UwegSJZgTbk24D69zgd4EOwoGpypKbdQnJqXSEqKMw(a)mail.gmail.com begged mobile involved on is What changes do and do not require consensus is a fascinating issue, but not I think related to my query re Wikilove. Brandon has told us that the devs are only installing wikilove on wikis where there is a consensus for it. Hence my request for a link to the discussion that established consensus for the introduction of Wikilove on EN wikipedia, as I seem to have missed that debate and was having difficulty finding it. I'm not trying to reopen the debate, I'm not actually opposed to wikilove if that's what a bunch of editors want to volunteer their time for. If it was tweaked as per Geni's proposal it might actually become a net positive. I just wanted to read the discussion and see how that consensus was achieved. If it's true that every wiki except for the EN Wikipedia gets the chance to decide whether or not they want it then I wonder why that was the case, and what that says about the Foundation's attitude to our largest community of editors. If wikilove was developed on Foundation money then I think it sad that this was prioritised above so many more important things. For example a big part of any welcome template is this bizarre looking instruction to sign posts on talkpages with ~~~~. Aside from the signing business the original design of talkpages is way superior and more newby friendly than liquid threads, but it could do with one small enhancement; Autosign on talkpages, with the preference defaulted to off for anyone who has signed a talkpage and on for anyone who hasn't, including of course all new accounts from now onwards. Implement that and we can easily improve the welcome templates, and greatly reduce the number of newbies who raise a query on a talkpage only to be responded with an admonition about their failure to sign their posting. Then there is that one little bug in Cat a lot that prevents if from being used to tackle the Commons categorisation backlog http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Gadget-Cat-a-lot.js#Hidden… of those would be way more important than Wikilove, the Article Feedback tool or the image filter. On a different scale altogether is the question of whether Museums and other GLAMS should skip us and go directly to Flickr. Balboa Park has set out fairly clearly why they've taken the decision to use Flickr rather than Commons http://futureofmuseums.blogspot.com/2011/10/building-better-fishing-pole-ho… like to know how many developers the Foundation has working to catch up there. There is a broader point, a willingness to invest in things that might be of use to hypothetical groups of potential new editors really shouldn't come at the expense of neglecting the needs of the existing editor base. We have an editor retention problem and one way to confront that is to invest in fixing the problems that those editors raise and improve the tools they use. Another is to empower the community and put them in control of their projects. Only introducing new features where there is consensus for implementation is a step towards that. A bigger step, and a way to get much much better value from our IT budget is to get community input on the priority of new features. The Image filter referendum made a small step towards that by having a question about its importance. A more meaningful consultation would be to give editors the ability to rate the relative importance of a bunch of potential enhancements "How much do you want this?" Should be the second question after "Do you want this?". The least lovely feature of Wikilove as with the Article Feedback Tool is to think of all the amazing things that could have been done instead. WereSpielChequers _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

UwegSJZgTbk24D69zgd4EOwoGpypKbdQnJqXSEqKMw(a)mail.gmail.com begged mobile involved on is What changes do and do not require consensus is a fascinating issue, but not I think related to my query re Wikilove. Brandon has told us that the devs are only installing wikilove on wikis where there is a consensus for it. Hence my request for a link to the discussion that established consensus for the introduction of Wikilove on EN wikipedia, as I seem to have missed that debate and was having difficulty finding it. I'm not trying to reopen the debate, I'm not actually opposed to wikilove if that's what a bunch of editors want to volunteer their time for. If it was tweaked as per Geni's proposal it might actually become a net positive. I just wanted to read the discussion and see how that consensus was achieved. If it's true that every wiki except for the EN Wikipedia gets the chance to decide whether or not they want it then I wonder why that was the case, and what that says about the Foundation's attitude to our largest community of editors. If wikilove was developed on Foundation money then I think it sad that this was prioritised above so many more important things. For example a big part of any welcome template is this bizarre looking instruction to sign posts on talkpages with ~~~~. Aside from the signing business the original design of talkpages is way superior and more newby friendly than liquid threads, but it could do with one small enhancement; Autosign on talkpages, with the preference defaulted to off for anyone who has signed a talkpage and on for anyone who hasn't, including of course all new accounts from now onwards. Implement that and we can easily improve the welcome templates, and greatly reduce the number of newbies who raise a query on a talkpage only to be responded with an admonition about their failure to sign their posting. Then there is that one little bug in Cat a lot that prevents if from being used to tackle the Commons categorisation backlog http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Gadget-Cat-a-lot.js#Hidden… of those would be way more important than Wikilove, the Article Feedback tool or the image filter. On a different scale altogether is the question of whether Museums and other GLAMS should skip us and go directly to Flickr. Balboa Park has set out fairly clearly why they've taken the decision to use Flickr rather than Commons http://futureofmuseums.blogspot.com/2011/10/building-better-fishing-pole-ho… like to know how many developers the Foundation has working to catch up there. There is a broader point, a willingness to invest in things that might be of use to hypothetical groups of potential new editors really shouldn't come at the expense of neglecting the needs of the existing editor base. We have an editor retention problem and one way to confront that is to invest in fixing the problems that those editors raise and improve the tools they use. Another is to empower the community and put them in control of their projects. Only introducing new features where there is consensus for implementation is a step towards that. A bigger step, and a way to get much much better value from our IT budget is to get community input on the priority of new features. The Image filter referendum made a small step towards that by having a question about its importance. A more meaningful consultation would be to give editors the ability to rate the relative importance of a bunch of potential enhancements "How much do you want this?" Should be the second question after "Do you want this?". The least lovely feature of Wikilove as with the Article Feedback Tool is to think of all the amazing things that could have been done instead. WereSpielChequers _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l