[Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
17 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

Rogol Domedonfors
Jimmy Wales wrote: "it is possible and welcomed to bring forward issues to
board members at any time".

It would be most helpful to know where and how the Board in general would
welcome such issues being raised and how much resource they will have to
sustain those discussions.  Attempting to raise issues at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard for
example, has not met with great success: indeed, one Board member has
written there "I honestly disagree that "additional effort" is a realistic
opportunity",

It is fair to say that at least one other Board member has taken a very
positive attitude, and we have had some constructive engagement for which I
am duly grateful.

"Rogol"
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [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] (no subject)

Jimmy Wales-5
I can only speak for myself that my user talk page in English Wikipedia
is the best option.

On 11/13/16 5:21 PM, Rogol Domedonfors wrote:
> It would be most helpful to know where and how the Board in general would
> welcome such issues being raised and how much resource they will have to
> sustain those discussions.  Attempting to raise issues at
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard for
> example, has not met with great success: indeed, one Board member has
> written there "I honestly disagree that "additional effort" is a realistic
> opportunity",

It is not right of you to quote only half that remark in a way that
distorts the plain meaning of what was said.  I will quote Alice's full
comment:

>Rogol, I honestly disagree that "additional effort" is a realistic
>opportunity. My personal opinion is that if something does not work
>the way you expect, it doesn't help just to do more of it. You need to
>do it differently to make a shift. Alice Wiegand (talk) 18:45, 18
>April 2016 (UTC)

Alice was not arguing that the board shouldn't make great efforts to be
in touch with the community, but rather saying that 'more effort'
doesn't really capture the right range of options.



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [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] (no subject)

Dariusz Jemielniak-3
In reply to this post by Rogol Domedonfors
Dear Rogol,


On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 5:21 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Jimmy Wales wrote: "it is possible and welcomed to bring forward issues to
> board members at any time".
>
> It would be most helpful to know where and how the Board in general would
> welcome such issues being raised and how much resource they will have to
> sustain those discussions.



I think it is fair to say that we lack good, efficient and scalable
communication channels. We have discussed additional ones, commitment
tracking possibilities, etc. at Wikimania with the communication staff
(who, by the way, are extremely professional and skilled), and it is my
understanding that while it is impossible to make rapid improvements, we
can come back to this conversation in 2017 and possibly make some
improvements.

I personally would love e.g. to see a system of Board members cmmitments
tracking (useful for the Board, just as much as for communal control), or a
system in which the community could upvote/downvote partiular ideas to
discuss (like in a community's wishlist).

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).

best,

dariusz "pundit"
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [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] (no subject)

Rogol Domedonfors
In reply to this post by Rogol Domedonfors
Dear Dariusz

I quite understand that some members of the Board feel that there are more
important calls on their collective time and resources than engaging
directly with individual members of the community, even though some do feel
that they may be able to as individuals.  I note that you feel that it is
possible that returning to this issue next year the Board may be able to
make some improvements (and, we presume, may not).  So you propose to park
the issue and maybe do something in the future, but without any sort of
urgency or commitment.

This attitude makes perfect sense if you see engagement with individuals as
a drain on your resources, a communications overhead which can only
distract and detract from the other more important things that you need to
be doing, whatever those may be.  It makes sense if the Board regards
itself as lacking in all other resources, human and financial, to invest in
making an engagement productive.  It makes sense if the Board regards the
community as a lumpenproletariat of contributors fit only for routine work
but devoid of all strategic capacity, understanding and insight.

I think this is completely mistaken.  The community has far more resources,
far better ideas, and far more experience than the Board on its own can
possibly hope to have – if only the Board were willing and able to tap into
it.  Constructive engagement would not only pay for itself purely in terms
of avoiding the conflicts which have drained everyone's time and energy in
the past, but also enable the Board to take a more far-sighted and positive
attitude to the future direction of the mission.

The Board's failure to engage effectively with the community until now, and
lack of interest in doing so in the future, is putting the mission at
risk.  What a shame.

Yours
"Rogol"
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [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] (no subject)

Pine W
In reply to this post by Dariusz Jemielniak-3
Hi Dariuz, I like how you're thinking. Perhaps the Board could make public
use of Phabricator to triage and track issues.

