On 10/29/11 12:40 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
There have been LOADS of opportunities where the community is asked, begged
to be involved in what will be the way forward. The most obvious
opportunity has been the Strategy project. At this time the Wikimedia
Foundation is looking for all sorts of
On 10/29/11 12:40 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
There have been LOADS of opportunities where the community
is asked, begged to be involved in what will be the way forward. The most
obvious opportunity has been the Strategy project. At this time the
Wikimedia Foundation is looking for all
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 7:14 AM, Möller, Carsten c.moel...@wmco.de wrote:
The changes of the terms is another one. The German version was published
at the end of the discussion on meta.
Sorry if there wasn't wider announcement about it, but even though the
terms propose only 30 days to
On 10/30/11 3:21 AM, David Gerard wrote:
On 30 October 2011 10:15, Yaroslav M. Blanterpute...@mccme.ru wrote:
Along the same line of reasoning, I see
that 99% of admins use template warnings which I hate and I never used any
template warning except for copyright violation when I was still
On 10/30/11 9:52 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 30 October 2011 17:44, Brandon Harrisbhar...@wikimedia.org wrote:
(One of my favorite things about talk pages is that, for most people,
*there is no talk page button*. There's a Discussion tab. So when
someone says Hey, just leave me a
in a divided community..
Ray
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 23:22:27 +0400
From: pute...@mccme.ru
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove
When I spoke ''family'' I wanted to say we need a more likable system of
communication. We need a real collaborative method, which not only
On 10/30/11 6:56 PM, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
PS: As i wrote some month ago: Damn. More kittens smashed at ground of
the talk page, buried by the annoyed user. Great and important feature
we haz now!
Please refer to the Eric Bogle song, He's nobody's moggy now.
Ray
Efficiency has never been a part of Wikipedia's mission
That's a slightly odd interpretation,
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mission_statement specifically
includes effective dissemination of content. Though the word
effective is quite different in meaning to efficient, it would be
hard to
On Tue, 1 Nov 2011 11:56:48 +, Fae f...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Efficiency has never been a part of Wikipedia's mission
That's a slightly odd interpretation,
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mission_statement specifically
includes effective dissemination of content. Though the word
(just today I came across a nice example
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jcboldid=59812254#A_barnstar_for_you.21
- though I have no idea of the background of this message)
That was between two established Commons users, both of which are
administrators, and
On 11/01/11 5:18 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
On Tue, 1 Nov 2011 11:56:48 +, Faef...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Efficiency has never been a part of Wikipedia's mission
That's a slightly odd interpretation,
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mission_statement specifically
includes
Craig Franklin wrote:
Personally, I find the whole WikiLove extension to be a bit naff and
schmaltzy. I'm generally not thrilled when I get a WikiLove kitten or
anything, just like I'm not touched that my local member of Parliament has
thought to send me a form letter about how hard they're
On 31 October 2011 07:14, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Craig Franklin wrote:
Personally, I find the whole WikiLove extension to be a bit naff and
schmaltzy. I'm generally not thrilled when I get a WikiLove kitten or
anything, just like I'm not touched that my local member of
I think he meant the second option, Liam.
And I agree with Tobias when he says this is a useless feature.
_
*Béria Lima*
http://wikimedia.pt/(351) 925 171 484
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre
acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É
On 30 October 2011 16:44, Brandon Harris bhar...@wikimedia.org wrote:
(One of my favorite things about talk pages is that, for most people,
*there is no talk page button*. There's a Discussion tab. So when
someone says Hey, just leave me a message on my talk page and I'll help
you
On 31 October 2011 11:04, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
I suspect our main newbie problem is Wikipedia's utter opacity.
Outsiders have *no goddamn clue* how this thing is even supposed to wo
work, let alone how it actually does.
- d.
___
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 12:14 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
A user preference or some other way of disabling the use of WikiLove on a
per-user basis might be nice.
Absolutely, disabling it on the recipient side (so that a sending user
gets a disabled icon saying This user prefers more
As better explained by Erik, the deployment to en.wiki was not done with
community consensus. The purpose of the deployment, as I understand it,
was two-fold:
* To address one of the main reasons cited for people leaving en.wiki
(lack of positive feedback)
* To experiment with new methods of
@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove
As better explained by Erik, the deployment to en.wiki was not done with
community consensus. The purpose of the deployment, as I understand it,
was two-fold:
* To address one of the main reasons cited
There is a general view amongst Wikipedia admins that excessive
templating on user pages is poor practice. I frequently use an initial
(customized) welcome template for new users and do use standard user
warning templates for vandalism, though not for regulars. However
these templates are not
Surely making it only available to those users who understand markup
completely undermines one of the great unintended consequences - that it's
really useful for posting talkpage messages? New users can use those
templates in a *perfectly* meaningful way - as a way of communicating
instead of
On 30 October 2011 08:06, Oliver Keyes scire.fac...@gmail.com wrote:
Surely making it only available to those users who understand markup
completely undermines one of the great unintended consequences - that it's
really useful for posting talkpage messages? New users can use those
templates in
Not my call, but I'd totally support that.
