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

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

2011-10-29 Thread Gerard Meijssen

Hoi,
Given that the English Wikipedia has a problem, its page views is going
down for instance, there is a well documented division between the oldies
and the newbies. There is a natural attrition as well as open conflict
resulting in their being not as many editors as there used to be.

Wikilove, the dashboard are all mechanisms to show appreciation and learn
from newbies. This functionality is developed with the English Wikipedia in
mind.

My question what is the point in stagnating in old functionality when the
established community is to approve new features especially new features
not addressing the needs of the established community and seeking consensus
only once these features have been developed?

With respect, these features are introduced, experience is gained and
consequently these features will be adapted. Does constant community
consensus make sense and if so what is it that you hope to achieve? How is
a no going to help given the need for a more healthy English community ?
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 29 October 2011 14:49, WereSpielChequers wrote:

> > Message: 1
> > Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 15:31:07 -0700
> > From: Brandon Harris 
> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] On certain shallow, American-centered,
> >foolish software initiatives backed by WMF
> > To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Message-ID: <4eab2d2b.3020...@wikimedia.org>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> >
> >
> >
> > On 10/28/11 3:27 PM, Etienne Beaule wrote:
> > > It's disabled on certain wikis because of technical problems.
> > >
> >
> >Oh? I wasn't aware that it had been disabled anywhere as yet.
> >
> >WikiLove was not rolled out "en mass"; the policy for deployment
> of
> > the
> > tool is that it is by request only, and the requesting wiki must:
> >
> >a) Make sure the tool is localized (via TranslateWiki);
> >b) Make sure they have a local configuration; and
> >c) Show community consensus.
> >
> >So if it was enabled and then *disabled*, I have not heard of
> this.
> >  Is
> > there a bug report I can look to?  Or if you know of a wiki where this
> > is the case, I can do a search.
> >
> >Thanks!
> >
> >-b.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation
> >
> > Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
> >
> >
> Good to hear that wikilove is only going in on wikis where there is
> consensus for it. Can anyone give me a link to the discussion that
> established consensus on EN wikipedia? The nearest I could find was
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28miscellaneous%29/Archive_33#Thoughts_on_WikiLove.3F
>
> Ta
>
> WerepielChequers
> ___
> 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

2011-10-29 Thread Amir E. Aharoni

Getting the dreaded community consensus for useful features and fixes
is indeed a painful experience and i'm not joking.

One way to counter it is to present the communities with results of
research that has been conducted and shown that these features
actually achieve something positive.

Was such research conducted about WikiLove?


2011/10/29 Gerard Meijssen :
> Hoi,
> Given that the English Wikipedia has a problem, its page views is going
> down for instance, there is a well documented division between the oldies
> and the newbies. There is a natural attrition as well as open conflict
> resulting in their being not as many editors as there used to be.
>
> Wikilove, the dashboard are all mechanisms to show appreciation and learn
> from newbies. This functionality is developed with the English Wikipedia in
> mind.
>
> My question what is the point in stagnating in old functionality when the
> established community is to approve new features especially new features
> not addressing the needs of the established community and seeking consensus
> only once these features have been developed?
>
> With respect, these features are introduced, experience is gained and
> consequently these features will be adapted. Does constant community
> consensus make sense and if so what is it that you hope to achieve? How is
> a no going to help given the need for a more healthy English community ?
> Thanks,
>      GerardM
>
> On 29 October 2011 14:49, WereSpielChequers 
> wrote:
>
>> > Message: 1
>> > Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 15:31:07 -0700
>> > From: Brandon Harris 
>> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] On certain shallow, American-centered,
>> >        foolish software initiatives backed by WMF
>> > To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > Message-ID: <4eab2d2b.3020...@wikimedia.org>
>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 10/28/11 3:27 PM, Etienne Beaule wrote:
>> > > It's disabled on certain wikis because of technical problems.
>> > >
>> >
>> >        Oh? I wasn't aware that it had been disabled anywhere as yet.
>> >
>> >        WikiLove was not rolled out "en mass"; the policy for deployment
>> of
>> > the
>> > tool is that it is by request only, and the requesting wiki must:
>> >
>> >                a) Make sure the tool is localized (via TranslateWiki);
>> >                b) Make sure they have a local configuration; and
>> >                c) Show community consensus.
>> >
>> >        So if it was enabled and then *disabled*, I have not heard of
>> this.
>> >  Is
>> > there a bug report I can look to?  Or if you know of a wiki where this
>> > is the case, I can do a search.
>> >
>> >        Thanks!
>> >
>> >        -b.
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation
>> >
>> > Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
>> >
>> >
>> Good to hear that wikilove is only going in on wikis where there is
>> consensus for it. Can anyone give me a link to the discussion that
>> established consensus on EN wikipedia? The nearest I could find was
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28miscellaneous%29/Archive_33#Thoughts_on_WikiLove.3F
>>
>> Ta
>>
>> WerepielChequers
>> ___
>> 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] Show community consensus for Wikilove

2011-10-29 Thread Fae

Hi Gerard,

Your email appears to argue that the WMF should introduce any features
they find expedient and then deal with (or ignore) complaints from the
community afterwards. This seems to miss the opportunity for user
testing, feedback or even asking the users what they want as part of
requirements gathering and analysis. Does your email represent the
position of the WMF or the outreach team?

Personally, I find arguments that we should do away with community
consensus because it is too hard disturbing and run counter to our
agreed mission.

Thanks,
Fae

___
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

2011-10-29 Thread Nickanc Wikipedia

IMHO, Wikilove is something so important about wikipedia's ethics and
behaviour that shall be in every wiki. IMHO.

2011/10/29 WereSpielChequers :
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 15:31:07 -0700
>> From: Brandon Harris 
>> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] On certain shallow, American-centered,
>>        foolish software initiatives backed by WMF
>> To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Message-ID: <4eab2d2b.3020...@wikimedia.org>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/28/11 3:27 PM, Etienne Beaule wrote:
>> > It's disabled on certain wikis because of technical problems.
>> >
>>
>>        Oh? I wasn't aware that it had been disabled anywhere as yet.
>>
>>        WikiLove was not rolled out "en mass"; the policy for deployment of
>> the
>> tool is that it is by request only, and the requesting wiki must:
>>
>>                a) Make sure the tool is localized (via TranslateWiki);
>>                b) Make sure they have a local configuration; and
>>                c) Show community consensus.
>>
>>        So if it was enabled and then *disabled*, I have not heard of this.
>>  Is
>> there a bug report I can look to?  Or if you know of a wiki where this
>> is the case, I can do a search.
>>
>>        Thanks!
>>
>>        -b.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation
>>
>> Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
>>
>>
> Good to hear that wikilove is only going in on wikis where there is
> consensus for it. Can anyone give me a link to the discussion that
> established consensus on EN wikipedia? The nearest I could find was
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28miscellaneous%29/Archive_33#Thoughts_on_WikiLove.3F
>
> Ta
>
> WerepielChequers
> ___
> 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

2011-10-29 Thread Etienne Beaule

But if we enable it at a wiki that doesn't want it, there could be a
boycott, and vandals just get the place up to there "code".  It would be
very detrimental to wikipedia.


On 11-10-29 12:27 PM, "Nickanc Wikipedia"  wrote:

> IMHO, Wikilove is something so important about wikipedia's ethics and
> behaviour that shall be in every wiki. IMHO.
> 
> 2011/10/29 WereSpielChequers :
>>> Message: 1
>>> Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 15:31:07 -0700
>>> From: Brandon Harris 
>>> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] On certain shallow, American-centered,
>>>        foolish software initiatives backed by WMF
>>> To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Message-ID: <4eab2d2b.3020...@wikimedia.org>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 10/28/11 3:27 PM, Etienne Beaule wrote:
 It's disabled on certain wikis because of technical problems.
 
