IRC office hours/2010-05-04

eekim: hey atglenn

[1:01pm] Pharamp left the chat room.

[1:01pm] Philippe: hey atglenn hiya Pharamp

[1:01pm] atglenn: yo

[1:01pm] Tempodivalse joined the chat room.

[1:02pm] eekim: today we turned on a CentralNotice to encourage people to help refine the movement-wide goals: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Plan/Movement_Priorities

[1:02pm] eekim: would love it if folks here would: 1. take a look; and 2. get the word out

[1:02pm] Prince_Kassad joined the chat room.

[1:02pm] • Philippe is half-watching, btw, vandal fighting on strategy

[1:03pm] Tempodivalse: Vandals on strategy?

[1:03pm] eekim: the joys of CentralNotice

[1:03pm] eekim: whenever we put out a call, the vandals come

[1:03pm] Philippe: if you feed them... they will come

[1:03pm] atglenn: what do vandals eat?

[1:04pm] Philippe: work.

[1:04pm] eekim: my time

[1:06pm] eekim: interesting new post: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Thread:Talk:Strategic_Plan/Movement_Priorities/Value,_respect,_and_strive_for_diversity_in_editors

[1:06pm] Prince_Kassad left the chat room.

[1:07pm] Juliancolton joined the chat room.

[1:07pm] Tempodivalse: hi juliancolton

[1:07pm] Juliancolton: heya

[1:07pm] eekim: hi Juliancolton

[1:07pm] \dev\random joined the chat room.

[1:07pm] eekim: hi \dev\random

[1:07pm] Platonides joined the chat room.

[1:08pm] \dev\random: hello

[1:08pm] eekim: we're looking at: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Plan/Movement_Priorities

[1:08pm] \dev\random: ah ok

[1:08pm] qemqemqem__ joined the chat room.

[1:09pm] • Philippe loves the username \dev\random

[1:09pm] eekim: hi qemqemqem__

[1:10pm] qemqemqem__: hello eekim

[1:10pm] qemqemqem__: what is this channel for?

[1:10pm] eekim: discussing wikimedia strategic planning

[1:10pm] qemqemqem__: oh

[1:10pm] atglenn: some things are more efficient, but it depends on the goal. if the goal is an encyclopedia then less tolerance is more efficient; if it is building a reservoir of human knowledge that all sectors of society (and all societies) contribute to, you are going to have inefficiencies

[1:10pm] eekim: in particular, we're talking about movement priorities: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Plan/Movement_Priorities

[1:10pm] atglenn: (in respect to the post about de wp policies0

[1:10pm] • \dev\random is simply watching

[1:11pm] eekim: folks here might also be interested in the Content Scope Task Force discussion: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Content_scope

[1:11pm] qemqemqem__: thanks

[1:11pm] Philippe: atglenn: it's sort of a fine line to be walked then, in your opinion? at what point is the inefficiency a net loss versus a net gain? or am I putting words in your mouth that you dont mean?

[1:13pm] atglenn: I mean we need to determine our primary goals first

[1:13pm] atglenn: agree on them

[1:13pm] eekim: "inefficiency" is a bit of a red herring in these kinds of discussions

[1:13pm] atglenn: before we can decide what furthers them

[1:13pm] eekim: dealing w/ people is "inefficient" in general

[1:13pm] atglenn: and right now I think you have people supporting both goals I described and prioritizing them differently.

[1:14pm] eekim: i think it's safe to say that the assumption underlying Wikimedia projects is that collaboration is good

[1:14pm] eekim: specifically, it leads to better quality

[1:14pm] eekim: it's, by nature, a slower process

[1:15pm] FloNight: atglenn, now I understand your point.

[1:15pm] eekim: basically, i'm agreeing w/ atglenn

[1:15pm] eekim: hi FloNight!

[1:15pm] FloNight: hi

[1:17pm] FloNight: Unless I'm mistaken (quite possible), you're saying that there is an incongruity in the different goals that is causing problems.

[1:19pm] atglenn: well, it causes trouble in determining how to get to our goals if we haven't agreement on the foals

[1:20pm] atglenn: *goals

[1:20pm] eekim: atglenn, you're talking about project goals or movement goals?

[1:20pm] randomran joined the chat room.

[1:20pm] eekim: hey randomran!

[1:21pm] randomran: hey eekim.

[1:21pm] eekim: talking about movement priorities

[1:21pm] randomran: just stopping in. had a little bit of free time til 5.

[1:21pm] eekim: cool

[1:21pm] FloNight: hi randomran

[1:21pm] randomran: sounds good. keep going, i'll try to figure out what's going on

[1:21pm] randomran: hey flonight!

[1:21pm] eekim: on a different (but related) note, FloNight (and others), wanted to kick an idea off of you

[1:22pm] randomran: sure... i like ideas

[1:22pm] • Philippe waves at randomran

[1:22pm] Philippe: and FloNight

[1:22pm] randomran: hey philippe!

[1:22pm] eekim: as I noted on LiquidThreads, we have two next steps

[1:22pm] Philippe: (btw, thanks for the emails on Facebook this morning, FloNight, we're working it)

[1:22pm] eekim: 1. we want to finalize Movement Priorities

[1:22pm] eekim: 2. we want to start organizing opportunities to achieve our goals

[1:23pm] eekim: dafer45 did a really good job with the Content Scope Task Force

[1:23pm] randomran: agreed

[1:23pm] eekim: thinking we should organize something similar around participant diversity

[1:23pm] dafer45: thanks!

[1:23pm] eekim: (hey dafer45!)

[1:24pm] dafer45: hI!

[1:24pm] FloNight: hi dafer45

[1:24pm] randomran: yeah, diversity is an interesting, complicated, and important issue

[1:24pm] eekim: the goal would be to articulate the action opportunities around diversity

[1:24pm] eekim: we could use this as a template for the other priorities as well

[1:24pm] FloNight: yes, I'm glad to see it getting a good amount of attention.

[1:25pm] eekim: it's really important

[1:25pm] Philippe: eekim: when you say "organize something similar around participant diversity", can you give me an idea of what that means? You mean a task force to focus on that issue?

[1:25pm] eekim: Eloquence mocked up a possible way to articulate Calls for Action related to priorities: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Call_for_Action

[1:25pm] eekim: Philippe, yes, exactly

[1:26pm] eekim: randomran's chart is another way we could organize this: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Community_Health/Implementation

[1:26pm] Philippe: i <3 that chart, by the way

[1:26pm] randomran: glad it's helpful

[1:26pm] eekim: it's an excellent model

[1:27pm] eekim: the idea is, we want to show the opportunities, but we also want to encourage people to take on these actions

[1:27pm] dafer45: I created a similar chart for the local language task force an hour ago http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Local_language_projects/Implementation

[1:27pm] FloNight: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Community_Health/Implementation yes very nice and easy to follow

[1:27pm] eekim: and we want to show what people are working on, whether they're volunteers or WMF or whomever

[1:27pm] Philippe: dafer45: SWEET

[1:27pm] eekim: awesome, dafer45

[1:27pm] eekim: the meme is spreading already

[1:28pm] eekim: can we organize _all_ the opportunities this way and link them to movement priorities?

[1:28pm] eekim: maybe we don't need a new task force yet

[1:28pm] FloNight: It seems a good approach.

[1:28pm] eekim: maybe we should just do this under the auspices of the strategy task force

[1:29pm] eekim: since it seems like it's useful for topics across the board

[1:29pm] eekim: we could start up new task forces as appropriate once we get these opportunities organized

[1:29pm] Philippe: eekim: I think a separate task force.... because it seems to me that there might be folks who want to work that issue particularly and not get into the rest of the strategy task force stuff (imho)

[1:30pm] stevertigo joined the chat room.