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 9:35 AM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 30 October 2011 08:06, Oliver Keyes scire.fac...@gmail.com wrote:
Surely making it only available to those users who understand markup
completely undermines one of the great
On 30 October 2011 08:06, Oliver Keyes scire.fac...@gmail.com wrote:
Surely making it only available to those users who understand markup
completely undermines one of the great unintended consequences - that it's
really useful for posting talkpage messages?
I did not equate users with 10 edits
On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 17:27:30 +0200, Nickanc Wikipedia
nickanc.w...@gmail.com wrote:
IMHO, Wikilove is something so important about wikipedia's ethics and
behaviour that shall be in every wiki. IMHO.
I absolutely disagree. Wikipedia ethics and behavior encourage thanking
the contributors, but it
On 30 October 2011 10:15, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru wrote:
Along the same line of reasoning, I see
that 99% of admins use template warnings which I hate and I never used any
template warning except for copyright violation when I was still an admin.
In my opinion, getting a
You seem to be missing my point - that the WL tool serves an ulterior
function of allowing users who do not understand markup to communicate and
request help in a way they can understand. I *am* saying that most of those
with few or no edits will have problems understanding markup, which is why
So far my only experience with extension:wikilove is having a new user
prefer it to just editing my talk page, and so over the course of a
mundane conversation about sourcing I earned myself two civility
barnstars and three trophies. Hooray!
One take away from this experience of
--
Message: 8
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 21:40:37 +0200
From: Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove
To: f...@wikimedia.org.uk, Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
foundation-l
On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 23:15:52 +0200, Bjoern Hoehrmann derhoe...@gmx.net
wrote:
Some editors just want to edit articles and regard the social and
meta dimensions of the project as annoying distractions, while other
editors see those as the main attractions. Some prefer You are nice.,
others
On 30 October 2011 10:22, Oliver Keyes scire.fac...@gmail.com wrote:
You seem to be missing my point - that the WL tool serves an ulterior
function of allowing users who do not understand markup to communicate and
request help in a way they can understand. I am saying that most of those
with
October 2011 12:17, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.comwrote:
--
Message: 8
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 21:40:37 +0200
From: Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove
To: f
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Oliver Keyes scire.fac...@gmail.comwrote:
You seem to be missing my point - that the WL tool serves an ulterior
function of allowing users who do not understand markup to communicate and
request help in a way they can understand. I *am* saying that most of
On 10/30/11 4:14 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
One take away from this experience of yours could be that the process
of utilizing talk pages is extremely arcane and horrible from a user
experience perspective, while using WikiLove to communicate - even
though it is the wrong channel -
On 10/30/11 4:48 AM, Fae wrote:
Okay, my email and WSC's original email related to the primary
function as defined athttp://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/WikiLove.
Requests for help are probably better handled by something other than
a heart icon at the top of every user talk page. I would say that
On 30 October 2011 17:44, Brandon Harris bhar...@wikimedia.org wrote:
(One of my favorite things about talk pages is that, for most people,
*there is no talk page button*. There's a Discussion tab. So when
someone says Hey, just leave me a message on my talk page and I'll help
you
Mostly useless and mostly harmless thing becomes harmful at the moment
when people start to spend a lot of time on discussing it.
A note for future improvements: Yes, WMF should do bold actions, but
it shouldn't waste community's confidence on mostly useless
improvements.
I was saying that the WL layout posting on talkpages ;p.
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Oliver Keyes scire.fac...@gmail.com
wrote:
You seem to be missing my point - that the WL tool serves an ulterior
function of
wrote:
--
Message: 8
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 21:40:37 +0200
From: Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove
To: f...@wikimedia.org.uk, Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
foundation-l
I'm currently working on.
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 11:17 AM, WereSpielChequers
werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote:
--
Message: 8
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 21:40:37 +0200
From: Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Show community
.
_
MateusNobre
MetalBrasil on Wikimedia projects
(+55) 85 88393509
30440865
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 19:12:52 +0530
From: de10...@gmail.com
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011
We're not just talking about a tool, but a revolution in the way of
communicative and collaborative Wikipedia. It is a way to make Wikipedia
a
family environment, not a court or an academy of letters. We need that.
Wikipedia really needs that at all.
_
MateusNobre
: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove
We're not just talking about a tool, but a revolution in the way of
communicative and collaborative Wikipedia. It is a way to make Wikipedia
a
family environment, not a court or an academy of letters. We need that.