Rogol, I share some of the frustration about communication problems.
However, I'd also like to note that Dariuz, Christophe, and Natalia have
been responsive to discussions here on WIkimedia-l, and that the general
tone of WMF has become notably more cooperative with the community during
the past several months. There is still much work to do, but much progress
has been made. In the big picture I feel that WMF is heading in a good
direction, and I'm grateful to the people who are working to make that
happen.

Pine


On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 8:37 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Dear Rogol,
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 5:21 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Jimmy Wales wrote: "it is possible and welcomed to bring forward issues
> to
> > board members at any time".
> >
> > It would be most helpful to know where and how the Board in general would
> > welcome such issues being raised and how much resource they will have to
> > sustain those discussions.
>
>
>
> I think it is fair to say that we lack good, efficient and scalable
> communication channels. We have discussed additional ones, commitment
> tracking possibilities, etc. at Wikimania with the communication staff
> (who, by the way, are extremely professional and skilled), and it is my
> understanding that while it is impossible to make rapid improvements, we
> can come back to this conversation in 2017 and possibly make some
> improvements.
>
> I personally would love e.g. to see a system of Board members cmmitments
> tracking (useful for the Board, just as much as for communal control), or a
> system in which the community could upvote/downvote partiular ideas to
> discuss (like in a community's wishlist).
>
> 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).
>
> best,
>
> dariusz "pundit"
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [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
New messages to: [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] (no subject)

Pete Forsyth-2
In reply to this post by Rogol Domedonfors
On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Jimmy Wales wrote: "it is possible and welcomed to bring forward issues to
> board members at any time".


To Jimmy and the board:

This statement is, frankly, very much belied by the facts.

In 2014, I delivered a letter signed by *one thousand people* to every
member of the board. And yet, the existence of that letter has never been
formally acknowledged, much less have its requests been formally addressed.

One thousand people.

As long as that communication goes unacknowledged, many of us will have
little faith in assurances that communication to board members is a viable,
productive pursuit.

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [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] (no subject)

John Mark Vandenberg
In reply to this post by Pine W
On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 11:37 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]> 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?

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 4:58 AM, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi Dariuz, I like how you're thinking. Perhaps the Board could make public
> use of Phabricator to triage and track issues.

+1

--
John Vandenberg

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [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] (no subject)

K. Peachey-2
On 15 November 2016 at 18:36, John Mark Vandenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
> 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.
> ...snip...

There is conphrenece as part of our phabricator install, One example
is the team that triages and handles site requests which can be seen
here <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/Z398>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [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] (no subject)

Dariusz Jemielniak-3
In reply to this post by Rogol Domedonfors
hi Rogol,



On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 4:38 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> I quite understand that some members of the Board feel that there are more
> important calls on their collective time and resources than engaging
> directly with individual members of the community, even though some do feel
> that they may be able to as individuals.  I note that you feel that it is
> possible that returning to this issue next year the Board may be able to
> make some improvements (and, we presume, may not).  So you propose to park
> the issue and maybe do something in the future, but without any sort of
> urgency or commitment.
>

I think there may be a bit of good will misunderstanding. I strongly
believe that the Board members should engage directly with individual
members of the community. I have only acknowledged the fact that our
current technologies are highly imperfect for that.



> I think this is completely mistaken.  The community has far more resources,
> far better ideas, and far more experience than the Board on its own can
> possibly hope to have – if only the Board were willing and able to tap into
> it.  Constructive engagement would not only pay for itself purely in terms
> of avoiding the conflicts which have drained everyone's time and energy in
> the past, but also enable the Board to take a more far-sighted and positive
> attitude to the future direction of the mission.
>

This is absolutely a very good point. I definitely believe that the
community has the skills, experience, and ability to help (or heavy-lift on
its own) a number of tech solutions. However, if better communication tools
are not developed from within the community, we still should make them,
that's the point.



>
> The Board's failure to engage effectively with the community until now, and
> lack of interest in doing so in the future, is putting the mission at
> risk.  What a shame.
>

Again, I have not expressed such a lack of interest, and I don't think
other members did.

best,

dariusz
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [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] (no subject)

John Mark Vandenberg
In reply to this post by K. Peachey-2
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 5:19 PM, K. Peachey <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 15 November 2016 at 18:36, John Mark Vandenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> 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.
>> ...snip...
>
> There is conphrenece as part of our phabricator install, One example
> is the team that triages and handles site requests which can be seen
> here <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/Z398>

I've used it quite extensively.
I hope I make a fairly convincing case that Phabricator isn't a
replacement for the chat, nor 'team' room, functionality that Slack
and others provide.

https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T150732

--
John Vandenberg

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [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] (no subject)

C. Scott Ananian
In reply to this post by John Mark Vandenberg
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 3:36 AM, John Mark Vandenberg <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 11:37 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]>
> 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: [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] (no subject)

Andrew Lih
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 <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 3:36 AM, John Mark Vandenberg <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 11:37 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]>
> > 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: [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
New messages to: [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] (no subject)

C. Scott Ananian
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 5:32 PM, Andrew Lih <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Love it or hate it, Facebook as a way of linking together Wikimedians
> across languages is a big plus (eg. projects like #100wikidays).
>

Ooh, man, you're pushing my hot button topics!  I proposed
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T149666 for the dev summit; my "big
picture" vision here is that we start using our machine translation tools
to tie our projects more tightly together, so we feel more like "one
project aided by a bunch of babel fish" and less like "a thousand separate
projects, each in their own tower".

So, bringing it back to chat -- and perhaps Shadow Namespaces (
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T149666) -- one goal might be to build
discussions into our platform in a way which can be cross-platform, with
integrated machine translation aids to allow near-seamless multilingual
conversations, thereby bridging barriers between our communities.  Of
course the vandalism and anti-harassment and user filter tools would need
to be multilingual in the same way...
  --scott

--
(http://cscott.net)
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [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] (no subject)

Matthew Flaschen-2
In reply to this post by C. Scott Ananian
On 11/17/2016 04:57 PM, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
> 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):

As people may know, we are working on a Code of conduct for technical
spaces.

It will cover on-wiki communication in the technical spaces (including
talk pages), technical mailing lists, technical IRC channels, and
Phabricator (including Conpherence).

There are some existing guidelines in place.  It's a very fragmented
picture (most guidelines only apply to one form of communication (e.g.
IRC), and sometimes only a single IRC channel), which is part of what
the tech CoC will improve.  I also don't necessarily endorse these older
guidelines.

>   * 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.

Worth remembering that many important projects don't *have* a code of
conduct or equivalent, and on those that do, it's often not enforced.

>   * Echo
>      - Unarchived transient notifications, very restricted by design.  Could
> be made more general (but see below).

Right, this not a user-user communication system (though it will notify
you *of* user-user communications, sometimes with snippets included).

>   * 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.

Conpherence allows either public or private conversations.

There are currently guidelines
(https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Bug_management/Phabricator_etiquette).
The Code of Conduct for technical spaces will cover Phabricator as well.

> 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.

Yeah, I agree this is an issue, and is why the technical code of conduct
will have one central reporting place (so you always know where to
report, and they can consider multi-space harassment).

This is important stuff.  Thank you for talking and thinking about it.

Matt Flaschen

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [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] (no subject)

Pine W
As a reminder: IRC is governed by Freenode. Channels can have their own
rules, and there are widely varying systems of internal governance for
Wikimedia IRC channels. I think it's important to note that WMF and the
Wikimedia community are guests on Freenode, and I'm uncomfortable with the
proposition to extend a WMF policy into IRC channels without explicit
consent from the ops of those channels; it seems to me that the TCC would
be a per-channel opt-in on IRC, not a WMF blanket standard.

Speaking more generally, I am wary of WMF encroachment into what I should
be fundamentally community-governed spaces. I have not heard a lot of
objections from the community to the proposed technical code of conduct,
and I've heard some arguments for and against the rationale for having it;
my main concern is that I would prefer that the final document be ratified
through community-led processes.

Thanks,

Pine


On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 5:34 PM, Matthew Flaschen <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> On 11/17/2016 04:57 PM, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
>
>> 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):
>>
>
> As people may know, we are working on a Code of conduct for technical
> spaces.
>
> It will cover on-wiki communication in the technical spaces (including
> talk pages), technical mailing lists, technical IRC channels, and
> Phabricator (including Conpherence).
>
> There are some existing guidelines in place.  It's a very fragmented
> picture (most guidelines only apply to one form of communication (e.g.
> IRC), and sometimes only a single IRC channel), which is part of what the
> tech CoC will improve.  I also don't necessarily endorse these older
> guidelines.
>
>   * 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.
>>
>
> Worth remembering that many important projects don't *have* a code of
> conduct or equivalent, and on those that do, it's often not enforced.
>
>   * Echo
>>      - Unarchived transient notifications, very restricted by design.
>> Could
>> be made more general (but see below).
>>
>
> Right, this not a user-user communication system (though it will notify
> you *of* user-user communications, sometimes with snippets included).
>
>   * 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.
>>
>
> Conpherence allows either public or private conversations.
>
> There are currently guidelines (https://www.mediawiki.org/wik
> i/Bug_management/Phabricator_etiquette). The Code of Conduct for
> technical spaces will cover Phabricator as well.
>
> 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.
>>
>
> Yeah, I agree this is an issue, and is why the technical code of conduct
> will have one central reporting place (so you always know where to report,
> and they can consider multi-space harassment).
>
> This is important stuff.  Thank you for talking and thinking about it.
>
> Matt Flaschen
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [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
New messages to: [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] (no subject)

