Personally, I find the whole "WikiLove" extension to be a bit naff and schmaltzy. I'm generally not thrilled when I get a WikiLove kitten or anything, just like I'm not touched that my local member of Parliament has thought to send me a form letter about how hard they're working for me. It's harmless enough though, I just choose to ignore it.
With that said though, if a particular project community decides they don't want it, why should it be forced upon them? I think this principle should apply to *all* extensions, not just "harmless" or "global improvement" ones.
Cheers, Craig
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 22:57:25 +0300
From: Mateus Nobre mateus.nobre@live.co.uk
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove
Message-ID: SNT121-W28CDC17A85796201E442FEBFD00@phx.gbl
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
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 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
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
There is a general view amongst Wikipedia admins that excessive templating on user pages is poor practice. I frequently use an initial (customized) welcome template for new users and do use standard user warning templates for vandalism, though not for "regulars". However these templates are not available to brand new users as tools such as Twinkle will only be discovered after an editor has had a chance to learn the basics.
Wikilove has been implemented differently as a user sees the tab as another early toy to play with and we now see a lot of new users trying it out on their own talk pages as their first edit. At the moment Wikilove works on an opt-out basis rather than an opt-in basis.
PROPOSAL
Let's change the Wikilove tab to only be visible to users after their first 10 edits. Before this point, it is unlikely that new users will be able to use templates in a meaningful way and this would also help to keep the interface as simple as possible for the first few edits made and targeted more on article content rather than user page fluff.
Cheers, Fae
Surely making it only available to those users who understand markup completely undermines one of the great unintended consequences - that it's really useful for posting talkpage messages? New users can use those templates in a *perfectly* meaningful way - as a way of communicating instead of relying some pseudo-HTML markup language they're too new to understand. They could communicate...ohh, I don't know, just off the top of my head....maybe "can someone please explain to me how markup works?"
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 7:18 AM, Fae fae@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
There is a general view amongst Wikipedia admins that excessive templating on user pages is poor practice. I frequently use an initial (customized) welcome template for new users and do use standard user warning templates for vandalism, though not for "regulars". However these templates are not available to brand new users as tools such as Twinkle will only be discovered after an editor has had a chance to learn the basics.
Wikilove has been implemented differently as a user sees the tab as another early toy to play with and we now see a lot of new users trying it out on their own talk pages as their first edit. At the moment Wikilove works on an opt-out basis rather than an opt-in basis.
PROPOSAL
Let's change the Wikilove tab to only be visible to users after their first 10 edits. Before this point, it is unlikely that new users will be able to use templates in a meaningful way and this would also help to keep the interface as simple as possible for the first few edits made and targeted more on article content rather than user page fluff.
Cheers, Fae
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 30 October 2011 08:06, Oliver Keyes scire.facias@gmail.com wrote:
Surely making it only available to those users who understand markup completely undermines one of the great unintended consequences - that it's really useful for posting talkpage messages? New users can use those templates in a *perfectly* meaningful way - as a way of communicating instead of relying some pseudo-HTML markup language they're too new to understand. They could communicate...ohh, I don't know, just off the top of my head....maybe "can someone please explain to me how markup works?"
Zee logical attack line would be to make one of the wikilove options (probably the first one) a simple "a message for you" rather than "a kitten for you" or "an ironclad battleship for you" or whatever the options are.
Not my call, but I'd totally support that.
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 9:35 AM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 30 October 2011 08:06, Oliver Keyes scire.facias@gmail.com wrote:
Surely making it only available to those users who understand markup completely undermines one of the great unintended consequences - that
it's
really useful for posting talkpage messages? New users can use those templates in a *perfectly* meaningful way - as a way of communicating instead of relying some pseudo-HTML markup language they're too new to understand. They could communicate...ohh, I don't know, just off the top
of
my head....maybe "can someone please explain to me how markup works?"
Zee logical attack line would be to make one of the wikilove options (probably the first one) a simple "a message for you" rather than "a kitten for you" or "an ironclad battleship for you" or whatever the options are.
-- geni
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 30 October 2011 08:06, Oliver Keyes scire.facias@gmail.com wrote:
Surely making it only available to those users who understand markup completely undermines one of the great unintended consequences - that it's really useful for posting talkpage messages?
