I realize this was brought up a couple of weeks ago and I apologize for the
late response on this, but it was just recently brought to my attention
that the VE opt-out was intended to be only temporary.
Firstly: Currently, as per the overwhelming consensus on en.wikipedia at
least, VE needs to be opt-in, not opt-out. It's not even stable or usable
to the beta stage, but it might be ready for some early user tests. Even
beta testing, however, should only be opt-in. Opt-out should only occur
once the product is feature-complete and has no (yes, zero) known major
flaws or incomplete features. That means it should be capable of making
-any- edit to -any- page, and in the manner that its user would want it to,
including parsing, not no-wiki'ing, of wikimarkup, as the community has
clearly stated.
That aside, it's now come to my attention that the "opt-out" is meant to
last only until the project is out of "beta". There are some problems with
this.
First, your (and by "your", I specifically mean the project managers)
judgment on project readiness is obviously way off. VE isn't even -in-
beta. It's not feature-complete, it's not ready, and it's got massive
numbers of known bugs. It could be barely described as ready for alpha. Yet
it's being treated as release-ready, such as being released as the default
for most users. That calls into serious question the judgment of the
project managers on this project. I, and many others, do not trust you to
properly determine when this project should be released, as you've already
made a hugely premature release of software that wasn't even near ready.
Secondly, even if VE worked perfectly, some editors will never be
interested in using it. An opt-out clarifies that the development team
recognizes a significant group of those editors exists, and will ensure
their wishes are respected. Some editors will just want raw-text editing,
some will be running bots or scripts that depend on it, some just won't
want to change, some will be doing tasks VE has been explicitly noted not
to support. All must be respected, and raw editing must remain supported,
not be squashed by yet another heavy-handed gesture from the same team
that's already made far too many of those. I don't want to hear, in a year
or two "It works great! Source editing is deprecated and we'll be removing
it soon!". And believe me, many of us, me included, expect just that,
absent a firm commitment.
Thirdly, a confirmation that VE will always include opt-out will clearly
notify editors not interested in using it that it will always remain
optional, and that source editing will remain supported. Currently, given
the "ram it through" approach by WMF and its technical staff, such trust is
severely eroded. A clear statement that "You may always opt out of VE"
would go a long way toward rebuilding it, while "You may only opt out while
we say you can" further erodes that already damaged trust.
Please make a clear statement that VE will always have an officially
supported opt-out for editors who would like to use it, not only during
"beta".
Regards,
Todd Allen
Hello Nathan,
I have no anti-Americanism, I only notice some differences in the culture how communities from different continents work and to me that is natural. The only thing I say is that an organisation for a worldwide movement should reflect more that diversity. Not only in people, but only in ways of thinking.
Before you wrote this mail I already knew where they were from, but people easily take over the culture of the organisation they work for.
There is a big protest and much critic on three major Wikipedias on how WMF handles the development and roll out of the VE, and as this seems to be not the first time the way of acting is worse, I try and would like to find out why this happens. Too often people from local communities do get the feeling they are not listened to by WMF, and I think that is terrible for an organisation that is there to support those people. I am certainly not surprised that less people participate in elections for board and so, people are demotivated on several ways.
If you have a better explanation please tell us, as it is good to name the problems and try to find solutions for it.
> and you should retract it so that others will
> continue to take your feedback seriously.
You make wrong conclusions out of the words I said, in a way you twist it so it doesn't match any more they way it was intended. (And you should know that I like the VE very much.)
How can you ask to retract it if you do not take it seriously already? You twist my words, you gave it a meaning which it originally did not had, that is what you consider as taking someones feedback seriously? No thank you.
The past week I have been working on the localisation for Wiki Loves Monuments, and with that I see the differences between countries and between language areas. I like those differences, I try to respect them and try to take them into account. They have all the same goal in creating an encyclopaedia, but are all a bit different as no culture, language or country is the same. They all have a different history and way of looking. I think the best known situation where this appeared was the image filter, but there are many more smaller situations that differences are playing. For example on the Dutch Wikipedia there are every year discussions on how nl-wiki differs from other Wikipedias like en-wiki, and I see that happen on more Wikipedias.
Sorry Nathan, I am disappointed that this reaction is the only thing you take out of my reply. Maybe my expectations are too high, I really thought serious feedback is appreciated, it is not me who experience this, but many others as well. What I would like to see and what I strive for is a better cooperation between WMF and communities.
