Hi there,
how do we want to work on editor retention if we lack social features at all???
These go in the right direction: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Improving_our_platform http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Social_features
Is WMF going to act finally???
Kozuch
On 16 April 2012 18:41, Jan Kučera kozuch82@gmail.com wrote:
Hi there,
how do we want to work on editor retention if we lack social features at all???
These go in the right direction: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Improving_our_platform http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Social_features
Is WMF going to act finally???
Only with community approval. On English Wikipedia, we have discussed social media/social network integration repeatedly. Share This buttons and so on. And editors don't want it.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PEREN#Share_pages_on_Facebook.2C_Twi....
English Wikinews already has some, but there's a much smaller community there who can decide which services we wish to integrate with.
If we're going to have social "features" (and I use that word with deliberate scare quotes around it) mandated by the Foundation, I do hope we are going to worry about privacy. A former co-worker of mine discovered that NHS Direct, the health information website provided the UK's National Health Service, had Facebook share this links that were transmitting every page you went to on NHS Direct to Facebook, which could be matched to your Facebook profile if you are logged in. Which is kind of shocking given that people use NHS Direct to look up information on health conditions they think they might have, as well as all sorts of other personal issues (sexual health, gender identity, advice on fixing lifestyle health issues like smoking and drinking). I wouldn't want the clickstream of people visiting Wikipedia articles shared on Facebook without them pretty explicitly choosing to share that information. We've already seen one kid in Britain who has allegedly been thrown out of his house by fundamentalist parents after Facebook algorithmically outed him as gay. [1]
I do also hope we'd decide on what basis we'd choose these social services. Okay, yes, Facebook is pretty popular in the West. And Twitter. And maybe G+. But what about in China: do we want to support sharing to sites that are being censored by the Chinese government? Does the Foundation have the expertise to know what the popular social networking sites are in every country and language in the world? And we'd then become a commercial player: if we had done this years ago and had added MySpace integration, the moment MySpace stops being so popular and Wikipedia (whether that's the community or the Foundation) de-emphasizes the MySpace sharing/social functionality, there'd be a big stack of headlines about how Wikipedia is pulling out of MySpace. We really ought to be neutral in this market, and there's only one way to be neutral: try as hard as possible not to participate.
You know, there might be an easier solution here: people who are into the whole social networking thing, their browsers ought to improve sharing with their social networks. Social plugins for browsers like Firefox and Chrome are opt-in for the user, and can give a better experience than Wikipedia pages being turned into NASCAR-esque branded adverts for dozens of social sites. I know Mozilla people have been discussing coming up with better ways of doing social sharing at the browser level.
[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/11/facebook-targeted-advertising-gay-t...
Tom, you're assuming that adding "social features" to Wikimedia projects must mean integrating with commercial social networks. I don't think that's a given at all. If we accept that social interaction, and more opportunities for positive social interaction, are beneficial for collaborative projects like the English Wikipedia (which I think we should), then it's perfectly possible and quite common to internally add certain social features.
There are many different ways to achieve a better social atmosphere; whether its better discussion systems, better notifications, better tools for exchanging ideas and interests, internal communications (like e-mail style messages to individuals internally, or to groups), or any one of a thousand other options. Boiling it down without reason to a decision over Facebook "like" buttons is a disservice to honest discourse.
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Tom Morris tom@tommorris.org wrote:
Only with community approval. On English Wikipedia, we have discussed social media/social network integration repeatedly. Share This buttons and so on. And editors don't want it.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PEREN#Share_pages_on_Facebook.2C_Twi... .
English Wikinews already has some, but there's a much smaller community there who can decide which services we wish to integrate with.
If we're going to have social "features" (and I use that word with deliberate scare quotes around it) mandated by the Foundation, I do hope we are going to worry about privacy. A former co-worker of mine discovered that NHS Direct, the health information website provided the UK's National Health Service, had Facebook share this links that were transmitting every page you went to on NHS Direct to Facebook, which could be matched to your Facebook profile if you are logged in. Which is kind of shocking given that people use NHS Direct to look up information on health conditions they think they might have, as well as all sorts of other personal issues (sexual health, gender identity, advice on fixing lifestyle health issues like smoking and drinking). I wouldn't want the clickstream of people visiting Wikipedia articles shared on Facebook without them pretty explicitly choosing to share that information. We've already seen one kid in Britain who has allegedly been thrown out of his house by fundamentalist parents after Facebook algorithmically outed him as gay. [1]
I do also hope we'd decide on what basis we'd choose these social services. Okay, yes, Facebook is pretty popular in the West. And Twitter. And maybe G+. But what about in China: do we want to support sharing to sites that are being censored by the Chinese government? Does the Foundation have the expertise to know what the popular social networking sites are in every country and language in the world? And we'd then become a commercial player: if we had done this years ago and had added MySpace integration, the moment MySpace stops being so popular and Wikipedia (whether that's the community or the Foundation) de-emphasizes the MySpace sharing/social functionality, there'd be a big stack of headlines about how Wikipedia is pulling out of MySpace. We really ought to be neutral in this market, and there's only one way to be neutral: try as hard as possible not to participate.
You know, there might be an easier solution here: people who are into the whole social networking thing, their browsers ought to improve sharing with their social networks. Social plugins for browsers like Firefox and Chrome are opt-in for the user, and can give a better experience than Wikipedia pages being turned into NASCAR-esque branded adverts for dozens of social sites. I know Mozilla people have been discussing coming up with better ways of doing social sharing at the browser level.
[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/11/facebook-targeted-advertising-gay-t...
-- Tom Morris http://tommorris.org/
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Hi guys,
I understand your objections. Surely privacy is a key here. We should make "social" our way, taking in account various aspects of privacy and commerce...
