Jump to content

IRC office hours/2009-09-09

From Strategic Planning

[10:48pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] evening folks :-)

[10:51pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] hey ragesoss....

[10:52pm] [ ragesoss ]  :)

[10:52pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] Ragesoss, eekim gave you kudos earlier today... he found the merge template you imported from enwiki

[10:52pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] i think he liked the pretty arrows. :-/

[10:53pm] [ ragesoss ] it wasn't so much a template as an endless series of templates.

[10:53pm] [ ragesoss ] there's a ridiculous amount of nesting in a lot of the core templates

[10:53pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] <grin> Well, anyone who does an endless series of things deserves kudos. Speaking of which... Annemarie.... you've done a ridiculous series of things that I ask you in the middle of the night... while I'm handing out thanks....

[10:53pm] [ ragesoss ] (a result of the redesign that gave them a unified style a few years back)

[10:54pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] ragesoss, i'm glad there are those like you who understand what i can not even begin to (as Annemarie frequently reminds me)

[10:55pm] [ ragesoss ] I just did a lot of cut and paste; I have no idea how those templates work or why they can't be written in a way that makes them easy to port.

[10:56pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] well, accept my thanks anyway.

[10:56pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ]  :-P

[10:56pm] [ ragesoss ] thanks for the thanks!

[10:56pm] [ ragesoss ] I'm glad they've been useful.

[10:57pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] Hey pathoschild, Mike_lifeguard

[10:57pm] 12 12� Pathoschild waves hello.

[10:57pm] [ Mike_lifeguard ] Good $timeofday

[10:57pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] Hey Mike_lifeguard ... your spam filters seem to be working well....

[10:57pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] hiya chzz_

[10:57pm] [ Mike_lifeguard ] great

[10:58pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] hiya Bejinhan

[10:58pm] [ Bejinhan ] hi

[10:58pm] [ chzz_ ] hi Philippe|Wiki; just came in to watch, really

[10:58pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] Great, feel free to watch :)

[10:58pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] When things get really exciting, MichaelSnow does karaoke.

[10:58pm] [ Bejinhan ] :o

[10:58pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] Actually, I'd pay a dollar to see that....

[10:58pm] [ ragesoss ] +1

[10:59pm] [ MichaelSnow ] Better me than, say, Kurt Weber

[10:59pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] Ahhh, truth you speak, sir.

[10:59pm] [ chzz_ ] +£1

[10:59pm] [ MichaelSnow ] I must admit, though, it just doesn't work as well on IRC

[11:00pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] MichaelSnow: the good news is, you don't have to hear me sing.

[11:00pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] Well, I imagine eekim will be along shortly.... he's working brutal hours right now... in the meantime, I'd just point out that this is a busy period for strategic planning....

[11:01pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] If you haven't seen it, there's a Call for participation that's going out in the next week or so that will be asking for volunteers who have particular skill sets (say, technology, or knowledge about censorship, or karaoke...)

[11:01pm] [ MichaelSnow ] Shall we have a contest to compose the Strategic Planning Song?

[11:01pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] The volunteer submissions will be mostly public, so we'll really be looking for folks who are willing to help sort through them.

[11:01pm] [ Mike_lifeguard ] Philippe|Wiki: if it's going out next week, where would we have seen it? :\

[11:01pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] MichaelSnow, that sounds like a proposal to me. :-P

[11:02pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] Mike, it's already up and linked on the strategy wiki, but you're expected to read my mind..

[11:02pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] it's in translation now... lemme find a quickie link

[11:02pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Call_for_participation/Appeal_letter

[11:02pm] [ MichaelSnow ] Pick your style - Broadway, Gilbert & Sullivan, Don McLean

[11:02pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] It's going to look a lot like last year's fundraiser, with a shiny landing page and such.

[11:03pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] And I think that's the major news to report... :-)

[11:05pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] oh yeah, and tons of work continues around proposals.

[11:05pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] Time to start sorting through those, huh?

[11:05pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] I think the last count is somewhere around 500 of them

[11:05pm] [ ragesoss ] "If you are an expert in one of the subjects we are dealing with..."

[11:05pm] [ ragesoss ] What subjects are we dealing with?

[11:06pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] <grin> good question.

[11:06pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] Dunno.

