Hey Jorm, re: this, thanks for the information. I find this very interesting, so instead of filling up the article talk page, I thought I'd come by here. I'm just turning this over in my head and have several questions. What is going to be done with the information received from this tool? Is there a list somewhere that shows all the articles that are using the tool, with their current ratings? I can see several possibilities with this. If this were rolled out throughout Wikipedia, we could have a list of "highest rated articles". Sort of like a Featured Article from the Reader's point of view. I'm not sure if you are familiar with Featured Articles, but the process in it's current form relies on what editors think of the writing, following all the Manual of Styles and quality of sources and such. There are a lot of hoops to jump through to get an article featured and perhaps what our editors think makes "Wikipedia's best articles" is completely different than what our readers believe makes the best articles. What are your views on this? Tex (talk) 14:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi!
First, I moved this discussion from User_talk:Jorm to User_talk:Jorm (WMF) because it's more work related and it's easier for me to follow work discussions through one account.
Right now, we're using the data and information in an attempt to determine if it is possible to measure article quality through reader ratings. That's pretty much it - a simple idea - but it's actually kind of complicated in process. At this point, our results (from phase 1) are pretty well "indeterminate" which is not entirely unexpected (mostly because the tool is enabled on so few articles).
The reason we launched this within the public policy initiative was partly because they are testing a new type of article assessment system as well. We wanted to be able to compare and contrast the results of that system with the tool.
We are going to be running some tests to see if we can improve reader (and editor) engagement through the feedback tool as well. There's a rather large area of places we can hit and create value to the various projects overall; this is just one of the first steps in focusing on quality. Your idea about a list of articles that readers believe are our best ones is good. I can also see the opposite - a list of our worst articles, targeted at editors (e.g., "this is really bad, we should fix it.").
Here are some links:
The core documentation for the feature is here. That links to various other documents.
The "additional pages" discussion is happening here. Feel free to suggest new ones!
As to where the tool is enabled, there are two categories (the reason we use two is so that we can slice our "special" articles from the public policy initiative articles)
Thanks for the information, Jorm. Let me look through all the information that you have provided above. I've never been involved in anything over at MediaWiki. Is that were the bulk of the workgroup is housed? What can I do to help? I'd be interested in getting involved, but I don't have an account over there. I guess I could always create one if there's something I could do. Tex (talk) 20:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The workgroup is set up there; we have a policy of hosting our "features" related discussions and documentation there, as its the "software" wiki. MediaWiki is set up with central auth, so you *might* just be able to log in there. I didn't create an account.
In the immediate term, finding new articles to add it to (the "additional pages") would be very helpful.
I stumbled upon this by accident and I think it's an excellent initiative. I gnome around in various areas and make many manual improvements to articles on the fly as well as coordinating a couple of Wikipedia projects. I shall follow the links above to the backroound on the project, and if I see where I can be active, I may offer some assistance if you still need experienced editors to help out. Kudpung (talk) 03:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've been over to MediaWiki and added my name to the work group, but I was surprised to find very little discussion on any of the related talk pages suvery brief look at the selected trial pages, it appears as if they are mostly all Americo-centric; is that indeed a fact, and if so, is there any reason why? Kudpung (talk) 04:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Jorm (WMF). You have new messages at Sadads's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi Jorm. I'm wondering just how active this project is. There appears to be very little movement on any of the project discussion pages, there has been no answer to my question above, and I question the validity of linking Wikipedia users to blank pages (mw:/Article feedback/Public Policy Pilot/Additional Pages.) I'm ready to help on this project, but I feel there should be more communication. Thanks for any response. --Kudpung (talk) 23:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The project is very active within the Foundation. We are in the throes of design for phase two and there are several people dedicated to it. There is a workgroup, and you can find most all of our discussions from [mw:Article feedback/Public Policy Pilot|here]].--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IHm... For once a very rapid reply ;) Thanks for fixing that. Ironically, I happen to be on the workgroup, but it does not appear to be very communicative. I joined the project late, admitedly,but I still have concerns regarding the selection of the articles to be surveyed. The selection of articles should be broader, more random, and less Americo-centric. Encyclopedia viewer behavio(u)r is different in many cultures, and I can't quite locate where any consensus was made to determine the pages to be followed. I realised that many users' suggestions may not be appropriate, but comments from experienced, mature, regular Wikipedians should probably deserve more follow up.--Kudpung (talk) 00:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if communication has been lax; we've been very busy (and the past month [and this next one, really] has been holiday after holiday).
I (obviously) agree with you about the choice of articles. The Amero-centric part wasn't our choice; we rolled out as part of the Public Policy Initiative, which is focused solely on United States Public Policy - which lends itself to being very, very US-centric. We have a second group of articles that we are placing the tool on - non PPI pages - to track specific kinds of data (the "additional pages") which are less US centric (but some still are, primarily by virtue of the fact that most of the people who are suggesting articles are in the United States [ergo, "super bowl"]).--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 00:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hì Jorm, thanks again for a quick answer. OK, so with all due respects, it is well known that a vast majority of Wikipedia users and even editors cant see the world beyond the Pacific and the Atlantic. If you guys need any help on a critical selection of UK (and rest of the English 1st language world) pages to run on the pilot project, please do not hesitate to let me know. I think it is crucial that the viewing habits and opinions these cultures and communites are taken into account. Regards, Kudpung (talk) 06:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if this is really within your remit, but: If autoconfirmation is required to create articles (as of a given date), would this affect all accounts (including previously created accounts) or all accounts created after the switch is made? I'm assuming that if you create an account on May 15 and make one edit, and on June 1, autoconfirmation is required, then the May-created still-not-autoconfirmed account will be unable to create an article on June 2nd. Am I correct? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've built some Wiktionary scripts recently for improving the usability and editability of the English Wiktionary (which will hopefully be enabled by default at some point), switching the layout to a "tabbed" interface with each language section being placed in a separate tab, and adding expanding side boxes with editing options next to definitions. (Enable-able here, source here and here (alternative version of the second script here)). Maybe you could take a look at the scripts and give some suggestions about how they could be improved? Since no one in the Wiktionary community (afaik) knows much about usability, tools designed entirely with the input of Wiktionary regulars will probably end up not very usable for newbies, so it would be really great if as much of the designing as possible was actually put in by a real designer... --Yair rand (talk) 00:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! You work fast. I checked it out in both Firefox 4 and Chrome. It works great in Firefox but Chrome could use some help. --Jorm (WMF) (talk) 19:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strange, it's working fine in Chrome for me. Perhaps you still have the other version of tabbed languages enabled at the same time? --Yair rand (talk) 07:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The picture doesn't seem to have any place for a [edit] button for the level two header. Any idea as to where it could be placed? --Yair rand (talk) 02:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Design feedback about ShortUrl
http://min.us/mvojm9s has four mockups I made. It's for mw:Extension:ShortUrl, which will be deployed atleast on tawiki (There's community consensus there). How bad is it?
Thanks! I'll pass this along. Thanks for helping out here, by the way. I've given you WikiLove about it before, but I can't possibly express how much help you've been.--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 08:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to be helpful. I figure the less time you spend repeating the FAQ to individuals, the more time you all have to fix the bugs that people are reporting. I really appreciate your support in these discussions. I'm also really glad that you are, on behalf of the whole dev team, so responsive to the folks who report these bugs. People like to know that their complaints are being worked on. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations
The "Doing Better Than Jimbo" Fundraising Barnstar
It is really a surprise and a bit of a mystery to me, but thanks for the hilarious barnstar. Whoever actually put the banner together really deserves a lot of credit. I didn't really write it myself, and my DH took the photograph, so I am sort of the innocent bystander! Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 23:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Giving credit where it's due
I just read over the ad banner with your personal appeal, and I have to say, you did a great job with it. I thought it was very riveting, and I'm impressed that you even managed to beat out Jimbo's statement. Much as we've had our disagreements, the fundraising is rather important to keeping the WMF projects going, and we do appreciate the work you and everyone else has done to get it going so people like me can keep adding to it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I have created a script (User:Fred_Gandt/globalWatchlist.js) to create links to all of a users global Wikimedia projects watchlists as a list in mw-panel. The idea was that when clicked, an http request for the users watchilist would be made and the body of the Wikipedia watchlist page would be populated with the response.
Example: Click the commons.wikimedia link and a request is sent for //commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Watchlist. The response is then chopped up and the bulk is set as the content of #bodyContent. The user never has to leave Wikipedia, and can view all project watchlists.
The purpose thus is simply to save hopping from project to project in order to check the watchlist.
A stumbling block is that the http requests are blocked by the software.
I was thinking of proposing that Wikimedia projects be whitelisted, thus allowing my (and other) scripts to act as global project connectors.
Thanks for the suggestion Yair, I'll look into it.
I've removed the currently pointless extras from the script (no point carrying them around). If you (Jorm) get a chance to look, the version I was referring to is historic. I stopped development as soon as I realised the requests were being blocked, so it's a bit rough (to say the least). fredgandt03:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tabbed Languages
Hi. The English Wiktionary community just finished a 30-day admin-only trial of the Tabbed Languages script. The community has been discussing it extensively, and a number of suggestions for changes to the design were made. Would you be able to participate in the discussion at wikt:WT:BP#Tabbed Languages trial is over? Thanks :) --Yair rand (talk) 04:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please explain why you are taking my posts, which were not even directed at you or the developers, so personal? Because I'm completely at loss for the moment. You know, there is a complete page of substantial and valid criticism of the new MW 1.20wmf1 release, and you bothered not to comment a single time there. This is overly disappointing. Nageh (talk) 11:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So how can we improve the communication between developers and editors in a constructive manner? Any ideas? Any place to discuss this? Nageh (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jorm, you were quick to point out my harsh behavior at the village pump, but I consider your behavior of not responding to be equally rude. Sigh. Nageh (talk) 14:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry! I saw your original question but it was at a time when I couldn't respond and promptly phased it, so my bad. Apologies if you think it rude; I am exceptionally busy and vary rarely have business on my own talk pages.
To answer your question, I should expect that the primary thing that can be done is to understand that the "editors" are not the bosses of the "developers". That seems to be a common misconception: that the editor community says "jump" and the developer community asks "how high?" The developer community - both paid staff and volunteer - is not a collection of serfs.
Second, it's important to remember to not be rude. Barking at someone, about them, or about their works is the quickest way to get them to write you off and ignore you. Among the developer community, the editor community has a reputation - deserved or not - of being pointlessly hostile and entitled. So they don't engage. The best thing to do would be to work against that stereotype.--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 21:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, thanks for the response. Second, your response comes across as being solely intended to lecture me but ignores to really answer my question. Worse, you make it clear that we, editors, are fully dependent on your good will. Whether that was intentional or not, I don't know, but it makes me reconsider my position as a voluntary editor in the future. I admit that editors are often overly harsh in their tone but (1) we are all humans, (2) you can always demand an excuse (and I'm usually willing to do so when the extent of my attack was unwarranted), and (3) you seem to underestimate the impact of working in a huge both collaborative environment where you cannot speak person-to-person with other editors, and where on the other side have to fight off hordes of vandals, spammers, POV pushers, and at times other editors, that accuse you of a censorship, harassment, etc., to say the least. I doubt that being rude is an inherent character of the "editor" class of people, but I think it is best to invite you to contribute as an editor to a level similar of ours (say, >1000 edits) to understand what I am talking about.
There is another misconception of yours. I have never stated nor implied that developers are to be "slaves" of the editors. In fact, I am the author of the mathJax script, which has been taken as the basis for the new math extension in the MediaWiki 1.20wmf1 release. Furthermore, it was the almost complete lack of response on feedback and help that I provided to the developers prior to the broken release (yes, the math stuff was and is also broken) that nourished my feeling that developers didn't care about mere editors. The eventual deployment of 1.20wmf1 only seemed to eventually confirm this to me. What all this discussion still shows to me is that there is an obvious divide between editors and paid WMF staff, and you are pretty entrenched in your position. I am not speaking for the community here but for myself, and I am attempting to narrow this divide, yet you refuse the offer. I am not active on Wikipedia for long enough, so I cannot tell whether there actually already is an improvement. I note that there is the community liaison person Oliver Keyes, and I really appreciate his efforts in listening. Maybe such reaching-out efforts can be widened. I guess the prior notifications on the technical village pump upon new MW releases are step forward on this. Anyway, I'm not gonna bother you anymore on this, but I hope that there is something to take away with. Best, Nageh (talk) 22:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the frank and honest words. Sometimes what we need is a "friendly critic", and I appreciate that you are attempting to engage as exactly that. You mention that you're offering to help narrow the divide. How do you propose to do that? You've got my attention, and we're on the same side.--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 02:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, Brandon
Hi Brandon. Just saw the Signpost article mentioning you were awarded Staffer of the Year by Jimbo. Congratulations. I'm very thankful that Jimbo recognized your dedicated efforts to making our project better. You put in so many long hours improving our software and helping the community and you often don't get the recognition you deserve from the community. In fact, the community is often hostile towards the WMF, which makes me very sad indeed because you folks are the backbone of what has been acomplished here. And we have accomplished a lot. So it makes me very happy that you are recognized for your hard work and dedication. You award is very well deserved. Congratulations. 64.40.54.83 (talk) 06:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that you personally are far too busy
with the new redesign to look at these, but
I see them as being very simple to implement
and offering quite a big usability payoff.
I wonder if anybody else is tasked with this
kind of stuff? Very best regards. LittleBen (talk) 09:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's about doing the styling from a stylesheet. It's rough; not much of a redesign, yet, just a refactor. I kept the tables instead of <div>s because people know those, but it could be pushed that way, anyway. The look and layout are not radically changed other than tossing the silly bits. I modelled the TFA section after the recent new look to the “added-to-watchlist” box (although I've been using round corners and translucence for some time).
The redesign proposal is going to go nowhere, as-is. This community can't make a decision on anything major and hasn't been able to for years. What's needed is a heavy hand saying /this/. Not specifically my idea, but likely something in this vein. Cheers, Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. pop the red pill and take a trip down the rabbit hole that is my user page ;)
Thank you for a wonderful week. Unfortunately now I have to go back to real life, which includes maths homework. As such I must ask you to please kill me now. -— Isarra༆05:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It has been our experience that editors absolutely loathe leaving their "home wikis" to engage in conversation on other wikis. Ergo, we have decided that increasing our workload in order to adjust to this behavior is the best practice. I am . . . less than pleased that pages are being deleted; I think that means that people who would otherwise engage are being walled away.--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 02:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So should every Wikipedia should translate the portal? Or would it just be easier to have it marked for translation on Meta (or MediaWiki.org)? πr2 (t • c) 02:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The intent was to do translations on meta, yes. We wanted to see how it would work with multiple portals before opening one on meta. I'd ideally love to have a single place of conversation but the technology isn't there (and, ironically, is one of the things that Flow intends to address). People don't go to mediawiki.org because they don't understand it and (worse, depending on who you ask) discussions there use LiquidThreads, which is off-putting. I was planning to let this percolate on enwiki for a couple days before opening on meta.--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 02:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I remember you mentioning a Wikimedia study about welcoming new users, and the effect it had on their long-term editing career. If I remember correctly, It only actually helps if you custom-write the welcome message. Could you hook me up with the URL for that study? I spend a fair amount of time on smaller wikis where there isn't a commonly-accepted welcome procedure, and having a link to that study would be much more convincing than saying "I once heard of a study that said not to use welcome templates." Thanks. --TripleU (talk) 02:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What you're looking for is this old Microsoft whitepaper. They've actually done a number of whitepapers on wikipedia and wikipedian's behaviors that are useful knowledge for running or managing a wiki, you can find more of those here. --Karekwords?!12:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Athena project is more of an umbrella than a specific skin or product. It's kind of an "end goal". The mobile skin is where a lot of this work is being done (and it's name is "Minerva").--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 17:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, we did meet at Wikimania 2012 at the social. I mentioned how I thought the wikiHow presentation/community dashboard was cool, and you said you had corresponded/collaborated with the wikiHow folks before. Along a similar line, I did post that thread. As I'm not a programmer, so I don't know what the significance of "We can show you where the code is in the SVN so you can fork it to WIkipedia" is. But I bet you do! And maybe that would make this a much easier project? Thank you for your contributions. Best! Biosthmors (talk) 09:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Enlisting wikiproject help for Foundation initiatives
Hi Brandon. Reading over the recent discussions of VE and Flow, I've got some concerns that a bigger-than-usual fight is brewing, and my thinking is that it may be time to prod WP:Milhist and other wikiprojects to get more involved. In Milhist and other wikiprojects that are focused on writing and reviewing articles and not at all on "meta" stuff, we tend to be generally supportive of what we hear about VE, Flow and other WMF initiatives ... but we really don't talk about it as a group, and most of us don't get involved much. Maybe that should change ... if we do get involved, I expect the group will make a real effort to be responsive both to the thrust of the Foundation initiatives and to whatever is causing the pushback ... thus hopefully demonstrating that it's actually possible to be responsive to all sides. (What I've been reading so far suggests that a lot of people don't think that's possible, which doesn't sound right to me.) Other than making a suggestion on the Signpost's suggestion page, which Ed responded to privately, you're the first person I've mentioned my concerns to (apart from friends). Do you have any suggestions or objections? Is there anything in particular I should or shouldn't say in a post directed at Milhist members? Do you want to talk about how you'd like to see Flow develop? - Dank (push to talk) 16:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dank!
We would absolutely love to have you guys get more involved. We want Flow to develop according to the needs of our users - especially new users eventually - but we know that we can't get there without also serving the needs of our experienced users (especially the ones who are content creators). In a post to the members of Milhist, I think that what we'd hope for is honesty and no hyperbole - there's a great deal of misinformation and FUD about the project that isn't justified.
It would be fantastic to get the Milhisters into the Flow conversation!
My perspective on the development process is basically this: Giving people a bunch of documentation to read and/or static mockups to look at is not the greatest way to get feedback on a developing software product. It's especially difficult on a discussion system like Flow – people need to be able to take it out for a spin and see how it actually behaves, not stare at something locked up behind glass and speculate about it. That's why I'm pushing the Flow team to get a working version of Flow on a test environment first, and then invite WikiProject users en mass to come test it out and evaluate how well it meets their needs. We should have something for you to play with by early November. If WikiProject communities are happy with it, we can enable it in their project's discussion space for a trial period, making sure that it scales to handle the volume and types of conversations you have (and gathering all your feature requests, enhancements, and bug reports).
So, that's the plan for the next 2 months. That said, there's still stuff you and others can help us with beforehand. Right now, the devs are heads-down in implementing the first visual treatment update onto the existing prototype, but we're all clear that everything is going to be evolving and changing over time. The design team has their latest brainstorming up on Mediawiki.org, and there are some outstanding questions on specific elements. It would be great to see some community discussion on this. Do you think this is something Milhisters would be interested in taking a look at and helping us think through? If so, we can move the discussion to the enwiki Flow portal and make it a little more accessible :) I do want to be sensitive to what I said above, though, re: making sure we're not confusing things further by giving people somewhat random and quickly-changing pieces of Flow without any broader context. How do you think we could make this kind of community/staff dialog maximally useful? The ideal would be lots of passionate, well-informed discussion (whether it's supportive or critical); the worst-case would be just a bunch of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which doesn't really help us move forward. Maryana (WMF) (talk) 20:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the warm response, guys, and I really think it should be possible to generate the discussion you want. There are various concerns on my end (I don't want any WPians to think that Milhist has hijacked this discussion, I'm looking for just the opposite), but you guys don't need to worry about that, we'll sort it out on our end and deal with the fallout. I do have one question, though, before I proceed. I can see tough judgment calls coming in how much of the current content on user talk pages would be presented to someone who wants to post on a Flow page, before they make their post (at least by default, until the user changes it). Should the entire current talk page be presented? Just the user-created content that's already there? Are there certain kinds of previous messages posters should usually see before they post on the Flow page? A lot of people feel very attached to the image that they've created, and to the reputation that they built, and want people to see that, particularly before engaging in a conversation. I don't think the solution of "Well, if the user doesn't like the fact that we automatically archived most of what's there, they can fix it" is necessarily a solution the community is going to accept (although they might), because there are people who are on a break or retired and aren't checking up on what's going on on their talk page ... if they came back to find that, while they were gone, some new software initiative had archived everything they wanted people to see and assumed people were seeing, they might be less than pleased. Bottom line: I think some negotiation on some of the things your team might want may be necessary. If that's okay by you, then I'm not aware of any stoppers. (OTOH, my only expertise is in copyediting, not in community communications, so I'll probably be as surprised at the outcome as anyone :) - Dank (push to talk) 21:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's definitely going to be a concern for user talk pages, for sure. This and other complexities of the user talk namespace (bots! semi-automated tools! user-created styles!) are reasons why we're not tackling user talk anytime in the near future :) Do you think this is something to worry about on a WikiProject discussion space or other discussion spaces that are communal property? I'm inclined to think it won't be too much of an issue, as long as the people who have active discussions going on the page are notified that we're flipping over to a new system, and we have a prominent way to get to older pre-Flow discussions (e.g., in the customizable header area at the top of the board) when we flip the switch. It'll be a bit awkward and maybe a bit messy for a short time, but not cataclysmic, I don't think... Maryana (WMF) (talk) 22:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry, I didn't answer the question :) Just my opinion, but I don't think it's as much of an issue, no ... if a person is around, and they don't like the new look of their Flow page, and if it's okay to use wikitext in the header to the Flow page, well, they can add the wikitext they want. My main concern was the