Also, don’t forget that Facebook groups are used quite a bit, especially for language communities that have emerged in the last several years.
Love it or hate it, Facebook as a way of linking together Wikimedians across languages is a big plus (eg. projects like #100wikidays). -Andrew On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 4:57 PM, C. Scott Ananian <canan...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 3:36 AM, John Mark Vandenberg <jay...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 11:37 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak <dar...@alk.edu.pl> > > wrote: > > > Until we have better tech available, I want to assure you that I want > to > > be > > > available, and apart from Meta, I gladly offer IRC or video > > conversations, > > > or other media, to whoever feels it may be useful (let's track this > > > committment of mine in the old-fashioned way for now). > > > > Rather than IRC or video, which both have significant problems for > > this type of open engagement, perhaps WMF could install a modern group > > chat system, like Zulip, or another Slack-like tool. > > > > The enthusiasm for Discourse hasnt resulted in any significant adoption. > > I venture to suggest that this is because it isnt mobile friendly, and > > doesnt integrate with MediaWiki authentication. > > Their app is little more than a web-browser (and the WMF labs instance > > doesnt support the necessary API anyway.) > > https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T124691 > > https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T150733 > > > > I've created a task about this problem for GCI and Outreachy which are > > about to start: > > > > https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T150732 > > > > I see Slack is being used by Portuguese Wikipedia > > > > https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Slack > > > > It would be good to hear their opinion on this tool? > > > > I would love to have a broader discussion about communication in the > projects more generally. As you know, we currently have a few mechanisms > (and please correct any mischaracterizations in the below): > > * Conversation in the Talk: namespace (either in raw wikitext or Flow) > - This is archived, and presumably subject to same code of conduct > guidelines as parent wiki. It is public. Anonymous/IP editors are allowed. > > * Echo > - Unarchived transient notifications, very restricted by design. Could > be made more general (but see below). > > * Conversation on mailing lists > - Also archived, often moderated. Public, although you can always send > an unarchived private reply email to a particular sender. Anonymity is > harder here, although possible with some effort. Code of conduct is > "whatever the moderator will allow, if there is a moderator." > > * Conversation on IRC > - Deliberately not archived. Intended for casual conversation and > informal negotiation. Public, although not searchable after the fact > (unless you keep a private log). Anonymity is fairly easy -- in fact, it > can be quite difficult to associate IRC nicks with on-wiki identities even > if all parties are willing. No code of conduct, although there are ops who > can boot you (sometimes). > > * Phabricator > - Archived task-oriented discussions, leaving to a desired outcome. > Anonymous participation disallowed. Search possible in theory; in practice > the implementation is quite limited. Some (security-sensitive) > conversations can be private, but (AFAIK) an ordinary user does not have a > means to create a private conversation. I'm not aware of an explicit code > of conduct. > > * OTRS > - Similar to Phabricator, except that by default all conversations are > private to OTRS staff and the submitter. I'm not aware of an explicit code > of conduct, although this is mitigated by the fact that the conversations > are not public which limits the possibility of abuse. > > * Slack on ptwiki, apparently? > > * Conpherence as part of Phabricator. (I don't have enough experience > with the last two to categorize them.) > > We are missing currently missing: > > * Conversations anchored to specific editing tasks, like "comments" in > google docs. > > * Integrated conversation associated with an editing session (like the > integrated chat in google docs) > > * Integrated real-time chat -- like IRC, but anchored to on-wiki > identities, so I can send a "you still around and editing?" message before > reverting or building on a recent change. > > * Workflow-oriented chat. Like the task-oriented chat in Phabricator, > but integrated with on-wiki activities such as patrolling or admin tasks. > > * Probably other forms of conversation! > > WHAT'S EVEN MORE IMPORTANT, THOUGH: > > We have no comprehensive code of conduct/mechanisms to combat harassment, > vandalism, and abuse. Harassment or vandalism which is stopped in one > communication mechanism can be transferred to another with impunity. IRC > in particular is seen as a space where (a) private discussions can happen > (good), but (b) there are no cops or consequences. > > This is not really just a question of installing <some software package>. > This is a challenge to the community to do the hard work of figuring out > our social contracts and what sort of conversations we want to support and > enable, which sorts of abuse we want to control, and what sorts of filters > to give users. > > We can easily go too far -- I recommend reading > http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/05/opinion/what-were- > missing-while-we-obsess-over-john-podestas-email.html > for context. A global panopticon [1] where no one can hold private > conversation is equally harmful to our project. We need to find the > balance between private and public conversations. At the moment the > mechanism of that balance is roughly "IRC and Talk pages". I think we can > do better. I think we can also build better tools for individual users to > allow them more control over what speech they will be subjected to---again > striking a balance to avoid the creation of impenetrable filter bubbles. > It's hard! > > Not completely incidentally, I've proposed a related topic for the Dev > Summit in January, nominally on the subject of "safe spaces" but > practically encompassing the general question of user groups, > communication, harassment and abuse. We're in the "assess community > interest" phase for dev summit topic proposals, so if this conversation > interests you, please go over to https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T149665 > and subscribe, comment, or "award token". Thanks! > --scott > > [1] > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticism#Panopticism_and_ > information_technology > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