[11:06pm] [ Bejinhan ] is there a list somewhere?

[11:06pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] We can take a pretty good guess.... but I imagine things will emerge

[11:06pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] Yes, there's a starting list being developed

[11:06pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] It will be things like volunteerism, censorship, reach...

[11:07pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] (by the way, eekim just text'd me and he can't get online... he'll be here as quickly as possible)

[11:07pm] [ Mike_lifeguard ] How are we planning to handle the "expert database"?

[11:07pm] [ Bejinhan ] and the list will be at the wikimedia-strategy?

[11:07pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] Mike, as people submit their names and skill set, it writes to a MySQL database, I believe

[11:07pm] [ ragesoss ] As it's currently worded, it's going to confuse a lot of people who are experts particular subjects that Wikipedia deals with.

[11:07pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] When we have a need for a particular skilll, we'll query it and automagically get lists.

[11:08pm] [ Mike_lifeguard ] Philippe|Wiki: is this a mediawiki extension then, or...?

[11:08pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] ragesoss, thanks, good point. I'll look at this.

[11:08pm] [ MichaelSnow ] ragesoss: Good point. Although it might also be useful to collect a list of those experts, too.

[11:08pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] Bejinhan: yes, that list will be developed on strategy wiki

[11:08pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] Mike_lifeguard: I believe so, yes.

[11:09pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] Although I'm not technology so I'm not certain

[11:09pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] I don't want to misuse the word extension.

[11:09pm] [ Mike_lifeguard ] I ask because I didn't hear anything about software to do that - whether as an extension to mediawiki or not (& fwiw, I don't see it on special:version)

[11:09pm] 12 12� Mike_lifeguard shrugs, not that important

[11:10pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] Hi Angela :-)

[11:10pm] [ Angela ] hello

[11:10pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] Mike, when eekim gets here he can probably answer that question better than I. I dont want to mislead you.

[11:10pm] [ Mike_lifeguard ] ok, cool

[11:10pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] One thing about this call for participation....

[11:11pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] people for the task forces will submit themselves publicly. experts will be written to a non-public database.

[11:11pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] Since we'll be collecting contact info.

[11:11pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] But the task force folks will all be written to a namespace on the strategywiki and will be evaluated for suitability by anyone who wants to help out, using a set of criteria that we'll be publishing shortly

[11:12pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] The idea, of course, being to do as much in public as possible

[11:13pm] [ ragesoss ] we should have one category for social media experts. and all the submissions to that category just get handled by a bot and don't get added to the main database. :)

[11:13pm] 12 12� Philippe|Wiki grins at ragesoss

[11:13pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] define "social media expert", hmm?

[11:13pm] [ ragesoss ] ask Twitter.

[11:13pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] lol

[11:14pm] [ ragesoss ] everyone there seems to be one.

[11:14pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] By the way, i LOVED the twitter feeds of wikimania.

[11:14pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] anyone else follow those?

[11:14pm] [ Mike_lifeguard ] twitter? nah, I'm not really into pokemon.

[11:15pm] [ Bejinhan ] no...

[11:15pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] that's too bad, Mike_lifeguard - i know this cool website that ANYONE CAN EDIT with all the pokemon info ever collected :-P

[11:15pm] [ Bejinhan ] i have to go now

[11:15pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] Bejinhan: thanks for stopping by :)

[11:15pm] [ Bejinhan ] is there a way i can check this discussion later?

[11:16pm] [ Mike_lifeguard ] office hours are logged—see the /topic

[11:16pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] Yep, it'll be posted on the strategy wiki at http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours

[11:16pm] [ Bejinhan ] ok, thanks. bye, guys :)

[11:16pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] Bye, Bejinhan

[11:17pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] Does anyone know where the term "oversight" came from, historically? I'm noticing a proposal to change the name

[11:17pm] [ Mike_lifeguard ] OK, so we'll have folks volunteer (hopefully) for these task forces by listing themselves in the database? Who is going to decide who gets picked?

[11:18pm] [ Mike_lifeguard ] Philippe|Wiki: that's the name of the original extension which was used to implement hiding revisions... it was a bad name :\

[11:18pm] [ eekim ] hi everybody

[11:18pm] [ eekim ] sorry i'm late. busted router.

