On Feb 21, 2016, at 3:54 PM, Thyge ltl.privat@gmail.com wrote:
I really wonder why wikimedia discussions have migrated to FB. ...
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Brandon Harris bharris@gaijin.com wrote:
Because Talk pages suck as a medium for conversation and allattempts to fix this have been shot down with venom.
This is a very important point to discuss -- and actually circles us back to the topic of post-mortems.
When software features are unpopular, it is very important to carefully consider the reasons for their unpopularity. Here, Brandon, I think you're implying that there is fundamental resistance to change. I disagree; I think the attempts (Liquid Threads and Flow), though there was great technical merit in them, were approached in ways that felt threatening to Wikimedians.
If we disagree on this, that's OK -- I don't expect to resolve this disagreement here on the list. But I do think we should have a thorough, careful evaluation of how the Liquid Threads and Flow projects were approached. It should include what factors contributed to and detracted from their popularity among Wikimedians. That, I think, would establish a shared understanding that would support discourse about whether or not it is possible to design better discussion software, and how that could be more effectively approached.
Why were past efforts shot down?
Is it possible to imagine an effort that would not be shot down, but embraced?
What would need to be different?
These are the kinds of questions I wish the Wikimedia Foundation would get better at asking and exploring.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Feb 21, 2016, at 7:19 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Here, Brandon, I think you're implying that there is fundamental resistance to change.
Let me disabuse you of a notion: I am not _implying_ this. I am _directly stating it._
--- Brandon Harris :: bharris@gaijin.com :: made of steel wool and whiskey
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 8:19 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Is it possible to imagine an effort that would not be shot down, but embraced?
What would need to be different?
These are the kinds of questions I wish the Wikimedia Foundation would get better at asking and exploring.
Lila is good at asking the right questions of the community, which is why
(so far as I can tell) editors like her. If you look at her meta talk page, you can see her asking good questions about Flow and trying to find out what editors need.
That was literally the first time we felt we were being listened to. There was one point when Flow was introduced – and I have been trying to find this diff but can't – where there was something on the talk page that amounted to "if you agree with us that x and y, then you're welcome to join the discussion."
So from the start, it felt as though staffers had ruled out the community as people who might know something about what tools are needed to collaborate on an article (which is not the same as chatting). People who had been doing something for years were not regarded as experts in that thing by the Foundation.
We would say "we need pages," and they would explain why we didn't. We would say "we need archives," and they would explain why good search was a better idea. We would say "there's too much white space," and they would explain that people like white space. And so on.
Sarah
Brandon and Sarah:
I'm going to resist the urge to delve into the specifics of Flow here, as I'd really like to stay on the topic of whether post-mortems on divisive issues are valuable, and how they should be approached.
Do you agree that an annotated summary of what has gone well and what hasn't, in the case of discussion technology like Liquid Threads and Flow, might help us to have generative conversations on this topic? Or do you disagree? What kinds of approaches do you think might help the organization and the community learn the best lessons from past efforts, avoid repeating mistakes, and find ever more effective ways to engage with each other?
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 7:42 PM, SarahSV sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 8:19 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Is it possible to imagine an effort that would not be shot down, but embraced?
What would need to be different?
These are the kinds of questions I wish the Wikimedia Foundation would
get
better at asking and exploring.
Lila is good at asking the right questions of the community, which is
why (so far as I can tell) editors like her. If you look at her meta talk page, you can see her asking good questions about Flow and trying to find out what editors need.
That was literally the first time we felt we were being listened to. There was one point when Flow was introduced – and I have been trying to find this diff but can't – where there was something on the talk page that amounted to "if you agree with us that x and y, then you're welcome to join the discussion."
So from the start, it felt as though staffers had ruled out the community as people who might know something about what tools are needed to collaborate on an article (which is not the same as chatting). People who had been doing something for years were not regarded as experts in that thing by the Foundation.
We would say "we need pages," and they would explain why we didn't. We would say "we need archives," and they would explain why good search was a better idea. We would say "there's too much white space," and they would explain that people like white space. And so on.
Sarah
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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 Feb 21, 2016, at 7:48 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Do you agree that an annotated summary of what has gone well and what hasn't, in the case of discussion technology like Liquid Threads and Flow, might help us to have generative conversations on this topic?
