Re: [Wikitech-l] New feature: tool edit
What if it a bot builder builds one? On 22 February 2015 at 10:35, Ricordisamoa ricordisa...@openmailbox.org wrote: What if a techie vandal builds a one-click disruption framework? Il 15/02/2015 10:54, Petr Bena ha scritto: I think it's pretty clear what I am proposing here :P there is a real problem and this is a real solution. Regarding vandals would have fun with that I think you are over estimating them, most of them are barely able to use regular web based interface for anything more clever than removing half of article, they don't even understand wiki code so far to understand API interface. On other hand if there was a privilege for this, each wiki could restrict it as they wanted. This is not a bot flag any more than this wikidata flag we have is. It's just another flag. That's all. On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 10:48 PM, Brian Wolff bawo...@gmail.com wrote: -- Every registered user would be able to flag edit as tool edit (bot needs special user group) Vandals would have fun with that, but bot group could be set up like that (e.g. flood group) -- The flag wouldn't be intended for use by robots, but regular users who used some automated tool in order to make the edit Semantics of flags are up to wiki communities. They can make it mean whatever they desire. -- Users could optionally mark any edit as tool edit through API only So like the bot flag (if they have the rights) :p other suggestion that was somewhere else in thread about retroactively matking rdits Sounds kind of like the little known bot rollback feature minus the rollback aspect. -- This sounds either like you are proposing the bot flag, with a minor varation in the user given semantics. Or are proposing multiple levels of bot flaggedness so that tool edits could be independently hidden in rc separate from tool edits. --bawolff ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Types of allowed projects for grant funding (renamed)
Brian Wolff wrote: Maybe the grant includes funds for hiring code review resources (ie non-wmf people with +2. We exist!). For what it's worth, you're exactly the type of person I would like to have working at the Wikimedia Foundation. I love your posts here; thank you for taking the time to write them. Figuring out what level of technical support we can give to non-Wikimedia Foundation projects is a really important issue, in my opinion. Brian Wolff wrote (in a related thread): Ostensibly this is done in the name of: Any technical components must be standalone or completed on-wiki. Projects are completed without assistance or review from WMF engineering, so MediaWiki Extensions or software features requiring code review and integration cannot be funded. On-wiki tech work (templates, user scripts, gadgets) and completely standalone applications without a hosting dependency are allowed. Which on one hand is understandable. WMF-tech has its own priorities, and can't spend all its time babysitting whatever random ideas get funded. So I understand the fear that brought this about. On the other hand it is silly, since a grant to existing tech contributors is going to have much less review burden than gsoc/opw, and many projects might have minimal review burden, especially because most review could perhaps be done by non-wmf employees with +2, requiring only a final security/performance sign off. In fact, we do already provide very limited review to whatever randoms submit code to us over the internet (regardless of how they are funded, or lack thereof). Erik seems to be pushing toward a model that favors using OAuth and the MediaWiki API over deep integration that comes with a MediaWiki extension. He recently mentioned this here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/glamtools/2015-February/000343.html He may be right that development for deployment to the Wikimedia Foundation cluster may not be the best approach for every project, but I think this view overlooks all the very real benefits that extension deployment includes. There's a documented process that has safety checks such as putting the code in Gerrit and having a security review. Checklist: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Review_queue#Checklist. Process: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Writing_an_extension_for_deployment. MediaWiki is the platform. Features include persistent database or file storage, user authentication, internationalization, a usable Web API and user interface, and more! If IEG grants were allowed in this area, it would be something that the grantee would have to plan and account for, with the understanding that nobody is going to provide a team of WMF developers to make someone else's grant happen. Yeah, my understanding is that Sue was behind this hard rule and times have changed. I guess this would be a matter of Siko and her team re-petitioning Damon, Erik, or Lila to soften this rule, probably by appending a or have a detailed code review plan in place with appropriate sign-off/endorsement clause. This code review plan would be some kind of template where people can do due diligence to try to ensure that their code review needs will be met. More broadly, in terms of getting code deployed to the Wikimedia Foundation server cluster, we have at least three major code review areas: security, performance, and architecture. A code review plan (for grants and non-grants alike, to be honest) that addresses at least these three areas, plus user acceptance, as you mention, would be fantastic, I think. And/or we can explore the model proposed by dan entous: --- instead of having to write a grant requests and/or seeking other forms of funding, establish a grant or funding committee that looks for projects and developers that have proven helpful and have added value to the community. then award them with funding without them having to ask for it. --- Politically, I think its dangerous how WMF seems to more and more become the only stakeholder in MediaWiki development (Not that there is anything wrong with the WMF, I just don't like there being only 1 stakeholder). Yup. Other groups such as Wikimedia Chapters are also interested, but all most of the funding streams go through the Wikimedia Foundation for redistribution at this point, as I understand it. Maybe a MediaWiki Foundation still makes sense... Brion and others have been pushing for a wiki hosting platform (that isn't the ad-plagued Wikia, heh): https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2015-January/080171.html MZMcBride ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Types of allowed projects for grant funding (renamed)