I did not equate "users with 10 edits" with those that understand markup, these are different things. My use of the word "template" is generic, in that Wikilove provides standard templates for user talk pages, this does not imply anything about the ability of users to understand wiki markup or html.
Apologies if my language was not plain enough to avoid misinterpretation in unexpected ways.
Cheers, Fae
You seem to be missing my point - that the WL tool serves an ulterior function of allowing users who do not understand markup to communicate and request help in a way they can understand. I *am* saying that most of those with few or no edits will have problems understanding markup, which is why it's important, even without WL's core purpose, that the tool remain available to new editors.
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Fae fae@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
On 30 October 2011 08:06, Oliver Keyes scire.facias@gmail.com wrote:
Surely making it only available to those users who understand markup completely undermines one of the great unintended consequences - that
it's
really useful for posting talkpage messages?
I did not equate "users with 10 edits" with those that understand markup, these are different things. My use of the word "template" is generic, in that Wikilove provides standard templates for user talk pages, this does not imply anything about the ability of users to understand wiki markup or html.
Apologies if my language was not plain enough to avoid misinterpretation in unexpected ways.
Cheers, Fae
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 30 October 2011 10:22, Oliver Keyes scire.facias@gmail.com wrote:
You seem to be missing my point - that the WL tool serves an ulterior function of allowing users who do not understand markup to communicate and request help in a way they can understand. I am saying that most of those with few or no edits will have problems understanding markup, which is why it's important, even without WL's core purpose, that the tool remain available to new editors.
Okay, my email and WSC's original email related to the primary function as defined at http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/WikiLove. Requests for help are probably better handled by something other than a heart icon at the top of every user talk page. I would say that the appropriately named Help link at the left of every page is more likely to be used for this.
Cheers, Fae
On 10/30/11 4:48 AM, Fae wrote:
Okay, my email and WSC's original email related to the primary function as defined athttp://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/WikiLove. Requests for help are probably better handled by something other than a heart icon at the top of every user talk page. I would say that the appropriately named Help link at the left of every page is more likely to be used for this.
I would not wish that "help" system to be used by my worst enemies.
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Oliver Keyes scire.facias@gmail.comwrote:
You seem to be missing my point - that the WL tool serves an ulterior function of allowing users who do not understand markup to communicate and request help in a way they can understand. I *am* saying that most of those with few or no edits will have problems understanding markup, which is why it's important, even without WL's core purpose, that the tool remain available to new editors.
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Fae fae@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
On 30 October 2011 08:06, Oliver Keyes scire.facias@gmail.com wrote:
Surely making it only available to those users who understand markup completely undermines one of the great unintended consequences - that
it's
really useful for posting talkpage messages?
I did not equate "users with 10 edits" with those that understand markup, these are different things. My use of the word "template" is generic, in that Wikilove provides standard templates for user talk pages, this does not imply anything about the ability of users to understand wiki markup or html.
Apologies if my language was not plain enough to avoid misinterpretation in unexpected ways.
Cheers, Fae
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
Those are two separate things. One, the delivery mechanism for Wikilove, a pop-up window on top of the userpage to select and click on a pretty picture and add a message. Second, the actual content, the barn-star/kitty/food template.
I disagree with Ironholds that it would be easier for a new users to navigate the hundreds of pages of commonly used templates and then find the right one to use and then use it correctly after customizing it, as opposed to you know, leaving a message in plain English. Last I checked, "pseudo-HTML markups" weren't a necessity for posting on a talk page.
It prob. takes someone at least a good 50-100 edits before they even know what a template is, then using and customizing the right one might take longer.
The delivery mechanism on the other hand is what I think is very useful for new users. There is an enormous amount of benefit if that could be customized for new users pre-loaded with some generic help templates they can actually use to edit, rather than spam love.
Theo
I was saying that the WL layout > posting on talkpages ;p.
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Oliver Keyes <scire.facias@gmail.com
wrote:
You seem to be missing my point - that the WL tool serves an ulterior function of allowing users who do not understand markup to communicate
and
request help in a way they can understand. I *am* saying that most of
those
with few or no edits will have problems understanding markup, which is
why
it's important, even without WL's core purpose, that the tool remain available to new editors.
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Fae fae@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
On 30 October 2011 08:06, Oliver Keyes scire.facias@gmail.com wrote:
Surely making it only available to those users who understand markup completely undermines one of the great unintended consequences - that
it's
really useful for posting talkpage messages?
