Message: 1 Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 15:31:07 -0700 From: Brandon Harris bharris@wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] On certain shallow, American-centered, foolish software initiatives backed by WMF To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: 4EAB2D2B.3020803@wikimedia.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 10/28/11 3:27 PM, Etienne Beaule wrote:
It's disabled on certain wikis because of technical problems.
Oh? I wasn't aware that it had been disabled anywhere as yet. WikiLove was not rolled out "en mass"; the policy for deployment ofthe tool is that it is by request only, and the requesting wiki must:
a) Make sure the tool is localized (via TranslateWiki); b) Make sure they have a local configuration; and c) Show community consensus. So if it was enabled and then *disabled*, I have not heard of this.Is there a bug report I can look to? Or if you know of a wiki where this is the case, I can do a search.
Thanks! -b.-- Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
Good to hear that wikilove is only going in on wikis where there is consensus for it. Can anyone give me a link to the discussion that established consensus on EN wikipedia? The nearest I could find was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28miscellaneous%29/Arch...
Ta
WerepielChequers
Hoi, Given that the English Wikipedia has a problem, its page views is going down for instance, there is a well documented division between the oldies and the newbies. There is a natural attrition as well as open conflict resulting in their being not as many editors as there used to be.
Wikilove, the dashboard are all mechanisms to show appreciation and learn from newbies. This functionality is developed with the English Wikipedia in mind.
My question what is the point in stagnating in old functionality when the established community is to approve new features especially new features not addressing the needs of the established community and seeking consensus only once these features have been developed?
With respect, these features are introduced, experience is gained and consequently these features will be adapted. Does constant community consensus make sense and if so what is it that you hope to achieve? How is a no going to help given the need for a more healthy English community ? Thanks, GerardM
On 29 October 2011 14:49, WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.comwrote:
Message: 1 Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 15:31:07 -0700 From: Brandon Harris bharris@wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] On certain shallow, American-centered, foolish software initiatives backed by WMF To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: 4EAB2D2B.3020803@wikimedia.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 10/28/11 3:27 PM, Etienne Beaule wrote:
It's disabled on certain wikis because of technical problems.
Oh? I wasn't aware that it had been disabled anywhere as yet. WikiLove was not rolled out "en mass"; the policy for deploymentof
the tool is that it is by request only, and the requesting wiki must:
a) Make sure the tool is localized (via TranslateWiki); b) Make sure they have a local configuration; and c) Show community consensus. So if it was enabled and then *disabled*, I have not heard ofthis.
Is there a bug report I can look to? Or if you know of a wiki where this is the case, I can do a search.
Thanks! -b.-- Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
Good to hear that wikilove is only going in on wikis where there is consensus for it. Can anyone give me a link to the discussion that established consensus on EN wikipedia? The nearest I could find was
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28miscellaneous%29/Arch...
Ta
WerepielChequers _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Getting the dreaded community consensus for useful features and fixes is indeed a painful experience and i'm not joking.
One way to counter it is to present the communities with results of research that has been conducted and shown that these features actually achieve something positive.
Was such research conducted about WikiLove?
2011/10/29 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, Given that the English Wikipedia has a problem, its page views is going down for instance, there is a well documented division between the oldies and the newbies. There is a natural attrition as well as open conflict resulting in their being not as many editors as there used to be.
Wikilove, the dashboard are all mechanisms to show appreciation and learn from newbies. This functionality is developed with the English Wikipedia in mind.
My question what is the point in stagnating in old functionality when the established community is to approve new features especially new features not addressing the needs of the established community and seeking consensus only once these features have been developed?
With respect, these features are introduced, experience is gained and consequently these features will be adapted. Does constant community consensus make sense and if so what is it that you hope to achieve? How is a no going to help given the need for a more healthy English community ? Thanks, GerardM
On 29 October 2011 14:49, WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.comwrote:
Message: 1 Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 15:31:07 -0700 From: Brandon Harris bharris@wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] On certain shallow, American-centered, foolish software initiatives backed by WMF To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: 4EAB2D2B.3020803@wikimedia.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 10/28/11 3:27 PM, Etienne Beaule wrote:
It's disabled on certain wikis because of technical problems.