This, all of this. On 21/02/15 21:26, Brian Wolff wrote: However that's not a reason to have no IEG grants for tech projects ever, its just a reason for code review to be specifically addressed in the grant proposal, and for the grantee to have a plan. Maybe that plan involves having a (volunteer) friend who has +2 do most of the code review. Maybe that plan involves a staff member getting his manager to allow him/her to have 1 day a week to review code from this grant (Assuming that the project aligns with whatever priorities that staff member's team has, such an arrangement does not seem unreasonable). Maybe the grant includes funds for hiring code review resources (ie non-wmf people with +2. We exist!). Maybe there is some other sort of arrangement that can be made that's specific to the project in question. Every project is different, and has different needs. I do not think expecting WMF engineering to devote significant resources to IEG grants is viable, as I simply doubt its something that WMF engineering is willing to do (And honestly I don't blame them. They have their own projects to concentrate on.). IEG's are independent projects, and must be able to stand mostly on their own with minimal help. I do think getting WMF to perform the final once over for security/performance of a project prior to deployment, at the end, is reasonable (provided the code follows MW standards, is clean, and has been mostly already reviewed for issues by someone in our community). At most, I think bringing back 20% time, with that time devoted to doing code review of IEGs, would be the most that we could reasonably expect WMF to devote (but even if they didn't want to do that, I don't think that's a reason not to do IEG tech grants). Code review is an inherent risk to project success, much like user acceptability. It should be planned around, and considered. We should not give up just because there is risk. There is always risk. Instead we must manage risk as best we can. --bawolff I just don't get it. Why is there no support at all for funded tech projects outside of GSoC/Outreachy, which have very specific target audiences? Why are there only grants for non-technical things when the technical is the biggest part of what actually supports the other projects and allows them to grow over the long term, when the non-technical projects need better backend support in order to truly succeed, when there are so many things in general that need to be done around wikimedia that volunteers need and want to do, things for sister projects and multimedia and community interaction, that don't get done because nobody has the time or resources to actually make it happen? Things that the WMF wouldn't even know where to begin with, wouldn't have the know-how to do themselves, wouldn't have the connections or the languages for... and would never even prioritise to begin with? What about these? I'm actually doing an IEG currently and because of all this our only recourse for the product part of the project is basically to make template and gadget soup. Given the nature of this project, of course, that might have been the most likely outcome anyway just because it's on enwp and that's what wikipedians seem do in general, but so many other potential projects are simply stopped dead, regardless of what their potential or worth might have been. There's limitations and concerns with any kind of project, doesn't matter what it is. You should just need to have a feasible way to address them, that's all. Glargh. -I ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Thread subjects
Bináris wrote: could we by any chance return to the conservative Netiquette way of creating subjets, or the New Era of inadequate subjects has just begun, and we trend to soil the list with these marketing-based whatnots? Shall I go to the details or are we all informatics-minded people here? Hi. It's certainly nice when thread titles and thread contents align, but often life gets in the way. The free flow of ideas in our discussions takes us on many paths. Sometimes splitting to a separate thread makes sense (and people do it), but other times a new thread doesn't happen because people are lazy or forgetful or don't see the need. For me, this issue mostly just highlights the need for decent search. (Plus, of course, naming things is a notoriously hard problem in computer science. ;-) In terms of mailing list gripes, lack of inline replies from people who know better (you know who you are!) and lengthy e-mail signatures bother me more than useless thread titles, but these are all trivial complaints. MZMcBride ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Progress report: Hierator
Thank you! The new glyphs look much better! Il 21/02/2015 22:17, Max Semenik ha scritto: Hi, this is a status update for my WikiHiero rewrite! [1] I've made a first pass on comparison, based on all hieroglyphic texts on English Wikipedia: [2] You can see the difference yourselves, in my opinion the general quality is considerably better, and far more hieroglyphs are supported. However, a few problems were identified, mostly related to WikiHiero accidentally allowing invalid syntax in the past. I'm working on either fixing them in tokenizer, e.g. converting ra:: to something like ra:.:. or making a fallback to the old HTML renderer and adding a tracking category for future fixage by editors. Some of the known problems are listed at [3]. Unfortunately, this also includes some cases where WikiHiero's hieroglyphs deviated from what was said in standards, resulting in a mess that needs manual conversion during a transitional period. These will also fall back on the old renderer and be tracked. The code is still being worked on, it can be seen in [4] (Hierator) and [5] (WikiHiero). - [1] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Hierator [2] http://staging.wmflabs.org/w/extensions/wikihiero/comparison/ [3] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:WikiHiero/JSesh_migration [4] https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/178970 [5] https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/178269 ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] New feature: tool edit
What if a techie vandal builds a one-click disruption framework? Il 15/02/2015 10:54, Petr Bena ha scritto: I think it's pretty clear what I am proposing here :P there is a real problem and this is a real solution. Regarding vandals would have fun with that I think you are over estimating them, most of them are barely able to use regular web based interface for anything more clever than removing half of article, they don't even understand wiki code so far to understand API interface. On other hand if there was a privilege for this, each wiki could restrict it as they wanted. This is not a bot flag any more than this wikidata flag we have is. It's just another flag. That's all. On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 10:48 PM, Brian Wolff bawo...@gmail.com wrote: -- Every registered user would be able to flag edit as tool edit (bot needs special user group) Vandals would have fun with that, but bot group could be set up like that (e.g. flood group) -- The flag wouldn't be intended for use by robots, but regular users who used some automated tool in order to make the edit Semantics of flags are up to wiki communities. They can make it mean whatever they desire. -- Users could optionally mark any edit as tool edit through API only So like the bot flag (if they have the rights) :p other suggestion that was somewhere else in thread about retroactively matking rdits Sounds kind of like the little known bot rollback feature minus the rollback aspect. -- This sounds either like you are proposing the bot flag, with a minor varation in the user given semantics. Or are proposing multiple levels of bot flaggedness so that tool edits could be independently hidden in rc separate from tool edits. --bawolff ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Types of allowed projects for grant funding (renamed)
