James,
Pine suggested you might be able to fill in some of the gaps here. I am not
tied to any given format, but what I'm looking for is the connective tissue
between things like ACTRIAL, AFC and its increased use, Page Curation, the
Draft: namespace, etc.
Reading through the associated pages on
I put "model writing a new article with visual editor" on my to-do list. It
may be a good idea to do a few test runs where we boot a hundred or so
pages in each category in VisualEditor, and then see how many of each have
errors.
On Apr 25, 2015 1:51 PM, "David Gerard" wrote:
> On 25 April 2015 a
On 25 April 2015 at 04:11, David Goodman wrote:
> As I cannot use it consistently myself without making errors, I'm not going
> to teach people the visual editor. I've done quite nicely teaching
> beginners to use the wiki syntax, by imitating what they see.
When did you last use it? I ask bec
As I cannot use it consistently myself without making errors, I'm not going
to teach people the visual editor. I've done quite nicely teaching
beginners to use the wiki syntax, by imitating what they see.
As I have spent most of my time for the last year and a half dealing with
the gross deficien
Hi Pete,
James A. might be able to answer that, or know which project manager to
ping.
AFC and related processes are within my scope of concern regarding editor
retention, but they're not my expertise. I wish I could help more.
Currently, when I'm not dealing with Cascadia Wikimedians budgets and
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:03 AM, Pine W wrote:
> Philippe is on vacation, so I'm forwarding this to Rachel.
>
Thanks Pine. That's unfortunate, but maybe there is somebody (maybe
Fabrice?) who can shed some light on the general thinking in the software
development in this area. There have been s
I agree with the statement "New tech can only do so much to fix the
problem." Our retention rate for new editors was <1% the last time I
checked. What we should do about that should probably be the subject of a
different thread. We've had multiple discussions about vital statistics for
the editor p
Sure, and from what I hear it helped, but it was no panacea, especially
since it's a solution that still relies on a still-declining editor base.
Not like turning the valves would be, and that's clearly not going to
happen. Hence why I doubt there's much more room for improvement on this
issue. New
James Alexander
Community Advocacy
Wikimedia Foundation
(415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:03 AM, Pine W wrote:
> Hi Pete,
>
> Philippe is on vacation, so I'm forwarding this to Rachel.
>
> Pine
>
He pops in every once in a while during his break but while he is away
Mag
I don't know that there is a next step. The WMF has clearly indicated they
will not budge on the solution that the high-level Wikipedia community says
is needed. I have qualms myself about the way the community operates at
times but covering ACTRAIL and New Page Patrol at the Signpost felt like an
Hi Pete,
Philippe is on vacation, so I'm forwarding this to Rachel.
Pine
On Apr 22, 2015 11:59 PM, "Pete Forsyth" wrote:
> Philippe, can you address what you were talking about here last fall -- was
> the draft feature, and the way it directed new contributors toward the
> Articles for Creation
Philippe, can you address what you were talking about here last fall -- was
the draft feature, and the way it directed new contributors toward the
Articles for Creation process, the thing you alluded to, that WMF did in
response to ACTRIAL?
If so -- has there been any study of whether its intended
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 8:13 AM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> The team has pretty strong arguments why they don't want posts to be
> editable (the gist is, they fear that no other discussion system does
> this, and it will freak people out -- they see the introduction of a
> new system as a good opportun
On 09/06/2014 17:06 PM, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
>On 09/06/2014 12:34 PM, Isarra Yos wrote:
>> if the designers do not even understand the basic principles behind a
>> wiki, how can what is developed possibly suit our needs?
>
>You're starting from the presumption that, for some unexplained reason
2014-09-07 4:17 GMT+03:00 Risker :
> I think the design of Flow is much like the liqueur-filled chocolates.
> It's missed the point of a discussion space on Wikimedia projects. All
the
> use cases in the world, no matter how carefully researched and accounted
> for, will help you build a discussio
Hoi,
I like your story and I understand the sentiment. For me the story is about
the kind of functionality that we may or may not need in Flow. The story is
not about retaining what went before.. Mark my words, I cannot wait for the
old talk system to go.
As I understand the current situation, Flo
I would suggest aiming for a series of base hits. (: An attempt was made
to hit VE out of the park. We know how well that worked.