Not in the slightest. Having a conversation about anything this divisive is completely pointless and draining; no one listens to anyone else and everyone blames everyone else for not listening - especially because everyone claims "I'm not being heard" (even if they are, and are just disagreed with.)
I could write up a whole big thing about this to try to create clarity but it doesn't matter; the only responses will be claims that the WMF (and myself in particular) are operating only in bad faith or "being rude" or we'll have some chuckleheads (who never try to help, claim to be expert engineers, but never seem to be able to back up those claims) talk shit about the skill sets in engineering and derail the conversation.
So no. I don't believe this will be useful.
--- Brandon Harris :: bharris@gaijin.com :: made of steel wool and whiskey
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 8:48 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Do you agree that an annotated summary of what has gone well and what hasn't, in the case of discussion technology like Liquid Threads and Flow, might help us to have generative conversations on this topic? Or do you disagree? What kinds of approaches do you think might help the organization and the community learn the best lessons from past efforts, avoid repeating mistakes, and find ever more effective ways to engage with each other?
Pete, I think having a "truth and reconciliation" period would be
helpful. I would like to see that process include Lila, which is why I talked earlier about calling in a professional mediation service.
But leaving that aside, for the Foundation and community a period of honest exchange and understanding could be very healing.
Sarah
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 7:53 PM, SarahSV sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Pete, I think having a "truth and reconciliation" period would be helpful. I would like to see that process include Lila, which is why I talked earlier about calling in a professional mediation service.
But leaving that aside, for the Foundation and community a period of honest exchange and understanding could be very healing.
Thanks Sarah, I agree. As I stated in the earlier discussion, I think it's especially valuable, for a significant issue, when someone in senior leadership initiates the process, and takes a sustained interest in it going well. The need for post-mortems presents, I would think, a good opportunity for Lila (or any Board member) to begin taking a path forward.
Perhaps some reflection (either privately or publicly) on the impact of the Belfer Center document would be a good starting point. (I don't suggest that process was entirely perfect, but I do think it was effective.) Since it predates Lila's hire, it might not carry as much baggage as other topics.
One small quibble -- I don't think "truth and reconciliation" is the best framing, though in the current context I can see the relevance. But I would suggest that in general, publicly documenting successful and unsuccessful efforts is a fantastic way for organizations of all kinds to encourage healthy communication and ongoing learning. It doesn't need to be a big dramatic thing, and it doesn't need to be very time-consuming, to be effective.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
I hope to see some rigorous, independent analysis of the current crisis, once the dust has settled. It'd be nice for that to be initiated and funded outside the WMF but with their full cooperation. Is there a charitable foundation whose mission would cover this?
Anthony Cole
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 12:25 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 7:53 PM, SarahSV sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Pete, I think having a "truth and reconciliation" period would be helpful. I would like to see that process include Lila, which is why I talked earlier about calling in a professional mediation service.
But leaving that aside, for the Foundation and community a period of
honest
exchange and understanding could be very healing.
Thanks Sarah, I agree. As I stated in the earlier discussion, I think it's especially valuable, for a significant issue, when someone in senior leadership initiates the process, and takes a sustained interest in it going well. The need for post-mortems presents, I would think, a good opportunity for Lila (or any Board member) to begin taking a path forward.
Perhaps some reflection (either privately or publicly) on the impact of the Belfer Center document would be a good starting point. (I don't suggest that process was entirely perfect, but I do think it was effective.) Since it predates Lila's hire, it might not carry as much baggage as other topics.
One small quibble -- I don't think "truth and reconciliation" is the best framing, though in the current context I can see the relevance. But I would suggest that in general, publicly documenting successful and unsuccessful efforts is a fantastic way for organizations of all kinds to encourage healthy communication and ongoing learning. It doesn't need to be a big dramatic thing, and it doesn't need to be very time-consuming, to be effective.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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
This time last year, Scott Martin wrote up a history on Wikipediocracy that seems to cover most of the milestones. https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082313.html
On Monday, 22 February 2016, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Brandon and Sarah:
I'm going to resist the urge to delve into the specifics of Flow here, as I'd really like to stay on the topic of whether post-mortems on divisive issues are valuable, and how they should be approached.
Do you agree that an annotated summary of what has gone well and what hasn't, in the case of discussion technology like Liquid Threads and Flow, might help us to have generative conversations on this topic? Or do you disagree? What kinds of approaches do you think might help the organization and the community learn the best lessons from past efforts, avoid repeating mistakes, and find ever more effective ways to engage with each other?
