Re: [Wikimedia-l] Donations - show the editors you care?

[Željko Blaće]

It would be awesome if this list could either have basic moderation and/or
an option to opt out of threads.


On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 23:37, Chris Keating 
wrote:

> I think it would be great if this sub-thread could come to an end and we
> could stop having the list clogged up with questions about one person's
> editing history.
>
> Also, I can't quite remember the list policy on people who are blocked
> from one or more Wikipedias for disruptive behaviour contributing here.
> Could one of the list admins clarify?
>

>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Donations - show the editors you care?

[Chris Keating]

I think it would be great if this sub-thread could come to an end and we
could stop having the list clogged up with questions about one person's
editing history.

Also, I can't quite remember the list policy on people who are blocked from
one or more Wikipedias for disruptive behaviour contributing here. Could
one of the list admins clarify?

Thanks,

Chris
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Donations - show the editors you care?

[Joseph Seddon]

The simple answer to a simple question is that I created my User:Seddon
volunteer account in 2006 and Visual Editor was first made available to
users seven and a half years later.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Donations - show the editors you care?

[Demian]

On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 12:03, Dan Garry (Deskana)  wrote:

> Please let us avoid using misleading statistics to make a point.
>


> On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 14:02, Dan Garry (Deskana) 
wrote:

> On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 12:38, Demian  wrote:
>
>> [...], but to be exact, I was looking to understand why only 2.8% (47 out
>> of 1668
>> )
>> of your mainspace edits since 2016 are made with Visual Editor. To answer
>> Dan: I was unaware of the personal account with 189
>> 
>> /399 
>> mainspace visual edits since 2016, which makes the grand total 11.41% (236
>> out of 2067) of mainspace edits.
>>
>
> At this point, I think looking at the editing environment Seddon used
> across his staff and personal edit history has dubious value to furthering
> this discussion about fundraising.
>

Hello Dan, we haven't met yet. Thank you for your feedback. You've pointed
out that the statistics I've provided was superficial - which it was -,
therefore I've produced exact numbers to satisfy your expectation. Are you
saying this has "dubious value"? I'm sorry if that's how you feel: it made
Seddon's opinion on Visual Editor more understandable than just the work
account that I knew about (the personal account is not declared). I'd say
that's a benefit. Please note that I don't appreciate my work being
described with these words. Accurate facts serve as a basis for quality
work and acquiring those facts takes valuable time.


> While Visual Editor has its benefits and I also use it on meta with
>> similar success rate, for me the dream would be an editor that I can use at
>> least 80% of the time, and the ultimate would be 100% like the service
>> provided by Dropbox Paper, Google Docs, Coda and Nuclino for example.
>>
>
> I think we'd all love that. I certainly would. Making that happen would
> probably be a large organisational pivot; I can't find any statistics about
> how big the team is that made, say, Google Docs, but I suspect it's larger
> than the entire Wikimedia Foundation. This topic would probably have been
> better discussed in the movement strategy conversations, as a thread on a
> mailing list won't make it happen.
>

These are just examples of what's possible, not the focus of my question.

Therefore my concern is if Visual Editor met your expectations well, what
>> was the reason not to use it for 1800+ edits, which includes most major
>> edits on meta?
>>
>
> I'm sure the Editing team would appreciate your help with conducting
> systematic user research. Have you reached out to them?
>

Yes, I did, but the topic of this thread is  not user research, but a
simple question, and it is now getting longer than intended. As the rest of
the topics were exhausted, just this one question remains if Seddon wishes
to answer it.
Thank you for your feedback once again.


Aron
*Senior Software Architect and Analyst*
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] WMF Community Events Team first office hours: Thursday December 10

[Rachel Farrand]

Hello everyone!

The Wikimedia Foundation Community Events Team
 will
begin holding monthly office hours for any community members who are
interested. To start, this will be a place where people can come ask us
questions, get to know us, and have discussions. If only a handful of
people show up it will be completely informal but if a larger number of
people show up we will add a little bit of structure.

The first office hours will take place this Thursday, December 10 starting
at 15:00 UTC  and lasting for
an hour. Find the link to join on meta

.

