I'm getting so many red flags. Established by WMF via secret (non-transparent) process, with no community involvement? Non-wiki environment, with the same scope as existing wikis? WMF-decided conduct policies? Every single moderator is a WMF employee? Forum using closed groups, with non-transparent communication? (Closed-source software, unless I'm mistaken?) So far outside Wikimedia spaces that the only place it was even _announced_ was an off-wiki mailing list? Is there something the Wikimedia Foundation would like to tell us? -- Yair Rand ‫בתאריך יום ג׳, 25 ביוני 2019 ב-14:56 מאת ‪Pine W‬‏ <‪wiki.pine(a)gmail.com ‬‏>:‬

On 25.06.19 23:18, Yair Rand wrote: Where would you have announced it, then? I asked for a movement-wide announcement place a while ago in a different context [1] and got no satisfactory answer; the most popular one was wikimedia-l (this list), and the only on-wiki answers were “the village pumps” (i. e. scattered) – with the caveat that you should translate your message first, which doesn’t scale well. I’m not saying the Space shouldn’t have been announced anywhere else, but it certainly seems to me that there is a need for a space like it, and in particular I don’t understand why you criticize the choice of wikimedia-l for the initial announcement when there seems to be good consensus for it being a central movement announcement and discussion platform. [1]: https://twitter.com/LucasWerkmeistr/status/1107337860389265413 There can hardly be many other moderators immediately after launch, but if you check the “trust levels and user rights” post [2], you’ll see that the software (Discourse) automatically promotes users based on certain criteria (similar to autoconfirmed status on-wiki), and the highest level seems in principle to be open to any user (though the criteria still have to be fleshed out, which to me seems reasonable at this stage.) [2]: https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/t/trust-levels-and-user-rights-in-wikimed… This question is a bit too short for me to make sense of, sorry. Closed groups are not the default, so are you criticizing their mere existence? Do you want to claim that that closed groups are never, ever warranted? Because in my experience the claim at [3] that “[b]ecause on-wiki spaces don’t allow for [closed] collaboration, some volunteers have gravitated toward … other … platforms” is completely true. [3]: https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/t/closed-groups/87 Both WordPress and Discourse are free and open source software. Cheers, Lucas

On 26.06.19 01:22, Yair Rand wrote: Sorry if this sounds like I’m just repeating the question, but where on metawiki specifically? Because there’s no such thing as a village pump there, as far as I’m aware – a page titled Village pump [1] exists, but it’s just a redirect to Wikimedia Forum [2], which is described as “a central place for *questions and discussions* about the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects” (emphasis mine). It’s not a place for announcements, and there are no other announcements on it, so I certainly wouldn’t expect the Wikimedia Space announcement to be there. Meta:Discussion pages [3] also emphasizes that Wikimedia Forum is a page about the Wikimedia Foundation, whereas Wikimedia Space should be, as I understand it, a movement-wide thing (though initiated by the Foundation). I maintain that there is no single on-wiki place for movement-wide announcements like this, and wikimedia-l is currently the most obvious venue; and since Discourse can offer several improvements over a mailing list (no need to set up a pseudonymous email if you want to remain anonymous, and it’s easier to follow a discussion without subscribing to the list), I’m excited about the possibilities this brings. Cheers, Lucas PS: Minor note about the automatic promotion on Discourse – to my own surprise, I earned level 1 just a few minutes after sending my other email. It’s a much lower barrier than autoconfirmed status :) [1]: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Village_pump [2]: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Forum [3]: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Discussion_pages