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 7:42 PM, SarahSV <sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com javascript:;> wrote:
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 8:19 PM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth@gmail.com
wrote:
Is it possible to imagine an effort that would not be shot down, but embraced?
What would need to be different?
These are the kinds of questions I wish the Wikimedia Foundation would
get
better at asking and exploring.
Lila is good at asking the right questions of the community, which is
why (so far as I can tell) editors like her. If you look at her meta talk
page,
you can see her asking good questions about Flow and trying to find out what editors need.
That was literally the first time we felt we were being listened to.
There
was one point when Flow was introduced – and I have been trying to find this diff but can't – where there was something on the talk page that amounted to "if you agree with us that x and y, then you're welcome to
join
the discussion."
So from the start, it felt as though staffers had ruled out the community as people who might know something about what tools are needed to collaborate on an article (which is not the same as chatting). People who had been doing something for years were not regarded as experts in that thing by the Foundation.
We would say "we need pages," and they would explain why we didn't. We would say "we need archives," and they would explain why good search was
a
better idea. We would say "there's too much white space," and they would explain that people like white space. And so on.
Sarah
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; ?subject=unsubscribe>
Wrong link. It's here. http://wikipediocracy.com/2015/02/08/the-dream-that-died-erik-moller-and-the...
On Wednesday, 24 February 2016, Anthony Cole ahcoleecu@gmail.com wrote:
This time last year, Scott Martin wrote up a history on Wikipediocracy that seems to cover most of the milestones. https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082313.html
On Monday, 22 February 2016, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth@gmail.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','peteforsyth@gmail.com');> wrote:
Brandon and Sarah:
I'm going to resist the urge to delve into the specifics of Flow here, as I'd really like to stay on the topic of whether post-mortems on divisive issues are valuable, and how they should be approached.
Do you agree that an annotated summary of what has gone well and what hasn't, in the case of discussion technology like Liquid Threads and Flow, might help us to have generative conversations on this topic? Or do you disagree? What kinds of approaches do you think might help the organization and the community learn the best lessons from past efforts, avoid repeating mistakes, and find ever more effective ways to engage with each other?
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 7:42 PM, SarahSV sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 8:19 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Is it possible to imagine an effort that would not be shot down, but embraced?
What would need to be different?
These are the kinds of questions I wish the Wikimedia Foundation would
get
better at asking and exploring.
Lila is good at asking the right questions of the community, which is
why (so far as I can tell) editors like her. If you look at her meta talk
page,
you can see her asking good questions about Flow and trying to find out what editors need.
That was literally the first time we felt we were being listened to.
There
was one point when Flow was introduced – and I have been trying to find this diff but can't – where there was something on the talk page that amounted to "if you agree with us that x and y, then you're welcome to
join
the discussion."
So from the start, it felt as though staffers had ruled out the
community
as people who might know something about what tools are needed to collaborate on an article (which is not the same as chatting). People
who
had been doing something for years were not regarded as experts in that thing by the Foundation.
We would say "we need pages," and they would explain why we didn't. We would say "we need archives," and they would explain why good search
was a
better idea. We would say "there's too much white space," and they would explain that people like white space. And so on.
Sarah
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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 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
-- Anthony Cole
Hi Anthony,
Thank you for sharing this. It's a very interesting, highly detailed exposition of the history of Flow, and its predecessor, LiquidThreads. (And some interesting points I hadn't been aware of, such as Hassar's efforts dating back to 2004 to improve talk pages.) At least on a quick read, it aligns well with what I know.
I want to reiterate, though, the significance of the organization itself publishing, and engaging with/incorporating feedback on, reports like this. Scott Martin's piece appears to have value to whoever happens to read it; but a post-mortem by the organization will tend to attract the input of all significant stakeholder groups, and will command the attention of those doing the work in the future.
What I think is most valuable is the *learning process*, not merely the *collection of factual/historical information*. The latter is valuable, of course; but the learning is the key to an organization getting better at what it does over time.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:43 PM, Anthony Cole ahcoleecu@gmail.com wrote:
Wrong link. It's here.
http://wikipediocracy.com/2015/02/08/the-dream-that-died-erik-moller-and-the...
On Wednesday, 24 February 2016, Anthony Cole ahcoleecu@gmail.com wrote:
This time last year, Scott Martin wrote up a history on Wikipediocracy that seems to cover most of the milestones.