[11:18pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] Mike, no... the folks who volunteer will be listed on a wikipage and evaluated by volunteers. There will be a final selection committee, designated by the Board of Trustees, who will be doing the final pass through.

[11:18pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] Hey eekim :)

[11:18pm] [ eekim ] howdy philippe

[11:19pm] [ Mike_lifeguard ] now we use a different (better) software feature to implement the same thing, giving us a chance to change the name at the same time

[11:19pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] Thanks, Mike_lifeguard -that's what I was curious about.

[11:19pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] hi bellayet

[11:19pm] [ Mike_lifeguard ] Actually, I'd prefer to merge checkuser and oversight into a single user group - I was initially very skeptical when that was suggested, but I think it'd be a really good thing.

[11:19pm] [ bellayet ] hi to all

[11:20pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] Mike_lifeguard: can i suggest you add that comment to http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Change_usergroup_name_%22Oversight%22

[11:20pm] [ Mike_lifeguard ] of course

[11:20pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] eekim, we've sort of done a 30,000 foot overview of the Call for participation, and briefly discussed task forces.

[11:20pm] [ gopher65 ] "[21:56] <ragesoss> I just did a lot of cut and paste; I have no idea how those templates work or why they can't be written in a way that makes them easy to port." <---------- well they're written in a way that makes them easy to create, but only if all the "template making templates" already exist.

[11:21pm] [ eekim ] cool

[11:21pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] Mike_lifeguard had a question about the technology behind accepting volunteers for that (is it a mediawiki extension?) and I didn't want to use the word incorrectly and punted to you.

[11:21pm] [ Mike_lifeguard ] actually, on second thought, I'll make a separate proposal

[11:21pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] yeah, Mike, that's probably a better idea.

[11:22pm] [ eekim ] we're doing a custom app in Django

[11:22pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] see, that's why i dont answer those questions.

[11:22pm] [ eekim ] we looked for a mediawiki extension that would work and couldn't find one

[11:22pm] [ eekim ] it's a very simple forms app; figured the easiest thing to do would be to whip up something in whatever framework was convenient

[11:23pm] [ Angela ] is renaming of oversight an appropriate sort of proposal? I'd assumed that was a minor thing that would just go in bugzilla instead, or should minor software changes and improvements be proposed there?

[11:23pm] [ eekim ] ragesoss: thanks for bringing over the merge template to the wiki!

[11:24pm] [ eekim ] exactly what we need

[11:24pm] [ ragesoss ]  :-[

[11:24pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] Angela, we purposely haven't required a differentiation between strategic and tactical: the idea being that the tactical proposals can sometimes uncover process or programatic issues

[11:24pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] Obviously, there will be some sorting.

[11:24pm] [ Mike_lifeguard ] Angela: yeah, I agree there... in fact, I'm not sure even merging CU+oversight belongs on strategywiki - it has nothing to do with the Foundation, really

[11:25pm] [ eekim ] so there's this meta-learning from the proposal process

[11:25pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] And that stuff that is best handled at bugzilla can be taken to bugzilla by anyone who cares :)

[11:25pm] [ eekim ] people are proposing things there that already have a place elsewhere

[11:25pm] [ Mike_lifeguard ] I thought this whole thing was about developing a strategy for *the Foundation*

[11:25pm] � 4 14� 4 � quit 4chzz_ [i=penny@wikipedia/Chzz] ( Remote closed the connection ) 4 [11:25pm]

[11:25pm] [ eekim ] Mike_lifeguard: no, for Wikimedia

[11:25pm] [ Mike_lifeguard ] as opposed to the more simple things that are about moving the projects forward

[11:25pm] [ eekim ] WMF is only a part of Wikimedia

[11:25pm] [ eekim ] back to my point

[11:26pm] [ eekim ] the fact that people are proposing things on strategy that already have a place elsewhere tells us something

[11:26pm] [ eekim ] either we ("the community") need to do a better job of telling people where to go, or the current mechanisms for proposing are too complex, or...

[11:26pm] [ Mike_lifeguard ] it tells us this process is ill-defined?