Oh? I wasn't aware that it had been disabled anywhere as yet.
WikiLove was not rolled out "en mass"; the policy for deployment
of
the tool is that it is by request only, and the requesting wiki must:
a) Make sure the tool is localized (via TranslateWiki); b) Make sure they have a local configuration; and c) Show community consensus.
So if it was enabled and then *disabled*, I have not heard of
this.
Is there a bug report I can look to? Or if you know of a wiki where this is the case, I can do a search.
Thanks!
-b.
-- Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
Good to hear that wikilove is only going in on wikis where there is consensus for it. Can anyone give me a link to the discussion that established consensus on EN wikipedia? The nearest I could find was
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28miscellaneous%29/Arch...
Ta
WerepielChequers _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hi Gerard,
Your email appears to argue that the WMF should introduce any features they find expedient and then deal with (or ignore) complaints from the community afterwards. This seems to miss the opportunity for user testing, feedback or even asking the users what they want as part of requirements gathering and analysis. Does your email represent the position of the WMF or the outreach team?
Personally, I find arguments that we should do away with community consensus because it is too hard disturbing and run counter to our agreed mission.
Thanks, Fae
Hoi, I am happy to make a distinction of what I do officially and what I say because I am personally of a particular opinion. This is very much my personal opinion.
There have been LOADS of opportunities where the community is asked, begged to be involved in what will be the way forward. The most obvious opportunity has been the Strategy project. At this time the Wikimedia Foundation is looking for all sorts of volunteers that are asked to help determine what future functionality will be like. Specifically I want to mention the need for "language support teams" and volunteers for our mobile development.
The position of the WMF as I know it is that it wants very much an involved community. To be effective, it is important for the community to be involved early in the process. Sadly many people want to be only involved at the end of the process. This does not help much and particularly not on issues that are not the bread and butter of working on content by the existing community.
I made points in my previous mail. They have not been addressed. We agree on the need for community involvement. The WMF has a strong tradition on involving its communities. My argument is that the programs that are discussed are very much monitored for their effect, based on the results the functionality will be tweaked. My argument is that these programs are the result of community consultation and therefore community involvement is the origin of the functionality we are discussing. Thanks, GerardM
On 29 October 2011 16:56, Fae fae@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Hi Gerard,
Your email appears to argue that the WMF should introduce any features they find expedient and then deal with (or ignore) complaints from the community afterwards. This seems to miss the opportunity for user testing, feedback or even asking the users what they want as part of requirements gathering and analysis. Does your email represent the position of the WMF or the outreach team?
Personally, I find arguments that we should do away with community consensus because it is too hard disturbing and run counter to our agreed mission.
Thanks, Fae
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 10/29/11 12:40 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
There have been LOADS of opportunities where the community is asked, begged to be involved in what will be the way forward. The most obvious opportunity has been the Strategy project. At this time the Wikimedia Foundation is looking for all sorts of volunteers that are asked to help determine what future functionality will be like. Specifically I want to mention the need for "language support teams" and volunteers for our mobile development.
The position of the WMF as I know it is that it wants very much an involved community. To be effective, it is important for the community to be involved early in the process. Sadly many people want to be only involved at the end of the process. This does not help much and particularly not on issues that are not the bread and butter of working on content by the existing community.
People who research and write articles *are* involved in the community. They may have a relatively narrow range of topics in which they write, and if that's what pleases them then that's where they serve the community. For many such people participating in endless political wrangles about functionality is anathema. They prefer to control how their valuable and limited time is spent. They won't touch it unless and until an initiative affects them, but by that time the political debate may have long since moved on, and there is no longer any good way of affecting policy.
Ray
So... Wikilove is enabled on all Wikis only by consensus... except en.wp, where it was pushed out with no consensus and as far as I can tell, no research yet proving it had any results?
2011/10/29 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
Hoi, Given that the English Wikipedia has a problem, its page views is going down for instance, there is a well documented division between the oldies and the newbies. There is a natural attrition as well as open conflict resulting in their being not as many editors as there used to be.
Wikilove, the dashboard are all mechanisms to show appreciation and learn from newbies. This functionality is developed with the English Wikipedia in mind.