>>> 
>>>        Oh? I wasn't aware that it had been disabled anywhere as yet.
>>> 
>>>        WikiLove was not rolled out "en mass"; the policy for deployment of
>>> the
>>> tool is that it is by request only, and the requesting wiki must:
>>> 
>>>                a) Make sure the tool is localized (via TranslateWiki);
>>>                b) Make sure they have a local configuration; and
>>>                c) Show community consensus.
>>> 
>>>        So if it was enabled and then *disabled*, I have not heard of this.
>>>  Is
>>> there a bug report I can look to?  Or if you know of a wiki where this
>>> is the case, I can do a search.
>>> 
>>>        Thanks!
>>> 
>>>        -b.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation
>>> 
>>> Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
>>> 
>>> 
>> Good to hear that wikilove is only going in on wikis where there is
>> consensus for it. Can anyone give me a link to the discussion that
>> established consensus on EN wikipedia? The nearest I could find was
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28miscellaneous%29/Archi
>> ve_33#Thoughts_on_WikiLove.3F
>> 
>> Ta
>> 
>> WerepielChequers
>> ___
>> 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] Show community consensus for Wikilove

2011-10-29 Thread Gerard Meijssen

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

On 29 October 2011 16:56, Fae  wrote:

> Hi Gerard,
>
> Your email appears to argue that the WMF should introduce any features
> they find expedient and then deal with (or ignore) complaints from the
> community afterwards. This seems to miss the opportunity for user
> testing, feedback or even asking the users what they want as part of
> requirements gathering and analysis. Does your email represent the
> position of the WMF or the outreach team?
>
> Personally, I find arguments that we should do away with community
> consensus because it is too hard disturbing and run counter to our
> agreed mission.
>
> Thanks,
> 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

2011-10-29 Thread Mateus Nobre


Etienne,

Why any Wikipedia would not want the Wikilove feature?

This is inconsistent for me. Wikilove's a global improvement, there's no reason 
to disagree improvements.

_
MateusNobre
Wikimedia Brasil - MetalBrasil on Wikimedia projects
(+55) 85 88393509
  30440865


> Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 12:31:24 -0300
> From: betie...@bellaliant.net
> To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove
> 
> But if we enable it at a wiki that doesn't want it, there could be a
> boycott, and vandals just get the place up to there "code".  It would be
> very detrimental to wikipedia.
> 
> 
> On 11-10-29 12:27 PM, "Nickanc Wikipedia"  wrote:
> 
> > IMHO, Wikilove is something so important about wikipedia's ethics and
> > behaviour that shall be in every wiki. IMHO.
> > 
> > 2011/10/29 WereSpielChequers :
> >>> Message: 1
> >>> Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 15:31:07 -0700
> >>> From: Brandon Harris 
> >>> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] On certain shallow, American-centered,
> >>>foolish software initiatives backed by WMF
> >>> To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >>> Message-ID: <4eab2d2b.3020...@wikimedia.org>
> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> On 10/28/11 3:27 PM, Etienne Beaule wrote:
> >>>> It's disabled on certain wikis because of technical problems.
> >>>> 
> >>> 
> >>>Oh? I wasn't aware that it had been disabled anywhere as yet.
> >>> 
> >>>WikiLove was not rolled out "en mass"; the policy for deployment of
> >>> the
> >>> tool is that it is by request only, and the requesting wiki must:
> >>> 
> >>>a) Make sure the tool is localized (via TranslateWiki);
> >>>b) Make sure they have a local configuration; and
> >>>c) Show community consensus.
> >>> 
> >>>So if it was enabled and then *disabled*, I have not heard of this.
> >>>  Is
> >>> there a bug report I can look to?  Or if you know of a wiki where this
> >>> is the case, I can do a search.
> >>> 
> >>>Thanks!
> >>> 
> >>>-b.
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> --
> >>> Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation
> >>> 
> >>> Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >> Good to hear that wikilove is only going in on wikis where there is
> >> consensus for it. Can anyone give me a link to the discussion that
> >> established consensus on EN wikipedia? The nearest I could find was
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28miscellaneous%29/Archi
> >> ve_33#Thoughts_on_WikiLove.3F
> >> 
> >> Ta
> >> 
> >> WerepielChequers
> >> ___
> >> 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] Show community consensus for Wikilove

2011-10-29 Thread Etienne Beaule

It could happen.


On 11-10-29 4:57 PM, "Mateus Nobre"  wrote:

> 
> Etienne,
> 
> Why any Wikipedia would not want the Wikilove feature?
> 
> This is inconsistent for me. Wikilove's a global improvement, there's no
> reason to disagree improvements.
> 
> _
> MateusNobre
> Wikimedia Brasil - MetalBrasil on Wikimedia projects
> (+55) 85 88393509
>   30440865
> 
> 
>> Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 12:31:24 -0300
>> From: betie...@bellaliant.net
>> To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove
>> 
>> But if we enable it at a wiki that doesn't want it, there could be a
>> boycott, and vandals just get the place up to there "code".  It would be
>> very detrimental to wikipedia.
>> 
>> 
>> On 11-10-29 12:27 PM, "Nickanc Wikipedia"  wrote:
>> 
>>> IMHO, Wikilove is something so important about wikipedia's ethics and
>>> behaviour that shall be in every wiki. IMHO.
>>> 
>>> 2011/10/29 WereSpielChequers :
>>>>> Message: 1
>>>>> Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 15:31:07 -0700
>>>>> From: Brandon Harris 
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] On certain shallow, American-centered,
>>>>>foolish software initiatives backed by WMF
>>>>> To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>> Message-ID: <4eab2d2b.3020...@wikimedia.org>
>>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 10/28/11 3:27 PM, Etienne Beaule wrote:
>>>>>> It's disabled on certain wikis because of technical problems.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>Oh? I wasn't aware that it had been disabled anywhere as yet.
>>>>> 
>>>>>WikiLove was not rolled out "en mass"; the policy for deployment of
>>>>> the
>>>>> tool is that it is by request only, and the requesting wiki must:
>>>>> 
>>>>>a) Make sure the tool is localized (via TranslateWiki);
>>>>>b) Make sure they have a local configuration; and
>>>>>c) Show community consensus.
>>>>> 
>>>>>So if it was enabled and then *disabled*, I have not heard of this.
>>>>>  Is
>>>>> there a bug report I can look to?  Or if you know of a wiki where this
>>>>> is the case, I can do a search.
>>>>> 
>>>>>Thanks!
>>>>> 
>>>>>-b.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation
>>>>> 
>>>>> Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> Good to hear that wikilove is only going in on wikis where there is
>>>> consensus for it. Can anyone give me a link to the discussion that
>>>> established consensus on EN wikipedia? The nearest I could find was
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28miscellaneous%29/Arc
>>>> hi
>>>> ve_33#Thoughts_on_WikiLove.3F
>>>> 
>>>> Ta
>>>> 
>>>> WerepielChequers
>>>> ___
>>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>  
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l



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

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

2011-10-29 Thread Oliver Koslowski

Am 29.10.2011 21:57, schrieb Mateus Nobre:

>  This is inconsistent for me. Wikilove's a global improvement, there's no 
> reason to disagree improvements.