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082313.html
On Monday, 22 February 2016, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth@gmail.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','peteforsyth@gmail.com');> wrote:
Brandon and Sarah:
I'm going to resist the urge to delve into the specifics of Flow here,
as
I'd really like to stay on the topic of whether post-mortems on divisive issues are valuable, and how they should be approached.
Do you agree that an annotated summary of what has gone well and what hasn't, in the case of discussion technology like Liquid Threads and
Flow,
might help us to have generative conversations on this topic? Or do you disagree? What kinds of approaches do you think might help the organization and the community learn the best lessons from past efforts, avoid repeating mistakes, and find ever more effective ways to engage with each other?
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 7:42 PM, SarahSV sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 8:19 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Is it possible to imagine an effort that would not be shot down, but embraced?
What would need to be different?
These are the kinds of questions I wish the Wikimedia Foundation
would
get
better at asking and exploring.
Lila is good at asking the right questions of the community, which
is
why (so far as I can tell) editors like her. If you look at her meta talk
page,
you can see her asking good questions about Flow and trying to find
out
what editors need.
That was literally the first time we felt we were being listened to.
There
was one point when Flow was introduced – and I have been trying to
find
this diff but can't – where there was something on the talk page that amounted to "if you agree with us that x and y, then you're welcome to
join
the discussion."
So from the start, it felt as though staffers had ruled out the
community
as people who might know something about what tools are needed to collaborate on an article (which is not the same as chatting). People
who
had been doing something for years were not regarded as experts in
that
thing by the Foundation.
We would say "we need pages," and they would explain why we didn't. We would say "we need archives," and they would explain why good search
was a
better idea. We would say "there's too much white space," and they
would
explain that people like white space. And so on.
Sarah
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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 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
-- Anthony Cole
-- Anthony Cole _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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
Pete, I love this review committee idea. My concern is about who drives it. Provided it's driven by intelligent, skeptical volunteers (along the lines of the FDC), I'm very comfortable. If it's owned by WMF management, I wouldn't bother reading their reports.
If you and Andreas were to sign on, that would be a very good start.
On Wednesday, 24 February 2016, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Anthony,
Thank you for sharing this. It's a very interesting, highly detailed exposition of the history of Flow, and its predecessor, LiquidThreads. (And some interesting points I hadn't been aware of, such as Hassar's efforts dating back to 2004 to improve talk pages.) At least on a quick read, it aligns well with what I know.
I want to reiterate, though, the significance of the organization itself publishing, and engaging with/incorporating feedback on, reports like this. Scott Martin's piece appears to have value to whoever happens to read it; but a post-mortem by the organization will tend to attract the input of all significant stakeholder groups, and will command the attention of those doing the work in the future.
What I think is most valuable is the *learning process*, not merely the *collection of factual/historical information*. The latter is valuable, of course; but the learning is the key to an organization getting better at what it does over time.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:43 PM, Anthony Cole <ahcoleecu@gmail.com javascript:;> wrote:
Wrong link. It's here.
http://wikipediocracy.com/2015/02/08/the-dream-that-died-erik-moller-and-the...
On Wednesday, 24 February 2016, Anthony Cole <ahcoleecu@gmail.com
javascript:;> wrote:
This time last year, Scott Martin wrote up a history on Wikipediocracy that seems to cover most of the milestones.
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082313.html
On Monday, 22 February 2016, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth@gmail.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','peteforsyth@gmail.com javascript:;');>>
wrote:
Brandon and Sarah:
I'm going to resist the urge to delve into the specifics of Flow here,
as
I'd really like to stay on the topic of whether post-mortems on
divisive
issues are valuable, and how they should be approached.
Do you agree that an annotated summary of what has gone well and what hasn't, in the case of discussion technology like Liquid Threads and
Flow,
might help us to have generative conversations on this topic? Or do
you
disagree? What kinds of approaches do you think might help the organization and the community learn the best lessons from past efforts, avoid repeating mistakes, and find ever more effective ways to engage with each other?
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 7:42 PM, SarahSV <sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 8:19 PM, Pete Forsyth <
peteforsyth@gmail.com javascript:;>
wrote:
Is it possible to imagine an effort that would not be shot down,
but
embraced?
What would need to be different?
These are the kinds of questions I wish the Wikimedia Foundation
would
get
better at asking and exploring.