My question what is the point in stagnating in old functionality when the established community is to approve new features especially new features not addressing the needs of the established community and seeking consensus only once these features have been developed?
With respect, these features are introduced, experience is gained and consequently these features will be adapted. Does constant community consensus make sense and if so what is it that you hope to achieve? How is a no going to help given the need for a more healthy English community ? Thanks, GerardM
On 29 October 2011 14:49, WereSpielChequers <werespielchequers@gmail.com
wrote:
Message: 1 Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 15:31:07 -0700 From: Brandon Harris bharris@wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] On certain shallow, American-centered, foolish software initiatives backed by WMF To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: 4EAB2D2B.3020803@wikimedia.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 10/28/11 3:27 PM, Etienne Beaule wrote:
It's disabled on certain wikis because of technical problems.
Oh? I wasn't aware that it had been disabled anywhere as yet. WikiLove was not rolled out "en mass"; the policy for deploymentof
the tool is that it is by request only, and the requesting wiki must:
a) Make sure the tool is localized (via TranslateWiki); b) Make sure they have a local configuration; and c) Show community consensus. So if it was enabled and then *disabled*, I have not heard ofthis.
Is there a bug report I can look to? Or if you know of a wiki where this is the case, I can do a search.
Thanks! -b.-- Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
Good to hear that wikilove is only going in on wikis where there is consensus for it. Can anyone give me a link to the discussion that established consensus on EN wikipedia? The nearest I could find was
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28miscellaneous%29/Arch...
Ta
WerepielChequers _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
My question is, are we going to have a bot to give out barnstars anytime soon? That seems like the logical conclusion of all this...
So far my only experience with extension:wikilove is having a new user prefer it to just editing my talk page, and so over the course of a mundane conversation about sourcing I earned myself two civility barnstars and three trophies. Hooray!
On 10/29/11 8:36 PM, Jorgenev wrote:
So far my only experience with extension:wikilove is having a new user prefer it to just editing my talk page, and so over the course of a mundane conversation about sourcing I earned myself two civility barnstars and three trophies. Hooray!
One take away from this experience of yours could be that the process of utilizing talk pages is extremely arcane and horrible from a user experience perspective, while using WikiLove to communicate - even though it is the "wrong" channel - is far easier and preferable to new users.
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 10:51 PM, Brandon Harris bharris@wikimedia.orgwrote:
On 10/29/11 8:36 PM, Jorgenev wrote:
So far my only experience with extension:wikilove is having a new user prefer it to just editing my talk page, and so over the course of a mundane conversation about sourcing I earned myself two civility barnstars and three trophies. Hooray!
One take away from this experience of yours could be that theprocess of utilizing talk pages is extremely arcane and horrible from a user experience perspective, while using WikiLove to communicate - even though it is the "wrong" channel - is far easier and preferable to new users.
Sure. Is easier more educational? There's the rub.
I'm all for making editing a more inviting experience, but progress has a way of feigning ease and making things more simple for building an encyclopedia removes the intellectual from the exercise. Wikipedia is one of the last places on the internet where it's not acceptable to write in all caps, ignore rules of grammar, write in text message speak, or in general not know how to write a paragraph. We should whole-heartily embrace mundane conversations about sourcing over shiny stickers, because what we learned and retained from school wasn't from the gold star reward system.. I don't approve or disapprove of the Wikilove extension- I simply don't use it in my setup because it's my preference. I do, however, worry to an extent about quality over quantity. I'd rather have someone write one nice talk page note a year than drop barnstars for niceties. But that's just me.
So far my only experience with extension:wikilove is having a new user prefer it to just editing my talk page, and so over the course of a mundane conversation about sourcing I earned myself two civility barnstars and three trophies. Hooray!
One take away from this experience of yours could be that the process of utilizing talk pages is extremely arcane and horrible from a user experience perspective, while using WikiLove to communicate - even though it is the "wrong" channel - is far easier and preferable to new users.
Would it be then logical to hang a proper communication tool which eventually would land the user on the talk page where Wikilove now hangs?
