-- Philippe 15:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Proposal talk:Remove The False Pictures Of Prophet Muhammed(PBUH) from Wikipedia
I deleted the proposal, thanks for the comment. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton 01:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Love Your Enthusiasm
Just wanted to say how much I appreciate your enthusiasm in the whole proposal review process and the task force application. Rest assured on the latter; you won't be left behind. :-) --Eekim 00:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Me too, thank you Bodnotbod. And I wanted to check, have you submitted an application? I looked for one from you, and haven't found it. I am curious because we didn't explicitly ask for usernames in the submission form, so it's possible that if you used your real name, it might not get successfully connected to your username, and therefore also to your proposals here. Just checking, and encouraging you to submit here http://volunteer.wikimedia.org/volunteer/ if you haven't already :-) Sue Gardner 22:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
|It's time to answer some questions! Would you check out the list of questions that were submitted by the community and others and try to answer some? -- Philippe 01:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)|
I look forward to working with you on the Enhance community health and culture task force.
The task force page has our mandate and a list of questions for us to answer. There is a beginning list of resources for us to use. We may need to look for more.
To get the ball rolling I put the questions on the talk page for us to start discussing a plan for answering them.
Please suggestion any ideas about how to better organized ourselves.
Sydney (aka FloNight)
Trying my patience?
My wording was extremely poor. You are not trying my patience, and you have every right to question things. I'm sorry that I didn't handle that better. -- Philippe 14:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Netmouse posted a really great article with a ton of empirical data. I haven't even gotten through it, and haven't figured out what it all means. But I'm excited about it, and wanted to share it with you:
- "Wikipedia: A quantitative analysis." Jose Felipe Ortega Soto. 2009. http://libresoft.es/Members/jfelipe/thesis-wkp-quantanalysis Might be helpful for examination of editors' "lifecycles"
Figured I'd share it with you directly, since it's already posted elsewhere, and since some of the other members of the task force aren't here yet. Randomran 04:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- BTW, the empirical data starts in section 4, at page 93 of the PDF (page 73 of the document). Just in case you want to cut to the chase. Randomran 04:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- I pulled out a few of the most interesting points and listed them at Favorites/Randomran#Research_and_fact_base. I haven't figured out where else to put them or what to do with them yet. But it might save you some reading, or at least give you some sense of focus. Randomran 22:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot. I dropped a bomb in our resources. Not very pretty. There are some great diagrams that sum things up, though, that we could insert at some point. (I would, but my computer seems to have trouble uploading images.) Randomran 02:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Community health task force: week of 11-09-09
The Enhance community health and culture task force completed our first full week of work. I summarized our initial activities for our first Weekly Report and included a list of general activities for next week.
Please add any specific activities that you plan to do for the next week here.
The clock is ticking so in order to stay on schedule we need to make a list of the research activities to complete by the end of the first month. Following this schedule will let us focus on writing the recommendation during the last few weeks because we will have the core research completed. Add your suggestions here.
Look forward to seeing your ideas and thoughts.
Sydney (aka FloNight)
Some thoughts...(moved from sjc/talk so you see it asap)
(To sjc/talk)Hi there. I share your concerns about the deadline. However, I do firmly believe we can present something before the deadline that will give a strong indication of ways to improve the projects. As Philippe says, once we pass that deadline we can still be active in pursuing ideas we feel to be important. The strategy process has opened my eyes and I view many things differently now. It has also made me aware that Sue Gardner agrees with me on some changes that could be made, so even if the strategy process disappeared into a black hole tomorrow I'm now aware that I may have an ally in her and could potentially pursue some innovations I'm interested in.
I hear that you are feeling fed up with Wikipedia and are thinking of leaving. That's a personal decision and I wouldn't want to sway you. However, please let your fellow Task Force members know if you leave strategy or let us know if you are not intending to have much input so we know where we stand. --Bodnotbod 12:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- I was very cross this morning and came, albeit understandably, very close to throwing my toys out of the pram. But I have reflected and I probably can, for the time being, do more good from inside the tent than from outside it. I think one sentence can define the central and common problem I am finding across all wikia:
Huge amounts of policy & regulation, spoken and unspoken, arbitrarily and unthinkingly enforced by individuals who see the enforcement of policy as an end in itself and not as a means to an end. Solve that and user retention will cease to be an issue.
- Unfortunately I do not think that the resolution of the problem will be nearly as easy as the identification, the abuse (both of others and of power) culture is now too firmly engrained. Moreover, there is no cabal, there are lots of them. Sjc 18:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Task force/Community health
Updating you about the task force activities and inviting you to update us about any work done related to Community health and your future plans.
Additionally, I would like to set a time this week for us to do an interim status check on our work. Could you please indicate here the best days and time for us to have the discussion.
FloNight 12:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Editor collaboration projects
Following up on our brief discussion last night.
I'm collecting my information about the various Task force/Community Health/Editor collaboration projects on this page. If you find anything you can add it to the page. I did English language Wikiquote, Wikisource, and partial review of Wikipedia (going to add more), and plan to do Commons later today. We still need to do some of the other wikis if possible.
The list might not be complete but for these wikis I think we will have a pretty good idea of the different kinds of collaborative projects happening there. After I find them, I'm going to look into more detail about the way that they work (Such as do they give awards or recognition. And if so, what kind.) FloNight 15:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Meeting starting in #wikimedia-strategy channel at 22:00 UTC now. FloNight 21:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
preliminary recommendation discussion
Sending out a mass message to check in at: Task force/Community Health/Recommendation evaluation
We don't need to pin down our recommendations until mid-January. But we've had a lot of discussions about possible recommendations to focus on. Our hope is to narrow down the larger list to some recommendations that we feel have the most potential.
Check in at the discussion page over there. Randomran 01:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hey Bodnotbod... There's an emerging consensus that "help" and "policy change" are not areas that our task force should pursue (at least not directly). I was wondering if you would feel comfortable scoring those recommendations on the table? Your scoring would just be a strawman, and we could tweak it more later. The idea is that a "20" (5/5 in impact/priority/feasibility/desirability) would be a "perfect, ideal recommendation", and a "0" would make almost no difference and be very difficult to make happen. (If you want, you could even take a shot at scoring "Rewards" and "Social Features".) Randomran 21:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Take a look at the Community Health task force's discussion about narrowing our list of Recommendations. We are whittling down the list in order to have something concrete by January 12, 2010.
- And add your recent activities and planned activities to the Community Health Week 07 Report.
- Let me know how that I can better help you with your work on the Strategic Planning wiki.
Next steps (again)
Thanks for all of your contributions to the strategy wiki to date! The strategic planning process wouldn't be where it is today without all of your help. Your early and frequent support was invaluable, and I want you to know how much of a difference that you made. I hope you'll continue to work towards finishing the plan...
We're about to move into the third and final phase of the process, and in many ways, this will be the most challenging. I'm hoping you will continue to be an active presence in shaping the movement's five year strategic plan.
Here are some concrete suggestions as to how you can help moving forward:
- Add your name to Strategic Planning:Hosts. This just formalizes what I think has been true all along; that you care about this process, and that you're doing what you can to help it along moving forward.
- Help organize and improve this wiki! Starting next week (January 18, 2010), we're going to be encouraging many more people to come participate, and we want to make sure this wiki is as presentable as possible. A comprehensive list of things to do is at Strategic Planning:To-do list.
- Invite people to participate! Encourage volunteers to discuss Task force/Recommendations.
- Finally, we need to clearly describe what this final phase is going to look like. In particular, we could use feedback and discussion on Strategic Planning:Decision-Making.
Let me know what you think! Many, many thanks! ~Philippe 01:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey Bodnotbod, glad to see you're still around. I've scaled back my time here substantially. But since we're in a phase where we're tweaking the recommendations to respond to feedback, I wanted to list some items that have come up.
- Volunteer Recognition: Philippe wanted more specifics about volunteer recognition, which was echoed by [[another user here. Our current recommendation points out many things that nonprofits do, but it doesn't really give any specifics about how to implement this for Wikimedia projects.
- Social Networking: Sjc was concerned that social networking features would "increase the depth and number of cabals". I don't think it's reason enough to kill the recommendation, but I do think it's something we should discuss, to see if there are ways to prevent cabals, or at least break them apart if they emerge. (For what it's worth, I share Sjc's concerns about social networking, as do some other editors.)
- (As a side note... this recommendation has gotten a little messy with everyone dropping in their two cents. It could benefit from a stronger organization and layout, if not some outright clean-up.)
- Dispute Resolution: FloNight raised some questions about how to implement new dispute resolution mechanisms. (e.g.: who is going to do it?) I could use a second look, to see if you can help me with those last few specifics.
I know you're probably as busy as I am. But I'm hoping we can take a crack at these over the next week or two. Are you up to the task? I don't mind doing a lot of the actual editing, but I could use your help with brainstorming. Randomran 05:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks! I'm glad to see what you come up with. And even on social networking, I'm sure our differing views can be used as a way to enhance the recommendation, rather than killing it. One idea I had was to have some kind of group formation policy.
- "You can only create and join a group if that group is neutral. In general, groups that focus on a broad area of content will be considered neutral. But neutrality can be disrupted if the group's purpose is to take a position on an issue of controversy, or if its active membership mainly consists of people that share such a position. Neutrality can also be disrupted if the group has a very narrow focus, giving a certain goal undue weight. A group that is not neutral may lose certain privileges, including the privilege to exist. New groups will be approved by consensus."
- It may seem harsh, but I know it would give me some peace of mind. Hopefully it would satisfy some of the other critics too. Who knows? Maybe this could actually bring certain cabals out into the open, and make it easier to monitor their behavior. What do you think? Randomran 15:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Strategy Task Force
Very glad you signed up for the strategy task force! --Eekim 15:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)