On 09/06/2014 17:06 PM, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
>On 09/06/2014 12:34 PM, Isarra Yos wrote:
>> if the designers do not even understand the basic principles behind a
>> wiki, how can what is developed possibly suit our needs?
>
>You're starting from the presumption that, for some unexplained reason,
>collaborative discussion benefits from being a wiki (as opposed to, you
>know, the actual content).
Wikipedia has been built using that platform. I'd say that's a very good
reason to trust that the model is at least capable. :-)
>Very many people, myself included, believe that a wiki page is an
>*atrocious* medium for discussion.
Sure, and I agree there are many way to improve how users are
engaged into discussion and to keep it manageable. But what is
missing from this conversation is the point that Wikipedia talk
space is not *merely* a medium for discussion: there are other vital
roles that may be hindered by a radical focus on conversation:
tl;dr version: there are times and places that Wikipedia discussion
system needs to be a Microsoft OneNote, and Flow is building us
a Twitter (minus the 140 characters limit).
- The talk space has a strong expectation that it serves as an
archive of all decisions taken in building the articles, i.e. to
show how the sausages are made. The disembodied nature
of Flow topics, which may be shown out of order and distributed
to many boards, makes it hard to recover a sequential view of the
conversations in order as they happened.
- Same thing for keeping user's behavior in check - policy
enforcement often requires that the reviewers can see exactly
what the users saw when they performed some particular
disruptive action, to assess whether it was made in good faith
from incomplete information or a misunderstanding.
- Comment-based discussion is not the only way editors collaborate;
nor discussions are limited to users expressing their particular views
at ordered, pre-defined processes. Some fellow users have already
pointed out how the wiki page works as a shared whiteboard where
semi-structured or free-form content can be worked upon by several
editors, and improved iteratively in an opportunistic way.
Sometimes, that re-shaping of text is made onto the
form of the conversation itself, by re-factoring, splitting, merging
and re-classifying comments from many editors. This would be
hard or impossible to do if the layout of the discussion is fixed
in hardware and comments belong to the poster.
- Wikiprojects develop over time new procedures that better suit
the workflow of their members to achieve their goals. Their
project pages are free-form collages of all the relevant information
they require to do their work, plus discussion processes that may
involve just its members or any other external participant. As
projects cover all the aspects of human knowledge, it would be
difficult to provide a one-size-fits-all interface that may cover all
their needs - the flexibility to compose new layouts and
compilations of content is core to achieve their goals.
- There's a sense now that the community owns the content of all
pages including talk, and can manage it to their liking. That will
disappear if the base model is changed to one based on user-owned
comments. There has not been enough discussion of how that will
affect all the existing projects and guidelines, or whether such change
is acceptable and beneficial to the goal of writing the encyclopedia.
A wiki-like system is very good at achieving those. Some of these
needs have surfaced at previous discussion at Talk:Flow, and some have
been already addressed or influenced the design, but some others are
squarely opposed to the nature of a threaded discussion where the
structure is enforced by the platform. It would be sensible that the
process to gather feedback from the community includes solid answers
to these facets of the tool.
On 7 September 2014 13:33, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> Get real and look what Flow is and how it can be improved. Check out the
> use cases it works for and acknowledge the achievements. THEN and only THEN
> consider the features that are being tested and are still deficient. THEN
> and only THEN point out how we can move forward and make it work better.
> THEN and only THEN can you lament what we may lose what you liked in Talk
> pages.
>
What makes you think that I have not made all that already? I've been
participating and giving feedback from the very day Flow was announced to
en.wiki, I've filed bugs (the last one today, sending some screenshots to
Erik and he said they're helping him to narrow down the problem with Echo),
I've tested all the releases the day they appeared, I've built mock-ups,
I've suggested and fought for improvements like the table of contents, I
have acknowledged and welcomed the improvements to the usability that Flow
will suppose for newcomers, which is a subject that I care deeply for.
But I've also analyzed the overall direction and found that its basic
approach is limited in scope, treating talk pages as a mere conversation
channel when it fulfills many other roles, and dismissing some fundamental
goals of the talk space that are essential to the mission to build an
encyclopedia, like their role in documenting how articles have been written
and making editors accountable to the world; I've found ways at which the
current design may hurt those goals, but so far has been impossible to get
you to listen.
I *am* trying to point out how we can move forward and make it work better.
I'm trying to reach you because I want Flow to succeed, by pointing out
what I believe by heart to be its deepest flaws so that they can be
corrected, and you think I'm attacking the project.
> However, please consider our need. We are moving more and more towards
> mobile readers and editors and talk pages just do not cut it. We need
> something better for these use cases and, we need them urgently.
>
I have considered those needs, and I've never denied that those are
important goals to fulfill, why would you think I thought otherwise, when
I've never sated such thing? Gerard, do you hate me so much that you put in
my mouth words that I haven't said and assume that I hold positions that
are opposite to what I believe? :'-/
On the other hand, I have requested you to consider our needs, and you have
dismissed them with prejudice. How do you think that treatment will make us
editors feel, and how it will affect the attitude of the community towards
the project?
Please assume good faith and try to listen to what people who care deeply
about the project have to say. I believe that the end result of building an
understanding, from the very different starting points that are held by the
debaters, will benefit the project deeply and will allow for a much more
robust tool that any other way to proceed.
Gerard, with all due respect, your reply is all based on incorrect
assumptions. I recognize the severe problems that mediawiki conversations
currently have, and my points about Flow acknowledge that it's incomplete
software at its early stages and that it can grow into an acceptable tool
for having discussions, but all that is irrelevant to the conversation
that's going on at this thread.
Both Erik and I are talking about what we expect a finished, full featured
software would look like in the end, and we have both dismissed the current
status of either tool. The idea that I want the new system to be based on
current existing software is a strawman; that's not what I defend. I want a
good, modern document-centric software even if it requires building
something like mediawiki from scratch. This is a high level view of what
either model can grow into if enough resources are poured into it.
Erik has this vision that building a stable and easy-to-use system requires
abandoning the open-ended nature of wiki systems, with which I disagree,
and has committed us to a project with that result in the end, to build a
very good architecture that will solve the wrong problem. From the
conversation so far, I believe such view to be based on an incomplete
understanding of the community needs, and I'm trying to steer the
conversation to take into account perspectives from the wider community
rather than the gut feelings of just one man, no matter how much experience
he has with the project.
Erik Möller wrote:
>> It's [Flow is] a system in early development, and has never been
advertised as anything else.
======
*This statement is simply not true.*
See the WMF's 2014-15 annual plan:
https://archive.org/details/WikimediaFoundation2014-15AnnualPlan
Page 20 (DIRECT QUOTE FOLLOWS):
*FLOW*
* Current state (June 2014): Flow is an experimental but already feature
rich alternative to talk pages which can be enabled by WMF on a per-page
basis and is currently used in production on a small number of 'real world'
pages, including a couple of WikiProjects and feedback pages for new
features.
*Key Milestones*
* We will aim to cover one major set of new deployments per quarter,
carefully picking use cases. Example use cases may include: additional
WikiProjects, shared conversation spaces like Teahouse and Village Pump,
entire wikis willing to switch to Flow, etc. Success will be reflected in
adoption/participation metrics, targeting improved participation dynamics
relative to talk pages.
* By the end of the fiscal year [i.e. June 30, 2015 --t.d.], we expect to
cover one major use case thoroughly (e.g. all user talk pages, all Village
Pump type pages, etc.)
* By the end of the fiscal year [i.e. June 30, 2015. --t.d.], the team will
be a multi-device team, ready to maintain and develop the user experience
for phones, tablets, and desktops.
(END QUOTE)
It is shocking to see an assertion from WMF's VP of Engineering and Product
Development that Flow has been consistently portrayed by WMF as nothing
more than "a system in early development." In actual fact, it has been
portrayed as more or less finished software heading for a rollout in the
near future, as the above clearly illustrates.
Tim Davenport
"Carrite" on En-WP /// "Randy from Boise" on WPO
Corvallis, OR (USA)
Today the Society of Professional Journalists updated its Code of
Ethics in two ways pertinent to wikimedians and Wikimedia projects:
1. The term "journalist" has been replaced with references to
"journalism" in areas that were seen to perpetuate the idea that the
practice of journalism requires official credentials distinguishing
professionals from citizen journalists.
2. The Code now states that all advocacy journalism and commentary
should be labeled as such.
http://www.spj.org/news.asp?ref=1282http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp
Dear all,
It is an honour for me to announce that during Wikimania, the WMF
resolved [1] to recognise Wikimedia Belgium as a Wikimedia chapter. The
resolution was made public a few days ago.