Cheers Yaroslav
On 10/30/11 4:14 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
One take away from this experience of yours could be that the process of utilizing talk pages is extremely arcane and horrible from a user experience perspective, while using WikiLove to communicate - even though it is the "wrong" channel - is far easier and preferable to new users.
Would it be then logical to hang a proper communication tool which eventually would land the user on the talk page where Wikilove now hangs?
Yes, and one has been designed. However, we have paused the process because the entire "talk page" process is just broken on so many levels and it was thought that adding a new possible point of confusion would be detrimental.
(One of my favorite things about talk pages is that, for most people, *there is no talk page button*. There's a "Discussion" tab. So when someone says "Hey, just leave me a message on my talk page and I'll help you out!" that means. . . nothing.)
On 30 October 2011 17:44, Brandon Harris bharris@wikimedia.org wrote:
(One of my favorite things about talk pages is that, for most people, *there is no talk page button*. There's a "Discussion" tab. So when someone says "Hey, just leave me a message on my talk page and I'll help you out!" that means. . . nothing.)
Perhaps we should apply the Common Name policy to the interface as well as article titles.
On 10/30/11 9:52 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 30 October 2011 17:44, Brandon Harrisbharris@wikimedia.org wrote:
(One of my favorite things about talk pages is that, for most people,*there is no talk page button*. There's a "Discussion" tab. So when someone says "Hey, just leave me a message on my talk page and I'll help you out!" that means. . . nothing.)
Perhaps we should apply the Common Name policy to the interface as well as article titles.
I noticed that. We constantly refer to talk pages as "talk pages", and yet somebody in his wisdom chose to use "Discussion" in the link. There is a certain level of synonymy between "talk" and "discuss", but someone who has been told to go to the "talk page" will respond to that instruction very literally, and look for a very specific link. Even more so if he is a newby or not a native English speaker.
Ray
On 30 October 2011 16:44, Brandon Harris bharris@wikimedia.org wrote:
(One of my favorite things about talk pages is that, for most people, *there is no talk page button*. There's a "Discussion" tab. So when someone says "Hey, just leave me a message on my talk page and I'll help you out!" that means. . . nothing.)
+1 - this one got me attempting to explain stuff to someone on the phone last week.
I suspect our main newbie problem is Wikipedia's utter opacity. Outsiders have *no goddamn clue* how this thing is even supposed to wo
- d.
On 31 October 2011 11:04, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I suspect our main newbie problem is Wikipedia's utter opacity. Outsiders have *no goddamn clue* how this thing is even supposed to wo
work, let alone how it actually does.
- d.
I see Brandon replied to this thread several times; did anyone notice if the question in the OP (if community consensus is required for implementation, where was it demonstrated for en.wp) was answered?
As better explained by Erik, the deployment to en.wiki was not done with community consensus. The purpose of the deployment, as I understand it, was two-fold: * To address one of the main reasons cited for people leaving en.wiki (lack of positive feedback) * To experiment with new methods of user communication As mentioned by Erik, the feature is still considered experimental. Ironically, the main thing we've learned from WikiLove is that our existing interface for user talk page interaction is pretty abysmal (judging by the large number of people using WikiLove to post simple questions or comments).
Ryan Kaldari
On 10/31/11 6:54 AM, Nathan wrote:
I see Brandon replied to this thread several times; did anyone notice if the question in the OP (if community consensus is required for implementation, where was it demonstrated for en.wp) was answered?
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Agree with Erik at his last e-mail. To me is a nice way to get consensus about this issue.
_____________________ MateusNobre MetalBrasil on Wikimedia projects (+55) 85 88393509 30440865
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 11:02:47 -0700 From: rkaldari@wikimedia.org To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove
As better explained by Erik, the deployment to en.wiki was not done with community consensus. The purpose of the deployment, as I understand it, was two-fold:
- To address one of the main reasons cited for people leaving en.wiki
(lack of positive feedback)
- To experiment with new methods of user communication
As mentioned by Erik, the feature is still considered experimental. Ironically, the main thing we've learned from WikiLove is that our existing interface for user talk page interaction is pretty abysmal (judging by the large number of people using WikiLove to post simple questions or comments).
