Re: [Foundation-l] Making wikimediafoundation.org more open to contributions
Respectfully disagreed re: change from meta to plain wikimedia.org It would be of our convenience but other projects specially non-Wikipedia ones might be weakened their presence. As an invididual Wikiquotian, I'm afraid of that. On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 3:40 AM, Pharos wrote: > On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 8:25 AM, Thomas Dalton > wrote: >> On 28 January 2011 20:33, phoebe ayers wrote: >>> Such a solution would make it easier to fold separate wikis >>> (such as a conference wiki) back into Meta when we were done with >>> them, too. >> >> Why fold them into meta afterwards rather than just use Meta from the >> beginning? Isn't the whole point of the proposal that we stop creating >> new wikis for everything? > > Yes, we should start with integrating the most amenable material (ie > the most stable/languishing material on side wikis) onto meta as a > first step in the project. > > Changing the url from meta.wikimedia.org to plain vanilla > wikimedia.org would be one of the last steps, actually. > > This should certainly be a multi-stage process, not something that's > done all in one blow, but it would definitely be good to start a > project for adapting new namespaces on meta soon. > > Thanks, > Richard > (User:Pharos) > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > -- KIZU Naoko / 木津尚子 member of Wikimedians in Kansai / 関西ウィキメディアユーザ会 http://kansai.wikimedia.jp ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Making wikimediafoundation.org more open to contributions
> > Changing the url from meta.wikimedia.org to plain vanilla > wikimedia.org would be one of the last steps, actually. > > Thanks, > Richard > (User:Pharos) See http://www.wikimedia.org/ Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Making wikimediafoundation.org more open to contributions
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 8:25 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > On 28 January 2011 20:33, phoebe ayers wrote: >> Such a solution would make it easier to fold separate wikis >> (such as a conference wiki) back into Meta when we were done with >> them, too. > > Why fold them into meta afterwards rather than just use Meta from the > beginning? Isn't the whole point of the proposal that we stop creating > new wikis for everything? Yes, we should start with integrating the most amenable material (ie the most stable/languishing material on side wikis) onto meta as a first step in the project. Changing the url from meta.wikimedia.org to plain vanilla wikimedia.org would be one of the last steps, actually. This should certainly be a multi-stage process, not something that's done all in one blow, but it would definitely be good to start a project for adapting new namespaces on meta soon. Thanks, Richard (User:Pharos) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Making wikimediafoundation.org more open to contributions
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 5:59 PM, koteche mcintosh wrote: > A) This is completely off-topic. > B) It sounds like exactly what we already have. (Recurring donations > are new, but are now an option - with the exception of some Teir 1 > chapter countries.) > > > Really? It is the most pressing topic of our times. > > > Surely you can see that. And you can see how pissed off governments are with > Wiki!!? > > Maybe you live in a bubble and are not really arsed.. > > But there are MILLIONS of people out there who appreciate Wiki and its > foundation. the pressure it is putting on governments and are appreciative > for the collective voice it as given. > > it is a good time to make it bigger and better without compromising the > principles. Able to adapt quickly to any government or court actions leveled > against it. Surely you can see that? Can't you? > > > Wiki can and must branch out. Use the brand to form television programs > internet programs fund research make films create a international on line > library. The options for freedom are endless. But it takes > commitment..That includes the people who use wiki every day! What better > way be a member for £2 per month! With TOTAL transparency! Urm, but we're not WikiLeaks... -- Mono http://enwp.org/m:User:Mono ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Making wikimediafoundation.org more open to contributions
A) This is completely off-topic. B) It sounds like exactly what we already have. (Recurring donations are new, but are now an option - with the exception of some Teir 1 chapter countries.) Really? It is the most pressing topic of our times. Surely you can see that. And you can see how pissed off governments are with Wiki!!? Maybe you live in a bubble and are not really arsed.. But there are MILLIONS of people out there who appreciate Wiki and its foundation. the pressure it is putting on governments and are appreciative for the collective voice it as given. it is a good time to make it bigger and better without compromising the principles. Able to adapt quickly to any government or court actions leveled against it. Surely you can see that? Can't you? Wiki can and must branch out. Use the brand to form television programs internet programs fund research make films create a international on line library. The options for freedom are endless. But it takes commitment..That includes the people who use wiki every day! What better way be a member for £2 per month! With TOTAL transparency! On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 8:11 PM, Philippe Beaudette < pbeaude...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > I would say that (as Erik said) in some cases it's a good idea. I doubt > that we could have done the work we did on Strategy wiki, had it been housed > on meta. Some wikis wish to set different standards for what can be > included, and that's difficult to do if you have an extant wiki that has its > own standards and rues. > > pb > > ___ > Philippe Beaudette > Head of Reader Relations > Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. > > pbeaude...@wikimedia.org > > Imagine a world in which every human being can freely share > in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! > > http://donate.wikimedia.org > > On Jan 31, 2011, at 7:47 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > > > Hoi, > > The milk has spilled so it is time to mop up. As we gain more experience, > we > > learn that having new wikis is often a bad idea in the long run. > > > > We live we learn.. > > Thanks, > > GerardM > > > > On 31 January 2011 14:25, Thomas Dalton wrote: > > > >> On 28 January 2011 20:33, phoebe ayers wrote: > >>> Such a solution would make it easier to fold separate wikis > >>> (such as a conference wiki) back into Meta when we were done with > >>> them, too. > >> > >> Why fold them into meta afterwards rather than just use Meta from the > >> beginning? Isn't the whole point of the proposal that we stop creating > >> new wikis for everything? > >> > >> ___ > >> foundation-l mailing list > >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > >> > > ___ > > foundation-l mailing list > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Making wikimediafoundation.org more open to contributions