C. Scott Ananian
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 10:30 PM, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:

> As a reminder: IRC is governed by Freenode. Channels can have their own
> rules, and there are widely varying systems of internal governance for
> Wikimedia IRC channels. I think it's important to note that WMF and the
> Wikimedia community are guests on Freenode, and I'm uncomfortable with the
> proposition to extend a WMF policy into IRC channels without explicit
> consent from the ops of those channels; it seems to me that the TCC would
> be a per-channel opt-in on IRC, not a WMF blanket standard.
>
> Speaking more generally, I am wary of WMF encroachment into what I should
> be fundamentally community-governed spaces. I have not heard a lot of
> objections from the community to the proposed technical code of conduct,
> and I've heard some arguments for and against the rationale for having it;
> my main concern is that I would prefer that the final document be ratified
> through community-led processes.
>

I agree that changes here should involve heavy community participation,
which is a reason I'm trying to initiate broader discussion.

We have been moderately successful in "outsourcing" real time chat to a
third-party (IRC and Freenode) in the past, but it does leave us out of
control of what may become a fundamental technology for our platform.
Certainly we could simply embed a web-based IRC client in talk pages, for
instance.  That would continue the status quo. It's certainly one point in
the possible solution space, and I'm not foreclosing that.  I just think we
should discuss discussions holistically.  What are the benefits of
disclaiming responsibility for real time chat?  What are the benefits of
the freenode conduct policy?  What are the disadvantages?

We could also "more tightly integrate chat" without leaving IRC or
Freenode.  For the [[en:MIT Mystery Hunt]] many teams build quite elaborate
IRC bots that layer additional functionalities on top of IRC.  Matt's email
mentioned a "central reporting place".  We could certainly allow IRC
channels to opt-in to a WMF code of conduct and opt-in to running a WMF bot
providing a standardized and consistent reporting mechanism/block
list/abuse logger.  That's another point in the solution space.

My personal dog in the race is "tools".  I totally love community-led
processes.  But I am concerned that WMF is not providing the communities
adequate *tools* to make meaningful improvements in their social
environments.  Twitter rolled out a new suite of anti-abuse features this
week (https://9to5mac.com/2016/11/15/twitter-online-abuse-mute-features/)
so sadly the WMF platform is now behind twitter in terms of providing a
healthy working environment for our contributors.  We need to step up our
game.  As you note, the first step is this discussion involving the
community to take a broad look at discussions on our platform and determine
some basic social principles as well as architectural planks and
commonalities.  Hopefully we can then follow that up with an aggressive
development effort to deploy some new tools and features.  I believe this
will be an iterative process: our first tools will fall short, and we'll
need to continue "discussing discussions", revisiting assumptions, and
building improved tools.

But we can't allow ourselves to stand still.
 --scott

--
(http://cscott.net)
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [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] (no subject)

Matthew Flaschen-2
In reply to this post by Pine W
On 11/17/2016 10:30 PM, Pine W wrote:
> As a reminder: IRC is governed by Freenode. Channels can have their own
> rules, and there are widely varying systems of internal governance for
> Wikimedia IRC channels. I think it's important to note that WMF and the
> Wikimedia community are guests on Freenode, and I'm uncomfortable with the
> proposition to extend a WMF policy into IRC channels without explicit
> consent from the ops of those channels; it seems to me that the TCC would
> be a per-channel opt-in on IRC, not a WMF blanket standard.

I just wanted to note that this is a (draft) community policy, being
approved by the community.  The community has already approved a large
fraction of it.  It's not a (draft) WMF policy.

(It is subject to Legal requirements like some other community policies,
but it seems this will only affect a small section.)

Thanks,

Matt Flaschen

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