Huh,I knew I shoulda taken that left turn at/Albuquerque/. How exactly is it a 
global improvement? Quite frankly I couldn't think of anything less useful than 
the WikiLove extension. o.O

Best regards,
Oliver


___
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

2011-10-29 Thread Bjoern Hoehrmann

* Mateus Nobre wrote:
>Why any Wikipedia would not want the Wikilove feature?
>
>This is inconsistent for me. Wikilove's a global improvement,
>there's no reason to disagree improvements.

If you create a new account and edit a bit, on some projects odds are
some other editor will place on your Talk page some template saying they
saw you editing and wanted to personally welcome you. Some might find
that nice, others might feel they are being stalked because someone is
monitoring them, ridiculed as there is nothing personal about placing
templates, most probably with a single click, on talk pages, and exposed
as the first thing anyone visiting the talk page would see is that they
are a newbie. Some may think of http://www.despair.com/motivation.html
when they find themself as recepient of this kind of Wikilove. And they
would have a hard time showing their discomfort because society expects
you to appreciate when someone appears to try to be nice to you, which
would add to their discomfort.

Some editors just want to edit articles and regard the "social" and
"meta" dimensions of the project as annoying distractions, while other
editors see those as the main attractions. Some prefer "You are nice.",
others are far more motivated hearing "You did a good job." Some might
be thrilled if they see someone clicked them a kitty, others might find
it far more meaningful if another editor takes the time to manually go
to their talk page and manually write, say, "I signed in this morning
and saw you added a great picture to the article I created yesterday.
That made me smile, thank you." without hearts and beers and single
clicks (similarily, adding the picture might be a far better show of
appreciation than a clicked kitty with thanks for the new article.)

It's hard to smile online.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjo...@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 

___
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

2011-10-29 Thread Marco Chiesa

On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 9:57 PM, Mateus Nobre  wrote:
>
> Etienne,
>
> Why any Wikipedia would not want the Wikilove feature?
>
> This is inconsistent for me. Wikilove's a global improvement, there's no 
> reason to disagree improvements.
>

What a lot of people would reply is: "Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia"
A little story: on the Italian Wikipedia we were calling WikiLove a
call to calm down when discussions are getting too hot, and one day
one Italian newspaper wrote an article about WikiLove (the new
MediaWiki feature) and we were wondering what the hell they were
talking about. Because we couldn't believe that such a feature could
exist. I then realised that it was active on commons, and it looks
like some of the things you could get on facebook three years ago,
which look so old now. I don't like it, and I'm not going to use it
even if it was implemented on my home wiki. But I'm sure some people
would use it, and I prefer they use it rather than vandalizing pages.

Cruccone

___
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

2011-10-29 Thread M. Williamson

So... Wikilove is enabled on all Wikis only by consensus... except en.wp,
where it was pushed out with no consensus and as far as I can tell, no
research yet proving it had any results?


2011/10/29 Gerard Meijssen 

> Hoi,
> Given that the English Wikipedia has a problem, its page views is going
> down for instance, there is a well documented division between the oldies
> and the newbies. There is a natural attrition as well as open conflict
> resulting in their being not as many editors as there used to be.
>
> Wikilove, the dashboard are all mechanisms to show appreciation and learn
> from newbies. This functionality is developed with the English Wikipedia in
> mind.
>
> My question what is the point in stagnating in old functionality when the
> established community is to approve new features especially new features
> not addressing the needs of the established community and seeking consensus
> only once these features have been developed?
>
> With respect, these features are introduced, experience is gained and
> consequently these features will be adapted. Does constant community
> consensus make sense and if so what is it that you hope to achieve? How is
> a no going to help given the need for a more healthy English community ?
> Thanks,
>  GerardM
>
> On 29 October 2011 14:49, WereSpielChequers  >wrote:
>
> > > Message: 1
> > > Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 15:31:07 -0700
> > > From: Brandon Harris 
> > > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] On certain shallow, American-centered,
> > >foolish software initiatives backed by WMF
> > > To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Message-ID: <4eab2d2b.3020...@wikimedia.org>
> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 10/28/11 3:27 PM, Etienne Beaule wrote:
> > > > It's disabled on certain wikis because of technical problems.
> > > >
> > >
> > >Oh? I wasn't aware that it had been disabled anywhere as yet.
> > >
> > >WikiLove was not rolled out "en mass"; the policy for deployment
> > of
> > > the
> > > tool is that it is by request only, and the requesting wiki must:
> > >
> > >a) Make sure the tool is localized (via TranslateWiki);
> > >b) Make sure they have a local configuration; and
> > >c) Show community consensus.
> > >
> > >So if it was enabled and then *disabled*, I have not heard of
> > this.
> > >  Is
> > > there a bug report I can look to?  Or if you know of a wiki where this
> > > is the case, I can do a search.
> > >
> > >Thanks!
> > >
> > >-b.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation
> > >
> > > Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
> > >
> > >
> > Good to hear that wikilove is only going in on wikis where there is
> > consensus for it. Can anyone give me a link to the discussion that
> > established consensus on EN wikipedia? The nearest I could find was
> >
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28miscellaneous%29/Archive_33#Thoughts_on_WikiLove.3F
> >
> > Ta
> >
> > WerepielChequers
> > ___
> > 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] Show community consensus for Wikilove

2011-10-29 Thread Jorgenev

My question is, are we going to have a bot to give out barnstars
anytime soon? That seems like the logical conclusion of all this...

So far my only experience with extension:wikilove is having a new user
prefer it to just editing my talk page, and so over the course of a
mundane conversation about sourcing I earned myself two civility
barnstars and three trophies. Hooray!

___
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

2011-10-29 Thread Brandon Harris

On 10/29/11 8:36 PM, Jorgenev wrote:
>
> So far my only experience with extension:wikilove is having a new user
> prefer it to just editing my talk page, and so over the course of a
> mundane conversation about sourcing I earned myself two civility
> barnstars and three trophies. Hooray!

One take away from this experience of yours could be that the process 
of utilizing talk pages is extremely arcane and horrible from a user 
experience perspective, while using WikiLove to communicate - even 
though it is the "wrong" channel - is far easier and preferable to new 
users.

-- 
Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

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

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

2011-10-29 Thread Keegan Peterzell

On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 10:51 PM, Brandon Harris wrote:

>
> On 10/29/11 8:36 PM, Jorgenev wrote:
> >
> > So far my only experience with extension:wikilove is having a new user
> > prefer it to just editing my talk page, and so over the course of a
> > mundane conversation about sourcing I earned myself two civility
> > barnstars and three trophies. Hooray!
>
> One take away from this experience of yours could be that the
> process
> of utilizing talk pages is extremely arcane and horrible from a user
> experience perspective, while using WikiLove to communicate - even
> though it is the "wrong" channel - is far easier and preferable to new
> users.
>
>
>
Sure.  Is easier more educational?  There's the rub.

I'm all for making editing a more inviting experience, but progress has a
way of feigning ease and making things more simple for building an
encyclopedia removes the intellectual from the exercise.  Wikipedia is one
of the last places on the internet where it's not acceptable to write in all
caps, ignore rules of grammar, write in text message speak, or in general
not know how to write a paragraph.  We should whole-heartily embrace mundane
conversations about sourcing over shiny stickers, because what we learned
and retained from school wasn't from the gold star reward system..  I don't
approve or disapprove of the Wikilove extension- I simply don't use it in my
setup because it's my preference.  I do, however, worry to an extent about
quality over quantity.  I'd rather have someone write one nice talk page
note a year than drop barnstars for niceties.  But that's just me.

