James
This seems inside-out. Rather than WMF staff trying to guess which of the tens of thousands of existing discussions might be of relevance, why not simply tell the community the locations of the pages or other channels which you propose to use to engage them.
Thrapostibongles
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 9:31 PM James Hare jhare@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 6:26 AM Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com wrote:
This is of course fine, and everybody is free to participate or not to
participate on this mailing list, but, generally speaking, does WMF have any channels to listen to the volunteers working on the project?
I am a product manager at the Wikimedia Foundation. What this means, in the broadest of terms, is that I need to know what people want/need in order to do my job “correctly,” for some definition of “correct.” Of course, what constitutes a “correct” decision on my part is something not everyone will agree on and that’s fine. But I need to gather information as part of this work.
The problem is that there is no “one” place to go. To give you an idea of the magnitude of the problem, there are over 900 wikis. Hundreds of those wikis comprise Wikipedia, a project with a cumulative total of 50,000,000 articles. Each one of those articles either has a talk page or could theoretically get one as soon as someone makes the first post. So, just starting with Wikipedia articles, we have over 50,000,000 potential or existing discussion venues, with very little coordination or cross-organization between these venues, and this doesn’t even include individual user talk pages or really, really specific talk pages like “Wikipedia talk:Administrators’ noticeboard/Incidents” which is... very precisely, a venue to discuss the administration of that specific noticeboard (but not to, itself, host noticeboard-like posts).[0]
It is very convenient and easy to create a talk page because talk pages are a very central paradigm to the MediaWiki software (going back to 2002? 2003?) and so they are built into the overall website experience in a way that things that were tacked on way later, simply are not. But it is a poor interface that doesn’t scale across more than several people or a few concurrent conversations. But if Wikipedia’s fundamental sidebar chat system fails to support more than occasional chatter, how exactly is any of this supposed to work?
There are two ways to go from here: (a) fix the original problem or (b) develop workarounds. If you were around back in 2013 or so you may recall a project called “Flow” that is now called “Structured Discussions.” I can’t speak officially to any of it because it was before my time and many of the staff involved no longer work here. And I am actually very hesitant to bring it up at all, much less by name, because of the taboo that developed around it. A retrospective on this project is out-of-scope for this post, but if you need a short and convenient answer: it didn’t work, and it generally made it impossible for the Wikimedia Foundation to even broach the subject for the following several years. (There is starting to be work on this again, and this time, it seems to be going at a more deliberate pace, but I will defer to the staff working on this.)
Let’s talk about workarounds. We have workarounds that make the talk pages themselves more useful (talk page archiving comes to mind[1]), and we also have workarounds that consist of outsourcing the issue entirely, whether it be solutions we host ourselves (mailing lists, Discourse) or proprietary platforms that happen to be convenient for large segments of our communities. There are different advantages and disadvantages to each solution, which has only resulted in the proliferation of solutions.
Let’s back up. On the wikis themselves there are millions of discussion venues; there are different software interventions that work or don’t work, depending on the situation; and we are now in a position where we have so many places to hold conversations it becomes an extraordinary use of time (and several people’s full time jobs) to try to understand the extraordinarily complex social interactions that take place in the hundreds of languages we speak.
Having introduced all that context, the short answer to your question is there are some channels we are better at paying attention to than others, but we don’t know what we don’t know. And this is frustrating for everyone involved. It makes projects take longer, it makes it harder to onboard staff, and I can imagine it’s *even more* frustrating for the many users of our many wikis who have to deal with the software being broken and not really knowing what to do. I think we manage, but I think we deserve better than just “managing” it.
My best regards, James Hare
[0] This brings up another topic that not all discussions that take place on Wikipedia happen on discussion pages. Also, there are over 50,000,000 Wikidata items, and almost none of them have talk pages, but theoretically *all of them* can.
[1] I remember when Werdna wrote the first talk page archiving bot in 2006. I thought it was cool that someone did that, but looking back on it, I wonder why I was happy with that as a solution – it seems really convoluted in retrospect.
positive tone needs to be made and a much more conciliatory stance
taken.
Otherwise we all might as well pack our bags.
