[Wikimedia-l] Re: Join the new Movement Strategy Forum community review

[Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga]

ula.

Hoping that we can talk about what we need, and not what we have,
Galder


From: Quim Gil 
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2022 4:17 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Join the new Movement Strategy Forum community review

Hi,

I wanted to bring you a bit of Movement Strategy Forum flair, in case you 
haven't tasted it yet.

Oby_Ezeilo 
said<https://forum.movement-strategy.org/t/do-you-think-this-forum-can-be-useful-to-welcome-and-retain-new-contributors-to-movement-strategy/51/17>:


I prefer this

  1.  You can communicate in your Language
  2.  There are quick responses from members
  3.  There is cross knowledge sharing from every angle
  4.  Nke a bụ ebe mmụta pụrụ iche

(Automatic translation from Igbo: This is a special place)

Andy_Inácio 
said<https://forum.movement-strategy.org/t/do-you-think-this-forum-can-improve-movement-strategy-discussions-and-collaboration/50/22>:


I agree with other opinions stating Meta should remain the central place of 
gathering. But I must say: This forum feels so much more welcoming to 
newcomers. I speak for myself.

So from where I stand, if Meta is hard enough, here the participation can be 
significantly easier. The interface walk us through it. (snip) Plus, when the 
established alternatives so far are Telegram and similar, closed channels, I 
believe forums are much more useful to the goal.

Long live this forum! [:partying_face:]

***

Beyond the messages, you can sense the feelings of the persons sharing them. 
Movement Strategy implementation can only succeed if people feel safe, feel 
connected, and feel productive. We need a community of Movement Strategy 
implementors that is inviting to new ideas and experimentation, to success, and 
to failures met with encouragement and pride.

For cross-project collaboration we have Meta, we have social media, and we have 
events. It is not enough, and it is not working. What is to be done?


## Meta continues to be an official Movement Strategy channel

I want to clarify that we have no plans to abandon Meta. Movement Strategy 
relies on Meta for documentation, announcements, and calls to action. There 
isn't much discussion or collaboration happening there. This is where the 
Forum, a tool designed specifically for discussion and collaboration, can play 
an important role. We will continue doing the same work on Meta, and we plan to 
complement this work with the Forum.

With a Movement Strategy landing place that is newcomer friendly and 
multilingual, we can also tackle a historical problem of the Movement Strategy 
process: outreach to volunteers in all the wiki projects. We can also invite 
our partners in the ecosystem of free knowledge and offer them cozy and 
well-equipped rooms to work together.

Those preferring to contribute to the Movement Strategy implementation on Meta 
will continue finding us there too, and all the documentation will continue to 
be published and maintained there.

Ciell made some interesting points:

On Sun, Jun 12, 2022 at 6:04 PM Ciell Wikipedia 
mailto:ciell.wikipe...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi,

First: I am a big fan of having 'one front door' for people that are trying to 
find answers to questions they do not know where to ask (last year's movement 
communications insights on 
this<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_communications_insights/Report/Front_door>).
 I think a forum, actively moderated by people helping and pointing users to 
the right places, would be a huge improvement for community questions and 
input. Especially the one-click translation service is imho a big plus in 
service in comparison to Meta.

Just to be clear, this is not what the Movement Strategy Forum is trying to 
accomplish.

It does however worry me that when I joined the forum last weekend to take a 
peek, I stumbled on a thread with a very specific question about Commons and 
giving permission via VRT. The thread had multiple replies, but no one had a 
real substantial answer. Well, replies were along the lines of 'No, there is no 
template for this' and 'This should be discussed on Commons'. While the answers 
were somewhat correct, they were obviously not helpful for the person asking 
this specific question and, as far as I could tell, none of the respondents 
were a member of our VRT teams. So this user was effectively not helped by 
posting the question on the forum.
Even more so, because the question on the forum was not noticed by VRT agents 
(most of us working on the permissions queues and Commons will have the 
/Noticeboard on Commons on our watch list and can be pinged if country or 
language specific knowledge or advise is needed for a question), and secondly 
it will be more difficult for the people working from our end that will have to 
follow up if the person does decide to bring the question to Commons or VRT 
after all.

If someone asks a question about Commons 
processes<https://forum.movement-strategy.org/t/vrts-templat

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Join the new Movement Strategy Forum community review

[Quim Gil]

Hi,

I wanted to bring you a bit of Movement Strategy Forum flair, in case you
haven't tasted it yet.

Oby_Ezeilo said

:


*I prefer this*

   1. *You can communicate in your Language*
   2. *There are quick responses from members*
   3. *There is cross knowledge sharing from every angle*
   4. *Nke a bụ ebe mmụta pụrụ iche*

(Automatic translation from Igbo: *This is a special place*)

Andy_Inácio said

:

*I agree with other opinions stating Meta should remain the central place
of gathering. But I must say: This forum feels so much more welcoming to
newcomers. I speak for myself.*

*So from where I stand, if Meta is hard enough, here the participation can
be significantly easier. The interface walk us through it. (snip) Plus,
when the established alternatives so far are Telegram and similar, closed
channels, I believe forums are much more useful to the goal.*

*Long live this forum! [image: :partying_face:]*

***

Beyond the messages, you can sense the feelings of the persons sharing
them. Movement Strategy implementation can only succeed if people feel
safe, feel connected, and feel productive. We need a community of Movement
Strategy implementors that is inviting to new ideas and experimentation, to
success, and to failures met with encouragement and pride.

For cross-project collaboration we have Meta, we have social media, and we
have events. It is not enough, and it is not working. What is to be done?


## Meta continues to be an official Movement Strategy channel

I want to clarify that we have no plans to abandon Meta. Movement Strategy
relies on Meta for documentation, announcements, and calls to action. There
isn't much discussion or collaboration happening there. This is where the
Forum, a tool designed specifically for discussion and collaboration, can
play an important role. We will continue doing the same work on Meta, and
we plan to complement this work with the Forum.

With a Movement Strategy landing place that is newcomer friendly and
multilingual, we can also tackle a historical problem of the Movement
Strategy process: outreach to volunteers in all the wiki projects. We can
also invite our partners in the ecosystem of free knowledge and offer them
cozy and well-equipped rooms to work together.

Those preferring to contribute to the Movement Strategy implementation on
Meta will continue finding us there too, and all the documentation will
continue to be published and maintained there.

Ciell made some interesting points:

On Sun, Jun 12, 2022 at 6:04 PM Ciell Wikipedia 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> First: I am a big fan of having 'one front door' for people that are
> trying to find answers to questions they do not know where to ask (last
> year's movement communications insights on this
> ).
> I think a forum, actively moderated by people helping and pointing users to
> the right places, would be a huge improvement for community questions and
> input. Especially the one-click translation service is imho a big plus in
> service in comparison to Meta.
>

Just to be clear, this is not what the Movement Strategy Forum is trying to
accomplish.


> It does however worry me that when I joined the forum last weekend to take
> a peek, I stumbled on a thread with a very specific question about Commons
> and giving permission via VRT. The thread had multiple replies, but no one
> had a real substantial answer. Well, replies were along the lines of 'No,
> there is no template for this' and 'This should be discussed on Commons'.
> While the answers were somewhat correct, they were obviously not helpful
> for the person asking this specific question and, as far as I could tell,
> none of the respondents were a member of our VRT teams. So this user was
> effectively not helped by posting the question on the forum.
> Even more so, because the question on the forum was not noticed by VRT
> agents (most of us working on the permissions queues and Commons will have
> the /Noticeboard on Commons on our watch list and can be pinged if country
> or language specific knowledge or advise is needed for a question), and
> secondly it will be more difficult for the people working from our end that
> will have to follow up if the person does decide to bring the question to
> Commons or VRT after all.
>

If someone asks a question about Commons processes
 in the forum, a
good answer is to point them where to ask on Commons. At most, we can
encourage them to convert the question into an idea connected to any of the
MS recommendations. But still for that it would be useful to share that
idea on Commons. This is what we 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Join the new Movement Strategy Forum community review

[steven . mantz . nyc]

I agree with Quim Gil's replies on thiss. I see many positive benefits to the 
forum websiote that uses Discourse. By the way, I have been editing Wikipedia 
for over fifteen years. 

By the way I am mentioning my number of years, only to note my own connection 
with the community; longevity of editng certailnly does not make my opinion any 
more or less important than anyone else's opinion here; I'm saying that based 
on my own direct personal experience, since I have often learned a lot from 
editors who are more knowledgable than me. I just wanted to note that as one  
tangential thought and as a genral observation. 

Anyway, I appreciate all the insights and input offered in this discussion. 
thanks! 

Sm8900
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/OQX4YDFDLNJHC5ROHG426O27T7ZFA4IP/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Join the new Movement Strategy Forum community review

[Quim Gil]

Hi, thank you for this conversation. It is especially important to hear
more opinions from more people. If you are willing but still hesitating to
add your perspective, please go ahead and comment here or in the channel
you prefer.

I will comment on the forum related points later today, but in the meantime
I just wanted to say ..

On Tue, Jun 14, 2022, 6:42 AM Risker  wrote:

> Just to change the subject for a short minute:
>

This thread about the forum is dense enough already. Given that this is a
mailing list, please consider "changing the subject" indeed  and
discussing the elections in a separate thread.



> This is a Board of Trustees election.  It is supposed to be managed by the 
> Elections
> Committee
> ,
> a Board-appointed committee of community members.  Their mandate was
> reviewed and updated within the past month by Board resolution. (Yes, I
> know this used to be the "affiliate-selected" round, but now that it is an
> election, things have changed.)
>
> Is there a reason why every single communication I have seen about this
> election has been authored by staff members, none of whom are listed as
> staff support for the committee?  Did the Elections Committee carry out a
> consultation with the community to make this significant change in the
> manner in which candidate questions will be handled, as is indicated by
> their charter?
>
> There's a reason why these elections have never been managed by WMF staff
> - I think anyone could see the conflict of interest if they were to do so -
> and the Elections Committee or a committee selected by affiliates has
> handled these matters to date.  I'd like to know why this does not seem to
> be the case in this election.
>
> You may now wish to return to your previous discussions about where to
> talk about this election.  Please excuse my interruption.  /s
>
> Risker/Anne
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/37GVGTPROHJ5WLDTXB3IIZK4F4O5F6UQ/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/4ORN2WUWBVNQLHU4MK4AWFQJZXL5RB6H/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Join the new Movement Strategy Forum community review

[Risker]

Just to change the subject for a short minute:

This is a Board of Trustees election.  It is supposed to be managed by
the Elections
Committee
,
a Board-appointed committee of community members.  Their mandate was
reviewed and updated within the past month by Board resolution. (Yes, I
know this used to be the "affiliate-selected" round, but now that it is an
election, things have changed.)

Is there a reason why every single communication I have seen about this
election has been authored by staff members, none of whom are listed as
staff support for the committee?  Did the Elections Committee carry out a
consultation with the community to make this significant change in the
manner in which candidate questions will be handled, as is indicated by
their charter?

