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(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Wrong link. It's here.
http://wikipediocracy.com/2015/02/08/the-dream-that-died-erik-moller-and-th…
On Wednesday, 24 February 2016, Anthony Cole <ahcoleecu(a)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(a)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(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 8:19 PM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>