[1:30pm] eekim: welcome stevertigo

[1:30pm] stevertigo: eekim: thanks

[1:31pm] eekim: we're discussing next steps for strategy wiki

[1:31pm] eekim: 1. finish movement priorities: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Plan/Movement_Priorities

[1:31pm] randomran: yeah, i think there's enough people still around from the first set of task forces to turn recommendations into implementation plans

[1:31pm] stevertigo: It would be nice if we had a way of getting caught up on IRC when we first log in

[1:31pm] eekim: 2. organize action opportunities around those priorities

[1:31pm] HereToHelp joined the chat room.

[1:31pm] Philippe: stevertigo i can send you a log if you'd like

[1:32pm] stevertigo: Phillippe: Great

[1:32pm] eekim: yeah, wish our bot supported that

[1:32pm] randomran: and if there are any recommendations that aren't getting turned into implementation plans... we can flag them, and i'm sure a small group can figure it out and fill in the gaps

[1:32pm] eekim: welcome, HereToHelp

[1:32pm] eekim: randomran, i like that idea

[1:32pm] eekim: ideally, i'd like to organize these opportunities around priorities rather than by task forces (although we could include links to the latter)

[1:33pm] eekim: perhaps we could start by articulating them for each task force, then combine and reorganize around priorities?

[1:33pm] HereToHelp: what's the short short version of what's going on?

[1:33pm] eekim: discussing movement priorities (http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Plan/Movement_Priorities) and also ways to activate volunteers around them

[1:34pm] randomran: yeah, i think task forces are a good place to start. and then we can find ways to merge it all together and organize it around priorities.

[1:34pm] astei joined the chat room.

[1:34pm] HereToHelp: well yes....

[1:34pm] eekim: let's do that then

[1:34pm] eekim: welcome astei

[1:34pm] astei: welcome

[1:34pm] astei: I'm just Andewz111

[1:34pm] eekim: heh, i'm starting to sound like an echo: we're discussing movement priorities (http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Plan/Movement_Priorities) and ways to activate volunteers around them

[1:35pm] stevertigo: define "movement" ?

[1:35pm] atglenn:

[1:35pm] astei: strategy

[1:35pm] Philippe: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement

[1:35pm] eekim: fair question: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement

[1:35pm] Philippe:

[1:35pm] stevertigo: Sounds like its talking about wikipedia as a movement

[1:36pm] eekim: all wikimedia projects, not just wikipedia

[1:36pm] stevertigo: right. Quite a different thing from a Wikimedia movement, no?

[1:36pm] Philippe: no, more than Wikipedia.... all the projects, and the the people and activities around them

[1:36pm] atglenn: (I;ve got them trained :-D)

[1:36pm] eekim: atglenn is standing over us with a club in hand

[1:36pm] atglenn: hahaha

[1:36pm] stevertigo: careful with using "wiki" that ubiquitously, Remember that wiki is just a type of software

[1:36pm] astei: alas "advertising" might be good but bad...

[1:36pm] HereToHelp: no ads

[1:37pm] eekim: stevertigo, what are you referring to?

[1:37pm] astei: yup, the bad part: cash

[1:37pm] eekim: astei, same question?

[1:37pm] stevertigo: weve gotten a bit carried away IMHO with thinking of wiki as the movement, when I think it rather Wikipedia is the movement

[1:37pm] Philippe: stevertigo... wikiMedia is the movement

[1:37pm] Philippe: not wikiPedia

[1:37pm] astei: *wikimedia

[1:37pm] stevertigo: Philippe: I disagree, respectfully

[1:37pm] stevertigo:

[1:38pm] stevertigo: eekim: to refer to wikimedia overall as a movement is a mistake IMHO

[1:38pm] astei: sorry mozdev stuff

[1:38pm] eekim: no worries, astei

[1:38pm] HereToHelp: how many end users use sister projects?

[1:38pm] astei:

[1:38pm] eekim: stevertigo, say more

[1:38pm] HereToHelp: did we gather data on that?