-- 
~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] Show community consensus for Wikilove

2011-10-29 Thread Craig Franklin

Personally, I find the whole "WikiLove" extension to be a bit naff and
schmaltzy.  I'm generally not thrilled when I get a WikiLove kitten or
anything, just like I'm not touched that my local member of Parliament has
thought to send me a form letter about how hard they're working for me.
 It's harmless enough though, I just choose to ignore it.

With that said though, if a particular project community decides they don't
want it, why should it be forced upon them?  I think this principle should
apply to *all* extensions, not just "harmless" or "global improvement" ones.

Cheers,
Craig


> Message: 1


> Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 22:57:25 +0300


> From: Mateus Nobre 


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


> To: 


> Message-ID: 


>  Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"


>   Etienne,


>
Why any Wikipedia would not want the Wikilove feature?



This is inconsistent for me. Wikilove's a global improvement, there's no
reason to disagree improvements.



_


MateusNobre


Wikimedia Brasil - MetalBrasil on Wikimedia projects


(+55) 85 88393509


 30440865




> Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 12:31:24 -0300


> From: betie...@bellaliant.net


> To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org


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


>


> But if we enable it at a wiki that doesn't want it, there could be a


> boycott, and vandals just get the place up to there "code".  It would be


> very detrimental to wikipedia.


>


>


> On 11-10-29 12:27 PM, "Nickanc Wikipedia"  wrote:


>


> > IMHO, Wikilove is something so important about wikipedia's ethics and


> > behaviour that shall be in every wiki. IMHO.


> >


> > 2011/10/29 WereSpielChequers :


> >>> Message: 1


> >>> Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 15:31:07 -0700


> >>> From: Brandon Harris 


> >>> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] On certain shallow, American-centered,


> >>>foolish software initiatives backed by WMF


> >>> To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org


> >>> Message-ID: <4eab2d2b.3020...@wikimedia.org>


> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed


> >>>


> >>>


> >>>


> >>> On 10/28/11 3:27 PM, Etienne Beaule wrote:


> >>>> It's disabled on certain wikis because of technical problems.


> >>>>


> >>>


> >>>Oh? I wasn't aware that it had been disabled anywhere as yet.


> >>>


> >>>WikiLove was not rolled out "en mass"; the policy for
deployment of


> >>> the


> >>> tool is that it is by request only, and the requesting wiki must:


> >>>


> >>>a) Make sure the tool is localized (via TranslateWiki);


> >>>b) Make sure they have a local configuration; and


> >>>c) Show community consensus.


> >>>


> >>>So if it was enabled and then *disabled*, I have not heard of
this.


> >>>  Is


> >>> there a bug report I can look to?  Or if you know of a wiki where this


> >>> is the case, I can do a search.


> >>>


> >>>Thanks!


> >>>


> >>>-b.


> >>>


> >>>


> >>> --


> >>> Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation


> >>>


> >>> Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate


> >>>


> >>>


> >> Good to hear that wikilove is only going in on wikis where there is


> >> consensus for it. Can anyone give me a link to the discussion that


> >> established consensus on EN wikipedia? The nearest I could find was


> >>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28miscellaneous%29/Archi


> >> ve_33#Thoughts_on_WikiLove.3F


> >>


> >> Ta


> >>


> >> WerepielChequers


> >> ___


> >> 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] Show community consensus for Wikilove

2011-10-30 Thread Fae

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

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

2011-10-30 Thread 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

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

2011-10-30 Thread geni

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

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

2011-10-30 Thread 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

2011-10-30 Thread Fae

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

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

2011-10-30 Thread Yaroslav M. Blanter

On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 17:27:30 +0200, Nickanc Wikipedia
 wrote:
> IMHO, Wikilove is something so important about wikipedia's ethics and
> behaviour that shall be in every wiki. IMHO.

I absolutely disagree. Wikipedia ethics and behavior encourage thanking
the contributors, but it can be done in many ways, not necessarily with a
barnstar (or with a laurel, or a lotus flower, or whatever is appropriate).
There are many users with the template of a barnstar-free zone, and they
obviously do not want barnstars. Along the same line of reasoning, I see
that 99% of admins use template warnings which I hate and I never used any
template warning except for copyright violation when I was still an admin.
In my opinion, getting a template warning is pretty much the same as
talking to a bot. Barnstars are a different issue, but barnstar-free zones
are not for nothing. If one has a wikilove sign hanging on a top of the
page, one is more likely to click it than to go to the user talk page and
write a real thank you message.

Cheers
Yaroslav

___
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

2011-10-30 Thread David Gerard

On 30 October 2011 10:15, Yaroslav M. Blanter  wrote:

>  Along the same line of reasoning, I see
> that 99% of admins use template warnings which I hate and I never used any
> template warning except for copyright violation when I was still an admin.
> In my opinion, getting a template warning is pretty much the same as
> talking to a bot.


And in practice, a lot of new users think the templates are actually
placed by bots. A sort of Turing test in reverse.


- d.

___
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

2011-10-30 Thread 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

2011-10-30 Thread Yaroslav M. Blanter

>>
>> So far my only experience with extension:wikilove is having a new user
>> prefer it to just editing my talk page, and so over the course of a
>> mundane conversation about sourcing I earned myself two civility
>> barnstars and three trophies. Hooray!
> 
>   One take away from this experience of yours could be that the process 
> of utilizing talk pages is extremely arcane and horrible from a user 
> experience perspective, while using WikiLove to communicate - even 
> though it is the "wrong" channel - is far easier and preferable to new 
> users.

Would it be then logical to hang a proper communication tool which
eventually would land the user on the talk page where Wikilove now hangs?

Cheers
Yaroslav

___
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

2011-10-30 Thread WereSpielChequers

> --
>
> 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:
> >
> 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 know how many developers the Foundation has working to catch
up
there.

There is a broader point, a willingness to invest in things that might be
of use to hypothetical groups of potential new editors really shouldn't
come at the expense of neglecting the needs of the existing editor base. We
have an editor retention problem and one way to confront that is to invest
in fixing the problems that those editors raise and improve the tools they
use. Another i

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

2011-10-30 Thread Yaroslav M. Blanter

On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 23:15:52 +0200, Bjoern Hoehrmann 
wrote:

> Some editors just want to edit articles and regard the "social" and
> "meta" dimensions of the project as annoying distractions, while other
> editors see those as the main attractions. Some prefer "You are nice.",
> others are far more motivated hearing "You did a good job." Some might
> be thrilled if they see someone clicked them a kitty, others might find
> it far more meaningful if another editor takes the time to manually go
> to their talk page and manually write, say, "I signed in this morning
> and saw you added a great picture to the article I created yesterday.
> That made me smile, thank you." without hearts and beers and single
> clicks (similarily, adding the picture might be a far better show of
> appreciation than a clicked kitty with thanks for the new article.)
> 

Actually, I remember at some point last year Sue (or was it somebody else?
sorry for not remembering) suggested thanking the users for their 100th and
may be 1000th edit (or was it also the first article?). I thought it is a
great idea if implemented manually. Does anybody know whether it was
followed up? Accidentally, I happened to move to a brand new account
already afterwards, now I am past 5000 edits and 80 new articles in English
Wikipedia, and I never got any messages like this (not than I need them so
much). But in general I still think it would be a good idea.

Cheers
Yaroslav

___
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

2011-10-30 Thread Fae

On 30 October 2011 10:22, 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.

Okay, my email and WSC's original email related to the primary
function as defined at .
Requests for help are probably better handled by something other than
a heart icon at the top of every user talk page. I would say that the
appropriately named Help link at the left of every page is more likely
to be used for this.