I think a lot of the work of capturing suggestions is supposed to be done
by the project manager and the engineering community liaisons. It would be
interesting to hav
> Fundamentally, I'd ask people to relax a bit regarding Flow. Nobody's
> planning to push this one out radically. Today we saw some on-wiki
> drama because a new test page was turned on. For something like the
> en.wp Teahouse, I'd want the hosts to be fully on-board before
> converting it over (a
On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Romaine Wiki wrote:
> 2014-09-06 1:07 GMT+02:00 Steven Walling :
>
>> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 1:48 PM, John Mark Vandenberg
>> wrote:
>>
>> > IMO the WMF should stop focusing on English Wikipedia as a target
>> > deploy site, and stop allowing its product managemen
2014-09-06 1:07 GMT+02:00 Steven Walling :
> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 1:48 PM, John Mark Vandenberg
> wrote:
>
> > IMO the WMF should stop focusing on English Wikipedia as a target
> > deploy site, and stop allowing its product management team and WMF
> > staff in general to be salesman for it - it
I'm not going to reply in-line here, because I think there's been an
undoubtedly unintentional missing of the point here. Instead I will tell a
story about a friend of mine.
Some years ago, when her children were 3 and 4, their family had a lovely
traditional Christmas Day, but something felt lik
On 09/06/2014 01:12 PM, Todd Allen wrote:
> But dismissing them by setting up a (rather
> ridiculous) straw man is not helpful.
I *wish* it was a strawman. How else would you qualify:
"And sadly we have enough users around who try to contribute content
without having time to go through "the rite
On 06.09.2014 19:18, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi,
The subject is discussion / talk space not article space editing..
Yaroslav
please stay on topic..Surely Marc has more than 13 edits in all kinds
of
discussion on multiple wikis.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 6 September 2014 19:14, Yaroslav M. Bl
Hoi,
The subject is discussion / talk space not article space editing.. Yaroslav
please stay on topic..Surely Marc has more than 13 edits in all kinds of
discussion on multiple wikis.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 6 September 2014 19:14, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
> On 06.09.2014 19:06, Marc A. Pel
On 06.09.2014 19:06, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
On 09/06/2014 12:34 PM, Isarra Yos wrote:
Sadly, there *are* people who get offended that the vast unwashed
masses
could start contributing to *their* project without having gone
through
a painful, demanding rite of passage. Truth is, most peopl
Marc,
Wanting to "keep the newbies away" is hardly a common reason for people's
opposition to Flow. Someone might've said such a thing, but to paint that
as the reason for opposition for even a significant minority is totally
inaccurate.
You can, of course, say that all the other reasons given ar
On 06/09/14 17:06, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
On 09/06/2014 12:34 PM, Isarra Yos wrote:
if the designers do not even understand the basic principles behind a
wiki, how can what is developed possibly suit our needs?
You're starting from the presumption that, for some unexplained reason,
collaborat
On 09/06/2014 12:34 PM, Isarra Yos wrote:
> if the designers do not even understand the basic principles behind a
> wiki, how can what is developed possibly suit our needs?
You're starting from the presumption that, for some unexplained reason,
collaborative discussion benefits from being a wiki (
On 06/09/14 07:41, Erik Moeller wrote:
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 12:23 AM, Isarra Yos wrote:
Why in the world would posts not be editable? I've never used a platform
where discussion was important in which users couldn't at least edit their
own posts (along with mods) where the lack of such wasn'
Erik - how confident are you that you're coming up with something that
the present users of talk pages - people actually trying to get work
done on articles - will love? Not just barely tolerate - what are you
bringing us?
- d.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing
On 06/09/2014, Isarra Yos wrote:
> Be like 4chan! Everyone loves 4chan.
No.
This is so wrong it hurts.
Fae
--
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 12:23 AM, Isarra Yos wrote:
> Have the successes and failures of the existing approaches and tools been
> considered? Are things LQT got right present in Flow?
Some, yes (remember Andrew and Brandon have worked on both LQT and
Flow) -- in other cases the team deliberately m
On 06/09/14 06:13, Erik Moeller wrote:
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 10:42 PM, Risker wrote:
The major deficiencies that have long been identified in the current
discussion system (and that can be addressed by technology) are all able to
be addressed in MediaWiki software or by extensions. Automatic s
Hoi,
I have used LiquidThreads and the current talk pages for too long. I prefer
LiquidThreads ANY day warts and all over the talk pages.
