Village pump/archive1

pages from meta

Will m:Reach, m:Quality and m:Participation be moved to this wiki? --Goldzahn 21:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Rather than move them and lose the article history, I linked to them. :) -- Philippe 01:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Metrics

Not sure where this fits in, but it may be useful to have a page about which metrics should be considered. For example, how important is number of donors versus number of editors, and are the stats needed to assess this being tracked in a useful way? Meaning the metrics related to the projects, not to the strategy planning itself which is at Process/Evaluation. Angela 22:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

BIG part of ongoing discussions. I'm gonna copy your question to the key questions page. -- Philippe 01:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

We should add some of these to Fact base/Research as well. --Eekim 18:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Given that the metrics are different per country, do we have numbers on what the effect of a chapter is ? Is gaining parity for fundraising of the English language countries and the other countries a priority and, do we have a plan ? GerardM 19:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

What are our metrics interfaces, how are the data generated, where can I download the source code? What's the status of opening/wikifying the process of metrics creation/evaluation? -- Hyrsebrigh 04:32, 14 August 2009 (CET)

Translation process

How can I translate titles from English to Italian? --FollowTheMedia 09:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

If you're speaking of the page titles, I understand it's a huge hassle. I'm not sure the best way. -- Philippe 19:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You can look for interwiki links on pages you recognize like "Main Page"

more at Wikiversity Translation Taskforce. Submitted by CQ 20:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I started a Translation resource page. I only use English myself, but I'm interested in developing Computer-assisted translation for Wikimedia projects, especially Wiktionary.

Ciao FTM, may {{DISPLAYTITLE:<insert new title here>}} be useful? --Nemo 06:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure it is! Thanks a lot, Nemo. ^^ --FollowTheMedia 10:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Daughter-project workspaces

Template:WikipediaSister and/or Template:Sisterlinks templates might wanna come over here. I think there should be project-specific strategy pages, templates, categories, etc. One of the main points of Strategic Planning is inter-process communication. For example, Wikiversity has linguistics projects that would like to vastly improve Wiktionary's multilingual functionality as a usable lexicon. I think the Meta version m:WiktionaryZ became the independant OmegaWiki project. Wikimedia dropped the ball, maybe? That's kind of sad. But maybe the work on OmegaWiki can be folded back in?

At any rate daughter projects should have some kind of structural representation here. Otherwise, strategic planners should gift each project with context-specific links in key pages concerning project-specific improvements. Duplication of effort just happens, but quick interventions can help to coordinate things. It's a thought. CQ 23:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposals

The proposal template is redlinked. How should an editor initiate a proposal? Durova 04:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but which proposal template? I think you're talking about Call for Proposals. If you are, you just fill in the box with your title and hit "Create page". The template should auto-load (it does for me at least). Cbrown1023 talk 05:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Translation

Now there is the first nonenglish text Proposal:Bilderspenden. I´m german, but I don´t think my english is good enoth for translation (if noone can read my texts it´s my own problem) How is it planned to know that there is a text to translate. Is there a place where to link nonenglish texts for translation? --Goldzahn 00:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Need help

I do not know why my proposal pageAudio/visual Presentation Competition did not come in proposal namespace.And page moving facility is not available to me(!).

Can some one help me,please. Mahitgar 08:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks like when you started it, you removed the namespace "Proposal:" from the front of the title. I'll move it over. :) -- Philippe 18:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

But Goldsahn beat me to it :) -- Philippe 18:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

My Proposal

please review my proposal at Proposal:Use ReCaptcha

Proposal ranking and categorization

the number of proposals is getting rather large and it will soon (or has already) become difficult to find which proposals are valuable. I have two ideas. One, a "Quality" ranking, alongside Priority, Impact, and Feasibility, that will differentiate between well-thought out ideas, the good ideas that are not elaborated on, and the rants. (Potential problem: quality is subject to change.) Alternatively, a handmade list of proposals, sorted by category (usability, outreach, sustainability, etc.) and within those categories subjectively sorted by quality. Perhaps at Organized list of proposals? HereToHelp 23:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

At the top of each page there is a new info "Did you know that you can rank proposals? At the bottom of each proposal, tell us what you think of it!" Maybe it is planed to use this ranking system? Goldzahn 23:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

At Special:SpecialPages there are Special:LikedPages and Special:ProblemPages. So far there are some ProblemPages and, for example, the Proposal:American English Wikipedia has a ~~very high~~ very low rating. It seems that this is what the foundation should not do. Well, I voted for the Nobel Prize-Proposal. That is a far better vision for the foundation ;-)) Goldzahn 23:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes that system is the one I had in mind. Perhaps a Very Low priority should just be defined as something that should not be done, and would serve the to eliminate bad ideas. However, I was hoping for something about the general quality of the proposal itself, as distinct from the issue it proposes. I suppose we should let it develop. HereToHelp 01:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Special:LikedPages only currently returns one proposal across all three tags. Perhaps the definition of 'highly rated' needs to be reduced a bit to allow more proposals to be returned? --Bodnotbod 16:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

question

What do we do with "proposals" such as Panamá that contain no content whatsoever? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see it's already been deleted. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

my proposal

please review my proposal at Audio/visual Presentation Competition

Mahitgar 11:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Invalid proposals

I see some invalid proposals. Proposals for new projects should go to Meta. If they didn't pass there, Strategy wiki is not the right place for them. May we make some Template:Invalid to mark such projects? --Millosh 13:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The call for proposals on all projects to submit anything here created an idea bin. So far this process collected nearly two hundred ideas. Step back and observe. What kind of proposals or ideas are coming in? Who is proposing? It is a (customer) feedback system, and all customer feedback is very valuable. Remember to be nice to newcomers. Show some empathy for newcomers. Be aware that newcomers will outnumber the number of active editors in perpetuity. Fresh editors know nothing. They aren't aware other projects exist, they aren't aware meta exists, they aren't aware the foundation exists, or chapters. They aren't aware how things are organized in neat processes and procedures on meta.

