Hello everyone,
Today, the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Engagement department is launching Wikimedia Space *[1]*, a platform for movement *[2]* organizers, affiliates, contributors, partners, and the Foundation to share news, questions, and conversations.
Learning from others has been the bedrock for development and growth in our movement. With this platform, we want to promote these sorts of enriching exchanges by welcoming people from every background to build strong and diverse communities, breaking down the barriers for entry to our movement, and focusing our efforts on facilitating collaboration, including from communities that are new to our movement.
Wikimedia Space is a single place for collaboration, comprising Blog *[1]* and Discuss *[3]* hubs. The Blog section provides a movement-wide platform for project updates, recent events, and shared learnings. We have designed editorial guidelines that allow everyone to share their news with others. Wikimedia Space also allows anybody to add an event, which can be discovered in a calendar *[4]* or a map *[5] *of the movement. We want this new space to be safe and welcoming, especially for newcomers, and this is why it is governed by a code of conduct *[6]*, and relies on active community moderation.
Wikimedia Space is currently a prototype, built on WordPress *[7]* and Discourse *[8]*. While at present it only operates in English, it will evolve to include multiple languages in the near future. This project is only possible with your participation. Spread the news and join Wikimedia Space *[9]*!
Read more about the features you’ll find on our blog post. We have also published posts on how to make this space yours, so it can best serve your needs. You can find all the documentation for this project on its page on Meta.
See you at Wikimedia Space!
*María Cruz * \ Communications and Outreach Manager, Community Engagement \ Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. mcruz@wikimedia.org | Twitter: @marianarra_ https://twitter.com/marianarra_
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement
[3] https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/
[4] https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/c/events/l/calendar
[5] https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/c/events/l/map
[6] https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/guidelines
[8] https://discourse.org/ [9] https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/t/how-to-join-wikimedia-space/113
On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 18:47, Maria Cruz mcruz@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello everyone,
Today, the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Engagement department is launching Wikimedia Space *[1]*, a platform for movement *[2]* organizers, affiliates, contributors, partners, and the Foundation to share news, questions, and conversations.
Learning from others has been the bedrock for development and growth in our movement. With this platform, we want to promote these sorts of enriching exchanges by welcoming people from every background to build strong and diverse communities, breaking down the barriers for entry to our movement, and focusing our efforts on facilitating collaboration, including from communities that are new to our movement.
Wikimedia Space is a single place for collaboration, comprising Blog *[1]* and Discuss *[3]* hubs. The Blog section provides a movement-wide platform for project updates, recent events, and shared learnings. We have designed editorial guidelines that allow everyone to share their news with others. Wikimedia Space also allows anybody to add an event, which can be discovered in a calendar *[4]* or a map *[5] *of the movement. We want this new space to be safe and welcoming, especially for newcomers, and this is why it is governed by a code of conduct *[6]*, and relies on active community moderation.
Wikimedia Space is currently a prototype, built on WordPress *[7]* and Discourse *[8]*. While at present it only operates in English, it will evolve to include multiple languages in the near future. This project is only possible with your participation. Spread the news and join Wikimedia Space *[9]*!
Read more about the features you’ll find on our blog post. We have also published posts on how to make this space yours, so it can best serve your needs. You can find all the documentation for this project on its page on Meta.
See you at Wikimedia Space!
*María Cruz * \ Communications and Outreach Manager, Community Engagement \ Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. mcruz@wikimedia.org | Twitter: @marianarra_ https://twitter.com/marianarra_
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement
[3] https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/
[4] https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/c/events/l/calendar
[5] https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/c/events/l/map
[6] https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/guidelines
[8] https://discourse.org/ [9] https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/t/how-to-join-wikimedia-space/113 _______________________________________________ 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
Does this mean we should plan to stop using https://outreach.wikimedia.org?
The two appear to serve the same purpose and are governed by the same codes of conduct.
Thanks, Fae
My two cents: I'd rather have such discussions on wiki.
Old browsers are more compatible with the wiki website, and it'd be more convenient and accessible otherwise.
On Jun 25, 2019, at 11:01 AM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 18:47, Maria Cruz mcruz@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello everyone,
Today, the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Engagement department is launching Wikimedia Space *[1]*, a platform for movement *[2]* organizers, affiliates, contributors, partners, and the Foundation to share news, questions, and conversations.
Learning from others has been the bedrock for development and growth in our movement. With this platform, we want to promote these sorts of enriching exchanges by welcoming people from every background to build strong and diverse communities, breaking down the barriers for entry to our movement, and focusing our efforts on facilitating collaboration, including from communities that are new to our movement.
Wikimedia Space is a single place for collaboration, comprising Blog *[1]* and Discuss *[3]* hubs. The Blog section provides a movement-wide platform for project updates, recent events, and shared learnings. We have designed editorial guidelines that allow everyone to share their news with others. Wikimedia Space also allows anybody to add an event, which can be discovered in a calendar *[4]* or a map *[5] *of the movement. We want this new space to be safe and welcoming, especially for newcomers, and this is why it is governed by a code of conduct *[6]*, and relies on active community moderation.
Wikimedia Space is currently a prototype, built on WordPress *[7]* and Discourse *[8]*. While at present it only operates in English, it will evolve to include multiple languages in the near future. This project is only possible with your participation. Spread the news and join Wikimedia Space *[9]*!
Read more about the features you’ll find on our blog post. We have also published posts on how to make this space yours, so it can best serve your needs. You can find all the documentation for this project on its page on Meta.
See you at Wikimedia Space!
*María Cruz * \ Communications and Outreach Manager, Community Engagement \ Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. mcruz@wikimedia.org | Twitter: @marianarra_ https://twitter.com/marianarra_
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement
[3] https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/
[4] https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/c/events/l/calendar
[5] https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/c/events/l/map
[6] https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/guidelines
[8] https://discourse.org/ [9] https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/t/how-to-join-wikimedia-space/113 _______________________________________________ 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
Does this mean we should plan to stop using https://outreach.wikimedia.org?
The two appear to serve the same purpose and are governed by the same codes of conduct.
Thanks, Fae -- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
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
Hi Maria,
Thanks for this update.
I hope that you can answer a question. I may be mistaken, but my impression is that the purposes that are outlined for Wikimedia Space are within the intended scopes of the Meta and Outreach wikis, as well as Wikimedia-l. I think that the community would be willing to consider design improvements and additional features for Meta and Outreach, such as calendar and map tools that are easy to use. Design improvements and additional features might also be welcome by third parties who use MediaWiki software and could eventually have the option to implement the changes on their own sites. Can you explain the decision to launch a new site instead of proposing design improvements and additional features for Meta and Outreach?
Thank you,
The outreach Wiki and Wikimedia Space have some similarities but I don't they serve the same purposes.
Regards,
Isaac
On Tue, Jun 25, 2019, 7:56 PM Pine W <wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Maria,
Thanks for this update.
I hope that you can answer a question. I may be mistaken, but my impression is that the purposes that are outlined for Wikimedia Space are within the intended scopes of the Meta and Outreach wikis, as well as Wikimedia-l. I think that the community would be willing to consider design improvements and additional features for Meta and Outreach, such as calendar and map tools that are easy to use. Design improvements and additional features might also be welcome by third parties who use MediaWiki software and could eventually have the option to implement the changes on their own sites. Can you explain the decision to launch a new site instead of proposing design improvements and additional features for Meta and Outreach?
Thank you,
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) _______________________________________________ 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
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
בתאריך יום ג׳, 25 ביוני 2019 ב-14:56 מאת Pine W <wiki.pine@gmail.com >:
Hi Maria,
Thanks for this update.
I hope that you can answer a question. I may be mistaken, but my impression is that the purposes that are outlined for Wikimedia Space are within the intended scopes of the Meta and Outreach wikis, as well as Wikimedia-l. I think that the community would be willing to consider design improvements and additional features for Meta and Outreach, such as calendar and map tools that are easy to use. Design improvements and additional features might also be welcome by third parties who use MediaWiki software and could eventually have the option to implement the changes on their own sites. Can you explain the decision to launch a new site instead of proposing design improvements and additional features for Meta and Outreach?
Thank you,
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) _______________________________________________ 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
Den tis 25 juni 2019 kl 23:19 skrev Yair Rand yyairrand@gmail.com:
(Closed-source software, unless I'm mistaken?) -- Yair Rand
Both Wordpress and Discourse are open source as far as I can see. Which one are you referring to?
/Jan
בתאריך יום ג׳, 25 ביוני 2019 ב-14:56 מאת Pine W <wiki.pine@gmail.com >:
Hi Maria,
Thanks for this update.
I hope that you can answer a question. I may be mistaken, but my
impression
is that the purposes that are outlined for Wikimedia Space are within the intended scopes of the Meta and Outreach wikis, as well as Wikimedia-l. I think that the community would be willing to consider design improvements and additional features for Meta and Outreach, such as calendar and map tools that are easy to use. Design improvements and additional features might also be welcome by third parties who use MediaWiki software and
could
eventually have the option to implement the changes on their own sites.
Can
you explain the decision to launch a new site instead of proposing design improvements and additional features for Meta and Outreach?
Thank you,
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) _______________________________________________ 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
On 25.06.19 23:18, Yair Rand wrote:
So far outside Wikimedia spaces that the only place it was even _announced_ was an off-wiki mailing list?
Where would you have announced it, then? I asked for a movement-wide announcement place a while ago in a different context [1] and got no satisfactory answer; the most popular one was wikimedia-l (this list), and the only on-wiki answers were “the village pumps” (i. e. scattered) – with the caveat that you should translate your message first, which doesn’t scale well. I’m not saying the Space shouldn’t have been announced anywhere else, but it certainly seems to me that there is a need for a space like it, and in particular I don’t understand why you criticize the choice of wikimedia-l for the initial announcement when there seems to be good consensus for it being a central movement announcement and discussion platform.
[1]: https://twitter.com/LucasWerkmeistr/status/1107337860389265413
Every single moderator is a WMF employee?
There can hardly be many other moderators immediately after launch, but if you check the “trust levels and user rights” post [2], you’ll see that the software (Discourse) automatically promotes users based on certain criteria (similar to autoconfirmed status on-wiki), and the highest level seems in principle to be open to any user (though the criteria still have to be fleshed out, which to me seems reasonable at this stage.)
[2]: https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/t/trust-levels-and-user-rights-in-wikimedi...
Forum using closed groups, with non-transparent communication?
This question is a bit too short for me to make sense of, sorry. Closed groups are not the default, so are you criticizing their mere existence? Do you want to claim that that closed groups are never, ever warranted? Because in my experience the claim at [3] that “[b]ecause on-wiki spaces don’t allow for [closed] collaboration, some volunteers have gravitated toward … other … platforms” is completely true.
[3]: https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/t/closed-groups/87
(Closed-source software, unless I'm mistaken?)
Both WordPress and Discourse are free and open source software.
Cheers, Lucas
Is there something the Wikimedia Foundation would like to tell us?
-- Yair Rand
בתאריך יום ג׳, 25 ביוני 2019 ב-14:56 מאת Pine W <wiki.pine@gmail.com >:
Hi Maria,
Thanks for this update.
I hope that you can answer a question. I may be mistaken, but my impression is that the purposes that are outlined for Wikimedia Space are within the intended scopes of the Meta and Outreach wikis, as well as Wikimedia-l. I think that the community would be willing to consider design improvements and additional features for Meta and Outreach, such as calendar and map tools that are easy to use. Design improvements and additional features might also be welcome by third parties who use MediaWiki software and could eventually have the option to implement the changes on their own sites. Can you explain the decision to launch a new site instead of proposing design improvements and additional features for Meta and Outreach?
Thank you,
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) _______________________________________________ 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
בתאריך יום ג׳, 25 ביוני 2019 ב-18:02 מאת Lucas Werkmeister < mail@lucaswerkmeister.de>:
On 25.06.19 23:18, Yair Rand wrote:
So far outside Wikimedia spaces that the only place it was even _announced_ was an off-wiki
mailing
list?
Where would you have announced it, then? I asked for a movement-wide announcement place a while ago in a different context [1] and got no satisfactory answer; the most popular one was wikimedia-l (this list), and the only on-wiki answers were “the village pumps” (i. e. scattered) – with the caveat that you should translate your message first, which doesn’t scale well. I’m not saying the Space shouldn’t have been announced anywhere else, but it certainly seems to me that there is a need for a space like it, and in particular I don’t understand why you criticize the choice of wikimedia-l for the initial announcement when there seems to be good consensus for it being a central movement announcement and discussion platform.
I would have publicly announced it at least on the place that it's trying to replace: Meta-wiki.
Every single moderator is a WMF employee?
There can hardly be many other moderators immediately after launch, but if you check the “trust levels and user rights” post [2], you’ll see that the software (Discourse) automatically promotes users based on certain criteria (similar to autoconfirmed status on-wiki), and the highest level seems in principle to be open to any user (though the criteria still have to be fleshed out, which to me seems reasonable at this stage.)
The outline ELappen (WMF) put up says explicitly that Wikimedia Space is intended to be "A news and discussion space for the Wikimedia movement run by Community Relations."
In the past, Wikimedia institutions have built things at the community's request, with an clear "We set up the technical work, everything in it is the community's responsibility now" message. This is pretty much the exact opposite of that, especially since there already was a space that was community-run with the same scope.
Moderation of communications is something the WMF does not run, period. The perception that the WMF might think it can get involved in it is what led to the current chaos on enwiki.
[2]:
https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/t/trust-levels-and-user-rights-in-wikimedi...
Forum using closed groups, with non-transparent communication?
This question is a bit too short for me to make sense of, sorry. Closed groups are not the default, so are you criticizing their mere existence? Do you want to claim that that closed groups are never, ever warranted? Because in my experience the claim at [3] that “[b]ecause on-wiki spaces don’t allow for [closed] collaboration, some volunteers have gravitated toward … other … platforms” is completely true.
It is very deliberate that on-wiki spaces don't allow for closed collaboration. Non-transparent activities is generally not accepted without a very good reason.
(Closed-source software, unless I'm mistaken?)
Both WordPress and Discourse are free and open source software.
Last time the WMF set something up with WordPress, they did the whole thing in private, failed to publish the source code for the custom theme for months after launch, and also user violated privacy requirements by sharing data with third parties by loading data from external websites. I see a new website secretly set up with WordPress, a new tracker for the fact that it's violating the privacy of every user by loading third-party resources (T226559), and no mention anywhere of the publishing of the theme's source code. It is, of course, perfectly possible that I just missed it, or that there's no issue for some other reason.
Also there's no content license information anywhere. Or pages about dumps, which would probably be necessary for allowing forking.
I don't understand how we got to the point where something like this isn't even known about until after its launch. Or how it looks like everything about it was built by the WMF. I don't understand what's going on in there. It's quite concerning.
-- Yair Rand
Cheers, Lucas
Is there something the Wikimedia Foundation would like to tell us?
-- Yair Rand
בתאריך יום ג׳, 25 ביוני 2019 ב-14:56 מאת Pine W <
wiki.pine@gmail.com
>:
Hi Maria,
Thanks for this update.
I hope that you can answer a question. I may be mistaken, but my
impression
is that the purposes that are outlined for Wikimedia Space are within
the
intended scopes of the Meta and Outreach wikis, as well as Wikimedia-l.
I
think that the community would be willing to consider design
improvements
and additional features for Meta and Outreach, such as calendar and map tools that are easy to use. Design improvements and additional features might also be welcome by third parties who use MediaWiki software and
could
eventually have the option to implement the changes on their own sites.
Can
you explain the decision to launch a new site instead of proposing
design
improvements and additional features for Meta and Outreach?
Thank you,
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) _______________________________________________ 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
On 26.06.19 01:22, Yair Rand wrote:
בתאריך יום ג׳, 25 ביוני 2019 ב-18:02 מאת Lucas Werkmeister < mail@lucaswerkmeister.de>:
On 25.06.19 23:18, Yair Rand wrote:
So far outside Wikimedia spaces that the only place it was even _announced_ was an off-wiki
mailing
list?
Where would you have announced it, then? I asked for a movement-wide announcement place a while ago in a different context [1] and got no satisfactory answer; the most popular one was wikimedia-l (this list), and the only on-wiki answers were “the village pumps” (i. e. scattered) – with the caveat that you should translate your message first, which doesn’t scale well. I’m not saying the Space shouldn’t have been announced anywhere else, but it certainly seems to me that there is a need for a space like it, and in particular I don’t understand why you criticize the choice of wikimedia-l for the initial announcement when there seems to be good consensus for it being a central movement announcement and discussion platform.
I would have publicly announced it at least on the place that it's trying to replace: Meta-wiki.
Sorry if this sounds like I’m just repeating the question, but where on metawiki specifically? Because there’s no such thing as a village pump there, as far as I’m aware – a page titled Village pump [1] exists, but it’s just a redirect to Wikimedia Forum [2], which is described as “a central place for *questions and discussions* about the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects” (emphasis mine). It’s not a place for announcements, and there are no other announcements on it, so I certainly wouldn’t expect the Wikimedia Space announcement to be there. Meta:Discussion pages [3] also emphasizes that Wikimedia Forum is a page about the Wikimedia Foundation, whereas Wikimedia Space should be, as I understand it, a movement-wide thing (though initiated by the Foundation).
I maintain that there is no single on-wiki place for movement-wide announcements like this, and wikimedia-l is currently the most obvious venue; and since Discourse can offer several improvements over a mailing list (no need to set up a pseudonymous email if you want to remain anonymous, and it’s easier to follow a discussion without subscribing to the list), I’m excited about the possibilities this brings.
Cheers, Lucas
PS: Minor note about the automatic promotion on Discourse – to my own surprise, I earned level 1 just a few minutes after sending my other email. It’s a much lower barrier than autoconfirmed status :)
[1]: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Village_pump [2]: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Forum [3]: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Discussion_pages
Hi, thank you for your feedback about Wikimedia Space.
So far, there have been many comments focusing on _who_ has released _what_ and _how_. Let me tell you _why_ we are proposing Wikimedia Space. People agreeing on _why_ can agree on the rest way easier.
Wikimedia Space is all about Wikimedia growth. If you are supporting newcomers or you are contributing to the growth of the Wikimedia movement in other ways, we are very interested in your opinions, your suggestions, your needs. And we are especially interested in hearing from you if you are a promoter of movement diversity and/or part of any kind of group underrepresented in Wikimedia.
Why Wikimedia Space, in more detail:
From the Wikimedia movement strategic direction -
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20
* Knowledge equity
From the Wikimedia Foundation medium-term plan -
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Medium-term_plan_2019
* Grow participation globally, focusing on emerging markets * Thriving movement * Support to newcomers * Strong, diverse, and innovative communities that represent the World * Strong and empowered movement leaders and affiliates * Safe, secure spaces and equitable, efficient processes for all participants
I hope this explains our _why_. About some of the points mentioned...
Wikimedia Space is a proposal to the movement in the form of a prototype https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/t/what-do-mean-here-by-prototype/188/4. We believe it will generate interest, feedback, criticism and contributions in a number of ways that a text-only proposal in (say) Meta Wiki wouldn't achieve.
For instance, while we discuss here in a black & white and text-only environment, more than 60 colorful users have signed up already and Wikimedia Space and are getting their own impressions about it. https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/u .
Or for instance, several event organizers just signed up and added their event to the Wikimedia Space map, which, if you ask me, after just one day already looks fresh, beautiful and interesting: https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/c/events/l/map
We are happy to discuss possibilities for connection / integration / migration between Wikimedia Space and existing community channels. As a matter of fact, wikimedia-l could potentially benefit from the features offered by Wikimedia Space (a conversation started in this list by volunteers years ago): https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/t/integrating-mailing-lists-to-wikimedia-s...
Wikimedia Space doesn't prevent improvements in Meta or other places. If anything, we believe it will become an incentive for improvements in all community channels willing to keep up. In our opinion, potential improvements in Meta shouldn't prevent the release of Wikimedia Space. What you see today is the result of about three weeks of part time work by four people. Now consider how much time would it take to discuss, agree, resource and implement an equivalent feature set in MediaWiki, and (just as important) equivalent social expectations and norms in the Meta community.
We are just starting to promote Wikimedia Space. Yesterday we did an initial announcement to get a first wave of users, see how the prototype would take hold, and gauge the initial response. We plan to continue promoting Wikimedia Space in more channels. In fact, you can help. If there is a channel missing, please point to its URL, or (even better) feel free to forward the announcement yourself.
If you have found an actionable problem, we welcome bug reports and feature requests: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/tag/space/
We encourage you to give Wikimedia Space a try. Even if today someone remains unconvinced, signing up won't hurt them. Then give it a week, and let us know. We really mean it! Prototypes always contribute to better discussions.
Best regards,
Hi Quim,
On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 4:47 PM Quim Gil qgil@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi, thank you for your feedback about Wikimedia Space.
So far, there have been many comments focusing on _who_ has released _what_ and _how_. Let me tell you _why_ we are proposing Wikimedia Space. People agreeing on _why_ can agree on the rest way easier.
Wikimedia Space is all about Wikimedia growth. If you are supporting newcomers or you are contributing to the growth of the Wikimedia movement in other ways, we are very interested in your opinions, your suggestions, your needs. And we are especially interested in hearing from you if you are a promoter of movement diversity and/or part of any kind of group underrepresented in Wikimedia.
I think that it's okay to experiment with new communications tools, but I would like to hear more specifics about how the new platform is intended to contribute to growth in a way that providing new features or more newbie-friendly tools on wiki does not. I say this mindful that talk pages have a steep learning curve, but there are ongoing efforts to make talk pages be more user-friendly.
Why Wikimedia Space, in more detail:
From the Wikimedia movement strategic direction - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20
- Knowledge equity
From the Wikimedia Foundation medium-term plan - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Medium-term_plan_2019
- Grow participation globally, focusing on emerging markets
- Thriving movement
- Support to newcomers
- Strong, diverse, and innovative communities that represent the World
- Strong and empowered movement leaders and affiliates
- Safe, secure spaces and equitable, efficient processes for all
participants
I hope this explains our _why_. About some of the points mentioned...
I agree with most of those points, with two possible exceptions.
Regarding "efficient processes for all participants": I understand the attractiveness of speedy and efficient processes, which often coincide with unilateral decisions. Sometimes in the community we specifically empower people to make unilateral decisions, such as blocking vandals. However, democracy, consensus, legislative processes, and judicial processes are sometimes not efficient ways of making decisions; they may trade speed and efficiency for quality, equity, transparency, and/or sustainability. I would be concerned if WMF is broadly adopting a mindset of "move fast and break things".
At the same time, I think that we in the community should be open to considering tools that would let us improve our processes, often in increments and with careful testing. An example of this would be considering Discourse as a platform for communications.
Regarding "safe, secure spaces": There will always be contentious topics in the Wikiverse, such as the sovereignty of contested geographic territories, the validity of certain scientific theories, policies for the English Wikipedia Manual of Style, and the morality of certain actions. People will be upset, angry, disappointed, or offended. There is a tension between freedom of expression and safety. I think that an unqualified goal of "safe, secure spaces" is unrealistic, and risks doing more harm than good by promoting an unrealistic vision and by implying that people have a right not to feel offended.
At the same time, I am willing to block people in various circumstances such as if they threaten to commit a criminal action, engage in phishing or other fraudulent activity, fail to disclose an important relationship to a subject of their editing or official activities, or engage in harassment of others. Freedom of expression has some limits, even in the public square.
The Wikiverse is more like a public square than a quiet office, and I worry that WMF's current vision for safety might be misguided and might be harmful to candid public discourse and to people who are misled into relying on an unrealistic implication that the Wikiverse is a place where they shouldn't expect to feel offended and will reliably be protected from harm. I think that being honest about the risks would be good, along with supporting improvements as requested by the community. An example of an initiative that I believe has community support is the partial blocks feature.
Wikimedia Space is a proposal to the movement in the form of a prototype https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/t/what-do-mean-here-by-prototype/188/4. We believe it will generate interest, feedback, criticism and contributions in a number of ways that a text-only proposal in (say) Meta Wiki wouldn't achieve.
I'm cautiously supportive of experiments and prototyping in general. However, WMF already appears to be planning to add more resources to this project. Can you share what the long term plans are?
For instance, while we discuss here in a black & white and text-only environment, more than 60 colorful users have signed up already and Wikimedia Space and are getting their own impressions about it. https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/u .
Or for instance, several event organizers just signed up and added their event to the Wikimedia Space map, which, if you ask me, after just one day already looks fresh, beautiful and interesting: https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/c/events/l/map
I think that an on-wiki version of the map could be of great interest.
