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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 30 October 2011 08:06, Oliver Keyes <scire.facias(a)gmail.com> wrote: it's of 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 30 October 2011 08:06, Oliver Keyes <scire.facias(a)gmail.com> wrote: it's 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Okay, my email and WSC's original email related to the primary function as defined at<http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/WikiLove>ve>. 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.

On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Oliver Keyes &lt;scire.facias(a)gmail.com and those why 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(a)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

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

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

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

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

Wikimedia projects friendly and really collaborative!

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.

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

> Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 23:22:27 +0400 > From: putevod(a)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 >

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&lt;fae(a)wikimedia.org.uk&gt; wrote: 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=5981… - 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.

Craig Franklin wrote: has 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

A user preference or some other way of disabling the use of WikiLove on a per-user basis might be nice.