There's a reason why these elections have never been managed by WMF staff -
I think anyone could see the conflict of interest if they were to do so -
and the Elections Committee or a committee selected by affiliates has
handled these matters to date.  I'd like to know why this does not seem to
be the case in this election.

You may now wish to return to your previous discussions about where to talk
about this election.  Please excuse my interruption.  /s

Risker/Anne
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/37GVGTPROHJ5WLDTXB3IIZK4F4O5F6UQ/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Join the new Movement Strategy Forum community review

[Adam Wight]

Let's take the main argument here seriously for a moment: the Wikimedia
movement needs a better platform for inclusive, public, multi-language,
long-term discussion.  We'll especially need this if we expect the Global
Council to succeed and live up to our hopes for participation and
transparency.  MediaWiki and our existing community spaces are very good at
many things but this isn't quite one of them, yet.

As a person who sees software development happen up close, I fully support
the idea that a large wagon full of money could carry us a long way towards
these goals, and we already have the right people, skills, and shared
values to get us there.  However, we still have two main alternatives: find
a software package "off the shelf", or cook one up in-house.  Ideally, we
can do exactly what Quim has proposed: start with a system known to work,
and benefit from it right now, but at the same time, slowly but
deliberately take steps towards integrating the best parts of that system
into our own software.

It should be clear that any choice of development process will take *years*
and that we can't afford to do nothing while we wait?

I'd like to work with the kitchen metaphor begun above.  We could say that
MediaWiki started as a small but effective home for a few people to cook
together.  Maybe there was no oven so the types of meals that could be made
were somewhat limited.  We found a filing cabinet on the street and a
padlock for it, because auditing and curating the recipes was a big
concern.  Happily, we didn't try to build our own filling cabinet.  This
cabinet sits in the corner of the kitchen along with a desk for two people
where we have all our meetings (talk pages).  The desk drawer includes
blank paper and several black pencils, so it's a really nice environment
for writing new recipes together, as long as you're okay with feeling a
little cramped sharing this desk and you don't mind the cooking smells.
And bring your own color pencils if you want to decorate your recipe or get
otherwise fancy. Now, the lack of an oven is really starting to become a
problem.  By this time we realize that the village likes our food and we'll
need to bake a lot of bread, if we bake one loaf.  There's already a
communal oven down the road but we decide to build a beautiful brick oven
in the neighbor's back yard, like one we've seen in a book.  Great, but
we've never done this before and we don't have any insulation or mortar.
The first three attempts sort of collapse and even once we get it right ten
years later, by that time we already need a much bigger oven and—now we
realize that we need a meeting space for one hundred people.  We have the
money to knock down walls and build a meeting room, but we've also never
done this before, there will need to be extra bathrooms, wheelchair access,
ventilation, break-out space, good connections to public transportation...
Meanwhile, do we hold meetings in the perfectly functional city college
campus that happens to be a few blocks away (ie., is also an open-source
project), or do we insist that everything must happen in our building, so
we continue with ten people barely fitting into the sweaty kitchen and
having nightly arguments about what color to paint the theoretical meeting
room?

Regards,
[[mw:User:Adamw]]

>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/5EYTI5TOW6MU4SFE7JBVTMVCWWHBPF6Y/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Join the new Movement Strategy Forum community review

[Dan Garry (Deskana)]

Hey all,

I find myself mostly in agreement with Gergő. A reluctance to experiment is
a problem in this movement which prevents meaningful change. The current
state of MediaWiki is such that having discussions on it is very painful.
We can do better.

However, there've been quite a few different experiments with using
Discourse as an alternative to on-wiki discussions over the years. What I'm
left wondering is, what do we expect to learn from this experiment with
Discourse that we didn't learn from the last ones?

Additionally, as an experiment, I think it lacks clear, objective measures
of what would cause the experiment to be branded as either successful or
unsuccessful. These should be defined in advance, along with a plan for how
to measure them, or confirmation bias will means we'll all come away from
this thinking that our pre-conceived notions were proven correct, and we'll
have achieved nothing.

In fact, after I wrote the above, I realised that the exact question of
success metrics was proposed for community input on the talk page for the
new forum
. I
get that we like community consultations and all that, but defining a
problem, launching a potential solution, then asking the very people
participating in the experiment what they think the experiment's success
measures should be, strikes me as more of an abandonment of responsibility
than a consultation, as well as invalidating the experiment.

Dan

On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 at 17:43, Gergő Tisza  wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 12:52 PM Amir Sarabadani 
> wrote:
>
>> Even if you don't want mediawiki for various reasons, you can set it up
>> in Wikimedia Cloud. We already hosted Discourse there for years.
>>
>
> Cloud is 1) not exactly an improvement
> 
> in terms of privacy, 2) a drag on human resources as it will take
> significant time of an employee or community member (who is likely
> unskilled at operating Discourse) to keep the site running. If it seems
> likely that the forum will be around for long, it might be worth moving it
> to internal hosting (which will be a lot more expensive in relative terms
> but still not really significant compared to the Wikimedia movement's
> resources, I imagine). In the short term, just buying hosting while we see
> how well the new thing works out is a very reasonable approach. Our
> community's hostility to experiments is one of the biggest obstacles to
> adaptation and addressing long-present problems (such as using discussion
> technology that was considered pretty good forty years ago).
>
>
>> Even if you can't host in WMCS for other reasons, you still can have
>> internationalized discussions in mediawiki. The Desktop improvements team
>> does this in mediawiki.org (For example
>> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Reading/Web/Desktop_Improvements/Fourth_prototype_testing/Feedback)
>> and while not as great as auto-translate, it works.
>>
>
> No it doesn't, which is why you almost never see multilingual discussions
> on meta. It "works" in the same sense that two pieces of stick work as a
> lighter: it can be used for the same purpose with sufficient effort, but
> that effort is so high that almost no one will use it in practice.
>
> Language barrier is a problem but so is privacy, there is a reason we host
>> everything onsite. For example, I don't know the details of how it uses
>> Google Translate but it is possible we end up sending some data to Google
>> that are either not anonymized or can be de-anonymized easily. Not to
>> mention the cloud provider hosting the website having access to everything
>> and so on. And not to mention auto-translate is not perfect and can cause
>> all sorts of problems in communication.
>>
>
> While that's a good point and something to consider if we keep Discourse
> around, the current reality is that discussions mostly happen on Facebook,
> Telegram and Discord, all of which are worse in terms of privacy than a
> Discourse site hosted by a contracted organization. These discussions
> remind me of the trolley problem a bit - is it really preferable to let
> five times more people get run over, just because that way we can wash our
> hands afterwards and say we didn't officially approve of either option?
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/UVFXCMBWNFAJYI4PKDSNOATGC4YZMZJQ/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Join the new Movement Strategy Forum community review

[Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga]

Thanks Nathan,
I want to raise a point here. You say that "That's a reasonable pursuit for 
Quim, for instance, whose scope is managing the movement strategy process - not 
shepherding MediaWiki development strategy." and I must disagree. If Quim's (or 
whoever, this is not a complaint against Quim, of course) scope is managing the 
movement strategy process and he thinks that we need better tools for doing 
that, and those tools are out of his and the team's scope, then the problem is 
in the management. Who should Quim or his team reach out to ask for investment 
on those tools? Who is accountable for the decision? Is there someone in this 
process who should take the decision to invest in better discussion tools for 
MediaWiki (not only Meta)? If there's someone, and is not the team who has 
decided to abandon Meta, then that person should tell us why they decided not 
to invest money on making MediaWiki a better software for discussion. It 
there's no one, then we should ask why such kind of decisions can be taken 
without any accountability.

I'm going to give an example. Imagine that my kitchen is broken and I can't 
prepare my meals there. I have budget to solve it, but instead of that I decide 
that eating every day in a restaurant will be easier than paying someone to fix 
my kitchen. Indeed, I will eat good quality food every day, and I don't need to 
clean the kitchen after using it. As long as I have money, I can do this every 
day. But my kitchen is still broken, and it would be wise to fix it. Maybe I 
need to eat out for a week or so, but not solving something I need while I have 
money to do that, is not the wisest decision I can take.

That said, yes, sure, Meta is not the best place to make a discussion. Commons 
is not the best place to upload a photo. But it's WMF's responsibility to solve 
that, that's why millions of people are donating every year. Not to pay a team 
who is deciding to abandon MediaWiki because other platforms are doing better.

Sincerely,

Galder

From: Nathan 
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2022 2:51 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Join the new Movement Strategy Forum community review



On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 6:05 AM Yaroslav Blanter 
mailto:ymb...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear All,

I thought I would just let it go, but I do not think the discussion currently 
runs in a good direction.

I do not think it is useful to advocate that Meta is a good discussion 
platform. It is not. It is dead. At best, there are some announcements posted 
there, and there is a small group of people who monitor and comment on them. If 
there is something really outrageous going on, such as the recent rebranding 
attempt, users can be mobilized from the projects to leave their opinion. This 
is done by the project users who care, it is done inside the projects or using 
some extra-Wikimedia means, and it can only happen occasionally. If this does 
not happen, Meta discussions attract at best a dozen commenters, some of whom 
are just negative towards everything.

We tried to do something about this for at least 15 years (I myself was around 
and have been an active Meta user since 2007-2008). Things are not getting 
better, they are getting worse.

These are great points, thank you Yaroslav. The tone of this discussion is 
painful to read; angry and argumentative, even rude. But that's likely a 
function of your last point - things are not getting better, they are getting 
worse. Yes, Meta is an ugly and dysfunctional place to hold a discussion with 
many people. That reality leads WMF teams to search for alternatives that work 
better to achieve specific, discrete goals. That's a reasonable pursuit for 
Quim, for instance, whose scope is managing the movement strategy process - not 
shepherding MediaWiki development strategy.

Complaints are better directed at the ED and board - why, after all this time, 
and spending hundreds of millions of dollars on [something] and raising 
hundreds more, does MediaWiki feel frozen in 2008? Why are discussions so often 
held on other platforms? If this is a desirable outcome (e.g. a decision has 
been made that WMF can't replicate the ease of use and modernity of other 
platforms, which are continually innovating, and we made a decision not to 
chase Discord and IG and TikTok etc.) then maybe that's ok - if it is 
articulated somewhere that people can see when they are frustrated with why 
everything can't take place "on-wiki."
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/ZHXU4GWVRFI3DV6NWV4SBPHW3POXMVBI/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Join the new Movement Strategy Forum community review

[Nathan]

On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 6:05 AM Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> I thought I would just let it go, but I do not think the discussion
> currently runs in a good direction.
>
> I do not think it is useful to advocate that Meta is a good discussion
> platform. It is not. It is dead. At best, there are some announcements
> posted there, and there is a small group of people who monitor and comment
> on them. If there is something really outrageous going on, such as the
> recent rebranding attempt, users can be mobilized from the projects to
> leave their opinion. This is done by the project users who care, it is done
> inside the projects or using some extra-Wikimedia means, and it can only
> happen occasionally. If this does not happen, Meta discussions attract at
> best a dozen commenters, some of whom are just negative towards everything.
>
> We tried to do something about this for at least 15 years (I myself was
> around and have been an active Meta user since 2007-2008). Things are not
> getting better, they are getting worse.
>

These are great points, thank you Yaroslav. The tone of this discussion is
painful to read; angry and argumentative, even rude. But that's likely a
function of your last point - things are not getting better, they are
getting worse. Yes, Meta is an ugly and dysfunctional place to hold a
discussion with many people. That reality leads WMF teams to search for
alternatives that work better to achieve specific, discrete goals. That's a
reasonable pursuit for Quim, for instance, whose scope is managing the
movement strategy process - not shepherding MediaWiki development
strategy.

