Seddon was mostly agreeing with the sentiments here, so I don’t think it’s at all
difficult to understand him. Granted, I’ve worked on CentralNotice and am familiar with
the WMF’s internal discourse about the tool, and I even have some experience picking
through Seddon’s coarse brogue ;-)
Specifically, Seddon summed it up with:
In terms of CentralNotice and its usage, there is a
quite rightly many a
question about whether this or any other usage of it is appropriate.
Questions about WMF and community CentralNotice usage have come up on this list regularly,
but never get anywhere, so yes we have discussed but the broader movement hasn’t
prioritized the question and there don’t seem to be guidelines beyond “Avoid constant
When I was on the WMF’s Fundraising Tech team, we suspected that the greatest obstacle to
collaborative management of these resources is simply:
At the moment we lack the data to inform those
There’s a long-standing task to make CentralNotice banner impression counts public ,
please comment and upvote there if you agree this might help us have measured debate about
campaigns in the future. Of course, even once we can discuss impression counts there’s
still a long road ahead: we’ll want to measure banner effectiveness in a uniform way, and
will of course churn the policies for acceptable use.
In the meantime, note that you can request impression counts for specific campaigns. I’m
sure my colleagues will love that I suggested this.
I think a good chuck could be solved by simply asking
readers and editors what they are interested in
@seddon: Sounds cool, can you speak more about that idea? How might that look for
anonymous readers? Is there already a Phabricator task?
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org