I also generally discuss what I can offwiki (using a number of channels, but mainly Telegram) , and leave to onwiki discussions what is strictly necessary, but it has much more to do with the slowness and lack of usability of the wiki talk system, than with a toxic environment.
That being said, the wiki talk appears to me as the main bastion protecting openness in our projects. We may discuss a lot offwiki, but a summary of it is always presented onwiki and can be challenged by the onwiki community that do not have an offwiki presence, which is considerably large and an essential part of the process too. I understand that some people who have an habit of discussing and arranging everything offwiki are not prepared to face resistance from the onwiki communities when their new apparently wonderful and flawless idea is presented there, but that is truly and essentially part of the process, and if they are unable to live with that, they should consider refraining to take part on it, instead of trying to artificially bend a system which was designed to be onwiki and open to submit itself to offwiki and closed platforms. I am seeing this kind of discussions and proposals at the Community Health strategy work group, for instance. In the case at hand, I would like to understand specifically why the choice of mounting yet another platform, and a non wiki and closed one, instead of improving the existing one, wiki and open, at Outreach. As for the WMF, despite what Amir has said, which possibly refer to different visions, or even dissidents among WMF staff ranks, at the end of the day there still is only one WMF, the one directed by the ED and presided by the BoT, the same one which issues those software releases, and the same one which issues the secretive and out of process punishments which are causing so much controversy these days. Best, Paulo A quarta, 26 de jun de 2019, 08:27, Ziko van Dijk <zvand...@gmail.com> escreveu: > Hello, > > Frankly, I am surprised by the announcement, too. Maybe I do not spend > enough time on wikis and mailinglists? :/ > > In general I am very curious for this new platform. I find it quite ... > telling or a bad signal that many wikipedians started to prefer discussing > wiki topics on Facebook (1) rather than on the village pumps. Including me. > One of the reasons is the toxic atmosphere on many wiki pages, while the > Facebook groups are moderated. > > Kind regards > Ziko > > > > > > > Am Mi., 26. Juni 2019 um 09:19 Uhr schrieb geni <geni...@gmail.com>: > > > On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 22:19, Yair Rand <yyairr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > I'm getting so many red flags. > > > > > > Established by WMF via secret (non-transparent) process, with no > > community > > > involvement? Non-wiki environment, with the same scope as existing > wikis? > > > WMF-decided conduct policies? Every single moderator is a WMF employee? > > > Forum using closed groups, with non-transparent communication? > > > (Closed-source software, unless I'm mistaken?) So far outside Wikimedia > > > spaces that the only place it was even _announced_ was an off-wiki > > mailing > > > list? > > > > > > Is there something the Wikimedia Foundation would like to tell us? > > > > > > -- Yair Rand > > > > > > > > > While I agree that a good tracking mount, a reasonable telescope and > > some CCDs would be a better use of the money (there are some > > satellites I want pics of) I don't see anything particular nefarious > > here. Improving communications is a long term goal and shifting away > > from mediawiki appears on the face of it a good way to do that (we are > > after all on a mailing list at the moment. In practice experience > > suggests that most people are too busy doing what they are already > > doing to get involved in such projects and that mediawiki is so > > central to what we are do that most people are pretty comfortable with > > it. > > > > > > So this falls well within the WMF’s nominal goals and is a fairly > > understandable approach. I still think we would be better off spending > > the money on the kit needed to get a pic of Kosmos 482. > > > > > > > > -- > > geni > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > > 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 and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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>