[11:26pm] [ gopher65 ] Yes, that the proposals process is so fragmented and obstificated that no one can figure it out

[11:26pm] [ eekim ] people didn't get what they wanted in previous places so they're venting on strategy

[11:27pm] [ gopher65 ] It took me half an hour just to figure out how to submit a tiny little bugzilla submission

[11:27pm] [ gopher65 ] :P

[11:27pm] [ MichaelSnow ] Related, there was a comment on foundation-l that we need an incubator space for new project ideas

[11:27pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] gopher, thats an important point: we're also trying to track barriers to entry.

[11:27pm] [ eekim ] gopher65: if that's the case, then this is good meta-learning that we should act on

[11:27pm] [ eekim ] Mike_lifeguard: which process are you referring to?

[11:28pm] [ gopher65 ] One of the big barriers to entry is that most people aren't really aware that there is anything out there beyond their personal project + Wikipedia

[11:28pm] [ Mike_lifeguard ] eekim: I don't think that's fair - I don't see any evidence people are venting because they didn't get their way elsewhere

[11:28pm] [ Mike_lifeguard ] and certainly that isn't true across the board

[11:28pm] [ eekim ] i'm not saying that's happening, i'm saying it's a possibility

[11:28pm] [ eekim ] a possible explanation

[11:28pm] [ ragesoss ] Mike_lifeguard: did you see all the proposals about notability and kicking out the admins?

[11:28pm] [ MichaelSnow ] In general, we aren't very good at figuring out what the right place would be when we encounter something that doesn't quite fit where it is

[11:29pm] [ gopher65 ] So they have no idea where you go to get something changed that is a problem with the Wikimedia software itself (especially a big conceptual problem that can't be easily described in a bug report)

[11:29pm] [ Mike_lifeguard ] I think it's far more likely that people see this new Strategy Process (TM) and are thinking "Hey! that looks like something that gets attention, I bet if I put it there something will actually happen"

[11:29pm] [ Mike_lifeguard ] ragesoss: I assume that's something to do with enwiki?

[11:29pm] [ eekim ] that might be true

[11:29pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] MichaelSnow: My experience has been that Wikimedians can sometimes tend to be very process driven... so I guess the question is "what happens when there isn't a process"? Do people tend to drop the idea?

[11:29pm] [ Mike_lifeguard ] Incidentally, I haven't read more than 3 or proposals

[11:29pm] [ eekim ] and is that necessarily a bad thing?

[11:29pm] [ gopher65 ] So the only proposals that people make on their own wikis are tiny little consmetic changes that really don't matter much (template changes, etc)

[11:29pm] [ ragesoss ] Mike_lifeguard, notability, yes. Admins, the first one was actually from dewiki

[11:30pm] [ Mike_lifeguard ] In any case, no. I've read 3 proposals, and that wasn't one of them

[11:30pm] [ MichaelSnow ] Philippe: Well, a couple possibilities exist

[11:30pm] [ eekim ] a good proposal system has the following qualities: 1. people pay attention to it; 2. things get better as a result.

[11:31pm] [ eekim ] i hope that the strategy proposal system is a good proposal system

[11:31pm] [ MichaelSnow ] One is that somebody comes in with an idea, we tell them "But you have to go through the process", and they're bewildered by the process and drift away

[11:31pm] [ eekim ] and if projects can learn/steal from it, then so much the better

[11:31pm] [ ragesoss ] Mike_lifeguard, there are a lot of policy issues on the big projects, (enwiki in particular) that have very big policy implication for the Wikimedia ecosystem as a whole but that haven't really been decided with an eye to strategy.

[11:31pm] [ Mike_lifeguard ] I mean, maybe we should start proposing deletion of enwiki articles on strategywiki at this rate. That moves The Wikimedia Movement forward, doesn't it? 9_9

[11:31pm] [ Mike_lifeguard ] Surely we need some actual inclusion criteria

[11:32pm] [ eekim ] for proposals?

[11:32pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] MichaelSnow: yes, I think there's a bit of that going on.

[11:32pm] [ gopher65 ] One thing I'd like to suggest: I'm under the impression that this Stragety Discussion will go on for a few months and then end for 5 years. I think that it should be a permanent, ongoing discussion, rather than a temporary thing.