possibility of gutting the appearance of user talk pages for users who aren't around at the moment to deal with it. - Dank (push to talk) 02:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't fully read through this, but I'm sure a few of us from the roads projects would be interested in being involved. --Rschen775423:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, go for it. Btw, I don't think we can, or should, avoid RfCs on any questions that require RfCs ... I'm just hoping that when that happens, the participants will be able to look at some productive community conversations to get them started. - Dank (push to talk) 00:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only feedback so far from Milhist is that Kirill says he had a chance to talk with Brandon earlier, and is satisfied that what Flow will be doing with article talk pages will handle Milhist's needs. My recommendation would be to move forward with wikiproject discussions in a "no big deal" kind of way ... maybe a short note in the wikiproject report in next week's Signpost, inviting any wikiprojects that want help jump-starting similar discussions to post a note on that talk page. I have a lot of confidence in Kirill's assessment; if he's satisfied, it will probably be possible to satisfy the concerns of many wikiprojects as well that they'll be able to continue to do what they need to do. - Dank (push to talk) 16:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dank, if you're going to do a Signpost blurb, linking to Wikipedia:Flow/MVP, which outlines our plans for the first release, would be really useful. Our thinking on when, where and how to release Flow has evolved quite a bit since Wikimania (which is when I'm guessing Brandon and Kirill talked). Unfortunately, that means there's now a lot of misunderstanding out there about what Flow development will look like for the next 6 months. Hopefully the MVP doc clears that up at least somewhat – and if not, it can at least generate a useful discussion :) Maryana (WMF) (talk) 00:13, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dank, I assume you'd be putting it in the top-right-corner box, e.g. this week's? Something like this would be great:
"The Core features team is looking for a few WikiProjects to collaborate with on building and testing the first release of Flow, a new discussion and collaboration system for all Wikimedia projects. If you'd like to be part of the Flow pilot sometime in December, please talk to Quiddity."
Sounds good to me. You may want to describe Flow in a way that the layperson will understand at a glance, like "a new way to discuss and collaborate" or "talkpage 2.0" or something like that. I can add your note to this Wednesday's issue. –Mabeenot (talk) 03:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Copying here what I just posted over in the Milhist discussion: When I started the thread, I was concerned that the Flow discussions might go the same way as the VisualEditor discussions ... that is, it would turn out that there was disagreement within the community and with the Foundation, and we wouldn't find out about that until a lot of money and time had already gone into development. But things have moved along nicely [in both discussions], and Mabeenot will be helping us out in this week's Signpost. I'd prefer to be one of the closers for whatever relevant RfCs come up ... we usually have a shortage of closers for "big" RfCs ... but to do that, I'd have to say as little as possible beforehand. Other people are pushing the discussion forward now, so I'm going to stop pushing (and get to work on the VE mess). There's not a lot of mystery here: user interfaces of all kinds are often designed by giving the users a "blank" interface to play with for a while, and that's what we've had for the last 12.5 years on Wikipedia, do-it-yourself talk pages, so the community and the devs now have a very rich data set to work from. The main thing is that any strong preferences the community has have to be expressed before the Foundation sinks a ton of money into designing things a different way ... that's not our usual style, usually we sit back and wait until there's some kind of conflict and deal with it then. - Dank (push to talk) 14:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously?
Seriously? You are preferring to use dev jargon instead of a term that is understandable for the target audience of that page (Wikipedia readers and editors, not WMF developers)? Please keep developers jargon restricted to pages intended for developers, and use more common language on pages for a more general audience. Fram (talk) 07:39, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking at your contributions for other reasons and I noticed the same diff. "Devployment" is a pretty mean trick on the reader, in my opinion. You'd usually need to put quote marks around it, at least, to indicate that you realize you're making up a word. Or include a link to Wiktionary. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 08:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile Jared Z. has adopted a reply style with wikitext that I'm not sure I've ever seen. It's fascinating. I never used to think much about signature placement, but now I can't seem to help myself whenever I come across it. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 08:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cannot wait to hear what you have to say, when you get to open your mouth about things. Don't get them to scare you into the silence. Remember tattoo on your arm!124.88.67.40 (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can I work on flow
Hi, I have heard about your new project flow which provides UI rich interface for editing discussion and talk pages. I am skilled in various web based programming laguages such as javascript, PHP etc. I was just wondering if you needed any help with the development of flow, as I am eager to help.
