I do think that there are benefits in continuing to explore WMF/movement-managed communication tools outside of the onwiki/IRC/mailing list paradigm; we have long known that a lot of voices are excluded from using these channels, and that is not helpful in growing a large, international, multilingual movement. We've also used YouTube for quite a long time, and it has not been particularly problematic, but it's not really a discussion platform, more an information-sharing one. I noticed that Wikimedia Space does have a higher than average concentration of posts from outside the "English speaking" world that simply doesn't happen on Meta.
On the other hand, I also agree that moving "official" communications to platforms outside of the control of the WMF/movement, like Facebook and Twitter, are (for many of us in the movement) very problematic from a privacy perspective, as well as unsatisfactory from an accessibility perspective.
"Onwiki" is a nice concept. The challenge here is that there are 700+ "onwiki" platforms, and only one hypothetically dedicated to inter-project discussions, that being Meta. I would venture to guess that probably 85-90% of Wikimedians either don't know Meta exists as a discussion platform, or have tried to participate in a discussion there only to find that it will often move very fast, is dominated by the English language almost to the point of exclusion, and that their voice is drowned out quickly or they are challenged in a way that makes them feel uncomfortable. It's not helpful to take the "stay out of the kitchen if you can't stand the heat" attitude, as it's neither welcoming nor accepting of other ideas. Meta is also very, very difficult to navigate; even I have considerable difficulty finding material that I know for a fact exists on that platform. And we all know that Meta is not at all good at sharing information and news about what's happening in other projects, or for multiple projects (e.g., several projects in the same language, several Wikisources, etc) to work together.
Wikimedia Space didn't feel like the right fit for us, either. In particular, I found it hard to figure out how to do things (like making hyperlinks) that I've been doing comfortably on other existing platforms for years. But I think it is a worthwhile idea to keep looking for a platform that isn't commercially/externally controlled (thus "selling" the private information of our users) that works for more people. I think we also need to figure out how to support multi-project discussions better without pushing them all out to what is intended to be a global, movement-wide platform (i.e., Meta). Experiments are always worthwhile, as they're opportunities to learn. I will trust that Quim and the rest of the Wikimedia Space team will be summarizing the positives and negatives about this particular experiment.
Risker/Anne
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 at 17:49, Rebecca O'Neill rebeccanineil@gmail.com wrote:
I've been involved in the movement for ~7 years, took one look at IRC and walked very quickly the other way, having used it 15+ years ago. I'm all for retro, but that was taking it too far. Relying on a tool that has been been haemorrhaging users for years, and golden years are seen as around 20 years ago, seems less than ideal.
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 at 22:37, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Then, they're welcome to pop on in any time. If they choose not to, well, no one can make them. Anyone is able to use those tools.
Todd
On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 3:32 PM Guillaume Paumier <
gpaumier@wikimedia.org>
wrote:
Hi,
Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 10:31, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com a
écrit :
I don't think anyone had bad intentions. It was just redundant.
Real time communication is on IRC. Asynchronous communication is
either
on
the wiki, preferably, or on the mailing list.
Quit trying to make us TwitFaceTube. The tools we already have work
just
fine.
That perspective suffers from a lack of empathy. "The tools we already have" may work for the limited sample of the population who are
currently
using them. Assuming that that sample is representative is flawed and
is
a
classic example of survivorship bias. If we have learned anything from
the
Space experiment and from years of strategy discussions, it is that the tools we currently have do not, in fact, work just fine for a large
number
of people, whose voices are missing from our discussions and content.
-- Guillaume Paumier (he/him) _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
-- PhD in Digital Media Project Coordinator Wikimedia Community Ireland http://wikimedia.ie She/Her _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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