Complaints are better directed at the ED and board - why, after all this
time, and spending hundreds of millions of dollars on [something] and
raising hundreds more, does MediaWiki feel frozen in 2008? Why are
discussions so often held on other platforms? If this is a desirable
outcome (e.g. a decision has been made that WMF can't replicate the ease of
use and modernity of other platforms, which are continually innovating, and
we made a decision not to chase Discord and IG and TikTok etc.) then maybe
that's ok - if it is articulated somewhere that people can see when they
are frustrated with why everything can't take place "on-wiki."
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/GC3JYKPRI7L6AOCFMZHQUIBUSTGURXQ5/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Join the new Movement Strategy Forum community review

[Yaroslav Blanter]

ving 'one front door' for people that are trying to
>> find answers to questions. Having the front door in another building, with
>> another technology, and once they are in we say them that our building is
>> the other one, the one that is falling down (but don't visit the basement,
>> please, is full of money) is the worst of the strategies.
>>
>> Best,
>> Galder
>> --
>> *From:* Ciell Wikipedia 
>> *Sent:* Sunday, June 12, 2022 6:03 PM
>> *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List 
>> *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: Join the new Movement Strategy Forum
>> community review
>> Hi,
>>
>> First: I am a big fan of having 'one front door' for people that are
>> trying to find answers to questions they do not know where to ask (last
>> year's movement communications insights on this
>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_communications_insights/Report/Front_door>).
>> I think a forum, actively moderated by people helping and pointing users to
>> the right places, would be a huge improvement for community questions and
>> input. Especially the one-click translation service is imho a big plus in
>> service in comparison to Meta.
>>
>> It does however worry me that when I joined the forum last weekend to
>> take a peek, I stumbled on a thread with a very specific question about
>> Commons and giving permission via VRT. The thread had multiple replies, but
>> no one had a real substantial answer. Well, replies were along the lines of
>> 'No, there is no template for this' and 'This should be discussed on
>> Commons'. While the answers were somewhat correct, they were obviously not
>> helpful for the person asking this specific question and, as far as I could
>> tell, none of the respondents were a member of our VRT teams. So this user
>> was effectively not helped by posting the question on the forum.
>> Even more so, because the question on the forum was not noticed by VRT
>> agents (most of us working on the permissions queues and Commons will have
>> the /Noticeboard on Commons on our watch list and can be pinged if country
>> or language specific knowledge or advise is needed for a question), and
>> secondly it will be more difficult for the people working from our end that
>> will have to follow up if the person does decide to bring the question to
>> Commons or VRT after all.
>>
>> Besides that, with my MCDC hat on, I hope after this trial period we'll
>> get to see the data on how many people interacted about the Movement
>> Strategy that we have not heard from in the previous 5 years through any of
>> the other platforms that are in use to gather feedback. Already trying to
>> watch several channels with Strategy discussions, I count on the MSG team
>> to bring back these numbers and a summary of what is being discussed on the
>> forum back to Meta. Even in a virtual world there is a limit on how many
>> channels a Wikimedian can watch.
>>
>>
>> *NB: I see Sj's response crossed mine while I was writing, but let my
>> example underline the issue of 'no unified notifications' and a possible
>> problem with 'coherent archiving'. *
>>
>> *Please also be aware G-translate does not know all languages we have
>> projects in, some of which are however supported by Yandex that is an
>> option to choose for the Wikipedia article translation tool already. *
>>
>> Best,
>> Ciell
>>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/V7CW5JP6CIG3FBKWD3NE3NCMAM3KPGUA/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/6AMNUTFTKTDXMHZLTN2QH5LUPEAWHARQ/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Join the new Movement Strategy Forum community review

[F. Xavier Dengra i Grau via Wikimedia-l]

Bon dia a tothom/Hi everyone,

It's really difficult not to agree with Galder here. Happy to still read these 
persistent colleagues with key arguments.

The same people that committed the big mistakes and failure with Wikimedia 
Space (that should have never existed and that even combined discussions with 
Facebook groups as a "revolution" of communication) is now trying to tell us 
that they "learnt from those mistakes" and that they have full commitment in 
finishing this new forum. I still look back at [this graph of 
2019](https://diff.wikimedia.org/2019/06/25/introducing-wikimedia-space-a-platform-for-movement-news-and-conversations/)
 and wonder how things can rapidly age that badly and with worse leadership.

Imho this is quite informative of the lack of sustained chain of command (not 
community-need driven anymore). And the worst part of it, this is coming from 
the same people that is parallelly trying to blame those volunteers who 
strongly disagree with very legit discourses on the constant externalization of 
features and the lack of renewed wiki tech. I've read so far too many fallacies 
("this platform must be good because we are 67 staff people behind", etc) 
instead of a critical recognition that our default, wiki one is obsolete and 
must be urgently supported with staff and resources.

There is no way to justify new forums in other interfaces rather than the aim 
or the apathy of the WMF to disengage actively involved wikipedians in favor of 
more empty infrastructures (that benefits the institution rather the direct 
interaction within the knowledge projects). Truly sad, especially when some of 
us feel obliged to explain this to kind donors that truly believe that their 5$ 
are going to fund Wikipedia's servers and functionalities as they are mostly 
told in the funding banners.

Xavier Dengra
--- Original Message ---
El dilluns, 13 de juny 2022 a les 10:19 AM, Matej Grochal 
 va escriure:

> Dear all
>
> I quite agree with Galder here. We should focus on making our own spaces more 
> inclusive and easier to use rather than jumping to various external providers 
> for this and that. Let's not forget that existing volunteers and staff also 
> have to learn to use the new platform. The other issue is the continued 
> splitting of content and esp. volunteers have to find extra time to check 
> those other platforms to stay in touch with the movement.
>
> Be well and healthy
>
> Matej
>
> On Sunday, June 12, 2022, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga  
> wrote:
>
>> Ceill,
>> I am a big fan of having 'one front door' for people that are trying to find 
>> answers to questions. Having the front door in another building, with 
>> another technology, and once they are in we say them that our building is 
>> the other one, the one that is falling down (but don't visit the basement, 
>> please, is full of money) is the worst of the strategies.
>>
>> Best,
>> Galder
>>
>> ---------------
>>
>> From: Ciell Wikipedia 
>> Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2022 6:03 PM
>> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
>> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Join the new Movement Strategy Forum community 
>> review
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> First: I am a big fan of having 'one front door' for people that are trying 
>> to find answers to questions they do not know where to ask ([last year's 
>> movement communications insights on 
>> this](https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_communications_insights/Report/Front_door)).
>>  I think a forum, actively moderated by people helping and pointing users to 
>> the right places, would be a huge improvement for community questions and 
>> input. Especially the one-click translation service is imho a big plus in 
>> service in comparison to Meta.
>>
>> It does however worry me that when I joined the forum last weekend to take a 
>> peek, I stumbled on a thread with a very specific question about Commons and 
>> giving permission via VRT. The thread had multiple replies, but no one had a 
>> real substantial answer. Well, replies were along the lines of 'No, there is 
>> no template for this' and 'This should be discussed on Commons'. While the 
>> answers were somewhat correct, they were obviously not helpful for the 
>> person asking this specific question and, as far as I could tell, none of 
>> the respondents were a member of our VRT teams. So this user was effectively 
>> not helped by posting the question on the forum.
>> Even more so, because the question on the forum was not noticed by VRT 
>> agents (most of us working on the permissions queues and Commons will have 
>> the /Noticeboard on Commons on our watch list and can be pinge

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Join the new Movement Strategy Forum community review

[Matej Grochal]

Dear all

I quite agree with Galder here. We should focus on making our own spaces
more inclusive and easier to use rather than jumping to various external
providers for this and that. Let's not forget that existing volunteers and
staff also have to learn to use the new platform. The other issue is the
continued splitting of content and esp. volunteers have to find extra time
to check those other platforms to stay in touch with the movement.

Be well and healthy

Matej

On Sunday, June 12, 2022, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga 
wrote:

> Ceill,
> I am a big fan of having 'one front door' for people that are trying to
> find answers to questions. Having the front door in another building, with
> another technology, and once they are in we say them that our building is
> the other one, the one that is falling down (but don't visit the basement,
> please, is full of money) is the worst of the strategies.
>
> Best,
> Galder
> --
> *From:* Ciell Wikipedia 
> *Sent:* Sunday, June 12, 2022 6:03 PM
> *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List 
> *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: Join the new Movement Strategy Forum
> community review
>
> Hi,
>
> First: I am a big fan of having 'one front door' for people that are
> trying to find answers to questions they do not know where to ask (last
> year's movement communications insights on this
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_communications_insights/Report/Front_door>).
> I think a forum, actively moderated by people helping and pointing users to
> the right places, would be a huge improvement for community questions and
> input. Especially the one-click translation service is imho a big plus in
> service in comparison to Meta.
>
> It does however worry me that when I joined the forum last weekend to take
> a peek, I stumbled on a thread with a very specific question about Commons
> and giving permission via VRT. The thread had multiple replies, but no one
> had a real substantial answer. Well, replies were along the lines of 'No,
> there is no template for this' and 'This should be discussed on Commons'.
> While the answers were somewhat correct, they were obviously not helpful
> for the person asking this specific question and, as far as I could tell,
> none of the respondents were a member of our VRT teams. So this user was
> effectively not helped by posting the question on the forum.
> Even more so, because the question on the forum was not noticed by VRT
> agents (most of us working on the permissions queues and Commons will have
> the /Noticeboard on Commons on our watch list and can be pinged if country
> or language specific knowledge or advise is needed for a question), and
> secondly it will be more difficult for the people working from our end that
> will have to follow up if the person does decide to bring the question to
> Commons or VRT after all.
>
> Besides that, with my MCDC hat on, I hope after this trial period we'll
> get to see the data on how many people interacted about the Movement
> Strategy that we have not heard from in the previous 5 years through any of
> the other platforms that are in use to gather feedback. Already trying to
> watch several channels with Strategy discussions, I count on the MSG team
> to bring back these numbers and a summary of what is being discussed on the
> forum back to Meta. Even in a virtual world there is a limit on how many
> channels a Wikimedian can watch.
>
>
> *NB: I see Sj's response crossed mine while I was writing, but let my
> example underline the issue of 'no unified notifications' and a possible
> problem with 'coherent archiving'. *
>
> *Please also be aware G-translate does not know all languages we have
> projects in, some of which are however supported by Yandex that is an
> option to choose for the Wikipedia article translation tool already. *
>
> Best,
> Ciell
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/JF2P7S53WPYY7CY7JTFNBN5ZHOWLLDEO/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Join the new Movement Strategy Forum community review

[Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga]

Ceill,
I am a big fan of having 'one front door' for people that are trying to find 
answers to questions. Having the front door in another building, with another 
technology, and once they are in we say them that our building is the other 
one, the one that is falling down (but don't visit the basement, please, is 
full of money) is the worst of the strategies.

Best,
Galder

From: Ciell Wikipedia 
Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2022 6:03 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Join the new Movement Strategy Forum community review

Hi,

First: I am a big fan of having 'one front door' for people that are trying to 
find answers to questions they do not know where to ask (last year's movement 
communications insights on 
this<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_communications_insights/Report/Front_door>).
 I think a forum, actively moderated by people helping and pointing users to 
the right places, would be a huge improvement for community questions and 
input. Especially the one-click translation service is imho a big plus in 
service in comparison to Meta.

It does however worry me that when I joined the forum last weekend to take a 
peek, I stumbled on a thread with a very specific question about Commons and 
giving permission via VRT. The thread had multiple replies, but no one had a 
real substantial answer. Well, replies were along the lines of 'No, there is no 
template for this' and 'This should be discussed on Commons'. While the answers 
were somewhat correct, they were obviously not helpful for the person asking 
this specific question and, as far as I could tell, none of the respondents 
were a member of our VRT teams. So this user was effectively not helped by 
posting the question on the forum.
Even more so, because the question on the forum was not noticed by VRT agents 
(most of us working on the permissions queues and Commons will have the 
/Noticeboard on Commons on our watch list and can be pinged if country or 
language specific knowledge or advise is needed for a question), and secondly 
it will be more difficult for the people working from our end that will have to 
follow up if the person does decide to bring the question to Commons or VRT 
after all.

Besides that, with my MCDC hat on, I hope after this trial period we'll get to 
see the data on how many people interacted about the Movement Strategy that we 
have not heard from in the previous 5 years through any of the other platforms 
that are in use to gather feedback. Already trying to watch several channels 
with Strategy discussions, I count on the MSG team to bring back these numbers 
and a summary of what is being discussed on the forum back to Meta. Even in a 
virtual world there is a limit on how many channels a Wikimedian can watch.

NB: I see Sj's response crossed mine while I was writing, but let my example 
underline the issue of 'no unified notifications' and a possible problem with 
'coherent archiving'.
Please also be aware G-translate does not know all languages we have projects 
in, some of which are however supported by Yandex that is an option to choose 
for the Wikipedia article translation tool already.

Best,
Ciell

Op zo 12 jun. 2022 11:34 schreef Quim Gil 
mailto:q...@wikimedia.org>>:
Hi Mike,

Yes, on-wiki replies are fine and the organizers of the election will contact 
you to clarify the details.

We will find a fix to the problem of the content license on the forum. Thank 
you for pointing this out.

About features, this is what the election organizers want to try out:

* Let affiliates propose and select their questions by themselves. This is why 
we are providing a private space for affiliate representatives to propose 
questions and vote for them.

* Give all candidates three days to writel their replies before they can be 
read by anyone. This allows all candidates to organize their time to respond, 
not taxing as much those who have less free time or less flexible schedules. 
This is why we give access to candidates to this private space at the same 
time, when the questions are ready, and then make this space public at the date 
announced.

* Give everyone more time to read the candidates' answers in their preferred 
languages, using automatic translation. We want to reduce the gap that 
non-English speakers have to endure when texts are only available in English, 
and when translations take extra days to arrive, if they arrive for their 
language at all. This is another reason to use the forum.


On Sat, Jun 11, 2022, 11:09 PM Mike Peel 
mailto:em...@mikepeel.net>> wrote:
On 11/6/22 05:10:51, Quim Gil wrote:
> For context, the same email gives an option to candidates to answer the
> questions via email. In this case, the election organizers will post the
> answers in the forum on their behalf.

Answering by email isn't a great solution. I'm hoping to be able to
reply on-wiki, which is the normal way of answering questions

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Join the new Movement Strategy Forum community review

[Ciell Wikipedia]

Hi,

First: I am a big fan of having 'one front door' for people that are trying
to find answers to questions they do not know where to ask (last year's
movement communications insights on this
).
I think a forum, actively moderated by people helping and pointing users to
the right places, would be a huge improvement for community questions and
input. Especially the one-click translation service is imho a big plus in
service in comparison to Meta.

It does however worry me that when I joined the forum last weekend to take
a peek, I stumbled on a thread with a very specific question about Commons
and giving permission via VRT. The thread had multiple replies, but no one
had a real substantial answer. Well, replies were along the lines of 'No,
there is no template for this' and 'This should be discussed on Commons'.
While the answers were somewhat correct, they were obviously not helpful
for the person asking this specific question and, as far as I could tell,
none of the respondents were a member of our VRT teams. So this user was
effectively not helped by posting the question on the forum.
Even more so, because the question on the forum was not noticed by VRT
agents (most of us working on the permissions queues and Commons will have
the /Noticeboard on Commons on our watch list and can be pinged if country
or language specific knowledge or advise is needed for a question), and
secondly it will be more difficult for the people working from our end that
will have to follow up if the person does decide to bring the question to
Commons or VRT after all.

Besides that, with my MCDC hat on, I hope after this trial period we'll get
to see the data on how many people interacted about the Movement Strategy
that we have not heard from in the previous 5 years through any of the
other platforms that are in use to gather feedback. Already trying to watch
several channels with Strategy discussions, I count on the MSG team to
bring back these numbers and a summary of what is being discussed on the
forum back to Meta. Even in a virtual world there is a limit on how many
channels a Wikimedian can watch.


*NB: I see Sj's response crossed mine while I was writing, but let my
example underline the issue of 'no unified notifications' and a possible
problem with 'coherent archiving'. *

*Please also be aware G-translate does not know all languages we have
projects in, some of which are however supported by Yandex that is an
option to choose for the Wikipedia article translation tool already. *

Best,
Ciell

Op zo 12 jun. 2022 11:34 schreef Quim Gil :

> Hi Mike,
>
> Yes, on-wiki replies are fine and the organizers of the election will
> contact you to clarify the details.
>
> We will find a fix to the problem of the content license on the forum.
> Thank you for pointing this out.
>
> About features, this is what the election organizers want to try out:
>
> * Let affiliates propose and select their questions by themselves. This is
> why we are providing a private space for affiliate representatives to
> propose questions and vote for them.
>
> * Give all candidates three days to writel their replies before they can
> be read by anyone. This allows all candidates to organize their time to
> respond, not taxing as much those who have less free time or less flexible
> schedules. This is why we give access to candidates to this private space
> at the same time, when the questions are ready, and then make this space
> public at the date announced.
>
> * Give everyone more time to read the candidates' answers in their
> preferred languages, using automatic translation. We want to reduce the gap
> that non-English speakers have to endure when texts are only available in
> English, and when translations take extra days to arrive, if they arrive
> for their language at all. This is another reason to use the forum.
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 11, 2022, 11:09 PM Mike Peel  wrote:
>
>> On 11/6/22 05:10:51, Quim Gil wrote:
>> > For context, the same email gives an option to candidates to answer the
>> > questions via email. In this case, the election organizers will post
>> the
>> > answers in the forum on their behalf.
>>
>> Answering by email isn't a great solution. I'm hoping to be able to
>> reply on-wiki, which is the normal way of answering questions during
>> Wikimedia elections. However, since the forum doesn't seem to specify
>> copyright, I don't think CC-BY-SA responses on-wiki can be shared on the
>> forum.
>>
>> > This is the only point of the election process where this forum is
>> being
>> > used. It allows affiliates to propose and prioritize their questions
>> > quickly, and it allows to open the candidate replies to the public at
>> > the same time, automatically translated to the preference to each
>> > reader. Candidates can reply via email if they prefer. If a candidate
>> > doesn't want to use the forum, they don't have to.
>>
>> It's good to 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Join the new Movement Strategy Forum community review

[Samuel Klein]

Hi Tgr :)  Of course you've been involved in Discourse administration as
much as anyone.


> Our community's hostility to experiments is one of the biggest obstacles
> to adaptation and addressing long-present problems
>

That seems unfair.  Please reconsider. (your opinion carries a lot of
weight and can be self-actualizing!)
There is certainly a wariness of fragmenting experiments that don't have
the promise of bringing new ideas back into our core tools and sites. It's
great to borrow from & integrate w other projects, and the integration
needs to happen. We need enough gravitational attraction in the core to tie
things together.

If we had a strong persistent vision for how to support multilingual
discourse on our projects, and someone leading its design was warmly
engaged here, pointing out how this contributes to the ongoing work, most
of the stated concerns would go away.

  One-click translation is important.  Talk page sections (and flow) should
have it.  There are solvable details.
  Automatic link-expansion can be handy.  Talk pages should have it as an
option.  There are solvable details.
  The ability to sort a list by voting is important. (People do this
laboriously on wikis all the time!) We should have an in-band solution.
TASD.

Let's practice fast clear templates for experiments:
 1. Social templates for saying 'we want this', proposing simplest workable
experiments
 2. Clarity of maintainers and decision making. Who (in each area) can say
'we *plan* to have this', update roadmaps or plans of record, allocate
time, iterate onp experiments?
 3. Technical templates for trying new tools in a way that informs and
improves our core, and is persistently reusable. (We have tried many
discourse instances. What is the recommended way to synchronize it with a
wiki?)
 4. Giving shout-outs to existing work. Underrated + uplifting. We have
community scripts or feature requests that have tried to add most of these
features to MediaWiki itself. Naming them and their outcomes can highlight
what we still have to learn from new implementations.

SJ

(PS. I like this experiment & it motivates MW improvements. But for those
who might not immediately think of what we /lose/ by moving a q to a
forum, off the top of my head:
 ~ unified recent changes
 ~ unified notifications
 ~ nestable threading
 ~ coherent archiving
 ~ easy wiki-linking and backlinks
 ~ easy transclusion onto other pages
 ~ the abstraction of talk pages (or other annotation)
 ~ translation flow for non-automated translation
)



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/PYVQL5IJ6IYOPPSNEWBCYWHTBQRD23WP/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Join the new Movement Strategy Forum community review

[Quim Gil]

Hi Mike,

Yes, on-wiki replies are fine and the organizers of the election will
contact you to clarify the details.

We will find a fix to the problem of the content license on the forum.
Thank you for pointing this out.

About features, this is what the election organizers want to try out:

* Let affiliates propose and select their questions by themselves. This is
why we are providing a private space for affiliate representatives to
propose questions and vote for them.

* Give all candidates three days to writel their replies before they can be
read by anyone. This allows all candidates to organize their time to
respond, not taxing as much those who have less free time or less flexible
schedules. This is why we give access to candidates to this private space
at the same time, when the questions are ready, and then make this space
public at the date announced.