The goal definitely is rising the the number of editors... we should do this through all possible ways... as someone wrote here the only question is _how many resources_ (money etc.) is WMF wanting to invest into editor retention...
Kozuch
2012/4/17 Nathan nawrich@gmail.com:
Tom, you're assuming that adding "social features" to Wikimedia projects must mean integrating with commercial social networks. I don't think that's a given at all. If we accept that social interaction, and more opportunities for positive social interaction, are beneficial for collaborative projects like the English Wikipedia (which I think we should), then it's perfectly possible and quite common to internally add certain social features.
There are many different ways to achieve a better social atmosphere; whether its better discussion systems, better notifications, better tools for exchanging ideas and interests, internal communications (like e-mail style messages to individuals internally, or to groups), or any one of a thousand other options. Boiling it down without reason to a decision over Facebook "like" buttons is a disservice to honest discourse.
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Tom Morris tom@tommorris.org wrote:
Only with community approval. On English Wikipedia, we have discussed social media/social network integration repeatedly. Share This buttons and so on. And editors don't want it.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PEREN#Share_pages_on_Facebook.2C_Twi... .
English Wikinews already has some, but there's a much smaller community there who can decide which services we wish to integrate with.
If we're going to have social "features" (and I use that word with deliberate scare quotes around it) mandated by the Foundation, I do hope we are going to worry about privacy. A former co-worker of mine discovered that NHS Direct, the health information website provided the UK's National Health Service, had Facebook share this links that were transmitting every page you went to on NHS Direct to Facebook, which could be matched to your Facebook profile if you are logged in. Which is kind of shocking given that people use NHS Direct to look up information on health conditions they think they might have, as well as all sorts of other personal issues (sexual health, gender identity, advice on fixing lifestyle health issues like smoking and drinking). I wouldn't want the clickstream of people visiting Wikipedia articles shared on Facebook without them pretty explicitly choosing to share that information. We've already seen one kid in Britain who has allegedly been thrown out of his house by fundamentalist parents after Facebook algorithmically outed him as gay. [1]
I do also hope we'd decide on what basis we'd choose these social services. Okay, yes, Facebook is pretty popular in the West. And Twitter. And maybe G+. But what about in China: do we want to support sharing to sites that are being censored by the Chinese government? Does the Foundation have the expertise to know what the popular social networking sites are in every country and language in the world? And we'd then become a commercial player: if we had done this years ago and had added MySpace integration, the moment MySpace stops being so popular and Wikipedia (whether that's the community or the Foundation) de-emphasizes the MySpace sharing/social functionality, there'd be a big stack of headlines about how Wikipedia is pulling out of MySpace. We really ought to be neutral in this market, and there's only one way to be neutral: try as hard as possible not to participate.
You know, there might be an easier solution here: people who are into the whole social networking thing, their browsers ought to improve sharing with their social networks. Social plugins for browsers like Firefox and Chrome are opt-in for the user, and can give a better experience than Wikipedia pages being turned into NASCAR-esque branded adverts for dozens of social sites. I know Mozilla people have been discussing coming up with better ways of doing social sharing at the browser level.
[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/11/facebook-targeted-advertising-gay-t...
-- Tom Morris http://tommorris.org/
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On 17 April 2012 15:56, Jan Kučera kozuch82@gmail.com wrote:
Hi guys,
I understand your objections. Surely privacy is a key here. We should make "social" our way, taking in account various aspects of privacy and commerce...
The goal definitely is rising the the number of editors... we should do this through all possible ways... as someone wrote here the only question is _how many resources_ (money etc.) is WMF wanting to invest into editor retention...
Kozuch
I think my major concern is that "social features" encourage the wrong sort of editor - i.e. those here for hat collecting, chat, community, etc. I'm not against the idea of community but I think that a) On-wiki it should be incidental/casual (as it is now) b) Any more social collectives should exist off-wiki (what we are missing)
The editor retention program should be looking to bring in quality editors willing to work primarily on article content. Whether they also want to socialise with other editors is somewhat a secondary consideration/distraction.
Tom
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
On 17 April 2012 15:56, Jan Kučera kozuch82@gmail.com wrote:
The goal definitely is rising the the number of editors...
Yes.
The editor retention program should be looking to bring in quality editors willing to work primarily on article content.
No. Aiming for quality, would only reduce the number of editors.
Remember: "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."
Whether they also want to socialise with other editors is somewhat a secondary consideration/distraction.
I disagree. A lot.
The goal definitely is rising the the number of editors...
Yes.
The editor retention program should be looking to bring in quality
editors
willing to work primarily on article content.
No. Aiming for quality, would only reduce the number of editors.
Quality editors; perhaps should have said quality authors/writers.
We have no end of vandal fighters, admin material and so forth, who are also critical. Those people will keep coming in. But we sorely lack people with a quiet focus on content creation and prose. Doubling our current numbers of that sort of editor would be a huge step toward improving our content. Doubling the other sorts of editors would not have the same effect.
The idea that having more quality editors would reduce the number of other editors is... somewhat confusing. But if that really is the case (and we can swap low quality editors for high quality editors) then fine by me.
But I would be interested to hear your reasoning as to why looking for & engaging quality writers would drive off others?
Remember: "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."
Just because they *can* edit doesn't mean they should. We are aiming to create free content here *not* create a place anyone can edit. Important, even critical, distinction.
We do not blindly follow that pithy tagline (i.e. the existence of semi-protection, bans/blocks for total incompetence).
Whether they also want to
socialise with other editors is somewhat a secondary consideration/distraction.
I disagree. A lot.
Of course that is your prerogative.
But I think in holding that view you've critically lost sight of the point of being here. We are not building a social network in the background. A social structure has to exists to keep the community going, but the prime purpose is to write/develop free content.
But perhaps it would be useful to suggest some specific social features that you'd want - that might help focus the discussion.
Tom
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 16:44:48 +0100, Thomas Morton wrote:
Whether they also want to
socialise with other editors is somewhat a secondary consideration/distraction.
I disagree. A lot.
Of course that is your prerogative.
But I think in holding that view you've critically lost sight of the point of being here. We are not building a social network in the background. A social structure has to exists to keep the community going, but the prime purpose is to write/develop free content.
But perhaps it would be useful to suggest some specific social features that you'd want - that might help focus the discussion.
Tom
I actually do agree. It is not a secret that we are attractive for people having personal problems of some sort, who hope that they can get kind of attention in Wikipedia/Wikimedia they can never get in real life. At some point I was even put in a situation when I had views opposed to the views of such people, and I basically had to defend my views against them. This proved to be impossible: I am pretty much successful in my professional career, and for me Wikipedia is, well, a hobby. But for them it is life. It is very difficult to argue with people who are fighting for life, does not matter who is defending what views. Finally, I inevitably had to say "fuck you" and leave the argument.
There is in principle nothing wrong with people who want to get attention. For instance, they might want to get attention by writing articles, creating a big number of FAs abd GAs. Or by fighting vandals. Or by writing useful gadgets. I am all for it. And of course not everybody behaves like the types I mentions in the above paragraph - only a small fraction. But I am afraid that the more we socialize, the more attractive we become for this type of people. And then they tend to form circles, voting collectively at RFAs - up for the those from the circle, down for those not from the circle. Or discussing RfDs. Or whatever. It is extremely dangerous when people start mixing personal and professional relations - to speak in a not-so-much-correct way, when they start making love while in the office. This does not help writing the encyclopedia. And I have seen plenty of examples - and I guess all of us had. This is why I am not particularly looking forward to increasing socialization. Wikilove - fine, as a sign of appreciation (though I personally prefer appreciation written in plain English). Barnstars - ok. But going to a full-scale social network - I am sorry, this is going to kill us.
Cheers Yaroslav
I generally agree with what you have said, Yaroslav.
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 9:34 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ruwrote:
Wikilove - fine, as a sign of appreciation (though I personally prefer appreciation written in plain English). Barnstars - ok.
But I do think we have taken the idea of "Wikilove" and "Barnstars" too far. They were good as they had existed previously, but now with the integrated Wikilove feature, their value has depreciated, I am afraid.
It's not too difficult to find pages and pages littered with biscuits, kittens and barnstars, just because it is too easy to give them out.
Let's separate the two big issues here - the first is whether we want to encourage large numbers of new editors, and the second issue encompasses all the cool feature ideas we could add to accomplish the first.
On attracting new editors and improving editor retention - editor retention explains itself, of course, and I think many people agree that improving the "social fabric" of project communities (and specifically en.wp) contributes to better retention metrics. There is some disagreement over the value of large numbers of new contributors. Many people in the en.wp community want to make contributions from these folks, especially "anonymous" editors without a registered account, more difficult rather than easier...
The position of the WMF has lately been that this is misguided; in fact a large proportion of content, even the majority, has been added and improved by anonymous IP contributors. While individual editors devoting hundreds or thousands of hours to Wikimedia are highly valuable, the subset of contributors who are anonymous are so vital to project success that we should absolutely focus on increasing their numbers and encouraging them to return often.
On cool features, we could brainstorm all day on different things that would be great to have. I'm sure everyone has a list of things they'd like to see, and most probably can think of much better features than I can. Here's my quick list:
1) Internal messaging - using "e-mail this user" is cumbersome, especially if you don't want to reveal your e-mail address, and divorces communication from the project itself. It also doesn't lend itself well to communicating with more than one individual. There is a place for non-public communication in our projects, and we should improve that communication by adding internal tools.
2) Discussion and comment threading. Not sure whatever happened to LiquidThreads, but the ten year old method of discussing article content is antiquated and far behind the current standard. You get better discussion on Gawker. Why, for instance, is the newest content still added at the bottom of every page instead of the top? Makes no sense.
3) Notifications and other quick, public communication. Warnings, bot notices, system messages, hat tips, barnstars, and quick notes should all be integrated as notification types in an internal notification system. There might be ease of access issues, but since these are focused on editors and not readers I think those hurdles can be overcome. Talk pages are as antiquated as the article discussion pages, and there are far better ways of organizing message content.
4) Article feedback. Our article feedback progress is just getting started, but it has a long way to go. I'd like to see a sidebar or footer that tells me how many people approve or disprove of the article content, aged for relevance to the current revision. Readers (logged in editors or otherwise) should be able to add Tweet-length comments, which can be +'d or -'d by others so a reader can get an 'at-a-glance' sense of what other readers think about an article and why.
5) 'Request an article' - it should be a feature of MediaWiki to track what article titles for pages that don't exist get the most hits, and it would be a really cool scrollbox to show readers and editors "500 editors looked for 'page XYZ' today and didn't find it - create this page now!" We might have to curate it like TfA, but maybe not, and I guarantee you'd get an article in OK shape for each featured redlink.
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Thomas Morton < morton.thomas@googlemail.com> wrote:
But perhaps it would be useful to suggest some specific social features that you'd want - that might help focus the discussion.
I'm not sure that it makes sense to talk about adding "social features" in the abstract -- we're not aiming to build a social network in the real sense of the term. Rather, we should be looking at the features that drive participation at social networks (and particularly at Facebook), whether those features are an inheret part of the "social network" concept or merely incidental to it.
Consider, for example, that Zynga and Facebook have successfully managed to get millions of people to log in at all hours of the night to milk virtualcows and harvest virtual beans (or whatever it is that people actually do in Farmville). Could we do something similar to drive particpation, particularly in editing areas that don't require long-duration sessions (e.g. adding or verifying citations, categorizing articles, etc.)? Even a few percent of Farmville's user base would be an order-of-magnitude increase of our own editor base; and if the price for that is letting these editors display Citationville badges on their user pages and send each other silly messages, is it not worth it?
