English Wikipedia rarely has more than 10-15 people participating in featured content candidate discussions/reviews. I'm hugely impressed that Hebrew Wikipedia has this level of participation in similar discussions. I suspect this is a higher level of participation than is seen on most projects, and wonder why editors at your project think that the current level of participation is too low. I also don't understand why you find your watchlist flooded using the current discussion process, but this may be a difference in preferences or in the setup of your specific project.
Risker/Anne On 15 September 2014 05:12, Amir E. Aharoni <[email protected]> wrote: > My 2 agorot in the Flow or not Flow discussion: > > A prominent Hebrew Wikipedia user started a discussion about his impression > that too few people participate in the discussions about nominating > featured articles.[1] This Wikipedia has about 700 active and 150 very > active editors[2]; the number of participants in these discussions is > usually much less than twenty, often less than ten. > > Now I don't know what are other people's reasons not to participate in > them; maybe a lot of them are just not interested in discussing featured > articles. > > I know what my reasons are, though. I am quite interested in such > discussions, and I would participate in them, but I don't, because in the > few times I tried, it filled my watchlist with unnecessary notifications > about other people's opinions. These opinions are relevant, but the way > they are presented in the watchlist is unhelpful and I feel that it wastes > my time. > > More structure in such discussions would encourage me to participate. > > The current version of Flow doesn't solve this problem: Its notifications > are far from being well-adapted even for simple talk pages, and it doesn't > even attempt to be adapted to a more structured decision-making discussion > like Featured Article nomination. But I do believe that Flow is in the > direction of resolving these problems. Flow will have to be carefully > tweaked for each discussion scenario, but the general idea of having > adaptable structured discussion is a good start. > > The frequent argument for remaining with the current talk pages and not > moving to Flow is that the current talk pages work. Well, at least in this > case they don't, and Flow could be a solution to that. > > [1] Roughly corresponding to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:TFAR > [2] http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaHE.htm > > -- > Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי > http://aharoni.wordpress.com > “We're living in pieces, > I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
