason.  I met him in D.C.,
> > far from where I live, while he was in for less than 24 hours, far from
> > where he lives.  I butt heads with MZMcBride many times, but I slept on
> his
> > couch.  It's not just about localization for chapters; the opportunity to
> > travel and meet those whom you've known online for a very long time or
> only
> > by the periphery is a great experience.
> >
> > --
> > ~Keegan
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
> >
> >
>
> This is exactly right. I can not even begin to explain the impact that
> meetups have had on my view of the projects as a whole especially for those
> I've met but for everyone else too. Even very infrequent personal and
> social
> contact can be hugely rewarding I think both for the contributers and the
> projects as a whole. I've always felt we should do more both in person and
> online when possible (IRC or Voicechat for example). I've toyed with the
> thought of trying to get the WMF to install a mumble server for people to
> talk on ;) or just setting one up myself I do think the impact that social
> interaction has on trust/creativity and general cooperation is hugely under
> appreciated by a lot of people on wiki (and off for that matter).
>
> James Alexander
> james.alexan...@rochester.edu
> jameso...@gmail.com
> ___
> 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] Banner ads in sitenotice

[Oliver Keyes]

So if the incentive to improve it will end and the people who contribute
will switch over.. you have nothing to complain about, because the quote
unquote "imposed" skin will die out. End of problem.

On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 2:55 AM, MZMcBride  wrote:

> Brandon Harris wrote:
> > 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.*
>
> I wasn't aware "cotton" could be used a verb. Thanks for that. Your point
> is
> hollow, though.
>
> > So you should assume good faith, even if you disagree.
>
> When there's a financial incentive to change the interface, the interface
> is
> going to change, regardless of whether it's an improvement or necessary. I
> think this is partially (perhaps more than partially) the reason that
> Wikimedia is now shifting away from large grants in favor of small
> donations. (Sue may have said as much explicitly, I'd have to look.) And,
> for what it's worth, I think it's a smart shift.
>
> Brandon Harris wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Oliver Keyes wrote:
> > Impose? You know it can be turned off, right?
>
> Being able to disable the skin is one of the reasons it won't see
> improvement. It's far less effort to switch your personal skin back to the
> old default (which is what thousands of people have done) than battle those
> who have imposed (yes, imposed) the new skin. And when the power-users and
> long-term contributors (those who have accounts‹anonymous users can't
> change
> their skin) switch back, the incentive to work on improving the skin
> greatly
> diminishes.
>
> This is a basic principle of interface design; I'm sure there's a Wikipedia
> article about it somewhere.
>
> 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

Re: [Foundation-l] Banner ads in sitenotice

[Oliver Keyes]

" in an attempt to impose purely aesthetic choices on the
broader community."
Impose? You know it can be turned off, right?

On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 2:32 AM, Brandon Harris wrote:

>
>
> 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
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Push translation

[Oliver Keyes]

"The idea is that most of en.wp's articles are well-enough written, and
written in accord with NPOV to a sufficient degree to overcome any
such criticism of 'imperial encyclopedism.' - really? It's a) not
particularly well-written, mostly and b) referenced overwhelmingly to
English-language sources, most of which are, you guessed it.. Western in
nature.

On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 3:43 AM, stevertigo  wrote:

