Requests for comment/Closing the gap to and between the base communities/id: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Updating to match new version of source page |
Updating to match new version of source page |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 149:
:A problem with this is the exclusion of smaller wikis. It is more accurate for your first diagram to include the however many hundred wikis centralized at meta and your second to be surrounded by hundreds of wikis excluded from your new proposal. I feel simultaneous discussions across the select number of large wikis will not only entirely ignore smaller wikis but will themselves be isolated from each other, fracturing the movement. Ultimately, it will result in the WMF pulled in 10 different directions at the same time with no real way to reconcile those directions.
:There's a reason many editors don't go on meta; they don't really care about WMF finance, or security, the remote possibility of a lawsuit or what have you, they care about editing the wiki. Bringing those matters to the wikis isn't going to engage more people. The people interested in meta-matters will be the ones discussing it, and the rest will mostly ignore it. The only difference is that those actually discussing these matters will be isolated from their peers in other wikis. More communication, more notifications, and more connections between all wikis are certainly valuable, but this fundamental restructuring of meta's structure does not seem to me to be the best solution. [[User:Zoozaz1|Zoozaz1]] ([[User talk:Zoozaz1|talk]]) 15:28, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
::Yeah, [[User:Zoozaz1|Zoozaz1]], I understand what you mean, but on the other hand, there are often discussions going on in other wikis – like the [[:pt:Wikipédia:Esplanada/geral/Banner_solicitando_doações_(20abr2021)|fundraising discussion]] over on pt.WP the other day, or last year's [[:en:Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)/Archive_1#Branding_event_-_16_June|branding discussion]] in en:WP – that the rest of the global community may be unaware of. So people do care about WMF issues, but discuss them in their own wikis, and are thus trapped in silos that don't connect. Now you may say what do I care about the fundraising banners in Brazil, but it seems to me it's often a case of the same issues cropping up in multiple wikis – maybe at different times ... the English Wikipedians moan about the fundraising banners in December, the Brazilians evidently in April, but they are all complaining ''about the same thing'', and because they are only ever complaining for a few weeks in any one place, nothing much changes. So I wonder whether volunteers would have a stronger voice in these matters if they weren't so isolated from each other. And a stronger volunteer community is needed in my view, as a counterweight to the ever more wealthy and ever bigger WMF. You need many Davids working together to counter a Goliath. – Speaking about the branding issue, there was actually a list of community discussions provided [[Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project#Links_to_discussions_in_the_projects|here]], which was a good thing and could be done more often, and more systematically. Cheers, --[[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] <small>[[User Talk:Jayen466|<
:::There are certain issues that people really do care about, but most WMF issues aren't as engaging. I agree with you that running misleading fundraising banners and the branding proposal are things that will concern many more editors, and there may be a place for language-specific discussions to engage more editors for those issues. For most things, though, most editors aren't going to care, and meta is the best place to have a discussion. For those more impactful discussions, there has to be a balance; on one hand, a meta discussion is best for uniting the community and engaging smaller wikis, while siloed discussions may bring in more editors participating in their own language. It's not an easy question, but regardless for the majority of discussions meta is the best place. [[User:Zoozaz1|Zoozaz1]] ([[User talk:Zoozaz1|talk]]) 17:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
::I mean, take the branding issue. You have a situation here where literally over 90% of volunteers have said, No way, we do not want the WMF appropriating the name Wikipedia for itself. But the WMF [[Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/Board_Update_on_Branding|response]] was to make clear that they can absolutely do what they like. This no longer feels like a partnership of equals, because if the WMF changed its name to "Wikipedia Foundation" tomorrow, what would you do about it (assuming you are not one of the 7.5% of the core community who thought it was a fine idea)? I do think that at some point volunteers will have to organise, do their own PR work, unionise, or something ... because however disparate the global community may be, there is remarkably broad agreement on issues like the proposed Wikipedia branding. The WMF's traditional approach has been "Divide et impera". Cheers, --[[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] <small>[[User_Talk:Jayen466|<
:::To be quite honest, I don't really care about them deciding to change an m to a p. Is it a good idea? Probably not, and I'm sure there are many reasoned arguments to that end. Will it affect the project in any really significant way? Again, probably not. I'm not on board with the whole "sky is falling" viewpoint here.
:::Every second volunteers organize, do PR work, unionize, or other such things is a second not spent collecting the sum of human knowledge. It's just a distraction from our mission and one that duplicates the efforts of the WMF. Yes, there is a place for pushback, discussion, and disagreement, and the WMF should take that into account, but at the end of the day it best serves our mission to spend time being constructive (by improving content) rather than destructive (by fighting with the WMF). [[User:Zoozaz1|Zoozaz1]] ([[User talk:Zoozaz1|talk]]) 17:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Line 194:
:An RFC is a static page, and single subject. It allows us to link to it from the main page, and seek opinion from other wikis more readily. It will allow you to draft and frame it for better discussion prior to announcing and seeking comment. — [[user:billinghurst|billinghurst]] ''<span style="font-size:smaller">[[user talk:billinghurst|sDrewth]]</span>'' 16:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
:[[user:billinghurst|billinghurst]] has the right idea with the RfC though it might be worth waiting a few more days. A little discussion beforehand can often help formulate a good RfC. --[[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] <small>[[User_Talk:Jayen466|<
:: [[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] right, next week we evaluate if we need to change the proposal, if yes, we modify it and present it in the RFC. [[user:billinghurst|billinghurst]] did several comments in my UP that I won't be able to handle alone, I think, at least not until next week, in case you want help... but I believe answers for this coments should be posted here, not in my UP. Also, I would like to ask if you are getting my pings, because I don't get a sending-ping notification. Thanks,--[[User:Felipe da Fonseca|Felipe da Fonseca]] ([[User talk:Felipe da Fonseca|talk]]) 20:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
:: [[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] Wouldn't it be better to fully copy the proposal on wiki.en and wiki.de as I did on wiki.pt? That way it stimulates the debate on the home wikis as well.--[[User:Felipe da Fonseca|Felipe da Fonseca]] ([[User talk:Felipe da Fonseca|talk]]) 10:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
:::I included it on en:WP (in a box), but did not have time to translate it in full for de:WP, sorry (and DeepL produced a few awkward phrasings). Been very busy at work this week. :( --[[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] <small>[[User_Talk:Jayen466|<
{{u|Jayen466|Andreas}} do you have any more modifications to make or can we take the discussion to RFC? If yes, do you know any discussion closure template? I will keep this one closed as a record (I will only pass the proposal).--[[User:Felipe da Fonseca|Felipe da Fonseca]] ([[User talk:Felipe da Fonseca|talk]]) 12:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
:No, I have nothing to add, [[User:Felipe da Fonseca|Felipe]]. For a discussion closure template, see [[Template:Hidden_archive_top]]. Best, --[[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] <small>[[User_Talk:Jayen466|<
<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">
Line 243:
::::::::There's tons of problems with that, especially if you intend to make it into a usual process in certain discussions. It's probably best handled case by case, and honestly in any issues large enough to warrant it, the WMF is usually involved and would do it themselves. Regardless, I think I've made my point clear enough to people reading, which is that you made a RfC about a topic on which you are wholly uninformed and are advocating a fix that is based on false assumptions, and at this point I do not have any further questions. Regards, [[User:Vermont|Vermont]] ([[User talk:Vermont|talk]]) 01:23, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
[[Category:Requests for comments in 2021{{#translation:}}]]
| |||