Ryan Kaldari
On 10/31/11 6:54 AM, Nathan wrote:
I see Brandon replied to this thread several times; did anyone notice if the question in the OP (if community consensus is required for implementation, where was it demonstrated for en.wp) was answered?
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
IMHO, Wikilove is something so important about wikipedia's ethics and behaviour that shall be in every wiki. IMHO.
2011/10/29 WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com:
Message: 1 Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 15:31:07 -0700 From: Brandon Harris bharris@wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] On certain shallow, American-centered, foolish software initiatives backed by WMF To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: 4EAB2D2B.3020803@wikimedia.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 10/28/11 3:27 PM, Etienne Beaule wrote:
It's disabled on certain wikis because of technical problems.
Oh? I wasn't aware that it had been disabled anywhere as yet.
WikiLove was not rolled out "en mass"; the policy for deployment of the tool is that it is by request only, and the requesting wiki must:
a) Make sure the tool is localized (via TranslateWiki); b) Make sure they have a local configuration; and c) Show community consensus.
So if it was enabled and then *disabled*, I have not heard of this. Is there a bug report I can look to? Or if you know of a wiki where this is the case, I can do a search.
Thanks!
-b.
-- Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
Good to hear that wikilove is only going in on wikis where there is consensus for it. Can anyone give me a link to the discussion that established consensus on EN wikipedia? The nearest I could find was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28miscellaneous%29/Arch...
Ta
WerepielChequers _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
But if we enable it at a wiki that doesn't want it, there could be a boycott, and vandals just get the place up to there "code". It would be very detrimental to wikipedia.
On 11-10-29 12:27 PM, "Nickanc Wikipedia" nickanc.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
IMHO, Wikilove is something so important about wikipedia's ethics and behaviour that shall be in every wiki. IMHO.
2011/10/29 WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com:
Message: 1 Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 15:31:07 -0700 From: Brandon Harris bharris@wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] On certain shallow, American-centered, foolish software initiatives backed by WMF To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: 4EAB2D2B.3020803@wikimedia.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 10/28/11 3:27 PM, Etienne Beaule wrote:
It's disabled on certain wikis because of technical problems.
Oh? I wasn't aware that it had been disabled anywhere as yet.
WikiLove was not rolled out "en mass"; the policy for deployment of the tool is that it is by request only, and the requesting wiki must:
a) Make sure the tool is localized (via TranslateWiki); b) Make sure they have a local configuration; and c) Show community consensus.
So if it was enabled and then *disabled*, I have not heard of this. Is there a bug report I can look to? Or if you know of a wiki where this is the case, I can do a search.
Thanks!
-b.
-- Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
Good to hear that wikilove is only going in on wikis where there is consensus for it. Can anyone give me a link to the discussion that established consensus on EN wikipedia? The nearest I could find was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28miscellaneous%29/Arch... ve_33#Thoughts_on_WikiLove.3F
Ta
WerepielChequers _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Etienne,
Why any Wikipedia would not want the Wikilove feature?
This is inconsistent for me. Wikilove's a global improvement, there's no reason to disagree improvements.
_____________________ MateusNobre Wikimedia Brasil - MetalBrasil on Wikimedia projects (+55) 85 88393509 30440865
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 12:31:24 -0300 From: betienne@bellaliant.net To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove
But if we enable it at a wiki that doesn't want it, there could be a boycott, and vandals just get the place up to there "code". It would be very detrimental to wikipedia.
On 11-10-29 12:27 PM, "Nickanc Wikipedia" nickanc.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
IMHO, Wikilove is something so important about wikipedia's ethics and behaviour that shall be in every wiki. IMHO.
2011/10/29 WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com:
Message: 1 Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 15:31:07 -0700 From: Brandon Harris bharris@wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] On certain shallow, American-centered, foolish software initiatives backed by WMF To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: 4EAB2D2B.3020803@wikimedia.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 10/28/11 3:27 PM, Etienne Beaule wrote:
It's disabled on certain wikis because of technical problems.