We are happy to discuss possibilities for connection / integration / migration between Wikimedia Space and existing community channels. As a matter of fact, wikimedia-l could potentially benefit from the features offered by Wikimedia Space (a conversation started in this list by volunteers years ago):
https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/t/integrating-mailing-lists-to-wikimedia-s...
I think that experimenting with Discourse as an alternative for Wikimedia-l makes sense. However, given WMF's tendencies to grab power unilaterally instead of using persuasion, its opacity regarding both financial and governance matters, and the risks associated with strong central control, I prefer that any replacement for Wikimedia-l is not under the control of WMF. One reason to shift community conversations to Facebook, email, and other platforms is that WMF has less ability to control them.
Wikimedia Space doesn't prevent improvements in Meta or other places. If anything, we believe it will become an incentive for improvements in all community channels willing to keep up.
To the best of my knowledge the community has been very supportive of improved mapping tools, and I cannot recall anyone opposing a better on-wiki calendaring system. I believe that in both cases those have stalled due to lack of resources from WMF. Occasionally I see or hear from WMF staff that they are frustrated by community opposition to what the staff thinks is progress. Recently I have been optimistic about WMF's talk pages consultation, which I feel is being done well. Regrettably, some of WMF's other recent actions (I am thinking in particular about WMF's intervention on English Wikipedia) have been far less respectful.
In our opinion, potential improvements in Meta shouldn't prevent the release of Wikimedia Space. What you see today is the result of about three weeks of part time work by four people. Now consider how much time would it take to discuss, agree, resource and implement an equivalent feature set in MediaWiki, and (just as important) equivalent social expectations and norms in the Meta community.
I would feel better about WMF's judgement here if this statement was carefully qualified to say that WMF respects community processes and thought that a small experiment would be okay. I think that some experimentation is good, but I am troubled by what comes across to me as a "move fast and break things" line of thought. Am I understanding your position correctly? Unilateral decisions may be convenient, but goodwill is easy to lose, and short term gains risk long term harms. Perhaps WMF is justifying unilateralism and impatience as being for the good of the community, but I think that such reasoning can easily be dangerous.
We are just starting to promote Wikimedia Space. Yesterday we did an initial announcement to get a first wave of users, see how the prototype would take hold, and gauge the initial response. We plan to continue promoting Wikimedia Space in more channels. In fact, you can help. If there is a channel missing, please point to its URL, or (even better) feel free to forward the announcement yourself.
I will not do that myself, but I hope that there are benefits from this prototype. I think that some experimentation is fine and good.
If you have found an actionable problem, we welcome bug reports and feature requests: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/tag/space/
We encourage you to give Wikimedia Space a try. Even if today someone remains unconvinced, signing up won't hurt them. Then give it a week, and let us know. We really mean it! Prototypes always contribute to better discussions.
Thank you for your explanation of WMF's line of thinking. I think that some experimentation can be refreshing and good. However, I would suggest that WMF not adopt a "move fast and break things" mentality. There are circumstances in which boldness is good, but I am concerned about recent actions of WMF that suggest a move toward impatience at the expense of respect, thoughtfulness, and long-term goodwill.
I love the idea of experimenting like this. More like this please. The simpler and lighter weight experiments can be (w little drama ;) the more of possibility space we can explore.
And that's a space we should all be excited by.
On Wed., Jun. 26, 2019, 12:47 p.m. Quim Gil, qgil@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi, thank you for your feedback about Wikimedia Space.
So far, there have been many comments focusing on _who_ has released _what_ and _how_. Let me tell you _why_ we are proposing Wikimedia Space. People agreeing on _why_ can agree on the rest way easier.
Wikimedia Space is all about Wikimedia growth. If you are supporting newcomers or you are contributing to the growth of the Wikimedia movement in other ways, we are very interested in your opinions, your suggestions, your needs. And we are especially interested in hearing from you if you are a promoter of movement diversity and/or part of any kind of group underrepresented in Wikimedia.
Why Wikimedia Space, in more detail:
From the Wikimedia movement strategic direction - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20
- Knowledge equity
From the Wikimedia Foundation medium-term plan - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Medium-term_plan_2019
- Grow participation globally, focusing on emerging markets
- Thriving movement
- Support to newcomers
- Strong, diverse, and innovative communities that represent the World
- Strong and empowered movement leaders and affiliates
- Safe, secure spaces and equitable, efficient processes for all
participants
I hope this explains our _why_. About some of the points mentioned...
Wikimedia Space is a proposal to the movement in the form of a prototype https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/t/what-do-mean-here-by-prototype/188/4. We believe it will generate interest, feedback, criticism and contributions in a number of ways that a text-only proposal in (say) Meta Wiki wouldn't achieve.
For instance, while we discuss here in a black & white and text-only environment, more than 60 colorful users have signed up already and Wikimedia Space and are getting their own impressions about it. https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/u .
Or for instance, several event organizers just signed up and added their event to the Wikimedia Space map, which, if you ask me, after just one day already looks fresh, beautiful and interesting: https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/c/events/l/map
We are happy to discuss possibilities for connection / integration / migration between Wikimedia Space and existing community channels. As a matter of fact, wikimedia-l could potentially benefit from the features offered by Wikimedia Space (a conversation started in this list by volunteers years ago):
https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/t/integrating-mailing-lists-to-wikimedia-s...