* Give everyone more time to read the candidates' answers in their
preferred languages, using automatic translation. We want to reduce the gap
that non-English speakers have to endure when texts are only available in
English, and when translations take extra days to arrive, if they arrive
for their language at all. This is another reason to use the forum.


On Sat, Jun 11, 2022, 11:09 PM Mike Peel  wrote:

> On 11/6/22 05:10:51, Quim Gil wrote:
> > For context, the same email gives an option to candidates to answer the
> > questions via email. In this case, the election organizers will post the
> > answers in the forum on their behalf.
>
> Answering by email isn't a great solution. I'm hoping to be able to
> reply on-wiki, which is the normal way of answering questions during
> Wikimedia elections. However, since the forum doesn't seem to specify
> copyright, I don't think CC-BY-SA responses on-wiki can be shared on the
> forum.
>
> > This is the only point of the election process where this forum is being
> > used. It allows affiliates to propose and prioritize their questions
> > quickly, and it allows to open the candidate replies to the public at
> > the same time, automatically translated to the preference to each
> > reader. Candidates can reply via email if they prefer. If a candidate
> > doesn't want to use the forum, they don't have to.
>
> It's good to hear that it won't be used more than that. It shouldn't
> even be used for this, though.
>
> > More context. This election process also includes an option for voters
> > to use a voting advice tool that is off-wiki as well. This tool was used
> > in the last MCDC election and received wide support and positive
> > feedback. None of the candidates had any objections, and there were +70.
> > Here too the candidates don't have to use this tool directly if they
> > don't want to.
>
> So because no-one objected before, my objections are clearly unreasonable?
>
> > These specialized tools are easy to use and they provide a benefit to
> > users that right now we cannot replicate with wiki pages alone.
>
> There is nothing on these forums that can't be replicated on-wiki, as
> has been thoroughly demonstrated in this thread.
>
> This is Wikimedia. Please keep things on-wiki.
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/U2HAIKXHHSFRWXPH2VNJ6KRMV7XKZ5ZK/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Join the new Movement Strategy Forum community review

[Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga]

No single feature in this off-wiki experiment created in order to make MediaWiki more obsolete cab't be achieved at Meta now. No one. If there's something that should be included in Meta and Discourse has, then I would like to remember that we have more than 100 million USD in a giant money pool that should be used to make our future sustainable.Please, stop this project and invest in our software.Galder2022(e)ko eka. 11(a) 23:09 erabiltzaileak hau idatzi du (Mike Peel ):On 11/6/22 05:10:51, Quim Gil wrote:
> For context, the same email gives an option to candidates to answer the 
> questions via email. In this case, the election organizers will post the 
> answers in the forum on their behalf.

Answering by email isn't a great solution. I'm hoping to be able to 
reply on-wiki, which is the normal way of answering questions during 
Wikimedia elections. However, since the forum doesn't seem to specify 
copyright, I don't think CC-BY-SA responses on-wiki can be shared on the 
forum.

> This is the only point of the election process where this forum is being 
> used. It allows affiliates to propose and prioritize their questions 
> quickly, and it allows to open the candidate replies to the public at 
> the same time, automatically translated to the preference to each 
> reader. Candidates can reply via email if they prefer. If a candidate 
> doesn't want to use the forum, they don't have to.

It's good to hear that it won't be used more than that. It shouldn't 
even be used for this, though.

> More context. This election process also includes an option for voters 
> to use a voting advice tool that is off-wiki as well. This tool was used 
> in the last MCDC election and received wide support and positive 
> feedback. None of the candidates had any objections, and there were +70. 
> Here too the candidates don't have to use this tool directly if they 
> don't want to.

So because no-one objected before, my objections are clearly unreasonable?

> These specialized tools are easy to use and they provide a benefit to 
> users that right now we cannot replicate with wiki pages alone.

There is nothing on these forums that can't be replicated on-wiki, as 
has been thoroughly demonstrated in this thread.

This is Wikimedia. Please keep things on-wiki.

Thanks,
Mike
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/DGUVIMFD3TXXTKF7WZPW6SDG6XJ74FCU/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/AQT3U7NQQVMPAA5BYT6T5CCEWDFHZTRE/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Join the new Movement Strategy Forum community review

[Mike Peel]

On 11/6/22 05:10:51, Quim Gil wrote:
For context, the same email gives an option to candidates to answer the 
questions via email. In this case, the election organizers will post the 
answers in the forum on their behalf.


Answering by email isn't a great solution. I'm hoping to be able to 
reply on-wiki, which is the normal way of answering questions during 
Wikimedia elections. However, since the forum doesn't seem to specify 
copyright, I don't think CC-BY-SA responses on-wiki can be shared on the 
forum.


This is the only point of the election process where this forum is being 
used. It allows affiliates to propose and prioritize their questions 
quickly, and it allows to open the candidate replies to the public at 
the same time, automatically translated to the preference to each 
reader. Candidates can reply via email if they prefer. If a candidate 
doesn't want to use the forum, they don't have to.


It's good to hear that it won't be used more than that. It shouldn't 
even be used for this, though.


More context. This election process also includes an option for voters 
to use a voting advice tool that is off-wiki as well. This tool was used 
in the last MCDC election and received wide support and positive 
feedback. None of the candidates had any objections, and there were +70. 
Here too the candidates don't have to use this tool directly if they 
don't want to.


So because no-one objected before, my objections are clearly unreasonable?

These specialized tools are easy to use and they provide a benefit to 
users that right now we cannot replicate with wiki pages alone.


There is nothing on these forums that can't be replicated on-wiki, as 
has been thoroughly demonstrated in this thread.


This is Wikimedia. Please keep things on-wiki.

Thanks,
Mike
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/DGUVIMFD3TXXTKF7WZPW6SDG6XJ74FCU/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Join the new Movement Strategy Forum community review

[Quim Gil]

On Sat, Jun 11, 2022, 2:33 AM Mike Peel  wrote:

> So I just received this:
>
>  > Thank you all again for submitting your candidatures for the Wikimedia
>  > Foundation Board of Trustees. The Board Selection Task Force and the
>  > Elections Committee are excited to inform you about the first community
>  > engagement opportunity of this 2022 Board election process.
>  >
>  >
>  > The Affiliate Representatives will be submitting questions for
>  > candidates to answer. The process will use the new Movement Strategy
>  > Forum , based on the open-source
>  > platform Discourse  >.
>  > The great thing about Discourse is replies can be automatically
>  > translated by users into their preferred languages. We will send you
>  > each an email invitation to join a private category once the time to
>  > answer questions begins (June 18). Each candidate will use their
>  > Wikimedia account to log in, there is no need to create a new account
>  > and password.
>

For context, the same email gives an option to candidates to answer the
questions via email. In this case, the election organizers will post the
answers in the forum on their behalf.


> So by opposing this off-wiki forum, I've probably excluded myself from
> going any further in this election.
>

This is the only point of the election process where this forum is being
used. It allows affiliates to propose and prioritize their questions
quickly, and it allows to open the candidate replies to the public at the
same time, automatically translated to the preference to each reader.
Candidates can reply via email if they prefer. If a candidate doesn't want
to use the forum, they don't have to.

More context. This election process also includes an option for voters to
use a voting advice tool that is off-wiki as well. This tool was used in
the last MCDC election and received wide support and positive feedback.
None of the candidates had any objections, and there were +70. Here too the
candidates don't have to use this tool directly if they don't want to.

These specialized tools are easy to use and they provide a benefit to users
that right now we cannot replicate with wiki pages alone.


> Thanks,
> Mike
>
> On 31/5/22 23:35:52, Mike Peel wrote:
> >
> >  > There is no on-site privacy policy, it just links to
> >  > wikimediafoundation.org ?
> >  >
> >  > See this pinned topic:
> >  >
> >  > User privacy considerations in this forum
> >  >
> >
> https://forum.movement-strategy.org/t/user-privacy-considerations-in-this-forum/55
> > <
> https://forum.movement-strategy.org/t/user-privacy-considerations-in-this-forum/55>
>
> >
> >
> > So this does not follow the WMF's privacy policy at:
> > https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Privacy_policy
> >
> > You didn't answer this.
> >
> > On 31/5/22 23:25:04, Quim Gil wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 12:17 AM Mike Peel  >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> This is not a community review - this is an off-wiki discussion.
> >>
> >>
> >> Participation is also welcome here:
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Strategy/Forum/Proposal
> >> 
> >
> > Every single link under "Community review questions" goes to your new
> > website. You state that "The Movement Strategy Forum is based on
> > Discourse, a powerful open-source platform for community discussions." .
> > I thought that's what MediaWiki was?
> >
> >>
> >>  > It's a Discourse instance. https://discourse.org
> >>   >> >
> >>  > is an open-source platform specializing in community
> >> conversations.
> >> That's $100/month for a standard subscription. per
> >> https://www.discourse.org/pricing
> >> .
> >>
> >>
> >> This is for those who want to have their site hosted by the Discourse
> >> maintainers, which is an option we have taken for now. Discourse is
> >> free software.
> >
> > So WMF is paying Discourse to hold community discussions that would
> > normally be held on MediaWiki? Huh?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mike
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/PQVKFU7UUDU42WO4OXUBD7J6FEXQ7TAD/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Join the new Movement Strategy Forum community review

[Mike Peel]

So I just received this:

> Thank you all again for submitting your candidatures for the Wikimedia
> Foundation Board of Trustees. The Board Selection Task Force and the
> Elections Committee are excited to inform you about the first community
> engagement opportunity of this 2022 Board election process.
>
>
> The Affiliate Representatives will be submitting questions for
> candidates to answer. The process will use the new Movement Strategy
> Forum , based on the open-source
> platform Discourse .
> The great thing about Discourse is replies can be automatically
> translated by users into their preferred languages. We will send you
> each an email invitation to join a private category once the time to
> answer questions begins (June 18). Each candidate will use their
> Wikimedia account to log in, there is no need to create a new account
> and password.

So by opposing this off-wiki forum, I've probably excluded myself from 
going any further in this election.


Thanks,
Mike

On 31/5/22 23:35:52, Mike Peel wrote:


 > There is no on-site privacy policy, it just links to
 > wikimediafoundation.org ?
 >
 > See this pinned topic:
 >
 > User privacy considerations in this forum
 > 
https://forum.movement-strategy.org/t/user-privacy-considerations-in-this-forum/55 
 



So this does not follow the WMF's privacy policy at:
https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Privacy_policy

You didn't answer this.

On 31/5/22 23:25:04, Quim Gil wrote:



On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 12:17 AM Mike Peel > wrote:


    This is not a community review - this is an off-wiki discussion.


Participation is also welcome here: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Strategy/Forum/Proposal 



Every single link under "Community review questions" goes to your new 
website. You state that "The Movement Strategy Forum is based on 
Discourse, a powerful open-source platform for community discussions." . 
I thought that's what MediaWiki was?




 > It's a Discourse instance. https://discourse.org
     >
 > is an open-source platform specializing in community 
conversations.

    That's $100/month for a standard subscription. per
    https://www.discourse.org/pricing 
.



This is for those who want to have their site hosted by the Discourse 
maintainers, which is an option we have taken for now. Discourse is 
free software.


So WMF is paying Discourse to hold community discussions that would 
normally be held on MediaWiki? Huh?


Thanks,
Mike

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/PQVKFU7UUDU42WO4OXUBD7J6FEXQ7TAD/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Join the new Movement Strategy Forum community review

[Gergő Tisza]

On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 12:52 PM Amir Sarabadani  wrote:

> Even if you don't want mediawiki for various reasons, you can set it up in
> Wikimedia Cloud. We already hosted Discourse there for years.
>

Cloud is 1) not exactly an improvement

in terms of privacy, 2) a drag on human resources as it will take
significant time of an employee or community member (who is likely
unskilled at operating Discourse) to keep the site running. If it seems
likely that the forum will be around for long, it might be worth moving it
to internal hosting (which will be a lot more expensive in relative terms
but still not really significant compared to the Wikimedia movement's
resources, I imagine). In the short term, just buying hosting while we see
how well the new thing works out is a very reasonable approach. Our
community's hostility to experiments is one of the biggest obstacles to
adaptation and addressing long-present problems (such as using discussion
technology that was considered pretty good forty years ago).


> Even if you can't host in WMCS for other reasons, you still can have
> internationalized discussions in mediawiki. The Desktop improvements team
> does this in mediawiki.org (For example
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Reading/Web/Desktop_Improvements/Fourth_prototype_testing/Feedback)
> and while not as great as auto-translate, it works.
>

No it doesn't, which is why you almost never see multilingual discussions
on meta. It "works" in the same sense that two pieces of stick work as a
lighter: it can be used for the same purpose with sufficient effort, but
that effort is so high that almost no one will use it in practice.

Language barrier is a problem but so is privacy, there is a reason we host
> everything onsite. For example, I don't know the details of how it uses
> Google Translate but it is possible we end up sending some data to Google
> that are either not anonymized or can be de-anonymized easily. Not to
> mention the cloud provider hosting the website having access to everything
> and so on. And not to mention auto-translate is not perfect and can cause
> all sorts of problems in communication.
>

While that's a good point and something to consider if we keep Discourse
around, the current reality is that discussions mostly happen on Facebook,
Telegram and Discord, all of which are worse in terms of privacy than a
Discourse site hosted by a contracted organization. These discussions
remind me of the trolley problem a bit - is it really preferable to let
five times more people get run over, just because that way we can wash our
hands afterwards and say we didn't officially approve of either option?
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/UVFXCMBWNFAJYI4PKDSNOATGC4YZMZJQ/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Join the new Movement Strategy Forum community review

[Mohammed Bachounda]

Hi Quim,

Thank you for this initiative, I would like to add feedbacks hoping that
they will be useful for the improvement of this site

*Primo *: The reactivity: it is very good. The updates of the pages are
very fast in the whole world and the navigation in the forum is very easy
and fluid.
*Secondo*: the visual identity is basic and correct. but we need time to
assimilate the different codifications but in general the idea of the forum
remains a smart solution.
*Tertio *: Hope to see translated
- Tile of the forum
- Tiles of topics or threads
- And why not multiple automatic translations of different messages. for
example :
  Option 1: All threads in one unique language depending on our interface
language.
  Option 2: Each message of the thread can be displayed in the language we
want to see and that we have selected in our personal configuration options.

Thanks

B <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Bachounda>achounda


Le mer. 1 juin 2022 à 11:21, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
galder...@hotmail.com> a écrit :

> Since 2018 (!!) there's an Extension that allows translation using the
> Google Translate API (the same Discourse is using).
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Google_Translator
>
> You can test it here, for example:
> https://karaoke.kjams.com/wiki/System_Requirements
>
> It took me literally 5 minutes to figure out that this exists. So, the one
> and only feature where Discourse may be better positioned than Meta to
> discuss about Wikimedia, can also be done perfectly with this extension.
>
> Thanks
>
> Galder
> --
> *From:* Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 1, 2022 12:01 PM
> *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List 
> *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: Join the new Movement Strategy Forum
> community review
>
> Let's see the "features" Discourse have and MediaWiki don't:
>
>
>- Anyone can join with their Wikimedia account. No registration is
>required.
>- This is a feature we already have.
>
>
>- Multilingual conversations are possible thanks to automatic
>translation in more than 100 languages.
>- How are they doing that? Discourse is open source, isn't it? Could
>this feature be experimentally included at Meta? Are they using the Google
>Translate API?
>-
>- Newcomers are welcomed with an interactive tutorial and badges for
>achievements.
>- This can be done in Meta. Even developing a system of easy tutorials
>and gamification would be a great add-on for most wikis. So, if this is
>something really important, we SHOULD be doing for ourselves, and not
>letting MediaWiki abandonware.
>-
>- Notifications can be adjusted to follow or mute topics, categories,
>and tags.
>- This can be done with Flow.
>
>
>- Conversations can use easy text formatting, expanded links, images,
>and emojis.
>- We can do this on wiki. Even the emojis thing.
>
>
>- Complex conversations can be summarized by their participants, also
>split or merged.
>- We can do this on wiki. We have been doing this for ages.
>
>
>- Posts can be flagged anonymously for moderation. Community
>moderators ensure that the Universal Code of Conduct is observed.
>- We can do this on wiki. Also, the Community moderators ensuring that
>the UCoC is observed should be working on how to do that on... check
>notes... Meta.
>
>
>- All features are available on mobile and desktop browsers.
>- Also on wiki. If something is missing on mobile, then, we should
>invest all the necessary to get it. Not doing that only makes our platform
>more obsolete.
>-
>- Congratulate newcomers each time they publish a post.
>- This is a feature already available at Wiki. We can also
>congratulate by hand if wanted.
>
> Is Discourse better? I don't know. Abandoning our own software because we
> have found that others are doing things better? A total error.
>
> I have said this before, but we have plenty of money. We are swimming in a
> giant money pool. Our software is obsolete, and every move we make away of
> it, makes it even more obsolete, despite having the money to solve it.
>
> Thanks
>
> Galder
>
> --
> *From:* Quim Gil 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 1, 2022 11:09 AM
> *To:* Mike Peel 
> *Cc:* Wikimedia Mailing List 
> *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: Join the new Movement Strategy Forum
> community review
>
> Hi again,
>
> The proposal for a new forum comes with a problem statement
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Strategy/Forum/Proposal#Why_a_Movement_Strategy_Forum>,
> a list of main features aimed to address this p

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Join the new Movement Strategy Forum community review

[Amir Sarabadani]

Even if you don't want mediawiki for various reasons, you can set it up in
Wikimedia Cloud. We already hosted Discourse there for years.

Even if you can't host in WMCS for other reasons, you still can have
internationalized discussions in mediawiki. The Desktop improvements team
does this in mediawiki.org (For example
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Reading/Web/Desktop_Improvements/Fourth_prototype_testing/Feedback)
and while not as great as auto-translate, it works.

Language barrier is a problem but so is privacy, there is a reason we host
everything onsite. For example, I don't know the details of how it uses
Google Translate but it is possible we end up sending some data to Google
that are either not anonymized or can be de-anonymized easily. Not to
mention the cloud provider hosting the website having access to everything
and so on. And not to mention auto-translate is not perfect and can cause
all sorts of problems in communication.

Best



On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 12:21 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Since 2018 (!!) there's an Extension that allows translation using the
> Google Translate API (the same Discourse is using).
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Google_Translator
>
> You can test it here, for example:
> https://karaoke.kjams.com/wiki/System_Requirements
>
> It took me literally 5 minutes to figure out that this exists. So, the one
> and only feature where Discourse may be better positioned than Meta to
> discuss about Wikimedia, can also be done perfectly with this extension.
>
> Thanks
>
> Galder
> --
> *From:* Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 1, 2022 12:01 PM
> *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List 
> *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: Join the new Movement Strategy Forum
> community review
>
> Let's see the "features" Discourse have and MediaWiki don't:
>
>
>- Anyone can join with their Wikimedia account. No registration is
>required.
>- This is a feature we already have.
>
>
>- Multilingual conversations are possible thanks to automatic
>translation in more than 100 languages.
>- How are they doing that? Discourse is open source, isn't it? Could
>this feature be experimentally included at Meta? Are they using the Google
>Translate API?
>-
>- Newcomers are welcomed with an interactive tutorial and badges for
>achievements.
>- This can be done in Meta. Even developing a system of easy tutorials
>and gamification would be a great add-on for most wikis. So, if this is
>something really important, we SHOULD be doing for ourselves, and not
>letting MediaWiki abandonware.
>-
>- Notifications can be adjusted to follow or mute topics, categories,
>and tags.
>- This can be done with Flow.
>
>
>- Conversations can use easy text formatting, expanded links, images,
>and emojis.
>- We can do this on wiki. Even the emojis thing.
>
>
>- Complex conversations can be summarized by their participants, also
>split or merged.
>- We can do this on wiki. We have been doing this for ages.
>
>
>- Posts can be flagged anonymously for moderation. Community
>moderators ensure that the Universal Code of Conduct is observed.
>- We can do this on wiki. Also, the Community moderators ensuring that
>the UCoC is observed should be working on how to do that on... check
>notes... Meta.
>
>
>- All features are available on mobile and desktop browsers.
>- Also on wiki. If something is missing on mobile, then, we should
>invest all the necessary to get it. Not doing that only makes our platform
>more obsolete.
>-
>- Congratulate newcomers each time they publish a post.
>- This is a feature already available at Wiki. We can also
>congratulate by hand if wanted.
>
> Is Discourse better? I don't know. Abandoning our own software because we
> have found that others are doing things better? A total error.
>
> I have said this before, but we have plenty of money. We are swimming in a
> giant money pool. Our software is obsolete, and every move we make away of
> it, makes it even more obsolete, despite having the money to solve it.
>
> Thanks
>
> Galder
>
> --
> *From:* Quim Gil 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 1, 2022 11:09 AM
> *To:* Mike Peel 
> *Cc:* Wikimedia Mailing List 
> *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: Join the new Movement Strategy Forum
> community review
>
> Hi again,
>
> The proposal for a new forum comes with a problem statement
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Strategy/Forum/Proposal#Why_a_Movement_Strategy_Forum>,
> a list of main features aimed to a

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Join the new Movement Strategy Forum community review

[Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga]

Since 2018 (!!) there's an Extension that allows translation using the Google 
Translate API (the same Discourse is using). 
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Google_Translator

You can test it here, for example: 
https://karaoke.kjams.com/wiki/System_Requirements

It took me literally 5 minutes to figure out that this exists. So, the one and 
only feature where Discourse may be better positioned than Meta to discuss 
about Wikimedia, can also be done perfectly with this extension.

Thanks

Galder

From: Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga 
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 12:01 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Join the new Movement Strategy Forum community review

Let's see the "features" Discourse have and MediaWiki don't:


  *   Anyone can join with their Wikimedia account. No registration is required.
  *   This is a feature we already have.