Ok this discussion is about automated discussion environments and lets keep
to that subject. As you may know, translatewiki.net uses LQT. It is
therefore quite
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 11:41 PM, Pine W wrote:
> Something that that would be useful is a video demonstration of Flow in
> action.
That could be handy, Pine. But sometimes you can't demonstrate all
benefits yet, because they don't even exist in the implementation yet
-- only in the foundations of
Something that that would be useful is a video demonstration of Flow in
action.
I like the goal of VE in principle, and I hear lots of comments to the
effect that it is improving over time. MediaViewer seems to be on the road
to improvement. I understand where both of those are headed. But I am
tr
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 11:13 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> That's a legitimate question, although it's not as "radically
> divorced" as you would think; ultimately it'll use the VisualEditor
> (probably with a simplified toolbar by default) just like Flow does.
.. just like article editing, I mean -
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 10:42 PM, Risker wrote:
> The major deficiencies that have long been identified in the current
> discussion system (and that can be addressed by technology) are all able to
> be addressed in MediaWiki software or by extensions. Automatic signatures
> have been done by bots f
Wil, the tl;dr here is "Philosophical beliefs aren't an effective
underpinning for good software design. Start over."
It's taken me a while to piece together much from the early discussions
about Flow and figure out how we got to where we are now. It's my opinion
that the root of the problem is
Risker, what do you think might get us all back on track for Flow?
Should the WMF consider a reset of the project and proceed only after
making specific and enforceable commitments to work with the
community? Is a total rewrite in order? Should we go completely tabla
rasa on it and revisit whether
Actually, Tim, you're not giving me credit for all the other mistakes I made. :D
FWIW, lessons have been learned, and there is a new version in the
works. But many people on this list have specifically said that they
don't want to talk about Offwiki, and we should respect their wishes.
I did make
On 5 September 2014 17:25, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
> One of the more recent WMF products:
>
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:PageTriage
>
> "An important note is that some of the configuration and code is
> specific to the English-language Wikipedia's workflows and as it's
> constru
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Steven Walling wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 1:48 PM, John Mark Vandenberg
> wrote:
>
>> IMO the WMF should stop focusing on English Wikipedia as a target
>> deploy site, and stop allowing its product management team and WMF
>> staff in general to be salesman for
FWIW, ironically the tangled discussions about MediaViewer across multiple
pages have made me think that having a more organized way to read
discussions would be a good idea. My understanding is that this is one of
Flow's objectives. If Flow can achieve this in a way that is helpful and
non-disrupt
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 1:48 PM, John Mark Vandenberg
wrote:
> IMO the WMF should stop focusing on English Wikipedia as a target
> deploy site, and stop allowing its product management team and WMF
> staff in general to be salesman for it - it is scaring the community
> that all WMF staff seem to
I really don't like the way that people are referring to Flow as a done
deal with an inevitable roll out. Nothing remotely close to workable
software has been produced, no case has been made that the purported
problems being addressed by this top-down software project are valid issues
in the commun
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 3:29 AM, Wil Sinclair wrote:
> This somewhat circuitously brings us back to the subject. We have a
> chance to rollout Flow the right way. There are some questions that
> come to mind that might tell us if we're headed for a big win or a
> bigger debacle:
>
> 1) Is the WMF w
Interesting. What I'm noticing in both this discussion and the
discussions around MV is that a lot of us think that the solution has
value, but the features are not prioritized well. I don't have much
experience with Trello, but I know of lots of other tools (Bugzilla is
one, I believe) that can su
I think there have been some pretty strong indications over the years that
the current talk page system needs to be improved. However, there's been
little discussion at all about whether Flow is that improvement. I have
been following the development for quite a while, and it really looks like
th
Andreas, what would you do process-wise from the perspective of the
WMF and/or the broader community to improve communication and its
impact on development of Flow?
,Wil
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> I'm not sure the term "loop" is appropriate. So far, I see little evid
This somewhat circuitously brings us back to the subject. We have a
chance to rollout Flow the right way. There are some questions that
come to mind that might tell us if we're headed for a big win or a
bigger debacle:
1) Is the WMF working with the community as closely and substantially
as possib
I'm not sure the term "loop" is appropriate. So far, I see little evidence
that feedback provided [1] is making any appreciable difference.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Flow
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 5:34 PM, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
> On 09/05/2014 11:12 AM, Yaroslav M. Blant
On 09/05/2014 11:12 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
> On 25.08.2014 06:07, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
> FLOW?