I would say that (as Erik said) in some cases it's a good idea. I doubt that we could have done the work we did on Strategy wiki, had it been housed on meta. Some wikis wish to set different standards for what can be included, and that's difficult to do if you have an extant wiki that has its own standards and rues. pb ___ Philippe Beaudette Head of Reader Relations Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. pbeaude...@wikimedia.org Imagine a world in which every human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! http://donate.wikimedia.org On Jan 31, 2011, at 7:47 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > The milk has spilled so it is time to mop up. As we gain more experience, we > learn that having new wikis is often a bad idea in the long run. > > We live we learn.. > Thanks, > GerardM > > On 31 January 2011 14:25, Thomas Dalton wrote: > >> On 28 January 2011 20:33, phoebe ayers wrote: >>> Such a solution would make it easier to fold separate wikis >>> (such as a conference wiki) back into Meta when we were done with >>> them, too. >> >> Why fold them into meta afterwards rather than just use Meta from the >> beginning? Isn't the whole point of the proposal that we stop creating >> new wikis for everything? >> >> ___ >> 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] Making wikimediafoundation.org more open to contributions
Hoi, The milk has spilled so it is time to mop up. As we gain more experience, we learn that having new wikis is often a bad idea in the long run. We live we learn.. Thanks, GerardM On 31 January 2011 14:25, Thomas Dalton wrote: > On 28 January 2011 20:33, phoebe ayers wrote: > > Such a solution would make it easier to fold separate wikis > > (such as a conference wiki) back into Meta when we were done with > > them, too. > > Why fold them into meta afterwards rather than just use Meta from the > beginning? Isn't the whole point of the proposal that we stop creating > new wikis for everything? > > ___ > 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] Making wikimediafoundation.org more open to contributions
On 28 January 2011 20:33, phoebe ayers wrote: > Such a solution would make it easier to fold separate wikis > (such as a conference wiki) back into Meta when we were done with > them, too. Why fold them into meta afterwards rather than just use Meta from the beginning? Isn't the whole point of the proposal that we stop creating new wikis for everything? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Making wikimediafoundation.org more open to contributions
On 30 January 2011 18:02, Noein wrote: > On 30/01/2011 13:10, koteche mcintosh wrote: >> People choose to donate just like before. But on a regular basis. everyone >> can see the fund. Everyone is part of the story. this GALVANIZES >> support. Shoes governments the POWER of public opinion. Creates a virtual >> community striving for information in a world where information is >> key.. > > Except for the ads, it's an excellent idea. Transparent, online access > to accounts and a permanently donating community. A) This is completely off-topic. B) It sounds like exactly what we already have. (Recurring donations are new, but are now an option - with the exception of some Teir 1 chapter countries.) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Making wikimediafoundation.org more open to contributions
NO ADS just KNOWLEDGE! On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 8:35 PM, koteche mcintosh wrote: > Better put!!! > > Except for the ads, it's an excellent idea. Transparent, online access > to accounts and a permanently donating community. > > It does not mean that there will be a change in the business modal (free > and accessible) but it will give the wiki community (all people that use and > contribute etc) a sense of it self! > > Also there is more and more media u-tube etc and wiki has a strong position > to protect! As the increasing "threat" from the internet governments feel to > be real. Wiki is in a position to be at the forefront of a positive change > in a global community. It already is. > > Such a scheme will also be a litmus test of the global support for Wiki and > the freedom it represents. > > People are a force to be reckoned with > > > > On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Noein wrote: > >> On 30/01/2011 13:10, koteche mcintosh wrote: >> > People choose to donate just like before. But on a regular basis. >> everyone >> > can see the fund. Everyone is part of the story. this GALVANIZES >> > support. Shoes governments the POWER of public opinion. Creates a >> virtual >> > community striving for information in a world where information is >> > key.. >> >> Except for the ads, it's an excellent idea. Transparent, online access >> to accounts and a permanently donating community. >> >> ___ >> 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] Making wikimediafoundation.org more open to contributions
Better put!!! Except for the ads, it's an excellent idea. Transparent, online access to accounts and a permanently donating community. It does not mean that there will be a change in the business modal (free and accessible) but it will give the wiki community (all people that use and contribute etc) a sense of it self! Also there is more and more media u-tube etc and wiki has a strong position to protect! As the increasing "threat" from the internet governments feel to be real. Wiki is in a position to be at the forefront of a positive change in a global community. It already is. Such a scheme will also be a litmus test of the global support for Wiki and the freedom it represents. People are a force to be reckoned with On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Noein wrote: > On 30/01/2011 13:10, koteche mcintosh wrote: > > People choose to donate just like before. But on a regular basis. > everyone > > can see the fund. Everyone is part of the story. this GALVANIZES > > support. Shoes governments the POWER of public opinion. Creates a virtual > > community striving for information in a world where information is > > key.. > > Except for the ads, it's an excellent idea. Transparent, online access > to accounts and a permanently donating community. > > ___ > 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] Making wikimediafoundation.org more open to contributions