> Mark Williamson  wrote:
> > I would like to add to this that I think the worst part of this idea
> > is the assumption that other languages should take articles from
> > en.wp.
>
> The idea is that most of en.wp's articles are well-enough written, and
> written in accord with NPOV to a sufficient degree to overcome any
> such criticism of 'imperial encyclopedism.'
>
> Mark Williamson  wrote:
> > Nobody's arguing here that language and culture have no relationship.
> > What I'm saying is that language does not equal culture. Many people
> > speak French who are not part of the culture of France, for example
> > the cities of Libreville and Abidjan in Africa.
>
> Africa is an unusual case given that it was so linguistically diverse
> to begin with, and that its even moreso in the post-colonial era, when
> Arabic, French, English, and Dutch remain prominent marks of
> imperialistic influence.
>
> Ray Saintonge  wrote:
> > This is well suited for the dustbin of terrible ideas.  It ranks right
> > up there with the notion that the European colonization of Africa was
> > for the sole purpose of civilizing the savages.
>
> This is the 'encyclopedic imperialism' counterargument. I thought I'd
> throw it out there. As Bendt noted above, Google has already been
> working on it for two years and has had both success and failure. It
> bears mentioning that their tools have been improving quite steadily.
> A simple test such as /English -> Arabic -> English/ will show that.
>
> Note that colonialism isnt the issue. It still remains for example a
> high priority to teach English in Africa, for the simple reason that
> language is almost entirely a tool for communication, and English is
> quite good for that purpose.  Its notable that the smaller colonial
> powers such as the French were never going to be successful at
> linguistic imperialism in Africa, for the simple reason that French
> has not actually been the lingua franca for a long time now.
>
> > Key to the growth of Wikipedias in minority languages is respect for the
> > cultures that they encompass, not flooding them with the First-World
> > Point of View.  What might be a Neutral Point of View on the English
> > Wikipedia is limited by the contributions of English writers.  Those who
> > do not understand English may arrive at a different neutrality.  We have
> > not yet arrived at a Metapedia that would synthesize a single neutrality
> > from all projects.
>
> I strongly disagree. Neutral point of view has worked on en.wp because
> its a universalist concept. The cases where other language wikis
> reject English content appear to come due to POV, and thus a violation
> of NPOV, not because - as you seem to suggest - the POV in such
> countries must be considered "NPOV."
>
> Casey Brown  wrote:
> > I'm surprised to hear that coming from someone who I thought to be a
> > student of languages.  I think you might want to read an
> > article from today's Wall Street Journal, about how language
> > influences culture (and, one would extrapolate, Wikipedia articles).
>
> I had just a few days ago read Boroditsky's piece in Edge, and it
> covers a lot of interesting little bits of evidence. As Mark was
> saying, linguistic relativity (or the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis) has been
> around for most of a century, and its wider conjectures were strongly
> contradicted by Chomsky et al. Yes there is compelling evidence that
> language does "channel" certain kinds of thought, but this should not
> be overstated. Like in other sciences, linguistics can sometimes make
> the mistake of making *qualitative judgments based on a field of
> *quantitative evidence.  This was essentially important back in the
> 40s and 50s when people were still putting down certain
> quasi-scientific conjectures from the late 1800s.
>
> Still there are cultures which claim their languages to be superior in
> certain ways simply because they are more sonorous or emotive, or
> otherwise expressive, and that's the essential paradigm that some
> linguists are working in.
>
> -SC
>
> ___
> 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] Discussion Questions for Potentially-Objectionable Content

[Oliver Keyes]

Wikipedia images and pages normally have descriptive titles. If you want to
prevent children seeing bad stuff on the internet, set up a web blocker.
Mind you, if you want to prevent children seeing bad stuff on the internet,
best to raise them in an Amish village.

On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 5:05 PM, David Goodman  wrote:

> A child seeing such a page will ordinarily go instead to something
> they understand.  Unless we're talking about teen-agers.
> I see this as an excellent example of the slippery slope we would be
> in if we did anything targeted at facilitating censorship, especially
> considering the author of the book is a major writer. There are some
> elements of these themes in some of his other work also. Do we label
> them as well?
>
> The only sustainable position is that readers can do what they want
> with our content. If they can derive a filter for what hey want . (I
> don't see how they can for a novel except by putting it specifically
> on a blacklist)
>
> On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 2:54 PM, geni  wrote:
> > On 25 July 2010 18:17, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
> >> You're right, it is not just about images. If I set up a censored
> account for a small child, I should be able to set it up in such a way that
> they won't be able to see articles like
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hogg_(novel)or
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cock_and_ball_torture_(sexual_practice)
> >>
> >> So, if the child clicks on a wikilink leading there, they would get a
> screen saying, "Sorry, >this page is only available to adult accounts."
> >
> > Child responds by logging out.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > geni
> >
> > ___
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
> David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
>
> ___
> 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] Push translation

[Oliver Keyes]

Agreed. There's one wiki which artificially inflated the number of articles
it had via a bot (I forget the specific language). That's not a way to
increase the wiki's strength. There's an old phrase used on en-wiki; "africa
is not a redlink". It means that because we have articles on a lot of common
things, the ways in which people can contribute have been reduced - they
can't write an article on africa, say. As such, the community growth is
slowing (one theory, not one I subscribe to). If you want to grow an active
userbase, which is the only way for sustained and non-artificial growth that
can respond to the concerns of its readers, you need an active userbase. And
for that, there has to be something they can write; there has to be a
redlink for Africa, or physics, or Britain. There has to be something where
the reader goes "I could fix that" and becomes an editor.