I did not equate "users with 10 edits" with those that understand markup, these are different things. My use of the word "template" is generic, in that Wikilove provides standard templates for user talk pages, this does not imply anything about the ability of users to understand wiki markup or html.
Apologies if my language was not plain enough to avoid misinterpretation in unexpected ways.
Cheers, Fae
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
Those are two separate things. One, the delivery mechanism for Wikilove, a pop-up window on top of the userpage to select and click on a pretty picture and add a message. Second, the actual content, the barn-star/kitty/food template.
I disagree with Ironholds that it would be easier for a new users to navigate the hundreds of pages of commonly used templates and then find the right one to use and then use it correctly after customizing it, as opposed to you know, leaving a message in plain English. Last I checked, "pseudo-HTML markups" weren't a necessity for posting on a talk page.
It prob. takes someone at least a good 50-100 edits before they even know what a template is, then using and customizing the right one might take longer.
The delivery mechanism on the other hand is what I think is very useful for new users. There is an enormous amount of benefit if that could be customized for new users pre-loaded with some generic help templates they can actually use to edit, rather than spam love.
Theo _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
We shouldn't be taken by the spirit of wiki environment. Sometimes, at Village Pump, through great debats and violent discussions, I feel like a lawyer, defending my point of view. We're more a tribunal than a colaborative and friendly ambience. Blocks are the prisons, and we're lawyers defending our opinions, supports are the witnesses.
Wikipedia has become more and more in a bureaucratic project until a few people understand its operation today. We are one of those exceptions that have come to understand the endless pages of policies. Do not think everyone can easily understand how Wikipedia works. Totally not. It's too hard guys, not everybody has that patience. We're few.
I think we (the Wikipedia community in general) gradually become more and more wikipedian and less humans. We become increasingly bureacratic, rigorous, severe, formal and boring. Virtually robots. Wikilove is a step against this process.
We're not just talking about a tool, but a revolution in the way of communicative and collaborative Wikipedia. It is a way to make Wikipedia a family environment, not a court or an academy of letters. We need that. Wikipedia really needs that at all. _____________________ MateusNobre MetalBrasil on Wikimedia projects (+55) 85 88393509 30440865
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 19:12:52 +0530 From: de10011@gmail.com To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Oliver Keyes scire.facias@gmail.comwrote:
You seem to be missing my point - that the WL tool serves an ulterior function of allowing users who do not understand markup to communicate and request help in a way they can understand. I *am* saying that most of those with few or no edits will have problems understanding markup, which is why it's important, even without WL's core purpose, that the tool remain available to new editors.
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Fae fae@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
On 30 October 2011 08:06, Oliver Keyes scire.facias@gmail.com wrote:
Surely making it only available to those users who understand markup completely undermines one of the great unintended consequences - that
it's
really useful for posting talkpage messages?
I did not equate "users with 10 edits" with those that understand markup, these are different things. My use of the word "template" is generic, in that Wikilove provides standard templates for user talk pages, this does not imply anything about the ability of users to understand wiki markup or html.
Apologies if my language was not plain enough to avoid misinterpretation in unexpected ways.
Cheers, Fae
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
Those are two separate things. One, the delivery mechanism for Wikilove, a pop-up window on top of the userpage to select and click on a pretty picture and add a message. Second, the actual content, the barn-star/kitty/food template.
I disagree with Ironholds that it would be easier for a new users to navigate the hundreds of pages of commonly used templates and then find the right one to use and then use it correctly after customizing it, as opposed to you know, leaving a message in plain English. Last I checked, "pseudo-HTML markups" weren't a necessity for posting on a talk page.
It prob. takes someone at least a good 50-100 edits before they even know what a template is, then using and customizing the right one might take longer.
The delivery mechanism on the other hand is what I think is very useful for new users. There is an enormous amount of benefit if that could be customized for new users pre-loaded with some generic help templates they can actually use to edit, rather than spam love.
