Proposal talk:How to build a proposal review community
Proposal by Harry Sleeper and Juhan Sonin
Possible expansion/specialization regarding reviewing function
What's important regarding information is that it's considered of good quality: the public's reviews could be a valuable source in deciding whether or not certain information should be studied. This is based on the assumption that it is impossible to get enough time to study every aspect of a certain area of interest within one lifespan. For example: a review-system on all the sheet music in IMSLP already exists, but not for the music itself, only the scanning quality of the documents. Without being a programmer, I believe it shouldn't be that hard adding another rating system to each music piece.
Martin Fabian, marfab-4 student.ltu.se
Martin, are you talking about everyday WP articles? The proposal is for the WM foundation proposal process; maybe that needs to be more clear! Thanks, Juhan.
- We definitely will need some kind of system for assessing these proposals, approving some, rejecting some, and modifying or merging others.--Pharos 14:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- I had thought about adding a "quality" attribute to the ranking system already in place. But I don't think we need any complex volunteering system or software modification. We can use categories, just like en.wiki, and perhaps a list at, say, Organized list of proposals. HereToHelp 11:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I would at least like some way to list this great number of proposals we have ranked by the feedback given to them on the bottom of the page by "impact", "feasability" and "priority". --Bodnotbod 13:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Decision model?
Well, having a proposal review community is a good idea of course, except that I'm inclined to the Wikipedia decision model in Wikipedia, i.e. consensus building before democracy by polls, and no real anarchy. I think such a proposal review community should concentrate on reworking and developing proposals to be constructive and to fit together in a coherent fullness. Reviewing proposals could mean a lot of things:
- evaluating the proposals as they are formulated by choosing: reject vs. accept, or
- reformulating them:
- in order to see whether this is what the proposer intended, or
- in order to improve them, or
- in order to evoke new ideas, or
- to adapt them to the current state of Wikimedia,
- enhance them in order to merge the proposals with other proposals,
- analyse them to see what subtasks are needed and see if those subtasks are realistical,
etc.. If adhering to the consensus model, the review work should mean reworking all pending proposals into one full proposal that gets 100% of all votes. In theory. In practice something pretty coherent that gets a strong and uniform "Yes" call by acclamation. Or...? Rursus 17:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Rursus. I have been reviewing and trying to leave as much constructive feedback as limited inteligence and connectivity allow me; you looked at the problem with a wider telescope. Just to make sure I got it right:
- 1.Reviewers accepting or rejecting proposals is against democratic principles.
- 2.Calling for general elections on the proposals as they are will give distorted results because a)not everyone will vote and b)not every voter will have read all the proposals.
- 3.reviewers could work with willing proponents to to create, well, maybe not ONE proposal but one per category, and then call for general elections, the wole process meanwhile being OPEN and TRANSPARENT.
Is that it? Thamus 04:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
This is an idea marketplace. It requires voting/rating worthiness (a la Amazon rating) and ultimately a final arbiter... in this case that's the Wikimedia board.
If this is an open marketplace, then everyone should have voting rights. What kind of rights - vote/rate for your top 5, all... rank order 1-n... that's the question.
Note: the current rating interface is TERRIBLE. Horrid interface and experience design. Should be at the top of the page with an Amazon or Consumer Reports-esque easy-to-decipher graphic (versus the hunk of poop used now).
We're not going to get 100% compliance or voting. After the open voting period, the business drivers from Wikimedia will need to be injected into the rank order... and then determined which proposals to reject, chosen but unfunded, chosen w/no funding necessary, or fund. Rejection is part of the process. It's a requirement. Juhan Sonin, 17.Sep.09
Impact?
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 00:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- Good call. I agree completely. Juhan Sonin, 17.Sep.09
Source code to image
please provide the source code to the image. thanks, mike Mdupont 17:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Source service = omnigraffle. Do you need a PDF, large JPG, Graffle, etc? Email me: juhan@mit.edu. jsonin 6.Oct.09
See my process of reading, reviewing and making ratable videos of the proposals on youtube. Proposal:Read_the_Proposals_as_Videos_on_youtube