Let me recall a story of a janitor working in the basement of the Eiffel Tower, sweeping the floors. One day he complained to his chef. He told him hundreds of tourists every day ask him again where the bathrooms are. How is he supposed to do his job of sweeping the floors if he has to answer the same question over and over again? His boss replied calmly. You might have answered that question thousands of times, but for the tourist arriving here is is the first time she raises the question.

All proposals are valid, invalid proposals don't exist. The examples you provide fall in the category:proposals for new projects. Tagging proposals with a category suffices. You might want to be nice to a newcomer and post a message or question on the user talk page of the proposer asking them if they have seen m:proposals for new projects or m:requests for new languages.

The ultimate question is how to increase newcomer awareness of existing projects, existing organizations, existing processes and existing procedures, side by side with increasing newcomer awareness of existing off-wiki communication channels like mailing lists, IRC and IRL meetings? Dedalus 13:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agreed with Dedalus that we should be extremely hesitant about closing a proposal because there's a process for handling it elsewhere. I think that as part of the discussion process it's entirely fair to point that out, while at the same time using this space as an area to put together the dependencies that prepare for its submission there. This area should be considered a "brainstorming" area, where no idea is bad, and details can be worked out. I would strongly urge us not to get into the habit of label proposals "invalid" because there is a process for them elsewhere. -- Philippe 13:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Hehe. I am not restrictive about proposals :) Actually, I support your openness. (Actually, Philippe might remember that I asked for making Strategy wiki more visible.) The point is that this is, probably, the only branch of proposals which is, in fact, well regulated. It would be similar to asking here for a new chapter which already was before Chapters committee. There is a wide consensus inside of the community that there shouldn't be doubling of languages, like en_US, en_CA, pt_BR are; as well as it is preferred that similar existing project pairs are identified as problems. --Millosh 16:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

In such cases, Strategy team may deal just with defining LangCom or ChapCom responsibilities, or to point to some problems. But, in those particular cases we may just make one more iteration of endless discussions about those projects. So, I think that those proposals doesn't have a lot with Strategy team and articulating 5 years strategy of WMF. --Millosh 16:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

But, I understand your intentions. I sub-categorized those projects as "requests for new languages", which they are. --Millosh 16:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

French speakers: please review "Appel à propositions"

Hi everyone, I just came across this page in the main namespace and it looked like a c&p from the web. However, I am unable to find this text via Google. My French is not really that good, but to me it looks like a text about genealogy and I think it is not related to anything we do here. Could somebody please have a look and check whether this could be useful in any way? Thanks and regards, --ChrisiPK 13:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It's geneological. It's nuked. -- Philippe 14:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Ranking visibility of the proposals

I like the idea of ranking but is there a way to see the proposal by current ranking? or at least to get the current values per proposal? That would be very handy to have a ranked list of the proposals. -- AlexandreDulaunoy 14:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You can see the ranking of each proposal by going to it, and then pressing the Page Rating link in the left Sidebar. We're working on some other functionality to show them on a scale, etc. -- Philippe 14:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Turn on special:import from meta:?

Maybe? I have seen many proposals transplated from meta. 114.47.211.39 18:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you give me an example of how this would be helpful? -- Philippe 19:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The most proposals on Meta are already discussed and voted for and are now waiting for implentation by the devs. I think it would be kind of double to make them here again. Abigor 05:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, let me see if I can get a level of effort estimate from the techs. :) -- Philippe 18:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

This wiki's software

This wiki seems to be using a software called "new beta" or "beta açai" which is still undergoing tests, while the results of the survey have not been published. This new software has, in my opinion, pending technical issues.

This inspires writing a proposal at Call for proposals, or starting a discussion on how casually new software are being implemented on wikimedia projects. Casualness has its good side because it avoids heavy bureaucratic procedures, but could we not find some kind of balanced compromise between "being bold" ("feel free to dive right in and make broad changes as you see fit") and "quality insurance procedures" (en:Total Quality Management - en:ISO 9000) ? Teofilo 04:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I encourage you to write such a proposal :) I assure you we didn't "casually" decide to use the Beta skin, it was after deliberative thought. But since the skin was about to roll out to all the projects, we thought this make sense. From Special:Preferences, one can always switch back to the old skin. -- Philippe 17:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

easier access to relevant discussions

Since discussions are most important aspect of proposals.To get better participation in discussions is it possible to

link 'most unique editor edited proposal discussions pages' on main page
link 'most popularity rated proposal pages'with link to their discussion
At call for proposal rather than showing whole list of ever increasing proposals.changing Random list of few proposal in each category and then a link to 'complete list'
Is it possible that we do have section headings of Template:Call for proposals localised so it can give better justice to language subpages

Thanks

Mahitgar 05:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

re. 4) User Mwpnl, who moved parts of Call for proposals to Template:Call for proposals, wrote in the history of the template "If we translate this, it might get out-of-sync when we add new cats". Goldzahn 17:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

First off: thanks for the suggestions and for thinking along!

Re 1+2: We have of course Special:LikedPages to provide a list of proposals with a high rating. There's currently no way to include such a list dynamically. The question is of course if we want to provide users with a list of high rated proposals. Such a list implies that those proposals are definitely going to be executed, which for some proposals might not be the case if they're not feasible. Such a list therefore might cause disappointments and draw attention away from other nice, feasible proposals. So we're not sure about this yet, we'll give it some more thought.
Re 3: That's a very interesting proposal! But the CategoryTree extension we're using seems not to have a "random" function, which makes this extremely difficult. If you - or anybody else - has a bright idea as to how to implement this: please feel free to comment.
Re 4: I agree that it's not the best thing to have those headings not translated. But if we do translate the headers, we'd have to update all localised CfP-pages every time we add a new category. In the meantime all the proposals in these categories would not show up on the localised CfP-pages. Maybe we can add the Translations in small-text on Template:Call for proposals? That what we'd have translated headings and always have an up to date scheme.

Any bright idea's and susggestions on this are highly appreciated. Best regards, m:Mark W (Mwpnl) ¦ talk 17:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Re 4: At the moment Call for proposals has no TOC. We could build a template that looks like a TOC and which shows the translated headings. This template could be added via float right at the bottom of Call for proposals/xy
Vorschläge für neue Eigenschaften
(...)

I have found a solution without a template. Please look at Call for proposals/de. What do you think? A problem might be, that changing a category would lead to changing more than 22 files (Call for proposals/xx) Goldzahn 20:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

And this is why I love Wikiprojects, great thinking! I'm not sure, but there might be one minor downside to this: if we add/change a category, the TOC on ±22 pages is outdated. And needs to be updated by a translator. Maybe if we don't call it a TOC but rather a Legend? That way people don't have to assume there's nothing more than those items. m:Mark W (Mwpnl) ¦ talk 20:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems good thanksMahitgar 12:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)S

Re-evaluate & rearrange Category of a proposal page

Outreach term is very broad;Interactive content improvement programmes may be part of outreach,but academia may not be comfortable to be constituted themselves alongside deliberate promotional activities, directly.

Let Advertising,motivating present editors for more or other projects,reaching out to new people to bring to become editors and outreach for promoting existing content go together not a problem.

In former reachout to get content from experts and academia their usual attitude is I give you access and content and you type it/uplad it yourself.So, the later promotional activity does not work with this group well.

Besides skill level requirement is slightly different in both respect;In former outreach one needs social advocasy/social networking skills and in the later one 'outreach' one needs promotional/social marketing skills.

Why we need them in different categories because presently this single category is difficult to scan as per purpose;secondly,people will be giving rating differs- as per their perspectiv & prejudice and consideration to logical assessment gets diluted-as they favour social advocasy and content quality or promotion and marketing.

Mahitgar 07:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal Page	Present Category	Needed in Category	Reason	Sign
Deals	Proposals for advertising and outreach	Proposals for new projects	Obevious	Mahitgar 07:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Collaborative Google Wave-based Wikipedia editing	Proposals for advertising and outreach	New Features	Obevious	Mahitgar 07:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Expert review	Proposals for advertising and outreach	content quality improvement or may be special content collaboration outreach	End result Content is going out is less but to come in wiki is more	Mahitgar 07:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
GLAMwiki	Proposals for advertising and outreach	content quality improvement or may be special content collaboration outreach	End result Content is going out is less but to come in wiki is more	Mahitgar 07:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Nobel Prize	Proposals for advertising and outreach	content quality improvement or may be special content collaboration outreach	This has more to do with content improvement than advertising and outreach	Mahitgar 07:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Improve interfacing with academia	Proposals for advertising and outreach	content quality improvement or may be special content collaboration outreach	End result Content is going out is less but to come in wiki is more	Mahitgar 07:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mahitgar. I think, since the categories were not applied by the person who wrote the proposal, there is no reason why not change them. Goldzahn 08:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for support,If by tomorrow I do not get any opposite comment I will go ahead with forking out articles to a new proposed category subcategory Category:Proposals for Content improvement collaboration outreach to which main category will be existing category Category:Proposals for improving content

Regards Mahitgar 11:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I support separating the categories, but I'm not sure your proposed new category is the way to go... it seems unwieldy to me, and the language doesn't really say anything more clearly. Could you suggest another set of terms? -- Philippe 17:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Mark suggested perhaps calling it Category:Proposals for collaboration and outreach. Would that get across what you're trying to do? -- Philippe 17:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Category:Proposals for collaboration and outreach This is good suggession,If some one takes this work welcome;else I will take up after 2 days, right now bit busy with urgent support requiment of local wiki.Thanks everybody for supportMahitgar 12:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Remove this line if your proposal is not in English

I am trying to begin to write my first proposal. The template shows the following line :

< ! - - Remove this line if your proposal is not in English! - - >

If not English, in what language is this proposal submitted?:

I'm afraid it is the opposite. If the proposal is written in English, it is not necessary to say "hello, this is a proposal in English", or is it ?

Teofilo 08:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Teofilo - what is means is to tell us what language your proposal is in, or eliminate the line asking what language. So, if in Spanish, leave that line in. If in English, remove it. :) -- Philippe 09:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

So, I suggest the following template change ~~:< ! - - Remove this line if your proposal is not in English! - - >~~:< ! - - Remove the following line if your proposal is in English! - - >. Teofilo 09:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Teofilo. If the proposal...ler is a native spanish speaker and cannot speak English, how will they know to remove that line. Obviously, you cannot have every translation of that line in the template either. So I agree with Teofile, the line should be reversed. A template can be created to perform the right logic.--TParis00ap 72.181.103.95 13:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I made a change to the template last night, but will change it to this language immediately. -- Philippe 18:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Task Forces

I saw this new page and I like it. I had some experiences with collaboration on Wikipedia that do work (some groups went to nowhere) and they had been similar to these Task Forces. I would propose additionally a fact finding group, to help these Task Forces, because maybe they don´t have the resources, technical experiences, ... they need. Goldzahn 21:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The idea is that the fact base can be a starting point for them, but if they need additional resources, Eugene and I will do our best to find the right information or people. I'm glad you like the page. -- Philippe 01:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Domination of strategic planning

It is obvious that Wikipedia is the largest project, but I wonder at the fact that the other younger projects are ignored in the base strategic planning documents. Except for my own contribution, and a splash page that advertises all the wiki's I don't see much evidence that projects like Wikibooks and Wikiversity are being considered.