On 30/01/2011 13:10, koteche mcintosh wrote: > People choose to donate just like before. But on a regular basis. everyone > can see the fund. Everyone is part of the story. this GALVANIZES > support. Shoes governments the POWER of public opinion. Creates a virtual > community striving for information in a world where information is > key.. Except for the ads, it's an excellent idea. Transparent, online access to accounts and a permanently donating community. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Making wikimediafoundation.org more open to contributions
I think one thing that would help tremendously would be to decide on a convention, be it subpages, or pseudo-namespaces, or a combination of the two for grouping related content on meta and stick to it. When a separate wiki is needed for technology demonstration, figure out (probably through an extension) how to mirror the content between meta and the separate wiki. This keeps everything together, and would improve the long term participation and visibility. As far as the development and planning being largely English only, it's a matter more so of convenience and practicality to have a common language for the development and inter-project collaboration, and this is largely a healthy thing - it's unfortunate. but in this case we have to choose between having a common language for this purpose and excluding non-English speakers or collaborating in native tongues and fragmenting the WMF community as a whole. Translations should happen - and this is an area where we need ambassadors to make sure that non-English communities are reached not only with messages of outreach, but also kept informed and given opportunities to participate in their native language by insuring that meaningful comments get translated back and included in the conversation. Where it's beneficial just for visibility of a particular area, such as outreach, how hard would it be technologically to engineer extensions to give a namespace-restricted view of the outreach content on Meta - in other words, if we had an Outreach namespace, and http://outreach.wikimedia.org/just pulled it's entire content from this namespace - any links outside the namespace get translated to "interwiki" links when viewed on Outreach, and Outreach:Main Page on Meta becomes the main page on outreach. This solves the best interests of both consolidation and centralization, as well as the positive benefits of having it's own wiki. On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 12:13 AM, Erik Moeller wrote: > 2011/1/29 phoebe ayers : > > Having many wikis is an ongoing source of irritation for many, and it > > would be great to resolve this issue. Are there good arguments *for* > > having separate sites? > > Yes, and I think most people generally underestimate the complexity of > the issue. The reasons for WMF to spin up separate sites have varied, > but to try to put it as simply as possible, a dedicated wiki, in all > technical and social respects, focuses collaborative activity, which > can enhance productivity and reduce barriers to participation. In the > case of e.g. StrategyWiki, it also allowed us to try some radical > changes (like using LQT on all pages, or receiving hundreds of > proposals as new page creations) without disrupting some surrounding > context. I have absolutely no regrets about our decision to launch > StrategyWiki, for example -- I think it was the right decision, with > exactly the expected benefits. > > Meta itself has grown organically to support various community > activities and interests that had no other place to go. It has never > been significantly constrained by its mission statement. The "What > Meta is not" page only enumerates two examples of unacceptable use: > > 1. A disposal site for uncorrectable articles from the different > Wikipedias, and it is not a hosting service for personal essays of all > types. > 2. A place to describe the MediaWiki software. > > Its information architecture, in spite of many revisions, has never > kept up with this organic growth, making Meta a very confusing and > intimidating place for many, especially when one wants to explore or > use the place beyond some specific reason to go there (vote in an > election, nominate a URL for the spam blacklist, write a translation). > > So, let's take the example of OutreachWiki as a simple case study to > describe the differences between the two wikis. > > 1) The wiki's main page and sidebar are optimized for its stated purpose; > 2) As a new user, you receive a welcome message that's specifically > about ways you can support public outreach ( > http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Welcome ) > 3) All special pages remain useful to track relevant activity or > content without applying further constraints; > 4) Userboxes and user profiles can be optimized for the stated purpose > (e.g. http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Languages_and_skills ) > 5) There's very little that's confusing or intimidating -- the content > is clean, simple, and organized. > 6) If the OutreachWiki community wants to activate some site-wide > extension, it can do so, focusing only on its own needs. > > On the other hand: > > 1) Activity is very low; > 2) The wiki is largely in English; > 3) Meta has a long tradition of hosting outreach-related content, and > many pages still reside there or are created there. > 4) The existence of yet-another-wiki brings tons of baggage and > frustration (more dispersed change-tracking for users who want to keep > up with all activity, more creation of meta/user p
Re: [Foundation-l] Making wikimediafoundation.org more open to contributions
How realistic is that? Things change and this is completely voluntary. It just means Wiki can branch out into-film making supporting initiatives and communities in places where light needs to shine. Gets people motivated. At the moment Wiki stands for everything!!! People are looking up to it as a Brand. and it IS a brand whether you are ideologically opposed to that term or not... as the case may be. People choose to donate just like before. But on a regular basis. everyone can see the fund. Everyone is part of the story. this GALVANIZES support. Shoes governments the POWER of public opinion. Creates a virtual community striving for information in a world where information is key.. To just side line this idea is sort sighted. On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 7:45 AM, Keegan Peterzell wrote: > On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 12:46 AM, koteche mcintosh < > kotechemcint...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Why can't people pay £2 per month and be a member of Wiki-everything! > > > > Better than [pledging. > > > > Have a on line active site that tells you what is going on how much money > > there is! Get a members package? > > > > > > What do you think?! > > > The principle is that everything is free. You can donate to the Wikimedia > Foundation, but the Foundation has a core belief in not advertising or > requiring subscription. > > > -- > ~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
Re: [Foundation-l] Making wikimediafoundation.org more open to contributions
On 30 January 2011 16:00, Sage Ross wrote: > On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 11:28 AM, David Gerard wrote: > > Suggested principle: stuff should go on meta unless there's a very > > good reason for it not to. The strategy and usability stuff should > > have been on meta or mediawiki.org in the first place, for example. A > > wiki for every little thing is a *bad* idea. > Not that I have anything new to add, but this is one of those threads > where it's nice to see a long string of +1's. Although, as Erik pointed out, the opportunity to blithely deploy useful new extensions, as on Strategy Wiki, may count as a good reason. > I wrote an essay a few months ago based on that principle: > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Not_my_wiki +1 ;-) - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Making wikimediafoundation.org more open to contributions
On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 11:28 AM, David Gerard wrote: > Suggested principle: stuff should go on meta unless there's a very > good reason for it not to. The strategy and usability stuff should > have been on meta or mediawiki.org in the first place, for example. A > wiki for every little thing is a *bad* idea. > Not that I have anything new to add, but this is one of those threads where it's nice to see a long string of +1's. I wrote an essay a few months ago based on that principle: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Not_my_wiki -Sage ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Making wikimediafoundation.org more open to contributions
Thank you MZM, for making those long-needed changes! That made my day. On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 3:33 PM, phoebe ayers wrote: > On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Pharos wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Aaron Adrignola >> wrote: >>> Erik Moeller wrote: I agree that the edit restrictions on the WMF wiki are very unfortunate and there's still much more that can be done (perhaps one day leading toward www.wikimedia.org as a single information, collaboration and discussion hub, subsuming both WMF and Meta, and possibly other backstage wikis). >>> >>> Perhaps have Meta: Strategy:, Outreach: Usability:, Tech:, and Wikimania*: >>> namespaces to replace the separated sites in existence today. The main >>> space could cover wikimediafoundation.org content. Wikimedia: for meta-wiki >>> discussion. Or any variation on that. At the least, there is no need to >>> keep creating new wikis for Wikimania if you properly tag content for the >>> year it applies to. >>> >>> -- Aaron Adrignola >> >> Here, here, for the namespace solution! Yes! Phoebe Ayers writes; > My solution to the challenge of combining everything would be to have > a global edit sprint -- "meta-cleanup-and-merge editing party > weekend!" This sounds like a perfect topic for a barnraising. Sam. -- Samuel Klein identi.ca:sj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Making wikimediafoundation.org more open to contributions
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 12:46 AM, koteche mcintosh < kotechemcint...@gmail.com> wrote: > Why can't people pay £2 per month and be a member of Wiki-everything! > > Better than [pledging. > > Have a on line active site that tells you what is going on how much money > there is! Get a members package? > > > What do you think?! The principle is that everything is free. You can donate to the Wikimedia Foundation, but the Foundation has a core belief in not advertising or requiring subscription. -- ~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
Re: [Foundation-l] Making wikimediafoundation.org more open to contributions
Why can't people pay £2 per month and be a member of Wiki-everything! Better than [pledging. Have a on line active site that tells you what is going on how much money there is! Get a members package? What do you think?! On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 5:13 AM, Erik Moeller wrote: > 2011/1/29 phoebe ayers : > > Having many wikis is an ongoing source of irritation for many, and it > > would be great to resolve this issue. Are there good arguments *for* > > having separate sites? > > Yes, and I think most people generally underestimate the complexity of > the issue. The reasons for WMF to spin up separate sites have varied, > but to try to put it as simply as possible, a dedicated wiki, in all > technical and social respects, focuses collaborative activity, which > can enhance productivity and reduce barriers to participation. In the > case of e.g. StrategyWiki, it also allowed us to try some radical > changes (like using LQT on all pages, or receiving hundreds of > proposals as new page creations) without disrupting some surrounding > context. I have absolutely no regrets about our decision to launch > StrategyWiki, for example -- I think it was the right decision, with > exactly the expected benefits. > > Meta itself has grown organically to support various community > activities and interests that had no other place to go. It has never > been significantly constrained by its mission statement. The "What > Meta is not" page only enumerates two examples of unacceptable use: > > 1. A disposal site for uncorrectable articles from the different > Wikipedias, and it is not a hosting service for personal essays of all > types. > 2. A place to describe the MediaWiki software. > > Its information architecture, in spite of many revisions, has never > kept up with this organic growth, making Meta a very confusing and > intimidating place for many, especially when one wants to explore or > use the place beyond some specific reason to go there (vote in an > election, nominate a URL for the spam blacklist, write a translation). > > So, let's take the example of OutreachWiki as a simple case study to > describe the differences between the two wikis. > > 1) The wiki's main page and sidebar are optimized for its stated purpose; > 2) As a new user, you receive a welcome message that's specifically > about ways you can support public outreach ( > http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Welcome ) > 3) All special pages remain useful to track relevant activity or > content without applying further constraints; > 4) Userboxes and user profiles can be optimized for the stated purpose > (e.g. http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Languages_and_skills ) > 5) There's very little that's confusing or intimidating -- the content > is clean, simple, and organized. > 6) If the OutreachWiki community wants to activate some site-wide > extension, it can do so, focusing only on its own needs. > > On the other hand: > > 1) Activity is very low; > 2) The wiki is largely in English; > 3) Meta has a long tradition of