Last I checked, Flow isn't deployed except as experiments in a handful
of places, and is still in active deployment.
But you're correct that this would constitute a replacement rather than
a
On 25.08.2014 06:07, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
On 08/24/2014 11:19 PM, Pine W wrote:
I have
heard people say "don't force an interface change on me that I don't
think
is an improvement."
I do not recall a recent interface change deployment that wasn't
accompanied with, at the very least, some
> Hoi,
> Maybe... but it assumes that we have plenty of time and work sequently.
> Both are not the case and as it is, the framework is broken.to the extend
> that people refuse to use it. So yes, ideally you want to fix many issues
> nicely and in a collaborative manner. At the same time our reade
Hoi,
Maybe... but it assumes that we have plenty of time and work sequently.
Both are not the case and as it is, the framework is broken.to the extend
that people refuse to use it. So yes, ideally you want to fix many issues
nicely and in a collaborative manner. At the same time our readers are
dis
On 09/02/2014 10:35 AM, Liam Wyatt wrote:
> The key here in my opinion is:
> - clear communication about what state constitutes "success" (e.g. "When
> 80% of people who have opted in have STAYED opted-in")
> - clear communication about the progress towards that state (e.g. Showing
> the "success"
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Fæ wrote:
> On 01/09/2014, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
> ...
> > metadata. It's not an argument against MV, it's an argument for getting
> > rid of the horrid way we handle File: pages with ad-hoc workarounds.
> > The *correct* solution is to fix the damn image pag
I generally agree with your analysis Marc, notwithstanding that there is
blame to share on all sides - not just users who point to broken edge
cases. The (quite predictable) behaviour you mention is why I was quite
fond of the way the "usability initiative" from several years ago (the team
that bui
I don't think people yell "MediaViewer is broken" as much as they yell
"MediaViewer broke my workflow!". The problem is that no one cares about
some editor's personal workflow, so maybe we should be documenting use
cases that could be used for new & old editors and developers alike
On Tue, Sep 2
On 09/02/2014 02:52 AM, Yann Forget wrote:
> OK, I could buy that [fixing image pages]. But then why not
> fixing that *first*, so that
> any MV implementation coming afterwards would be smooth?
In the best of worlds, that would have been ideal.
Now, no doubt I'm going to be branded a cynic for t
Hi,
Thanks for your message. I think it is honest and useful.
2014-09-01 20:40 GMT+05:30 Marc A. Pelletier :
...
>
> MV is a perfect example. 99% of the problems it objectively has (we
> ignore here matters of taste) derive from the difficulty of parsing the
> multitude overcomplicated templates
What is irritating about the ACTRIAL scenario, was that it was a well
defined (6 month) test.
It might have worked, it might not have worked. But we would have known.
We would have had solid comparators.
Most of what we do (WMF and community) has no control to establish whether
it works.
To be
I hope that's not the feature Philippe meant, but maybe. For my clients and
students I think it's generally caused more confusion than it's solved,
since now they have an additional layer of bureaucracy to navigate (AFC).
Is there any data suggesting that's been a net improvement for new users?
Pe
Wasn't the creation of the DRAFT namespace at least in part a response to
concerns raised at ACTRIAL, in particular new, poorly developed articles
showing up in mainspace?
Risker/Anne
On 1 September 2014 19:08, Joe Decker wrote:
> This, to the best of my knowledge, represents the entirety of t
This, to the best of my knowledge, represents the entirety of the WMF's
response to ACTRIAL. To the extent that there was additional feedback
given, it was not given at WP:ACTRIAL, nor any other venue I am aware of.
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30208
--Joe
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014
That's the issue I cited above. You haven't heard more complaints, because
the complaint was pointless the first time and took a massive effort to
produce.
The underlying issue isn't fixed. We're still drowning in crap and spam
from people who never have the slightest intent of editing helpfully,
On Sep 1, 2014 3:21 PM, "Philippe Beaudette"
wrote:
>
> > On Sep 1, 2014, at 8:45 AM, Todd Allen wrote:
> >
> > That's contradicted by, among other things, ACTRIAL as mentioned above.
