The interface seems to be completely static. Then there seems to be some
kind of possible interaction, which I was unable to see, as it requires
registration and registration is not working for Firefox ATM.
Maybe it is open in the sense that it shows to everyone what is there, but
participation seems to be in a not wiki way and strictly controlled (by the
WMF, apparently).
Paulo
A quarta, 26 de jun de 2019, 11:32, Lucas Werkmeister <
mail(a)lucaswerkmeister.de> escreveu:
Why do you consider Wikimedia Space a closed
platform?
Cheers,
Lucas
On 26.06.19 11:27, Paulo Santos Perneta wrote:
I also generally discuss what I can offwiki
(using a number of channels,
but mainly Telegram) , and leave to onwiki discussions what is strictly
necessary, but it has much more to do with the slowness and lack of
usability of the wiki talk system, than with a toxic environment.
That being said, the wiki talk appears to me as the main bastion
protecting
openness in our projects. We may discuss a lot
offwiki, but a summary of
it
is always presented onwiki and can be challenged
by the onwiki community
that do not have an offwiki presence, which is considerably large and an
essential part of the process too.
I understand that some people who have an habit of discussing and
arranging
everything offwiki are not prepared to face
resistance from the onwiki
communities when their new apparently wonderful and flawless idea is
presented there, but that is truly and essentially part of the process,
and
if they are unable to live with that, they should
consider refraining to
take part on it, instead of trying to artificially bend a system which
was
designed to be onwiki and open to submit itself
to offwiki and closed
platforms. I am seeing this kind of discussions and proposals at the
Community Health strategy work group, for instance.
In the case at hand, I would like to understand specifically why the
choice
of mounting yet another platform, and a non wiki
and closed one, instead
of
improving the existing one, wiki and open, at
Outreach.
As for the WMF, despite what Amir has said, which possibly refer to
different visions, or even dissidents among WMF staff ranks, at the end
of
the day there still is only one WMF, the one
directed by the ED and
presided by the BoT, the same one which issues those software releases,
and
the same one which issues the secretive and out
of process punishments
which are causing so much controversy these days.
Best,
Paulo
A quarta, 26 de jun de 2019, 08:27, Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk(a)gmail.com>
escreveu:
> Hello,
>
> Frankly, I am surprised by the announcement, too. Maybe I do not spend
> enough time on wikis and mailinglists? :/
>
> In general I am very curious for this new platform. I find it quite ...
> telling or a bad signal that many wikipedians started to prefer
discussing
> wiki topics on Facebook (1) rather than on
the village pumps. Including
me.
> One of the reasons is the toxic atmosphere on
many wiki pages, while the
> Facebook groups are moderated.
>
> Kind regards
> Ziko
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Am Mi., 26. Juni 2019 um 09:19 Uhr schrieb geni <geniice(a)gmail.com>om>:
>
>> On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 22:19, Yair Rand <yyairrand(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm getting so many red flags.
>>>
>>> Established by WMF via secret (non-transparent) process, with no
>> community
>>> involvement? Non-wiki environment, with the same scope as existing
> wikis?
>>> WMF-decided conduct policies? Every single moderator is a WMF
employee?
>>> Forum using closed groups, with
non-transparent communication?
>>> (Closed-source software, unless I'm mistaken?) So far outside
Wikimedia
> spaces that the only place it was even _announced_
was an off-wiki
mailing
> list?
>
> Is there something the Wikimedia Foundation would like to tell us?
>
> -- Yair Rand
>
While I agree that a good tracking mount, a reasonable telescope and
some CCDs would be a better use of the money (there are some
satellites I want pics of) I don't see anything particular nefarious
here. Improving communications is a long term goal and shifting away
from mediawiki appears on the face of it a good way to do that (we are
after all on a mailing list at the moment. In practice experience
suggests that most people are too busy doing what they are already
doing to get involved in such projects and that mediawiki is so
central to what we are do that most people are pretty comfortable with
it.
So this falls well within the WMF’s nominal goals and is a fairly
understandable approach. I still think we would be better off spending
the money on the kit needed to get a pic of Kosmos 482.
--
geni
_______________________________________________
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>
_______________________________________________
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>