Our Team Members who will be attending and general topics which we will
each be able to speak to:

   -

   Rachel Farrand, Senior Program Officer: Conference grants (thematic and
   growth events), accessibility, remote events in the Wikimedia context,
   planning for future office hours
   -

   Chen Almog, Senior Program Officer: conference grants (regional events),
   risk assessment, capacity building, the new Events portal
   -

   Joël Letang, Senior Events Strategist: event strategy, Wikimania,
   scholarships


We will move the time of the meeting around month-to-month in order to be
inclusive of more timezones. We will also be adjusting these office hours
as we go based on community feedback and are very open to changing the
scope of these office hours over time or incorporating community theme
requests, presentation requests or requests for outside speakers. In some
cases we will be using these office hours to test out different options for
remote conference software.

You can find more information about upcoming officer hours and add your
comments and questions here and on the talk page:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Events_team/OfficeHours

We hope to see you there!

-- 
Rachel Farrand
Senior Program Officer
Community Events Team
Wikimedia Foundation
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Save the date! Coolest Tool Award 2020: December 11th, 17:00 UTC

[Joaquin Oltra Hernandez]

Hi Everyone!

A reminder that the Coolest Tool Award
 event will happen
online this Friday 11 December 2020 at 17:00 UTC[^1].

Here is more information about the venue:

   -

   The event will be live streamed on Youtube in the MediaWiki
    channel
   -

   The following venues can be used for socializing:
   -

  Youtube live stream chat (MediaWiki
  )
  -

  Twitter #CoolestToolAward
  
  -

  #wmhack Telegram group  / IRC #wmhackconnect
  

See you on Friday!

Joaquin, for the Coolest Tool Academy 2020

[^1]: 17:00 UTC is 9:00 PT, 18:00 CET, 22:30 IST. More timezones in
timeanddate.com


On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 6:01 PM Joaquin Oltra Hernandez <
jhernan...@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Hi Everyone!
>
> The second edition of the Coolest Tool Award
>  will happen online
> on Friday 11 December 2020 at 17:00 UTC[^1].
>
> The awarded tools will be showcased in a virtual event, with broadcasted
> video and chat channels for socializing. We will send more details soon.
>
> Save the date, and join us celebrating the great work volunteer developers
> do for the Wikimedia communities.
>
> We hope to see you there!
> Joaquin, for the Coolest Tool Academy 2020
>
> [^1]: 17:00 UTC is 9:00 PST, 18:00 CEST, 22:30 IST. More timezones in
> timeanddate.com
> 
> --
> Joaquin Oltra Hernandez
> Developer Advocate - Wikimedia Foundation
>


-- 
Joaquin Oltra Hernandez
Developer Advocate - Wikimedia Foundation
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Donations - show the editors you care?

[Dan Garry (Deskana)]

On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 12:38, Demian  wrote:

> I'm assuming this points to the namespace of the edits, although it's not
> clear. It's unfortunate that Visual Editor can only be used in mainspace, I
> wish that wasn't the case, but to be exact, I was looking to understand why
> only 2.8% (47 out of 1668
> )
> of your mainspace edits since 2016 are made with Visual Editor. To answer
> Dan: I was unaware of the personal account with 189
> 
> /399 
> mainspace visual edits since 2016, which makes the grand total 11.41% (236
> out of 2067) of mainspace edits.
>

At this point, I think looking at the editing environment Seddon used
across his staff and personal edit history has dubious value to furthering
this discussion about fundraising.


> While Visual Editor has its benefits and I also use it on meta with
> similar success rate, for me the dream would be an editor that I can use at
> least 80% of the time, and the ultimate would be 100% like the service
> provided by Dropbox Paper, Google Docs, Coda and Nuclino for example.
>

I think we'd all love that. I certainly would. Making that happen would
probably be a large organisational pivot; I can't find any statistics about
how big the team is that made, say, Google Docs, but I suspect it's larger
than the entire Wikimedia Foundation. This topic would probably have been
better discussed in the movement strategy conversations, as a thread on a
mailing list won't make it happen.


> Therefore my concern is if Visual Editor met your expectations well, what
> was the reason not to use it for 1800+ edits, which includes most major
> edits on meta?
>

I'm sure the Editing team would appreciate your help with conducting
systematic user research. Have you reached out to them?

Dan
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Donations - show the editors you care?

[Demian]

On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 11:32, Joseph Seddon  wrote:

> I believe the nature of the edits speak for themselves.
>
> Seddon
>

I'm assuming this points to the namespace of the edits, although it's not
clear. It's unfortunate that Visual Editor can only be used in mainspace, I
wish that wasn't the case, but to be exact, I was looking to understand why
only 2.8% (47 out of 1668
)
of your mainspace edits since 2016 are made with Visual Editor. To answer
Dan: I was unaware of the personal account with 189

/399 
mainspace visual edits since 2016, which makes the grand total 11.41% (236
out of 2067) of mainspace edits.
While Visual Editor has its benefits and I also use it on meta with similar
success rate, for me the dream would be an editor that I can use at least
80% of the time, and the ultimate would be 100% like the service provided
by Dropbox Paper, Google Docs, Coda and Nuclino for example. Therefore my
concern is if Visual Editor met your expectations well, what was the reason
not to use it for 1800+ edits, which includes most major edits on meta?


Thank you.

Aron
*Senior Software Architect and Analyst*



> On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 5:55 AM Demian  wrote:
>
>> Hey Seddon,
>>
>> On Sun, 6 Dec 2020 at 16:23, Joseph Seddon  wrote:
>>
>>> Short answer: I don't think it's a cynical lie. I think that the
>>> donations our donors give do results in benefits to the community, even if
>>> they aren't transactional or tangible things. We definitely don't want to
>>> give any misleading impression that the benefits are tangible so we will
>>> look into this and if we can, try and to improve it.
>>>
>>> Long answer: If I look at where things are now versus where things were
>>> when I first started editing, it's amazing the amount of progress the
>>> editing experience has made. Even some of the projects with the bumpiest
>>> entries into the movement have been profoundly impactful. Some might raise
>>> an eyebrow in my use of it as an example, but I am astounded by how much
>>> easier the visual editor makes writing articles. Especially with the tools
>>> that are built into like Citoid. It is a dream to use.
>>>
>>
>> Visual Editor was a big step for the WMF. I appreciate very much that it
>> exists, along with other projects, like Flow and MediaViewer, despite the
>> community's initial/final rejections (respectively).
>> Unfortunately, I can only use it effectively when I don't plan on editing
>> templates or links, those workflows are inefficient and easy to make
>> mistakes. I like to use Citoid, but I always have to fix up the result.
>> With the lengthy loading time, every time I have to weigh whether it's
>> worth the time using Visual Editor. As a result I use it roughly once a
>> month (estimate), although I wish it would be feasible to use it more often.
>>
>> Looking at the greater picture I'm happy that new editors are somewhat
>> more likely to use the Visual Editor, proving its benefit. On the other
>> hand, as a senior software architect who had worked on improving Visual
>> Editor, I am aware of the technical reasons that caused the community's low
>> acceptance - and how it can be fixed -, therefore I fully understand the
>> community's response.
>>
>> With these different aspects in mind I wonder why you find the Visual
>> Editor a dream to use, given that on average at most 4 in 500 of your
>> edits
>> 
>>  (2
>> ,
>> 3
>> ,
>> 4
>> ,
>> 5
>> ,
>> search: "visual edit") are made using Visual Editor.
>>
>>
>> Aron
>> *Senior Software Architect and Analyst*
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Or on the multilingual front with the content translation tool which has
>>> seen 700,000 articles at last count? In the last couple of years we will
>>> finally have integrated editor onboarding tools that are being worked on
>>> which are critical for the health of our communities? From personal
>>> experience, having better onboarding will massively improve community
>>> projects that aim to engage and bring in new editors to the movement.
>>>
>>> At one level you have the discrete improvements being worked on or
>>> completed with things like partial blocks, revision scoring, visual diffs,
>>> real time watchlists. At a more 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Donations - show the editors you care?

[Dan Garry (Deskana)]

On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 05:55, Demian  wrote:

> With these different aspects in mind I wonder why you find the Visual
> Editor a dream to use, given that on average at most 4 in 500 of your
> edits
> 
>  (2
> ,
> 3
> ,
> 4
> ,
> 5
> ,
> search: "visual edit") are made using Visual Editor.
>

The visual editor is designed and optimised for editing articles, not pages
on Meta-Wiki, and definitely not pages in the MediaWiki, CNBanner, and
Template namespaces, which comprise over 50% of Seddon's last 500 edits.
You readily arrive at quite different conclusions if you, for example, look
at how many edits are made using the visual editor in mainspace on the
different Wikipedias, rather than a staff member's account on Meta-Wiki.

Please let us avoid using misleading statistics to make a point.

Dan
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Donations - show the editors you care?

[Joseph Seddon]

I believe the nature of the edits speak for themselves.

Seddon

On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 5:55 AM Demian  wrote:

> Hey Seddon,
>
> On Sun, 6 Dec 2020 at 16:23, Joseph Seddon  wrote:
>
>> Short answer: I don't think it's a cynical lie. I think that the
>> donations our donors give do results in benefits to the community, even if
>> they aren't transactional or tangible things. We definitely don't want to
>> give any misleading impression that the benefits are tangible so we will
>> look into this and if we can, try and to improve it.
>>
>> Long answer: If I look at where things are now versus where things were
>> when I first started editing, it's amazing the amount of progress the
>> editing experience has made. Even some of the projects with the bumpiest
>> entries into the movement have been profoundly impactful. Some might raise
>> an eyebrow in my use of it as an example, but I am astounded by how much
>> easier the visual editor makes writing articles. Especially with the tools
>> that are built into like Citoid. It is a dream to use.
>>
>
> Visual Editor was a big step for the WMF. I appreciate very much that it
> exists, along with other projects, like Flow and MediaViewer, despite the
> community's initial/final rejections (respectively).
> Unfortunately, I can only use it effectively when I don't plan on editing
> templates or links, those workflows are inefficient and easy to make
> mistakes. I like to use Citoid, but I always have to fix up the result.
> With the lengthy loading time, every time I have to weigh whether it's
> worth the time using Visual Editor. As a result I use it roughly once a
> month (estimate), although I wish it would be feasible to use it more often.
>
> Looking at the greater picture I'm happy that new editors are somewhat
> more likely to use the Visual Editor, proving its benefit. On the other
> hand, as a senior software architect who had worked on improving Visual
> Editor, I am aware of the technical reasons that caused the community's low
> acceptance - and how it can be fixed -, therefore I fully understand the
> community's response.
>
> With these different aspects in mind I wonder why you find the Visual
> Editor a dream to use, given that on average at most 4 in 500 of your
> edits
> 
>  (2
> ,
> 3
> ,
> 4
> ,
> 5
> ,
> search: "visual edit") are made using Visual Editor.
>
>
> Aron
> *Senior Software Architect and Analyst*
>
>
>
>>
>> Or on the multilingual front with the content translation tool which has
>> seen 700,000 articles at last count? In the last couple of years we will
>> finally have integrated editor onboarding tools that are being worked on
>> which are critical for the health of our communities? From personal
>> experience, having better onboarding will massively improve community
>> projects that aim to engage and bring in new editors to the movement.
>>
>> At one level you have the discrete improvements being worked on or
>> completed with things like partial blocks, revision scoring, visual diffs,
>> real time watchlists. At a more global level things like Structure Data on
>> Commons or Abstract Wikipedia have the potential to solve massive problems
>> the community has faced like multilingual categories or global templates.
>> Those have the potential to bring huge benefits to the editing community on
>> the projects.
>>
>> The benefits aren't always tangible to a specific individual and can
>> often be invisible even if it enables or supports community focused work
>> further downstream. It's worth noting that many of the pragmatic and
>> mission driven choices made cumulatively over 15 years have made this work
>> harder for us. The limited resources in the earlier years meant that we
>> accumulated a huge amount of technical debt and digging out of that is
>> always harder after the fact. I'd defer to the opinions of my colleagues
>> but the increasing investment over the last few years has allowed us to
>> start actually making headway, even if there is still a long way to go.
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 1:37 PM Pelagic via Wikimedia-l <
>> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>
>>> [ Cross-posted from
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Babel#Donations_-_show_the_editors_you_care%3F
>>> ]
>>>
>>> I had the misfortune of visiting Wikipedia logged-out the other day, and
>>> was struck by the large size of the donation banner, and the odd wording of
>>>