Theo _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
We're not just talking about a tool, but a revolution in the way of communicative and collaborative Wikipedia. It is a way to make Wikipedia
a
family environment, not a court or an academy of letters. We need that. Wikipedia really needs that at all. _____________________ MateusNobre MetalBrasil on Wikimedia projects (+55) 85 88393509 30440865
No, not at all. I do not want to work in a family environment. A couple of years ago, on Russian Wikipedia we had an admin who indeed treated Wikipedia as a family environment, dividing the community into "friends" and "enemies", being rude to enemies, making plots with friends and so on. She was quickly desysopped and then banned for two years, and it looks like she had finally learned some of her lessons, but I still recollect this editing atmosphere of 2008 over there as a nightmare, with several "families" fighting against each other and so on. I have heard that Portuguese Wikipedia something similar is or was going on (not that I care so much). Traditional societies have their advantages and disadvantages.
Cheers Yaroslav
I don't know about your family, but I have no enemies at mine. Didn't understand the relation about ''family environment'' and ''friends and enemies'': this looks like more ''factions/clans environments'' than ''family envornment''. Actually, in some wikipedias (including pt.wiki) we have some factions (great groups of users who disagree in everything that another group agree, and vice versa), consequence of our lagged and tory collaborative way, which is actually the antithesis of the word ''collaborative'': very unattractive to newbies today.
When I spoke ''family'' I wanted to say we need a more likable system of communication. We need a real collaborative method, which not only fit for the editions, but for the treatment of users too. We're a big family working for a common objective: a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge.
Why we treat ourselves like co-workes when we have so many things in common? Why we have to be a firm when we could be friends who works together for the common good? Why not reduce the unnecessary bureaucracy among the editors communication with Wikilove? It's just a way to make the Wikimedia projects friendly and really collaborative! _____________________ MateusNobre Wikimedia Brasil - MetalBrasil on Wikimedia projects (+55) 85 88393509 30440865
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 22:30:23 +0400 From: putevod@mccme.ru Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove
We're not just talking about a tool, but a revolution in the way of communicative and collaborative Wikipedia. It is a way to make Wikipedia
a
family environment, not a court or an academy of letters. We need that. Wikipedia really needs that at all. _____________________ MateusNobre MetalBrasil on Wikimedia projects (+55) 85 88393509 30440865
No, not at all. I do not want to work in a family environment. A couple of years ago, on Russian Wikipedia we had an admin who indeed treated Wikipedia as a family environment, dividing the community into "friends" and "enemies", being rude to enemies, making plots with friends and so on. She was quickly desysopped and then banned for two years, and it looks like she had finally learned some of her lessons, but I still recollect this editing atmosphere of 2008 over there as a nightmare, with several "families" fighting against each other and so on. I have heard that Portuguese Wikipedia something similar is or was going on (not that I care so much). Traditional societies have their advantages and disadvantages.
Cheers Yaroslav
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
When I spoke ''family'' I wanted to say we need a more likable system of communication. We need a real collaborative method, which not only fit
for
the editions, but for the treatment of users too. We're a big family working for a common objective: a world in which every single human
being
can freely share in the sum of all knowledge.
Why we treat ourselves like co-workes when we have so many things in common? Why we have to be a firm when we could be friends who works together for the common good? Why not reduce the unnecessary bureaucracy among the editors communication with Wikilove? It's just a way to make
the
Wikimedia projects friendly and really collaborative!
Just because often it contradicts efficiency. Some people come here to make friends, other come to have the job done (some of them have an agenda, and others just want indeed to increase the sum of knowledge). For me personally, making friends sounds like opposite to efficiency, because I care about quality first. I see from the discussions that there are people like me. I also know there are many people unlike me, for whom the collaborative aspect is more important than the result. This is fine with me. I just do not want any universal decisions to be made under assumptions that we are all alike. We are not.
Cheers Yaroslav
Totally disagree with you, Yaroslav.
Do you really think a traditional (you know, traditional in Wikipedia equivalent to bureaucratic) communication and social system, friendship-free, at wikis reduces the efficiency? Why the friendship and camaraderie in editions and talk should reduce the efficiency of quality? Why working in a pleasant ambiete worse results. I think economists and business-men disagree with you.
For your e-mail I found that you are probably Russian. You probably have read Tolstoi, Anna Karênina. Using a literary example, Lievin, the landowner, greatly increased his profit by changing the method of work of his moujiks. The moujiks used to work in bad taste and bad-tempered when just followind orders in a bad envronment. When Lievin adopted a collaborative approach, when the moujiks could work without the several rules at a amicable environment, profits rose. For Wikis is the same thing. Only the ideals are not enough. We have to have a friendly, a pleasant, a nice environment. We've to make the time of editions a good time to us. We've to smile editing Wikipedia. And know our work is important to the community, moral support. Wikilove make Wikipedia less a obligation and more a thing which we need every single day. This is the point.