Romaine
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 09:11:06 -0400
From: Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Communication plans for
community
engagement
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 2:08 AM, Romaine Wiki <romaine_wiki(a)yahoo.com>
wrote:
> In my opinion the liaisons failed very much with the
VE, as they act like a car salesman who gives much the
impression that communication is only in one direction: the
community. They said they send our feedback to WMF but we
haven't seen any results at all from that. After a month
still all feedback was untouched, nothing was changed on all
subjects we have given feedback on. Even critical bugs. I
sure believe that the liaisons do their work, and that the
problem lies in WMF itself, but still the liaisons became
very much annoying. It is like they got a training to talk
everything right or minimize the serious critic. I really
hate such behaviour, to me and the rest of the community it
is a signal that we aren't taken seriously. I consider the
liaison involvement as a failure, certainly not recommended
to repeat that in future this way.
>
> Besides that, with previous software changes we have
had technical ambassadors who maintained mostly the feedback
between developers and the communities and that worked well
so far I can see. I seriously do not understand why they
ignored them with the VE and instead hired liaisons which
behaved more like staff of WMF with the agenda that they
must sell the car, than neutral people who are involved in
the local community. That is not the way how communities
should be approached.
>
> Perhaps the gap between communities and WMF, already
there in 2007, still hasn't become much closer since. I
think the problem lies in the idea that the WMF is thinking
top-down, while the communities work bottom-up (they do the
actual daily work at the end). Also I notice for years that
there is also a gap between North America and the rest of
the world in culture, or at least certainly between North
America and Europe. Both are part of the western culture,
but still the way Americans deal with things is not the way
Europeans would deal with. WMF seems to be too much America
based and doesn't internal reflect enough the worldwide
movement the whole Wikimedia community is. As I see a clear
gap in culture between North America (including WMF style)
and Europe, I guess such gap is also there between North
America and other parts of the world, but I do not have a
clear view on those areas.
>
> Romaine
I think your anti-Americanism is misplaced. Let's look at
some of the
key people involved in the VisualEditor project. Erik is
German, James
F is British, Roan Kattouw is Dutch, Timo Tijhof is Dutch.
If you were
to skim the list of the engineering staff, they are
extremely diverse,
with many remote employees throughout Europe and a number of
relocated
Europeans (and others) working in San Francisco. So I think
your
implication that the VE is some element of arrogant
American
imperialism is false, and you should retract it so that
others will
continue to take your feedback seriously.
~Nathan
Forwarding this from wikimania-l, sorry for crossposting.
Cheers,
Nicole
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Nicole Ebber <nicole.ebber(a)wikimedia.de>
Date: 7 August 2013 21:15
Subject: Thursday, 10-14:00 – Chapters Dialogue Session
To: "Wikimania general list (open subscription)"
<wikimania-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Dear Wikimaniacs,
we have recently kicked-off the Chapters Dialogue project
(https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapters_Dialogue) and are inviting
all of you who are interested in Wikimedia chapters goals, needs and
stories to our working session:
Tomorrow, Thursday from 10:00 - 14:00 in room M104 at PolyU.
Chapters Dialogue is a structured assessment of chapters needs, goals
and stories combined with a stakeholder survey. It will not only allow
us to reflect the status quo of our roles and relationships, but will
enable us to actively shape them in the future.
First, we will introduce the project and talk about goals, methodology
and the process.
Then we will present key questions of the questionnaire
(https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chapters_Dialogue#Draft_research_quest…)
and
host an open discussion round where you can provide feedback, add
topics and questions to the questionnaire, contribute ideas for the
process and exchange with other participants.
This session addresses chapters, staff and board of the Wikimedia
Foundation, members of the FDC, AffCom and WCA and of course everybody
who is interested in the topic. Chapters can get directly in touch
with us and arrange appointments for interviews (either during
Wikimania or for our interview-tour that will take place from
September to December).
Come and join us, we are looking forward to meeting you!
Cheers,
Nicole and Kira
--
Nicole Ebber
International Affairs
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. +49 30 219158 26-0
http://wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das
Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
--
Nicole Ebber
International Affairs
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. +49 30 219158 26-0
http://wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das
Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
Dear all,
in its July voting, the WCA has decided to open up membership for
thematic organisations and give user groups a voice. If you are a
representant of a thematic organisation or a user group and would like
to know more about the WCA, feel free to get in touch!
Now we're facing a situation where the name (Wikimedia _Chapters_
Association) is inconsistent with who we actually define as our member
base. So we need to change name.
Our first stab was "Association of Organisations". It was not accepted,
but hey, I'm not overly sad. I guess, we can do better. But we need your
ideas! What's a good name? Put your suggestions here or support a
proposed name:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Chapters_Association/…
Eternal fame awaits you if our suggestion is chosen. Oh, apropos.
Decision upon a new name shall be made in Hong Kong on Thursday, August 8th.
For those who are wondering what the WCA is doing, here's a short
update. We are here to help Wikimedia organisations in their various
matters of daily and strategic business. Among the projects we do are:
* WCA Journal [1]: a medium to keep up to date in the organisations world
* Chapters Manual [2]: a resource to look up any questions regarding
operating a Chapter
* Peer Review: we offer to double check your organisations strategy,
funding requests or projects
* Organisations Seminar [3]: Two days packed with experience and
discussion about running Chapters and Wikimedia organisations.
Best,
Markus
[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Chapters_Association/Journal
[2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WCA_Chapters_Manual
[3]
http://wikimania2013.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Chapters_Association_-_Or…
--
Markus Glaser
WCA Council Member (WMDE), Chair
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
Hi all,
The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees is meeting in Hong Kong on
August 7-8, 2013, before our annual Wikimania conference.[1] Please
find below the Board's tentative agenda:
== Wednesday, August 7, 2013 ==
* Greetings and introductions
* Committee Reports
** Audit Committee Report
** Governance Committee Report
** Human Resources Committee Report
* Executive Session
* Term limits
* FDC update
* Board evaluation and retreat
* Executive Director Search Update
* Discussion on the Advisory Board
== Thursday, August 8, 2013 ==
* Welcoming the newly elected trustees
* Trustee Officer and Committee Selection
* Transition Committee update
* Wikimania Committee
* Strategy Discussion
* House keeping resolutions
* Executive Session
== Friday, August 9, 2013 ==
* Board Governance Committee Meeting
[1] http://wikimania2013.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_page
--
Geoff Brigham
General Counsel & Secretary of the Board
Wikimedia Foundation
_______________________________________________
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more information about Wikimedia-l:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
_______________________________________________
WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
WikimediaAnnounce-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
Hi,
there is a famous quote on courage by Winston Churchill, a British Prime
Minister, who once wisely said: "Courage is what it takes to stand up
and speak. Courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen."
Over the weekend, more than 440 editors of the German Wikipedia took
part in an RfC-like process ("Umfragen") at
<https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Umfragen/VisualEditor_Opt-in>
and voted against the activation of the VisualEditor for anonymous
users, asking the WMF to revert to an opt-in phase instead of the
currently existing opt-out.
This is yet another signal coming from the community that there is
something very broken about the process in which VisualEditor is being
rolled out. Most of the criticism has been ignored so far, but on the
other hand, we haven't yet seen such an enormous community objection
against the VisualEditor anywhere.
Let us therefore use this opportunity, and have the courage to sit down
and listen. Or, perhaps, in the wiki spirit, let's edit this quote, and
let us sit down and talk.
And, together, let's learn a lesson from this, and correct the errors so
that they don't become mistakes.
Tomasz
שלום חברים,
קודם כל הרשו לי להתנצל על אי הזמינות שלי לחלקכם בזמן האחרון. בחיים הפרטיים,
העסקיים, וגם בחיי העמותה, אני נמצא תחת עומס גדול (חלקו גם נובע מהעדכון הבא)
ואני מנסה לתמרן בין כל המחוייבויות. במהלך השבת ניסתי להשיב לכל האימיילים
הפתוחים, אם לא התייחסתי עד כה לנושא פתוח שהעלתם - בבקשה תזכרו אותי.
החודש החליט הוועד, לאחר תהליך מאוד ארוך של ריאיונות על מינוי מנהלת פעילות
חדשה לעמותה. תכירו את מיכל לסטר לוי.
מיכל, תושבת תל אביב, שימשה עד כה כמנהלת תחום צעירים בג'וינט ישראל - במסגרת
זו אחראית מיכל על אזור מרכז של מרכזי הצעירים ומשמשת גם כמנהלת תחום קשרי
עסקים וקהילה. קודם לכן, גם במסגרת הג'וינט, ניהלה את המרכז למנהיגות מתנדבת
ע"ש פני וסטיבן ויינברג - מרכז המוביל בשינוי תרבות ארגונית במגזר השלישי
בישראל על ידי שינוי וחיזוק הסטטוס של ועדים מנהלים בעמותות. מיכל פעילה
בהתנדבות גם ב"קבוצת מעש" - התארגנות אזרחית הפועלת להתחדשות השירות הציבורי
והיתה במשך 6 שנים יו"ר עמותת נשים לגופן, עמותה המובילה שינוי בתפיסת בריאות,
הגוף והמיניות בישראל.
מיכל תיכנס בפועל לתפקידה ב-1.9, עם סיום תקופת עבודתה בג'וינט. עד אז תמשיך
מיכל להיפגש עם חברי הוועד ובעלי תפקידים מרכזיים כחלק מהחפיפה שלה לתפקיד
ותלווה את הוועד בבניית תכנית העבודה ל-2014 שתוגש ל-FDC ב-1.10.
מיכל זמינה באימייל שלה, mlester(a)wikimedia.org.il ובטלפון 050-8996046. אך
אני מבקש כי תמנעו מלעלות נושאי עבודה איתה עד אשר תחל בפועל לעבוד.
אנו מאמינים במיכל, שהביעה עניין ורצון רב להשתלב בפעילות העמותה, ומקווים יחד
איתה לקדם הרבה נושאים מנהלתיים ותפעוליים בעמותה שעד כה הוקפאו עקב חוסר זמן
ומגבלת כוח אדם מקצועי.
בהצלחה מיכל
- Sent from my mobile device.
On Saturday, August 3, 2013, Kerry Raymond wrote:
> Hi, Laura!
>
>
Hi Kerry. Thanks for the comments. :)
> I wonder if a variable worth considering is the number of views of the DYK
> vs the average number of page views of the article(s) (per day/week/month
> or whatever) promoted by the DYK *before* the publication of the DYK
> (obviously this can only measured for expanded articles rather than new
> ones). The hypothesis here is that more popular topics make more popular
> DYKs.
>
>
This is actually one of the areas that is worth looking at further. People
have attempted to time DYKs to coincide with certain events. TonyTheTiger
is actually very good at doing this for some his hooks. It can and
sometimes does create tension in the project as people try to get things
timed for these events and not everyone wants to oblige them. (One
situation that particulary comes to mine is the Kony2012 article at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kony_2012 where the article was stalled at DYK
because a reviewer did not want to time it to coincide with an already
large media blitz.) It just would require a lot of subject knowledge to do
any indepth research on this topic and looking through T:TDYK to see where
things are in the special holding areas often to identify some of these.
> Another interesting variable is number of page views of the article in the
> days/weeks/months after the DYK. It would be interesting to know the extent
> to which DYKs drive additional interest in the topic both in the short term
> and whether any increase in interest is sustained longer term. I would
> hypothesize any initial sharp increase during the DYK, with a sharp
> fall-off after the DYK finishes but with a small sustained elevation.
>
>
Yes, my casual observation has been that historically, articles get an
average page views per month bump after DYK that they do not enjoy with
other processes like GA or peer review. (This casual observation and
assumption further research would bear it out as likely fact is based on
the fact that you have rapid content development other processes do not
require, and then subsequent SEO stengthening by appearing on the front
page.) I think having looked at the articles the hypothesis is true, but
would need a great deal of additional data that you also have two mini
traffic bumps prior to appearing at DYK, with the first being from the
contributors working on the article, and the second as a result of the DYK
review.
> It would also be interesting to see if articles mentioned in DYKs show any
> increased edit activity OR the creation of new inbound links to the article
> in the short or long term, but I am less sure about what is the baseline
> for comparison (given that a DYK article will have recently been created or
> expanded, suggesting an abnormally high level of edit activity immediately
> preceding the DYK). Possible proxies are articles in the same categories?
>
>
The possible baseline would be new articles that meet DYK articles that do
not appear at DYK or conversely comparing the article's editing history in
several periods: Before DYK work, during DYK expansion, during DYK review,
the day of and the week after DYK review, and the two month period after
the DYK. (I had actually considered doing this type of research to look at
the contributions and DYK, but it would serve a completely different
purpose. Hence, it would need to be retooled. I think this could
potentially be one of the strengths of DYK that people fail to consider in
that it does give new articles of a slightly higher caliber more eyes and
potential contributors from the established editing pool than the article
would otherwise get. I would love to see someone do research on the
contribution effect of DYK, especially say if they could possibly compare
it to other processes in terms of contributor participation.
Sincerely,
Laura Hale
--
--
mobile: 635209416
twitter: purplepopple
blog: ozziesport.com