I agree with Pine. The way I read the IEG strictures was that they would reject projects that required might need any code review at all; whether that's true or not it definitely discourages some projects that might be really useful. As it stands, most of the projects I read through in the last round seemed to tend towards on-wiki exclusively, and to me it seemed that limited their usefulness. For instance, there was one project which was on-wiki/labs only which was similar to my FOSS OPW project, and a few responses to that was that the more integrated approach was preferred- given that the OPW round was already complete and the project still ongoing at that time it seems fair, but if the two projects had been up for funding/approval at the same time, then the issue of code review would have made it a fundamentally un-level playing field. Why not loosen the strictures by saying projects with *some* minor amount of code review would be allowed, with the added caveat that the proposal would be rejected if the staff who would support it felt they couldn't sustain the expected level of code review? That approach might be flexible enough to include more interesting/useful projects as well as hopefully not produce too dramatic of an impact on staff. I also think Brian's idea of including a volunteer with +2 to do code review on the grant application is a wonderful idea; I would add in that it would also be possible for part-time contractors to do this as well. Even if the person didn't have +2 on the repository, having a dedicated person with experience in mediawiki do code review could lesson the load considerably on staffers who would +2 it. On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 9:26 PM, Brian Wolff bawo...@gmail.com wrote: On 2/21/15, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote: (Now continuing this discussion on Wikimedia-l also, since we are discussing grant policies.) For what it's worth, I repeatedly advocated for allowing IEG to support a broader range of tech projects when I was on IEGCom. I had the impression that there was a lot of concern about limited code review staff time, but it serms to me that WMF has more than enough funds to to pay for staffing for code review if that is the bottleneck for tech-focused IEGs (as well as other code changes). I also think that the grant scope policies in general seem too conservative with regard to small grants (roughly $30k and under). WMF has millions of dollars in reserves, there is plenty of mission-aligned work to be done, and WMF itself frequently hires contractors to perform technical, administrative, communications, legal and organizing work. It seems to me that the scope of allowed funding for grants should be similar to the scope of allowed work for contractors, and it would serve the purposes that donors have in mind when they donate to WMF if the scope of allowed purposes for grants is expanded, particularly given WMF's and the community's increasing skills with designing and measuring projects for impact. That's actually debatable. There's grumbling about WMF code review practices not being sufficient for WMFs own code (or as sufficient as some people would like), and code review is definitely a severe bottleneck currently for existing volunteer contributions. However that's not a reason to have no IEG grants for tech projects ever, its just a reason for code review to be specifically addressed in the grant proposal, and for the grantee to have a plan. Maybe that plan involves having a (volunteer) friend who has +2 do most of the code review. Maybe that plan involves a staff member getting his manager to allow him/her to have 1 day a week to review code from this grant (Assuming that the project aligns with whatever priorities that staff member's team has, such an arrangement does not seem unreasonable). Maybe the grant includes funds for hiring code review resources (ie non-wmf people with +2. We exist!). Maybe there is some other sort of arrangement that can be made that's specific to the project in question. Every project is different, and has different needs. I do not think expecting WMF engineering to devote significant resources to IEG grants is viable, as I simply doubt its something that WMF engineering is willing to do (And honestly I don't blame them. They have their own projects to concentrate on.). IEG's are independent projects, and must be able to stand mostly on their own with minimal help. I do think getting WMF to perform the final once over for security/performance of a project prior to deployment, at the end, is reasonable (provided the code follows MW standards, is clean, and has been mostly already reviewed for issues by someone in our community). At most, I think bringing back 20% time, with that time devoted to doing code review of IEGs, would be the most that we could reasonably expect WMF to devote (but even if they didn't want to do that, I don't think that's a
Re: [Wikitech-l] post project funding
Brian Wolff bawo...@gmail.com writes: Politically, I think its dangerous how WMF seems to more and more become the only stakeholder in MediaWiki development. We do have the MediaWiki Stakeholders group. The people involved there would argue that they have funded MediaWiki-focused development. The WMF is the 600 pound gorilla, though. And the lack of leadership (a central topic at the recent developer summit) doesn't help. Mark. -- Mark A. Hershberger NicheWork LLC 717-271-1084 ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Global user pages deployed to all wikis
[[m:Synchbot]] is what you are looking for.
-Revi
[[User:-revi]]
-- Sent from Android --
2015. 2. 21. 오후 5:56에 Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada emi...@gmail.com님이 작성:
2015-02-21 8:45 GMT+01:00 Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com:
Is it necessary to request deletion of a local user page in order to get
the global page to be automatically transcluded?
Pine
It seems so. In my case, I created years ago a lot of redirects to my
English userpage from many Wikipedia languages, and now I have to request
the deletion for all them. Not very useful.
Can we get a special bot task in meta to request userpage deletion in
batches?