_____________________ MateusNobre MetalBrasil on Wikimedia projects (+55) 85 88393509 30440865
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 23:22:27 +0400 From: putevod@mccme.ru Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove
When I spoke ''family'' I wanted to say we need a more likable system of communication. We need a real collaborative method, which not only fit
for
the editions, but for the treatment of users too. We're a big family working for a common objective: a world in which every single human
being
can freely share in the sum of all knowledge.
Why we treat ourselves like co-workes when we have so many things in common? Why we have to be a firm when we could be friends who works together for the common good? Why not reduce the unnecessary bureaucracy among the editors communication with Wikilove? It's just a way to make
the
Wikimedia projects friendly and really collaborative!
Just because often it contradicts efficiency. Some people come here to make friends, other come to have the job done (some of them have an agenda, and others just want indeed to increase the sum of knowledge). For me personally, making friends sounds like opposite to efficiency, because I care about quality first. I see from the discussions that there are people like me. I also know there are many people unlike me, for whom the collaborative aspect is more important than the result. This is fine with me. I just do not want any universal decisions to be made under assumptions that we are all alike. We are not.
Cheers Yaroslav
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
That shouldn't be the issue. The question is the effect. What would make you more pleased, a standard message/template that you did good, or a personal message from someone from who you know yourself that he watched over your work? Personally, I doubt that a simple template machine could lead to an increase. It simplifies the progress to leaving such a message. But it is also an double edged sword. While it is more likely that you will get a friendly message, the messages itself are weakened, since they look like a standard templates.
PS: As i wrote some month ago: "Damn. More kittens smashed at ground of the talk page, buried by the annoyed user. Great and important feature we haz now!"
nya~
Am 31.10.2011 01:57, schrieb Mateus Nobre:
Totally disagree with you, Yaroslav.
Do you really think a traditional (you know, traditional in Wikipedia equivalent to bureaucratic) communication and social system, friendship-free, at wikis reduces the efficiency? Why the friendship and camaraderie in editions and talk should reduce the efficiency of quality? Why working in a pleasant ambiete worse results. I think economists and business-men disagree with you.
For your e-mail I found that you are probably Russian. You probably have read Tolstoi, Anna Karênina. Using a literary example, Lievin, the landowner, greatly increased his profit by changing the method of work of his moujiks. The moujiks used to work in bad taste and bad-tempered when just followind orders in a bad envronment. When Lievin adopted a collaborative approach, when the moujiks could work without the several rules at a amicable environment, profits rose. For Wikis is the same thing. Only the ideals are not enough. We have to have a friendly, a pleasant, a nice environment. We've to make the time of editions a good time to us. We've to smile editing Wikipedia. And know our work is important to the community, moral support. Wikilove make Wikipedia less a obligation and more a thing which we need every single day. This is the point.
On 10/30/11 6:56 PM, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
PS: As i wrote some month ago: "Damn. More kittens smashed at ground of the talk page, buried by the annoyed user. Great and important feature we haz now!"
Please refer to the Eric Bogle song, "He's nobody's moggy now."
Ray
On 10/30/11 5:57 PM, Mateus Nobre wrote:
Do you really think a traditional (you know, traditional in Wikipedia equivalent to bureaucratic) communication and social system, friendship-free, at wikis reduces the efficiency? Why the friendship and camaraderie in editions and talk should reduce the efficiency of quality? Why working in a pleasant ambiete worse results. I think economists and business-men disagree with you.
For your e-mail I found that you are probably Russian. You probably have read Tolstoi, Anna Karênina. Using a literary example, Lievin, the landowner, greatly increased his profit by changing the method of work of his moujiks. The moujiks used to work in bad taste and bad-tempered when just followind orders in a bad envronment. When Lievin adopted a collaborative approach, when the moujiks could work without the several rules at a amicable environment, profits rose. For Wikis is the same thing. Only the ideals are not enough. We have to have a friendly, a pleasant, a nice environment. We've to make the time of editions a good time to us. We've to smile editing Wikipedia. And know our work is important to the community, moral support. Wikilove make Wikipedia less a obligation and more a thing which we need every single day. This is the point.