While these younger projects are backwaters in comparison to Wikipedia, I think that more effort should be made to promote and develop these projects, because they represent new communities of editors that might not be comfortable in the high pressure editing environment of Wikipedia, at least at first. A smaller community, tends to be more welcoming. Perhaps some of us will eventually move to improve wikipedia in our own topic areas as we get more confident, thus adding to the population of editors, but in the meantime, the content we are creating might be just as valuable as the content on the Pedia.Graeme E. Smith 05:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll point some of the researchers here, but I believe the problem lies in that there are simply not many data points that we know of for those projects - that's one of the reason that the fact base is posted here: we'd LOVE to collect some data on other projects. Can you help? -- Philippe 05:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Graeme, thanks for the post. Indeed we (the Project Team) are looking at all Wiki projects. As Philippe said, there is less data on these, but there is data and we are doing analyses we hope to post soon to the fact briefs. That said, if you have any thoughts on how we can engage the Community in a broader discussion covering all projects that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks Serita 05:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I found at stats.wikimedia.org (here) a starting point to stats about Wikibooks and Wikiversity. Another starting point is wikistics.falsikon.de (here). My impression is that the main page is very important and maybe there should be some effort to improve them. Maybe small projects shouldn´t look like en:wp? For example, take a look at en:Wikiversity and compare that with the links found on the main page. My impression is that visitors don´t look into one of the 79 links at the Wikiversity mainpage. Compare that design with the main page of google! Goldzahn 08:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It will take continual effort over the course of the process to make the interests of smaller Projects heard. New research needs to be done -- if there is data from an open research process, the original work can be replicated with data from other projects. And discussions covering all topics have to do better than saying "we are trying to reach everyone, accepting input from everyone, and weighing all input received" since we know there are areas of importance where the affected audience is not now and will not soon be aware of what we are attempting to plan. That said, a number of proposals are already focusing on these issues [many of them not from editors of those projects, but from outsiders]. Sj 22:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I have a long term proposal:integrated learning experience for wikiversity. Hillgentleman 02:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Comparing google to wiki is like comparing the sky to the sea. They are diametrically opposite conceptually and functionally, in almost all senses (size, complexity, community involvement/openness, structured data with limited search versus powerful search engine for natural language, viewing habit...) and incidentally that is exactly why google and wikipedia have worked well together. Hillgentleman 03:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at Proposal:Brand name consolidation. While the focus is as the title suggests "only" an image issue, on the talk page there are a couple of comments leaning already towards a more thorough "unification". So at least some people out there ARE thinking of the various projects as a set of tools being used to build the same edifice. I am wondering if a special task force composed of people with that vision (with, say, one from each of the smaller projects and x from wikipedia) would make sense, in order to balance the squint towards wikipedia.-- Thamus ^joyfulnoise 05:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for scholarships - Highschool, College and University.

I was unable to suggest this...suggestion.

Also related to a proposal heading for advertising, which should be changed to marketing wikimedia.

Might suggest take the avenue of developing Good Will by sponsoring scholarships to those interested or purchasing equipment for others to use.

Favorite proposals

Eia created it and it is currently orphan. Nemo 07:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It's now linked from Call for proposals. -- Philippe 08:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Please rename or move

I messed up and it seems I don't have move capability. Would someone please move or rename Favorites/ to Favorites/Pknkly. Sorry. Pknkly 17:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

done. Goldzahn 23:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Any way to warn an editor

...that he/she already voted already for a proposal?

Because i happened to have voted twice for the same proposal during different days. I feel bad for that.

Thanks. --KrebMarkt 07:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see subsequent votes replace the 1st because proposals can change. 99.56.136.133 17:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe they do, but I'll ask the tech team. -- Philippe 17:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

What voting are you talking about? Did I miss something? -- Kozuch 13:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

you will find the voting at the bottom of each proposal. Goldzahn 14:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist

Please note my request there. Thanks. Mike.lifeguard | ^@meta 14:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Translation of Proposals

How can I translate proposals? -- Jan Sende 16:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I have started to translate some proposals: Proposal:Плавающая панель с поиском и меню, Proposal:开放维基百科API, Proposal:开放维基百科API, Proposal:維基整合計畫, Proposal:Mesclagem na autenticação de login Google com o Wikipedia (vice-versa).. Well I don´t speak Russian, Portuguese or Chinese. The words in brackets are my improvements of the google translation. What do you think? Is that OK? Goldzahn 02:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I am purposely not weighing in on this, because I'd like to see the community figure out a translation method that makes sense. Go to it. :) -- Philippe 04:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question. How can I translate a page? I'm searching for a "Click here to translate this page"-Button, but I can't find one. -- Jan Sende 18:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