Hi Quim, On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 4:47 PM Quim Gil <qgil(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: I think that it's okay to experiment with new communications tools, but I would like to hear more specifics about how the new platform is intended to contribute to growth in a way that providing new features or more newbie-friendly tools on wiki does not. I say this mindful that talk pages have a steep learning curve, but there are ongoing efforts to make talk pages be more user-friendly. I agree with most of those points, with two possible exceptions. Regarding "efficient processes for all participants": I understand the attractiveness of speedy and efficient processes, which often coincide with unilateral decisions. Sometimes in the community we specifically empower people to make unilateral decisions, such as blocking vandals. However, democracy, consensus, legislative processes, and judicial processes are sometimes not efficient ways of making decisions; they may trade speed and efficiency for quality, equity, transparency, and/or sustainability. I would be concerned if WMF is broadly adopting a mindset of "move fast and break things". At the same time, I think that we in the community should be open to considering tools that would let us improve our processes, often in increments and with careful testing. An example of this would be considering Discourse as a platform for communications. Regarding "safe, secure spaces": There will always be contentious topics in the Wikiverse, such as the sovereignty of contested geographic territories, the validity of certain scientific theories, policies for the English Wikipedia Manual of Style, and the morality of certain actions. People will be upset, angry, disappointed, or offended. There is a tension between freedom of expression and safety. I think that an unqualified goal of "safe, secure spaces" is unrealistic, and risks doing more harm than good by promoting an unrealistic vision and by implying that people have a right not to feel offended. At the same time, I am willing to block people in various circumstances such as if they threaten to commit a criminal action, engage in phishing or other fraudulent activity, fail to disclose an important relationship to a subject of their editing or official activities, or engage in harassment of others. Freedom of expression has some limits, even in the public square. The Wikiverse is more like a public square than a quiet office, and I worry that WMF's current vision for safety might be misguided and might be harmful to candid public discourse and to people who are misled into relying on an unrealistic implication that the Wikiverse is a place where they shouldn't expect to feel offended and will reliably be protected from harm. I think that being honest about the risks would be good, along with supporting improvements as requested by the community. An example of an initiative that I believe has community support is the partial blocks feature. I'm cautiously supportive of experiments and prototyping in general. However, WMF already appears to be planning to add more resources to this project. Can you share what the long term plans are? I think that an on-wiki version of the map could be of great interest. I think that experimenting with Discourse as an alternative for Wikimedia-l makes sense. However, given WMF's tendencies to grab power unilaterally instead of using persuasion, its opacity regarding both financial and governance matters, and the risks associated with strong central control, I prefer that any replacement for Wikimedia-l is not under the control of WMF. One reason to shift community conversations to Facebook, email, and other platforms is that WMF has less ability to control them. To the best of my knowledge the community has been very supportive of improved mapping tools, and I cannot recall anyone opposing a better on-wiki calendaring system. I believe that in both cases those have stalled due to lack of resources from WMF. Occasionally I see or hear from WMF staff that they are frustrated by community opposition to what the staff thinks is progress. Recently I have been optimistic about WMF's talk pages consultation, which I feel is being done well. Regrettably, some of WMF's other recent actions (I am thinking in particular about WMF's intervention on English Wikipedia) have been far less respectful. I would feel better about WMF's judgement here if this statement was carefully qualified to say that WMF respects community processes and thought that a small experiment would be okay. I think that some experimentation is good, but I am troubled by what comes across to me as a "move fast and break things" line of thought. Am I understanding your position correctly? Unilateral decisions may be convenient, but goodwill is easy to lose, and short term gains risk long term harms. Perhaps WMF is justifying unilateralism and impatience as being for the good of the community, but I think that such reasoning can easily be dangerous. I will not do that myself, but I hope that there are benefits from this prototype. I think that some experimentation is fine and good. Thank you for your explanation of WMF's line of thinking. I think that some experimentation can be refreshing and good. However, I would suggest that WMF not adopt a "move fast and break things" mentality. There are circumstances in which boldness is good, but I am concerned about recent actions of WMF that suggest a move toward impatience at the expense of respect, thoughtfulness, and long-term goodwill. Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )

Yes, like Samuel I'm excited to see some experimentation with alternative (and hopefully better) mediums for community engagement. Adrian Raddatz On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 7:05 PM Samuel Klein <meta.sj(a)gmail.com> wrote:

There seems to be a trend on the part of the WMF, however, both to try to control onwiki Wikimedia communities (wiki.en current case), and at the same time divert part of the communities to closed platforms under direct or indirect WMF control. I'm also not sure anymore that Wikimedia volunteers and the WMF do share the same mission. I would like to be, but I'm not. Best, Paulo Amir Sarabadani <ladsgroup(a)gmail.com> escreveu no dia quarta, 26/06/2019 à(s) 00:58:

On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 22:19, Yair Rand <yyairrand(a)gmail.com> wrote: While I agree that a good tracking mount, a reasonable telescope and some CCDs would be a better use of the money (there are some satellites I want pics of) I don't see anything particular nefarious here. Improving communications is a long term goal and shifting away from mediawiki appears on the face of it a good way to do that (we are after all on a mailing list at the moment. In practice experience suggests that most people are too busy doing what they are already doing to get involved in such projects and that mediawiki is so central to what we are do that most people are pretty comfortable with it. So this falls well within the WMF’s nominal goals and is a fairly understandable approach. I still think we would be better off spending the money on the kit needed to get a pic of Kosmos 482. -- geni

I also generally discuss what I can offwiki (using a number of channels, but mainly Telegram) , and leave to onwiki discussions what is strictly necessary, but it has much more to do with the slowness and lack of usability of the wiki talk system, than with a toxic environment. That being said, the wiki talk appears to me as the main bastion protecting openness in our projects. We may discuss a lot offwiki, but a summary of it is always presented onwiki and can be challenged by the onwiki community that do not have an offwiki presence, which is considerably large and an essential part of the process too. I understand that some people who have an habit of discussing and arranging everything offwiki are not prepared to face resistance from the onwiki communities when their new apparently wonderful and flawless idea is presented there, but that is truly and essentially part of the process, and if they are unable to live with that, they should consider refraining to take part on it, instead of trying to artificially bend a system which was designed to be onwiki and open to submit itself to offwiki and closed platforms. I am seeing this kind of discussions and proposals at the Community Health strategy work group, for instance. In the case at hand, I would like to understand specifically why the choice of mounting yet another platform, and a non wiki and closed one, instead of improving the existing one, wiki and open, at Outreach. As for the WMF, despite what Amir has said, which possibly refer to different visions, or even dissidents among WMF staff ranks, at the end of the day there still is only one WMF, the one directed by the ED and presided by the BoT, the same one which issues those software releases, and the same one which issues the secretive and out of process punishments which are causing so much controversy these days. Best, Paulo A quarta, 26 de jun de 2019, 08:27, Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk(a)gmail.com> escreveu:

The interface seems to be completely static. Then there seems to be some kind of possible interaction, which I was unable to see, as it requires registration and registration is not working for Firefox ATM. Maybe it is open in the sense that it shows to everyone what is there, but participation seems to be in a not wiki way and strictly controlled (by the WMF, apparently). Paulo A quarta, 26 de jun de 2019, 11:32, Lucas Werkmeister < mail(a)lucaswerkmeister.de&gt; escreveu: