Hi Yaroslav,
Meta already exists, it is included in Single User login and cross wiki
notifications. It uses the same software as the talkpages on our various
projects on Wikipedia, Commons, WikiVoyage etc. The cross wiki
notifications in particular mean that everyone active in Wikipedia, Commons
or any other wiki in the movement could be pinged about a discussion there.
It is available for use by anyone who wants a dialogue with the volunteer
community, or who wants cross wiki discussion. So I was going to describe
it as dormant rather than dead. Then I looked at recent changes, and the
last 50 edits went back less than an hour, that's very quiet compared to
The English Language version of Wikipedia, but way less dead than quite a
few of the movement's thousand wikis.
WSC
On Mon, 13 Jun 2022 at 11:05, <wikimedia-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
wrote:
Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe, please visit
https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikimedia-l.lists.wikimedia.org/
You can reach the person managing the list at
wikimedia-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Join the new Movement Strategy Forum community review
(F. Xavier Dengra i Grau)
2. Re: Join the new Movement Strategy Forum community review
(Yaroslav Blanter)
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2022 12:04:42 +0200
From: Yaroslav Blanter <ymbalt(a)gmail.com>
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Join the new Movement Strategy Forum
community review
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Message-ID:
<CAM-kgDNj-XWCLgKmhWjphKGnYEkEZY7zEVdjumK=
FA2QO5gK6Q(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="0000000000005fa9f405e1516b9a"
Dear All,
I thought I would just let it go, but I do not think the discussion
currently runs in a good direction.
I do not think it is useful to advocate that Meta is a good discussion
platform. It is not. It is dead. At best, there are some announcements
posted there, and there is a small group of people who monitor and comment
on them. If there is something really outrageous going on, such as the
recent rebranding attempt, users can be mobilized from the projects to
leave their opinion. This is done by the project users who care, it is done
inside the projects or using some extra-Wikimedia means, and it can only
happen occasionally. If this does not happen, Meta discussions attract at
best a dozen commenters, some of whom are just negative towards everything.
We tried to do something about this for at least 15 years (I myself was
around and have been an active Meta user since 2007-2008). Things are not
getting better, they are getting worse.
It might be a matter of funding, may be a radically new interface could be
build on Meta to replace the existing one. But I am afraid this is more a
matter of attitude. Discussions were happening on IRC, then most of them
migrated to Facebook , then to Discord or Telegram, but nobody ever
considered discussing things on Meta.
Obviously there are a lot of boundary conditions, I fully buy the argument
that discussion should happen in the space owned by the WMF (though a lot
of discussions are happening right now on spaces not owned by the WMF, and
partially just because they are not owned by the WMF), licensed
appropriately etc. But saying we should go to Meta to discuss there and
shooting off all attempts of doing something else is a dead end.
(I must say I did not even log in to the Movement Stategy Forum and I am
not registered there, I am not prepared to endorse or criticize it, and I
do not have any specific suggestions for improvement. I did participate in
Space when it was up, and I recognize all the problems which were there,
though).
Best
Yaroslav
On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 11:09 AM F. Xavier Dengra i Grau via Wikimedia-l <
wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
Bon dia a tothom/Hi everyone,
It's really difficult not to agree with Galder here. Happy to still read
these persistent colleagues with key arguments.
The same people that committed the big mistakes and failure with
Wikimedia
Space (that should have never existed and that
even combined discussions
with Facebook groups as a "revolution" of communication) is now trying to
tell us that they "learnt from those mistakes" and that they have full
commitment in finishing this new forum. I still look back at this graph
of 2019
<
https://diff.wikimedia.org/2019/06/25/introducing-wikimedia-space-a-platfor…
and wonder how things can rapidly age that badly and with worse
leadership.
Imho this is quite informative of the lack of sustained chain of command
(not community-need driven anymore). And the worst part of it, this is
coming from the same people that is parallelly trying to blame those
volunteers who strongly disagree with very legit discourses on the
constant
externalization of features and the lack of
renewed wiki tech. I've read
so
far too many fallacies ("this platform must
be good because we are 67
staff
people behind", etc) instead of a critical
recognition that our default,
wiki one is obsolete and must be urgently supported with staff and
resources.
