-- Philippe 22:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Appreciate the work on the summary of interviews
You're pulling some great content in, making that summary much more useful. Do you think the task forces are browsing through those quotes? Any ideas on how to get their attention there? --JohnF 18:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the info
Hello, thanks for telling me about that information you found. Lots to take in there. I'll try to get my head around some of it. Perhaps you'd like to place the link and your summary on Task_force/Enhance_community_health_and_culture_task_force/resources? --Bodnotbod 13:51, 9 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)
Data 'n' Deadlines
Hi there, been noticing your contributions recently... thanks, I think I would feel very lonely in the TF if not for you :o)
As I've just reported on our TF Talk Page, John F made an edit to the Task Force pages today giving TFs the deadline of 12th January for their final submissions. I'm wondering if that's going to give us any realistic opportunity to organise getting any more data than we have. For example, that survey which we really need done might fall by the wayside if we don't act quickly on it; I would expect activity (which is hardly going at a pace right now) will drop off around Christmas so I guess we would want the survey to go out - at latest - end of November, maybe get 2 weeks of survey submissions and then a week to consider what we've learned from it?
That needn't be the timetable but my essential point is that the schedule is looking tight. Any thoughts? --Bodnotbod 22:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for making this TF less lonely too :) I 100% agree on the survey. We'll want to try to get the survey out in the next week or two. I have no clue how to make that happen though. Maybe we need to take more initiative between you and me. Who do you think would be able to get a survey going? Should we talk to someone high up in the strategy wiki? Is there a process for making this kind of survey happen? Randomran 23:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'll put a link to it in the Weekly Report 02, wait a couple of days and then leave a link to our report on Philippe's talk page with a note that we really need to take action on it. --Bodnotbod 10:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Maybe Thursday we'll bring it up with Phillipe if no one else has any ideas on how to get it going. Randomran 16:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- I located 5 more studies based on interviews with Wikipedians. Several of these are studies about motivation for contributing.
- I see that you found information about WikiCup. I know that there are other contests and ways that users are rewarded on Wikipedia. I think it would be good to look at those already in use to see if they are successful, or are failure, or are under used but have the potential to be successful. I'll add links to them on the Rewards page you started. FloNight 21:15, 21 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 11:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Glad you found them useful. --Piotrus 04:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the insightful comments. Btw - at this point the hope that our initiative here can fix the project is one of the main things still preventing me from leaving the project... :> --Piotrus 22:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- If you look at the history of any Wikipedia article, you see several tools. Revision history statistics might be useful. Page view stats shows the level of interest in the article. There might be more. I'll check around to see. FloNight 01:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Reminder to add your comments to the Task force/Community Health/Weekly Report 04. And I want to highlight that the task force is having a meeting on Thursday at 22:00 UTC. FloNight 10:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
New thread weirdness
I started a new thread about English Wikipedia ArbCom using binding mediated decision making.  Doing it I moved my comment from an existing thread, and it left you responding to a post that is gone. I don't have time to sort out how to fix it now. So, I letting you know where my post went. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot! Randomran 20:30, 12 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.
- Glad you liked it! I was looking at the latest bumped threads... but I realized that the issue is more or less dead. It doesn't look like there is much support for creating a barrier for new users, and even then, it wouldn't even be in the top four. Maybe it's something we can talk about more when we look at trusted/senior editors, and the barriers involved in getting to that level? Randomran 04:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
|The Original Barnstar|
|I'm absolutely in love with this page. Thanks for developing it!|
~Philippe 19:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks a million! I'm hoping to translate it into a concrete recommendation very soon. Randomran 19:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
WYSIWYG translation interface
Hi! I saw you had created an article that partialy where about user friendlier user interfaces. This is a recommendation draft from the Local language task force that probably will be dropped from the final recommendation documment. But I thought it might interest you as it considers a translation interface that could be part of a general WYSIWYG. The same document also contains a concept art of a possible translation interface.
- Thanks a lot. There are a lot of specific ways to implement an improved interface, so we're going to have to be picky about which ones we focus on. But translation is at least on our radar. Good luck with the local language task force. Looking forward to seeing what you come up with. Randomran 19:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Commons content dispute
Currently on Commons there is a big content dispute. Right now several people are trying to reach a compromise in a Community discussion. From watching the situation there, I definitely think that a binding mediated process would help because the situation is one where will the dispute likely will restart with a new group of users unless an agreed upon semi-permanent or permanent solution is found. So I think the recommendations for binding consensus building could work on other wikis. I'll add the link to the Commons image conflict so you can look at it. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- I definitely think it could help too. A lot of research explains the value of binding mediation, and I think the idea of settling an issue would be attractive to a lot of Wikipedians. I'd be interested to take a look at the dispute, if you can send me a link. Randomran 15:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- This proposal is being voted on in an attempt to address the issues raised by Cary Bass/Bastique at the start of the thread.
- This conflict is complicated because it shows where there are gaps or conflict in existing policy.
- 1)Commons does not have a written policy specific to living people. So there is not exceptions made that takes into account the effect images, image name, image description, or category could have on a person.
- 2)And the method to categorize images is not standard. "Over categorizing" can put images in categories where people would be surprised to find the content. For example, if people search for a picture of a couch, they would not expect to find a sexually explicit image. But they might if we use categories as a way to tag the content found in the image. "Under categorizing" the images excluded images from a category where people would expect to find the image.
- Unrelated to this dispute, I recently remove a category from an erotic painting because the category was a game played by children. The Wikipedia article about the game linked to the Commons category, and link took the reader to a page with Commons images including the erotic image. Not good because most people would not expect to find erotic image when reading an article about children's game.
- In the Latuff categorization dispute, deliberately "under categorizing" the images is the best solution that anyone has come up with to resolve the problem. By putting them all in a single category, the content dispute about how to categorize them or whether to delete would end.
- This is an interesting case. It would be one thing if a few people were trying to push a bad idea, and they were shouted down by reasonable voices. But there seems to be decent support for some kind of policy on this, with a somewhat smaller group obstructing it -- for valid reasons. This is exactly the kind of situation where Wikipedia breaks down, because the default is to stay the same, and not change. And there are not enough people who are willing to stick around and actually hash out something that would gain consensus. Representative mediation or binding mediation (or both) could help a lot, because it could finally get some of the opposition talking to some of the supporters to work out some kind of middle ground. Randomran 23:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
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 01:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for dropping off some tasks for me to do, I was just pondering what to do next. I'll address them this week. I haven't been contributing much but I have been following the changes and have been nodding approvingly at your contributions :o) (Well, except when you considered burying Social Features, hee hee :o) -- Bodnotbod 12:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Strategy Task Force
I'm glad you joined! --Eekim 15:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- We've had a good few months to discuss the Task Force recommendations, and it's important that we start converging on goals. If you could jump in on the most recent thread, that would be great. Thanks!