Oh? I wasn't aware that it had been disabled anywhere as yet. WikiLove was not rolled out "en mass"; the policy for deployment ofthe tool is that it is by request only, and the requesting wiki must:
a) Make sure the tool is localized (via TranslateWiki); b) Make sure they have a local configuration; and c) Show community consensus. So if it was enabled and then *disabled*, I have not heard of this.Is there a bug report I can look to? Or if you know of a wiki where this is the case, I can do a search.
Thanks! -b.-- Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
Good to hear that wikilove is only going in on wikis where there is consensus for it. Can anyone give me a link to the discussion that established consensus on EN wikipedia? The nearest I could find was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28miscellaneous%29/Arch... ve_33#Thoughts_on_WikiLove.3F
Ta
WerepielChequers _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
It could happen.
On 11-10-29 4:57 PM, "Mateus Nobre" mateus.nobre@live.co.uk wrote:
Etienne,
Why any Wikipedia would not want the Wikilove feature?
This is inconsistent for me. Wikilove's a global improvement, there's no reason to disagree improvements.
MateusNobre Wikimedia Brasil - MetalBrasil on Wikimedia projects (+55) 85 88393509 30440865
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 12:31:24 -0300 From: betienne@bellaliant.net To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove
But if we enable it at a wiki that doesn't want it, there could be a boycott, and vandals just get the place up to there "code". It would be very detrimental to wikipedia.
On 11-10-29 12:27 PM, "Nickanc Wikipedia" nickanc.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
IMHO, Wikilove is something so important about wikipedia's ethics and behaviour that shall be in every wiki. IMHO.
2011/10/29 WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com:
Message: 1 Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 15:31:07 -0700 From: Brandon Harris bharris@wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] On certain shallow, American-centered, foolish software initiatives backed by WMF To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: 4EAB2D2B.3020803@wikimedia.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 10/28/11 3:27 PM, Etienne Beaule wrote:
It's disabled on certain wikis because of technical problems.
Oh? I wasn't aware that it had been disabled anywhere as yet. WikiLove was not rolled out "en mass"; the policy for deployment ofthe tool is that it is by request only, and the requesting wiki must:
a) Make sure the tool is localized (via TranslateWiki); b) Make sure they have a local configuration; and c) Show community consensus. So if it was enabled and then *disabled*, I have not heard of this.Is there a bug report I can look to? Or if you know of a wiki where this is the case, I can do a search.
Thanks! -b.-- Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
Good to hear that wikilove is only going in on wikis where there is consensus for it. Can anyone give me a link to the discussion that established consensus on EN wikipedia? The nearest I could find was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28miscellaneous%29/Arc hi ve_33#Thoughts_on_WikiLove.3F
Ta
WerepielChequers _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Am 29.10.2011 21:57, schrieb Mateus Nobre:
This is inconsistent for me. Wikilove's a global improvement, there's no reason to disagree improvements.
Huh,I knew I shoulda taken that left turn at/Albuquerque/. How exactly is it a global improvement? Quite frankly I couldn't think of anything less useful than the WikiLove extension. o.O
Best regards, Oliver
* Mateus Nobre wrote:
Why any Wikipedia would not want the Wikilove feature?
This is inconsistent for me. Wikilove's a global improvement, there's no reason to disagree improvements.
If you create a new account and edit a bit, on some projects odds are some other editor will place on your Talk page some template saying they saw you editing and wanted to personally welcome you. Some might find that nice, others might feel they are being stalked because someone is monitoring them, ridiculed as there is nothing personal about placing templates, most probably with a single click, on talk pages, and exposed as the first thing anyone visiting the talk page would see is that they are a newbie. Some may think of http://www.despair.com/motivation.html when they find themself as recepient of this kind of Wikilove. And they would have a hard time showing their discomfort because society expects you to appreciate when someone appears to try to be nice to you, which would add to their discomfort.
Some editors just want to edit articles and regard the "social" and "meta" dimensions of the project as annoying distractions, while other editors see those as the main attractions. Some prefer "You are nice.", others are far more motivated hearing "You did a good job." Some might be thrilled if they see someone clicked them a kitty, others might find it far more meaningful if another editor takes the time to manually go to their talk page and manually write, say, "I signed in this morning and saw you added a great picture to the article I created yesterday. That made me smile, thank you." without hearts and beers and single clicks (similarily, adding the picture might be a far better show of appreciation than a clicked kitty with thanks for the new article.)