[11:32pm] [ MichaelSnow ] Another is that somebody who's been immersed in the process thinks outside the box, makes a suggestion, but gets nowhere because we don't have a process for everyone else to step outside the box

[11:32pm] [ eekim ] gopher65: i agree

[11:32pm] [ Mike_lifeguard ] eekim: Yes. It makes no sense to have proposals on strategywiki that should be in bugzilla

[11:32pm] [ Mike_lifeguard ] (for example)

[11:32pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] gopher65: there's a proposal for that, I believe ("there's an app for that!")

[11:33pm] [ gopher65 ] heh

[11:33pm] [ eekim ] one of my hopes is that a process for thinking strategically on an ongoing basis emerges from this process

[11:33pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] Michael, I suppose your second one is the one that scares me most.... and maybe it shouldn't, because some of the best ideas come from those aren't steeped in teh process... but I hope we aren't losing ideas from those who are.

[11:34pm] [ eekim ] even though we have a specific timeline for the five year strategy, that does not mean that all strategic thinking/processes has to stop once the plan is "finished"

[11:34pm] [ eekim ] Mike_lifeguard: so what would you propose?

[11:34pm] [ eekim ] (no pun intended)

[11:35pm] � 4 14� 4 � quit 4bellayet [i=caa8fcad@gateway/web/freenode/x-skgtongvjpokjxlk] ( Ping timeout: 180 seconds ) 4 [11:35pm]

[11:35pm] [ MichaelSnow ] Philippe: To me it matters less which kind it is, both the inside expert and the fresh outside perspective can have good ideas, and either way there's the danger of losing something of value

[11:35pm] [ Mike_lifeguard ] I'm just suggesting that some of the proposals have nothing to do with strategy and should be binned

[11:36pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] gopher65: the proposal i referenced is http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Long_term_strategy_development

[11:36pm] [ gopher65 ] As an example of why things don't get changed:

[11:37pm] [ eekim ] Mike_lifeguard: you're right, some of the proposals have nothing to do with strategy

[11:37pm] [ eekim ] but why ban them?

[11:37pm] [ eekim ] why not simply point people to the appropriate place

[11:37pm] [ eekim ] again, the fact that people are proposing those things on the strategy wiki is in and of itself telling and helpful for the strategy process

[11:37pm] [ Mike_lifeguard ] those aren't mutually exclusive & the latter goes without saying (or should)

[11:38pm] [ eekim ] because it forces us to ask why those proposals are being made there in the first place

[11:38pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] And, Mike_lifeguard, the other thing that I think would be very healthy would be if people felt empowered to DO SOMETHING about a proposal. If you know it should go to bugzilla... put it there. If it's something that can be fixed... fix it.

[11:39pm] [ gopher65 ] For a long time I've wanted interwiki links made green instead of a slightly different shade of blue (I should make a prop for that:P). Now maybe that is a bad idea, I don't know. But where would you go to even suggest something like that? Surely there are people out there that have good ideas about interface, usability, and general functionality, but they just have nowhere to express them. That's why I think stragety wiki should be a per

[11:39pm] [ eekim ] okay, i agree, they're not mutually exclusive, and we should definitely point people in the right direction

[11:39pm] [ ragesoss ] eekim, why ban some content? for the same reason Wikipedias enforce content guidelines: it makes it easier and more useful to browse the remaining content, and it propagates norms for the kind of content that people want to encourage.

[11:39pm] [ eekim ] so what do we gain by banning?

[11:39pm] [ eekim ] ragesoss: is banning the best way to do that?

[11:39pm] [ ragesoss ] eekim, not necessarily

[11:39pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] gopher65: by the way, I sent that to Naoko's attention today, at the usability project

[11:39pm] [ eekim ] okay, cool, so i want to think of other ways that might be better

[11:39pm] [ eekim ] knowing full well that we could indeed ban that content if we wanted to

[11:40pm] [ Mike_lifeguard ] could a sysop please create MediaWiki:Readerfeedback-desirability for me? It should say "Desirability"

[11:40pm] [ ragesoss ] eekim, it's effective but heavy-handed. but as it is, there is a serious lack of norms/structure on strategy wiki that makes it tough to use and tough to contribute to.

[11:40pm] [ gopher65 ] Philippe|Wiki: Cool:)

[11:40pm] [ Mike_lifeguard ] Philippe|Wiki: I fix lots of things, I don't need to hunt for more, thanks.

[11:40pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] Mike, I didn't mean you specifically :)

[11:40pm] [ Mike_lifeguard ] Which, incidentally, is one reason I'm unsure how successful this will be

[11:40pm] [ eekim ] ragesoss: agreed. we need to do better at establishing norms.

[11:41pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] eekim, how do you feel about desirability as a reader feedback category?

[11:41pm] [ eekim ] my preference is that we do that by modeling the behavior that we want rather than ban the behavior we don't

[11:41pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] i don't have a problem with it, and we've been toying with how to do that

[11:41pm] [ Mike_lifeguard ] The most involved people are... the most involved. Which means they likely won't have 10-15h/wk to devote to being on a task force, etc etc

[11:41pm] [ eekim ] it takes a bit longer, but i think it's worth it

[11:42pm] [ gopher65 ] I'm getting even further offtopic, but I actually think that a lot of Wikimedia's problems (and a lot of the weird props we're seeing) are navigational in nature. There is simply too much information spread out over too great an area, and it's location isn't properly documented.

[11:42pm] [ eekim ] i think that's starting to happen on strategy, but we could be doing even more of that

[11:43pm] [ eekim ] Philippe|Wiki, Mike_lifeguard, what do we gain by having desirability as a category?

[11:43pm] [ eekim ] and desirability according to whom?

[11:43pm] [ gopher65 ] *its

[11:43pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] well, in readerfeedback, it's desirability according to me :)

[11:43pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] i'm the reader :)

[11:43pm] [ eekim ] so you know what i'd rather have then?

[11:43pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] what?

[11:43pm] [ Mike_lifeguard ] lulwot?

[11:43pm] [ eekim ] i'd rather have a little thumbs up icon I can click like on Facebook

[11:44pm] [ Mike_lifeguard ] you guys set up the wiki, so complain to yourself if you don't like it

[11:44pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] But we already have readerfeedback :)

[11:44pm] [ eekim ] if i like a proposal, click on "Like"

[11:44pm] [ gopher65 ] hehe

[11:44pm] [ ragesoss ] eekim, yes, KISS

[11:44pm] [ Mike_lifeguard ] however it was set up wrong, so please at least fix it for now

[11:44pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] What's the diff b/w that and rating desirability/like-iness on a scale?

[11:44pm] [ eekim ] Mike_lifeguard: i complain to myself all the time :-) what was set up wrong? ReaderFeedback?

[11:44pm] [ gopher65 ] btw: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Long_term_strategy_development

[11:45pm] [ gopher65 ] Look at the readerfeeback at the bottom

[11:45pm] [ gopher65 ] It's busted

[11:45pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] Yeah, that one went in before the extension did. It's broke. It's on my list.

[11:45pm] [ gopher65 ] a character must be missing or something

[11:45pm] [ Mike_lifeguard ] eekim: Yes, it is missing a system message

[11:45pm] [ eekim ] Philippe|Wiki: affordances. instant feedback, for one. KISS, as ragesoss points out, for another.

[11:46pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] maybe this is a perpetuation of a problem but.... i return to... we can use readerfeedback now. We'd have to build something else.

[11:46pm] [ eekim ] Philippe|Wiki, do we know about the bug Mike_lifeguard is reporting?

[11:46pm] [ MichaelSnow ] I have a question to throw out for discussion, it may even be somewhat strategic

[11:46pm] [ Mike_lifeguard ] Philippe|Wiki: that wouldn't be so bad; readerfeedback is a bit cumbersome to quickly gather wide feedback from readers

[11:46pm] [ eekim ] shoot, MichaelSnow

[11:46pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] Mike, by missing a system message, are you refering to a scale, or something else?

[11:47pm] [ MichaelSnow ] One of the things we struggle with is the concept of donor recognition

[11:47pm] [ ragesoss ] eekim, one problem with the setup: it's not possible, so far as I can tell, to monitor the feedback on proposals.

[11:47pm] [ eekim ] yes, i know

[11:47pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] ragesoss, on each proposal, you can view it from the side toolbox

[11:47pm] [ eekim ] reporting on ReaderFeedback really sucks

[11:47pm] [ MichaelSnow ] In large part because we have concerns about "sponsorship", let alone "advertising"

[11:47pm] [ eekim ] Austin pointed this out at Wikimania

[11:48pm] [ ragesoss ] ah, I didn't know that

[11:48pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] It says "page rating" i think, ragesoss

[11:48pm] [ ragesoss ] can I vote as many times as I like?