Wikipedia really needs
When I spoke ''family'' I wanted to say we need a more likable system of
communication. We need a real collaborative method, which not only fit
for
the editions, but for the treatment of users too. We're a big family
working for a common objective: a world in which every single human
being
...@mccme.ru
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove
When I spoke ''family'' I wanted to say we need a more likable system of
communication. We need a real collaborative method, which not only fit
for
the editions, but for the treatment of users too. We're a big family
That shouldn't be the issue. The question is the effect. What would make
you more pleased, a standard message/template that you did good, or a
personal message from someone from who you know yourself that he watched
over your work? Personally, I doubt that a simple template machine could
lead
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 15:31:07 -0700
From: Brandon Harris bhar...@wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] On certain shallow, American-centered,
foolish software initiatives backed by WMF
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Message-ID: 4eab2d2b.3020...@wikimedia.org
Hoi,
Given that the English Wikipedia has a problem, its page views is going
down for instance, there is a well documented division between the oldies
and the newbies. There is a natural attrition as well as open conflict
resulting in their being not as many editors as there used to be.
Wikilove,
Getting the dreaded community consensus for useful features and fixes
is indeed a painful experience and i'm not joking.
One way to counter it is to present the communities with results of
research that has been conducted and shown that these features
actually achieve something positive.
Was
Hi Gerard,
Your email appears to argue that the WMF should introduce any features
they find expedient and then deal with (or ignore) complaints from the
community afterwards. This seems to miss the opportunity for user
testing, feedback or even asking the users what they want as part of
IMHO, Wikilove is something so important about wikipedia's ethics and
behaviour that shall be in every wiki. IMHO.
2011/10/29 WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com:
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 15:31:07 -0700
From: Brandon Harris bhar...@wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l]
But if we enable it at a wiki that doesn't want it, there could be a
boycott, and vandals just get the place up to there code. It would be
very detrimental to wikipedia.
On 11-10-29 12:27 PM, Nickanc Wikipedia nickanc.w...@gmail.com wrote:
IMHO, Wikilove is something so important about
Hoi,
I am happy to make a distinction of what I do officially and what I say
because I am personally of a particular opinion. This is very much my
personal opinion.
There have been LOADS of opportunities where the community is asked, begged
to be involved in what will be the way forward. The most
30440865
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 12:31:24 -0300
From: betie...@bellaliant.net
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove
But if we enable it at a wiki that doesn't want it, there could be a
boycott, and vandals just get the place up
.
_
MateusNobre
Wikimedia Brasil - MetalBrasil on Wikimedia projects
(+55) 85 88393509
30440865
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 12:31:24 -0300
From: betie...@bellaliant.net
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove
But if we enable
Am 29.10.2011 21:57, schrieb Mateus Nobre:
This is inconsistent for me. Wikilove's a global improvement, there's no
reason to disagree improvements.
Huh,I knew I shoulda taken that left turn at/Albuquerque/. How exactly is it a
global improvement? Quite frankly I couldn't think of anything
* Mateus Nobre wrote:
Why any Wikipedia would not want the Wikilove feature?
This is inconsistent for me. Wikilove's a global improvement,
there's no reason to disagree improvements.
If you create a new account and edit a bit, on some projects odds are
some other editor will place on your Talk
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 9:57 PM, Mateus Nobre mateus.no...@live.co.uk wrote:
Etienne,
Why any Wikipedia would not want the Wikilove feature?
This is inconsistent for me. Wikilove's a global improvement, there's no
reason to disagree improvements.
What a lot of people would reply is:
So... Wikilove is enabled on all Wikis only by consensus... except en.wp,
where it was pushed out with no consensus and as far as I can tell, no
research yet proving it had any results?
2011/10/29 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
Hoi,
Given that the English Wikipedia has a problem,
My question is, are we going to have a bot to give out barnstars
anytime soon? That seems like the logical conclusion of all this...
So far my only experience with extension:wikilove is having a new user
prefer it to just editing my talk page, and so over the course of a
mundane conversation
On 10/29/11 8:36 PM, Jorgenev wrote:
So far my only experience with extension:wikilove is having a new user
prefer it to just editing my talk page, and so over the course of a
mundane conversation about sourcing I earned myself two civility
barnstars and three trophies. Hooray!
One
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 10:51 PM, Brandon Harris bhar...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
On 10/29/11 8:36 PM, Jorgenev wrote:
So far my only experience with extension:wikilove is having a new user
prefer it to just editing my talk page, and so over the course of a
mundane conversation about
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 22:57:25 +0300
From: Mateus Nobre mateus.no...@live.co.uk
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Message-ID: snt121-w28cdc17a85796201e442febf...@phx.gbl
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso
63 matches
Mail list logo