Cheers,
Fae

___
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

2011-10-30 Thread Gerard Meijssen

Hoi,
There are a few issues:

   - the choice of what is going to be developed is very much a management
   issue; what gets priority and why
   - there are always people who object to any project because they are of
   the opinion that something else should  be considered to be more relevant
   - when something is developed FOR a specific project, giving that
   project the option to opt out once it is developed defeats the objective of
   the functionality; such a decision is very much taken at the start of the
   project
   - I know that a thread like this is read. Good proposals are considered
   when they stand out as such. Personally I like the notion of leaving a
   message as the first option..
   - I positively hate talk pages, prefer not to use them. I am a seasoned
   Wikimedian and when people like me are this negative about talk pages, then
   the notion that they are good / usable / can be left alone is suspect.
   - have you considered that many of the advanced functionalities used in
   the English Wikipedia are actually REALLY problematic in other languages -
   ease of use, even dumbing down is in my opinion acceptable when this grows
   our editor community in our projects other then the English Wikipedia
   - I am known for my hobby horses; working for the "Localisation team"
   allows me to be part of much good work. However, there are still many
   things that are not going to be developed any time soon that I rate highly

Thanks,
GerardM


On 30 October 2011 12:17, WereSpielChequers 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.
>

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

2011-10-30 Thread Theo10011

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

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

2011-10-30 Thread Brandon Harris

On 10/30/11 4:14 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:

>>  One take away from this experience of yours could be that the process
>> of utilizing talk pages is extremely arcane and horrible from a user
>> experience perspective, while using WikiLove to communicate - even
>> though it is the "wrong" channel - is far easier and preferable to new
>> users.
>
> Would it be then logical to hang a proper communication tool which
> eventually would land the user on the talk page where Wikilove now hangs?

Yes, and one has been designed.  However, we have paused the process 
because the entire "talk page" process is just broken on so many levels 
and it was thought that adding a new possible point of confusion would 
be detrimental.

(One of my favorite things about talk pages is that, for most people, 
*there is no talk page button*.  There's a "Discussion" tab.  So when 
someone says "Hey, just leave me a message on my talk page and I'll help 
you out!" that means. . . nothing.)

-- 
Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

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

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

2011-10-30 Thread Brandon Harris


On 10/30/11 4:48 AM, Fae wrote:

> Okay, my email and WSC's original email related to the primary
> function as defined at.
> Requests for help are probably better handled by something other than
> a heart icon at the top of every user talk page. I would say that the
> appropriately named Help link at the left of every page is more likely
> to be used for this.

I would not wish that "help" system to be used by my worst enemies.


-- 
Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

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

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

2011-10-30 Thread Thomas Dalton

On 30 October 2011 17:44, Brandon Harris  wrote:
>        (One of my favorite things about talk pages is that, for most people,
> *there is no talk page button*.  There's a "Discussion" tab.  So when
> someone says "Hey, just leave me a message on my talk page and I'll help
> you out!" that means. . . nothing.)

Perhaps we should apply the Common Name policy to the interface as
well as article titles.

___
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

2011-10-30 Thread Milos Rancic

Mostly useless and mostly harmless thing becomes harmful at the moment
when people start to spend a lot of time on discussing it.

A note for future improvements: Yes, WMF should do bold actions, but
it shouldn't waste community's confidence on mostly useless
"improvements".

___
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

2011-10-30 Thread 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

2011-10-30 Thread 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

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

2011-10-30 Thread 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

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

2011-10-30 Thread Mateus Nobre


We shouldn't be taken by the spirit of wiki environment. Sometimes, at Village 
Pump, through great debats and violent discussions, I feel like a lawyer, 
defending my point of view. We're more a tribunal than a colaborative and 
friendly ambience. Blocks are the prisons, and we're lawyers defending our 
opinions, supports are the witnesses.

Wikipedia has become more and more in a bureaucratic project until a few people 
understand its operation today. We are one of those exceptions that have come 
to understand the endless pages of policies. Do not think everyone can easily 
understand how Wikipedia works. Totally not. It's too hard guys, not everybody 
has that patience. We're few.

I think we (the Wikipedia community in general) gradually become more and more 
wikipedian and less humans. We become increasingly bureacratic, rigorous, 
severe, formal and boring. Virtually robots. Wikilove is a step against this 
process. 

We're not just talking about a tool, but a revolution in the way of 
communicative and collaborative Wikipedia. It is a way to make Wikipedia a 
family environment, not a court or an academy of letters. We need that. 
Wikipedia really needs that at all.
_
MateusNobre
MetalBrasil on Wikimedia projects
(+55) 85 88393509
  30440865


> Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 19:12:52 +0530
> From: de10...@gmail.com
> To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove
> 
> 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

2011-10-30 Thread Yaroslav M. Blanter


> We're not just talking about a tool, but a revolution in the way of
> communicative and collaborative Wikipedia. It is a way to make Wikipedia
a
> family environment, not a court or an academy of letters. We need that.
> Wikipedia really needs that at all.
> _
> MateusNobre
> MetalBrasil on Wikimedia projects
> (+55) 85 88393509
>   30440865

No, not at all. I do not want to work in a family environment. A couple of
years ago, on Russian Wikipedia we had an admin who indeed treated
Wikipedia as a family environment, dividing the community into "friends"
and "enemies", being rude to enemies, making plots with friends and so on.
She was quickly desysopped and then banned for two years, and it looks like
she had finally learned some of her lessons, but I still recollect this
editing atmosphere of 2008 over there as a nightmare, with several
"families" fighting against each other and so on. I have heard that
Portuguese Wikipedia something similar is or was going on (not that I care
so much). Traditional societies have their advantages and disadvantages. 

Cheers
Yaroslav

___
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

2011-10-30 Thread Mateus Nobre


I don't know about your family, but I have no enemies at mine. Didn't 
understand the relation about ''family environment'' and ''friends and 
enemies'': this looks like more ''factions/clans environments'' than ''family 
envornment''. Actually, in some wikipedias (including pt.wiki) we have some 
factions  (great groups of users who disagree in everything that another group 
agree, and vice versa), consequence of our lagged and tory collaborative way,  
which is actually the antithesis of the word ''collaborative'': very 
unattractive to newbies today.


When I spoke ''family'' I wanted to say we need a more likable system of 
communication. We need a real collaborative method, which not only fit for the 
editions, but for the treatment of users too. We're a big family working for a 
common objective: a world in which every single human being can freely share in 
the sum of all knowledge.

Why we treat ourselves like co-workes when we have so many things in common? 
Why we have to be a firm when we could be friends who works together for the 
common good? Why not reduce the unnecessary bureaucracy among the editors 
communication with Wikilove? It's just a way to make the Wikimedia projects 
friendly and really collaborative!
_
MateusNobre
Wikimedia Brasil - MetalBrasil on Wikimedia projects
(+55) 85 88393509
      30440865


> To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 22:30:23 +0400
> From: pute...@mccme.ru
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove
> 
> 
> > We're not just talking about a tool, but a revolution in the way of
> > communicative and collaborative Wikipedia. It is a way to make Wikipedia
> a
> > family environment, not a court or an academy of letters. We need that.
> > Wikipedia really needs that at all.
> > _
> > MateusNobre
> > MetalBrasil on Wikimedia projects
> > (+55) 85 88393509
> >   30440865
> 
> No, not at all. I do not want to work in a family environment. A couple of
> years ago, on Russian Wikipedia we had an admin who indeed treated
> Wikipedia as a family environment, dividing the community into "friends"
> and "enemies", being rude to enemies, making plots with friends and so on.
> She was quickly desysopped and then banned for two years, and it looks like
> she had finally learned some of her lessons, but I still recollect this
> editing atmosphere of 2008 over there as a nightmare, with several
> "families" fighting against each other and so on. I have heard that
> Portuguese Wikipedia something similar is or was going on (not that I care
> so much). Traditional societies have their advantages and disadvantages. 
> 
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
> 
> ___
> 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

2011-10-30 Thread Yaroslav M. Blanter

> When I spoke ''family'' I wanted to say we need a more likable system of
> communication. We need a real collaborative method, which not only fit
for
> the editions, but for the treatment of users too. We're a big family
> working for a common objective: a world in which every single human
being
> can freely share in the sum of all knowledge.
> 
> Why we treat ourselves like co-workes when we have so many things in
> common? Why we have to be a firm when we could be friends who works
> together for the common good? Why not reduce the unnecessary bureaucracy
> among the editors communication with Wikilove? It's just a way to make
the
> Wikimedia projects friendly and really collaborative!