EDIT to strikeI'd like to see this too. A simple button on the sidebar that says "click here to help with translation of this page", and takes you to a create-new-page page, with the previous page's title already in a textbox. It would then have a list of pre-entered languages in a dropdown menu. When you click on when of those languages, it adds the language ~~ISO-639-2~~ ISO-639-1 code to the end of your page title (or 639-3 code if no -1 code exists for that language. See ~~List of ISO 639-2 codes~~ List of ISO 639-1 codes for a partial list (not all 639-3 codes are listed there)). You'd then click the "create page" button, and it would take you the page in question (if it exists), or the edit box if it is a red-link. It would probably look something like the Call for proposals page. Gopher65_talk 19:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

DO NOT USE THE ISO-639-2 CODES We do not use them they are a confusing standard. We are using either the ISO-639-1 or the ISO-639-3. The good news is that this practice will be standard in the ISO-639-6. Thanks, 77.250.53.164 12:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right. I meant 639-1. I put -2 because for some reason I keep thinking "hmmm, well, "en" is 2 characters, so -2 must mean the 2 character codes". Heh. I *know* that isn't the case, but every now and then I write it anyway. Gopher65_talk 13:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Problems

See? is the same proposal, only in different languages, this can promote a weakening or spreading of ideas, we must not let the discussions in German and English on the same page?

Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton 18:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Ideally, sure, I'd love discussion in the same place with someone who actively knew to watch it and translate. That puts a huge burden on translators though. The good news is that when we go through the synthesis phase of the process, we will be looking at all of those similar proposals. And besides, sometimes when discussions take different courses, other new ideas are stirred.... -- Philippe 17:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Page

Please delete this page:Main_Page/pt-br
This is the gate of hell.
I am Brazilian, I know that I speak, separate pt/pt-br, will accumulate work for nothing and create an unnecessary bustard. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton 18:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, if there are people using the page, I don't see any reason deleting the hard work somebody has put into that page. There's no maintenance needed, so deleting would be a unnecessary endeavour. Best regards, m:Mark W (Mwpnl) ¦ talk 21:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

This is just one page, imagine a hundred pages ... Really this is the gate of hell, do not open, I repeat, I know what I'm talking about. They will use as an argument to create thousands of pages debts, which would be bad for the project, since the discussions would be broken.

Also, what is the motivation to break into more than one page? And there's no hard work, is a copy and paste from an old version of this page, I rode a large part, that is, it would be my job... Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton 03:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

We currently have the main page translated in over 34 languages and although I understand your "gate of hell" argument, if a pt-br translation is of some avail to some people, why not keep it, I'm pretty confident we can keep the gates of hell closed a few more weeks, while people work on the proposals. And frankly, we have a pt-br mediawiki translation, it would be very weird to forbid the use of a pt-br main page on strategy wiki. m:Mark W (Mwpnl) ¦ talk 15:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, but all the pages in Portuguese, are in the "Brazilian language", ie have two pages in Brazilian Portuguese, for nothing, just because someone created it and when I ask them to delete, so there were no more than one page in Portuguese, denied. There is not even a Wiki-us, but there are several Lusophone wikis.

And we can live in all projects, so that separate where we should join? For? The Wikimedia Commons is a multilingual project and there is only one Portuguese, there is no problem of communication, or similar, differences are so small they can be overlooked. In addition there is an ongoing unification grammar of the two countries, called: Orthographic Agreement of 1990 (which is already used on Wikipedia-pt), which brings even the spellings.

Please delete the page so I do not have to waste any more time now, and much more time after doing two pages alike.

If you want me to beg, I beg, but delete the page, you do not know the job is to make a page in Portuguese, be doubling it will spend even more publishers, for nothing.

Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton 16:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

From what I understand, there are some small differences between br and pt-br, which give good cause to keep both revisions. Apart from that, I don't see any harm coming from another page with a slightly different spelling and grammar. Someone created it and he obviously disagrees with your argument that both languages are exactly the same. The creation also means there's a need for the translation, so why on earth would we delete it? There are more pressing concerns, and I don't think this wiki is the place to fight over the existing of one pt-br translation. Let it be, and let's please move on to more interesting matters. m:Mark W (Mwpnl) ¦ talk 17:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like this to be the end of the matter, please: until and unless I am given a seriously convincing argument, this wiki will allow for as many people to contribute in as many different languages and dialects as they feel are necessary. My role is to facilitate the full and active participation of the community, and I don't intend for language disputes to be a constraint to that. I don't care if someone wants to translate it into pig-latin; if there's a reader, I'm inclined to allow it.

The gates of hell not withstanding, I agree with Mark.

-- Philippe 22:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC), Facilitator, Strategic Plan - Wikimedia Foundation.

Arguments

The project is to gather as many views and promote the highest number of discussions, making the interconnections between all languages divide up the Portuguese in the talks would be split and lose conversations and visions just on a whim;
All current pages are Brazilian Portuguese, the large number of editors are Brazilian, we would ask for a grammarian Portuguese to exchange all existing pages to make the necessary adjustments, after all, if the division "we" (because they'll end up leaving for Brazilian and Portuguese) to put all the details of the language to be a real difference;
There is not only the Portuguese of Portugal and Brazil, there are several countries that speak Portuguese and I would be offended to have only European and Brazilian Portuguese, rather than having a Portuguese that can be mine too;
The very community wiki Lusophone denied the split of the community, just a few for, not most as you can see in:
Angolans, Brazilians, Cape Verde, Guinea Bissau, Portuguese, Macao, Mozambique, Sao Tome, East Timorese understand any Portuguese writing because only regional slang (I'm Brazilian and I do not know all of Brazil, but no one uses the term to write ) and Portuguese spoken, there are major differences;
Assume good faith, I am Brazilian, I even like the difference between the languages, I argue the difference, I really did not like "Orthographic Agreement of 1990" (which is already used on Wikipedia-pt) to unify, but this is not the place to make the case of differences, but a place to unite ideas.

Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton 01:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Look this [2], the only word he changed, he traded for an absurd, he moved to "empower" (pt-br:empoderar) to "grab" (pt:apoderar). Really, he does not know at least differentiate semantics? What he wrote is not against the project and shows that it falls short of what we do. If he wants to separate, he who should be here standing arguments, because what I want is to unite and promote as much as the "Strategic Planning" can give. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton 03:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Rodrigo, I understand your general argument. I think it's valid, and I generally agree that we should avoid this kind of fractioning of languages for Wikipedia. This argument doesn't apply to this strategic planning process, I do not agree. We've made it clear to people that we're encouraging everyone to have discussions in the language of their choice, as long as they share their ideas on this wiki.

Let me make an analogy that I hope will clarify things. Would you object if people had a face-to-face Meetup to discuss strategy and spoke in Brazilian Portugese? I hope not. If we're going to be inclusive in this strategic planning, then we need to let people discuss strategy in the languages they feel most comfortable. --Eekim 19:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

What you do not understand is that there is only one Portuguese, by the way the pages are much closer to Brazilian Portuguese, there is no standard, people are free to edit in any Portuguese they want, I'm Brazilian and I'm not defending the section, the pages en are just like the Portuguese.

There will always be two versions of Portuguese here in the same text. It is not written there pt-br, much less, "Brazilians do not edit." And all other language speakers, who are not Brazilian and Portuguese, have no right to be here?

Have you ever wondered why the Commons does not divide your pages into pt-pt/pt-br? Why Meta Foundation Web site and do not have this division? Already been to see how many Brazilians there are these projects?

Have you asked for anyone who publishes in Portuguese what they think? If they love to be editing two times the same thing?

I bet my pancreas that after the meetings that took place in Brazil that will bring the pages which will be discussed / pt, no / pt-br, as well as all the pages you created by Brazilians, except those that went off (which are identical copies of pages already created).

I have a sure, people felt more discriminated and less invited to participate if such a separation.

Who created the first page is not an active person in any Wiki, do not understand what is Wiki.

It is difficult to find a proposal with several people talking in a language, you want to further divide?

And that view top-down is that? You decide between you, do not talk to me and reverse everything I did? And you say you want to establish a discussion?

If it is to make people feel more comfortable you are going the opposite way. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton 21:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Central notice

Upon seeing no updates in recent changes I checked a couple of wikis - central notice begging for input has gone. Dedalus 13:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, it's scheduled time has expired. Centralnotice fatigue is a real concern for me; that is, I don't want the use of centralnotice to become so common that people learn to ignore it. We'll have new ones go up when the Call for Participation goes out. -- Philippe 21:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I am always worrying when I click on "dismiss" on the side of a notice (be it the central one or the local one) : does that mean that newer notices will show up, or does that mean "never show me again any kind of notice, new or old" ? My feeling is that it also dismisses the newer ones. I remember I had to look at the cookies in my browser and delete a cookie when I wanted to "undismiss" a notice, some time ago. This "undismissing" procedure should be made more simple. (But I appreciate the dismissing freedom). Teofilo 06:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

My understanding (disclaimer: i am not technical) is that when you dismiss central notice, you dismiss it for that incremental message id. When a new message id shows up, you should see it. If you DISABLE central notice in css or something (dumb idea anyway) then you lose the whole tool. -- Philippe 17:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The proposals' translations

I can help translating Japanese into English. For example Proposal:「自主研究」排除原則の撤廃 's title would be « Rescind the "Original Research" ban ». But I don't know where the appropriate location for a translation would be. Would that be the talk page ? Could we have translation headers with links to translations on the top of pages ? Teofilo 06:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Create one page in English, but don't change that page, because this project is open to all. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton 16:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Discuss a Proposal

Thank you very much for welcoming me, I would like to ask your opinion on my Proposal:Add or redesign tab for original research. You may discuss it at Proposal talk:Add or redesign tab for original research 38.117.214.252 01:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the new editor

Many useful shortcuts - like the #redirect pagename are gone. And I hate remembering whether I have to add a space between #redirect and pagename Hillgentleman 02:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean a link you can click or a keyboard shortcut? The link isn't gone for me on English Wikipedia; we didn't change anything below the edit box. And for the record: both variants (with and without a space between #REDIRECT and the page name) are equally valid. --Catrope 18:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... makes me wonder if Wikiversity has something in their css for their skin that adds some additional non-standard options? -- Philippe 18:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikinews has the wikEd gaget installed, which, when a user turns it on, gives a great toolbar in the editbox with nearly everything you would ever want. Plus it highlights wiki syntex for you. It makes reading wikicode *so* much easier. Gopher65_talk 13:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I fear the strategy process is going to become undemocratic

I have made a personal commitment to read every proposal and to vote on it (with some caveats*).

For this process to work, we need a similar commitment from hundreds of people. Why? Well, how do we know what the community has decided are good proposals if there IS NO community?

However, what I'm finding is that the vast majority of proposals have no or very few comments. The vast majority of proposals have less than five voters, and for many I am the first to have voted.

It's not hard to see why. I have already spent many hours on this wiki and I still have hundreds of proposals still to read. Few people have as much time on their hands as I do. I'm extremely privileged as far as time is concerned.

What's the solution to this? Well, clearly one problem is simply the volume of reading that has to be done. Should and could this be addressed? But reducing the volume in itself would be undemocratic (it implies removing some good faith proposals in order to keep the volume of matter down).

So I think the only answer is to build the community. I think we need to reach out. I understand we have lost our notification banner at the top of the Wikipedias. Perhaps we should ask for that to be brought back. And we should press for inclusion in Wikipedia Signpost (and other language equivalents).

I feel the lack of input needs to be debated if this process is to come to a conclusion with people's faith that it was transparent, open and democratic still intact.

*Caveats: I can only read proposals written in English. Some proposals are too technical for me to understand, therefore I do not vote on them.

Did you see that Process#Timeline (2009 - 2010)? These Task forces will have to look into the proposals. By the way, the highest rated proposal is today: Proposal:Multilingual Wiktionary. Goldzahn 11:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Goldzahn, that was very useful. I've registered my interest in working on one of the task forces. Reading those pages goes quite some way in addressing my concerns. I still worry that the number of contributors to this initial process of proposal evaluation is far, far too low. Let's say that our most popular proposals are scored 'very high' by ten editors in all categories. That's a great performance as things stand. But will it be enough to override the ideas the WMF and the boards make up themselves outside of the community? I seriously doubt it. I would like to see the final proposals representative of a grass roots movement. Not generated and put into place from above. Why? Because if that's going to happen, then there's no need for this wiki and I will have wasted a summer, autumn and winter spending my time reviewing all this material. --Bodnotbod

I think most of the problems raised are known and the proposals can at least show the urgency of each problem. I wonder how a strategic plan may arise from the proposals and the key questions. There is still a lot of work for the task forces to do. Goldzahn 15:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I share some of the fears mentioned here but want to point out a few things. First, a democratic process was never a goal for this project. Rather, it was a community facing / community influenced process. For that to work, you don't need participative democracy, but I agree with your thought about adding to the pool.

If we put the central notice back up, the law of diminishing returns kicks in (and was starting to already, I think). With that said, the single most important thing we can do to help this project is to evangelize. Link to it from your user page. Put it in your signature, if your local policy allows it. Tell your friends and neighbors - particularly people that you know who READ wikimedia projects but don't edit. That's a missing voice.

The central notice will go back up simultaneously with the release of the call for participation, which encourages people to submit themselves or others for task forces. I'm not sure it's a bad thing that we have a bit of breathing time to get things ready here on-wiki. -- Philippe 17:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I've placed a simple banner on my en wp Talk page now. Will add to my user page too. Edit this section to view/copy source code. Some colours are in words, so it's easy to customise them, as is the text of the message. --Bodnotbod 14:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Please consider contributing to Wikimedia Strategy.

Where to put a link to new proposals?

Hi, how are new proposals expected to be promoted and found? I just submitted my idea and put it into the appropriate category. But obviously that is not enough to be found. --H-stt 21:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't sweat it. I'm reading through them all and I'm finding I'm the first one to vote on a great many. It's going to take time before many of the proposals get a huge amount of views.

Gadget: Pop-ups

Is there any chance that 'pop-ups' will be made available in my preferences? I use that facility on en:wp and it makes quickly going through my watchlist really easy. --Bodnotbod 21:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

There's a chance, sure. :-) But if it goes on my list, it's a slim chance. Anyone want to volunteer to take this and run with it? I'll give whatever support is needed. Bodnotbod, there's also a page at Wiki issues for these suggestions so they're captured historically. :-) -- Philippe 23:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I've now downloaded the Cool Previews Firefox extension. It is greatly helping my productivity: voting on proposals is now MUCH faster. I don't always like to just vote. But it does help, even so. I'd highly recommend it to anyone planning to review great numbers of proposals. --Bodnotbod 10:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Where are the strategic proposals?

I now have browsed through a good part of the published proposals and frankly, I'm disappointed. The vast majority is not strategic, most aren't even tactical, they are just small fry. This strategy process is not about templates, GUIs, APIs, shifting the focus a bit to this aspect or other. It is not even about Wikipedia, it is about the WMF. It should be about the large visions: Where do we want the WMF to go in five / seven / ten years? I'd say, make this absolutely clear on the front page and discard 90% of the proposals so far. Otherwise this process will be flooded by issues of minor tweaks and the very purpose will be lost. --H-stt 10:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I mostly agree about that: most proposals are not strategic, just small feature requests. Yann 11:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, even small proposals can raise big issues... for instance, they can point out that we may have flaws with a feature request system, or that people dont know where it is... so the trick is to look for the patterns.... -- Philippe 12:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, but that would only work if it is your day job. As it is there is too much **** 77.250.53.164 12:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I had been looking into this Vision Paper and if that is what should come out of this process, a lot of work remains to be done. One thing that is for me the key question to this process, who should make all the Key questions and Proposals real? The board? The community? Is there a community? Are there 300+ communities? Goldzahn 13:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

You're quite right that a lot of work remains... we're about to launch a request for participation, which you can read about at Process#Phase_II:_Deep_dives. There will be a series of task forces that will be responsible for articulating ideas about a particular subject area; we'll be asking for volunteers for those. It would be within the role of those task forces to look at particular proposals and recommend them to a final body, which is not yet formed, but will be representative of chapters, independent volunteers, the Foundation, etc. -- Philippe 18:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I partially agree with all of you. There are proposals that are just crazy, others short term, others are just comments not proposing anything. But it is not a good idea to start discarding proposals and discouraging people from the beginning. Even the craziest proposal after being reshaped can become a good idea. I propose just recategorizing them to avoid flooding in the main categories, at least for short term proposals and for comments not clearly proposing something. Then proposer and other people will have the opportunity to improve, reshape them and include them again in the main categories.--Gomà 23:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