On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 12:06 AM, Cristian Consonni  wrote:

> 2010/7/24 Casey Brown :
> > On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 4:11 PM, Pavlo Shevelo 
> wrote:
> >>> These days Google and other translate tools are good enough to use as
> >>> the starting basis for an translated article
> >>
> >> No, it's far not true - at least for such target language as Ukrainian
> etc.
> >>
> >> So any attempt of "push" translation will be almost the disaster...
> >>
> >
> > ...and we need to remember that most articles are *not* translations
> > of the English article, but are home-grown on the wiki and use their
> > own sources in their own language.
>
> Also don't forget that the same subject can be treated very
> differently among different cultures (even if they are not distant,
> think to French and English).
>
> An article in the English Wikipedia can be a very good basis to start
> a new article, but I don't think that an automated "flooding" of the
> other Wikipedias is a good thing in *any* way.
>
> Cristian
>
> ___
> 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] Push translation

[Oliver Keyes]

"If there are issues, they can be overcome. The fact of the matter is
that the vast majority of articles in English can be "pushed" over to
other  languages, and fill a need for those topics in those languages." - if
there are vast swathes in other languages that aren't filled, it's normally
indicative of a small userbase - a small userbase then having to cope with
copyediting hundreds or thousands of new articles all referenced in a
foreign language. In addition, wikis with vast gaps and small numbers of
users are likely to be those in "small" languages; an effective Chuvash
translation tool, say, is hardly a massive priority for most online
translators.

On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 9:31 PM, Bence Damokos  wrote:

> As far as push translation goes, there are languages where it could almost
> work and where it couldn't. (Consider the experience of the Google team
> with
> the Bengali Wikipedia -
> http://googletranslate.blogspot.com/2010/07/translating-wikipedia.html )
>
> Bence
> ___
> 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] Chapter wikimania scholarships Was: Money, politics and corruption

[Oliver Keyes]

Yar, hence the problem. Still, it's nice of individual chapters to provide
grants, although I'm not sure how widely they're advertised.

On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 1:37 AM, Keegan Peterzell wrote:

> which, considering most governments, requires at least 18 months
> notice.  Most conference scheduling is a 12~14 month window.  Paperwork at
> its best.  But, really, good for Hungary to provide the grant even if it's
> too little/too late.
>
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 6:54 PM, Oliver Keyes  >wrote:
>
> > Yeah, I see your point - it's a timing thing. It only works if you've got
> > enough notice in advance, which requires your budget to be set up and the
> > organisers of Wikimania to be completely on the ball.
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 7:21 PM, Bence Damokos 
> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 6:23 PM, Oliver Keyes  > > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > Perhaps in future (for say, Haifa) it would be an idea if any
> > > chapter-based
> > > > scholarships were put on hold until after the Foundation makes its
> > > choices?
> > > > That way the systems could mesh, with people who don't quite meet the
> > > > Foundation requirements/do but oh dear, we've already used up all our
> > > > scholarships being forwarded to the chapter for its decision.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Just a quick note on scholarships and chapters:
> > > Wikimedia Hungary applied for a government grant to send people to
> > > Wikimania
> > > and we have just today received the news that we have won about €850,
> > which
> > > would have covered the costs of about 5 people (originally we asked for
> > > €1160). With this unfortunate timing there were only 4 people from
> > Hungary
> > > (2 and a half of them got funding from the WMF, their employer and the
> > > organisers) so we can't really utilize this grant.
> > >
> > > There are some lessons in it for us (we could shoulder some of the
> costs
> > > anticipating a successful grant application and accepting the risk
> > > associated with not being successful or being less successful than
> > planned
> > > for).
> > >  It also helps a little that the Haifa Wikimania will be in August,
> which
> > > gives us an extra month and a chance to get at least the results – if
> not
> > > the grant money itself – before the conference.
> > >
> > > For a successful grant application and in order to induce more
> > participants
> > > to go it is also helpful if cost and schedule information are available
> > > early on (a budget has to be submitted for the grant, people need to
> plan
> > > their summer accordingly and a schedule helps convince people that they
> > > should go to Wikimania for the program as well – not only the nice
> other
> > > people they can meet – and it helps in drafting the grant).
> > >
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Bence Damokos
> > > ___
> > > 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
> >
>
>
>
> --
> ~Keegan
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
> ___
> 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