There is no way to justify new forums in other interfaces rather than the
aim or the apathy of the WMF to disengage actively involved wikipedians
in
favor of more empty infrastructures (that
benefits the institution rather
the direct interaction within the knowledge projects). Truly sad,
especially when some of us feel obliged to explain this to kind donors
that
truly believe that their 5$ are going to fund
Wikipedia's servers and
functionalities as they are mostly told in the funding banners.
Xavier Dengra
------- Original Message -------
El dilluns, 13 de juny 2022 a les 10:19 AM, Matej Grochal <
matej.grochal(a)wikimedia.sk> va escriure:
Dear all
I quite agree with Galder here. We should focus on making our own spaces
more inclusive and easier to use rather than jumping to various external
providers for this and that. Let's not forget that existing volunteers
and
staff also have to learn to use the new platform.
The other issue is the
continued splitting of content and esp. volunteers have to find extra
time
to check those other platforms to stay in touch
with the movement.
Be well and healthy
Matej
On Sunday, June 12, 2022, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
galder158(a)hotmail.com>
wrote:
> Ceill,
> I am a big fan of having 'one front door' for people that are trying to
> find answers to questions. Having the front door in another building,
with
> another technology, and once they are in we
say them that our building
is
> the other one, the one that is falling down
(but don't visit the
basement,
> please, is full of money) is the worst of the
strategies.
>
> Best,
> Galder
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Ciell Wikipedia <ciell.wikipedia(a)gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, June 12, 2022 6:03 PM
> *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: Join the new Movement Strategy Forum
> community review
> Hi,
>
> First: I am a big fan of having 'one front door' for people that are
> trying to find answers to questions they do not know where to ask (last
> year's movement communications insights on this
> <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_communications_insights/Report/Fro…
).
> I think a forum, actively moderated by people helping and pointing
users to
> the right places, would be a huge improvement
for community questions
and
> input. Especially the one-click translation
service is imho a big plus
in
> service in comparison to Meta.
>
> It does however worry me that when I joined the forum last weekend to
> take a peek, I stumbled on a thread with a very specific question about
> Commons and giving permission via VRT. The thread had multiple replies,
but
> no one had a real substantial answer. Well,
replies were along the
lines of
> 'No, there is no template for this'
and 'This should be discussed on
> Commons'. While the answers were somewhat correct, they were obviously
not
> helpful for the person asking this specific
question and, as far as I
could
> tell, none of the respondents were a member
of our VRT teams. So this
user
> was effectively not helped by posting the
question on the forum.
> Even more so, because the question on the forum was not noticed by VRT
> agents (most of us working on the permissions queues and Commons will
have
> the /Noticeboard on Commons on our watch list
and can be pinged if
country
> or language specific knowledge or advise is
needed for a question), and
> secondly it will be more difficult for the people working from our end
that
> will have to follow up if the person does
decide to bring the question
to
> Commons or VRT after all.
>
> Besides that, with my MCDC hat on, I hope after this trial period we'll
> get to see the data on how many people interacted about the Movement
> Strategy that we have not heard from in the previous 5 years through
any of
> the other platforms that are in use to gather
feedback. Already trying
to
> watch several channels with Strategy
discussions, I count on the MSG
team
> to bring back these numbers and a summary of
what is being discussed on
the
forum
back to Meta. Even in a virtual world there is a limit on how many
channels a Wikimedian can watch.
*NB: I see Sj's response crossed mine while I was writing, but let my
example underline the issue of 'no unified notifications' and a possible
problem with 'coherent archiving'. *
*Please also be aware G-translate does not know all languages we have
projects in, some of which are however supported by Yandex that is an
option to choose for the Wikipedia article translation tool already. *
Best,
Ciell
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org…
To unsubscribe send an email to
wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org