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(a)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(a)gmail.com
<javascript:;>> 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
<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(a)gmail.com
<javascript:;>
>
<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(a)gmail.com
<javascript:;>>
wrote:
>>
>> > On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 8:19 PM, Pete Forsyth <
peteforsyth(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
?subject=unsubscribe>