[Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
146 messages Options
123456 ... 8
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments

Erik Moeller-4
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 10:35 PM, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:

> If you take a look at the mobile experience in
> a desktop browser, you'll find it not so different from many redesigns
> - large, readable text, narrower measure, deliberately chosen
> typography, minimal clutter, easier access to footnotes, etc.
>
> http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liber_Eliensis

And the design community is taking notice:
https://news.layervault.com/stories/31897-wikipedia-already-looks-great--just-add-m-on-desktop
--
Erik Möller
VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments

geni
On 27 August 2014 05:16, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> And the design community is taking notice:
>
> https://news.layervault.com/stories/31897-wikipedia-already-looks-great--just-add-m-on-desktop
>
>
We already know the  design community doesn't like the edit button. Was
there any reason you thought we should pay attention to their opinion?
--
geni
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments

geni
In reply to this post by Erik Moeller-4
On 26 August 2014 09:39, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> First, I think it's worthwhile in these discussions - in a context of
> a project where consensus is important - to remember that there are
> actually many different perspectives on Media Viewer in the community.
> Even in German Wikipedia, 72 community members voted _against_
> disabling Media Viewer


Hey you are the one currently ignoring 664 German wikipedians. Thats not
logically consistent with objecting to people ignoring smaller numbers.



> (more in absolute terms, incidentally, than
> voted for disabling it on English Wikipedia's RFC).
>

You want en to stick a link in sitenotice and up the numbers?



--
geni
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments

MF-Warburg-2
In reply to this post by geni
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 <[hidden email]>:

> On 27 August 2014 05:16, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> >
> > And the design community is taking notice:
> >
> >
> https://news.layervault.com/stories/31897-wikipedia-already-looks-great--just-add-m-on-desktop
> >
> >
> We already know the  design community doesn't like the edit button. Was
> there any reason you thought we should pay attention to their opinion?
> --
> geni
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments

Pine W
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
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 cooperative and democratic approach so that we
can work in harmony without forking.

There will almost always be people unhappy with major decisions. We should
aim for consensus, not necessarily unanimous decisions. Recently it seemed
to me that the consensus was leaning toward beginning a fork for at least
DEWP. This is not a small subset of people who are upset with WMF.

Perhaps someone can explain what is so alarming about our readership stats
and how MV is likely to improve our readership stats. To me the
disappointing active editor stats are the biggest worry.

Thanks,
Pine
On Aug 26, 2014 3:14 AM, "Gerard Meijssen" <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hoi,
> Actually the issue is no longer only that. It is also very much about how a
> subset of people high jack the conversation by their uncompromising stance.
> When they feel they might leave, I personally prefer it when they stop
> their posturing and decide either way.
>
> When they want to stay, they do not need to be welcomed, they are part of
> us. When they go, they are welcome and they can take with them everything
> we have in the sense of data and software. It is then for them to show that
> their proof is in their pudding. In the mean time WMF will continue to
> engage in best practices both technically and socially and when they cook
> something nice, what is on offer is there for the eating as well.
>
> As far as I am concerned, put up or shut up.
>
> It has been advertised widely that bugs will be squashed. It is also
> advertised widely that changes will be considered as long as they are
> reasonable and do not interfere with our prime directive.  Again, it is
> about the readers not super users.
> Thanks,
>       GerardM
>
>
> On 25 August 2014 11:16, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > The issue is not just that individual users may want to opt out, it's
> > whether it should be activated by default for readers. There is also the
> > matter of licensing information.
> >
> > I'm not aware of where "thermonuclear was was threatened". There were,
> and
> > continues to be, discussion about forking. MV is merely the latest
> > occurrence of products with major problems being pushed into production
> and
> > made default. That needs to be addressed, and the fact that the problems
> > with MV happened after AFT5 and VE *and* after the creation of the
> > Engineering Community Liaisons suggests deep, long-term problems with
> > product development. I believe that Lila said that the Board wants her to
> > transform WMF and I am glad that there seems to be agreement that Product
> > will be an early subject of transformation. I have reservations about
> > forking for reasons that I can explain if necessary. It would be a lot
> > easier if WMF would transform itself, starting with Product, and Lila
> > appears to intend to make this happen. I hope that the processes for
> > Product will be democratic and consensus-based. Grantmaking has already
> > demonstrated the effectiveness of community-based decision making with
> FDC
> > and IEGCom, and I hope to see a similar model emerge for Product. If it
> > doesn't, there is enough anger in the community, especially on DEWP,
> that a
> > fork is possible. The community is smart enough collectively to figure
> out
> > a way to make a fork happen, and some of us have been discussing the
> > mechanics of how this would work. We could do it, but reforming WMF is
> > preferable. I hope that Lila can and will do this. Internal
> transofmration
> > is preferable to replacing WMF.
> >
> > Pine
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@...>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments

Gerard Meijssen-3
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
separatists and they will sadly see some of them go. It will allow for the
influx of new people and new ideas. The people that go will get a reality
check; they will find out to what extend the things they fought battles
over are actually worth it. I am sure that both communities will benefit.

When the people who talk about going their own way rethink their stance and
start considering the other side of the coin it may lead to an equilibrium.
However, the Visual Editor is not the only thing that will change the look
and feel there is so much more happening and at that, a single community
only considering its own is in effect a cul de sac.