The
> > en.wp community came to a clear consensus for a major change, and the
WMF
> > shrugged and said "Nah, rat
> On Sep 1, 2014, at 8:45 AM, Todd Allen wrote:
>
> That's contradicted by, among other things, ACTRIAL as mentioned above. The
> en.wp community came to a clear consensus for a major change, and the WMF
> shrugged and said "Nah, rather not."
That's... Not exactly what I remember happening th
Thank you very much, Marc, for this clear and sound statement. It
seems to me that there are many discussions that are far away from the
real points, like the multitude of information on our pages. I once
counted how many links there are on the German main page of Wikimedia
Commons, I stopped when
Hoi,
Dear Pine. I do not care a fig about what "some users" think. You either
support their view or you do not. When they consider that the current
number of readers is adequate, I want to appreciate what they think those
numbers are, what the trends are and how it is possible that their opinion
is
actual customer, not the readers.
Who, I assume, can learn.
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (413) 584-3151 business (413) 695-7114 cell
I'm so excited I can't wait for Now.
>
> From: Gerard Meijssen
>To: Wikimedia Mailing List
>Sent: Monday, Septembe
413) 695-7114 cell
I'm so excited I can't wait for Now.
>
> From: Craig Franklin
>To: Wikimedia Mailing List
>Sent: Monday, September 1, 2014 8:00 AM
>Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes
On 1 September 2014 17:57, Martijn Hoekstra wrote:
> The same, by the way, goes for VE, which should have had "bail and give me
> what you have now as wikitext" from the onset, and Flow which needs a "bail
> and convert this thread to ye olde talkpage thread" (which I fear will be
> batted away a
On 09/01/2014 12:57 PM, Martijn Hoekstra wrote:
> The *correct* solution is to make MV bail completely on pages it fails to
> parse, falling back to the known bad-but-sufficient behaviour, and maybe
> adding a hidden category unparsable by MV to the image, so that it can be
> addressed. If 10% of t
On Sep 1, 2014 5:10 PM, "Marc A. Pelletier" wrote:
>
> Warning, tl;dr rant below in which live my personal opinion.
Thank you for that. A heartfelt rant feels a lot better than being told my
"call is important to you."
(snip)
> The fundamental issue is that the WMF is attempting to provide some
On 09/01/2014 11:45 AM, Todd Allen wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 9:10 AM, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
> We've heard that before.
Oh, I'm pretty damn sure that the "stick to the timeline" idea isn't
going to get traction ever again. :-) But yeah in general recognizing
an error is not, in itself,
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 9:10 AM, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
> Warning, tl;dr rant below in which live my personal opinion.
>
> On 09/01/2014 08:00 AM, Craig Franklin wrote:
> > fter the catastrophic
> > aborted launch of the Visual Editor, complete with numerous bugs that
> > should have been picked
On 01/09/2014, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
...
> metadata. It's not an argument against MV, it's an argument for getting
> rid of the horrid way we handle File: pages with ad-hoc workarounds.
> The *correct* solution is to fix the damn image pages, not to remove MV.
...
So, can you link me to a pos
Warning, tl;dr rant below in which live my personal opinion.
On 09/01/2014 08:00 AM, Craig Franklin wrote:
> fter the catastrophic
> aborted launch of the Visual Editor, complete with numerous bugs that
> should have been picked up in even a cursory unit testing scheme or
> regression testing sche
I think you've hit the nail on the head here. It's not about MediaViewer
at all, it's about two things:
#1: The frustration of some volunteers that they feel their views are not
being adequately considered in major deployments of new software.
#2: A lack of confidence and faith in the WMF Enginee
The difficulty of working with multiple configurations is one of WMF's main
points, along with its opinion that readers prefer MV and that WMF should
prioritize what WMF feels the readers want. WMF also is making a point of
claiming soveriegnty over software configuration.
Meanwhile, many voluntee
Hoi,
The argument is not at all about the MediaViewer. It is only the latest
flash point. Consequently the notion of how hard it is to set a default on
or off is not relevant really.