*This is an Encyclopedia* https://www.wikipedia.org/
*One gateway to the wide garden of knowledge, where lies The deep rock of
our past, in which we must delve The well of our future,The clear water
we
must leave untainted for those who come after us,The fertile earth, in
which truth may grow in bright places, tended by many hands,And the broad
fall of sunshine, warming our first steps toward knowing how much we do
not
know.*
*—Catherine Munro*
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 11:17 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Hi.
Erwin Dokter wrote:
On 20-02-2015 18:22, Dan Garry wrote:
The feature is currently deployed and working. Simply set up your
userpage
on Meta, and it'll display on all other wikis! :-)
After having played with it a bit, I must conclude there is one major
shortcoming.
I like to list my subpages locally, but that is not possible with a
global page.
I think what you're saying here is that if your global user page
contains
{{Special:PrefixIndex/User:Example}}, this transclusion will expand
in
the context of the global wiki, not in the context of the local wiki.
The most annoying thing is that once you create the local
user page, the global one is gone forever... until you can get a local
admin to delete the local copy again.
It would be much more practical if this worked like Commons
description
pages, where one can *add* content to the local description pages in
addition to the trancluded page.
Gone forever seems a bit hyperbolic. :-) The use-case being solved
here
most directly is I don't want to create my user page or a pointer to
my
user page on over 800 wikis. I think the append model is interesting
to
consider, but I think it would likely need to be opt-in, perhaps via
interwiki transclusion.
I also don't know why the system is so inflexible in that only one
wiki
can act as the global home wiki. I know there are issues with the home
wiki flag, but another approach could be in the form of using
{{meta:user:Edokter}}, which could point to any project.
Right, you're basically suggesting interwiki transclusion here. This is
definitely a hard problem to solve, for the context reason alone.
In discussing global user pages, someone privately criticized the
implementation with basically the same theme of what you're saying
here.
Namely, that global user pages are only solving a narrow use-case and
that
the more generalized problem of easy content distribution/re-use still
needs to be addressed. I definitely agree, but here's why I pushed this
project forward and why I'm happy with where we're headed:
1. Perfect is the enemy of the done. We have global user pages today.
If
a
better approach for global user pages comes along in the future, we
can
switch to using that instead, for sure.
2. We're working on a more generalized solution:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Shadow_namespaces
.
Nemo also pointed me toward
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T66474
which may interest you.
Please share your thoughts and feedback on the wiki or in Phabricator
or
on this mailing list. I think there's consensus that we have a pattern
of
a problem that we want to solve and any help poking and prodding at
ideas
for solutions to this problem would be most welcome.
MZMcBride
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Global user pages deployed to all wikis
Could we get uploading privileges allowed for normal users (such as myself)
on meta? Otherwise profile photos will require special privileges.
On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 10:09 AM, Hong, Yena li...@revi.pe.kr wrote:
[[m:Synchbot]] is what you are looking for.
-Revi
[[User:-revi]]
-- Sent from Android --
2015. 2. 21. 오후 5:56에 Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada emi...@gmail.com님이
작성:
2015-02-21 8:45 GMT+01:00 Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com:
Is it necessary to request deletion of a local user page in order to
get
the global page to be automatically transcluded?
Pine
It seems so. In my case, I created years ago a lot of redirects to my
English userpage from many Wikipedia languages, and now I have to request
the deletion for all them. Not very useful.
Can we get a special bot task in meta to request userpage deletion in
batches?
*This is an Encyclopedia* https://www.wikipedia.org/
*One gateway to the wide garden of knowledge, where lies The deep rock
of
our past, in which we must delve The well of our future,The clear water
we
must leave untainted for those who come after us,The fertile earth, in
which truth may grow in bright places, tended by many hands,And the
broad
fall of sunshine, warming our first steps toward knowing how much we do
not
know.*
*—Catherine Munro*
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 11:17 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Hi.
Erwin Dokter wrote:
On 20-02-2015 18:22, Dan Garry wrote:
The feature is currently deployed and working. Simply set up your
userpage
on Meta, and it'll display on all other wikis! :-)
After having played with it a bit, I must conclude there is one
major
shortcoming.
I like to list my subpages locally, but that is not possible with a
global page.
I think what you're saying here is that if your global user page
contains
{{Special:PrefixIndex/User:Example}}, this transclusion will expand
in
the context of the global wiki, not in the context of the local wiki.
The most annoying thing is that once you create the local
user page, the global one is gone forever... until you can get a
local
admin to delete the local copy again.
It would be much more practical if this worked like Commons
description
pages, where one can *add* content to the local description pages in
addition to the trancluded page.
Gone forever seems a bit hyperbolic. :-) The use-case being solved
here
most directly is I don't want to create my user page or a pointer to
my
user page on over 800 wikis. I think the append model is interesting
to
consider, but I think it would likely need to be opt-in, perhaps via
interwiki transclusion.
I also don't know why the system is so inflexible in that only one
wiki
can act as the global home wiki. I know there are issues with the
home
wiki flag, but another approach could be in the form of using
{{meta:user:Edokter}}, which could point to any project.
Right, you're basically suggesting interwiki transclusion here. This
is
definitely a hard problem to solve, for the context reason alone.
In discussing global user pages, someone privately criticized the
implementation with basically the same theme of what you're saying
here.