[11:48pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] shhhhhhh

[11:48pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] yes

[11:48pm] [ ragesoss ] I see that I have two votes on the one I just voted on.

[11:48pm] [ MichaelSnow ] We do have some recognition, though - a page on the foundation website for larger donors, and public records of individual donations

[11:49pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] but ragesoss, i think that's a good thing... if the proposal changes, so can your rating.

[11:49pm] [ ragesoss ] but does my rating change, or just add on to the earlier one?

[11:49pm] [ MichaelSnow ] Are those adequate? How do they compare with the recognition we provide for content contributors? Are there other things we could do that would appeal to donors?

[11:49pm] 12 12� Mike_lifeguard gets bored, and fixes it himself

[11:49pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] ragesoss, I'm not sure about that, actually... I've been meaning to ask Austin

[11:50pm] [ ragesoss ] the latter, it looks like by my math; double voting, not vote replacement

[11:51pm] [ Bejinhan ] sorry for interrupting, but there's something wrong with reader feedback of this page too

[11:51pm] [ Bejinhan ] http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Remove_JimboWales_name_from_Rules

[11:51pm] [ gopher65 ] hmmmm. I just voted on one, and after going back to the page, readerfeedback is gone...

[11:51pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] Yeah, Bejin, that's the same issue... it's an early proposal from before reader feedback

[11:51pm] [ ragesoss ] gopher65, it will show up for you again later.

[11:53pm] � 14 14� 4 � part 14 Bejinhan [n=evangeli@wikipedia/Bejinhan] [11:53pm]

[11:53pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] MichaelSnow: we were actually talking today about how we capture the voice of donors in this research

[11:54pm] [ eekim ] MichaelSnow: an annoying process question back at you. have you posted those questions to the wiki? :-)

[11:54pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] I think that's evolving, but no question those are good questions, and I'll pass them on to Serita

[11:54pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] ....or, what eekim said :-P

[11:54pm] [ eekim ] as Philippe notes, he and I were discussing that this morning

[11:54pm] [ eekim ] i've had an ongoing discussion with sara crouse about making sure the voice of the donors are also heard in this process

[11:55pm] [ eekim ] looking past the meta, i think that there are absolutely other things that we can do for both donors and other contributors (besides editors)

[11:55pm] [ MichaelSnow ] eekim: No, I haven't. This is me talking through them for the first time in that form.

[11:55pm] [ ragesoss ] MichaelSnow or someone else, any work yet on when/whether the specifc targets for the Omidyar Network grant will be made public?

[11:56pm] [ ragesoss ] rather, "any word yet"

[11:56pm] [ eekim ] MichaelSnow: I think these are important questions, and i'm glad you're raising them

[11:56pm] 12 12� gopher65 slaps Amgine around a bit with a large trout

[11:57pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] Hi Amgine

[11:57pm] [ Amgine ] <grabs the trout, fries it in butter with plenty of garlic and a hint of dill>

[11:57pm] [ Amgine ] <waves>

[11:57pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] mmmm.... trout....

[11:57pm] [ gopher65 ] mmmmm dilllllll

[11:57pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] who the heck am I kidding? mmmmm.... butter......

[11:57pm] [ Amgine ] <doesn't share><evil grin>

[11:58pm] [ MichaelSnow ] ragesoss: I'll push Sue to get that released

[11:59pm] [ ragesoss ] thanks

[11:59pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] folks, if it's okay with you I'm going to drop off... it's midnight here, and I'm trying to get over that crazy virus i picked up in Argentina... :)

[11:59pm] [ Philippe|Wiki ] and i work for a slave-driver :)

Session Time: Wed Sep 09 00:00:00 2009

[12:00am] [ Philippe|Wiki ] So I still have work to do this evening.

[12:00am] [ eekim ] you're dropping off already?!

[12:00am] [ eekim ] (j/k)

[12:00am] [ eekim ] thanks, Philippe. have a good night!

Retrieved from "https://strategy.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=IRC_office_hours/2009-09-09&oldid=62953"