Wikia has a nice blogging extension that they use to allow users to write a blog, but I feel like this feature may be abused and misfocused here on Wikimedia. --Cmelbye 15:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, blogs are probably the most controversial part of this proposal. But I think with some decent guidelines (and enforcement by administrators when they are being used by free-riders) they would be a net benefit to the community and would help make larger-scale decision making easier.--ragesoss 16:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Real-time chat 
This proposal is bugzilla:11190, closed WONTFIX.
- The ability to discuss the articles is already provided by Talk pages.
- It's not that common to have several people editing the same article at the same time. Most chat rooms will be empty.
- Talk pages are viewable for anyone. It doesn't matter if the pageEditor wasn't online at the time of the chat, he can participate in the talk page hours (or even day) later.
- Chat opinions are not consensus™.
- Chat messages are short, some issues need large explanations. Using a chat would use less valuable texts. How do you propose a new paragraph for the article in the chat?
- Experience shows that getting several people around the world to chat at the same time (eg. from a wikiproject) is hard.
- Chat rooms would need moderators watching almost all rooms of a wiki ("There was someone at the chat of SomeImportantGuy article insulting his ideas.").
Platonides 13:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'd like to suggest that we use this space for dicussion (as you did above) and not for closing ideas simply because they were closed before. If an idea is a good one, and it was closed by the tech team before, it doesn't mean that it should never be re-visited; maybe it was simply the wrong time for it (WONTFIX now) as opposed to (WONTFIX ever). I like listing the reasons so we can determine whether they're still valid (again, as you did before) - this comment isn't intended as a criticism of Platonide's comment above, which I actually think is a very good one, but more as a way of reinforcing that simply using a bugzilla close status isn't sufficient for strategic planning. -- Philippe 17:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- I actually agree with all the points made in the WONTFIX. I think Talk Pages are great. The fact that they don't rely on simultaneous presence I think is a tremendous boon. I'd much rather have a discussion go on for several weeks but be written for all to refer to than open the floodgates for ephemeral banter. I really don't like this proposal one bit. --Bodnotbod 16:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- People just have zero attention span and giant egos and want to babble over Twitter, Facebook, MySpace etc. rather than engaging in considered discussions that can last more than half an hour. To legitimise this would be horrific. 184.108.40.206 00:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if anyone is aware of this tool. As it says on TheDj's page "Qui is a script and system that helps you keep track of the online/offline status of you and your friends. It is meant to help you and your friends edit and communicate on Wikipedia more efficiently." This might be a starting point for some kind of real time chat system. Originalwana 16:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Anyone ever used Facebook Chat? 
Seems like something similar to Facebook Chat would work very well for this. Informal, non-logged conversations between people. Possibly open to "abuse" by schoolchildren or whatever, but I don't think that's a major concern. --MZMcBride 01:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
It's non-trivial to figure out how to use some of the chat technology 
Most of communication with new users can be done perfectly well (and we are currently doing it) via talk pages. But sometimes irc is present from heaven.
And sometimes (for some people) installing Xchat or chatzilla or even freenode webchat is complex or time consuming or ... something.
I agree with above comments that chat rooms per articles is bad idea (bad is euphemism, it's bad idea to the 10th potency :-))), but maybe let's say optional gadget which could engulf freenode webchat or something along these lines could be easy done and good to have at the same time.
And finally, if somebody is devoted to Wikipedia enough, s/he will learn how to install Xchat/chatzilla whatever, that's also true. SpeedyGonsales 02:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- "if somebody is devoted to Wikipedia enough, s/he will learn how to install Xchat/chatzilla whatever". That's the sort of thing this is intended to address, to make it so technical aptitude (figuring how out to use IRC) isn't necessary for people who want to get more involved.--ragesoss 15:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Giving them a web irc to the existing channels wouldn't be hard. At least, they would find knowledgeable people there. Platonides 23:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
use standards 
If this is implemented, it definitely should use existing open standards (such as IRC, Jabber). While integrating a web frontend for these could be helpful, people should also be able to connect to these chat platforms using the clients they prefer. Web frontends, while newbie-friendly, will lack important features for more experienced users. --Tobias K. 08:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Make already-existing chat (IRC) more available 
There is already a decent IRC-based chat system, the problem is that IRC is not that easy to use (unless you use in-browser clients, which are cool but don't offer much support for registration), and not interoperable with more popular chat clients. An IRC-skype gateway for example would be very nice - a lot more people could be convinced to participate in real-time discussions. There are opensource apps for the gateway (like BitlBee), but none I have seen that can handle chat rooms. So there should be a gateway server and a bot that sends messages on the channel to every non-IRC user through the gateway and transfers their messages to the channel. --Tgr 22:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Some proposals will have massive impact on end-users, including non-editors. Some will have minimal impact. What will be the impact of this proposal on our end-users? -- Philippe 00:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I think that there are some serious implications which need to be considered here. Notably the potential for abuse by self-selecting special interest groups (read cabals and cliques) and this needs to be considered very carefully before going down this road. Sjc 09:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Chatrooms more often than not have a set of rules which all participants have to abide by. In the case of article chats, perhaps off-topic discussions should be struck out as much as possible. There should be a centralized system of moderation so that several rooms can be moderated by chatroom moderators at the same time. --Sky Harbor (talk) 15:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)