Cheers, Kirill
Consider, for example, that Zynga and Facebook have successfully managed to get millions of people to log in at all hours of the night to milk virtualcows and harvest virtual beans (or whatever it is that people actually do in Farmville). Could we do something similar to drive particpation, particularly in editing areas that don't require long-duration sessions (e.g. adding or verifying citations, categorizing articles, etc.)? Even a few percent of Farmville's user base would be an order-of-magnitude increase of our own editor base; and if the price for that is letting these editors display Citationville badges on their user pages and send each other silly messages, is it not worth it?
This is actually a very good example. Imagine this happened, and we got for several hours a million of users who do not know anything about BLP, verifiability, POV, notability, and other issues. Would we be able to clean up their edits? I doubt it. If I remember well, when 80K landscape pictures of British Isles were donated to Commons more than a year ago (which is certainly a good thing), they were not categorized, and many of them (several dozen of thousands) remained uncategorized last time I checked. We will not just be able to digest this.
The way out obviously that we do not have a million random editors. We want a million of editors who understand basic principles and know what they want to do. I just do not see how it could happen. When I personally ask my friends to upload photos which are clearly needed (for instance, to illustrate an already existing article), my best success is to ask them to send a mail to OTRS, and then I upload photos myself. And uploading a photo is generally easier than to find a category for an article or to source a statement.
Cheers Yaroslav
I believe the Geograph images (the UK landscape pictures of which you speak) may be slightly more than 80,000 images...
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ruwrote:
Consider, for example, that Zynga and Facebook have successfully managed to
get millions of people to log in at all hours of the night to milk virtualcows and harvest virtual beans (or whatever it is that people actually do in Farmville). Could we do something similar to drive particpation, particularly in editing areas that don't require long-duration sessions (e.g. adding or verifying citations, categorizing articles, etc.)? Even a few percent of Farmville's user base would be an order-of-magnitude increase of our own editor base; and if the price for that is letting these editors display Citationville badges on their user pages and send each other silly messages, is it not worth it?
This is actually a very good example. Imagine this happened, and we got for several hours a million of users who do not know anything about BLP, verifiability, POV, notability, and other issues. Would we be able to clean up their edits? I doubt it. If I remember well, when 80K landscape pictures of British Isles were donated to Commons more than a year ago (which is certainly a good thing), they were not categorized, and many of them (several dozen of thousands) remained uncategorized last time I checked. We will not just be able to digest this.
The way out obviously that we do not have a million random editors. We want a million of editors who understand basic principles and know what they want to do. I just do not see how it could happen. When I personally ask my friends to upload photos which are clearly needed (for instance, to illustrate an already existing article), my best success is to ask them to send a mail to OTRS, and then I upload photos myself. And uploading a photo is generally easier than to find a category for an article or to source a statement.
Cheers Yaroslav
______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Hi,
A couple of quick comments.
You have two way to approch gamification of content/service/product : * Built a game experience on top of the content/service/product * Lauche services/products dedicated to gamification based on your initial product
What people are mostly talking about here is the first one. But we could also think of the second, like we could have a game interface to edit Wikipedia. You could have X thousands of sentence ready to translate and you could translate them one after the other little by little, and add a ranking of the top translators. This is how Facebook or Twitter translated their website.
Gamification is a way to lower the threshold for a product/task. Making it fun and easy and something non-involving.
We could also have the same thing for categorization of images. Corercting spelling mistakes. And so on. And the goal would be to make people that would have never edited, edit.
As for making our content "social" or easier to share. There are, to some extent, privacy issues. But I doubt we would end with X thousand new people editing just that way. Would having those buttons hurt our mission or damage the user experience ? I doubt it.
Would it be a major change and would generate press attention ? Definitly. So not a light decision to make as it can impact our image :)
So even though
-- Christophe
On 4/17/12 12:07 PM, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
Consider, for example, that Zynga and Facebook have successfully managed to get millions of people to log in at all hours of the night to milk virtualcows and harvest virtual beans (or whatever it is that people actually do in Farmville). Could we do something similar to drive particpation, particularly in editing areas that don't require long-duration sessions (e.g. adding or verifying citations, categorizing articles, etc.)? Even a few percent of Farmville's user base would be an order-of-magnitude increase of our own editor base; and if the price for that is letting these editors display Citationville badges on their user pages and send each other silly messages, is it not worth it?
Gamification is a huge aspect of crowdsourcing these days. It isn't enough to just "share free knowledge," anymore (and for many people who currently contribute, it is, but..). People want some type of validation that goes beyond the mission, whether it's a "prize," an award, etc.
We've seen how valuable awarding people Barnstars are in English Wikipedia. It helps with user retention - when it's genuine and awarded to people for the right reasons (yes, I've seen malicious barnstar awards in my day), it has a powerful impact on keeping that editor around. I also think it's valuable when people see that other /people/ edit Wikipedia. While I'm against becoming a social network in the traditional sense ("traditional" meaning Facebook, Myspace, oh, remember Friendster?), I think there is a lot of value in encouraging people to bring their personalities to Wikipedia by way of their user page, etc. In this world we live in today, people want to share a picture of themselves and so forth. Saying "That is what a user page is for," isn't enough, and we've struggled to make an easy to use userpage that encourages new editors to share images of themselves. Wikipedia has served as a social network for me - whether people like to hear that or not. I have friends I care for a lot around the world that I spend time with online and offline. I think it'd be really valuable to express that to the world and it could be used to encourage participation. (We do it for donations..what about for attracting editors?)
Through Wikipedia, not only have I gotten to share knowledge with the world for free, but, I have also gotten to know an amazing group of people that have inspired me.
