Talk:2017 Community Wishlist Survey

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is for discussions related to the 2017 Community Wishlist Survey page.

  Please remember to:


Wikimedia Community Logo.svg

help: '(learn more)' link is not operational in translated pages[edit]

Transltion of "(learn more)" references a # in the SAME page (that means En in En page, Fr in FR page ....). (learn more) is paragraph 'What happens during the proposal phase?' of the english page idendified by link https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2017_Community_Wishlist_Survey#What_happens_during_the_proposal_phase.3F For my french page, I code (en savoir plus) releted to paragraph 'Comment se déroule la phase de proposition ?' and identified by https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2017_Community_Wishlist_Survey/fr#Comment_se_d.C3.A9roule_la_phase_de_proposition_.3F but I observe that this last link is not active in the translated pages (does nothing). Other translation pages have similar behaviour that is does nothing in the current page.

Can any one help me whith the right formulation to skip into the paragraph of the current translated page. It should be evident but I am a bit lost now ...

Thank you Wladek92 (talk) 12:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I just set an anchor #learnmore, which should work for all languages independent from the actual heading. It is probably the question mark that breakes the links. Links to headings without a question are working fine. -- Reise Reise (talk) 15:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Another category should be added[edit]

2017 Community Wishlist Survey/Editing has numerous proposals related to VisualEditor. I think 2017 Community Wishlist Survey/VisualEditor should be created; the proposals should be re-categorized. --George Ho (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Seeing that VE is a critical part of "Editing" (so much so that the VE team is called the Editing team), doing this can leave many users confused. We can try and do something similar next year but it's too late for that this year. -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 21:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trung's 3 proposals[edit]

I accidentally read 📖 the comment as three per day, well the three proposals I would keep are to extend global blocks to named accounts, the UTRS for Wikimedia Commons, and the specialised blocks. Though I really hope that someone else will start a request to create a mobile UploadWizard for Wikimedia Commons, I didn't know where to report the three I want to remain so I’m leaving this comment here. --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (My global lock 😒🌏🔒) (My global unlock 😄🌏🔓) 11:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

And cases like this is why Wikimedia Commons needs a UTRS. --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (My global lock 😒🌏🔒) (My global unlock 😄🌏🔓) 11:14, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Your proposals are very messy and hard to read because they are so long and full of emojis. Stryn (talk) 11:16, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
I have archived all but the three proposals you chose to keep. If anyone wants to take on one of the archived ones, just let us know and we'll move it back. Thanks! MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 04:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

New proposals transcluding[edit]

Hi. As I can see, minutes after new proposal creation it is mostly transcluded to a category page by Community Tech bot. But some of them are not transcluded at all, when the category proposals counter is updated. Why does this happen? Thank you. IKhitron (talk) 16:33, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I will look into this. MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 23:14, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Editor interactions[edit]

I remember vaguely seeing a wish somewhere in this 2017 Community Wishlist Survey that mentioned the en.wikipedia's tool called Editor Interactions. I cannot for the life of me find it again. HELP? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 14:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC) Please ping me

I couldn't find one either. Perhaps you mean w:Wikipedia:Community health initiative on English Wikipedia/Interaction Timeline (currently undergoing development)? MER-C (talk) 06:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Mer-c. I think w:Wikipedia:Community health initiative on English Wikipedia/Interaction Timeline is probably what I was looking for. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC) Please ping me

Submission deadline date unclear[edit]

I read both :

The proposal phase ends at 18:00UTC Monday, Nov 20th!

and

Submit, discuss and revise proposals: Nov 6-19, 2017

As this makes unclear which is the end date, I suggest the organiser to accept proposals up to 18:00UTC Monday, Nov 20th. --Yug (talk) 20:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

The correct end time is probably 20 November at 18.00 UTC as it was added just about 2 days ago[1]. I don't know why he didn't update the other dates at the same time. Stryn (talk) 20:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
This has been fixed. The correct date is indeed the 20th at 18:00 UTC. Sorry for the mixup! MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 23:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
I guessed there was a typo or something so I fixed it. Then I got a doubt so I came here. Good to lear I was right :) --Yug (talk) 11:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Could someone please stop the Bot from hiding proposals?[edit]

The Bot seems to be very eager to hide the proposals in some archive, out of plain sight. Can someone please remind them of good manners? Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 21:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, I saw it was probably on purpose, my proposal was maliciously hidden without any valid reason given. I know, that some (unelected, i.e. with lesser power) people "decided" something that should be the sole decision of the community, not some unelected apparatchiks. There is no valid reason against the VE on wikipages, a talk page is just another wikipage, so this was just might over right, same pattern as with Erik and Superputsch. I thought the WMF had learned something from the MV-desaster. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 21:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
We can discuss further about this specific proposal on the proposal page, but as the bot operator I wanted to assure you the bot is not malfunctioning. It is transcluding/untranscluding as pages are moved. The page moves are performed by humans. MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 22:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
OK, I saw this, and sorry for my anger towards your bot, it should have been directed towards the human who maliciously archived it. I just saw my valid proposal hidden by some bot in some archive. I probably un-archived a bit too much on that page, but there should at least be some mentioning of all those hidden proposals on the main page, simply hiding them in some never-see-it-again-archive is not a real friendly solution, even if the closing was indeed valid. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 22:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
We're currently in the "review and organize proposals" phase, so some proposals are being archived because they are not feasible, outside Community Tech's scope, among other various reasons (see the top of 2017 Community Wishlist Survey/Archive). Rationale should have been left on the proposal page when it is archived. If you question why this was done, that is okay, but please comment there and don't unarchive. To avoid confusion, the live Category pages should only contain proposals that will be open for voting. You are correct however that the archived proposals are not very discoverable, so we will look into that. Rest assured we're not trying to hide them, rather we just don't want to people to get confused and think they are something we'll be able to work on. Thanks for your understanding! MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
What to do in case of a hostile, invalid archiving like the one with my proposal? I simply don't trust those, who hid it, any more, they scheme their own agenda and don't seem to care about the community, by definition the highest entity in a community-driven enterprise like the wikiversum. They seem to confuse the service agency WMF with a kind of government. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 22:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I do not know the participants in this thread except I see that User:MusikAnimal (WMF) is a WMF employee. I agree in principal that proposals made here by wikipedians should not be hidden from the rest of the community. Other than that I don't know how this whole thing is supposed to work, and why wikipedians should spend (waste) time posting proposals. Just my $.02 Ottawahitech (talk) 14:15, 9 December 2017 (UTC) Please oing me
Why to participate in the discussion if you don't know how this works :) I would first suggest you to read the content page and after that participate in the discussion. Stryn (talk) 14:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Late addition[edit]

Is it still possible to add T152297: Add state or city level geotargeting to CentralNotice to the wishlist? These are of particular interest to local Wikimedia Chapters in the United States. --Dispenser (talk) 02:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, the proposal phase is closed; we can't take late entries. -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 02:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

A/B test of "[edit]" versus pencil icon for editing on mobile[edit]

This proposal seems to have been misunderstood and I ask that it be restored to the Mobile category. Thank you! James Salsman (talk) 10:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

What can I do, if a proposal is archived with completely bogus arguments?[edit]

My proposal, that's completely within the scope of community tech, was twice hidden in the archive with the bogus claim of not being within scope. They don't want to deal with it, because it doesn't fir with their private agenda on pushing Flow, but it's a very easy fulfillable proposal, the feasibility was proven beyond any doubt on the very discussion itself, but it's hostile blocked by the powers that are. If I do the imho right thing, i.e. get it out of the archive and undo the hostile hiding, I fear a ban is looming. They don't like meddling with their pet project Flow. Is there any community vetted, i.e. proper vetted, arbcom or such on Meta, or how can one deal with such abuse of power? Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 20:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sänger. Your proposal is out of scope for Community Tech due to the simple reason that it meddles with another team's project. We cannot undo a different team's decisions. We'd rather focus on building something we can for the community. None of us have any private agenda for pushing Flow. Your gripe is not with Community Tech. -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 21:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
So VE is not in your scope? Then you have to ditch a lot more proposals on the editing subpage. On the other hand: If VE or another editor is not within your scope, why bother to have a section called Editing? Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 21:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Let me rephrase. Anything that tries to revert decisions made by other teams in their projects is outside our scope. We cannot convince nor force other teams to develop features which they have decided they don't want to. As for the VE proposals, all of them ask for adding new features. If they make it to the top ten, we'd have a discussion with the VE team and collectively decide if this is something we can build. If you look at the Editing category a little more closely, it includes projects that are not about VE or Flow. We worked on Syntax highlighting this year which one would classify as Editing. For that project, the VE team decided they want to integrate the highlighting into the 2017 Wikitext editor and they did. -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 21:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
This is a survey of the community, by definition the highest authority in the wikiverse, about tech stuff. The teams, that are all just service teams for the communities and are no entities of their own right, should listen to the communities. See what happened with VE during the first deployment, as vain WMFers forced a destructive VE onto the communities against all caution and advice by the communities, or the desdaster with MV, as some antiwikimedian hostile rough WMFer declared open war against the communities with SuperProtect. I thought the times of such ruthless, reckless antiwikimedians was over. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 21:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I really have no idea what makes you say the community is "by definition the highest authority in the wikiverse, about tech stuff". Nonetheless, I don't have anything more to add to what I already said. Community Tech didn't work on VE or suerprotect. We're a small team trying to build tools that will be helpful for the communities. I was expecting a reasonable conversation but you seem to have up your mind that all of WMF is evil. So be it. -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm no native speaker. I meant: The community is by definition the highest authority in a community project like the wikiverse. And this is the survey in the community by the WMF about tech stuff. How this wishes go to the relevant teams, and how this is internally structured, is of no greater relevance for this survey. If it's not, please show me the proper venue, i.e. other survey, of the communities, by those "other teams". The WMFers, that live from the money the community generates by delivering the content of all the projects, have to be proactive to get community consensus for their decisions. This here is a good thing (or at least I thought it was, until you said its just about tidbits). Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 22:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Ah. You seem mistaken. This survey is specifically held by the Community Tech team in the Foundation to decide what our team will work on next year. I don't think other teams have similar surveys but you can definitely chime in when they do annual planning (begins January for next year). Other teams are rarely, if ever, influenced by what comes up in the survey. They may choose to, but we haven't seen it happen. And I didn't say it's just "tidbits" - we just don't reverse other teams' decisions. I'd not call anything from last year's survey "tidbit". -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
As far as I know this is the survey by the WMF, made known in all projects with banners. Unless there is another one, it's by definition a survey for the whole WMF tech scope. I has to be impossible for any team to make decisions without proper community vetting. such surveys can deliver some insight, what the community would like the techies at WMF to concentrate on. Decisions like the unilateral, unfounded decision by a single person or a small ingroup (I decided is a complete no-go in a community enterprise) must never happen, that's what lead to disasters with the early VE implementation and MV/SuperPutsch. People, who scheme active against the community, like Fabrice and Erik did with MV/SuperPutsch should get a kick in their behind, such antisocial behaviour must not be tolerated. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 05:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
The main page of this survey says "Submit proposals for features and changes that you want the Community Tech team to work on". If the Community Tech team can't work on something, then it seems entirely reasonable that they decline the request. This survey is not the survey for community members to list every possible thing they want to see happen. Samwalton9 (talk) 10:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, as stated on the project page, this is a process run by the Community Tech team and limited in scope, to decide what the Community Tech team should work on. It's not a process for "the WMF" as such. Furthermore, it's not a process made for taking decisions. For example, if the second most popular wish has 948 supporters and no one opposing it, and the most popular wish has 956 supporters and 1871 editors stating it's a terrible idea, it'll still be on the top, forcing the Community Tech team to investigate it (and decline working on it, because of community opposition). This is the wrong arena. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 17:16, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Sequence of topics[edit]