Lila is good at asking the right questions of the community,
which
is
why (so far as I can tell) editors like her. If you look at her meta
talk
page,
you can see her asking good questions about Flow and trying to find
out
what editors need.
That was literally the first time we felt we were being listened to.
There
was one point when Flow was introduced – and I have been trying to
find
this diff but can't – where there was something on the talk page
that
amounted to "if you agree with us that x and y, then you're welcome
to
join
the discussion."
So from the start, it felt as though staffers had ruled out the
community
as people who might know something about what tools are needed to collaborate on an article (which is not the same as chatting).
People
who
had been doing something for years were not regarded as experts in
that
thing by the Foundation.
We would say "we need pages," and they would explain why we didn't.
We
would say "we need archives," and they would explain why good search
was a
better idea. We would say "there's too much white space," and they
would
explain that people like white space. And so on.
Sarah
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;
?subject=unsubscribe>
-- Anthony Cole
-- Anthony Cole _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; ?subject=unsubscribe>
Anthony,
I see in this discussion we're conflating two things which, in my view are entirely different (though they have common themes). I should have made this distinction clearer from the outset: 1. A general debrief of the factors that led to the current crisis. This is what I think you are discussing; and I agree, it's very important, and it would ideally be conducted with somebody other than WMF in the driver's seat. 2. A general practice of debriefing significant projects. I consider organizational learning to be the primary benefit of this (so that mistakes are repeated less often, and practices improve); so whether it attracts any non-staff's attention is not of central importance in my view. But it *is* very important that it include reflection from high in the org chart (which was the case with the Belfer Center debrief, but not with the Media Viewer debrief).
#2 is the one I had in mind for this particular thread, but #1 is very important too.
Thank you for the kind words about my participation in #1. I do think, generally, people with a good understanding of Wikimedia's history and values, but without recent organizational ties, should be included. Whether or not I'm right for the task, I'll leave aside for the moment. -Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 11:55 PM, Anthony Cole ahcoleecu@gmail.com wrote:
Pete, I love this review committee idea. My concern is about who drives it. Provided it's driven by intelligent, skeptical volunteers (along the lines of the FDC), I'm very comfortable. If it's owned by WMF management, I wouldn't bother reading their reports.
If you and Andreas were to sign on, that would be a very good start.
On Wednesday, 24 February 2016, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Anthony,
Thank you for sharing this. It's a very interesting, highly detailed exposition of the history of Flow, and its predecessor, LiquidThreads.
(And
some interesting points I hadn't been aware of, such as Hassar's efforts dating back to 2004 to improve talk pages.) At least on a quick read, it aligns well with what I know.
I want to reiterate, though, the significance of the organization itself publishing, and engaging with/incorporating feedback on, reports like
this.
Scott Martin's piece appears to have value to whoever happens to read it; but a post-mortem by the organization will tend to attract the input of
all
significant stakeholder groups, and will command the attention of those doing the work in the future.
What I think is most valuable is the *learning process*, not merely the *collection of factual/historical information*. The latter is valuable,
of
course; but the learning is the key to an organization getting better at what it does over time.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:43 PM, Anthony Cole <ahcoleecu@gmail.com javascript:;> wrote:
Wrong link. It's here.
http://wikipediocracy.com/2015/02/08/the-dream-that-died-erik-moller-and-the...
On Wednesday, 24 February 2016, Anthony Cole <ahcoleecu@gmail.com
javascript:;> wrote:
This time last year, Scott Martin wrote up a history on
Wikipediocracy
that seems to cover most of the milestones.
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082313.html
On Monday, 22 February 2016, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth@gmail.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','peteforsyth@gmail.com
javascript:;');>>
wrote:
Brandon and Sarah:
I'm going to resist the urge to delve into the specifics of Flow
here,
as
I'd really like to stay on the topic of whether post-mortems on
divisive
issues are valuable, and how they should be approached.
Do you agree that an annotated summary of what has gone well and
what
hasn't, in the case of discussion technology like Liquid Threads and
Flow,
might help us to have generative conversations on this topic? Or do
you
disagree? What kinds of approaches do you think might help the organization and the community learn the best lessons from past efforts, avoid repeating mistakes, and find ever more effective ways to engage with each
other?