hosting outreach-related content, and > many pages still reside there or are created there. > 4) The existence of yet-another-wiki brings tons of baggage and > frustration (more dispersed change-tracking for users who want to keep > up with all activity, more creation of meta/user page/template > structures, more setup of policies and cross-wiki tools, etc.). > > It's not a given that 1) and 2) are a function of having a separate > wiki. As we've seen with StrategyWiki, activity is largely the result > of focused activation of the community. The small sub-community that > cares about public outreach on Meta is ridiculously tiny compared with > the vast global community that could potentially be activated to get > involved through centralnotices, village pumps, email announcements, > etc. So the low level of activity on OutreachWiki is arguably "only" a > failure of WMF to engage more people, not a failure of a separate > wiki. (It certainly makes all the associated baggage much harder to > justify.) > > But, I think the disadvantages of working within a single system can > be rectified for at least the four most closely related backstage > wikis (Meta/WMF/Strategy/Outreach). I do think working towards a > www.wikimedia.org wiki is the way to do that, importing content in > stages, with a carefully considered information architecture that's > built around the needs of the Wikimedia movement, a very crisp mission > statement and list of permitted and excluded activities, a WikiProject > approach to organizing related activity, etc. But it also would need > to include consideration for needed technological and configuration > changes, in descending importance: > > - namespaces (e.g. for essays, proposals, public outreach resources, > historical content) > - template and JS setup to support multiple languages well (e.g. > mirroring some of the enhancements made to Commons) > - access controls (e.g. for HTML pages) > - FlaggedRevs/Pendi
Re: [Foundation-l] Making wikimediafoundation.org more open to contributions
2011/1/29 phoebe ayers : > Having many wikis is an ongoing source of irritation for many, and it > would be great to resolve this issue. Are there good arguments *for* > having separate sites? Yes, and I think most people generally underestimate the complexity of the issue. The reasons for WMF to spin up separate sites have varied, but to try to put it as simply as possible, a dedicated wiki, in all technical and social respects, focuses collaborative activity, which can enhance productivity and reduce barriers to participation. In the case of e.g. StrategyWiki, it also allowed us to try some radical changes (like using LQT on all pages, or receiving hundreds of proposals as new page creations) without disrupting some surrounding context. I have absolutely no regrets about our decision to launch StrategyWiki, for example -- I think it was the right decision, with exactly the expected benefits. Meta itself has grown organically to support various community activities and interests that had no other place to go. It has never been significantly constrained by its mission statement. The "What Meta is not" page only enumerates two examples of unacceptable use: 1. A disposal site for uncorrectable articles from the different Wikipedias, and it is not a hosting service for personal essays of all types. 2. A place to describe the MediaWiki software. Its information architecture, in spite of many revisions, has never kept up with this organic growth, making Meta a very confusing and intimidating place for many, especially when one wants to explore or use the place beyond some specific reason to go there (vote in an election, nominate a URL for the spam blacklist, write a translation). So, let's take the example of OutreachWiki as a simple case study to describe the differences between the two wikis. 1) The wiki's main page and sidebar are optimized for its stated purpose; 2) As a new user, you receive a welcome message that's specifically about ways you can support public outreach ( http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Welcome ) 3) All special pages remain useful to track relevant activity or content without applying further constraints; 4) Userboxes and user profiles can be optimized for the stated purpose (e.g. http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Languages_and_skills ) 5) There's very little that's confusing or intimidating -- the content is clean, simple, and organized. 6) If the OutreachWiki community wants to activate some site-wide extension, it can do so, focusing only on its own needs. On the other hand: 1) Activity is very low; 2) The wiki is largely in English; 3) Meta has a long tradition of hosting outreach-related content, and many pages still reside there or are created there. 4) The existence of yet-another-wiki brings tons of baggage and frustration (more dispersed change-tracking for users who want to keep up with all activity, more creation of meta/user page/template structures, more setup of policies and cross-wiki tools, etc.). It's not a given that 1) and 2) are a function of having a separate wiki. As we've seen with StrategyWiki, activity is largely the result of focused activation of the community. The small sub-community that cares about public outreach on Meta is ridiculously tiny compared with the vast global community that could potentially be activated to get involved through centralnotices, village pumps, email announcements, etc. So the low level of activity on OutreachWiki is arguably "only" a failure of WMF to engage more people, not a failure of a separate wiki. (It certainly makes all the associated baggage much harder to justify.) But, I think the disadvantages of working within a single system can be rectified for at least the four most closely related backstage wikis (Meta/WMF/Strategy/Outreach). I do think working towards a www.wikimedia.org wiki is the way to do that, importing content in stages, with a carefully considered information architecture that's built around the needs of the Wikimedia movement, a very crisp mission statement and list of permitted and excluded activities, a WikiProject approach to organizing related activity, etc. But it also would need to include consideration for needed technological and configuration changes, in descending importance: - namespaces (e.g. for essays, proposals, public outreach resources, historical content) - template and JS setup to support multiple languages well (e.g. mirroring some of the enhancements made to Commons) - access controls (e.g. for HTML pages) - FlaggedRevs/Pending Changes (e.g. for official WMF or chapter information) - LiquidThreads (e.g. for a movement-wide forum that could increasingly subsume listservs) - Semantic MediaWiki/Semantic Forms (e.g. for event calendars) To simplify security considerations, we might want to have all fundraising-related content elsewhere (e.g. donate.wikimedia.org). An alternative strategy, of course, is to focus on making the distinction between different wikis as