-Sarah
Am 17.04.2012 18:20, schrieb Sarah Stierch:
People want some type of validation that goes beyond the mission, whether it's a "prize," an award, etc.
Gamification might be a strategy for many things, but I don't think that it is working as a general approach throughout all communities. I doubt that european or asian communities would appreciate a playful approach on gathering and sharing knowledge as much as the en does.
I think there is a lot of value in encouraging people to bring their personalities to Wikipedia by way of their user page, etc. In this world we live in today, people want to share a picture of themselves and so forth. Saying "That is what a user page is for," isn't enough, and we've struggled to make an easy to use userpage that encourages new editors to share images of themselves.
"encouraging people to bring their personalities to Wikipedia" - gamification might be of help for that. Trouble starts to make the brought-in editors stay when they see, that earning likes, favs and pluses is much more easier elsewhere, as you do not have to contribute lengthy on brazilian 200-m-sprinters, extinct languages of western papua, villages of western-central estonia, artillery battery commanders of the civil war, fossil species of foraminifera or fluid dynamics before.
Maybe it might be more useful to support editing instead of collecting people only. I can't imagine that sharing a new picture on my userpage is helpful, while I am trying to figure out, if there is convincing information on the dispersal events of the genus Lilium in Japan and North America or trying to find a reference for the second album of a japanese ultra drone doom metal band.
Would love to find help therein.
Regards, Denis
Tom, has a reputable news source actually verified this? Even Wikipedia editors know that HuffPost isn't reliable...
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Tom Morris tom@tommorris.org wrote:
On 16 April 2012 18:41, Jan Kučera kozuch82@gmail.com wrote:
Hi there,
how do we want to work on editor retention if we lack social features at
all???
These go in the right direction: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Improving_our_platform http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Social_features
Is WMF going to act finally???
Only with community approval. On English Wikipedia, we have discussed social media/social network integration repeatedly. Share This buttons and so on. And editors don't want it.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PEREN#Share_pages_on_Facebook.2C_Twi... .
English Wikinews already has some, but there's a much smaller community there who can decide which services we wish to integrate with.
If we're going to have social "features" (and I use that word with deliberate scare quotes around it) mandated by the Foundation, I do hope we are going to worry about privacy. A former co-worker of mine discovered that NHS Direct, the health information website provided the UK's National Health Service, had Facebook share this links that were transmitting every page you went to on NHS Direct to Facebook, which could be matched to your Facebook profile if you are logged in. Which is kind of shocking given that people use NHS Direct to look up information on health conditions they think they might have, as well as all sorts of other personal issues (sexual health, gender identity, advice on fixing lifestyle health issues like smoking and drinking). I wouldn't want the clickstream of people visiting Wikipedia articles shared on Facebook without them pretty explicitly choosing to share that information. We've already seen one kid in Britain who has allegedly been thrown out of his house by fundamentalist parents after Facebook algorithmically outed him as gay. [1]
I do also hope we'd decide on what basis we'd choose these social services. Okay, yes, Facebook is pretty popular in the West. And Twitter. And maybe G+. But what about in China: do we want to support sharing to sites that are being censored by the Chinese government? Does the Foundation have the expertise to know what the popular social networking sites are in every country and language in the world? And we'd then become a commercial player: if we had done this years ago and had added MySpace integration, the moment MySpace stops being so popular and Wikipedia (whether that's the community or the Foundation) de-emphasizes the MySpace sharing/social functionality, there'd be a big stack of headlines about how Wikipedia is pulling out of MySpace. We really ought to be neutral in this market, and there's only one way to be neutral: try as hard as possible not to participate.
You know, there might be an easier solution here: people who are into the whole social networking thing, their browsers ought to improve sharing with their social networks. Social plugins for browsers like Firefox and Chrome are opt-in for the user, and can give a better experience than Wikipedia pages being turned into NASCAR-esque branded adverts for dozens of social sites. I know Mozilla people have been discussing coming up with better ways of doing social sharing at the browser level.
[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/11/facebook-targeted-advertising-gay-t...
-- Tom Morris http://tommorris.org/
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Just to chip in here; Privacy, with *any* feature we introduce, is a top priority. When Product Development was coming out with the features engineering plan, anything that looked like it could screw with individual privacy was very, very quickly nipped in the bud.
Now, if by "social" you mean "features purely dedicated to recreational/sharing activities", the answer is no: we're not currently planning any. From my (personal) perspective, it is very very hard to do these things and integrate into other services without putting our users at risk. And putting our users at risk is not what we're about. We're not doing what Facebook does because we're *not Facebook*.
If, on the other hand, you just mean "features to promote greater communication and networking between editors", that's a clear priority - I'm happy to talk to people about the work we're doing, and to hear any suggestions along the way :).
On 21 April 2012 21:52, Mono monomium@gmail.com wrote:
Tom, has a reputable news source actually verified this? Even Wikipedia editors know that HuffPost isn't reliable...
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Tom Morris tom@tommorris.org wrote:
On 16 April 2012 18:41, Jan Kučera kozuch82@gmail.com wrote:
Hi there,
how do we want to work on editor retention if we lack social features
at
all???
These go in the right direction: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Improving_our_platform http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Social_features
Is WMF going to act finally???
Only with community approval. On English Wikipedia, we have discussed social media/social network integration repeatedly. Share This buttons and so on. And editors don't want it.
See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PEREN#Share_pages_on_Facebook.2C_Twi...
.
English Wikinews already has some, but there's a much smaller community there who can decide which services we wish to integrate with.