Wikimedia Space doesn't prevent improvements in Meta or other places. If anything, we believe it will become an incentive for improvements in all community channels willing to keep up. In our opinion, potential improvements in Meta shouldn't prevent the release of Wikimedia Space. What you see today is the result of about three weeks of part time work by four people. Now consider how much time would it take to discuss, agree, resource and implement an equivalent feature set in MediaWiki, and (just as important) equivalent social expectations and norms in the Meta community.
We are just starting to promote Wikimedia Space. Yesterday we did an initial announcement to get a first wave of users, see how the prototype would take hold, and gauge the initial response. We plan to continue promoting Wikimedia Space in more channels. In fact, you can help. If there is a channel missing, please point to its URL, or (even better) feel free to forward the announcement yourself.
If you have found an actionable problem, we welcome bug reports and feature requests: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/tag/space/
We encourage you to give Wikimedia Space a try. Even if today someone remains unconvinced, signing up won't hurt them. Then give it a week, and let us know. We really mean it! Prototypes always contribute to better discussions.
Best regards,
Quim Gil Senior Manager of Community Relations @ Wikimedia Foundation https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Qgil-WMF _______________________________________________ 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
Yes, like Samuel I'm excited to see some experimentation with alternative (and hopefully better) mediums for community engagement.
Adrian Raddatz
On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 7:05 PM Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
I love the idea of experimenting like this. More like this please. The simpler and lighter weight experiments can be (w little drama ;) the more of possibility space we can explore.
And that's a space we should all be excited by.
On Wed., Jun. 26, 2019, 12:47 p.m. Quim Gil, qgil@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi, thank you for your feedback about Wikimedia Space.
So far, there have been many comments focusing on _who_ has released
_what_
and _how_. Let me tell you _why_ we are proposing Wikimedia Space. People agreeing on _why_ can agree on the rest way easier.
Wikimedia Space is all about Wikimedia growth. If you are supporting newcomers or you are contributing to the growth of the Wikimedia movement in other ways, we are very interested in your opinions, your suggestions, your needs. And we are especially interested in hearing from you if you
are
a promoter of movement diversity and/or part of any kind of group underrepresented in Wikimedia.
Why Wikimedia Space, in more detail:
From the Wikimedia movement strategic direction - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20
- Knowledge equity
From the Wikimedia Foundation medium-term plan -
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Medium-term_plan_2019
- Grow participation globally, focusing on emerging markets
- Thriving movement
- Support to newcomers
- Strong, diverse, and innovative communities that represent the World
- Strong and empowered movement leaders and affiliates
- Safe, secure spaces and equitable, efficient processes for all
participants
I hope this explains our _why_. About some of the points mentioned...
Wikimedia Space is a proposal to the movement in the form of a prototype https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/t/what-do-mean-here-by-prototype/188/4
.
We believe it will generate interest, feedback, criticism and
contributions
in a number of ways that a text-only proposal in (say) Meta Wiki wouldn't achieve.
For instance, while we discuss here in a black & white and text-only environment, more than 60 colorful users have signed up already and Wikimedia Space and are getting their own impressions about it. https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/u .
Or for instance, several event organizers just signed up and added their event to the Wikimedia Space map, which, if you ask me, after just one
day
already looks fresh, beautiful and interesting: https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/c/events/l/map
We are happy to discuss possibilities for connection / integration / migration between Wikimedia Space and existing community channels. As a matter of fact, wikimedia-l could potentially benefit from the features offered by Wikimedia Space (a conversation started in this list by volunteers years ago):
https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/t/integrating-mailing-lists-to-wikimedia-s...
Wikimedia Space doesn't prevent improvements in Meta or other places. If anything, we believe it will become an incentive for improvements in all community channels willing to keep up. In our opinion, potential improvements in Meta shouldn't prevent the release of Wikimedia Space.
What
you see today is the result of about three weeks of part time work by
four
people. Now consider how much time would it take to discuss, agree, resource and implement an equivalent feature set in MediaWiki, and (just
as
important) equivalent social expectations and norms in the Meta
community.
We are just starting to promote Wikimedia Space. Yesterday we did an initial announcement to get a first wave of users, see how the prototype would take hold, and gauge the initial response. We plan to continue promoting Wikimedia Space in more channels. In fact, you can help. If
there
is a channel missing, please point to its URL, or (even better) feel free to forward the announcement yourself.
If you have found an actionable problem, we welcome bug reports and
feature
requests: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/tag/space/
We encourage you to give Wikimedia Space a try. Even if today someone remains unconvinced, signing up won't hurt them. Then give it a week, and let us know. We really mean it! Prototypes always contribute to better discussions.
Best regards,
Quim Gil Senior Manager of Community Relations @ Wikimedia Foundation https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Qgil-WMF _______________________________________________ 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
I have no comment on Wikimedia Space. IMHO it's too soon to criticize it but I want to point out to a pattern that I have been seeing in the past couple of months by several people in this very mailing list.
You have been repeating the word "WMF" (four time, for four different purposes) and treating it as a big monolith which is far from truth, WMF consists of different teams with different focuses, priorities, goals, and processes.
This type of comments also increases the tension by promoting concept of "volunteer vs. WMF". It's not a war, we have the same mission. Stop criticizing a huge organization devoted to support volunteers (which you can't deny all of its good deeds, like keeping servers the world-class website running while being horribly understaffed, we have only 1% of Google's staff) because you disagree with this project or that program.
Criticize projects, criticize actions (which can be valid), but don't be like "here we go again, WMF".
I'm a volunteer at night, WMDE staff at day. Right now, it's the volunteer hats on.
Best
On Wed, Jun 26, 2019, 01:19 Yair Rand yyairrand@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
בתאריך יום ג׳, 25 ביוני 2019 ב-14:56 מאת Pine W <wiki.pine@gmail.com >:
Hi Maria,
Thanks for this update.
I hope that you can answer a question. I may be mistaken, but my
impression
is that the purposes that are outlined for Wikimedia Space are within the intended scopes of the Meta and Outreach wikis, as well as Wikimedia-l. I think that the community would be willing to consider design improvements and additional features for Meta and Outreach, such as calendar and map tools that are easy to use. Design improvements and additional features might also be welcome by third parties who use MediaWiki software and
could
eventually have the option to implement the changes on their own sites.
Can
you explain the decision to launch a new site instead of proposing design improvements and additional features for Meta and Outreach?
Thank you,
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) _______________________________________________ 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
There seems to be a trend on the part of the WMF, however, both to try to control onwiki Wikimedia communities (wiki.en current case), and at the same time divert part of the communities to closed platforms under direct or indirect WMF control.
I'm also not sure anymore that Wikimedia volunteers and the WMF do share the same mission. I would like to be, but I'm not.
Best, Paulo
Amir Sarabadani ladsgroup@gmail.com escreveu no dia quarta, 26/06/2019 à(s) 00:58:
I have no comment on Wikimedia Space. IMHO it's too soon to criticize it but I want to point out to a pattern that I have been seeing in the past couple of months by several people in this very mailing list.
You have been repeating the word "WMF" (four time, for four different purposes) and treating it as a big monolith which is far from truth, WMF consists of different teams with different focuses, priorities, goals, and processes.
This type of comments also increases the tension by promoting concept of "volunteer vs. WMF". It's not a war, we have the same mission. Stop criticizing a huge organization devoted to support volunteers (which you can't deny all of its good deeds, like keeping servers the world-class website running while being horribly understaffed, we have only 1% of Google's staff) because you disagree with this project or that program.
Criticize projects, criticize actions (which can be valid), but don't be like "here we go again, WMF".
I'm a volunteer at night, WMDE staff at day. Right now, it's the volunteer hats on.
Best
On Wed, Jun 26, 2019, 01:19 Yair Rand yyairrand@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
בתאריך יום ג׳, 25 ביוני 2019 ב-14:56 מאת Pine W <
wiki.pine@gmail.com
>:
Hi Maria,
Thanks for this update.
I hope that you can answer a question. I may be mistaken, but my
impression
is that the purposes that are outlined for Wikimedia Space are within
the
intended scopes of the Meta and Outreach wikis, as well as
Wikimedia-l. I
think that the community would be willing to consider design
improvements
and additional features for Meta and Outreach, such as calendar and map tools that are easy to use. Design improvements and additional features might also be welcome by third parties who use MediaWiki software and
could
eventually have the option to implement the changes on their own sites.
Can
you explain the decision to launch a new site instead of proposing
design
improvements and additional features for Meta and Outreach?
Thank you,
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) _______________________________________________ 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
On Wed 26 Jun 2019 at 00:58, Amir Sarabadani ladsgroup@gmail.com wrote:
I have no comment on Wikimedia Space. IMHO it's too soon to criticize it but I want to point out to a pattern that I have been seeing in the past couple of months by several people in this very mailing list.
You have been repeating the word "WMF" (four time, for four different purposes) and treating it as a big monolith which is far from truth, WMF consists of different teams with different focuses, priorities, goals, and processes.
This type of comments also increases the tension by promoting concept of "volunteer vs. WMF". It's not a war, we have the same mission. Stop criticizing a huge organization devoted to support volunteers (which you can't deny all of its good deeds, like keeping servers the world-class website running while being horribly understaffed, we have only 1% of Google's staff) because you disagree with this project or that program.
Criticize projects, criticize actions (which can be valid), but don't be like "here we go again, WMF".
Largest possible +1 to this. Thanks Amir.
Dan
On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 22:19, Yair Rand yyairrand@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.
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@gmail.com:
On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 22:19, Yair Rand yyairrand@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
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@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@gmail.com:
On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 22:19, Yair Rand yyairrand@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@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
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@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@gmail.com:
On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 22:19, Yair Rand yyairrand@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@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
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@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@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@gmail.com:
On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 22:19, Yair Rand yyairrand@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@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
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@lists.wikimedia.org