Re: [Foundation-l] Making wikimediafoundation.org more open to contributions
On 29 January 2011 16:20, phoebe ayers wrote: > Having many wikis is an ongoing source of irritation for many, and it > would be great to resolve this issue. Are there good arguments *for* > having separate sites? Or at least for not recombining them into meta > with a redirect from the clean URL? Suggested principle: stuff should go on meta unless there's a very good reason for it not to. The strategy and usability stuff should have been on meta or mediawiki.org in the first place, for example. A wiki for every little thing is a *bad* idea. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Making wikimediafoundation.org more open to contributions
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 9:21 PM, Keegan Peterzell wrote: > On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 2:33 PM, phoebe ayers wrote: >> >> I think it would do us a lot of good to be able to recombine all of >> these topics so when we are looking for a calendar or a presentation >> bank or a list of media or whatever there is ONE place to go, not >> five. Such a solution would make it easier to fold separate wikis >> (such as a conference wiki) back into Meta when we were done with >> them, too. >> >> > Agreed there. A couple weeks ago while wrapping up the fundraiser and doing > some other work, bouncing accounts between meta, en.wp, and tenwiki got to a > maddening point in figuring out just where I was in the wikiverse surrounded > by a thousand tabs. Yes... death by a thousand tabs is a bit like death by a thousand papercuts! When this discussion came up in person for me a few weeks ago, someone pointed out that MediaWiki did need its own wiki, because it is a separate project, and I think that is a good argument (c.f. the other foundation-l thread about the usability wiki). But for everything else... the lines blur. Having many wikis is an ongoing source of irritation for many, and it would be great to resolve this issue. Are there good arguments *for* having separate sites? Or at least for not recombining them into meta with a redirect from the clean URL? -- phoebe ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Making wikimediafoundation.org more open to contributions
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 2:33 PM, phoebe ayers wrote: > > I think it would do us a lot of good to be able to recombine all of > these topics so when we are looking for a calendar or a presentation > bank or a list of media or whatever there is ONE place to go, not > five. Such a solution would make it easier to fold separate wikis > (such as a conference wiki) back into Meta when we were done with > them, too. > > Agreed there. A couple weeks ago while wrapping up the fundraiser and doing some other work, bouncing accounts between meta, en.wp, and tenwiki got to a maddening point in figuring out just where I was in the wikiverse surrounded by a thousand tabs. -- ~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
Re: [Foundation-l] Making wikimediafoundation.org more open to contributions
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Pharos wrote: > On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Aaron Adrignola > wrote: >>> >>> I agree that the edit restrictions on the WMF wiki are very >>> unfortunate and there's still much more that can be done (perhaps one >>> day leading toward www.wikimedia.org as a single information, >>> collaboration and discussion hub, subsuming both WMF and Meta, and >>> possibly other backstage wikis). >>> >>> -- >>> Erik Möller >>> Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation >>> >> >> Perhaps have Meta: Strategy:, Outreach: Usability:, Tech:, and Wikimania*: >> namespaces to replace the separated sites in existence today. The main >> space could cover wikimediafoundation.org content. Wikimedia: for meta-wiki >> discussion. Or any variation on that. At the least, there is no need to >> keep creating new wikis for Wikimania if you properly tag content for the >> year it applies to. >> >> -- Aaron Adrignola > > Here, here, for the namespace solution! > > There is a lot of flexibility in degrees of differentiation and > control of namespaces that is really underused as a tool, and could > help us get a really integrated and useful 'wiki to rule them all' for > Wikimedia organizational purposes. +1 for a single wiki with differentiated namespaces for all of these topics :) I think it would do us a lot of good to be able to recombine all of these topics so when we are looking for a calendar or a presentation bank or a list of media or whatever there is ONE place to go, not five. Such a solution would make it easier to fold separate wikis (such as a conference wiki) back into Meta when we were done with them, too. My solution to the challenge of combining everything would be to have a global edit sprint -- "meta-cleanup-and-merge editing party weekend!" -- phoebe ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Making wikimediafoundation.org more open to contributions
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Aaron Adrignola wrote: >> >> I agree that the edit restrictions on the WMF wiki are very >> unfortunate and there's still much more that can be done (perhaps one >> day leading toward www.wikimedia.org as a single information, >> collaboration and discussion hub, subsuming both WMF and Meta, and >> possibly other backstage wikis). >> >> -- >> Erik Möller >> Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation >> > > Perhaps have Meta: Strategy:, Outreach: Usability:, Tech:, and Wikimania*: > namespaces to replace the separated sites in existence today. The main > space could cover wikimediafoundation.org content. Wikimedia: for meta-wiki > discussion. Or any variation on that. At the least, there is no need to > keep creating new wikis for Wikimania if you properly tag content for the > year it applies to. > > -- Aaron Adrignola Here, here, for the namespace solution! There is a lot of flexibility in degrees of differentiation and control of namespaces that is really underused as a tool, and could help us get a really integrated and useful 'wiki to rule them all' for Wikimedia organizational purposes. Thanks, Richard (User:Pharos) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Making wikimediafoundation.org more open to contributions