Just because often it contradicts efficiency. Some people come here to
make friends, other come to have the job done (some of them have an agenda,
and others just want indeed to increase the sum of knowledge). For me
personally, making friends sounds like opposite to efficiency, because I
care about quality first. I see from the discussions that there are people
like me. I also know there are many people unlike me, for whom the
collaborative aspect is more important than the result. This is fine with
me. I just do not want any universal decisions to be made under assumptions
that we are all alike. We are not.

Cheers
Yaroslav

___
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

2011-10-30 Thread Mateus Nobre


Totally disagree with you, Yaroslav.

Do you really think a traditional (you know, traditional in Wikipedia 
equivalent to bureaucratic) communication and social system, friendship-free, 
at wikis reduces the efficiency? Why the friendship and camaraderie in editions 
and talk should reduce the efficiency of quality? Why working in a pleasant 
ambiete worse results. I think economists and business-men disagree with you.

For your e-mail I found that you are probably Russian. You probably have read 
Tolstoi, Anna Karênina. Using a literary example, Lievin, the landowner, 
greatly increased his profit by changing the method of work of his moujiks. The 
moujiks used to work in bad taste and bad-tempered when just followind orders 
in a bad envronment. When Lievin adopted a collaborative approach, when the 
moujiks could work without the several rules at a amicable environment, profits 
rose.
For Wikis is the same thing. Only the ideals are not enough. We have to have a 
friendly, a pleasant, a nice environment. We've to make the time of editions a 
good time to us. We've to smile editing Wikipedia. And know our work is 
important to the community, moral support. Wikilove make Wikipedia less a 
obligation and more a thing which we need every single day. This is the point.

_
MateusNobre
MetalBrasil on Wikimedia projects
(+55) 85 88393509
  30440865


> To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 23:22:27 +0400
> From: pute...@mccme.ru
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove
> 
> > When I spoke ''family'' I wanted to say we need a more likable system of
> > communication. We need a real collaborative method, which not only fit
> for
> > the editions, but for the treatment of users too. We're a big family
> > working for a common objective: a world in which every single human
> being
> > can freely share in the sum of all knowledge.
> > 
> > Why we treat ourselves like co-workes when we have so many things in
> > common? Why we have to be a firm when we could be friends who works
> > together for the common good? Why not reduce the unnecessary bureaucracy
> > among the editors communication with Wikilove? It's just a way to make
> the
> > Wikimedia projects friendly and really collaborative!
> 
> Just because often it contradicts efficiency. Some people come here to
> make friends, other come to have the job done (some of them have an agenda,
> and others just want indeed to increase the sum of knowledge). For me
> personally, making friends sounds like opposite to efficiency, because I
> care about quality first. I see from the discussions that there are people
> like me. I also know there are many people unlike me, for whom the
> collaborative aspect is more important than the result. This is fine with
> me. I just do not want any universal decisions to be made under assumptions
> that we are all alike. We are not.
> 
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
> 
> ___
> 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

2011-10-30 Thread Tobias Oelgarte

That shouldn't be the issue. The question is the effect. What would make 
you more pleased, a standard message/template that you did good, or a 
personal message from someone from who you know yourself that he watched 
over your work? Personally, I doubt that a simple template machine could 
lead to an increase. It simplifies the progress to leaving such a 
message. But it is also an double edged sword. While it is more likely 
that you will get a friendly message, the messages itself are weakened, 
since they look like a standard templates.

PS: As i wrote some month ago: "Damn. More kittens smashed at ground of 
the talk page, buried by the annoyed user. Great and important feature 
we haz now!"

nya~


Am 31.10.2011 01:57, schrieb Mateus Nobre:
> Totally disagree with you, Yaroslav.
>
> Do you really think a traditional (you know, traditional in Wikipedia 
> equivalent to bureaucratic) communication and social system, friendship-free, 
> at wikis reduces the efficiency? Why the friendship and camaraderie in 
> editions and talk should reduce the efficiency of quality? Why working in a 
> pleasant ambiete worse results. I think economists and business-men disagree 
> with you.
>
> For your e-mail I found that you are probably Russian. You probably have read 
> Tolstoi, Anna Karênina. Using a literary example, Lievin, the landowner, 
> greatly increased his profit by changing the method of work of his moujiks. 
> The moujiks used to work in bad taste and bad-tempered when just followind 
> orders in a bad envronment. When Lievin adopted a collaborative approach, 
> when the moujiks could work without the several rules at a amicable 
> environment, profits rose.
> For Wikis is the same thing. Only the ideals are not enough. We have to have 
> a friendly, a pleasant, a nice environment. We've to make the time of 
> editions a good time to us. We've to smile editing Wikipedia. And know our 
> work is important to the community, moral support. Wikilove make Wikipedia 
> less a obligation and more a thing which we need every single day. This is 
> the point.


___
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

2011-10-31 Thread MZMcBride

Craig Franklin wrote:
> Personally, I find the whole "WikiLove" extension to be a bit naff and
> schmaltzy.  I'm generally not thrilled when I get a WikiLove kitten or
> anything, just like I'm not touched that my local member of Parliament has
> thought to send me a form letter about how hard they're working for me.
>  It's harmless enough though, I just choose to ignore it.

A user preference or some other way of disabling the use of WikiLove on a
per-user basis might be nice. Similar to an e-mail's "unsubscribe" feature.
I'm not sure if there's a bug filed about this already.

MZMcBride



___
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

2011-10-31 Thread Liam Wyatt

On 31 October 2011 07:14, MZMcBride  wrote:

> Craig Franklin wrote:
> > Personally, I find the whole "WikiLove" extension to be a bit naff and
> > schmaltzy.  I'm generally not thrilled when I get a WikiLove kitten or
> > anything, just like I'm not touched that my local member of Parliament
> has
> > thought to send me a form letter about how hard they're working for me.
> >  It's harmless enough though, I just choose to ignore it.
>
> A user preference or some other way of disabling the use of WikiLove on a
> per-user basis might be nice. Similar to an e-mail's "unsubscribe" feature.
> I'm not sure if there's a bug filed about this already.
>
> MZMcBride
>
> Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the question, but users can already disable
the WikiLove feature on their editing preferences
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing (so
that a user doesn't ever see the WikiLove button).
Or, do you mean that users can disable the WikiLove button from appearing
above their userpage when someone else visits it? (so that a user can
opt-out of ever receiving WikiLove-derived messages).

-Liam
___
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

2011-10-31 Thread Béria Lima

I think he meant the second option, Liam.

And I agree with Tobias when he says this is a useless feature.
_
*Béria Lima*
(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. É isso o que estamos a
fazer .*


On 31 October 2011 07:50, Liam Wyatt  wrote:

> On 31 October 2011 07:14, MZMcBride  wrote:
>
> > Craig Franklin wrote:
> > > Personally, I find the whole "WikiLove" extension to be a bit naff and
> > > schmaltzy.  I'm generally not thrilled when I get a WikiLove kitten or
> > > anything, just like I'm not touched that my local member of Parliament
> > has
> > > thought to send me a form letter about how hard they're working for me.
> > >  It's harmless enough though, I just choose to ignore it.
> >
> > A user preference or some other way of disabling the use of WikiLove on a
> > per-user basis might be nice. Similar to an e-mail's "unsubscribe"
> feature.
> > I'm not sure if there's a bug filed about this already.
> >
> > MZMcBride
> >
> > Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the question, but users can already disable
> the WikiLove feature on their editing preferences
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing(so
> that a user doesn't ever see the WikiLove button).
> Or, do you mean that users can disable the WikiLove button from appearing
> above their userpage when someone else visits it? (so that a user can
> opt-out of ever receiving WikiLove-derived messages).
>
> -Liam
> ___
> 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

2011-10-31 Thread David Gerard

On 30 October 2011 16:44, Brandon Harris  wrote:

>        (One of my favorite things about talk pages is that, for most people,
> *there is no talk page button*.  There's a "Discussion" tab.  So when
> someone says "Hey, just leave me a message on my talk page and I'll help
> you out!" that means. . . nothing.)


+1 - this one got me attempting to explain stuff to someone on the
phone last week.

I suspect our main newbie problem is Wikipedia's utter opacity.
Outsiders have *no goddamn clue* how this thing is even supposed to wo


- d.

___
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

2011-10-31 Thread David Gerard

On 31 October 2011 11:04, David Gerard  wrote:

> I suspect our main newbie problem is Wikipedia's utter opacity.
> Outsiders have *no goddamn clue* how this thing is even supposed to wo

work, let alone how it actually does.


- d.

___
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

2011-10-31 Thread Nathan

I see Brandon replied to this thread several times; did anyone notice
if the question in the OP (if community consensus is required for
implementation, where was it demonstrated for en.wp) was answered?

___
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

2011-10-31 Thread Erik Moeller

On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 12:14 AM, MZMcBride  wrote:
> A user preference or some other way of disabling the use of WikiLove on a
> per-user basis might be nice.

Absolutely, disabling it on the recipient side (so that a sending user
gets a disabled icon saying "This user prefers more personal notes to
WikiLove messages" or something similar) is in the backlog. I've held
that the existing preference to disable should go both ways.
-- 
Erik Möller
VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

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

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

2011-10-31 Thread Ryan Kaldari

As better explained by Erik, the deployment to en.wiki was not done with 
community consensus. The purpose of the deployment, as I understand it, 
was two-fold:
* To address one of the main reasons cited for people leaving en.wiki 
(lack of positive feedback)
* To experiment with new methods of user communication
As mentioned by Erik, the feature is still considered experimental. 
Ironically, the main thing we've learned from WikiLove is that our 
existing interface for user talk page interaction is pretty abysmal 
(judging by the large number of people using WikiLove to post simple 
questions or comments).

Ryan Kaldari

On 10/31/11 6:54 AM, Nathan wrote:
> I see Brandon replied to this thread several times; did anyone notice
> if the question in the OP (if community consensus is required for
> implementation, where was it demonstrated for en.wp) was answered?
>
> ___
> 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

2011-10-31 Thread Mateus Nobre


Agree with Erik at his last e-mail. To me is a nice way to get consensus about 
this issue.

_
MateusNobre
MetalBrasil on Wikimedia projects
(+55) 85 88393509
  30440865


> Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 11:02:47 -0700
> From: rkald...@wikimedia.org
> To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove
> 
> As better explained by Erik, the deployment to en.wiki was not done with 
> community consensus. The purpose of the deployment, as I understand it, 
> was two-fold:
> * To address one of the main reasons cited for people leaving en.wiki 
> (lack of positive feedback)
> * To experiment with new methods of user communication
> As mentioned by Erik, the feature is still considered experimental. 
> Ironically, the main thing we've learned from WikiLove is that our 
> existing interface for user talk page interaction is pretty abysmal 
> (judging by the large number of people using WikiLove to post simple 
> questions or comments).
> 
> Ryan Kaldari
> 
> On 10/31/11 6:54 AM, Nathan wrote:
> > I see Brandon replied to this thread several times; did anyone notice
> > if the question in the OP (if community consensus is required for
> > implementation, where was it demonstrated for en.wp) was answered?
> >
> > ___
> > 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] Show community consensus for Wikilove

2011-11-01 Thread Ray Saintonge

On 10/30/11 3:21 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 30 October 2011 10:15, Yaroslav M. Blanter  wrote:
>>   Along the same line of reasoning, I see
>> that 99% of admins use template warnings which I hate and I never used any
>> template warning except for copyright violation when I was still an admin.
>> In my opinion, getting a template warning is pretty much the same as
>> talking to a bot.
> And in practice, a lot of new users think the templates are actually
> placed by bots. A sort of Turing test in reverse.
>
>
Perhaps people think that way because only those people with the 
intelligence of bots would use them.

Ray


___
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

2011-11-01 Thread Ray Saintonge

On 10/30/11 9:52 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 30 October 2011 17:44, Brandon Harris  wrote:
>> (One of my favorite things about talk pages is that, for most people,
>> *there is no talk page button*.  There's a "Discussion" tab.  So when
>> someone says "Hey, just leave me a message on my talk page and I'll help
>> you out!" that means. . . nothing.)
> Perhaps we should apply the Common Name policy to the interface as
> well as article titles.
>
>
I noticed that.  We constantly refer to talk pages as "talk pages", and 
yet somebody in his wisdom chose to use "Discussion" in the link.  There 
is a certain level of synonymy between "talk" and "discuss", but someone 
who has been told to go to the "talk page" will respond to that 
instruction very literally, and look for a very specific link. Even more 
so if he is a newby or not a native English speaker.

Ray

___
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

2011-11-01 Thread Ray Saintonge

On 10/30/11 5:57 PM, Mateus Nobre wrote:
> Do you really think a traditional (you know, traditional in Wikipedia 
> equivalent to bureaucratic) communication and social system, friendship-free, 
> at wikis reduces the efficiency? Why the friendship and camaraderie in 
> editions and talk should reduce the efficiency of quality? Why working in a 
> pleasant ambiete worse results. I think economists and business-men disagree 
> with you.
>
> For your e-mail I found that you are probably Russian. You probably have read 
> Tolstoi, Anna Karênina. Using a literary example, Lievin, the landowner, 
> greatly increased his profit by changing the method of work of his moujiks. 
> The moujiks used to work in bad taste and bad-tempered when just followind 
> orders in a bad envronment. When Lievin adopted a collaborative approach, 
> when the moujiks could work without the several rules at a amicable 
> environment, profits rose.
> For Wikis is the same thing. Only the ideals are not enough. We have to have 
> a friendly, a pleasant, a nice environment. We've to make the time of 
> editions a good time to us. We've to smile editing Wikipedia. And know our 
> work is important to the community, moral support. Wikilove make Wikipedia 
> less a obligation and more a thing which we need every single day. This is 
> the point.
>
> _
> MateusNobre

Efficiency has never been a part of Wikipedia's mission, but then, 
neither has community-building.  Collaborative communities build around 
an objective, in our case to assemble an encyclopedia. The efficient 
person, like Gogol's Chichikov, too easily roams the countryside 
collecting dead souls. a good product constantly renews itself in a 
cycle of thesis, antithesis and synthesis, and that's not efficient. Nor 
can it be accomplished in a divided community..

