I do think that there are benefits in continuing to explore
WMF/movement-managed communication tools outside of the onwiki/IRC/mailing
list paradigm; we have long known that a lot of voices are excluded from
using these channels, and that is not helpful in growing a large,
international, multilingual movement. We've also used YouTube for quite a
long time, and it has not been particularly problematic, but it's not
really a discussion platform, more an information-sharing one. I noticed
that Wikimedia Space does have a higher than average concentration of posts
from outside the "English speaking" world that simply doesn't happen on
Meta.
On the other hand, I also agree that moving "official" communications to
platforms outside of the control of the WMF/movement, like Facebook and
Twitter, are (for many of us in the movement) very problematic from a
privacy perspective, as well as unsatisfactory from an accessibility
perspective.
"Onwiki" is a nice concept. The challenge here is that there are 700+
"onwiki" platforms, and only one hypothetically dedicated to inter-project
discussions, that being Meta. I would venture to guess that probably
85-90% of Wikimedians either don't know Meta exists as a discussion
platform, or have tried to participate in a discussion there only to find
that it will often move very fast, is dominated by the English language
almost to the point of exclusion, and that their voice is drowned out
quickly or they are challenged in a way that makes them feel uncomfortable.
It's not helpful to take the "stay out of the kitchen if you can't stand
the heat" attitude, as it's neither welcoming nor accepting of other
ideas. Meta is also very, very difficult to navigate; even I have
considerable difficulty finding material that I know for a fact exists on
that platform. And we all know that Meta is not at all good at sharing
information and news about what's happening in other projects, or for
multiple projects (e.g., several projects in the same language, several
Wikisources, etc) to work together.
Wikimedia Space didn't feel like the right fit for us, either. In
particular, I found it hard to figure out how to do things (like making
hyperlinks) that I've been doing comfortably on other existing platforms
for years. But I think it is a worthwhile idea to keep looking for a
platform that isn't commercially/externally controlled (thus "selling" the
private information of our users) that works for more people. I think we
also need to figure out how to support multi-project discussions better
without pushing them all out to what is intended to be a global,
movement-wide platform (i.e., Meta). Experiments are always worthwhile, as
they're opportunities to learn. I will trust that Quim and the rest of the
Wikimedia Space team will be summarizing the positives and negatives about
this particular experiment.
Risker/Anne
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 at 17:49, Rebecca O'Neill <rebeccanineil(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
I've been involved in the movement for ~7 years,
took one look at IRC and
walked very quickly the other way, having used it 15+ years ago. I'm all
for retro, but that was taking it too far.
Relying on a tool that has been been haemorrhaging users for years, and
golden years are seen as around 20 years ago, seems less than ideal.
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 at 22:37, Todd Allen <toddmallen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Then, they're welcome to pop on in any time.
If they choose not to, well,
no one can make them. Anyone is able to use those tools.
Todd
On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 3:32 PM Guillaume Paumier <
gpaumier(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
Hi,
Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 10:31, Todd Allen <toddmallen(a)gmail.com> a
écrit :
>
> > I don't think anyone had bad intentions. It was just redundant.
> >
> > Real time communication is on IRC. Asynchronous communication is
either
on
> the wiki, preferably, or on the mailing list.
>
> Quit trying to make us TwitFaceTube. The tools we already have work
just
> > fine.
>
>
> That perspective suffers from a lack of empathy. "The tools we already
> have" may work for the limited sample of the population who are
currently
> using them. Assuming that that sample is
representative is flawed and
is
a
classic example of survivorship bias. If we have
learned anything from
the
Space experiment and from years of strategy
discussions, it is that the
tools we currently have do not, in fact, work just fine for a large
number
of people, whose voices are missing from our
discussions and content.
--
Guillaume Paumier
(he/him)
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
--
PhD in Digital Media
Project Coordinator Wikimedia Community Ireland <http://wikimedia.ie>
She/Her
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>