Namely, that global user pages are only solving a narrow use-case and
that
the more generalized problem of easy content distribution/re-use
still
needs to be addressed. I definitely agree, but here's why I pushed
this
project forward and why I'm happy with where we're headed:
1. Perfect is the enemy of the done. We have global user pages today.
If
a
better approach for global user pages comes along in the future,
we
can
switch to using that instead, for sure.
2. We're working on a more generalized solution:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Shadow_namespaces
.
Nemo also pointed me toward
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T66474
which may interest you.
Please share your thoughts and feedback on the wiki or in Phabricator
or
on this mailing list. I think there's consensus that we have a
pattern
of
a problem that we want to solve and any help poking and prodding at
ideas
for solutions to this problem would be most welcome.
MZMcBride
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikitech-l] Global user pages deployed to all wikis
Am 21.02.2015 um 13:14 schrieb Marielle Volz: That's what I was going to do originally, but then I looked at my profile picture on en wiki[1] I saw this message: Do not copy this file to Wikimedia Commons. While the license of this image or media file, uploaded and used on (a) Wikipedia contributor(s) user page(s), may be compliant with Commons, its usefulness to other projects is unlikely. It should not be copied to Commons unless a specific other usage is anticipated. I took that to mean that profile pictures in general were discouraged from being placed in commons. If that's the case, then it makes sense for profiles on meta to have the same policy. I would say profile pictures are useful on commons if used on a global user page. The idea behind the message you saw is that pictures that are only going to be used on your local profile shouldn't be on commons. If you are going to use your profile picture on a lot of wikis or, now, on a global user page, then that's a perfectly good reason to put them on commons. I haven't been a common admin for years, but I suppose the guidelines there still allow this. -- daniel ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Global user pages deployed to all wikis
Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada wrote: It seems so. In my case, I created years ago a lot of redirects to my English userpage from many Wikipedia languages, and now I have to request the deletion for all them. Not very useful. Not very useful is a slightly rude comment to make, in my opinion. You specifically and intentionally created local user pages on various Wikipedias. I imagine you and others would be rightfully upset if someone came along and simply overwrote your local user pages with a global user page without your knowledge or consent. Can we get a special bot task in meta to request userpage deletion in batches? There's discussion on Meta-Wiki about Synchbot deleting local user pages on a per-user, opt-in basis. I'm personally of the view that users seeking to un-spam the dozens or hundreds of wikis where they have created a local user page and done nothing more ought to clean up the mess themselves. Instead of deletion, blanking the user page might be a neat way of triggering the global user page to re-appear (a version of pure wiki deletion). Though, of course, some users might want a 0-byte user page. MZMcBride ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Global user pages deployed to all wikis
2015-02-21 8:45 GMT+01:00 Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com:
Is it necessary to request deletion of a local user page in order to get
the global page to be automatically transcluded?
Pine
It seems so. In my case, I created years ago a lot of redirects to my
English userpage from many Wikipedia languages, and now I have to request
the deletion for all them. Not very useful.
Can we get a special bot task in meta to request userpage deletion in
batches?
*This is an Encyclopedia* https://www.wikipedia.org/
*One gateway to the wide garden of knowledge, where lies The deep rock of
our past, in which we must delve The well of our future,The clear water we
must leave untainted for those who come after us,The fertile earth, in
which truth may grow in bright places, tended by many hands,And the broad
fall of sunshine, warming our first steps toward knowing how much we do not
know.*
*—Catherine Munro*
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 11:17 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Hi.
Erwin Dokter wrote:
On 20-02-2015 18:22, Dan Garry wrote:
The feature is currently deployed and working. Simply set up your
userpage
on Meta, and it'll display on all other wikis! :-)
After having played with it a bit, I must conclude there is one major
shortcoming.
I like to list my subpages locally, but that is not possible with a
global page.
I think what you're saying here is that if your global user page contains
{{Special:PrefixIndex/User:Example}}, this transclusion will expand in
the context of the global wiki, not in the context of the local wiki.
The most annoying thing is that once you create the local
user page, the global one is gone forever... until you can get a local
admin to delete the local copy again.
It would be much more practical if this worked like Commons description
pages, where one can *add* content to the local description pages in
addition to the trancluded page.
Gone forever seems a bit hyperbolic. :-) The use-case being solved here
most directly is I don't want to create my user page or a pointer to my
user page on over 800 wikis. I think the append model is interesting to
consider, but I think it would likely need to be opt-in, perhaps via
interwiki transclusion.
I also don't know why the system is so inflexible in that only one wiki
can act as the global home wiki. I know there are issues with the home
wiki flag, but another approach could be in the form of using
{{meta:user:Edokter}}, which could point to any project.
Right, you're basically suggesting interwiki transclusion here. This is
definitely a hard problem to solve, for the context reason alone.
In discussing global user pages, someone privately criticized the
implementation with basically the same theme of what you're saying here.
Namely, that global user pages are only solving a narrow use-case and
that
the more generalized problem of easy content distribution/re-use still
needs to be addressed. I definitely agree, but here's why I pushed this
project forward and why I'm happy with where we're headed:
1. Perfect is the enemy of the done. We have global user pages today. If
a
better approach for global user pages comes along in the future, we
can
switch to using that instead, for sure.
2. We're working on a more generalized solution:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Shadow_namespaces
.