The first discussions towards the establishment of a Belgian chapter
started many years ago, with the local community doing projects related
to freedom of knowledge since then, like organisation of WLM Belgium &
Luxembourg in 2011, 2012 and 2013. Along with these and other
activities, the idea of a chapter grew and evolved to the moment when,
the decision was taken to start officially the chapter creation process.
This process took longer than usual, due to many reasons, among those
the change in the chapter approval process by the WMF Board last year.
Nevertheless, after months of intensive discussion and interaction
between all parties involved, a recommendation from the AffCom was sent
to the WMF regarding Wikimedia Belgium. And here we are :-)
Please welcome the newest member of the family of Wikimedia affiliates!
Regards,
Carlos
1:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Recognition_of_Wikimedia_Be…
--
"*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua
junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain."
Carlos M. Colina
Vicepresidente, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 |
www.wikimedia.org.ve <http://wikimedia.org.ve>
Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee
Phone: +972-52-4869915
Twitter: @maor_x
Since we already know two of the changes that will come from Flow, the end of signature personalisation and only three levels of talk indentation; Surely it makes sense for the WMF to put those to the community now and see if it can win consensus for those two changes?
On a less contentious note, has anyone costed how much cheaper than FLOW it would be to introduce auto sign on talk pages, with all new accounts opted in from the implementation date onwards and all new accounts opted out? We would need a button on the edit screen marked "sign my comment" so that people could uncheck an edit where they were adding a wiki project tag or fixing a typo in their post. But it would make things a lot easier for newbies. The indentation is relatively easy to pick up, but currently every welcome message has to introduce the concept of four tildas. It would be much easier and the site much more welcoming if that no longer had to be explained to newbies.
Regards
WereSpielChequers/Jonathan Cardy
Quim Gil <qgil(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Potential requirements to join the Flow self-service:
>
> * At least one tech ambassador volunteering to act as contact between the
> project and the Flow team, summarizing community feedback in the channels
> agreed (mw:Talk:Flow, etc).
> * Community agreement after a public discussion in the project.
> * Selection of a first page to try Flow.
>
> When the requirements are met, Flow is enabled in that project and
> activated in that page.
>
Thank you Quim!
Yes, I would like to have Flow enabled on a test page on Dutch Wikipedia.
To acquire community agreement I have started a topic in the village pump
of the Dutch Wikipedia [1]. Essentially I asked if there exist objections
against enabling Flow on a test page, and, if yes, what those objections
are.
Best regards,
Dedalus
[1]
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:De_kroeg#Aanvraag_testpagina_voor_F…
[2]
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/WMF_StrategicPlan2011_s…
Wil Sinclair wrote:
>>I think there is a lot of value and promise in Flow. But it is a huge paradigm
shift for onwiki communication, and it must not surprise users under any
circumstances. Maybe someone has the right figure handy, but I wouldn't be
surprised if, after archives are added up, there is more discussion across
all wikis than content. If so, one might argue that this is a bigger change
than VE and it certainly dwarfs the impact that most editors experience
from the MV rollout.
======
It is an interesting question as to whether there is more "talk" than total
content at WP. lt's an empirical question, maybe someone has the answer.
Regardless, Flow is bigger than VE in impact for the active volunteer
community because there will be no opt-outing out of it. If and when it is
installed, it will be the one and only available option for everyone. If
that software is broken in any significant way, I find it hard to put into
words how "messy" an issue it will be for WMF. Think the VE debacle plus
the MV dustup to the second power — with no easy solution, since all
existing talk pages will be archived and going back nearly impossible
without fully reverting every page which it touched.
Flow must, must, must be proven to be not only 100% fully functional
software but to represent an improvement over the status quo in actual
practice on some wiki other than En-WP or De-WP before even a limited roll
out is made in En-WP or De-WP.
This software is a mere blip on the horizon for most En-WP volunteers at
the moment. It will become the biggest of issues. If the software doesn't
work perfectly, if the introduction is not done incrementally and with full
community consent, things are going to go nuclear. That's not a threat or
an idle prediction, that's a statement of a mathematically certain fact.
Tim Davenport
Carrite on WP /// Randy from Boise on WPO
Corvallis, OR (USA)