[1:38pm] Philippe: HereToHelp, we've got a good graphic...lemme find it

[1:39pm] eekim: HereToHelp, that data is available at http://stats.wikimedia.org/

[1:39pm] stevertigo: It can get to the point where it facilitates real-world stuff, but at the moment its energy all comes from the Pedia,

[1:39pm] stevertigo: IMHO

[1:39pm] Philippe: HereToHelp: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WMF_page_views_by_project.png

[1:39pm] HereToHelp: b/c is we want a wikiMedia movement, sister projects are vital

[1:39pm] HereToHelp: *if we want

[1:40pm] FloNight: Commons is active and separate and so are other WMF projects, too.

[1:40pm] stevertigo: I agree we should want Wikimedia to be as energetic as Wikipedia, but the fundamentals aren't there yet

[1:40pm] stevertigo: BRB

[1:40pm] stevertigo: OK

[1:41pm] HereToHelp: part of it is quality

[1:41pm] stevertigo: The idea of Wikimedia to begin with was to get donations to keep the servers running and to pay Brion

[1:41pm] HereToHelp: part of it is readership

[1:41pm] HereToHelp: who wants to read Wikibooks when they're so bad?

[1:41pm] HereToHelp: who wants to write Wikibooks when nobody reads them?

[1:41pm] Philippe: HereToHelp: Our premise is that reach drives participation which drives quality...

[1:41pm] Philippe: so that's one way to think about helping that cycle

[1:41pm] HereToHelp: but you need a critical mass

[1:41pm] stevertigo: Somewhere along the way people got the idea that "wiki" itself could work miracles on other things.

[1:42pm] stevertigo: HereToHelp: I agree

[1:42pm] HereToHelp: as in, you don't think the wiki model is suitable for some og our sister projects?

[1:42pm] stevertigo: But I'm hopeful for Wikibooks though

[1:42pm] stevertigo: Some of them could be finished up and be made quite useful

[1:43pm] eekim: as a side note, it would be great if someone could merge http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Improve_quality_content/Overview_of_Wikimedia_projects_and_the_content_landscape with http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Content_scope

[1:43pm] randomran: i think everyone agrees that some of the wikimedia projects don't work and don't make sense... but that we'd still like to think beyond just the encyclopedia.

[1:43pm] astei: That's why I think Incubator should also be used for new projects entirely along w/ new langs

[1:43pm] stevertigo: eekim: Which projects, for example?

[1:43pm] HereToHelp: stevertigo: definitely, but how?

[1:43pm] eekim: regarding sister projects, folks here should check out dafer45 and other's work on the Content Scope Task Force: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Content_scope

[1:43pm] stevertigo: Editorship

[1:43pm] HereToHelp: *checks*

[1:43pm] eekim: astei, i think that's a really good idea

[1:44pm] stevertigo: we have a "wiki" concept of editorship that is MMPORG and not editorial

[1:44pm] eekim: you should post that to the Content Scope Task Force talk page

[1:44pm] stevertigo: Wikibooks needs more focus, and credit for authorshi:[

[1:45pm] HereToHelp: I think we need to attract someone other than the MMPORG crowd

[1:45pm] stevertigo: randomran: Keep in mind that when we started these other projects, they were broken off of Wikipedia. Meta, Wiktionary, Wikibooks, Commons

[1:45pm] HereToHelp: our most valuable resource is the willingness of contributors to push that edit button and change something

[1:45pm] astei: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Content_scope/en#Incubator_for_new_projects.3F_4880

[1:45pm] HereToHelp: see demographic info

[1:46pm] eekim: thanks astei!

[1:46pm] stevertigo: randomran: All got their start because we wanted to add to Wikipedia things that didnt belong

[1:46pm] HereToHelp: therefore, make editing as easy as possible = usability

[1:46pm] randomran: stevertigo: yeah, they were definitely spun off without thinking about whether they were viable. anyway, the content scope task force is doing a good job trying to make sense of the mess

[1:46pm] Philippe: HereToHelp: I think that's an important point.