When numbers of readers are to be our main worry, it should be obvious by
now that both for editing and reading they are happening on the mobile, the
tablet. This is were our new readers are happening. Maybe not necessarily
in Europe but certainly in the global south. They have by definition a
different mode of operandi and consequently much of our current bickering
is only distracting from putting our efforts in welcoming our newbies and
building a full fledged environment for them.
Thanks,
     GerardM


On 28 August 2014 09:34, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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 cooperative and democratic approach so that we
> can work in harmony without forking.
>
> There will almost always be people unhappy with major decisions. We should
> aim for consensus, not necessarily unanimous decisions. Recently it seemed
> to me that the consensus was leaning toward beginning a fork for at least
> DEWP. This is not a small subset of people who are upset with WMF.
>
> Perhaps someone can explain what is so alarming about our readership stats
> and how MV is likely to improve our readership stats. To me the
> disappointing active editor stats are the biggest worry.
>
> Thanks,
> Pine
> On Aug 26, 2014 3:14 AM, "Gerard Meijssen" <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > Actually the issue is no longer only that. It is also very much about
> how a
> > subset of people high jack the conversation by their uncompromising
> stance.
> > When they feel they might leave, I personally prefer it when they stop
> > their posturing and decide either way.
> >
> > When they want to stay, they do not need to be welcomed, they are part of
> > us. When they go, they are welcome and they can take with them everything
> > we have in the sense of data and software. It is then for them to show
> that
> > their proof is in their pudding. In the mean time WMF will continue to
> > engage in best practices both technically and socially and when they cook
> > something nice, what is on offer is there for the eating as well.
> >
> > As far as I am concerned, put up or shut up.
> >
> > It has been advertised widely that bugs will be squashed. It is also
> > advertised widely that changes will be considered as long as they are
> > reasonable and do not interfere with our prime directive.  Again, it is
> > about the readers not super users.
> > Thanks,
> >       GerardM
> >
> >
> > On 25 August 2014 11:16, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > The issue is not just that individual users may want to opt out, it's
> > > whether it should be activated by default for readers. There is also
> the
> > > matter of licensing information.
> > >
> > > I'm not aware of where "thermonuclear was was threatened". There were,
> > and
> > > continues to be, discussion about forking. MV is merely the latest
> > > occurrence of products with major problems being pushed into production
> > and
> > > made default. That needs to be addressed, and the fact that the
> problems
> > > with MV happened after AFT5 and VE *and* after the creation of the
> > > Engineering Community Liaisons suggests deep, long-term problems with
> > > product development. I believe that Lila said that the Board wants her
> to
> > > transform WMF and I am glad that there seems to be agreement that
> Product
> > > will be an early subject of transformation. I have reservations about
> > > forking for reasons that I can explain if necessary. It would be a lot
> > > easier if WMF would transform itself, starting with Product, and Lila
> > > appears to intend to make this happen. I hope that the processes for
> > > Product will be democratic and consensus-based. Grantmaking has already
> > > demonstrated the effectiveness of community-based decision making with
> > FDC
> > > and IEGCom, and I hope to see a similar model emerge for Product. If it
> > > doesn't, there is enough anger in the community, especially on DEWP,
> > that a
> > > fork is possible. The community is smart enough collectively to figure
> > out
> > > a way to make a fork happen, and some of us have been discussing the
> > > mechanics of how this would work. We could do it, but reforming WMF is
> > > preferable. I hope that Lila can and will do this. Internal
> > transofmration
> > > is preferable to replacing WMF.
> > >
> > > Pine
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > [hidden email]
> > <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@...
> >
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments

Jane Darnell
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 sadly, a corollary to that is that they don't try again after their first edit failure).

Sent from my iPad

On Aug 28, 2014, at 4:30 AM, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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
> separatists and they will sadly see some of them go. It will allow for the
> influx of new people and new ideas. The people that go will get a reality
> check; they will find out to what extend the things they fought battles
> over are actually worth it. I am sure that both communities will benefit.
>
> When the people who talk about going their own way rethink their stance and
> start considering the other side of the coin it may lead to an equilibrium.
> However, the Visual Editor is not the only thing that will change the look
> and feel there is so much more happening and at that, a single community
> only considering its own is in effect a cul de sac.
>
> When numbers of readers are to be our main worry, it should be obvious by
> now that both for editing and reading they are happening on the mobile, the
> tablet. This is were our new readers are happening. Maybe not necessarily
> in Europe but certainly in the global south. They have by definition a
> different mode of operandi and consequently much of our current bickering
> is only distracting from putting our efforts in welcoming our newbies and
> building a full fledged environment for them.
> Thanks,
>     GerardM
>
>
> On 28 August 2014 09:34, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> 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 cooperative and democratic approach so that we
>> can work in harmony without forking.
>>
>> There will almost always be people unhappy with major decisions. We should
>> aim for consensus, not necessarily unanimous decisions. Recently it seemed
>> to me that the consensus was leaning toward beginning a fork for at least
>> DEWP. This is not a small subset of people who are upset with WMF.
>>
>> Perhaps someone can explain what is so alarming about our readership stats
>> and how MV is likely to improve our readership stats. To me the
>> disappointing active editor stats are the biggest worry.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Pine
>> On Aug 26, 2014 3:14 AM, "Gerard Meijssen" <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hoi,
>>> Actually the issue is no longer only that. It is also very much about
>> how a
>>> subset of people high jack the conversation by their uncompromising
>> stance.
>>> When they feel they might leave, I personally prefer it when they stop
>>> their posturing and decide either way.
>>>
>>> When they want to stay, they do not need to be welcomed, they are part of
>>> us. When they go, they are welcome and they can take with them everything
>>> we have in the sense of data and software. It is then for them to show
>> that
>>> their proof is in their pudding. In the mean time WMF will continue to
>>> engage in best practices both technically and socially and when they cook
>>> something nice, what is on offer is there for the eating as well.
>>>
>>> As far as I am concerned, put up or shut up.
>>>
>>> It has been advertised widely that bugs will be squashed. It is also
>>> advertised widely that changes will be considered as long as they are
>>> reasonable and do not interfere with our prime directive.  Again, it is
>>> about the readers not super users.
>>> Thanks,
>>>      GerardM
>>>
>>>
>>> On 25 August 2014 11:16, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The issue is not just that individual users may want to opt out, it's
>>>> whether it should be activated by default for readers. There is also
>> the
>>>> matter of licensing information.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not aware of where "thermonuclear was was threatened". There were,
>>> and
>>>> continues to be, discussion about forking. MV is merely the latest
>>>> occurrence of products with major problems being pushed into production
>>> and
>>>> made default. That needs to be addressed, and the fact that the
>> problems
>>>> with MV happened after AFT5 and VE *and* after the creation of the
>>>> Engineering Community Liaisons suggests deep, long-term problems with
>>>> product development. I believe that Lila said that the Board wants her
>> to
>>>> transform WMF and I am glad that there seems to be agreement that
>> Product
>>>> will be an early subject of transformation. I have reservations about
>>>> forking for reasons that I can explain if necessary. It would be a lot
>>>> easier if WMF would transform itself, starting with Product, and Lila
>>>> appears to intend to make this happen. I hope that the processes for
>>>> Product will be democratic and consensus-based. Grantmaking has already
>>>> demonstrated the effectiveness of community-based decision making with
>>> FDC
>>>> and IEGCom, and I hope to see a similar model emerge for Product. If it
>>>> doesn't, there is enough anger in the community, especially on DEWP,
>>> that a
>>>> fork is possible. The community is smart enough collectively to figure
>>> out
>>>> a way to make a fork happen, and some of us have been discussing the
>>>> mechanics of how this would work. We could do it, but reforming WMF is
>>>> preferable. I hope that Lila can and will do this. Internal
>>> transofmration
>>>> is preferable to replacing WMF.
>>>>
>>>> Pine
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>> [hidden email]
>>> <
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@...
>>>
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments

Fæ
On 28 August 2014 12:56, Jane Darnell <[hidden email]> 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 the "first edit" experience is for most women (and sadly, a corollary to that is that they don't try again after their first edit failure).
mechanics of how this would work. We could do it, but reforming WMF is

Every year we see many expensive surveys and funded research on women
and Wikipedia, so presumably there are some verifiable statistics to
support Jane's assertion that a significant difference between readers
of Wikipedia is that men are significantly more likely to own or have
access to a desktop compared to women that they might edit from.

Can someone provide a link to the research that demonstrates this is
more than apocryphal?

Thanks,
Fae
--
[hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
; )
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments

; )
In reply to this post by Jane Darnell
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 to cache the content (as most
useful  wikipedia  apps do anyway) in a light mobile version, while
allowing an existing group of useful contributors their little island.
This  feeling  of  belonging makes those editors do all the dirty jobs
noone  wants  to do on a regular basis - most of it fact and copyright
checks that make the content so good it is useful to readers and keeps
them coming back.

You   could  create  a  newbie-friendly version with rich text editing
optimised  for different devices, more customisation in an easy way...
if  we  are  realistic  that would be the way to go anyway, as you can
start  out  much  easier  and with less baggage - and would be able to
target  groups  on  an individual basis in the process, too. When they
evolve  in the ("bitter-vet") power users and editors, they can switch
to  the  still  more  useful but less pretty interfaces for large data
manipulation, that the desktop offers.

Shouldn't  the focus  be  on the readers that  read  the  content  AND
the   editors   that  produce interesting content to make readers come
back?  Gerard  in this regard seems to have a somehow bi-polar view of
this     process  with   his   us   -   them  characterisation   ("the
community   that   remains   with   the  WMF  will  lose  all  of  the
separatists").  They  will  just  no longer do the hard stuff, if they
feel  that  they  are  not  welcome - and finding such people is hard,
really hard (speaking as a long-term gutenberg proof-reader).

cheers,

g





Thursday, August 28, 2014, 1:56:38 PM, you 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 the "first edit"
> experience is for most women (and sadly, a corollary to that is that
> they don't try again after their first edit failure).

> Sent from my iPad

> On Aug 28, 2014, at 4:30 AM, Gerard Meijssen
> <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> 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
>> separatists and they will sadly see some of them go. It will allow for the
>> influx of new people and new ideas. The people that go will get a reality
>> check; they will find out to what extend the things they fought battles
>> over are actually worth it. I am sure that both communities will benefit.
>>
>> When the people who talk about going their own way rethink their stance and
>> start considering the other side of the coin it may lead to an equilibrium.
>> However, the Visual Editor is not the only thing that will change the look
>> and feel there is so much more happening and at that, a single community
>> only considering its own is in effect a cul de sac.
>>
>> When numbers of readers are to be our main worry, it should be obvious by
>> now that both for editing and reading they are happening on the mobile, the
>> tablet. This is were our new readers are happening. Maybe not necessarily
>> in Europe but certainly in the global south. They have by definition a
>> different mode of operandi and consequently much of our current bickering
>> is only distracting from putting our efforts in welcoming our newbies and
>> building a full fledged environment for them.
>> Thanks,
>>     GerardM


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments

Jane Darnell
In reply to this post by Fæ
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
and operated by their husband, not them. In any official questionaire
served to them however, they are probably asked whether their household has
one, not whether they themselves are the primary user of one.


On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 8:29 AM, Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 28 August 2014 12:56, Jane Darnell <[hidden email]> 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 the "first edit" experience is for most women
> (and sadly, a corollary to that is that they don't try again after their
> first edit failure).
> mechanics of how this would work. We could do it, but reforming WMF is
>
> Every year we see many expensive surveys and funded research on women
> and Wikipedia, so presumably there are some verifiable statistics to
> support Jane's assertion that a significant difference between readers
> of Wikipedia is that men are significantly more likely to own or have
> access to a desktop compared to women that they might edit from.
>
> Can someone provide a link to the research that demonstrates this is
> more than apocryphal?
>
> Thanks,
> Fae
> --
> [hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments

Jane Darnell
In reply to this post by ; )
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, ; ) <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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 to cache the content (as most
> useful  wikipedia  apps do anyway) in a light mobile version, while
> allowing an existing group of useful contributors their little island.
> This  feeling  of  belonging makes those editors do all the dirty jobs
> noone  wants  to do on a regular basis - most of it fact and copyright
> checks that make the content so good it is useful to readers and keeps
> them coming back.
>
> You   could  create  a  newbie-friendly version with rich text editing
> optimised  for different devices, more customisation in an easy way...
> if  we  are  realistic  that would be the way to go anyway, as you can
> start  out  much  easier  and with less baggage - and would be able to
> target  groups  on  an individual basis in the process, too. When they
> evolve  in the ("bitter-vet") power users and editors, they can switch
> to  the  still  more  useful but less pretty interfaces for large data
> manipulation, that the desktop offers.
>
> Shouldn't  the focus  be  on the readers that  read  the  content  AND
> the   editors   that  produce interesting content to make readers come
> back?  Gerard  in this regard seems to have a somehow bi-polar view of
> this     process  with   his   us   -   them  characterisation   ("the
> community   that   remains   with   the  WMF  will  lose  all  of  the
> separatists").  They  will  just  no longer do the hard stuff, if they
> feel  that  they  are  not  welcome - and finding such people is hard,
> really hard (speaking as a long-term gutenberg proof-reader).
>
> cheers,
>
> g
>
>
>
>
>
> Thursday, August 28, 2014, 1:56:38 PM, you 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 the "first edit"
> > experience is for most women (and sadly, a corollary to that is that
> > they don't try again after their first edit failure).
>
> > Sent from my iPad
>
> > On Aug 28, 2014, at 4:30 AM, Gerard Meijssen
> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> >> 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
> >> separatists and they will sadly see some of them go. It will allow for
> the
> >> influx of new people and new ideas. The people that go will get a
> reality
> >> check; they will find out to what extend the things they fought battles
> >> over are actually worth it. I am sure that both communities will
> benefit.
> >>
> >> When the people who talk about going their own way rethink their stance
> and
> >> start considering the other side of the coin it may lead to an
> equilibrium.
> >> However, the Visual Editor is not the only thing that will change the
> look
> >> and feel there is so much more happening and at that, a single community
> >> only considering its own is in effect a cul de sac.
> >>
> >> When numbers of readers are to be our main worry, it should be obvious
> by
> >> now that both for editing and reading they are happening on the mobile,
> the
> >> tablet. This is were our new readers are happening. Maybe not
> necessarily
> >> in Europe but certainly in the global south. They have by definition a
> >> different mode of operandi and consequently much of our current
> bickering
> >> is only distracting from putting our efforts in welcoming our newbies
> and
> >> building a full fledged environment for them.
> >> Thanks,
> >>     GerardM
>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments

Todd Allen
In reply to this post by Jane Darnell
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 6:55 AM, Jane Darnell <[hidden email]> 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 household contains a desktop, the desktop is owned
> and operated by their husband, not them.


I use (primarily) my carbon-fiber beast of a desktop, with my wife using
primarily a laptop. The use of "desktop" to (presumably) refer to laptops
is very confusing here, and would make accurate data gathering more
difficult, not less.

We both use a tablet and/or phone, but only when away from the real
machines or for very quick stuff. Doing real work on a tablet/phone is a
pain in the ass, not just on Wikipedia but for anything. If I have a decent
amount of text to type, I'll take a real keyboard and two monitors, not one
"keyboard" taking up half of a 4" screen, thanks very much. I can't even
imagine trying to make a significant edit to an article on a phone, no
matter how good we make the interface. Even in a visual editor, articles
require the entry of a lot of text, not the Facebook-style "I'm here,
having a great time!"

That's a usage pattern that's very common with couples in my experience.
It's apparently not in yours. That's why the plural of anecdote is not
evidence.



> In any official questionaire
> served to them however, they are probably asked whether their household has
> one, not whether they themselves are the primary user of one.
>

Why would they be? If we're trying to determine use patterns, it's silly to
ask about the simple presence of something, but that's easy to fix.

"What device do you primarily use when accessing the Internet?"
(Alternatively, or as a followup, "What type of device do you routinely use
to access the Internet? Check all that apply.")

[ ] A desktop computer
[ ] A laptop or notebook computer
[ ] A tablet or smartphone

Not that hard to design a question that addresses the user directly, by not
just access to a given device but actual use of it. If we need that data,
we ought to actually gather it.


>
>
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 8:29 AM, Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On 28 August 2014 12:56, Jane Darnell <[hidden email]> 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 the "first edit" experience is for most women
> > (and sadly, a corollary to that is that they don't try again after their
> > first edit failure).
> > mechanics of how this would work. We could do it, but reforming WMF is
> >
> > Every year we see many expensive surveys and funded research on women
> > and Wikipedia, so presumably there are some verifiable statistics to
> > support Jane's assertion that a significant difference between readers
> > of Wikipedia is that men are significantly more likely to own or have
> > access to a desktop compared to women that they might edit from.
> >
> > Can someone provide a link to the research that demonstrates this is
> > more than apocryphal?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Fae
> > --
> > [hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments

Jane Darnell
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 Microsoft Excel, which is still my tool of choice. I frequently read
news stories about published reports that misinterpret data and I sometimes
will check the cited data against published open data sources. I base my
conclusions on that experience as well as my personal experience. It may
also be helpful to explain that many of my friends are or were stay-at-home
moms. I agree that most of the questions served in public surveys do not
seem to be formulated by data analysts.

I am proud to say that after a rocky start I can finally edit Wikipedia and
Wikimedia Commons on my iPad, but I couldn't tell you what I did to set it
up. I have successfully uploaded several photos with my android app to Wiki
Loves Monuments. I do know that I tried to make an edit on someone else's
iPhone this week and was stopped short by the mobile interface.