  *   Multilingual conversations are possible thanks to automatic translation 
in more than 100 languages.
  *   How are they doing that? Discourse is open source, isn't it? Could this 
feature be experimentally included at Meta? Are they using the Google Translate 
API?
  *
  *   Newcomers are welcomed with an interactive tutorial and badges for 
achievements.
  *   This can be done in Meta. Even developing a system of easy tutorials and 
gamification would be a great add-on for most wikis. So, if this is something 
really important, we SHOULD be doing for ourselves, and not letting MediaWiki 
abandonware.
  *
  *   Notifications can be adjusted to follow or mute topics, categories, and 
tags.
  *   This can be done with Flow.

  *   Conversations can use easy text formatting, expanded links, images, and 
emojis.
  *   We can do this on wiki. Even the emojis thing.

  *   Complex conversations can be summarized by their participants, also split 
or merged.
  *   We can do this on wiki. We have been doing this for ages.

  *   Posts can be flagged anonymously for moderation. Community moderators 
ensure that the Universal Code of Conduct is observed.
  *   We can do this on wiki. Also, the Community moderators ensuring that the 
UCoC is observed should be working on how to do that on... check notes... Meta.

  *   All features are available on mobile and desktop browsers.
  *   Also on wiki. If something is missing on mobile, then, we should invest 
all the necessary to get it. Not doing that only makes our platform more 
obsolete.
  *
  *   Congratulate newcomers each time they publish a post.
  *   This is a feature already available at Wiki. We can also congratulate by 
hand if wanted.

Is Discourse better? I don't know. Abandoning our own software because we have 
found that others are doing things better? A total error.

I have said this before, but we have plenty of money. We are swimming in a 
giant money pool. Our software is obsolete, and every move we make away of it, 
makes it even more obsolete, despite having the money to solve it.

Thanks

Galder


From: Quim Gil 
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 11:09 AM
To: Mike Peel 
Cc: Wikimedia Mailing List 
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Join the new Movement Strategy Forum community review

Hi again,

The proposal for a new forum comes with a problem 
statement<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Strategy/Forum/Proposal#Why_a_Movement_Strategy_Forum>,
 a list of main features aimed to address this problem, and a set of questions 
to help everyone find points of tangible discussion and hopefully agreement.

Today, "use a wiki" or "we have Meta" alone doesn't solve the problem. The 
discrimination suffered by volunteers not fluent in English is real. The 
intimidation and alienation felt by many volunteers and many groups that are 
underrepresented in our movement or marginalized in our societies is real. And 
simply, the difficulty to have multiple simultaneous complex discussions in a 
structured and enjoyable way is very real.

We are not claiming that this forum can solve all these problems in one strike. 
However, we firmly believe that this forum presents a better alternative here 
and now for everyone interested in the Movement Strategy implementation. 
Clearly a better alternative for those who are in practice excluded or gone 
from traditional on-wiki conversations. But also to everyone else (expert wiki 
editors included) who wants to get things done in a context where diversity, 
equity, inclusion, efficient use of time, and fun are naturally expected.

Many people have responded to this problem with their feet. Wikimedia 
cross-project connections and conversations have been trending towards "social 
media" platforms for years. Today they are all scattered and still growing. And 
well, many years before social media, mailing lists like this one were created 
"off-wiki" for a reason.

This forum proposes the creation of a platform fully functional today, to host 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Join the new Movement Strategy Forum community review

[Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga]

Let's see the "features" Discourse have and MediaWiki don't:


  *   Anyone can join with their Wikimedia account. No registration is required.
  *   This is a feature we already have.

  *   Multilingual conversations are possible thanks to automatic translation 
in more than 100 languages.
  *   How are they doing that? Discourse is open source, isn't it? Could this 
feature be experimentally included at Meta? Are they using the Google Translate 
API?
  *
  *   Newcomers are welcomed with an interactive tutorial and badges for 
achievements.
  *   This can be done in Meta. Even developing a system of easy tutorials and 
gamification would be a great add-on for most wikis. So, if this is something 
really important, we SHOULD be doing for ourselves, and not letting MediaWiki 
abandonware.
  *
  *   Notifications can be adjusted to follow or mute topics, categories, and 
tags.
  *   This can be done with Flow.

  *   Conversations can use easy text formatting, expanded links, images, and 
emojis.
  *   We can do this on wiki. Even the emojis thing.

  *   Complex conversations can be summarized by their participants, also split 
or merged.
  *   We can do this on wiki. We have been doing this for ages.

  *   Posts can be flagged anonymously for moderation. Community moderators 
ensure that the Universal Code of Conduct is observed.
  *   We can do this on wiki. Also, the Community moderators ensuring that the 
UCoC is observed should be working on how to do that on... check notes... Meta.

  *   All features are available on mobile and desktop browsers.
  *   Also on wiki. If something is missing on mobile, then, we should invest 
all the necessary to get it. Not doing that only makes our platform more 
obsolete.
  *
  *   Congratulate newcomers each time they publish a post.
  *   This is a feature already available at Wiki. We can also congratulate by 
hand if wanted.

Is Discourse better? I don't know. Abandoning our own software because we have 
found that others are doing things better? A total error.

I have said this before, but we have plenty of money. We are swimming in a 
giant money pool. Our software is obsolete, and every move we make away of it, 
makes it even more obsolete, despite having the money to solve it.

Thanks

Galder


From: Quim Gil 
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 11:09 AM
To: Mike Peel 
Cc: Wikimedia Mailing List 
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Join the new Movement Strategy Forum community review

Hi again,

The proposal for a new forum comes with a problem 
statement<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Strategy/Forum/Proposal#Why_a_Movement_Strategy_Forum>,
 a list of main features aimed to address this problem, and a set of questions 
to help everyone find points of tangible discussion and hopefully agreement.

Today, "use a wiki" or "we have Meta" alone doesn't solve the problem. The 
discrimination suffered by volunteers not fluent in English is real. The 
intimidation and alienation felt by many volunteers and many groups that are 
underrepresented in our movement or marginalized in our societies is real. And 
simply, the difficulty to have multiple simultaneous complex discussions in a 
structured and enjoyable way is very real.

We are not claiming that this forum can solve all these problems in one strike. 
However, we firmly believe that this forum presents a better alternative here 
and now for everyone interested in the Movement Strategy implementation. 
Clearly a better alternative for those who are in practice excluded or gone 
from traditional on-wiki conversations. But also to everyone else (expert wiki 
editors included) who wants to get things done in a context where diversity, 
equity, inclusion, efficient use of time, and fun are naturally expected.

Many people have responded to this problem with their feet. Wikimedia 
cross-project connections and conversations have been trending towards "social 
media" platforms for years. Today they are all scattered and still growing. And 
well, many years before social media, mailing lists like this one were created 
"off-wiki" for a reason.

This forum proposes the creation of a platform fully functional today, to host 
the conversations and collaboration needed to implement the Movement Strategy. 
We can offer a platform as easy to use as the popular tools people are using 
daily to connect and discuss. We can offer features none of these commercial 
platforms offer today like automatic translation, better organization of 
complex conversations, better search and memory, and a much better alignment 
with the Wikimedia values. All this is available today, one Wikimedia login 
click away. For you to review.

Keeping Meta updated including possibilities for participation is perfectly 
possible. One of the 
questions<https://forum.movement-strategy.org/t/are-there-other-channels-that-you-would-prefer-to-use-in-addition-to-or-inste

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Join the new Movement Strategy Forum community review

[Quim Gil]

Hi again,

The proposal for a new forum comes with a problem statement
,
a list of main features aimed to address this problem, and a set of
questions to help everyone find points of tangible discussion and hopefully
agreement.

Today, "use a wiki" or "we have Meta" alone doesn't solve the problem. The
discrimination suffered by volunteers not fluent in English is real. The
intimidation and alienation felt by many volunteers and many groups that
are underrepresented in our movement or marginalized in our societies is
real. And simply, the difficulty to have multiple simultaneous complex
discussions in a structured and enjoyable way is very real.

We are not claiming that this forum can solve all these problems in one
strike. However, we firmly believe that this forum presents a better
alternative here and now for everyone interested in the Movement Strategy
implementation. Clearly a better alternative for those who are in practice
excluded or gone from traditional on-wiki conversations. But also to
everyone else (expert wiki editors included) who wants to get things done
in a context where diversity, equity, inclusion, efficient use of time, and
fun are naturally expected.

Many people have responded to this problem with their feet. Wikimedia
cross-project connections and conversations have been trending towards
"social media" platforms for years. Today they are all scattered and still
growing. And well, many years before social media, mailing lists like this
one were created "off-wiki" for a reason.

This forum proposes the creation of a platform fully functional today, to
host the conversations and collaboration needed to implement the Movement
Strategy. We can offer a platform as easy to use as the popular tools
people are using daily to connect and discuss. We can offer features none
of these commercial platforms offer today like automatic translation,
better organization of complex conversations, better search and memory, and
a much better alignment with the Wikimedia values. All this is available
today, one Wikimedia login click away. For you to review.

Keeping Meta updated including possibilities for participation is perfectly
possible. One of the questions

of the community review asks about how the support of other channels would
work in practice. If you appreciate Meta-Wiki as much as, say, Wikimedia
volunteers who don't speak English, please contribute your ideas to find
the best solutions.

I hope this expresses our general motivation to get out of everyone's
comfort zone (ours included) and propose this forum.

Florence asks:
> Will there be any notion of Single Login in the future (when/if it starts
being hosted by WMF) ?

Wikimedia login is in effect already now, and it's the only way to log in
to the forum. After logging in the first time, the browser keeps the
session for a period of time (that can be configured by the admins) so that
people don't have to log in again every day.

On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 12:36 AM Mike Peel  wrote:

>
>  > See this pinned topic:
>  >
>  > User privacy considerations in this forum
>  >
>
> https://forum.movement-strategy.org/t/user-privacy-considerations-in-this-forum/55
> <
> https://forum.movement-strategy.org/t/user-privacy-considerations-in-this-forum/55
> >
>
> So this does not follow the WMF's privacy policy at:
> https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Privacy_policy
>
> You didn't answer this.
>

Sorry, I had responded with a link. This is what the link says:

> We are still working on the Privacy Policy and the Terms of Use of the
Movement Strategy Forum.
> They will be completed during the community review. In the meantime, we
provide here information
> about privacy for users of this platform.


> Every single link under "Community review questions" goes to your new
> website.


We are asking volunteers to review a proposed new forum. We have a forum
that people can use to inform their reviews. Sending people to the forum
being reviewed is only logical.

All wiki pages have a talk page, and the proposal's talk page  also welcomes people to contribute their feedback
there too, providing a structure to comment on the same questions.

-- 
Quim Gil (he/him)
Director of Movement Strategy & Governance @ Wikimedia Foundation
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Qgil-WMF
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Join the new Movement Strategy Forum community review

[Florence Devouard]

Hi Quim


Will there be any notion of Single Login in the future (when/if it 
starts being hosted by WMF) ?