We are, momentarily, going to add a section to the talk page of each asking people to talk about the impact of the proposal on the end-user; including the non-editing reader. I think we'll see some interesting things come from those answers. I hope so, anyway. :-) -- Philippe 23:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but obviously you have fallen victim to the same fallacy that many others did: You are thinking of the wikis and the users and the readers and maybe the editors. This whole process is not about wikis, users, readers, editors, this strategic planning is about the WikiMedia Foundation. And the WMF's mission is not maintaining wikis and recruiting editors, the mission is to bring all the knowledge to all of the people. The wikis are just the current instrument for this goal. Start thinking outside of the box of wikis, start thinking mid and long term and start thinking strategy - or this whole process will fizzle and end with a new GUI and some improved help pages. H-stt 07:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC) [edited one word H-stt 09:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)]

----> Wow, H-stt, that's a lot of impressions to read into a single comment that I made. :-) I don't think it's fair to judge state of mind by the fact that we asked people to comment on impact... I think that as the process progresses, you'll see a definite and planned emphasis shift from the tactical to the strategic. In any strategic planning process one of the first things that you do is evaluate current state. That's part of what these proposals do, right? I mean, they help us figure out where we are today and gauge interest for direction. -- Philippe 21:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I define my warning: Do not get sidetracked by feature request for en-WP or other minor tweaks. And if you see this process in the evaluation phase, then close all other parts of the website. Do not ask for proposals if your real goal at the moment is to get status reports. This strategics process is the most prestigious (and most costly) project of the WMF so far. You as the experts on organizational development need to steer and act as gardeners. Tell the participants what is needed at any time, communicate about phases and act as gardeners and weed out what is at the wrong place or the wrong time. H-stt !? 10:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this comment hits the nail on the head. The current state of Wikipedia culture keeps thinking inside of the box, by concentrating on making the box (the status quo) more rigid and less innovative. This is true technologically and editorially. I very much take to heart the idea of bringing the sum of "all human knowledge" to everyone. To me that means expanding into areas that have previously been considered out of our realm. I see the WMF's to be the center of the free, non-commercial internet. There are many sites that I see that are commercial and think, "The WMF should have a free version of this". -- Sam 08:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The Core competency is maintaining wikis and should be recruiting editors too. At the moment I see no ability to actively recruit editors. I wouldn´t mind seeing more political activities by the foundation, but I wouldn´t say they should come first. By the way, some chapters or group of editors do work on the political level. Goldzahn 08:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Then start to develop new areas of expertize. The WMF will not be able to bring all the knowledge to all the people by staying in the virtual world of the internet. It was a brilliant start but this strategic planning process is precisely about what to do next: Go meat space, go politics, go real world culture. H-stt 09:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I sympathise with the arguments about many of the proposals being mere tweaks. Have you drafted any proposals H-stt? If you have, or do in the future, please place links here as I would be interested to see them. --Bodnotbod 10:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, would it be useful to link (somehwere where users can see it prior to creating a proposal) to en:wp's Perrenial Proposals? It covers a lot of what we're seeing on the proposals list. --Bodnotbod 10:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I see the need for significantly more participation in the questions and the fact base that are framing the discussions. That would be a great place for people with strategic thinking skills to contribute. For instance, many of the fact base pages focus primarily on Wikipedia and English. I haven't seen any questions directed at how the Foundation or the larger community should allocate its resources and efforts among projects. Perhaps I'm looking in the wrong space for comments on the English and Wikipedia bias in the fact base?Jennifer Riggs 17:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You are definitely right that the factbases are English and Wikipedia biased. I have been putting a lot of work into the Reach factbase, much of it centered on English Wikipedia because that was the easiest place to start. I was hoping that this analysis would spark people to produce some of their own analysis on other projects and other languages. The more people that work on developing the factbases the more ground we can cover.Sarah476 21:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I don´t know if there will be a task force thinking about small wikipedias and small projects, but I was told that Philippe and Eugene will find more facts if the task forces ask for them. And of course there is the meta:Wikimedia Research Network with a lot of members. As you can find here the Chief Research Coordinator is Gregory Maxwell. He still got questions, as you can see (commons:User_talk:Gmaxwell#Wikimedia Research Network). Goldzahn 21:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

As said above: If the process depends on the fact base, then start with the fact base and close all other parts of the web site. Communicate about what needs to be done when. Act as guides with a much tighter reign. H-stt !? 10:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Several hundred proposals poured in. All (assume good faith) are written by readers of Wikipedia and other project pages, taking time and effort to provide us with valuable feedback. And valuable feedback it is. Quite a few ask for existing features for example. That feedback does remind us that for newcomers those features are unknown and maybe even hard to find. This tells us something about how we operate. To relate with pedestrians you'll have to be at pedestrian level. Concepts as "reach" and "participation" are for most folks too hard to grasp, they are too abstract. Turn on your senses to empathize with people who never have heard of Wikipedia - have never seen it and know nothing about it - and you want to reach them. Try it. Dedalus 22:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Newcomers? Even four years old editors with thousands of edits ask for already existing features. And at it.wiki's village pump every week I see people sugesting projects that Wikimedia Foundation or Wikimedia chapters have already implemented (e.g., this week, a general user survey: they didn't know of the UNU-MERIT!). We have a huge communication problem. Nemo 09:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I consider "reach" and "participation" with regard to the established wikis not to be strategic questions. H-stt !? 10:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

For some broad ideas, you may be interested in the proposal:integrated learning experience. Hillgentleman 19:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)