Nemo also pointed me toward https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T66474
which may interest you.
Please share your thoughts and feedback on the wiki or in Phabricator or
on this mailing list. I think there's consensus that we have a pattern of
a problem that we want to solve and any help poking and prodding at ideas
for solutions to this problem would be most welcome.
MZMcBride
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
[Wikitech-l] MediaWiki tests will verify the completeness of $wgAvailableRights
Hi Everyone, just wanted to quickly let you know that MediaWiki will verify that extensions register all rights they define in $wgAvailableRights (or using the UserGetAllRights hook). To make sure your extension complies with that just add all the rights your extension defines to $wgAvailableRights (which is a simple string[] of theses user rights). This test will be introduced with https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/192087 Cheers, Marius ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Global user pages deployed to all wikis
On 21/02/15 15:21, MZMcBride wrote: Instead of deletion, blanking the user page might be a neat way of triggering the global user page to re-appear (a version of pure wiki deletion). Though, of course, some users might want a 0-byte user page. With interface messages, setting the content to '-' is commonly used instead of deletion in order to reset the content to default, since that way the history is preserved even with blank messages. Having similar functionality might be useful here. -I ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Global user pages deployed to all wikis
On 21-02-2015 12:14, Marielle Volz wrote: Could we get uploading privileges allowed for normal users (such as myself) on meta? Otherwise profile photos will require special privileges. We have Commons for that. Meta does not allow non-free or fair-use images anyway. Regards, -- Erwin Dokter ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Global user pages deployed to all wikis
That's what I was going to do originally, but then I looked at my profile picture on en wiki[1] I saw this message: Do not copy this file to Wikimedia Commons. While the license of this image or media file, uploaded and used on (a) Wikipedia contributor(s) user page(s), may be compliant with Commons, its usefulness to other projects is unlikely. It should not be copied to Commons unless a specific other usage is anticipated. I took that to mean that profile pictures in general were discouraged from being placed in commons. If that's the case, then it makes sense for profiles on meta to have the same policy. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Marielle_volz.jpg On Feb 21, 2015 12:06 PM, Erwin Dokter er...@darcoury.nl wrote: On 21-02-2015 12:14, Marielle Volz wrote: Could we get uploading privileges allowed for normal users (such as myself) on meta? Otherwise profile photos will require special privileges. We have Commons for that. Meta does not allow non-free or fair-use images anyway. Regards, -- Erwin Dokter ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] [Wikitech-ambassadors] Global user pages deployed to all wikis
Hoi, When the local language is not among the selected languages, it helps to show a level 0 for the local language. What do you think, is this feasible ?? Thanks, GerardM On 20 February 2015 at 20:32, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote: This is awesome! When do we get a global language pref? ;) On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Legoktm legoktm.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote: Hello! Global user pages have now been deployed to all public wikis for users with CentralAuth accounts. Documentation on the feature is available at mediawiki.org[1], and if you notice any bugs please file them in Phabricator[2]. Thanks to all the people who helped with the creation and deployment (incomplete, and in no particular order): Jack Phoenix ShoutWiki, Isarra, MZMcBride, Nemo, Quiddity, Aaron S, Matt F, James F, and everyone who helped with testing it while it was in beta. [1] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Extension:GlobalUserPage [2] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/maniphest/task/create/? projects=PHID-PROJ-j536clyie42uptgjkft7 ___ Wikitech-ambassadors mailing list wikitech-ambassad...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-ambassadors ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
[Wikitech-l] w3c editing task force
Hi, I just found out that w3c has an editing task force, which tries to address the nightmare that is contenteditable: http://w3c.github.io/editing-explainer/tf-charter.html Does Wikimedia participate in it in any way? ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Global user pages deployed to all wikis
On 21-02-2015 13:14, Marielle Volz wrote: That's what I was going to do originally, but then I looked at my profile picture on en wiki[1] I saw this message: Do not copy this file to Wikimedia Commons. [...] I took that to mean that profile pictures in general were discouraged from being placed in commons. If that's the case, then it makes sense for profiles on meta to have the same policy. Somone else placed that tag after you uploaded it. But you remain in control (and I would in fact remove that tag), and as Yena has pointed out, Commons welcomes user-space images. Reagrds, -- Erwin Dokter ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Global user pages deployed to all wikis
Well, image upload for userpage use is explicitly permitted on Commons[1], as long as it is used and copyright status is fine. (To get meta uploader right, you need a clear use case, and it is rarely given. Meta does not allow EDP (fair use), so if it is fair use, it cannot be hosted on Commons nor on meta.) [1]: See [[c:COM:SCOPE]], I'm mobile so cannot find section, but there must be one about this. -Revi [[User:-revi]] -- Sent from Android -- 2015. 2. 21. 오후 9:15에 Marielle Volz mv...@wikimedia.org님이 작성: That's what I was going to do originally, but then I looked at my profile picture on en wiki[1] I saw this message: Do not copy this file to Wikimedia Commons. While the license of this image or media file, uploaded and used on (a) Wikipedia contributor(s) user page(s), may be compliant with Commons, its usefulness to other projects is unlikely. It should not be copied to Commons unless a specific other usage is anticipated. I took that to mean that profile pictures in general were discouraged from being placed in commons. If that's the case, then it makes sense for profiles on meta to have the same policy. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Marielle_volz.jpg On Feb 21, 2015 12:06 PM, Erwin Dokter er...@darcoury.nl wrote: On 21-02-2015 12:14, Marielle Volz wrote: Could we get uploading privileges allowed for normal users (such as myself) on meta? Otherwise profile photos will require special privileges. We have Commons for that. Meta does not allow non-free or fair-use images anyway. Regards, -- Erwin Dokter ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Types of allowed projects for grant funding (renamed)