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 2:17 AM Asaf Bartov asaf.bartov@gmail.com
wrote:
Speaking as a (very) longtime member of this mailing list, and one
who
is
carefully observing it for a few years now as a volunteer list co-administrator:
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 3:56 AM Joseph Seddon <jseddon@wikimedia.org
wrote:
I, like many others, wish to see this list become a crucible of
good
suggestions, healthy and critical debate about ideas and as a sound mechanism for oversight and account . A huge amount of staff time
and
movement resources is taken up by the consumption of its content.
And
yet
it remains the greatest shame that much of the best most worthwhile constructive discussions have moved to platforms like Facebook
because
this
list is viewed as hosting such an unhealthy atmosphere when emails
are
written with such overt passive aggression.
I call it out because if we want people to participate on this
list,
the
unhealthy way in which this list gets treated by some of its most
active
participants needs to be dealt with. Otherwise valid points will
not
get
acknowledged or answered.
I am not sure the causality here runs in the direction you describe.
It's
true that this list had some aggressive, even vulgar participants in
the
past, and that some senior staff members, as well as board members,
have
left the list in protest. Personally, I think that was a mistake on
their
part: to improve the list atmosphere, you model good behavior
yourself,
and
you call upon the rest of the list -- the "silent majority" -- to
call
out
bad behavior and enforce some participation standards (as, indeed, I
and
my
co-moderators have been doing since we took over).
By senior people's departing this list, and no longer requiring staff
to
be
on this list, a strong signal was sent that this is not a venue
crucial
to
listen to, and that, coupled with the decreasing frequency of WMF
responses
to legitimate volunteer inquiries and suggestions, had a *powerful* chilling effect on the willingness of most volunteers to engage here. Especially when, as you say, they were able to get better engagement
on
Facebook and other channels, despite the serious shortcomings of accountability on those channels (immutable archiving, searchability, access to anonymous volunteers, etc.)
Yes, this list has also seen some pseudonymous critics whose
questions
may
have been inconvenient or troublesome to address. Yet I think the accountable thing to do would have been to respond, however briefly,
to
prevent the sealioning and sanctimonious posts that filled the list
--
and,
I am sure, greatly annoyed and demotivated many subscribers. Even a response stating WMF chooses not to respond to a certain question, or
not
to dig up certain data, would have been better than the stony silence
that
has become the all-too-common stance for WMF on this list.
As you know, I also work for WMF (though I am writing this in my
volunteer
capacity, and out of my care for the well-being of this list).
While I
have never shied away from responding on this list, I have on
occasion
been
scolded (internally) for attempting to answer volunteer queries to
the
best
of my knowledge, for "outstepping my remit" or interfering in someone else's remit. I have taken this to heart, and accordingly no longer
try
to
respond to queries such as Fae's (which in this case I find a
perfectly
reasonable question, meriting an answer). Several past attempts by
me
to
ping appropriate senior staff on questions on this list (or on talk
pages)
have also met with rebuke, so I have ceased those as well.
For these reasons I do not accept this wholesale blaming of this
list's
subscribers on the difficulty having meaningful conversations here:
But if we want to see staff members more actively
participating here then those long standing individuals need to
really
thing about the tone in which they engage here, particularly those
who
do
so most often. If that does not change, this list will continue to
languish
and those few staff members who continue to engage here will slowly disappear. This now increasingly perennial topic keeps coming up
and
my
fear is that it will on go away through the increasing abandonment
this
list faces.
It is WMF that is not behaving collaboratively here. And it is
within
WMF's power to change it. C-levels, the ED, and other managers at
WMF
could all decide to participate more actively in this list; to
respond
to
questions or delegate the answering to their subordinates, who are
awaiting
their cue; and indeed, they could themselves make more use of this
list
as
a sounding board, a consultation room, and a reserve of experience
and
diverse context. They can be the change they (and you, and me) would
like
to see.
Perhaps this e-mail could convince some of them. And if not my
words,
then
perhaps those of some of the other list subscribers.
A.
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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
--
*James Hare* (he/him) Associate Product Manager Wikimedia Foundation https://wikimediafoundation.org/ _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe