Re: [Foundation-l] the choice of what is going to be developed is very much a management issue;

I find the idea that one might discount the views of editors by claiming that we are ignoring the views of readers a bit bizarre when discussing a feature that by definition is used by editors. Consequently any consensus or statistics on feedback from editors that may have actually used such tools

Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove

That shouldn't be the issue. The question is the effect. What would make you more pleased, a standard message/template that you did good, or a personal message from someone from who you know yourself that he watched over your work? Personally, I doubt that a simple template machine could lead t

Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove

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 ef

Re: [Foundation-l] On certain shallow, American-centered, foolish software initiatives backed by WMF

Hubert, 30/10/2011 15:24: > One problem is that the word "Love" is used quite differently in the > German language. Even in Great Britain. This again means that translators have to be bold. It's true that translation can be difficult, in fact most interwikis of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki

Re: [Foundation-l] On certain shallow, American-centered, foolish software initiatives backed by WMF

On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Hubert wrote: > One problem is that the word "Love" is used quite differently in the > German language. Even in Great Britain. > > Love as a term is used in English in a fully inflated notion of flooding. > > I have no idea what lovers say to each other in the U.S

Re: [Foundation-l] the choice of what is going to be developed is very much a management issue;

Hoi, I totally agree that Commons needs tagging and that such tagging will do much more to help people find the illustrations they are looking for then the current category and whatever system. WereSpielCheckers we agree on this. Now let us concentrate on things where we can win. When Commons has

Re: [Foundation-l] the choice of what is going to be developed is very much a management issue;

I'm not saying that they would *ignore* readers, just that consistently taking outside parties into account is something every group finds difficult. I can see the community noting, in such discussions, that readers have a stake. I can even see them taking this stake into account when making decisi

Re: [Foundation-l] the choice of what is going to be developed is very much a management issue;

Re OKeyes "Switching authorisation and prioritisation over to the editors completely ignores readers, and assumes that editors will act outside their own/interests to ensure that reader-specific features do get some traction;" I'm not convinced that the community would want to ignore readers, I'm a

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove

I don't know about your family, but I have no enemies at mine. Didn't understand the relation about ''family environment'' and ''friends and enemies'': this looks like more ''factions/clans environments'' than ''family envornment''. Actually, in some wikipedias (including pt.wiki) we have some

Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove

> 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 a > family environment, not a court or an academy of letters. We need that. > Wikipedia really needs that at all. > _ > MateusNobre >

Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove

We shouldn't be taken by the spirit of wiki environment. Sometimes, at Village Pump, through great debats and violent discussions, I feel like a lawyer, defending my point of view. We're more a tribunal than a colaborative and friendly ambience. Blocks are the prisons, and we're lawyers defendi

Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove

As for empowering users and letting them play a role - speaking professionally now, that's exactly what tech is trying to do. I should know, they've hired me on a short-term basis to help out :P. If you want to get involved, my inbox is always open. Drop me an email and I'll send you links to what

Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove

Speaking personally, the tech department develops features that benefit the community. The difference is that they, quite rightly, see the "community" as consisting of both readers and editors. They are developing editor-specific new features, such as the Zoom interface for Special:NewPages, as I e

Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove

I was saying that the WL layout > posting on talkpages ;p. On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Theo10011 wrote: > On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Oliver Keyes >wrote: > > > You seem to be missing my point - that the WL tool serves an ulterior > > function of allowing users who do not understand m

Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove

Mostly useless and mostly harmless thing becomes harmful at the moment when people start to spend a lot of time on discussing it. A note for future improvements: Yes, WMF should do bold actions, but it shouldn't waste community's confidence on mostly useless "improvements". __

Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove

On 30 October 2011 17:44, Brandon Harris wrote: >        (One of my favorite things about talk pages is that, for most people, > *there is no talk page button*.  There's a "Discussion" tab.  So when > someone says "Hey, just leave me a message on my talk page and I'll help > you out!" that means.

Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove

On 10/30/11 4:48 AM, Fae wrote: > Okay, my email and WSC's original email related to the primary > function as defined at. > 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

Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove

On 10/30/11 4:14 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote: >> One take away from this experience of yours could be that the process >> of utilizing talk pages is extremely arcane and horrible from a user >> experience perspective, while using WikiLove to communicate - even >> though it is the "wrong"

Re: [Foundation-l] New Version of PROTECT IP Bill May Target Legal Sites

What is the real situation of this law? Is it still enter into discussion? It has been confirmed? Or is it just a proposal? Sorry, I don't know the goings of U.S. law, but this news is concern to me. _ MateusNobre MetalBrasil on Wikimedia projects (+55) 85 88393509

Re: [Foundation-l] News from Germany: White Bags and thinking about a fork

thank you! h Am 29.10.2011 13:31, schrieb FT2: > Having checked the original blog > post, > I think it's either a rare exception of poorly chosen wording, or shows a > judgment within WMF that I can't agree with. > > I remember

Re: [Foundation-l] On certain shallow, American-centered, foolish software initiatives backed by WMF

One problem is that the word "Love" is used quite differently in the German language. Even in Great Britain. Love as a term is used in English in a fully inflated notion of flooding. I have no idea what lovers say to each other in the U.S. when it comes to really love. Maybe they just grunt at e

Re: [Foundation-l] the choice of what is going to be developed is very much a management issue;

Hoi, You are missing the point completely as far as I am concerned. The community was involved in defining our strategy. Making our community more friendly is a strategic choice defined by the strategy project and endorsed by the board. I doubt very much that one of our many communities has the ab

Re: [Foundation-l] just wondering, are we going to take down en.wikipedia.org?

We have the ability to strike back with our means Lockout of all the IP addresses of companies, institutions, members of Congress. All to the Blacklist of our site. This includes all educational institutions and religious groups who profess not an implicit model of an open knowledge society. Th

Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove

On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Oliver Keyes wrote: > You seem to be missing my point - that the WL tool serves an ulterior > function of allowing users who do not understand markup to communicate and > request help in a way they can understand. I *am* saying that most of those > with few or no e

Re: [Foundation-l] News from Germany: White Bags and thinking about a fork

On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 10:04 PM, Kim Bruning wrote: > On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 03:36:18PM -0700, Erik Moeller wrote: >> >> Making it easy for editors to say, based on normal editorial judgment >> and established practices in their project, "Hey, reader, there's >> something here you might not want

Re: [Foundation-l] just wondering, are we going to take down en.wikipedia.org?

On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 4:05 PM, David Gerard wrote: > On 28 October 2011 13:48, Peter Gervai wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 04:05, Tim Starling wrote: > >>> as I did. We both spend a lot of time making sure Wikipedia is always >>> up and available for people to read, so it's painful to see a

[Foundation-l] the choice of what is going to be developed is very much a management issue;

-- > > Message: 7 > Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 13:05:37 +0100 > From: Gerard Meijssen > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > > Message-ID: > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 >

Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove

Hoi, There are a few issues: - the choice of what is going to be developed is very much a management issue; what gets priority and why - there are always people who object to any project because they are of the opinion that something else should be considered to be more relevant -

Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove

On 30 October 2011 10:22, Oliver Keyes wrote: > You seem to be missing my point - that the WL tool serves an ulterior > function of allowing users who do not understand markup to communicate and > request help in a way they can understand. I am saying that most of those > with few or no edits will

Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove

On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 23:15:52 +0200, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > Some editors just want to edit articles and regard the "social" and > "meta" dimensions of the project as annoying distractions, while other > editors see those as the main attractions. Some prefer "You are nice.", > others are far mo

Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove

> -- > > Message: 8 > Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 21:40:37 +0200 > From: Gerard Meijssen > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove > To: f...@wikimedia.org.uk, Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > > Message-ID: > > > Content-Typ

Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove

>> >> So far my only experience with extension:wikilove is having a new user >> prefer it to just editing my talk page, and so over the course of a >> mundane conversation about sourcing I earned myself two civility >> barnstars and three trophies. Hooray! > > One take away from this experie

Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove

You seem to be missing my point - that the WL tool serves an ulterior function of allowing users who do not understand markup to communicate and request help in a way they can understand. I *am* saying that most of those with few or no edits will have problems understanding markup, which is why it'

Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove

On 30 October 2011 10:15, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote: > Along the same line of reasoning, I see > that 99% of admins use template warnings which I hate and I never used any > template warning except for copyright violation when I was still an admin. > In my opinion, getting a template warning is

Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove

On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 17:27:30 +0200, Nickanc Wikipedia wrote: > IMHO, Wikilove is something so important about wikipedia's ethics and > behaviour that shall be in every wiki. IMHO. I absolutely disagree. Wikipedia ethics and behavior encourage thanking the contributors, but it can be done in many

Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove

On 30 October 2011 08:06, Oliver Keyes wrote: > Surely making it only available to those users who understand markup > completely undermines one of the great unintended consequences - that it's > really useful for posting talkpage messages? I did not equate "users with 10 edits" with those that u

Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove

Not my call, but I'd totally support that. On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 9:35 AM, geni wrote: > On 30 October 2011 08:06, Oliver Keyes wrote: > > Surely making it only available to those users who understand markup > > completely undermines one of the great unintended consequences - that > it's > > r

Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove

On 30 October 2011 08:06, Oliver Keyes wrote: > Surely making it only available to those users who understand markup > completely undermines one of the great unintended consequences - that it's > really useful for posting talkpage messages? New users can use those > templates in a *perfectly* mean

Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove

Surely making it only available to those users who understand markup completely undermines one of the great unintended consequences - that it's really useful for posting talkpage messages? New users can use those templates in a *perfectly* meaningful way - as a way of communicating instead of relyi

Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove

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 ava