> > I agree that the edit restrictions on the WMF wiki are very > unfortunate and there's still much more that can be done (perhaps one > day leading toward www.wikimedia.org as a single information, > collaboration and discussion hub, subsuming both WMF and Meta, and > possibly other backstage wikis). > > -- > Erik Möller > Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation > Perhaps have Meta: Strategy:, Outreach: Usability:, Tech:, and Wikimania*: namespaces to replace the separated sites in existence today. The main space could cover wikimediafoundation.org content. Wikimedia: for meta-wiki discussion. Or any variation on that. At the least, there is no need to keep creating new wikis for Wikimania if you properly tag content for the year it applies to. -- Aaron Adrignola ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Making wikimediafoundation.org more open to contributions
I rather welcome these changes. Also I support improvement on Meta feedback pages: a single page seems a better solution in these days. Historically the foundation wiki was restricted just for avoiding spams, as far as I understood. Later we found some users who were proud of the foundation & movement knowledge weren't knowledgeable as they believed (information they had were outdated etc.), so to some extent restriction have made a sense. But I'd like to point out it was in days we had no FlaggedRev extention yet. For spamming concerns, I think FR will be a solution. Other concerns, on pages we don't want anyone touch casually, we need to take more time to consider what is the best. But not criticism, but a mere fact, I would point out wmf site whose editors have been all highly trusted users hasn't been immune from edit warring. Seeking for openness on foundation wiki fits the nature of our community and movement, I think, which the wiki should represents to the world. Cheers, On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 3:05 PM, James Alexander wrote: > On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 12:34 AM, Erik Moeller wrote: > >> 2011/1/27 MZMcBride : >> > In the spirit of being bold, I've taken a number of steps to correct what >> I >> > view as deficiencies in the current contribution system, all of which >> I'll >> > outline in this e-mail. If anyone has objections to these changes, >> they're >> > more than welcome to revert them and we can discuss ways to improve the >> > overall situation.[2] >> >> Looks great to me :-) >> >> I agree that the edit restrictions on the WMF wiki are very >> unfortunate and there's still much more that can be done (perhaps one >> day leading toward www.wikimedia.org as a single information, >> collaboration and discussion hub, subsuming both WMF and Meta, and >> possibly other backstage wikis). >> >> -- >> Erik Möller >> Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation >> >> Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate >> >> ___ >> foundation-l mailing list >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >> > > > > Agreed, There are pages that you would obviously not want touched but I > really wish it could be more open. In the long run I agree I think we want > something more all encompassing with the community etc. I believe there is > an extension that turns on raw html for protected pages only or by > namespace... though I've never used them before. In the long run I'm sure > there are lots of options but in the short run I like the changes. > > > -- > James Alexander > jameso...@gmail.com > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > -- KIZU Naoko / 木津尚子 member of Wikimedians in Kansai / 関西ウィキメディアユーザ会 http://kansai.wikimedia.jp ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Making wikimediafoundation.org more open to contributions
Great Work, MZ. One small point, the buttons on foundation wiki redirect to a the page we get on FWF page on Meta, the edit page has a newly created header that includes "Wikimedia is not associated with Wikileaks". I think the confusion with Wikileaks issue is ephemeral and is not as common anymore. Maybe we should consider removing that small disclaimer on the edit page, its already there on the main page itself. Regards Theo On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 11:35 AM, James Alexander wrote: > On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 12:34 AM, Erik Moeller wrote: > > > 2011/1/27 MZMcBride : > > > In the spirit of being bold, I've taken a number of steps to correct > what > > I > > > view as deficiencies in the current contribution system, all of which > > I'll > > > outline in this e-mail. If anyone has objections to these changes, > > they're > > > more than welcome to revert them and we can discuss ways to improve the > > > overall situation.[2] > > > > Looks great to me :-) > > > > I agree that the edit restrictions on the WMF wiki are very > > unfortunate and there's still much more that can be done (perhaps one > > day leading toward www.wikimedia.org as a single information, > > collaboration and discussion hub, subsuming both WMF and Meta, and > > possibly other backstage wikis). > > > > -- > > Erik Möller > > Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation > > > > Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate > > > > ___ > > foundation-l mailing list > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > > > > Agreed, There are pages that you would obviously not want touched but I > really wish it could be more open. In the long run I agree I think we want > something more all encompassing with the community etc. I believe there is > an extension that turns on raw html for protected pages only or by > namespace... though I've never used them before. In the long run I'm sure > there are lots of options but in the short run I like the changes. > > > -- > James Alexander > 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] Making wikimediafoundation.org more open to contributions
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 12:34 AM, Erik Moeller wrote: > 2011/1/27 MZMcBride : > > In the spirit of being bold, I've taken a number of steps to correct what > I > > view as deficiencies in the current contribution system, all of which > I'll > > outline in this e-mail. If anyone has objections to these changes, > they're > > more than welcome to revert them and we can discuss ways to improve the > > overall situation.[2] > > Looks great to me :-) > > I agree that the edit restrictions on the WMF wiki are very > unfortunate and there's still much more that can be done (perhaps one > day leading toward www.wikimedia.org as a single information, > collaboration and discussion hub, subsuming both WMF and Meta, and > possibly other backstage wikis). > > -- > Erik Möller > Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation > > Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > Agreed, There are pages that you would obviously not want touched but I really wish it could be more open. In the long run I agree I think we want something more all encompassing with the community etc. I believe there is an extension that turns on raw html for protected pages only or by namespace... though I've never used them before. In the long run I'm sure there are lots of options but in the short run I like the changes. -- James Alexander jameso...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Making wikimediafoundation.org more open to contributions