If we're going to have social "features" (and I use that word with deliberate scare quotes around it) mandated by the Foundation, I do hope we are going to worry about privacy. A former co-worker of mine discovered that NHS Direct, the health information website provided the UK's National Health Service, had Facebook share this links that were transmitting every page you went to on NHS Direct to Facebook, which could be matched to your Facebook profile if you are logged in. Which is kind of shocking given that people use NHS Direct to look up information on health conditions they think they might have, as well as all sorts of other personal issues (sexual health, gender identity, advice on fixing lifestyle health issues like smoking and drinking). I wouldn't want the clickstream of people visiting Wikipedia articles shared on Facebook without them pretty explicitly choosing to share that information. We've already seen one kid in Britain who has allegedly been thrown out of his house by fundamentalist parents after Facebook algorithmically outed him as gay. [1]
I do also hope we'd decide on what basis we'd choose these social services. Okay, yes, Facebook is pretty popular in the West. And Twitter. And maybe G+. But what about in China: do we want to support sharing to sites that are being censored by the Chinese government? Does the Foundation have the expertise to know what the popular social networking sites are in every country and language in the world? And we'd then become a commercial player: if we had done this years ago and had added MySpace integration, the moment MySpace stops being so popular and Wikipedia (whether that's the community or the Foundation) de-emphasizes the MySpace sharing/social functionality, there'd be a big stack of headlines about how Wikipedia is pulling out of MySpace. We really ought to be neutral in this market, and there's only one way to be neutral: try as hard as possible not to participate.
You know, there might be an easier solution here: people who are into the whole social networking thing, their browsers ought to improve sharing with their social networks. Social plugins for browsers like Firefox and Chrome are opt-in for the user, and can give a better experience than Wikipedia pages being turned into NASCAR-esque branded adverts for dozens of social sites. I know Mozilla people have been discussing coming up with better ways of doing social sharing at the browser level.
[1]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/11/facebook-targeted-advertising-gay-t...
-- Tom Morris http://tommorris.org/
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Hi there,
If, on the other hand, you just mean "features to promote greater communication and networking between editors", that's a clear priority - I'm happy to talk to people about the work we're doing, and to hear any suggestions along the way :).
yes I exactly meant that. It is about making contributing not "suck". How often does Wikipedia (=MediaWiki) get big new features??? I posted a bug about integrating some kind of graph/chart feature (https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=29806) and in 9 months almost nothing happened... and this really sucks... beleive it or not...
Kozuch
On 04/23/2012 01:03 PM, Jan Ku?era wrote:
Hi there,
If, on the other hand, you just mean "features to promote greater communication and networking between editors", that's a clear priority - I'm happy to talk to people about the work we're doing, and to hear any suggestions along the way :).
yes I exactly meant that. It is about making contributing not "suck". How often does Wikipedia (=MediaWiki) get big new features??? I posted a bug about integrating some kind of graph/chart feature (https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=29806) and in 9 months almost nothing happened... and this really sucks... beleive it or not...
Kozuch
Hi, Kozuch. I look at
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=29806
and I see that, within a day of the issue being filed, multiple experienced MediaWiki developers commented on that issue to explain what the chart software's developers would have to do in order to make it suitable for use on our sites. I've also contacted the author of that extension to point at that bug's comments and at this procedural guide:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Writing_an_extension_for_deployment
so if you could help me in alerting the extension's author to those comments, that would be great. Thanks!
Hi,
yes, there surely were comments from developers... that is positive. But the result as general is still nothing at all (the feature is not even nearing deployment). WMF should invest in new features. I am not a dev and thus can not contribute any code.
Kozuch
2012/4/25 Sumana Harihareswara sumanah@wikimedia.org:
On 04/23/2012 01:03 PM, Jan Ku?era wrote:
Hi there,
If, on the other hand, you just mean "features to promote greater communication and networking between editors", that's a clear priority - I'm happy to talk to people about the work we're doing, and to hear any suggestions along the way :).
yes I exactly meant that. It is about making contributing not "suck". How often does Wikipedia (=MediaWiki) get big new features??? I posted a bug about integrating some kind of graph/chart feature (https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=29806) and in 9 months almost nothing happened... and this really sucks... beleive it or not...
Kozuch
Hi, Kozuch. I look at
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=29806
and I see that, within a day of the issue being filed, multiple experienced MediaWiki developers commented on that issue to explain what the chart software's developers would have to do in order to make it suitable for use on our sites. I've also contacted the author of that extension to point at that bug's comments and at this procedural guide:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Writing_an_extension_for_deployment
so if you could help me in alerting the extension's author to those comments, that would be great. Thanks!
-- Sumana Harihareswara Volunteer Development Coordinator Wikimedia Foundation
Jan; we get new features fairly regularly :). At the moment we're working on two new pieces of software - the Article Feedback Form, v5, and New Page Triage (a replacement for Special:NewPages). After that we're moving on to a proper notifications system to allow better communication and participation across wikis. I appreciate the rate of progress may seem slow; it is worth pointing out we have a very small teem of features engineers (although more are being hired!) and so are limited in how many different things we can work on at once.
On 25 April 2012 19:50, Jan Kučera kozuch82@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
yes, there surely were comments from developers... that is positive. But the result as general is still nothing at all (the feature is not even nearing deployment). WMF should invest in new features. I am not a dev and thus can not contribute any code.
Kozuch
2012/4/25 Sumana Harihareswara sumanah@wikimedia.org:
On 04/23/2012 01:03 PM, Jan Ku?era wrote:
Hi there,
If, on the other hand, you just mean "features to promote greater communication and networking between editors", that's a clear priority
I'm happy to talk to people about the work we're doing, and to hear any suggestions along the way :).
yes I exactly meant that. It is about making contributing not "suck". How often does Wikipedia (=MediaWiki) get big new features??? I posted a bug about integrating some kind of graph/chart feature (https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=29806) and in 9 months almost nothing happened... and this really sucks... beleive it or not...
Kozuch
Hi, Kozuch. I look at
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=29806
and I see that, within a day of the issue being filed, multiple experienced MediaWiki developers commented on that issue to explain what the chart software's developers would have to do in order to make it suitable for use on our sites. I've also contacted the author of that extension to point at that bug's comments and at this procedural guide:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Writing_an_extension_for_deployment
so if you could help me in alerting the extension's author to those comments, that would be great. Thanks!
-- Sumana Harihareswara Volunteer Development Coordinator Wikimedia Foundation
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Hi Oliver,
the development progress definitely is very very slow. As a comparison, did you watch how the web front-end of Facebook changes within the last year? It was completely overhauled about three times... You may object Facebook is commercial and not comparable to Wikimedia, but this basically is not true at all sice BOTH sites compete for the same users (editors in case of Wikimedia). I know that comparison to any other commercial site is not welcome here, but that is a sad point people in the community still think commercial/noncomemrcial are two different worlds - they arent. There is only one user, who actually does not care a lot about a site being commercial/uncommercial... There is only one market, so Wikimedia has to behave much like the commercial sites (of course with little specifics to a non-profit like privacy etc.).
From the point of this comparison, there is almost no development to
MediaWiki... this is very sad, from a multi-million budget we only have few feauter engineers... :((( The software is a significant part of the whole site and community, if you have bad software you will never have great content... Features engineers should be the core of all Wikimedia staff, it is pitty to see the reality is exactly the other way round...
The example can be myself - I am missing chart features withint MediaWiki/Wikipedia, I filled a bug, nothing happens, I may leave the community for good... This is the same story over and over again. Foundation did not really care till now...
Kozuch
2012/4/29 Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org:
Jan; we get new features fairly regularly :). At the moment we're working on two new pieces of software - the Article Feedback Form, v5, and New Page Triage (a replacement for Special:NewPages). After that we're moving on to a proper notifications system to allow better communication and participation across wikis. I appreciate the rate of progress may seem slow; it is worth pointing out we have a very small teem of features engineers (although more are being hired!) and so are limited in how many different things we can work on at once.
On 25 April 2012 19:50, Jan Kučera kozuch82@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
yes, there surely were comments from developers... that is positive. But the result as general is still nothing at all (the feature is not even nearing deployment). WMF should invest in new features. I am not a dev and thus can not contribute any code.
Kozuch
2012/4/25 Sumana Harihareswara sumanah@wikimedia.org:
On 04/23/2012 01:03 PM, Jan Ku?era wrote:
Hi there,
If, on the other hand, you just mean "features to promote greater communication and networking between editors", that's a clear priority
I'm happy to talk to people about the work we're doing, and to hear any suggestions along the way :).
yes I exactly meant that. It is about making contributing not "suck". How often does Wikipedia (=MediaWiki) get big new features??? I posted a bug about integrating some kind of graph/chart feature (https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=29806) and in 9 months almost nothing happened... and this really sucks... beleive it or not...
Kozuch
Hi, Kozuch. I look at
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=29806
and I see that, within a day of the issue being filed, multiple experienced MediaWiki developers commented on that issue to explain what the chart software's developers would have to do in order to make it suitable for use on our sites. I've also contacted the author of that extension to point at that bug's comments and at this procedural guide:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Writing_an_extension_for_deployment
so if you could help me in alerting the extension's author to those comments, that would be great. Thanks!
-- Sumana Harihareswara Volunteer Development Coordinator Wikimedia Foundation
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
-- Oliver Keyes Community Liaison, Product Development Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On Apr 29, 2012, at 1:04 AM, Jan Kučera wrote:
Hi Oliver,
the development progress definitely is very very slow. As a comparison, did you watch how the web front-end of Facebook changes within the last year? It was completely overhauled about three times... You may object Facebook is commercial and not comparable to Wikimedia, but this basically is not true at all sice BOTH sites compete for the same users (editors in case of Wikimedia). I know that comparison to any other commercial site is not welcome here, but that is a sad point people in the community still think commercial/noncomemrcial are two different worlds - they arent. There is only one user, who actually does not care a lot about a site being commercial/uncommercial... There is only one market, so Wikimedia has to behave much like the commercial sites (of course with little specifics to a non-profit like privacy etc.)
You are comparing apples and oranges.
Facebook: * Has *hundreds of millions* of dollars to devote to developer staff; * Does *not* have a community that demands to be consulted for every change; * Does *not* require that features work in ancient browsers; * Does *not* have to support skins and other technology built ten years ago; * Does *not* have to develop in order to support non-Facebook installs of their software; * Has *only* about 100 languages to develop for; * Pays *above* market rate
From the point of this comparison, there is almost no development to MediaWiki... this is very sad, from a multi-million budget we only have few feauter engineers... :((( The software is a significant part of the whole site and community, if you have bad software you will never have great content... Features engineers should be the core of all Wikimedia staff, it is pitty to see the reality is exactly the other way round..
I'm not sure I agree with you that Features Engineers should be the core of the Foundation's staff but that's not really relevant.
There are two major constraints that I think need to be understood.
First, the "multi-million budget" we have is actually *nothing* by the standards of sites and tech systems that are 1/20th of our size and scale. Bear in mind that features engineering only receives a fraction of the 30 million (or whatever) each year.
(For comparison, a friend of mine runs a moderate-sized e-commerce site. Her budget, per year, is $300 million dollars. They get probably 1/100th of our traffic and users. Probably less.)
Second, and this is going to make people surly, but the we don't pay crap. Our salaries are the lowest of the low. It is close to impossible to attract experienced talent when you are offering 80% of market rate. So even if we decided to put ALL the budget into hiring software engineers, it wouldn't mean anything because we still couldn't hire those people.
The example can be myself - I am missing chart features withint MediaWiki/Wikipedia, I filled a bug, nothing happens, I may leave the community for good... This is the same story over and over again. Foundation did not really care till now...
