While looking through https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guidin..., it occurred to me that inline comments would be powerful addition to AFT. Basically something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stet_%28software%29 integrated into MediaWiki.
I think it would help people make useful comments that could more quickly be acted on/resolved.
Matt Flaschen
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. :)
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Matthew Flaschen mflaschen@wikimedia.orgwrote:
While looking through
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guidin... , it occurred to me that inline comments would be powerful addition to AFT. Basically something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stet_%28software%29 integrated into MediaWiki.
I think it would help people make useful comments that could more quickly be acted on/resolved.
Matt Flaschen
EE mailing list EE@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ee
I think it's fairly clear at this stage that we're not going to be adding new features to AFT in the near future, particularly something as heavy-duty as this, I'm afraid. Work is switching to Echo and Flow.
On 21 March 2013 21:53, Luis Villa lvilla@wikimedia.org 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. :)
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Matthew Flaschen <mflaschen@wikimedia.org
wrote:
While looking through
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guidin... , it occurred to me that inline comments would be powerful addition to AFT. Basically something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stet_%28software%29 integrated into MediaWiki.
I think it would help people make useful comments that could more quickly be acted on/resolved.
Matt Flaschen
EE mailing list EE@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.*
EE mailing list EE@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ee
On 03/21/2013 05:55 PM, Oliver Keyes wrote:
I think it's fairly clear at this stage that we're not going to be adding new features to AFT in the near future, particularly something as heavy-duty as this, I'm afraid. Work is switching to Echo and Flow.
Well, it's quite clear something like this takes time to implement. However, given that AFT is still being deployed to new wikis, with at least some small enhancements, it's worth considering for down the road. I think this is a significant enough feature that it could also be spun off into a new extension if that made sense.
I've filed an enhancement just to be sure this doesn't get lost in the mailing list. https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46440
Matt Flaschen
On 21 March 2013 22:02, Matthew Flaschen mflaschen@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 03/21/2013 05:55 PM, Oliver Keyes wrote:
I think it's fairly clear at this stage that we're not going to be adding new features to AFT in the near future, particularly something as heavy-duty as this, I'm afraid. Work is switching to Echo and Flow.
Well, it's quite clear something like this takes time to implement. However, given that AFT is still being deployed to new wikis, with at least some small enhancements, it's worth considering for down the road. I think this is a significant enough feature that it could also be spun off into a new extension if that made sense.
A new extension works for me. Wanna write it? :P. Yes, we're doing (small) enhancements, and yes, we're still deploying to new wikis - all two of them. After that, nobody knows what's happening, but our draft planning documents for 2013-14 indicate that further support beyond bugfixes and maybe a turnkey solution for what we've already got is...highly improbable.
I've filed an enhancement just to be sure this doesn't get lost in the mailing list. https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46440
Matt Flaschen
EE mailing list EE@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ee
This may seem completely random, but in that case would a separate extension to support this specifically perhaps work as a GSoC project?
On 21/03/13 21:55, Oliver Keyes wrote:
I think it's fairly clear at this stage that we're not going to be adding new features to AFT in the near future, particularly something as heavy-duty as this, I'm afraid. Work is switching to Echo and Flow.
On 21 March 2013 21:53, Luis Villa <lvilla@wikimedia.org mailto:lvilla@wikimedia.org> 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. :) On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Matthew Flaschen <mflaschen@wikimedia.org <mailto:mflaschen@wikimedia.org>> wrote: While looking through https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles, it occurred to me that inline comments would be powerful addition to AFT. Basically something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stet_%28software%29 integrated into MediaWiki. I think it would help people make useful comments that could more quickly be acted on/resolved. Matt Flaschen _______________________________________________ EE mailing list EE@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:EE@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ee -- Luis Villa Deputy General Counsel Wikimedia Foundation 415.839.6885 ext. 6810 <tel:415.839.6885%20ext.%206810> 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@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:EE@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ee-- Oliver Keyes Community Liaison, Product Development Wikimedia Foundation
EE mailing list EE@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ee
On 03/21/2013 06:03 PM, Isarra Yos wrote:
This may seem completely random, but in that case would a separate extension to support this specifically perhaps work as a GSoC project?
I think an initial version could, with separate comments per revision. They might not have time to do things like maintain comments across revisions. E.g. if I comment on the second sentence, then they fix a typo in the first sentence, ideally my comment will be preserved. However, that's harder to implement.
Matt Flaschen
On 21/03/13 22:06, Matthew Flaschen wrote:
On 03/21/2013 06:03 PM, Isarra Yos wrote:
This may seem completely random, but in that case would a separate extension to support this specifically perhaps work as a GSoC project?
I think an initial version could, with separate comments per revision. They might not have time to do things like maintain comments across revisions. E.g. if I comment on the second sentence, then they fix a typo in the first sentence, ideally my comment will be preserved. However, that's harder to implement.
Matt Flaschen
EE mailing list EE@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ee
Aye, but on the other hand without a more effective diff mechanism (and would it even be possible to get one that fully works without a strong AI?) could anything intended to work across revisions really work in practice?
Either way having the comments revision specific would still be useful - just have it mark the revisions with comments in the history and such, and people leave a note on the talkpage or wherever with a revision-specific link to see the comments. Could then work it into AFT as well as use it by itself for GA/FA review and equivalents.
Isn't AFTv5 revision-specific to an extent anyway?
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Luis Villa lvilla@wikimedia.org 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. :)
Yes annotation/inline commenting would speed up the process of article reviews like FA, GA, etc. a lot, methinks.
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.
Matt Flaschen
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Matthew Flaschen mflaschen@wikimedia.orgwrote:
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
On 03/21/2013 06:07 PM, Luis Villa wrote:
Relatedly, I wouldn't think of it as a "feedback tool", but rather as a discussion and editing tool.]
Which I would argue is what AFT should ideally be, since a wiki isn't a private entity you leave feedback on (like a newspaper's website). It's something you help work on, even when you don't have time to make an edit.
Matt Flaschen
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@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@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/
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@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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ee
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@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@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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ee
EE mailing list EE@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ee