Archived Talk Page
Talk Section For Those Who Don't Want To Use LiquidThreads
Thanks for fixing my dups, LiquidThreads seems to be very buggy for me in any of the three browsers I use. Couldn't even edit the page in FF. Sjc 19:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- No problem! Sorry about the trouble you're having with LiquidThreads. Appreciate you sticking around regardless. It will improve. --Eekim 22:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Re: Prize for best featured content
Hi. I've commented at the talk page for the above project, and the thing is, I would like to know if these are things that are "guaranteed" to go ahead, or stuff in the pipeline? I say this, because I object to this particular project in the strongest possible terms, mainly because of the fact it only recognises a select few who make Featured / Good Articles or who bring them to the standard that they need, while essentially missing the other couple of million people who actually make Wikis tick, like the regular editors. Your input on the discussion would be appreciated, as Philippe is now off on Wikibreak, then to Poland. Cheers. BarkingFish 00:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- These are just proposals. In some cases, proposals can't happen unless the right people/projects approve them. In these cases, whoever signs up for the proposal will have to go through the usual decision-making processes. In other cases, the proposals will simply require motivated people. In these cases, we want to encourage people to self-organize around them and do them. --Eekim 00:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
|Thread title||Replies||Last modified|
|Call for active student volunteers||3||16:36, 8 July 2010|
|a proposal||8||21:53, 1 July 2010|
|A bold editor - A "be bold" campaign||0||21:43, 30 June 2010|
|The left barnstar||1||00:09, 30 June 2010|
|Wikimania Talk||3||09:38, 21 June 2010|
|The importance of why||1||00:40, 11 June 2010|
|priority number 1||1||20:57, 5 May 2010|
|Content scope||2||22:39, 3 May 2010|
|hey eekim||1||18:10, 26 April 2010|
|Regarding your post about faciliating the content scope task force||3||17:32, 5 April 2010|
|100125-Wikimedia_Feb_Board_Background_Final / Page 84 : Nokia Life Tools||1||22:52, 23 March 2010|
|About the email I sent.||6||23:59, 3 February 2010|
|Created||2||07:38, 14 January 2010|
|Draft of recommendation document||0||02:01, 29 December 2009|
|Converting Word docs to wiki pages||5||20:45, 23 December 2009|
|Wikimedia Foundation page||2||17:14, 17 December 2009|
|Mozilla||1||01:32, 10 December 2009|
|Thanks for the welcome||0||20:38, 20 November 2009|
|A try at "refactoring".||2||16:57, 18 November 2009|
|process and task forces||3||18:14, 3 November 2009|
I was wondering if you ever host (or know of) any "live" discussions (IRC, etc)? There is quite a bit of information here, so as I look into how I can best help, it would be nice to see what is actually currently going on.
I am particularly interested in calling on schools (high schools and colleges) to have student volunteers modify and add content to wikiversity as they take courses. It seems to me that these are the perfect people - if someone adds content "just for fun", it is a massive time expense. If a student adds content WHILE taking a brick and mortal course, adding the content to wikiversity is actually extremely beneficial to them, as "teaching is the best way to learn". Rather than stare at a book the week before an exam, they could verify and write content on the wiki pages!
Of course, this is "allowed" already, but I think we should actively seek out this type of participation. It seems that in only a few semesters of this, we should be able to completely capture everything that is taught in common high school and college classes.
What do you think? What can I do to get this rolling (or continue, if something like it already exists)?
Thanks for your question, and welcome! We used to host live IRC office hours, but our last one was today unfortunately. There's a chance that people may self-organize more in the future.
I'd start by looking at List of proposals#Schools, and if you don't see anything that jives with what you're thinking, to make your own proposal. I think it's a great idea, and I'd love to see people organize around it.
As engineers without borders is an organization with strong roots in education and development, I think their student groups could play a key role in educating and assissting less technicaly inclined student in their editing. As a project like this is takes form, I think it would be a good idea to have this in mind, and to contact them to see if they are willing to help.
I have tried to encourage teachers to use Wikipedia to drive student "ownership" of local issues. For example, I created a Wikipedia stub for Northkill Creek, contacted relevant, local teachers and suggested that they might develop student projects to study the creek and update the article. I think that would drive students to realize they are not just data consumers and hopefully develop interest in the local asset. Unfortunately, I never received any response nor have I noted any local input to the article.--Rpclod 16:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that message, Eekim. That's exactly what I mean by leadership. The Foundation has already created a great platform for collaboration. But over time, that platform has become a tool to empower inflexible people rather than leaders (even incremental changes!). So leadership has to come from the other two things you're talking about. Either having the foundation engage the community and say "this is important enough that we have to find a way", or (if they have the legitimacy) the foundation has to do it themselves.
I've thought about it. I collaborated with some truly insightful and helpful people on the community health task force. (Who are unfortunately near the brink of giving up. But this is the cost of learning about the community problems first-hand.) We did hours of research, reading proposals, and discussion, and the end result was a set of recommendations.
Looking at those recommendations, most of them are changes to interface and tools. I have confidence in the usability team -- making editing easier, making collaboration easier. I hope that eventually they'll make it easier to recognize new users and admins. I even hope that they work on those social networking features that I'm nervous about being misused. But the most I can do is add a supportive voice. I lack the skills and time to help develop it. (Speaking of which, I heard that most of the work is being done by paid staff. I don't think that's a bad thing. Some big changes really do require an investment of money and not just a request for voluntary change.)
The main thing that a regular volunteer like me could work on is this recommendation/proposal. But I doubt I could do it alone, even if I had some supporters on my side. Some real leadership from the foundation would help. They wouldn't need to commit to the details of implementation. We took the details from the best proposals we could find at the time, and the details will need to come from the community. But the foundation would definitely help by committing to the broad principles and ideas. If the foundation stepped up and said "yeah, it's time to improve the consensus building process, and here are three ideas we have", I am confident that the volunteer community could take care of the rest.
As for the involvement of regular volunteers like myself (and soon, you too...), I'm open to suggestions. I say this without a shred of pessimism that I'm stumped as to what I could do. But let's throw some ideas around.
I hear you about the Foundation, leadership, and community engagement. That's a conversation I've had a lot internally at the Foundation, and it's one I'll continue to have.
As for something that a regular volunteer could work on, of all the Community Health recommendations, I'm surprised you chose that one. That one is the absolute hardest, and I'm not sure it's framed in a way that's even achievable.
I'd like to propose two alternatives that we (and hopefully) others could play with:
Better yet, we can use strategy wiki as a test case. The timing for that is good. How does that sound?
I'd be interested in working on the demarcation and strengthening of volunteer roles. The thing is, I don't have the tech-savvy to implement some kind of easy identifier. (There are a lot of people who think "what? you can see an admin by looking for a category on their user page, or recognize a new editor by checking their contribution history". But those are not obvious. When people are in a hurry, let alone when people are new, they miss them completely.)
What's the best way to tackle it?
Cool, this is an interesting one. My suggestion would be to start with the underlying questions and not worry about the tech implementation yet. Figuring out the different roles is a prerequisite anyway, and there may be some non-tech opportunities we can take advantage of.
Surveys, like the Former Contributors Survey Results and the former administrators survey, can be part of the methodology. We learned from the former that our assumptions about recent activity aren't the best measure of whether or not someone is a former contributor. Similarly, I think our current criteria for active contributors is totally wrong. It would be great if we can start fleshing out a taxonomy of contributor types and more accurate ways of determining whether contributors fall under different categories.
If this sounds good, would you be willing to start a Task Force? I'll join, and we can recruit some others to participate as well.
We can only try :) I'd be happy to give it a shot. As for the task force, here's a few guiding principles/goals, and issues to get us started:
- The Wikimedia community is hard to navigate, and this partially has to do with cultural norms and invisible roles.
- Making roles visible should help newer editors recognize more experienced editors and vice versa.
- Recognizing volunteers in good standing can make them feel appreciated and prevent burnout.
- Decision-making should remain egalitarian and open.
- New editors often mistaken any old warning for an official administrator notice that represents community norms.
- New editors cannot tell which users are modeling best practices and behavior.
- Experienced editors often fail to see an editor's newness, and accidentally WP:BITE the newbies. (Assuming good faith.)
- Collaboration is difficult without trust. Editors with positive history will be more collaborative than complete strangers.
(Just my first shot.)
I posted message in "Proposal talk:A "be bold" campaign". I am interested in the matters to be improved relating to what I have written there. What do you think we shall start with and how I may see if there are other users interested in the same matters? --Zara-arush 21:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
|The Half Barnstar|
|For keeping the pieces together throughout this process! Thanks for an amazing time! --Dafer45 23:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)|
I just watched this speech on TED: http://www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action.html
Maybe not the best speech, but the message is important. The speaker talks about the importance of convincing people about the reason for doing what you do. It made me think that the most important part of the strategic plan probably is Strategic_Plan/What_do_we_believe?-Principles_of_the_Wikimedia_movement. So I think it is realy important to make this part as strong and simple as possible! I also think it should be an early part of the strategic plan as possible.
If you had to choose one priority for the Wikimedia movement to focus on over the next five years, what would it be?
If I had to choose 1 priority it would be improving the usability of Wikipedia. I'd like to see it look more like Microsoft Word 2010 or Google Docs or Google Wave and less like Hotmail circa 1996. That always turned me off.
The second priority would be making Wikimedia more like Aardvark in that we ask people what they're knowledgeable about, what they can do. Then we would automatically assign tasks to people who profess to be good at certain things.
Have you ever used Aardvark?
Also I'd love to see the Timeline feature that Google Wave uses where you can watch a Wikipedia page created over the course of time.
If I had to choose one priority of those listed at Strategic Plan/Movement Priorities, I would definitely choose the diversity one.
Improving usability is absolutely a way to achieve this priority. I'd recommend taking a look at Category:Proposals for improving usability to see if there are proposals folks have already posted that you're interested in.
After the month that passed, what came out of the content scope task force was essentially the list of things that need to be free and the new project policy draft, which I think is a more extensive and updated version of the old new project policy.
Should we try to explore some more areas, or should we leave it where it is for now.
I think this is really great work. I'd recommend that the Task Force summarize the recommended changes it would like to see on the project policy, then actually go to the Project Policy page on Meta and start revising the policy. Thoughts?
I'm pinging SJ and Stu as well, as it would be great to get some feedback from some board members.
Hey eekim. Check your email. I finally got something done that hopefully you will find valuable.
Thanks for your invitation to faciliate the content task force.
I am a bit divided upon whtether to take that role or not. I feel that I am a to unexperienced Wikimidian to be able to make any decissions, and this is something I have felt about my participation in the strategy task force as well. All I can do is to summarize the thoughts of others. On the other hand, if I just am supposed to faciliate the discussion that's something I probably could do.
I will take a look at the background material for the content scope task force during the weekend and see what I am able to do. Hopefully I can identify the key elements of that material and the previous discussions in the expanding content task force, and trigger some conversation around it on the content scope task force's talk page. But for the moment I am not sure whether I am able to take the sole role of faciliating the task force or not.
Please do take a look, and know that you will have several people supporting you on this particular Task Force. One of the big differences between now versus last Fall was that we have a lot fewer Task Forces, meaning that we won't be spread too thin with our most active volunteers.
Also, while you may consider yourself an inexperienced Wikimedians, you are one of the most experienced on this wiki, and the work you did with Local Languages was really stellar.
Thanks, and let me know!
I just checked out presentation material. Great work!
I noticed that in the page 84 it states:
"Nokia Life Tools allows users in India to call up and receive agricultural information, i.e., prices and weather data".
More accurate would be:
"Nokia Life Tools is an application running on entry level mobile phones to get updates on agricultural market prices, educational information, career tips and news. The application is designed and offered only in the emerging markets."
I'm just hoping you received the email I sent a couple of days ago. No hurry to reply of course. I'd just like to know if you got it.
I'm sorry, I should have confirmed receipt of that. I passed it on to Eugene Eric Kim, the project manager. When I'm in San Francisco next week, I plan to discuss your thoughts with him, and should be back to you after that. :)
I got your email, and I'll send a response later today. Thanks, Micenmen.
"I got your email, and I'll send a response later today. Thanks, Micenmen."
Thanks Eekim. Not sure if you sent that, but I didn't find it anywhere.
I have drafted the recommendation document for the local language project task force. I have to my best tried to make it look like the template, but have not realy followed the strict assertion-fact model. But I have anyway tried to state and explain the problem and then given a strategy. At the same time I have tried to put as much facts into the text as possible. Would you like to check if it looks anything like a recommendation document possibly could look like?
I have also added a section at the end that summarizes those discussions that has occured but that has not lead to any real recommendations. That is to collect all thoughts so as to simplify any continued work that could occur later on.
Fantastic, thank you Kozuch! Can you wikimail me your email address so I can email you the documents?
I've posted some uploading notes to Strategic Planning:Uploading interviews.
I've got some free time, I think I can help if you still need more volunteers.
Definitely, Theo, thanks! I have your email address, so I'll send a few to you now.
Done. Linked them from the interview page as well. You might want to protect the page as an admin.
Hi Eekim, I just came across the page you created for the Foundation. I expanded it with more info from Wikipedia and arranged it altogether. I hope it looks a bit more comprehensive now.
Hi Eekim, I created a few more pages from Wikipedia pages about relevant organisations that were being linked to -the Red cross, the Olympic committee, ONE campaign, save the children and habitat for humanity. I think the Smithsonian institute can also fit into that list, I'll create a page but I don't know where to link it to though.
Thanks for pointing people to the Mozilla notes! You got to it before I could. :)
I've had a go at refactoring some strat content. The results are currently in my user space here: Favorites/Bodnotbod/Social evidence. If you approve of what I've done I would move them to the main strat-wiki space at Social features and probably also set up a redirect from social networking. If you're happy I think I'd like to announce the page on Foundation-l to encourage input/argument. Let me know what you think. Regards,
Wonderful! This is exactly the kind of refactoring I'd like to see.
Hi Eekim! I'm a prolific editor who eventually got tired of wikipedia. I hope you don't mind that I have decided to stay anonymous for now, until I decide if it's productive for me to return. I wanted to know more about the application process. I submitted an application using the form but I have no idea if anyone has so much as looked at it. Or when they will. Or if my (temporary) anonymity has limited my participation or credibility. Let me know what you can about the process. Sorry again for seeming cryptic. I'll check back here later. 18.104.22.168 15:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi. We've looked at all the applications are still in the process of forming task forces. Thanks for your patience. As for whether it would be productive for you to return, the answer is yes! Regardless of what happens with the selection process, this is a fantastic opportunity to engage and contribute, and I hope you'll do that. Many thanks!
Thanks Eekim! Is there any way to see how my application has been reviewed? Or would that automatically be sent over once the review is done? I left Wikipedia after several failed attempts to heal deep divisions and resolve repetitive debates. I tried consensus building, requests for comment, looking for common ground, compromising, leaning on individuals on either side of the debate, and even shifting into a more passive mediator role. I saw dozens of wikipedians leave before I realized these problems would keep obstructing wikipedia. You can imagine why I think this process you have helped start will be important. Not so that we can appoint ourselves kings and solve these issues, but so we can make small reforms that allow wikipedians to solve these themselves. I'm optimistic, but holding back until I figure out if I can be much help.