It's hard to smile online.
On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 23:15:52 +0200, Bjoern Hoehrmann derhoermi@gmx.net wrote:
Some editors just want to edit articles and regard the "social" and "meta" dimensions of the project as annoying distractions, while other editors see those as the main attractions. Some prefer "You are nice.", others are far more motivated hearing "You did a good job." Some might be thrilled if they see someone clicked them a kitty, others might find it far more meaningful if another editor takes the time to manually go to their talk page and manually write, say, "I signed in this morning and saw you added a great picture to the article I created yesterday. That made me smile, thank you." without hearts and beers and single clicks (similarily, adding the picture might be a far better show of appreciation than a clicked kitty with thanks for the new article.)
Actually, I remember at some point last year Sue (or was it somebody else? sorry for not remembering) suggested thanking the users for their 100th and may be 1000th edit (or was it also the first article?). I thought it is a great idea if implemented manually. Does anybody know whether it was followed up? Accidentally, I happened to move to a brand new account already afterwards, now I am past 5000 edits and 80 new articles in English Wikipedia, and I never got any messages like this (not than I need them so much). But in general I still think it would be a good idea.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 9:57 PM, Mateus Nobre mateus.nobre@live.co.uk wrote:
Etienne,
Why any Wikipedia would not want the Wikilove feature?
This is inconsistent for me. Wikilove's a global improvement, there's no reason to disagree improvements.
What a lot of people would reply is: "Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" A little story: on the Italian Wikipedia we were calling WikiLove a call to calm down when discussions are getting too hot, and one day one Italian newspaper wrote an article about WikiLove (the new MediaWiki feature) and we were wondering what the hell they were talking about. Because we couldn't believe that such a feature could exist. I then realised that it was active on commons, and it looks like some of the things you could get on facebook three years ago, which look so old now. I don't like it, and I'm not going to use it even if it was implemented on my home wiki. But I'm sure some people would use it, and I prefer they use it rather than vandalizing pages.
Cruccone
On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 17:27:30 +0200, Nickanc Wikipedia nickanc.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
IMHO, Wikilove is something so important about wikipedia's ethics and behaviour that shall be in every wiki. IMHO.
I absolutely disagree. Wikipedia ethics and behavior encourage thanking the contributors, but it can be done in many ways, not necessarily with a barnstar (or with a laurel, or a lotus flower, or whatever is appropriate). There are many users with the template of a barnstar-free zone, and they obviously do not want barnstars. Along the same line of reasoning, I see that 99% of admins use template warnings which I hate and I never used any template warning except for copyright violation when I was still an admin. In my opinion, getting a template warning is pretty much the same as talking to a bot. Barnstars are a different issue, but barnstar-free zones are not for nothing. If one has a wikilove sign hanging on a top of the page, one is more likely to click it than to go to the user talk page and write a real thank you message.
Cheers Yaroslav
On 30 October 2011 10:15, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
Along the same line of reasoning, I see that 99% of admins use template warnings which I hate and I never used any template warning except for copyright violation when I was still an admin. In my opinion, getting a template warning is pretty much the same as talking to a bot.
And in practice, a lot of new users think the templates are actually placed by bots. A sort of Turing test in reverse.
- d.
On 10/30/11 3:21 AM, David Gerard wrote:
On 30 October 2011 10:15, Yaroslav M. Blanterputevod@mccme.ru wrote:
Along the same line of reasoning, I see that 99% of admins use template warnings which I hate and I never used any template warning except for copyright violation when I was still an admin. In my opinion, getting a template warning is pretty much the same as talking to a bot.
And in practice, a lot of new users think the templates are actually placed by bots. A sort of Turing test in reverse.
Perhaps people think that way because only those people with the intelligence of bots would use them.
Ray
Mostly useless and mostly harmless thing becomes harmful at the moment when people start to spend a lot of time on discussing it.
A note for future improvements: Yes, WMF should do bold actions, but it shouldn't waste community's confidence on mostly useless "improvements".
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org