Personally, I find the whole "WikiLove" extension to be a bit naff and
schmaltzy. I'm generally not thrilled when I get a WikiLove kitten or
anything, just like I'm not touched that my local member of Parliament has
thought to send me a form letter about how hard they're working for me.
It's harmless enough though, I just choose to ignore it.
With that said though, if a particular project community decides they don't
want it, why should it be forced upon them? I think this principle should
apply to *all* extensions, not just "harmless" or "global improvement" ones.
Cheers,
Craig
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 22:57:25 +0300
> From: Mateus Nobre <mateus.nobre(a)live.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove
> To: <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <SNT121-W28CDC17A85796201E442FEBFD00(a)phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> Etienne,
>
Why any Wikipedia would not want the Wikilove feature?
This is inconsistent for me. Wikilove's a global improvement, there's no
reason to disagree improvements.
_____________________
MateusNobre
Wikimedia Brasil - MetalBrasil on Wikimedia projects
(+55) 85 88393509
30440865
> Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 12:31:24 -0300
> From: betienne(a)bellaliant.net
> To: foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove
>
> But if we enable it at a wiki that doesn't want it, there could be a
> boycott, and vandals just get the place up to there "code". It would be
> very detrimental to wikipedia.
>
>
> On 11-10-29 12:27 PM, "Nickanc Wikipedia" <nickanc.wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > IMHO, Wikilove is something so important about wikipedia's ethics and
> > behaviour that shall be in every wiki. IMHO.
> >
> > 2011/10/29 WereSpielChequers <werespielchequers(a)gmail.com>:
> >>> Message: 1
> >>> Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 15:31:07 -0700
> >>> From: Brandon Harris <bharris(a)wikimedia.org>
> >>> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] On certain shallow, American-centered,
> >>> foolish software initiatives backed by WMF
> >>> To: foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> >>> Message-ID: <4EAB2D2B.3020803(a)wikimedia.org>
> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 10/28/11 3:27 PM, Etienne Beaule wrote:
> >>>> It's disabled on certain wikis because of technical problems.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Oh? I wasn't aware that it had been disabled anywhere as yet.
> >>>
> >>> WikiLove was not rolled out "en mass"; the policy for
deployment of
> >>> the
> >>> tool is that it is by request only, and the requesting wiki must:
> >>>
> >>> a) Make sure the tool is localized (via TranslateWiki);
> >>> b) Make sure they have a local configuration; and
> >>> c) Show community consensus.
> >>>
> >>> So if it was enabled and then *disabled*, I have not heard of
this.
> >>> Is
> >>> there a bug report I can look to? Or if you know of a wiki where this
> >>> is the case, I can do a search.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks!
> >>>
> >>> -b.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation
> >>>
> >>> Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Good to hear that wikilove is only going in on wikis where there is
> >> consensus for it. Can anyone give me a link to the discussion that
> >> established consensus on EN wikipedia? The nearest I could find was
> >>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28miscellaneous%29/Arc…
> >> ve_33#Thoughts_on_WikiLove.3F
> >>
> >> Ta
> >>
> >> WerepielChequers
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> foundation-l mailing list
> >> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I posted a question in the comment group[1] of Khan Academy[2], a
great education website.
In fact in this page on the wiki of the site[3] under "Our Principles:
the rules of the game", is said:
"Openness. [...]
Open content means that all content distributed by or through the
Khan Academy uses the CC-by-sa license (or a compatible license)
[...]"
but actually in the footer of every page the is indicated a
CC-3.0-NC-BY-SA license.
So there must be a mistake somewhere, the point being that CC-BY-SA
license would be compatible with Wikipedia and the other projects,
which I think would be a great, valuable thing.
Can somebody help me to clarify this point? I think it's important.
Cristian
[1]http://groups.google.com/group/khan-academy-comments/browse_thread/thread…
[2]www.khanacademy.org
[3]https://sites.google.com/a/khanacademy.org/forge/home/mission-principles-…
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 6:54 AM, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I see Brandon replied to this thread several times; did anyone notice
> if the question in the OP (if community consensus is required for
> implementation, where was it demonstrated for en.wp) was answered?
As a matter of general practice, the Wikimedia Foundation aims to be
responsive to the community both before and after the deployment of
software, but it doesn't obtain community consensus before deploying
software which it would like to deploy on its sites and services, nor
does it necessarily write or deploy software changes if a consensus to
do so exists. That has always been the case; indeed, there was no
explicit consensus ahead of time for the vast majority of major
software changes in Wikimedia's history.
Being responsive and applying appropriate effort towards a problem
shouldn't be confused with a constitutional commitment to act only
with, or never against, a consensus in a community. We've never made
such a commitment as a general principle. Some features, like
WikiLove, require community customization to be useful in the first
place; others, like FlaggedRevs, influence a community's practices so
deeply that they require both the community's expertise and buy-in to
succeed. And of course there are lots of small tweaks and
customizations that communities can request from us, but we can only
respond to them if they can demonstrate that there's a consensus to
proceed.
However, if we found evidence that, say, WikiLove turns out to be the
best thing since sliced bread (which of course it isn't, duh -- it's
just a small bit of culture shift), then we might put lots of effort
towards working with the community to localize it and deploy it
globally. As it is, that particular feature is still experimental, and
will likely continue to change shape and application, as we better
understand the dynamics of how it is used.
The partnership between WMF and the community is founded on mutual
trust. If you don't trust WMF, you can - and probably should -
contribute your effort elsewhere, because WMF may - and probably will
- do things you won't like.
HTH,
Erik
--
Erik Möller
VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
Dear Mailinglists,
the cultural homogenous group of Germans tends to discuss in German. So to
give you a short update on what is happening:
A White Bag protest movement against the image filter is forming.
And people who talked privately about a fork for some time, start to think
and say it loud.
In longer:
http://www.iberty.net/2011/10/news-from-german-wikipedia-white-bag.html
regards,
Dirk Franke/Southpark
The WMF has been recently backing softwares that are a breach of
"Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" (1). Recently a totally stupid pink
heart was added to user talk pages, making people believe it is
Valentine Day everyday, with the result that Wikipedia is now being
used as a social network or a game. For example see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Alleahruiz .
This sort of software enhances shallow relationships between people.
That might be fine for American people or americanized people but
everybody in the world is not American or Americanized or belonging to
a culture close to that one. I believe that in this world some people
value something else than shallow relationships based on US-centered
cultural codes such as a pink heart, for example trusting
relationships based on working together in the long term, using true
words really felt rather than just picking an icon on a game
interface.
Do you know that the pink heart tool was imposed on Wikimedia COmmons
by the English speaking community without consulting other language
communities ?
Now we are seeing the appearance of a feedback tool on the English
Wikipedia ? How long are the non-English Wikipedias going to be free
from this new stupid tool which has nothing to do with writing an
encyclopaedia ?
Where is the usability when adding new features at a confusing hurried rythm ?
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_blog.2C_websp…
Re OKeyes "Switching authorisation and prioritisation over to the editors
completely ignores readers, and assumes that editors will act outside their
own/interests to ensure that reader-specific features do get some
traction;" I'm not convinced that the community would want to ignore
readers, I'm aware that many editors are motivated by the desire to see
their work read. But I could accept a compromise with part of the
development budget being ringfenced for initiatives proposed and
prioritised by the community.
Re Gerard "the community was involved in defining our strategy. Making our
community more friendly is a strategic choice defined by the strategy
project and endorsed by the board." I took part in the Strategy project,
and I agree with some of what came out of it, especially the bit about
making our community more open. But just because some of us took part in
the Strategy exercise doesn't mean that we can't usefully comment now. Nor
does a strategy of being nicer mean that every development intended to
achieve that will actually do so, or indeed be the best way to do so. I'm
pretty confident that if the community was to prioritise potential
developments as to whether they would make things friendlier and easier for
the sort of newbies that we want, then wikilove would be a long way from
the top of the list. The GLAM sector is a case in point, reading
http://futureofmuseums.blogspot.com/2011/10/building-better-fishing-pole-ho…
don't get the impression that the ability to give each other kittens
would make Commons as attractive as Flickr for museums to upload image
collections. Developments to match flickr's "robust tagging and search
tools" would, but what chance is there of us getting IT resources for that?
WereSpielChequers
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 21:40:37 +0200
> From: Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove
> To: fae(a)wikimedia.org.uk, Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <CAO53wxW=UwegSJZgTbk24D69zgd4EOwoGpypKbdQnJqXSEqKMw(a)mail.gmail.com
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Hoi,
> I am happy to make a distinction of what I do officially and what I say
> because I am personally of a particular opinion. This is very much my
> personal opinion.
>
> There have been LOADS of opportunities where the community is asked, begged
> to be involved in what will be the way forward. The most obvious
> opportunity has been the Strategy project. At this time the Wikimedia
> Foundation is looking for all sorts of volunteers that are asked to help
> determine what future functionality will be like. Specifically I want to
> mention the need for "language support teams" and volunteers for our mobile
> development.
>
> The position of the WMF as I know it is that it wants very much an involved
> community. To be effective, it is important for the community to be
> involved early in the process. Sadly many people want to be only involved
> at the end of the process. This does not help much and particularly not on
> issues that are not the bread and butter of working on content by the
> existing community.
>
> I made points in my previous mail. They have not been addressed. We agree
> on the need for community involvement. The WMF has a strong tradition on
> involving its communities. My argument is that the programs that are
> discussed are very much monitored for their effect, based on the results
> the functionality will be tweaked. My argument is that these programs are
> the result of community consultation and therefore community involvement is
> the origin of the functionality we are discussing.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
>
> Hi Gerard,
What changes do and do not require consensus is a fascinating issue, but
not I think related to my query re Wikilove. Brandon has told us that the
devs are only installing wikilove on wikis where there is a consensus for
it. Hence my request for a link to the discussion that established
consensus for the introduction of Wikilove on EN wikipedia, as I seem to
have missed that debate and was having difficulty finding it. I'm not
trying to reopen the debate, I'm not actually opposed to wikilove if that's
what a bunch of editors want to volunteer their time for. If it was tweaked
as per Geni's proposal it might actually become a net positive. I just
wanted to read the discussion and see how that consensus was achieved. If
it's true that every wiki except for the EN Wikipedia gets the chance to
decide whether or not they want it then I wonder why that was the case, and
what that says about the Foundation's attitude to our largest community of
editors.
If wikilove was developed on Foundation money then I think it sad that this
was prioritised above so many more important things. For example a big part
of any welcome template is this bizarre looking instruction to sign posts
on talkpages with ~~~~. Aside from the signing business the original design
of talkpages is way superior and more newby friendly than liquid threads,
but it could do with one small enhancement; Autosign on talkpages, with the
preference defaulted to off for anyone who has signed a talkpage and on for
anyone who hasn't, including of course all new accounts from now onwards.
Implement that and we can easily improve the welcome templates, and greatly
reduce the number of newbies who raise a query on a talkpage only to be
responded with an admonition about their failure to sign their posting.
Then there is that one little bug in Cat a lot that prevents if from being
used to tackle the Commons categorisation backlog
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Gadget-Cat-a-lot.js#Hidden…
of those would be way more important than Wikilove, the Article
Feedback tool or the image filter. On a different scale altogether is the
question of whether Museums and other GLAMS should skip us and go directly
to Flickr. Balboa Park has set out fairly clearly why they've taken the
decision to use Flickr rather than Commons
http://futureofmuseums.blogspot.com/2011/10/building-better-fishing-pole-ho…'d
like to know how many developers the Foundation has working to catch
up
there.
There is a broader point, a willingness to invest in things that might be
of use to hypothetical groups of potential new editors really shouldn't
come at the expense of neglecting the needs of the existing editor base. We
have an editor retention problem and one way to confront that is to invest
in fixing the problems that those editors raise and improve the tools they
use. Another is to empower the community and put them in control of their
projects. Only introducing new features where there is consensus for
implementation is a step towards that. A bigger step, and a way to get much
much better value from our IT budget is to get community input on the
priority of new features. The Image filter referendum made a small step
towards that by having a question about its importance. A more meaningful
consultation would be to give editors the ability to rate the relative
importance of a bunch of potential enhancements "How much do you want
this?" Should be the second question after "Do you want this?". The least
lovely feature of Wikilove as with the Article Feedback Tool is to think of
all the amazing things that could have been done instead.
WereSpielChequers
------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 13:05:37 +0100
> From: Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <CAO53wxVzz79KghtsAQe=YSacVtEL5XQuqfgA9nKt+2=w1XUTLg(a)mail.gmail.com
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Hoi,
> There are a few issues:
>
> - the choice of what is going to be developed is very much a management
> issue; what gets priority and why
> - there are always people who object to any project because they are of
> the opinion that something else should be considered to be more relevant
> - when something is developed FOR a specific project, giving that
> project the option to opt out once it is developed defeats the objective
> of
> the functionality; such a decision is very much taken at the start of the
> project
> - I know that a thread like this is read. Good proposals are considered
> when they stand out as such. Personally I like the notion of leaving a
> message as the first option..
> - I positively hate talk pages, prefer not to use them. I am a seasoned
> Wikimedian and when people like me are this negative about talk pages,
> then
> the notion that they are good / usable / can be left alone is suspect.
> - have you considered that many of the advanced functionalities used in
> the English Wikipedia are actually REALLY problematic in other languages
> -
> ease of use, even dumbing down is in my opinion acceptable when this
> grows
> our editor community in our projects other then the English Wikipedia
> - I am known for my hobby horses; working for the "Localisation team"
> allows me to be part of much good work. However, there are still many
> things that are not going to be developed any time soon that I rate
> highly
>
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
>
Hoi Gerard,
Well spoken. "the choice of what is going to be developed is very much a
management issue" or at least it is where that development is paid for as
opposed to done by volunteers. So whether that choice is made by the
community or by the Foundation is not only important because the community
would probably make better decisions about the relative priority of various
potential developments. Ultimately this is about whether the community self
manages where that works and uses the Foundation where that doesn't. Or
whether the Foundation manages the community, but allows some limited local
discretion.
WereSpielChequers