Ray
>
>> Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 23:22:27 +0400
>> From: pute...@mccme.ru
>> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove
>>> When I spoke ''family'' I wanted to say we need a more likable system of
>>> communication. We need a real collaborative method, which not only fit for
>>> the editions, but for the treatment of users too. We're a big family
>>> working for a common objective: a world in which every single human being
>>> can freely share in the sum of all knowledge.
>>>
>>> Why we treat ourselves like co-workes when we have so many things in
>>> common? Why we have to be a firm when we could be friends who works
>>> together for the common good? Why not reduce the unnecessary bureaucracy
>>> among the editors communication with Wikilove? It's just a way to make the
>>> Wikimedia projects friendly and really collaborative!
>> Just because often it contradicts efficiency. Some people come here to
>> make friends, other come to have the job done (some of them have an agenda,
>> and others just want indeed to increase the sum of knowledge). For me
>> personally, making friends sounds like opposite to efficiency, because I
>> care about quality first. I see from the discussions that there are people
>> like me. I also know there are many people unlike me, for whom the
>> collaborative aspect is more important than the result. This is fine with
>> me. I just do not want any universal decisions to be made under assumptions
>> that we are all alike. We are not.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Yaroslav
>>


___
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

2011-11-01 Thread Ray Saintonge

On 10/30/11 6:56 PM, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
> PS: As i wrote some month ago: "Damn. More kittens smashed at ground of
> the talk page, buried by the annoyed user. Great and important feature
> we haz now!"
>
Please refer to the Eric Bogle song, "He's nobody's moggy now."

Ray

___
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

2011-11-01 Thread Fae

> Efficiency has never been a part of Wikipedia's mission

That's a slightly odd interpretation,
 specifically
includes effective dissemination of content. Though the word
"effective" is quite different in meaning to "efficient", it would be
hard to imagine operational processes or practices being judged as an
effective use of donated funds if at the same time they blatantly
failed to be efficient.

I may be missing the point, perhaps someone can provide a practical
counter-example?

Cheers,
Fae

___
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

2011-11-01 Thread Yaroslav M. Blanter

On Tue, 1 Nov 2011 11:56:48 +, Fae  wrote:
>> Efficiency has never been a part of Wikipedia's mission
> 
> That's a slightly odd interpretation,
>  specifically
> includes effective dissemination of content. Though the word
> "effective" is quite different in meaning to "efficient", it would be
> hard to imagine operational processes or practices being judged as an
> effective use of donated funds if at the same time they blatantly
> failed to be efficient.
> 
> I may be missing the point, perhaps someone can provide a practical
> counter-example?
> 
> Cheers,
> Fae
> 
Since it all started from my message, by "efficiency" I meant "efficient
creation of knowledge" which in my opinion can sometimes arise from
interaction between the editors (when this collaboration is constructive)
and sometimes may be deterred by the interaction when this interaction is
destructive. I do not see any indication to the fact that Wikilove always
enables constructive interaction (just today I came across a nice example
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jcb&oldid=59812254#A_barnstar_for_you.21
- though I have no idea of the background of this message). I personally
will opt-out of Wikilove at the receiving side as soon as the option is
available. I am also not sure that the family-like model always enables
constructive interactions, since some users prefer to treat some others as
family members, and more others as aliens or enemies.

Cheers
Yaroslav

___
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

2011-11-01 Thread Orionist

>
> (just today I came across a nice example
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jcb&oldid=59812254#A_barnstar_for_you.21
> - though I have no idea of the background of this message)


That was between two established Commons users, both of which are
administrators, and completely capable of sarcastically posting a template
without the help of Wikilove. Hence the example is irrelevant to this
conversation.

Regards,
--
Orionist



On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 4:18 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:

> On Tue, 1 Nov 2011 11:56:48 +, Fae  wrote:
> >> Efficiency has never been a part of Wikipedia's mission
> >
> > That's a slightly odd interpretation,
> >  specifically
> > includes effective dissemination of content. Though the word
> > "effective" is quite different in meaning to "efficient", it would be
> > hard to imagine operational processes or practices being judged as an
> > effective use of donated funds if at the same time they blatantly
> > failed to be efficient.
> >
> > I may be missing the point, perhaps someone can provide a practical
> > counter-example?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Fae
> >
> Since it all started from my message, by "efficiency" I meant "efficient
> creation of knowledge" which in my opinion can sometimes arise from
> interaction between the editors (when this collaboration is constructive)
> and sometimes may be deterred by the interaction when this interaction is
> destructive. I do not see any indication to the fact that Wikilove always
> enables constructive interaction (just today I came across a nice example
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jcb&oldid=59812254#A_barnstar_for_you.21
> - though I have no idea of the background of this message). I personally
> will opt-out of Wikilove at the receiving side as soon as the option is
> available. I am also not sure that the family-like model always enables
> constructive interactions, since some users prefer to treat some others as
> family members, and more others as aliens or enemies.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
> ___
> 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

2011-11-01 Thread Ray Saintonge

On 11/01/11 5:18 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Nov 2011 11:56:48 +, Fae  wrote:
>>> Efficiency has never been a part of Wikipedia's mission
>> That's a slightly odd interpretation,
>>   specifically
>> includes effective dissemination of content. Though the word
>> "effective" is quite different in meaning to "efficient", it would be
>> hard to imagine operational processes or practices being judged as an
>> effective use of donated funds if at the same time they blatantly
>> failed to be efficient.
>>
>> I may be missing the point, perhaps someone can provide a practical
>> counter-example?
> Since it all started from my message, by "efficiency" I meant "efficient
> creation of knowledge" which in my opinion can sometimes arise from
> interaction between the editors (when this collaboration is constructive)
> and sometimes may be deterred by the interaction when this interaction is
> destructive. I do not see any indication to the fact that Wikilove always
> enables constructive interaction (just today I came across a nice example
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jcb&oldid=59812254#A_barnstar_for_you.21
> - though I have no idea of the background of this message). I personally
> will opt-out of Wikilove at the receiving side as soon as the option is
> available. I am also not sure that the family-like model always enables
> constructive interactions, since some users prefer to treat some others as
> family members, and more others as aliens or enemies.
>
I can at least agree that I interpreted your use of the word 
"efficiency" in your sense of the efficient creation of knowledge" 
instead of Fae's efficient use of donated funds. Not that I want to go 
too deeply into the semantics, but "efficient" describes a process while 
"effective" describes a result.


Ray

___
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

2011-11-02 Thread Ray Saintonge

On 10/29/11 12:40 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> 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.
>
>
People who research and write articles *are* involved in the community. 
They may have a relatively narrow range of topics in which they write, 
and if that's what pleases them then that's where they serve the 
community. For many such people participating in endless political 
wrangles about functionality is anathema. They prefer to control how 
their valuable and limited time is spent. They won't touch it unless and 
until an initiative affects them, but by that time the political debate 
may have long since moved on, and there is no longer any good way of 
affecting policy.

Ray



___
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

2011-11-02 Thread Steven Walling

On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 7:14 AM, Möller, Carsten  wrote:

> The changes of the terms is another one. The German version was published
> at the end of the discussion on meta.

Sorry if there wasn't wider announcement about it, but even though the
terms propose only 30 days to comment, there's been no rush to close the
discussion and things are continuing as before while translation goes on.
Geoff (Brigham, the general counsel) is in no hurry to push through the new
terms without plenty of time for comment from non-English speakers. So it's
not really accurate to say the discussion is "at its end".

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

62 matches

Mail list logo