(Now continuing this discussion on Wikimedia-l also, since we are discussing grant policies.) For what it's worth, I repeatedly advocated for allowing IEG to support a broader range of tech projects when I was on IEGCom. I had the impression that there was a lot of concern about limited code review staff time, but it serms to me that WMF has more than enough funds to to pay for staffing for code review if that is the bottleneck for tech-focused IEGs (as well as other code changes). I also think that the grant scope policies in general seem too conservative with regard to small grants (roughly $30k and under). WMF has millions of dollars in reserves, there is plenty of mission-aligned work to be done, and WMF itself frequently hires contractors to perform technical, administrative, communications, legal and organizing work. It seems to me that the scope of allowed funding for grants should be similar to the scope of allowed work for contractors, and it would serve the purposes that donors have in mind when they donate to WMF if the scope of allowed purposes for grants is expanded, particularly given WMF's and the community's increasing skills with designing and measuring projects for impact. In the past I think there were probably some wasteful uses of grant funding, and the response at the time might have been to prohibit or refuse to fund entire categories of expenses. Now that everyone has more planning and evaluation capacity, it seems to me that this is a good time to rethink the categorical prohibitions and replace at least some of them with appropriate expectations for impact that would better serve our overall mission of creating and sharing knowledge. Pine On Feb 21, 2015 12:05 PM, Brian Wolff bawo...@gmail.com wrote: On 2/21/15, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote: In general WMF has a conservative grant policy (with the exception of IEG, grant funding seems to be getting more conservative every year, and some mission-aligned projects can't get funding because they don't fit into the current molds of the grants programs). Spontaneous cash awards for previous work are unlikely. However, if there is an existing project that could use some developer time, it may be possible to get grant funding for future work. [Rant] I find this kind of doubtful when IEG's (which for an individual developer doing a small project is really the type of funding that applies) have been traditionally denied for anything that even remotely touches WMF infrastructure. (Arguably the original question was about toollabs things, which is far enough away from WMF infrastructure to be allowed as an IEG grant, but I won't let that stop my rant...). Furthermore, it appears that IEGs now seem to be focusing primarily on gender gap grants. I find it odd, that we have grants through GSOC and OPW to people who are largely newbies (although there are exceptions), and probably not in a position to do anything major. IEG provides grants as long as they are far enough away from the main site to not actually change much. But we do not provide grants to normal contributors who want to improve the technology of our websites, in big or important ways. Ostensibly this is done in the name of: Any technical components must be standalone or completed on-wiki. Projects are completed without assistance or review from WMF engineering, so MediaWiki Extensions or software features requiring code review and integration cannot be funded. On-wiki tech work (templates, user scripts, gadgets) and completely standalone applications without a hosting dependency are allowed. Which on one hand is understandable. WMF-tech has its own priorities, and can't spend all its time babysitting whatever random ideas get funded. So I understand the fear that brought this about. On the other hand it is silly, since a grant to existing tech contributors is going to have much less review burden than gsoc/opw, and many projects might have minimal review burden, especially because most review could perhaps be done by non-wmf employees with +2, requiring only a final security/performance sign off. In fact, we do already provide very limited review to whatever randoms submit code to us over the internet (regardless of how they are funded, or lack thereof). If IEG grants were allowed in this area, it would be something that the grantee would have to plan and account for, with the understanding that nobody is going to provide a team of WMF developers to make someone else's grant happen. We should be providing the same amount of support to IEG grantees that we would to anyone who submitted code to us. That is, not much, but perhaps a little, and the amount dependent on how good their ideas are, and how clean their code is. [End rant] Politically, I think its dangerous how WMF seems to more and more become the only stakeholder in MediaWiki development (Not that there is anything wrong with the WMF, I
[Wikitech-l] Progress report: Hierator
Hi, this is a status update for my WikiHiero rewrite! [1] I've made a first pass on comparison, based on all hieroglyphic texts on English Wikipedia: [2] You can see the difference yourselves, in my opinion the general quality is considerably better, and far more hieroglyphs are supported. However, a few problems were identified, mostly related to WikiHiero accidentally allowing invalid syntax in the past. I'm working on either fixing them in tokenizer, e.g. converting ra:: to something like ra:.:. or making a fallback to the old HTML renderer and adding a tracking category for future fixage by editors. Some of the known problems are listed at [3]. Unfortunately, this also includes some cases where WikiHiero's hieroglyphs deviated from what was said in standards, resulting in a mess that needs manual conversion during a transitional period. These will also fall back on the old renderer and be tracked. The code is still being worked on, it can be seen in [4] (Hierator) and [5] (WikiHiero). - [1] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Hierator [2] http://staging.wmflabs.org/w/extensions/wikihiero/comparison/ [3] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:WikiHiero/JSesh_migration [4] https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/178970 [5] https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/178269 -- Best regards, Max Semenik ([[User:MaxSem]]) ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Types of allowed projects for grant funding (renamed)