On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Todd Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 6:55 AM, Jane Darnell <[hidden email]> 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 household contains a desktop, the desktop is
> owned
> > and operated by their husband, not them.
>
>
> I use (primarily) my carbon-fiber beast of a desktop, with my wife using
> primarily a laptop. The use of "desktop" to (presumably) refer to laptops
> is very confusing here, and would make accurate data gathering more
> difficult, not less.
>
> We both use a tablet and/or phone, but only when away from the real
> machines or for very quick stuff. Doing real work on a tablet/phone is a
> pain in the ass, not just on Wikipedia but for anything. If I have a decent
> amount of text to type, I'll take a real keyboard and two monitors, not one
> "keyboard" taking up half of a 4" screen, thanks very much. I can't even
> imagine trying to make a significant edit to an article on a phone, no
> matter how good we make the interface. Even in a visual editor, articles
> require the entry of a lot of text, not the Facebook-style "I'm here,
> having a great time!"
>
> That's a usage pattern that's very common with couples in my experience.
> It's apparently not in yours. That's why the plural of anecdote is not
> evidence.
>
>
>
> > In any official questionaire
> > served to them however, they are probably asked whether their household
> has
> > one, not whether they themselves are the primary user of one.
> >
>
> Why would they be? If we're trying to determine use patterns, it's silly to
> ask about the simple presence of something, but that's easy to fix.
>
> "What device do you primarily use when accessing the Internet?"
> (Alternatively, or as a followup, "What type of device do you routinely use
> to access the Internet? Check all that apply.")
>
> [ ] A desktop computer
> [ ] A laptop or notebook computer
> [ ] A tablet or smartphone
>
> Not that hard to design a question that addresses the user directly, by not
> just access to a given device but actual use of it. If we need that data,
> we ought to actually gather it.
>
>
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 8:29 AM, Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > On 28 August 2014 12:56, Jane Darnell <[hidden email]> 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 the "first edit" experience is for most
> women
> > > (and sadly, a corollary to that is that they don't try again after
> their
> > > first edit failure).
> > > mechanics of how this would work. We could do it, but reforming WMF is
> > >
> > > Every year we see many expensive surveys and funded research on women
> > > and Wikipedia, so presumably there are some verifiable statistics to
> > > support Jane's assertion that a significant difference between readers
> > > of Wikipedia is that men are significantly more likely to own or have
> > > access to a desktop compared to women that they might edit from.
> > >
> > > Can someone provide a link to the research that demonstrates this is
> > > more than apocryphal?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Fae
> > > --
> > > [hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments

Mark
In reply to this post by Jane Darnell
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 household contains a desktop, the desktop is owned
> and operated by their husband, not them.

This kind of analysis varies quite widely by country and community, so I
would be wary of making wide generalizations. You say that "most of the
women I know are married", but your experience would be unusual here
(Denmark), because the hard statistics show that most adult women (and
men) in the country are not married. Clearly other countries' statistics
(and statistics for demographic subsets of the same) will show other
numbers.

Best,
Mark


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments

Fæ
On 30/08/2014, Mark <[hidden email]> 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 are
>> married and though their household contains a desktop, the desktop is
>> owned
>> and operated by their husband, not them.
>
> This kind of analysis varies quite widely by country and community, so I
> would be wary of making wide generalizations. You say that "most of the
> women I know are married", but your experience would be unusual here
> (Denmark), because the hard statistics show that most adult women (and
> men) in the country are not married. Clearly other countries' statistics
> (and statistics for demographic subsets of the same) will show other
> numbers.
>
> Best,
> Mark

I know widowers, unmarried people and same-sex married couples and
almost no heterosexual married couples; hetero marriage seems a lot
less popular these days. All the women I know either have their own
machine or are uninterested in accessing the internet.

I honestly cannot think of any women in my circle of friends and
acquaintances that rely on a husband or partner to access the
internet, it is something I would find truly weird and would worry
that the husband was being over-controlling. Though I have one friend
that relies on free public internet for his access for cost reasons.

I have a relative stuck long term in a London hospital where they
charge her 7 quid a day for internet access, which she cannot afford
so she relies on visitors to do stuff on the internet and will spend
her days reading books instead; I find that particularly shocking and
I have never heard of Wikimedia being a champion for the right to free
internet in hospitals - in the 1st world, that should be a lot easier
to negotiate than the internet zero stuff in the developing world.

Fae
--
[hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by ; )
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 the desktop is not important. That is not to say
that the tooling people use for advanced tasks is not important.

The point is very much that in a changing environment, tools that rely on a
stable environment are not stable by definition.You cannot insist on such
stability either. You cannot even insist that the tools that are usable are
well designed and easily adaptable to change. Take for instance gadgets. A
successful gadget it copied from Wiki to Wiki and in the process it needs
to be localised and preferably it should take advantage of any future
development. Work has been done to accomplish internationalisation and a
more centralised development model. Once this is finished one gadget may
exist on hundreds of wikis. That is a maintenance scenario.

Another disaster (IMHO) is that the wikidatafication of Commons is NOT the
wikidatafication of multi-media files. The point is NOT that Commons needs
to be done first, the point is that once Commons is "done", all other Wikis
who have local uploads of multi-media files need to be wikidatified as
well. There is NO reason why the result of the compromises reached in the
Commons process will "obviously" fit elsewhere.When it is clear from the
start that Commons is ONLY the first to be wikidatified, there is a better
chance of getting involvement from people who feel strongly about the
reasons why their Wiki does not upload to Commons. Their involvement will
be a reality check to the Commoners that their POV is exactly that.

The Multimedia Viewer did a good job at showing the extend to which local
edge cases like the German templates Fabrice mentioned in a recent list of
accomplishments pose problems for central development. They exist, they
need to be fixed and preferably only once. If not they will change in the
future again.

Several volunteers like Roan became employees of the WMF exactly because
they were pivotal in the dissemination of technology. When you look at the
work they do, bringing thing back together IS one aspect of their
accomplishments.

Things will break and when we do not want drama again and again, we need to
embrace change and accept that particularly high end tools will break down
regularly. My experience at Labs shows exactly that and it shows that as
things get better organised downtime becomes less of an issue. It also
shows that as our environment becomes more stable, the tools become more
sophisticated and consequently more in need of a well architected
environment.

What we have is the old problem of retro fitting architecture where chaos
reigned supreme. We can do this and this "we" is most definitely an
invitation to every Wikimedian.
Thanks,
      GerardM


On 28 August 2014 14:50, ; ) <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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 to cache the content (as most
> useful  wikipedia  apps do anyway) in a light mobile version, while
> allowing an existing group of useful contributors their little island.
> This  feeling  of  belonging makes those editors do all the dirty jobs
> noone  wants  to do on a regular basis - most of it fact and copyright
> checks that make the content so good it is useful to readers and keeps
> them coming back.
>
> You   could  create  a  newbie-friendly version with rich text editing
> optimised  for different devices, more customisation in an easy way...
> if  we  are  realistic  that would be the way to go anyway, as you can
> start  out  much  easier  and with less baggage - and would be able to
> target  groups  on  an individual basis in the process, too. When they
> evolve  in the ("bitter-vet") power users and editors, they can switch
> to  the  still  more  useful but less pretty interfaces for large data
> manipulation, that the desktop offers.
>
> Shouldn't  the focus  be  on the readers that  read  the  content  AND
> the   editors   that  produce interesting content to make readers come
> back?  Gerard  in this regard seems to have a somehow bi-polar view of
> this     process  with   his   us   -   them  characterisation   ("the
> community   that   remains   with   the  WMF  will  lose  all  of  the
> separatists").  They  will  just  no longer do the hard stuff, if they
> feel  that  they  are  not  welcome - and finding such people is hard,
> really hard (speaking as a long-term gutenberg proof-reader).
>
> cheers,
>
> g
>
>
>
>
>
> Thursday, August 28, 2014, 1:56:38 PM, you 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 the "first edit"
> > experience is for most women (and sadly, a corollary to that is that
> > they don't try again after their first edit failure).
>
> > Sent from my iPad
>
> > On Aug 28, 2014, at 4:30 AM, Gerard Meijssen
> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> >> 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
> >> separatists and they will sadly see some of them go. It will allow for
> the
> >> influx of new people and new ideas. The people that go will get a
> reality
> >> check; they will find out to what extend the things they fought battles
> >> over are actually worth it. I am sure that both communities will
> benefit.
> >>
> >> When the people who talk about going their own way rethink their stance
> and
> >> start considering the other side of the coin it may lead to an
> equilibrium.
> >> However, the Visual Editor is not the only thing that will change the
> look
> >> and feel there is so much more happening and at that, a single community
> >> only considering its own is in effect a cul de sac.
> >>
> >> When numbers of readers are to be our main worry, it should be obvious
> by
> >> now that both for editing and reading they are happening on the mobile,
> the
> >> tablet. This is were our new readers are happening. Maybe not
> necessarily
> >> in Europe but certainly in the global south. They have by definition a
> >> different mode of operandi and consequently much of our current
> bickering
> >> is only distracting from putting our efforts in welcoming our newbies
> and
> >> building a full fledged environment for them.
> >> Thanks,
> >>     GerardM
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments

Yann Forget-3
In reply to this post by Erik Moeller-4
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 creation of the
"superprotect" right. This is the worst possible step the WMF could
make to find a solution for this issue.

Initially I was quite neutral about the MediaWiever, but I became
increasingly skeptical. IMO it is hardly a priority, even for readers.
Even if I am a long term contributor of Wikimedia projects, I am also
a heavy reader of Wikipedia. I think that if a feature is refused in
masse for the most active contributors, there is something wrong
either in the feature itself, or in the way it is proposed to the
projects. The WMF can certainly bring useful new additions in term of
software development, but the implementation has to be done in a
partnership with volunteer contributors. I cannot understand that the
WMF in spite of its multi-million dollars budget is not able to
convince volunteer contributors that the new feature is beneficial to
the projects, either because it is technically very good, or that even
with some shortcomings, it would improve the reading experience.

I am quite willing to test beta software, and I think there is no
urgency to impose the MediaWiever now to everybody. I could be done
after some time, when all issues have been sorted out. In term of
media management, the most urgent and important thing is to fix the
UploadWizard. Viewing images with Mediawiki may not be optimal, but it
is not broken. The UploadWizard is broken.

Regards,

Yann

2014-08-20 0:42 GMT+05:30 Erik Moeller <[hidden email]>:

> Hi folks,
>
> This is a response to Martin's note here:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-August/073936.html
>
> .. and also a more general update on the next steps regarding disputes
> about deployments. As you may have seen, Lila has also posted an
> update to her talk page, here:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LilaTretikov#Working_Together
>
> I want to use this opportunity to respond to Martin's and other
> people's criticisms, and to talk about next steps from WMF’s
> perspective following discussions with Lila and the team. I’m also
> sending a copy of this note to all the stewards, to better involve
> them in the process going forward.
>
> I am -- genuinely -- sorry that this escalation occurred. We would
> have preferred to avoid it.
>
> I would like to recap how we find ourselves in this situation: As
> early as July, we stated that the Wikimedia Foundation reserves the
> right to determine the final configuration of the MediaViewer feature,
> and we explicitly included MediaWiki: namespace hacks in that
> statement. [1] When an admin implemented a hack to disable
> MediaViewer, another local admin reverted the edit. The original admin
> reinstated it. We then reverted it with a clear warning that we may
> limit editability of the page. [2] The original admin reinstated the
> hack. This is when we protected the page.
>
> Because all admins have equal access to the MediaWiki: namespace,
> short of desysopping, there are few mechanisms to actually prevent
> edit wars about the user experience for millions of readers.
> Desysopping actions could have gotten just as messy -- and we felt
> that waiting for a "better hack" to come along (the likeliest eventual
> outcome of doing nothing) or disabling the feature ourselves would not
> be any better, either from a process or outcome standpoint.
>
> Our processes clearly need to be improved to avoid these situations in
> the future. We recognize that simply rejecting a community request
> rather than resolving a conflict together is not the right answer.
> We’ve been listening to feedback, and we’ve come to the following
> conclusions:
>
> - We intend to undertake a review of our present processes immediately
> and propose a new approach that allows for feedback at more critical
> and relevant junctures in the next 90 days. This will be a transparent
> process that includes your voices.
>
> - As the WMF, we need to improve the process for managing changes that
> impact all users. That includes the MediaWiki: namespace. For WMF to
> fulfill its role of leading consistent improvements to the user
> experience across Wikimedia projects, we need to be able to review
> code and manage deployments. This can be done in partnership with
> trusted volunteers, but WMF needs to be able to make an ultimate
> determination after receiving community feedback regarding production
> changes that impact all users.
>
> - We are prepared to unprotect MediaWiki:Common.js on German Wikipedia
> and enter constructive, open-ended conversations about the way
> forward, provided we can mutually agree to do so on the basis of the
> current consistent configuration -- for now. We would like to request
> a moratorium on any attempts to disable the feature during this
> conflict resolution process. The goal would be to make a final,
> cross-wiki determination regarding this specific feature, in
> partnership with the community, within at most 90 days.
>
> With regard to the German Wikipedia situation, we’d like to know if
> stewards want to at all be involved in this process: In a situation
> like this, it can be helpful to have a third party support the
> conversation. Stewards are accountable to "valid community consensus
> within the bounds of the Foundation's goals" [3], which seems to be
> precisely the intersection of concerns at issue here. We would like to
> suggest an IRC meeting with stewards ASAP to talk about the specific
> question of stewards’ involvement, if any. If stewards prefer not to
> be involved, we understand, but it's probably a good idea to have a
> sync-up conversation regardless.
>
> I hope we can move forward in good faith from here, and find better
> ways to work together. As Lila has expressed, we believe there is a
> need for a clear understanding of our role. It is as follows:
>
> Managing software development, site configuration and deployment is a
> core WMF responsibility. The community leads in the development of
> content; the Wikimedia Foundation leads in the development of
> technology.
>
> Because these processes are deeply interdependent, we need to develop
> better protocols for timely feedback and resolution of disagreements.
> At the same time Lila’s and the Board’s statements make it very clear
> that the WMF will not accept RfCs or votes as the sole determining
> factor in global software deployments.
>
> This means that technology and UX changes should not be decided by
> vote or poll and then disabled at-will: where we disagree, we need to
> talk to each other (and yes, that means a more judicious application
> of RESOLVED WONTFIX on our end, as well!).  We need to ensure a
> process where the community voice is heard earlier at critical
> junctions in the product development. All of this is consistent with
> the principle of "shared power" articulated in the Guiding Principles
> [4] approved by the Board of Trustees.
>
> At the same time, as noted above and earlier, the superprotection
> feature should be replaced with a better mechanism for code review and
> deployment in the MediaWiki: namespace. This is discussed in [5] and
> ideas and suggestions are welcome. Let’s be upfront about control
> structures for production changes to avoid misunderstandings and
> ambiguity in the future.
>
> We are exploring options on how to improve dispute resolution
> mechanisms -- whether it’s e.g. a standing working group or a better
> protocol for responding to RfCs and engaging in discussions. We've
> started a brainstorming page, here, which we hope will usefully inform
> the process of conflict resolution regarding German Wikipedia, as
> well, so we can arrive at a more concrete conflict resolution process
> soon. Your thoughts/suggestions are welcome, so we can (in NPOV style)
> look at different possibilities (e.g. workgroups, committees, votes,
> surveys) that have been discussed in the past:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement_(Product)/Process_ideas
>
> We’re absolutely not saying that WMF simply wants to be able to
> enforce its decisions: we completely understand there need to be
> mechanisms for the community to influence decisions and outcomes at
> all stages of the development and release of software. We need to
> arrive at this process together.
>
> Again, we are sorry that this escalation occurred - and we hope we can
> move forward constructively from here.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Erik
>
>
> [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_Diskussion:Meinungsbilder/Medienbetrachter&diff=prev&oldid=132469014
>
> [2] https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_Diskussion:Common.js&diff=132938244&oldid=132935469
>
> [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards_policy
>
> [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles#Shared_power
>
> [5] https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=69445
>
>
> --
> Erik Möller
> VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments

Rich Farmbrough
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 be implemented *in any
reasonable manner; provided, however, that *in the case of a Adaptation or
Collection,* at a minimum such credit will appear*, if a credit for all
contributing authors of the Adaptation or Collection appears, then as part
of these credits and* in a manner at least as prominent as the credits for
the other contributing authors*."

There is no wriggle room here. * provided however that* means the following
is compulsory, and not subject to the lenience of the previous phraseology.