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 7:42 PM, SarahSV <sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 8:19 PM, Pete Forsyth <
peteforsyth@gmail.com javascript:;>
wrote:
> > Is it possible to imagine an effort that would not be shot down,
but
> embraced? > > What would need to be different? > > These are the kinds of questions I wish the Wikimedia Foundation
would
get > better at asking and exploring. > > Lila is good at asking the right questions of the community,
which
is
why (so far as I can tell) editors like her. If you look at her meta
talk
page,
you can see her asking good questions about Flow and trying to
find
out
what editors need.
That was literally the first time we felt we were being listened
to.
There
was one point when Flow was introduced – and I have been trying to
find
this diff but can't – where there was something on the talk page
that
amounted to "if you agree with us that x and y, then you're
welcome
to
join
the discussion."
So from the start, it felt as though staffers had ruled out the
community
as people who might know something about what tools are needed to collaborate on an article (which is not the same as chatting).
People
who
had been doing something for years were not regarded as experts in
that
thing by the Foundation.
We would say "we need pages," and they would explain why we
didn't.
We
would say "we need archives," and they would explain why good
search
was a
better idea. We would say "there's too much white space," and they
would
explain that people like white space. And so on.
Sarah
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;
?subject=unsubscribe>
-- Anthony Cole
-- Anthony Cole _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; ?subject=unsubscribe>
-- Anthony Cole _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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 21 February 2016 at 22:42, SarahSV sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 8:19 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Is it possible to imagine an effort that would not be shot down, but embraced?
What would need to be different?
These are the kinds of questions I wish the Wikimedia Foundation would
get
better at asking and exploring.
Lila is good at asking the right questions of the community, which is
why (so far as I can tell) editors like her. If you look at her meta talk page, you can see her asking good questions about Flow and trying to find out what editors need.
That was literally the first time we felt we were being listened to. There was one point when Flow was introduced – and I have been trying to find this diff but can't – where there was something on the talk page that amounted to "if you agree with us that x and y, then you're welcome to join the discussion."
So from the start, it felt as though staffers had ruled out the community as people who might know something about what tools are needed to collaborate on an article (which is not the same as chatting). People who had been doing something for years were not regarded as experts in that thing by the Foundation.
We would say "we need pages," and they would explain why we didn't. We would say "we need archives," and they would explain why good search was a better idea. We would say "there's too much white space," and they would explain that people like white space. And so on.
Sarah
I can think of Echo/Notifications which, despite some rather minor grumblings and need for a few tweaks at the beginning, has been fully embraced by the community. It's not entirely perfect for all use cases, but it is so much better than anything we had before. It's become so natural to ping someone with {{u|username here}} that I can barely remember a time when it wasn't the norm.
RIsker/Anne
On 22 February 2016 at 03:49, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I can think of Echo/Notifications which, despite some rather minor grumblings and need for a few tweaks at the beginning, has been fully embraced by the community. It's not entirely perfect for all use cases, but it is so much better than anything we had before. It's become so natural to ping someone with {{u|username here}} that I can barely remember a time when it wasn't the norm.
And users of other MediaWikis now expect it. (Coming soon to RationalWiki! Probably.)
- d.
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 3:42 AM, SarahSV sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
That was literally the first time we felt we were being listened to. There was one point when Flow was introduced – and I have been trying to find this diff but can't – where there was something on the talk page that amounted to "if you agree with us that x and y, then you're welcome to join the discussion."
So from the start, it felt as though staffers had ruled out the community as people who might know something about what tools are needed to collaborate on an article (which is not the same as chatting). People who had been doing something for years were not regarded as experts in that thing by the Foundation.
We would say "we need pages," and they would explain why we didn't. We would say "we need archives," and they would explain why good search was a better idea. We would say "there's too much white space," and they would explain that people like white space. And so on.
I must say, what Sarah says here rather matches my recollection.
Andreas
On 2016-02-22 04:42, SarahSV wrote:
So from the start, it felt as though staffers had ruled out the community as people who might know something about what tools are needed to collaborate on an article (which is not the same as chatting). People who had been doing something for years were not regarded as experts in that thing by the Foundation.
We would say "we need pages," and they would explain why we didn't. We would say "we need archives," and they would explain why good search was a better idea. We would say "there's too much white space," and they would explain that people like white space. And so on.
Sarah
Absolutely. This is absolutely what happened. At some point I had to state that if FLOW gets introduced on all talk pages I would stop using talk pages. I was replied that they are sorry but this is my choice.
