Hi.
When wikimediafoundation.org was first established (as a fishbowl wiki), there were concerns expressed about its lack of open editing. For one of the most prominent wiki and community-based organizations to have a closed site for its non-profit foundation is rather silly and anachronistic.
The wiki was created before extensions like FlaggedRevs existed, but even today with these extensions theoretically capable of allowing outside contributions with moderation, there are still relevant and serious concerns about features that are enabled at wikimediafoundation.org, such as allowing raw HTML to be used.
Since 2004, a page has existed at Meta-Wiki to allow outsiders to comment and discuss wikimediafoundation.org called "Foundation wiki feedback".[1]
In the spirit of being bold, I've taken a number of steps to correct what I view as deficiencies in the current contribution system, all of which I'll outline in this e-mail. If anyone has objections to these changes, they're more than welcome to revert them and we can discuss ways to improve the overall situation.[2]
Probably the most noticeable change I made was modifying the "view source" tab and title to "contribute".[3][4][5] There are two ideas behind this change: (1) to encourage people to contribute (whether it's typo fixes, accuracy problems, etc.); and (2) to create a middle ground between "edit" and "view source". It seems unreasonable that a user would ever click "view source" to make a helpful comment about a page, but we don't want to change the tab to something like "edit" if the user doesn't have the necessary permissions to edit the page. The primary entry point to Meta-Wiki's "Foundation wiki feedback" should be through the edit screen, so encouraging users to reach that screen is important. "View source" simply doesn't achieve this goal.
The next change I made was to modify the message that users see above the textarea on wikimediafoundation.org if they don't have permission to edit. Rather than the default (bland) messages, I customized the message and made it a bit more colorful and friendlier.[6][7][8] I also included two prominent buttons in the message: one button is to report a problem with that specific page; the other button is to report a problem with the site in general. Clicking either button will load Meta-Wiki's "Foundation wiki feedback" page with a new section and auto-fill the section title. It's also possible to customize the message that users view above the textarea at Meta-Wiki based on whether they're clicking the buttons from wikimediafoundation.org, but I've left that for a later date. Obviously I'm not a great designer, but this is a vast improvement when you compare the before and after pictures: * before: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WMFwiki-edit-before.png * after: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WMFwiki-edit-after.png
Then I headed over to Meta-Wiki to make some changes there. First, I killed the "Foundation wiki feedback/admin" subpage, as it caused confusion, clutter, and was rarely used.[9] I merged all of the header content into the single "Foundation wiki feedback/Header" template and simplified it.[10] I also made the page generally less obnoxious: * before: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FWF-view-before.png * after: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FWF-view-after.png
The final changes were to the editnotice above the textarea at Meta-Wiki: * before: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FWF-edit-before.png * after: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FWF-edit-after.png
Hopefully these changes will encourage more participation and engagement. In addition to these changes, I've filed a bug in Bugzilla to work on ways to make wikimediafoundation.org more open to outside contributions.[11]
MZMcBride
[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Foundation_wiki_feedback [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle [3] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Viewsource [4] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Viewsourcefor [5] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Vector-view-viewsource [6] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Template:Contribute [7] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Permissionserrorstext [8] http://wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Permissionserrorstext-withaction [9] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Foundation_wiki_feedback/admin [10] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Foundation_wiki_feedback/Header [11] https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=27006
2011/1/27 MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com:
In the spirit of being bold, I've taken a number of steps to correct what I view as deficiencies in the current contribution system, all of which I'll outline in this e-mail. If anyone has objections to these changes, they're more than welcome to revert them and we can discuss ways to improve the overall situation.[2]
Looks great to me :-)
I agree that the edit restrictions on the WMF wiki are very unfortunate and there's still much more that can be done (perhaps one day leading toward www.wikimedia.org as a single information, collaboration and discussion hub, subsuming both WMF and Meta, and possibly other backstage wikis).
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 12:34 AM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
2011/1/27 MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com:
In the spirit of being bold, I've taken a number of steps to correct what
I
view as deficiencies in the current contribution system, all of which
I'll
outline in this e-mail. If anyone has objections to these changes,
they're
more than welcome to revert them and we can discuss ways to improve the overall situation.[2]
Looks great to me :-)
I agree that the edit restrictions on the WMF wiki are very unfortunate and there's still much more that can be done (perhaps one day leading toward www.wikimedia.org as a single information, collaboration and discussion hub, subsuming both WMF and Meta, and possibly other backstage wikis).
-- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Agreed, There are pages that you would obviously not want touched but I really wish it could be more open. In the long run I agree I think we want something more all encompassing with the community etc. I believe there is an extension that turns on raw html for protected pages only or by namespace... though I've never used them before. In the long run I'm sure there are lots of options but in the short run I like the changes.
Great Work, MZ.
One small point, the buttons on foundation wiki redirect to a the page we get on FWF page on Meta, the edit page has a newly created header that includes "Wikimedia is not associated with Wikileaks". I think the confusion with Wikileaks issue is ephemeral and is not as common anymore. Maybe we should consider removing that small disclaimer on the edit page, its already there on the main page itself.
Regards
Theo
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 11:35 AM, James Alexander jamesofur@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 12:34 AM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
2011/1/27 MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com:
In the spirit of being bold, I've taken a number of steps to correct
what
I
view as deficiencies in the current contribution system, all of which
I'll
outline in this e-mail. If anyone has objections to these changes,
they're
more than welcome to revert them and we can discuss ways to improve the overall situation.[2]
Looks great to me :-)
I agree that the edit restrictions on the WMF wiki are very unfortunate and there's still much more that can be done (perhaps one day leading toward www.wikimedia.org as a single information, collaboration and discussion hub, subsuming both WMF and Meta, and possibly other backstage wikis).
-- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Agreed, There are pages that you would obviously not want touched but I really wish it could be more open. In the long run I agree I think we want something more all encompassing with the community etc. I believe there is an extension that turns on raw html for protected pages only or by namespace... though I've never used them before. In the long run I'm sure there are lots of options but in the short run I like the changes.
-- James Alexander jamesofur@gmail.com _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I rather welcome these changes. Also I support improvement on Meta feedback pages: a single page seems a better solution in these days.
Historically the foundation wiki was restricted just for avoiding spams, as far as I understood. Later we found some users who were proud of the foundation & movement knowledge weren't knowledgeable as they believed (information they had were outdated etc.), so to some extent restriction have made a sense.
But I'd like to point out it was in days we had no FlaggedRev extention yet.
For spamming concerns, I think FR will be a solution. Other concerns, on pages we don't want anyone touch casually, we need to take more time to consider what is the best. But not criticism, but a mere fact, I would point out wmf site whose editors have been all highly trusted users hasn't been immune from edit warring. Seeking for openness on foundation wiki fits the nature of our community and movement, I think, which the wiki should represents to the world.
Cheers,
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 3:05 PM, James Alexander jamesofur@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 12:34 AM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
2011/1/27 MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com:
In the spirit of being bold, I've taken a number of steps to correct what
I
view as deficiencies in the current contribution system, all of which
I'll
outline in this e-mail. If anyone has objections to these changes,
they're
more than welcome to revert them and we can discuss ways to improve the overall situation.[2]
Looks great to me :-)
I agree that the edit restrictions on the WMF wiki are very unfortunate and there's still much more that can be done (perhaps one day leading toward www.wikimedia.org as a single information, collaboration and discussion hub, subsuming both WMF and Meta, and possibly other backstage wikis).
-- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Agreed, There are pages that you would obviously not want touched but I really wish it could be more open. In the long run I agree I think we want something more all encompassing with the community etc. I believe there is an extension that turns on raw html for protected pages only or by namespace... though I've never used them before. In the long run I'm sure there are lots of options but in the short run I like the changes.
-- James Alexander jamesofur@gmail.com _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Jan 27, 2011, at 7:58 PM, MZMcBride wrote this plus some other stuff:
Hi.
When wikimediafoundation.org was first established (as a fishbowl wiki), there were concerns expressed about its lack of open editing. For one of the most prominent wiki and community-based organizations to have a closed site for its non-profit foundation is rather silly and anachronistic.
The wiki was created before extensions like FlaggedRevs existed, but even today with these extensions theoretically capable of allowing outside contributions with moderation, there are still relevant and serious concerns about features that are enabled at wikimediafoundation.org, such as allowing raw HTML to be used.
I have to say, I rather support these changes.
I've long been troubled with the perception that our own foundation-wiki was so restrictive. It seemed anti-thetical to me. I'm pleased to see steps towards opening this up.
_______________________ Philippe Beaudette Head of Reader Relations Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
pbeaudette@wikimedia.org
Imagine a world in which every human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org