Yes, I should have clearly marked my email as "wishlist". No expectation it
would get implemented any time soon...
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 4:57 PM, Dario Taraborelli <
dtaraborelli(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
Designing a usable and scalable inline annotation
system, compatible with
versioning and text anchors/fragments that change over time is a hugely
complex problem.
There is a non-profit organization out there called hypothes.is [1] that
is trying to design such a system using open source technology and open
standards [2]. They have been very interested in the Wikipedia use case
(and – Luis – collaborative annotation of bills too!). They are going to
showcase their first beta at an upcoming workshop in SF in April [3].
Personally, I'd rather see us partner with an open source partner who is
already tackling this complex problem and sharing our core principles
instead of embarking into a gigantic new project, after what we've learned
with AFT, so <what Fabrice and Oliver said> :)
Dario
[1]
http://hypothes.is/
[2]
http://www.openannotation.org/spec/core/
[3]
http://iannotate.org/
On Mar 21, 2013, at 3:22 PM, Fabrice Florin <fflorin(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hi all,
Thanks for your good insights about inline comments.
I totally agree that an annotation tool seems very attractive, and
envision it being a bit like what Google Docs offers, with comments in the
margin. We've been wanting to do something for a while now.
It's worth noting, however, that this type of annotation tool works great
for small workgroups, but doesn't scale well when you have hundreds or
thousands of commenters all posting on the same page, because there is no
room to display all these highlights or store all that info in the margins.
So there is a big design challenge for figuring out a viable solution to
these issues. For example, a secondary page or section may be necessary to
store all these thousands of comments, as we are doing now with Article
feedback v5. (Though each of these comments could include anchor
information, so you can relate them to the section they are about).
Either way, this is way outside the scope of AFT5, which will remain in
its current form for the foreseeable future, as we are moving on to other
editor engagement projects.
We plan to revisit some of these ideas again in Flow, when we expect to
take on article talk pages in early 2014. Even there, a secondary comments
page would seem needed, to avoid flooding the article talk pages with too
many unhelpful comments, as many AFT5 RfC participants pointed out.
And yes, we would love to see someone else develop a prototype based on
these ideas, which would be really interesting, particularly if they can
solve some of the difficult UI challenges ahead … More power to them.
In any case, thanks for the inspiration, and I look forward to revisiting
these good suggestions with you very soon -- once we have a resourced
project that can take them into consideration.
All the best,
Fabrice
On Mar 21, 2013, at 3:07 PM, Luis Villa wrote:
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Matthew Flaschen <mflaschen(a)wikimedia.org
wrote:
On 03/21/2013 05:53 PM, Luis Villa wrote:
Inline commenting is an extremely powerful tool
for sophisticated
editing. Lawyers are heavy users - we'd be happy to have our brains
picked if you'd like to discuss this idea more. :)
Indeed, as you may know, stet was used to develop GPLv3.
Yes, and we used co-ment (a successor tool) to develop MPLv2- see, for
example:
https://mpl.co-ment.com/text/NMccndsidpP/view/
I will sorely miss the functionality when we next roll out a major policy
document here. It isn't always appropriate, but for small refinements to
documents (which is a very common use case) it is a much better way to
discuss changes than talk pages. [Relatedly, I wouldn't think of it as a
"feedback tool", but rather as a discussion and editing tool.]
Luis
--
Luis Villa
Deputy General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
415.839.6885 ext. 6810
NOTICE: *This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you
have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the
mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical
reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community
members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity.*
_______________________________________________
EE mailing list
EE(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ee
_______________________________
Fabrice Florin
Product Manager, Editor Engagement
Wikimedia Foundation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fabrice_Florin_(WMF)
Donate to keep Wikipedia free:
https://donate.wikimedia.org/
_______________________________________________
EE mailing list
EE(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ee
_______________________________________________
EE mailing list
EE(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ee
--
Luis Villa
Deputy General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
415.839.6885 ext. 6810
NOTICE: *This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you
have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the
mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical
reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community
members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity.*