MateusNobre
Efficiency has never been a part of Wikipedia's mission, but then, neither has community-building. Collaborative communities build around an objective, in our case to assemble an encyclopedia. The efficient person, like Gogol's Chichikov, too easily roams the countryside collecting dead souls. a good product constantly renews itself in a cycle of thesis, antithesis and synthesis, and that's not efficient. Nor can it be accomplished in a divided community..
Ray
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 23:22:27 +0400 From: putevod@mccme.ru Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove
When I spoke ''family'' I wanted to say we need a more likable system of communication. We need a real collaborative method, which not only fit for the editions, but for the treatment of users too. We're a big family working for a common objective: a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge.
Why we treat ourselves like co-workes when we have so many things in common? Why we have to be a firm when we could be friends who works together for the common good? Why not reduce the unnecessary bureaucracy among the editors communication with Wikilove? It's just a way to make the Wikimedia projects friendly and really collaborative!
Just because often it contradicts efficiency. Some people come here to make friends, other come to have the job done (some of them have an agenda, and others just want indeed to increase the sum of knowledge). For me personally, making friends sounds like opposite to efficiency, because I care about quality first. I see from the discussions that there are people like me. I also know there are many people unlike me, for whom the collaborative aspect is more important than the result. This is fine with me. I just do not want any universal decisions to be made under assumptions that we are all alike. We are not.
Cheers Yaroslav
Efficiency has never been a part of Wikipedia's mission
That's a slightly odd interpretation, http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mission_statement specifically includes effective dissemination of content. Though the word "effective" is quite different in meaning to "efficient", it would be hard to imagine operational processes or practices being judged as an effective use of donated funds if at the same time they blatantly failed to be efficient.
I may be missing the point, perhaps someone can provide a practical counter-example?
Cheers, Fae
On Tue, 1 Nov 2011 11:56:48 +0000, Fae fae@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Efficiency has never been a part of Wikipedia's mission
That's a slightly odd interpretation, http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mission_statement specifically includes effective dissemination of content. Though the word "effective" is quite different in meaning to "efficient", it would be hard to imagine operational processes or practices being judged as an effective use of donated funds if at the same time they blatantly failed to be efficient.
I may be missing the point, perhaps someone can provide a practical counter-example?
Cheers, Fae
Since it all started from my message, by "efficiency" I meant "efficient creation of knowledge" which in my opinion can sometimes arise from interaction between the editors (when this collaboration is constructive) and sometimes may be deterred by the interaction when this interaction is destructive. I do not see any indication to the fact that Wikilove always enables constructive interaction (just today I came across a nice example http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jcb&oldid=59812... - though I have no idea of the background of this message). I personally will opt-out of Wikilove at the receiving side as soon as the option is available. I am also not sure that the family-like model always enables constructive interactions, since some users prefer to treat some others as family members, and more others as aliens or enemies.
Cheers Yaroslav
(just today I came across a nice example
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jcb&oldid=59812...
- though I have no idea of the background of this message)
That was between two established Commons users, both of which are administrators, and completely capable of sarcastically posting a template without the help of Wikilove. Hence the example is irrelevant to this conversation.
Regards, -- Orionist
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 4:18 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ruwrote:
On Tue, 1 Nov 2011 11:56:48 +0000, Fae fae@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Efficiency has never been a part of Wikipedia's mission
That's a slightly odd interpretation, http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mission_statement specifically includes effective dissemination of content. Though the word "effective" is quite different in meaning to "efficient", it would be hard to imagine operational processes or practices being judged as an effective use of donated funds if at the same time they blatantly failed to be efficient.
I may be missing the point, perhaps someone can provide a practical counter-example?
Cheers, Fae
Since it all started from my message, by "efficiency" I meant "efficient creation of knowledge" which in my opinion can sometimes arise from interaction between the editors (when this collaboration is constructive) and sometimes may be deterred by the interaction when this interaction is destructive. I do not see any indication to the fact that Wikilove always enables constructive interaction (just today I came across a nice example
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jcb&oldid=59812...
- though I have no idea of the background of this message). I personally
will opt-out of Wikilove at the receiving side as soon as the option is available. I am also not sure that the family-like model always enables constructive interactions, since some users prefer to treat some others as family members, and more others as aliens or enemies.