[1:46pm] HereToHelp: thanks

[1:46pm] eekim: agree w/ Philippe, HereToHelp

[1:47pm] HereToHelp: on one hand, the anonymous masses are an untapped resource

[1:47pm] HereToHelp: that takes time to refine and make useful

[1:47pm] HereToHelp: on the other

[1:47pm] HereToHelp: getting people who are involved

[1:47pm] HereToHelp: and know how to edit, and policies, and templates, etc.

[1:47pm] HereToHelp: to actually edit

[1:47pm] stevertigo: randomran: thanks for that

[1:47pm] HereToHelp: is huge, too

[1:48pm] Philippe: Templates are scary to new users... luckily, the usability team is working on that and I know some of our volunteer devs have written some great stuff around that issue as well.

[1:48pm] eekim: HereToHelp, we try to capture this important priority at: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Plan/Movement_Priorities#Value.2C_respect.2C_and_strive_for_diversity_in_editors

[1:48pm] Philippe: (btw, templates are scary to me too)

[1:48pm] GerardM-: Hoi

[1:48pm] HereToHelp: while we're on the topic

[1:48pm] eekim: hi GerardM-!

[1:48pm] HereToHelp: page load times

[1:48pm] Philippe: hey GerardM-

[1:48pm] stevertigo: bbl

[1:48pm] Philippe: See ya, stevertigo

[1:48pm] HereToHelp: can be a real turn-off to impatient editors

[1:48pm] stevertigo left the chat room. (Quit: Page closed)

[1:49pm] HereToHelp: as well as third world editors

[1:49pm] HereToHelp: = simplify edit form

[1:49pm] Philippe: I once asked Naoko about the difference in page load time on vector versus monobook... I've forgotten what she told me. I need to look that up.

[1:49pm] eekim: HereToHelp, one of the Local Language Task Force's recommendations was around page load times: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Recommendations/Local_Language_4

[1:50pm] HereToHelp: I would hope vector is faster

[1:50pm] Philippe: I seem to recall that it was, but I can't find the exact convo... i've asked again

[1:50pm] eekim: atglenn, can you tell us about load times for vector?

[1:51pm] dafer45: I think first time editing requires about 700kb to be loaded, then it is cached by the browser I was told.... anyway that can be a long loading time on GPRS or similar conections

[1:51pm] Philippe: jjones says it's faster

[1:51pm] eekim: dafer45, was that for vector or monobook?

[1:51pm] dafer45: for vector

[1:51pm] eekim: thx

[1:52pm] Philippe: According to our usability team, it's about the same to view

[1:52pm] dafer45: I think the first time loading was much larger for vector than for monobook

[1:52pm] Philippe: To edit: Edit page with toolbar: toolbar slows stuff down, major improvements in that department upcoming

[1:52pm] HereToHelp: (math joke)

[1:52pm] atglenn: no, I don't have that data eekim

[1:52pm] atglenn: can you give me a little more detailed q and I'll check?

[1:53pm] stevertigo joined the chat room.

[1:53pm] randomran: eekim: besides templates being scary, they're also annoying and time consuming. improving them is a win for all editors.

[1:53pm] HereToHelp: so vector is headed in the right direction

[1:53pm] eekim: randomran: totally agree

[1:53pm] HereToHelp: maybe not load toolbar as part of slow bandwith option?

[1:53pm] HereToHelp: templates....some sort of dialogue box?

[1:53pm] Bllasae joined the chat room.

[1:53pm] eekim: atglenn, philippe got the answer; thx

[1:54pm] HereToHelp: there was something called refTools

[1:54pm] HereToHelp: only worked for monobook

[1:54pm] HereToHelp: let you use text fields to fill out cite templates

[1:54pm] HereToHelp: and somebody's working on a reference parser

[1:54pm] stevertigo: interlanguage issues

[1:54pm] stevertigo: are my main issue

[1:54pm] atglenn: ok

[1:54pm] HereToHelp: stevertigo: huh?

[1:55pm] dafer45: My notes from the loading time test: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Thread:Talk:Task_force/Strategy/Summary_of_the_%22What_we_agree_on:_...%22-threads/reply_%285%29

[1:55pm] randomran: redesigning templates is important... but really, WYSIWYG is always best

[1:55pm] stevertigo: HereToHelp: Interlanguage, translation, etc. I think are something for Foundation to focus on

[1:55pm] randomran: if you click on a template, it should blow up and show you a few fields that you can fill in or change.

[1:56pm] eekim: nice, thx dafer45

[1:56pm] stevertigo: Foundation needs a role as an overseer for interlanguage issues.

[1:56pm] HereToHelp: randomran: I would love to be able to do that without leaving the article

[1:56pm] eekim: what does that mean, stevertigo?

[1:56pm] atglenn: what would the overseer do?

[1:56pm] HereToHelp: WYSIWYG would make diting much easier

[1:56pm] HereToHelp: and more popular

[1:56pm] astei: HereToHelp: great

[1:56pm] randomran: for a citation template... you see "lastname, firstname. 'title'. publisher, YYYY-MM-DD." all formatted.

[1:57pm] randomran: for an infobox, you click in the box and enter all the fields. that idea.

[1:57pm] HereToHelp: but would require a huge overhaul and require huge load times

[1:57pm] GerardM-: when you consider templates and their content, we should work with the DBpedia guys, they know REALLY what is wrong with our content

[1:57pm] eekim: it sounds like this is an action opportunity

[1:57pm] GerardM-: they have normalised our bull

[1:57pm] randomran: well, the idea is that you wouldn't need to load it unless you needed to edit it

[1:57pm] HereToHelp: so randomran I agree with the vision but it's ahrd to get to

[1:57pm] randomran: otherwise, it's enough to just display a "minimized" version of the template

[1:58pm] eekim: form a Task Force, invite the DBpedia guys, make a recommendation, possibly even develop a prototype

[1:58pm] randomran: it definitely will take a lot of development

[1:58pm] eekim: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force

[1:58pm] stevertigo: eekim: It would mean taking an active role, in seeing that there be better cross-wiki communication

[1:58pm] HereToHelp: I saw some sort of collapsable version as a prototype.....

[1:58pm] GerardM-: randomran why would it take much development

[1:58pm] randomran: i worry that going from a template to some kind of dialog box would be a lateral move.

[1:58pm] stevertigo: eekim: Like back in the old days,

[1:58pm] atglenn: let's assume HereToHelp that we can get the technological issues resolved (load times)

[1:58pm] HereToHelp: keep templates out of the way, but still a pain to edit

[1:58pm] GerardM-: they KNOW what is wrong in the data, it needs pywikipediabot to fix things

[1:59pm] eekim: okay folks, office hours end in a few minutes

[1:59pm] HereToHelp: also, hiding refs without losng that data would be great

[1:59pm] HereToHelp: and seeing ref previews when editing sections

[1:59pm] eekim: we really, really, really need people to take a look at the movement priorities: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Plan/Movement_Priorities

[1:59pm] HereToHelp: I guess that's all I have to say

[1:59pm] randomran: just figuring out how to make references more usable is an entire discussion

[1:59pm] eekim: please take a look and post a comment or help refine it

[1:59pm] HereToHelp: if that's it, I'll go

[1:59pm] eekim: also, please post about it on your Village Pumps

[1:59pm] eekim: this has been a really great discussion

[2:00pm] HereToHelp left the chat room. (Quit: Page closed)

[2:00pm] Philippe: LIkewise

[2:00pm] FloNight: indeed!

[2:00pm] eekim: hope people will continue the discussion on the wiki

[2:00pm] eekim: thanks everyone!

[2:00pm] FloNight: bye

[2:00pm] stevertigo: eekim: Thanks

[2:00pm] Philippe: and while the centralnotice is up, could folks do me a favor...

[2:00pm] Philippe: keep an eye on the wiki

[2:00pm] eekim:

[2:00pm] Philippe: revert vandalism and help new folks feel at home?

[2:01pm] eekim: what Philippe said

[2:01pm] eekim: bye

[2:01pm] Philippe: Thanks, ya'll!!!