Cheers Yaroslav
2016-02-22 1:14 GMT-08:00 Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru:
Absolutely. This is absolutely what happened. At some point I had to state that if FLOW gets introduced on all talk pages I would stop using talk pages. I was replied that they are sorry but this is my choice.
Our early communications approach about Flow was terrible, it is true, and I take responsibility for not handling it better. I saw some messages that made me cringe, but I didn't step in to say "This is not how we want to do things". I'm sorry. As for my own comms style when I was around the wikis, I think people have often found it arrogant and thereby offputting. I've learned over the years that folks who are external to the community are often naturally better at this. It's tempting as a (formerly very active) community member to draw on your own expertise and hopes to the point that you're no longer listening, or seen to be listening.
I believe Flow-related communications improved significantly later on, but by that time a lot of bridges had already been burned^Wnuked from orbit. I think this early history significantly impacted perception especially in the English Wikipedia community, to the point that raising the name of the project immediately triggers lots of people in that community. At the same time, the more proactive and careful approach later fostered some use cases, like the Catalan Wikipedia converting its entire Village Pump over:
https://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viquip%C3%A8dia:La_taverna/Novetats https://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viquip%C3%A8dia:La_taverna/Multim%C3%A8dia https://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viquip%C3%A8dia:La_taverna/Propostes https://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viquip%C3%A8dia:La_taverna/Tecnicismes https://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viquip%C3%A8dia:La_taverna/Ajuda
I think a fair evaluation of the project's merits will need to look at what actually happened in those communities that adopted it, whether it's for wholesale usage on pages like this, or on user talk pages. And if the numbers look positive and there's something that can be done to heal the hurt that was caused in how the project was handled early on, I'm happy to help if I can, even just by saying "Sorry".
Erik
On 2016-02-22 10:31, Erik Moeller wrote:
2016-02-22 1:14 GMT-08:00 Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru:
Absolutely. This is absolutely what happened. At some point I had to state that if FLOW gets introduced on all talk pages I would stop using talk pages. I was replied that they are sorry but this is my choice.
Our early communications approach about Flow was terrible, it is true, and I take responsibility for not handling it better. I saw some messages that made me cringe, but I didn't step in to say "This is not how we want to do things". I'm sorry. As for my own comms style when I was around the wikis, I think people have often found it arrogant and thereby offputting. I've learned over the years that folks who are external to the community are often naturally better at this. It's tempting as a (formerly very active) community member to draw on your own expertise and hopes to the point that you're no longer listening, or seen to be listening.
I believe Flow-related communications improved significantly later on, but by that time a lot of bridges had already been burned^Wnuked from orbit. I think this early history significantly impacted perception especially in the English Wikipedia community, to the point that raising the name of the project immediately triggers lots of people in that community. At the same time, the more proactive and careful approach later fostered some use cases, like the Catalan Wikipedia converting its entire Village Pump over:
<...>
Hi Erik,
thank for your reply. I also fully agree that communication over FLOW was considerably, drastically improved, making it possible to introduce trials at other projects, e.g. on Wikidata. This is exactly what I meant yesterday when I said that things became much better in 2015 from my perspective as a volunteer.
Cheers Yaroslav
Yes!!! This is why I haven't spent much time contributing on Meta at all since then: " We would say "we need pages," and they would explain why we didn't. We would say "we need archives," and they would explain why good search was a better idea. We would say "there's too much white space," and they would explain that people like white space. And so on."
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 10:42 PM, SarahSV sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 8:19 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Is it possible to imagine an effort that would not be shot down, but embraced?
What would need to be different?
These are the kinds of questions I wish the Wikimedia Foundation would
get
better at asking and exploring.
Lila is good at asking the right questions of the community, which is
why (so far as I can tell) editors like her. If you look at her meta talk page, you can see her asking good questions about Flow and trying to find out what editors need.
That was literally the first time we felt we were being listened to. There was one point when Flow was introduced – and I have been trying to find this diff but can't – where there was something on the talk page that amounted to "if you agree with us that x and y, then you're welcome to join the discussion."
So from the start, it felt as though staffers had ruled out the community as people who might know something about what tools are needed to collaborate on an article (which is not the same as chatting). People who had been doing something for years were not regarded as experts in that thing by the Foundation.
We would say "we need pages," and they would explain why we didn't. We would say "we need archives," and they would explain why good search was a better idea. We would say "there's too much white space," and they would explain that people like white space. And so on.
Sarah
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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