On Jan 27, 2011, at 7:58 PM, MZMcBride wrote this plus some other stuff: > Hi. > > When wikimediafoundation.org was first established (as a fishbowl wiki), > there were concerns expressed about its lack of open editing. For one of the > most prominent wiki and community-based organizations to have a closed site > for its non-profit foundation is rather silly and anachronistic. > > The wiki was created before extensions like FlaggedRevs existed, but even > today with these extensions theoretically capable of allowing outside > contributions with moderation, there are still relevant and serious concerns > about features that are enabled at wikimediafoundation.org, such as allowing > raw HTML to be used. I have to say, I rather support these changes. I've long been troubled with the perception that our own foundation-wiki was so restrictive. It seemed anti-thetical to me. I'm pleased to see steps towards opening this up. ___ Philippe Beaudette Head of Reader Relations Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. pbeaude...@wikimedia.org Imagine a world in which every human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! http://donate.wikimedia.org ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Making wikimediafoundation.org more open to contributions
2011/1/27 MZMcBride : > In the spirit of being bold, I've taken a number of steps to correct what I > view as deficiencies in the current contribution system, all of which I'll > outline in this e-mail. If anyone has objections to these changes, they're > more than welcome to revert them and we can discuss ways to improve the > overall situation.[2] Looks great to me :-) I agree that the edit restrictions on the WMF wiki are very unfortunate and there's still much more that can be done (perhaps one day leading toward www.wikimedia.org as a single information, collaboration and discussion hub, subsuming both WMF and Meta, and possibly other backstage wikis). -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Making wikimediafoundation.org more open to contributions
Hi. When wikimediafoundation.org was first established (as a fishbowl wiki), there were concerns expressed about its lack of open editing. For one of the most prominent wiki and community-based organizations to have a closed site for its non-profit foundation is rather silly and anachronistic. The wiki was created before extensions like FlaggedRevs existed, but even today with these extensions theoretically capable of allowing outside contributions with moderation, there are still relevant and serious concerns about features that are enabled at wikimediafoundation.org, such as allowing raw HTML to be used. Since 2004, a page has existed at Meta-Wiki to allow outsiders to comment and discuss wikimediafoundation.org called "Foundation wiki feedback".[1] In the spirit of being bold, I've taken a number of steps to correct what I view as deficiencies in the current contribution system, all of which I'll outline in this e-mail. If anyone has objections to these changes, they're more than welcome to revert them and we can discuss ways to improve the overall situation.[2] Probably the most noticeable change I made was modifying the "view source" tab and title to "contribute".[3][4][5] There are two ideas behind this change: (1) to encourage people to contribute (whether it's typo fixes, accuracy problems, etc.); and (2) to create a middle ground between "edit" and "view source". It seems unreasonable that a user would ever click "view source" to make a helpful comment about a page, but we don't want to change the tab to something like "edit" if the user doesn't have the necessary permissions to edit the page. The primary entry point to Meta-Wiki's "Foundation wiki feedback" should be through the edit screen, so encouraging users to reach that screen is important. "View source" simply doesn't achieve this goal. The next change I made was to modify the message that users see above the textarea on wikimediafoundation.org if they don't have permission to edit. Rather than the default (bland) messages, I customized the message and made it a bit more colorful and friendlier.[6][7][8] I also included two prominent buttons in the message: one button is to report a problem with that specific page; the other button is to report a problem with the site in general. Clicking either button will load Meta-Wiki's "Foundation wiki feedback" page with a new section and auto-fill the section title. It's also possible to customize the message that users view above the textarea at Meta-Wiki based on whether they're clicking the buttons from wikimediafoundation.org, but I've left that for a later date. Obviously I'm not a great designer, but this is a vast improvement when you compare the before and after pictures: * before: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WMFwiki-edit-before.png * after: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WMFwiki-edit-after.png Then I headed over to Meta-Wiki to make some changes there. First, I killed the "Foundation wiki feedback/admin" subpage, as it caused confusion, clutter, and was rarely used.[9] I merged all of the header content into the single "Foundation wiki feedback/Header" template and simplified it.[10] I also made the page generally less obnoxious: * before: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FWF-view-before.png * after: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FWF-view-after.png The final changes were to the editnotice above the textarea at Meta-Wiki: * before: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FWF-edit-before.png * after: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FWF-edit-after.png Hopefully these changes will encourage more participation and engagement. In addition to these changes, I've filed a bug in Bugzilla to work on ways to make wikimediafoundation.org more open to outside contributions.[11] MZMcBride [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Foundation_wiki_feedback [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle [3] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Viewsource [4] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Viewsourcefor [5] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Vector-view-viewsource [6] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Template:Contribute [7] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Permissionserrorstext [8] http://wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Permissionserrorstext-withaction [9] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Foundation_wiki_feedback/admin [10] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Foundation_wiki_feedback/Header [11] https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=27006 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