When you read the Wikipedia Signpost you read about one of the major German
players and it is found necessary to me
On Aug 31, 2014 11:46 PM, "Pine W" wrote:
>
> Just in terms of the amount of everyone's time that MediaViewer,
> Superprotect
> and related issues are absorbing, this situation is a net negative for the
> projects.
> Also, the amount of emotional hostility that this situation involves is
> dishear
Just in terms of the amount of everyone's time that MediaViewer,
Superprotect
and related issues are absorbing, this situation is a net negative for the
projects.
Also, the amount of emotional hostility that this situation involves is
disheartening.
Personally, I would like to see us building on ea
Legal position:
I have seen it claimed by legal and repeated here by Erik that the
"reasonableness" criteria means that we do not have to worry about the
CCBYSA-3.0 clause that says all copyright holders need equal attribution.
This is simply not so:
"The credit required by this Section 4(c) may
Hi all,
Thank you Erik for your mail. It shows that the WMF is willing to
discuss rather than to impose its solution.
I am really shocked that the dispute reaches that level of
confrontation, and although some community members have a hard stance,
this is largely due to WMF actions, specially the
Hoi,
Once people decide to leave, the situation is quite stark. There are those
that do and there are those that do not. In my previous mail it should have
been clear that I described the situation after the departure of many
malcontents. That IS a bi-polar state obviously.
That is not to say that
On 30/08/2014, Mark wrote:
> On 8/28/14, 2:55 PM, Jane Darnell wrote:
>> You can start by asking around in your own circle of aquaintance, and I'll
>> bet that such research will make you quickly realize that hard stats will
>> be very hard to discover, since in my circle, most of the women I know
On 8/28/14, 2:55 PM, Jane Darnell wrote:
You can start by asking around in your own circle of aquaintance, and I'll
bet that such research will make you quickly realize that hard stats will
be very hard to discover, since in my circle, most of the women I know are
married and though their househo
I should explain that I am a resident of the Netherlands, where we have a
central statistics bureau which includes census statistics that you can
query for free and download your own datasets in xls format. As a data
analyst I have spent lots of time gathering such data and reporting on it
in Micro
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 6:55 AM, Jane Darnell wrote:
> You can start by asking around in your own circle of aquaintance, and I'll
> bet that such research will make you quickly realize that hard stats will
> be very hard to discover, since in my circle, most of the women I know are
> married and
Hi g,
Thanks for calling me an old power editor. I suggest you try to make an
edit to a WIkimedia project of choice (e.g. add a photo to an existing
article) on a desktop, then do the same on a mobile smartphone, and then
report back here.
Jane
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 8:50 AM, ; ) wrote:
> Hey
You can start by asking around in your own circle of aquaintance, and I'll
bet that such research will make you quickly realize that hard stats will
be very hard to discover, since in my circle, most of the women I know are
married and though their household contains a desktop, the desktop is owned
Hey Jane,
as the desktop is sometimes characterised only as a legacy input
device for old power editors, while the reading is done from mobile
devices, often in the form of mash-ups and geo-apps, why is a
compromise so hard to achieve?
One solution that pops up would be
On 28 August 2014 12:56, Jane Darnell wrote:
> I agree with Gerard, and would add that a good portion of the new readers and
> "missing female editors" do not own or operate a desktop and are only
> available on mobile and tablet, so this is not only where the new readers
> are, but also where
I agree with Gerard, and would add that a good portion of the new readers and
"missing female editors" do not own or operate a desktop and are only available
on mobile and tablet, so this is not only where the new readers are, but also
where the "first edit" experience is for most women (and sad
Hoi,
Such separate hostings and ownership would not be that much of a risk to
the WMF. The challenges will be first and foremost with the separatists;
then again it is firmly their choice. There will be benefits on both sides
as well. The community that remains with the WMF will lose all of the
sep
WMF update:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)&diff=9665238&oldid=9664457
Gerard, I agree that a forked wiki could have collaborations with WMF. But
having separate hosting and legal ownership would create new headaches and
risks. I hope WMF takes a cooperati
What the heck is a "design community" at all, and why does their opinion
count, when WMF uses every opportunity to claim it is super-unfair to claim
that "the community" wants anything?
2014-08-27 6:49 GMT+02:00 geni :
> On 27 August 2014 05:16, Erik Moeller wrote:
>
> >
> > And the design comm
1 - 100 of 142 matches
Mail list logo