On 31 August 2014 16:59, Yann Forget <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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 creation of the
> "superprotect" right. This is the worst possible step the WMF could
> make to find a solution for this issue.
>
> Initially I was quite neutral about the MediaWiever, but I became
> increasingly skeptical. IMO it is hardly a priority, even for readers.
> Even if I am a long term contributor of Wikimedia projects, I am also
> a heavy reader of Wikipedia. I think that if a feature is refused in
> masse for the most active contributors, there is something wrong
> either in the feature itself, or in the way it is proposed to the
> projects. The WMF can certainly bring useful new additions in term of
> software development, but the implementation has to be done in a
> partnership with volunteer contributors. I cannot understand that the
> WMF in spite of its multi-million dollars budget is not able to
> convince volunteer contributors that the new feature is beneficial to
> the projects, either because it is technically very good, or that even
> with some shortcomings, it would improve the reading experience.
>
> I am quite willing to test beta software, and I think there is no
> urgency to impose the MediaWiever now to everybody. I could be done
> after some time, when all issues have been sorted out. In term of
> media management, the most urgent and important thing is to fix the
> UploadWizard. Viewing images with Mediawiki may not be optimal, but it
> is not broken. The UploadWizard is broken.
>
> Regards,
>
> Yann
>
> 2014-08-20 0:42 GMT+05:30 Erik Moeller <[hidden email]>:
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > This is a response to Martin's note here:
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-August/073936.html
> >
> > .. and also a more general update on the next steps regarding disputes
> > about deployments. As you may have seen, Lila has also posted an
> > update to her talk page, here:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LilaTretikov#Working_Together
> >
> > I want to use this opportunity to respond to Martin's and other
> > people's criticisms, and to talk about next steps from WMF’s
> > perspective following discussions with Lila and the team. I’m also
> > sending a copy of this note to all the stewards, to better involve
> > them in the process going forward.
> >
> > I am -- genuinely -- sorry that this escalation occurred. We would
> > have preferred to avoid it.
> >
> > I would like to recap how we find ourselves in this situation: As
> > early as July, we stated that the Wikimedia Foundation reserves the
> > right to determine the final configuration of the MediaViewer feature,
> > and we explicitly included MediaWiki: namespace hacks in that
> > statement. [1] When an admin implemented a hack to disable
> > MediaViewer, another local admin reverted the edit. The original admin
> > reinstated it. We then reverted it with a clear warning that we may
> > limit editability of the page. [2] The original admin reinstated the
> > hack. This is when we protected the page.
> >
> > Because all admins have equal access to the MediaWiki: namespace,
> > short of desysopping, there are few mechanisms to actually prevent
> > edit wars about the user experience for millions of readers.
> > Desysopping actions could have gotten just as messy -- and we felt
> > that waiting for a "better hack" to come along (the likeliest eventual
> > outcome of doing nothing) or disabling the feature ourselves would not
> > be any better, either from a process or outcome standpoint.
> >
> > Our processes clearly need to be improved to avoid these situations in
> > the future. We recognize that simply rejecting a community request
> > rather than resolving a conflict together is not the right answer.
> > We’ve been listening to feedback, and we’ve come to the following
> > conclusions:
> >
> > - We intend to undertake a review of our present processes immediately
> > and propose a new approach that allows for feedback at more critical
> > and relevant junctures in the next 90 days. This will be a transparent
> > process that includes your voices.
> >
> > - As the WMF, we need to improve the process for managing changes that
> > impact all users. That includes the MediaWiki: namespace. For WMF to
> > fulfill its role of leading consistent improvements to the user
> > experience across Wikimedia projects, we need to be able to review
> > code and manage deployments. This can be done in partnership with
> > trusted volunteers, but WMF needs to be able to make an ultimate
> > determination after receiving community feedback regarding production
> > changes that impact all users.
> >
> > - We are prepared to unprotect MediaWiki:Common.js on German Wikipedia
> > and enter constructive, open-ended conversations about the way
> > forward, provided we can mutually agree to do so on the basis of the
> > current consistent configuration -- for now. We would like to request
> > a moratorium on any attempts to disable the feature during this
> > conflict resolution process. The goal would be to make a final,
> > cross-wiki determination regarding this specific feature, in
> > partnership with the community, within at most 90 days.
> >
> > With regard to the German Wikipedia situation, we’d like to know if
> > stewards want to at all be involved in this process: In a situation
> > like this, it can be helpful to have a third party support the
> > conversation. Stewards are accountable to "valid community consensus
> > within the bounds of the Foundation's goals" [3], which seems to be
> > precisely the intersection of concerns at issue here. We would like to
> > suggest an IRC meeting with stewards ASAP to talk about the specific
> > question of stewards’ involvement, if any. If stewards prefer not to
> > be involved, we understand, but it's probably a good idea to have a
> > sync-up conversation regardless.
> >
> > I hope we can move forward in good faith from here, and find better
> > ways to work together. As Lila has expressed, we believe there is a
> > need for a clear understanding of our role. It is as follows:
> >
> > Managing software development, site configuration and deployment is a
> > core WMF responsibility. The community leads in the development of
> > content; the Wikimedia Foundation leads in the development of
> > technology.
> >
> > Because these processes are deeply interdependent, we need to develop
> > better protocols for timely feedback and resolution of disagreements.
> > At the same time Lila’s and the Board’s statements make it very clear
> > that the WMF will not accept RfCs or votes as the sole determining
> > factor in global software deployments.
> >
> > This means that technology and UX changes should not be decided by
> > vote or poll and then disabled at-will: where we disagree, we need to
> > talk to each other (and yes, that means a more judicious application
> > of RESOLVED WONTFIX on our end, as well!).  We need to ensure a
> > process where the community voice is heard earlier at critical
> > junctions in the product development. All of this is consistent with
> > the principle of "shared power" articulated in the Guiding Principles
> > [4] approved by the Board of Trustees.
> >
> > At the same time, as noted above and earlier, the superprotection
> > feature should be replaced with a better mechanism for code review and
> > deployment in the MediaWiki: namespace. This is discussed in [5] and
> > ideas and suggestions are welcome. Let’s be upfront about control
> > structures for production changes to avoid misunderstandings and
> > ambiguity in the future.
> >
> > We are exploring options on how to improve dispute resolution
> > mechanisms -- whether it’s e.g. a standing working group or a better
> > protocol for responding to RfCs and engaging in discussions. We've
> > started a brainstorming page, here, which we hope will usefully inform
> > the process of conflict resolution regarding German Wikipedia, as
> > well, so we can arrive at a more concrete conflict resolution process
> > soon. Your thoughts/suggestions are welcome, so we can (in NPOV style)
> > look at different possibilities (e.g. workgroups, committees, votes,
> > surveys) that have been discussed in the past:
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement_(Product)/Process_ideas
> >
> > We’re absolutely not saying that WMF simply wants to be able to
> > enforce its decisions: we completely understand there need to be
> > mechanisms for the community to influence decisions and outcomes at
> > all stages of the development and release of software. We need to
> > arrive at this process together.
> >
> > Again, we are sorry that this escalation occurred - and we hope we can
> > move forward constructively from here.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Erik
> >
> >
> > [1]
> https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_Diskussion:Meinungsbilder/Medienbetrachter&diff=prev&oldid=132469014
> >
> > [2]
> https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_Diskussion:Common.js&diff=132938244&oldid=132935469
> >
> > [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards_policy
> >
> > [4]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles#Shared_power
> >
> > [5] https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=69445
> >
> >
> > --
> > Erik Möller
> > VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--
Landline (UK) 01780 757 250
Mobile (UK) 0798 1995 792
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments

Pine W
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 each other's work instead of
feuding,
and I'm getting MediaViewer issue fatigue.

WMF's principal argument against letting projects make local decisions
about
configurations of MediaViewer seems to be that having a multitude of site
configurations is impractical for site maintainability and development of
new
features. The Technical Committee would be in a good position to make global
decisions on a consensus basis.

Pine
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments

Martijn Hoekstra
On Aug 31, 2014 11:46 PM, "Pine W" <[hidden email]> 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
> disheartening.
> Personally, I would like to see us building on each other's work instead
of
> feuding,
> and I'm getting MediaViewer issue fatigue.
>
> WMF's principal argument against letting projects make local decisions
> about
> configurations of MediaViewer seems to be that having a multitude of site
> configurations is impractical for site maintainability and development of
> new
> features. The Technical Committee would be in a good position to make
global
> decisions on a consensus basis.
>
> Pine

I've heard the argument that it is difficult to maintain and develop for
having different default states of this setting across different projects,
and frankly, I'm not buying it, unless the setting is intended to be
removed completely.

Could someone explain to me how having a different default state for the
setting has much, or any, impact?

- Martijn
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
123456 ... 8