This is the exact opposite of what you should be doing. If you feel strongly about this, you should lobby more and more people, and create a greater consensus that your chart software is important to everyone and should be elevated. Leaving the community isn't the solution: you miss 100% of the balls you don't take a swing at.
--- Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 09:04, Jan Kučera kozuch82@gmail.com wrote:
people in the community still think commercial/noncomemrcial are two different worlds - they arent. There is only one user, who actually does not care a lot about a site being commercial/uncommercial...
I'm going to assume that by "user" you're primarily talking about our readers rather than regular contributors.
I think it's difficult to estimate whether they care that the site is "uncommercial". We don't have a test-wiki or a competing site that shows ads and is funded by those. Who can say with confidence that if there was an ad-funded Wikipedia that users wouldn't flee? So we can't know if they care or not.
if you have bad software you will never have great content...
Which raises the question: are you saying Wikipedia content is bad? Wikipedia's position in the most visited websites would appear to say that users disagree with you.
The example can be myself - I am missing chart features withint MediaWiki/Wikipedia, I filled a bug, nothing happens, I may leave the community for good... This is the same story over and over again. Foundation did not really care till now...
I too have a long outstanding feature request to do with improving watchlists (grouping pages together so you could have eg a soccer watchlist and a politics watchlist). I put out a plea some years ago and it looks like it may finally happen as someone on the Google Summer of Code program is going to give it his best shot this summer.
Instead of leaving the project why not try and form a relationship with some programmers and nudge them towards working on your idea/needs? Be the squeaky wheel looking to be oiled. And be patient. If you can't achieve what you want due to missing features at the moment, surely there are other things you can contribute that you would find fulfilling?
The fact that my watchlist doesn't have the functionality I desire has meant that I haven't used my watchlist much, but there's still 1,001 things to do that have nothing to do with a watchlist.
Bodnotbod
Sumana writes:
so if you could help me in alerting the extension's author to those comments, that would be great. Thanks!
Jan Kučera writes:
yes, there surely were comments from developers... that is positive. But the result as general is still nothing at all (the feature is not even nearing deployment). WMF should invest in new features. I am not a dev and thus can not contribute any code.
+1 to investing in supporting code written by others.
I think Sumana put it very well above :) You can help facilitate better/faster communication between core mediawiki devs and extension writers.
SJ
Hi Kozuch, While not specifically a "social" feature, you might be interested to look at a major project the WMF seems to be preparing for the future - called "Echo": https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Echo_%28Notifications%29 It is a proposed, fully integrated, notification system for mediawiki. As it says: "This feature is designed to replace and augment existing notification systems as well as providing significantly more control to both users and developers as to how their notifications are handled, read, and deleted."
It appears that this project is the top priority in the WMF's 2012-2013 Engineering plan under the heading of "reversing editor decline". See section 5.1: here https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Engineering/2012-13_Goals
-Liam
wittylama.com/blog Peace, love & metadata
On 16 April 2012 17:41, Jan Kučera kozuch82@gmail.com wrote:
Hi there,
how do we want to work on editor retention if we lack social features at all???
These go in the right direction: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Improving_our_platform http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Social_features
Is WMF going to act finally???
Kozuch
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 18:41, Jan Kučera kozuch82@gmail.com wrote:
Hi there,
how do we want to work on editor retention if we lack social features at all???
These go in the right direction: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Improving_our_platform http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Social_features
Is WMF going to act finally???
Kozuch
Hello,
I put together that second link during the strategy process. Others have since added to it but the page looks much the way I remember it from back then.
It's really hard for me to recall quite what I was thinking. I did believe that some kind of social glue would make the site more "sticky" (as the geek parlance goes) but whether I still believe that would lead to a better encyclopedia... I guess I'm not so sure about that now.
Probably I was more driven by a sense of loneliness and isolation I felt whilst I did my Wikipedia work.
Thing is, I think there are already vibrant communities within Wikipedia and I'm sure there are bonds. Although, I confess, I'm guessing because I'm not involved with any of them. But I would assume that those that put together Signpost each week feel connected. Those in the Military History group I imagine work together. I think if one wants to join a group for social interaction there are plenty of possibilities open to one.
So now, time having passed since I put together that page, I more feel that the type of stuff I do on Wikipedia doesn't really lend itself to bonding. I tend to read articles on myriad topics and follow where my curiosity takes me. Is there the possibility of an "Autodidact reader's group"? If so, what would they talk about? "I read *this* today!" "Cool! Today I read this *other* thing!" Is there much value in such exchanges? It seems to me that, no, there probably isn't.
There is also the Copyeditors Group but my relationship to it is that there is plenty of info there for me to learn from but I don't feel qualified to add to it. But I do know where to go if I have a question, which is not to be sniffed at. So if I am left daunted I know where to find support. Good.
What do I think about it all now... Personally, I think there is no good on-wiki way to address my feelings of loneliness as a volunteer but - guess what - that's fine! Because if I want to salve my solipsism then I am a member of plenty of other websites where I have friends to talk to.
However, I imagine there are ways to improve things for the groups that already exist. I would suggest anyone wishing to pursue this interviews regular contributors to the larger Wikigroups such as MILHIST and the Signpost crew. What innovations can be made to MediaWiki to help them do what they're already doing more easily? Maybe liquid threads is enough? (I'm afraid I'm not a fan).
Perhaps it would be better if the Signpost guys, for example, want to feel more bonded they simply exchange Twitter/Facebook details? Of course many people want their Wikipedia identity to be separate from their identity elsewhere and so would not wish to share such details. Is there a solution to that?
Dunno.
To finish: your post as quoted at top states there are ZERO social features. People can quite readily share text and images; there's a talk page on EVERY page we have. I'm not sure what else you expect a computer to do short of adding Skype/Voicemail.
en.wp.User:Bodnotbod
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org