Cheers Yaroslav
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 11/01/11 5:18 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
On Tue, 1 Nov 2011 11:56:48 +0000, Faefae@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Efficiency has never been a part of Wikipedia's mission
That's a slightly odd interpretation, http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mission_statement specifically includes effective dissemination of content. Though the word "effective" is quite different in meaning to "efficient", it would be hard to imagine operational processes or practices being judged as an effective use of donated funds if at the same time they blatantly failed to be efficient.
I may be missing the point, perhaps someone can provide a practical counter-example?
Since it all started from my message, by "efficiency" I meant "efficient creation of knowledge" which in my opinion can sometimes arise from interaction between the editors (when this collaboration is constructive) and sometimes may be deterred by the interaction when this interaction is destructive. I do not see any indication to the fact that Wikilove always enables constructive interaction (just today I came across a nice example http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jcb&oldid=59812...
- though I have no idea of the background of this message). I personally
will opt-out of Wikilove at the receiving side as soon as the option is available. I am also not sure that the family-like model always enables constructive interactions, since some users prefer to treat some others as family members, and more others as aliens or enemies.
I can at least agree that I interpreted your use of the word "efficiency" in your sense of the efficient creation of knowledge" instead of Fae's efficient use of donated funds. Not that I want to go too deeply into the semantics, but "efficient" describes a process while "effective" describes a result.
Ray
Craig Franklin wrote:
Personally, I find the whole "WikiLove" extension to be a bit naff and schmaltzy. I'm generally not thrilled when I get a WikiLove kitten or anything, just like I'm not touched that my local member of Parliament has thought to send me a form letter about how hard they're working for me. It's harmless enough though, I just choose to ignore it.
A user preference or some other way of disabling the use of WikiLove on a per-user basis might be nice. Similar to an e-mail's "unsubscribe" feature. I'm not sure if there's a bug filed about this already.
MZMcBride
On 31 October 2011 07:14, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Craig Franklin wrote:
Personally, I find the whole "WikiLove" extension to be a bit naff and schmaltzy. I'm generally not thrilled when I get a WikiLove kitten or anything, just like I'm not touched that my local member of Parliament
has
thought to send me a form letter about how hard they're working for me. It's harmless enough though, I just choose to ignore it.
A user preference or some other way of disabling the use of WikiLove on a per-user basis might be nice. Similar to an e-mail's "unsubscribe" feature. I'm not sure if there's a bug filed about this already.
MZMcBride
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the question, but users can already disable
the WikiLove feature on their editing preferences http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing (so that a user doesn't ever see the WikiLove button). Or, do you mean that users can disable the WikiLove button from appearing above their userpage when someone else visits it? (so that a user can opt-out of ever receiving WikiLove-derived messages).
-Liam
I think he meant the second option, Liam.
And I agree with Tobias when he says this is a useless feature. _____ *Béria Lima* http://wikimedia.pt/(351) 925 171 484
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos a fazer http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Nossos_projetos.*
On 31 October 2011 07:50, Liam Wyatt liamwyatt@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 October 2011 07:14, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Craig Franklin wrote:
Personally, I find the whole "WikiLove" extension to be a bit naff and schmaltzy. I'm generally not thrilled when I get a WikiLove kitten or anything, just like I'm not touched that my local member of Parliament
has
thought to send me a form letter about how hard they're working for me. It's harmless enough though, I just choose to ignore it.
A user preference or some other way of disabling the use of WikiLove on a per-user basis might be nice. Similar to an e-mail's "unsubscribe"
feature.
I'm not sure if there's a bug filed about this already.
MZMcBride
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the question, but users can already disable
the WikiLove feature on their editing preferences http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing(so that a user doesn't ever see the WikiLove button). Or, do you mean that users can disable the WikiLove button from appearing above their userpage when someone else visits it? (so that a user can opt-out of ever receiving WikiLove-derived messages).
-Liam _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 12:14 AM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
A user preference or some other way of disabling the use of WikiLove on a per-user basis might be nice.
Absolutely, disabling it on the recipient side (so that a sending user gets a disabled icon saying "This user prefers more personal notes to WikiLove messages" or something similar) is in the backlog. I've held that the existing preference to disable should go both ways.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org