On 2/21/15, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote: (Now continuing this discussion on Wikimedia-l also, since we are discussing grant policies.) For what it's worth, I repeatedly advocated for allowing IEG to support a broader range of tech projects when I was on IEGCom. I had the impression that there was a lot of concern about limited code review staff time, but it serms to me that WMF has more than enough funds to to pay for staffing for code review if that is the bottleneck for tech-focused IEGs (as well as other code changes). I also think that the grant scope policies in general seem too conservative with regard to small grants (roughly $30k and under). WMF has millions of dollars in reserves, there is plenty of mission-aligned work to be done, and WMF itself frequently hires contractors to perform technical, administrative, communications, legal and organizing work. It seems to me that the scope of allowed funding for grants should be similar to the scope of allowed work for contractors, and it would serve the purposes that donors have in mind when they donate to WMF if the scope of allowed purposes for grants is expanded, particularly given WMF's and the community's increasing skills with designing and measuring projects for impact. That's actually debatable. There's grumbling about WMF code review practices not being sufficient for WMFs own code (or as sufficient as some people would like), and code review is definitely a severe bottleneck currently for existing volunteer contributions. However that's not a reason to have no IEG grants for tech projects ever, its just a reason for code review to be specifically addressed in the grant proposal, and for the grantee to have a plan. Maybe that plan involves having a (volunteer) friend who has +2 do most of the code review. Maybe that plan involves a staff member getting his manager to allow him/her to have 1 day a week to review code from this grant (Assuming that the project aligns with whatever priorities that staff member's team has, such an arrangement does not seem unreasonable). Maybe the grant includes funds for hiring code review resources (ie non-wmf people with +2. We exist!). Maybe there is some other sort of arrangement that can be made that's specific to the project in question. Every project is different, and has different needs. I do not think expecting WMF engineering to devote significant resources to IEG grants is viable, as I simply doubt its something that WMF engineering is willing to do (And honestly I don't blame them. They have their own projects to concentrate on.). IEG's are independent projects, and must be able to stand mostly on their own with minimal help. I do think getting WMF to perform the final once over for security/performance of a project prior to deployment, at the end, is reasonable (provided the code follows MW standards, is clean, and has been mostly already reviewed for issues by someone in our community). At most, I think bringing back 20% time, with that time devoted to doing code review of IEGs, would be the most that we could reasonably expect WMF to devote (but even if they didn't want to do that, I don't think that's a reason not to do IEG tech grants). Code review is an inherent risk to project success, much like user acceptability. It should be planned around, and considered. We should not give up just because there is risk. There is always risk. Instead we must manage risk as best we can. --bawolff ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] post project funding
On 2/21/15, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote: In general WMF has a conservative grant policy (with the exception of IEG, grant funding seems to be getting more conservative every year, and some mission-aligned projects can't get funding because they don't fit into the current molds of the grants programs). Spontaneous cash awards for previous work are unlikely. However, if there is an existing project that could use some developer time, it may be possible to get grant funding for future work. [Rant] I find this kind of doubtful when IEG's (which for an individual developer doing a small project is really the type of funding that applies) have been traditionally denied for anything that even remotely touches WMF infrastructure. (Arguably the original question was about toollabs things, which is far enough away from WMF infrastructure to be allowed as an IEG grant, but I won't let that stop my rant...). Furthermore, it appears that IEGs now seem to be focusing primarily on gender gap grants. I find it odd, that we have grants through GSOC and OPW to people who are largely newbies (although there are exceptions), and probably not in a position to do anything major. IEG provides grants as long as they are far enough away from the main site to not actually change much. But we do not provide grants to normal contributors who want to improve the technology of our websites, in big or important ways. Ostensibly this is done in the name of: Any technical components must be standalone or completed on-wiki. Projects are completed without assistance or review from WMF engineering, so MediaWiki Extensions or software features requiring code review and integration cannot be funded. On-wiki tech work (templates, user scripts, gadgets) and completely standalone applications without a hosting dependency are allowed. Which on one hand is understandable. WMF-tech has its own priorities, and can't spend all its time babysitting whatever random ideas get funded. So I understand the fear that brought this about. On the other hand it is silly, since a grant to existing tech contributors is going to have much less review burden than gsoc/opw, and many projects might have minimal review burden, especially because most review could perhaps be done by non-wmf employees with +2, requiring only a final security/performance sign off. In fact, we do already provide very limited review to whatever randoms submit code to us over the internet (regardless of how they are funded, or lack thereof). If IEG grants were allowed in this area, it would be something that the grantee would have to plan and account for, with the understanding that nobody is going to provide a team of WMF developers to make someone else's grant happen. We should be providing the same amount of support to IEG grantees that we would to anyone who submitted code to us. That is, not much, but perhaps a little, and the amount dependent on how good their ideas are, and how clean their code is. [End rant] Politically, I think its dangerous how WMF seems to more and more become the only stakeholder in MediaWiki development (Not that there is anything wrong with the WMF, I just don't like there being only 1 stakeholder). One way for there to be a more diverse group of interests is to allow grants to groups with goals consistent with Wikimedia's. While not exactly super diverse (all groups have similar goals), at least there would then be more groups, and hopefully result in more interesting and radical projects. --bawolff ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