Florence


Le 31/05/2022 à 23:38, Quim Gil a écrit :

Hello everyone,

This is an invitation to all Movement Strategy participants and 
Wikimedians in general to try out a new platform for truly 
multilingual collaboration:


Movement Strategy Forum - https://forum.movement-strategy.org/

We have started a community review 
 
period of two months. If the community feedback is positive, the Forum 
will launch in August 2022 before Wikimania. If not, we will follow 
the feedback received, changing the proposal or closing it.


We opened the Forum on May 24 with targeted outreach, hoping that the 
new site features would work.  A week later, the Wikimedia login has 
been used by +200 users, the automatic translation is allowing 
speakers of different languages to discuss together, and we are ready 
to welcome more reviewers, testers, and other curious minds.


We have just released the first weekly report 
. Looking 
forward to reading your first impressions in the next one!


--
Quim Gil (he/him)
Director of Movement Strategy & Governance @ Wikimedia Foundation
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Qgil-WMF

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list --wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines 
at:https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines  
andhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives 
athttps://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/H5V56Z2TIYEO5TX6UAJHQJDXPUK4CCYS/
To unsubscribe send an email towikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/PL7YL7QXED6Q5SQE6O3INPQLTZWUS64P/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Join the new Movement Strategy Forum community review

[Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga]

It would be great to have a place where we can discuss and create projects 
together. Only if we had something like Meta...

By the way, I have added the proposal to discuss this ON WIKI where the 
discussion should be happening: on wiki. 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Strategy/Forum/Proposal

From: Mike Peel 
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 12:35 AM
To: Quim Gil 
Cc: Wikimedia Mailing List 
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Join the new Movement Strategy Forum community review


 > There is no on-site privacy policy, it just links to
 > wikimediafoundation.org <http://wikimediafoundation.org>?
 >
 > See this pinned topic:
 >
 > User privacy considerations in this forum
 >
https://forum.movement-strategy.org/t/user-privacy-considerations-in-this-forum/55
<https://forum.movement-strategy.org/t/user-privacy-considerations-in-this-forum/55>

So this does not follow the WMF's privacy policy at:
https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Privacy_policy

You didn't answer this.

On 31/5/22 23:25:04, Quim Gil wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 12:17 AM Mike Peel  <mailto:em...@mikepeel.net>> wrote:
>
> This is not a community review - this is an off-wiki discussion.
>
>
> Participation is also welcome here:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Strategy/Forum/Proposal
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Strategy/Forum/Proposal>

Every single link under "Community review questions" goes to your new
website. You state that "The Movement Strategy Forum is based on
Discourse, a powerful open-source platform for community discussions." .
I thought that's what MediaWiki was?

>
>  > It's a Discourse instance. https://discourse.org
> <https://discourse.org> <https://discourse.org <https://discourse.org>>
>  > is an open-source platform specializing in community conversations.
> That's $100/month for a standard subscription. per
> https://www.discourse.org/pricing <https://www.discourse.org/pricing>.
>
>
> This is for those who want to have their site hosted by the Discourse
> maintainers, which is an option we have taken for now. Discourse is free
> software.

So WMF is paying Discourse to hold community discussions that would
normally be held on MediaWiki? Huh?

Thanks,
Mike
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/I4VM5MQMPSCON75NQ5N3SGOOSUIXIJP6/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/O24SOJZJSY4DEPN2IY2YDYCWONTCKFNT/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Join the new Movement Strategy Forum community review

[Mike Peel]

> There is no on-site privacy policy, it just links to
> wikimediafoundation.org ?
>
> See this pinned topic:
>
> User privacy considerations in this forum
> 
https://forum.movement-strategy.org/t/user-privacy-considerations-in-this-forum/55 



So this does not follow the WMF's privacy policy at:
https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Privacy_policy

You didn't answer this.

On 31/5/22 23:25:04, Quim Gil wrote:



On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 12:17 AM Mike Peel > wrote:


This is not a community review - this is an off-wiki discussion.


Participation is also welcome here: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Strategy/Forum/Proposal 



Every single link under "Community review questions" goes to your new 
website. You state that "The Movement Strategy Forum is based on 
Discourse, a powerful open-source platform for community discussions." . 
I thought that's what MediaWiki was?




 > It's a Discourse instance. https://discourse.org
 >
 > is an open-source platform specializing in community conversations.
That's $100/month for a standard subscription. per
https://www.discourse.org/pricing .


This is for those who want to have their site hosted by the Discourse 
maintainers, which is an option we have taken for now. Discourse is free 
software.


So WMF is paying Discourse to hold community discussions that would 
normally be held on MediaWiki? Huh?


Thanks,
Mike
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/I4VM5MQMPSCON75NQ5N3SGOOSUIXIJP6/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Join the new Movement Strategy Forum community review

[Quim Gil]

On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 12:17 AM Mike Peel  wrote:

> This is not a community review - this is an off-wiki discussion.
>

Participation is also welcome here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Strategy/Forum/Proposal


> It's a Discourse instance. https://discourse.org 
> > is an open-source platform specializing in community conversations.
> That's $100/month for a standard subscription. per
> https://www.discourse.org/pricing.
>

This is for those who want to have their site hosted by the Discourse
maintainers, which is an option we have taken for now. Discourse is free
software.

https://github.com/discourse/discourse
https://github.com/discourse/discourse/blob/main/LICENSE.txt

-- 
Quim Gil (he/him)
Director of Movement Strategy & Governance @ Wikimedia Foundation
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Qgil-WMF
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/OJJSKK6UYYXBVZQK7YMLK2WKJQXIKNXA/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Join the new Movement Strategy Forum community review

[Mike Peel]

Hi Quim,

Is this a legitimate WMF website? 
It is a pre-launch site going through a community review and maintained 
by the Movement Strategy and Governance team at the Wikimedia Foundation.

It seems to have been launched, at least by your email?


Trying to trace where this website is
being hosted doesn't go very far - the domain seems have its DNS at
gandi.net , with the registration via pir.org
, and its contact info is at
afilias.info ? Compare to wikimedia.org
 that at least says "Registrant
Organization: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.". 
Yes, this is being discussed at one of the questions of the community 
review:

What do you think about the proposed name and domain?
https://forum.movement-strategy.org/t/what-do-you-think-about-the-proposed-name-and-domain/53 


This is not a community review - this is an off-wiki discussion.


There is no on-site privacy policy, it just links to
wikimediafoundation.org ? 



See this pinned topic:

User privacy considerations in this forum
https://forum.movement-strategy.org/t/user-privacy-considerations-in-this-forum/55 



So this does not follow the WMF's privacy policy at:
https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Privacy_policy



It's also very much not a mediawiki installation?


It's a Discourse instance. https://discourse.org  
is an open-source platform specializing in community conversations.
That's $100/month for a standard subscription. per 
https://www.discourse.org/pricing.


Please, just use a wiki.

Thanks,
Mike
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/KPULBYWJB5ZICCXMNBJPTDNR5VIYA4RM/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Join the new Movement Strategy Forum community review

[Quim Gil]

Hi Mike,

On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 11:55 PM Mike Peel  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Is this a legitimate WMF website?


It is a pre-launch site going through a community review and maintained by
the Movement Strategy and Governance team at the Wikimedia Foundation.


> Trying to trace where this website is
> being hosted doesn't go very far - the domain seems have its DNS at
> gandi.net, with the registration via pir.org, and its contact info is at
> afilias.info? Compare to wikimedia.org that at least says "Registrant
> Organization: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.".



Yes, this is being discussed at one of the questions of the community
review:

What do you think about the proposed name and domain?
https://forum.movement-strategy.org/t/what-do-you-think-about-the-proposed-name-and-domain/53


> There is no on-site privacy policy, it just links to
> wikimediafoundation.org?


See this pinned topic:

User privacy considerations in this forum
https://forum.movement-strategy.org/t/user-privacy-considerations-in-this-forum/55


> It's also very much not a mediawiki installation?
>

It's a Discourse instance. https://discourse.org is an open-source platform
specializing in community conversations.


>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>
> On 31/5/22 22:38:11, Quim Gil wrote:
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > This is an invitation to all Movement Strategy participants and
> > Wikimedians in general to try out a new platform for truly multilingual
> > collaboration:
> >
> > Movement Strategy Forum - https://forum.movement-strategy.org/
> > 
> >
> > We have started a community review
> > <
> https://forum.movement-strategy.org/t/movement-strategy-forum-community-review/46>
>
> > period of two months. If the community feedback is positive, the Forum
> > will launch in August 2022 before Wikimania. If not, we will follow the
> > feedback received, changing the proposal or closing it.
> >
> > We opened the Forum on May 24 with targeted outreach, hoping that the
> > new site features would work.  A week later, the Wikimedia login has
> > been used by +200 users, the automatic translation is allowing speakers
> > of different languages to discuss together, and we are ready to welcome
> > more reviewers, testers, and other curious minds.
> >
> > We have just released the first weekly report
> > . Looking
>
> > forward to reading your first impressions in the next one!
> >
> > --
> > Quim Gil (he/him)
> > Director of Movement Strategy & Governance @ Wikimedia Foundation
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Qgil-WMF
> > 
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/H5V56Z2TIYEO5TX6UAJHQJDXPUK4CCYS/
> > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>


-- 
Quim Gil (he/him)
Director of Movement Strategy & Governance @ Wikimedia Foundation
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Qgil-WMF
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/4C5ZQD2VWFVP4ZA56MT3KT3YOB63Q3TA/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Join the new Movement Strategy Forum community review

[Mike Peel]

Hi,

Is this a legitimate WMF website? Trying to trace where this website is 
being hosted doesn't go very far - the domain seems have its DNS at 
gandi.net, with the registration via pir.org, and its contact info is at 
afilias.info? Compare to wikimedia.org that at least says "Registrant 
Organization: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.". There is no on-site privacy 
policy, it just links to wikimediafoundation.org? It's also very much 
not a mediawiki installation?


Thanks,
Mike

On 31/5/22 22:38:11, Quim Gil wrote:

Hello everyone,

This is an invitation to all Movement Strategy participants and 
Wikimedians in general to try out a new platform for truly multilingual 
collaboration:


Movement Strategy Forum - https://forum.movement-strategy.org/ 



We have started a community review 
 
period of two months. If the community feedback is positive, the Forum 
will launch in August 2022 before Wikimania. If not, we will follow the 
feedback received, changing the proposal or closing it.


We opened the Forum on May 24 with targeted outreach, hoping that the 
new site features would work.  A week later, the Wikimedia login has 
been used by +200 users, the automatic translation is allowing speakers 
of different languages to discuss together, and we are ready to welcome 
more reviewers, testers, and other curious minds.


We have just released the first weekly report 
. Looking 
forward to reading your first impressions in the next one!


--
Quim Gil (he/him)
Director of Movement Strategy & Governance @ Wikimedia Foundation
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Qgil-WMF 



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/H5V56Z2TIYEO5TX6UAJHQJDXPUK4CCYS/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/L5M6VTQ7CWNX4REFIYQQZHDCGMTUB6L6/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org