Regarding the shortcuts at the top of the page, I propose we move “Admins & stewards”, “Bots & gadgets”, “Citations” and “Editing” from the top line to the bottom line (they were in the top line last year) and maybe move those that were in the bottom line last year to the top. —Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Or maybe rotate them during the process. (Manually, in that case, I suppose.) /Johan (WMF) (talk) 12:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
A rotation could be nice. Noé (talk) 12:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Yep, that would be good, but may be a pain for whoever has to do it. Whatever, I imagine the first day or two will get the most views so at least start with last year’s bottom line at the top. —Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:14, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
I think the alphabetical order will help people to find the proposals they're most interested in. Last year, the top 10 proposals included 7 below the top line -- 4 from Miscellaneous, 1 from Moderation tools, 1 from Watchlists and 1 from WikiProjects. I don't think there's a bias towards categories in alphabetical order. We do rotate the proposals within a category, to make sure everyone's proposals get the chance to be at the top of the page. -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 17:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Voting?[edit]

What does the "Support" button do? Should I presume the vote is secret this year? I will definitely not vote for any proposal if I can't comment my votes. --Vachovec1 (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Try clicking on it! It will have a field so that you can enter a comment if you want to. Only support votes are counted, so we didn't add a button for Oppose or Neutral. You are welcome to add such votes anyway, but you'll have to do it manually. Hope this helps. MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
It's working, thanks. --Vachovec1 (talk) 20:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Voting: Spreading the word[edit]

Just so you know, we will be more active spreading the word about this, but we'll wait a day or so until we've ironed out a few things. (: /Johan (WMF) (talk) 20:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Something is wrong with counters?[edit]

E. g. in section Multimedia and Commons I read just now: 29 proposals, 70 contributors, 33 support votes. But I am able to count only 6 "support" votes throughout all proposals. Is something wrong with the counter? --Vachovec1 (talk) 20:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@Vachovec1: We are including the proposer in the support count. If the proposer also added Support Support, it's still only counted once. I'll add a note to the top of the Category pages explaining this. Best, MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 21:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

What about sitenotice global bunner?[edit]

IKhitron (talk) 15:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

There is a CentralNotice banner up and running now. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 19:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I did not see it even once, IKhitron. Last year it was here all the time. Is there a chance that (a) there is a bug in the bunner? or (b) there is a big in Timeless bunner? IKhitron (talk) 19:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I've no idea if this is Timeless thing, to be honest. I've seen the banner repeatedly myself, both with this and my normal account, I'm only testing Timeless on mw.org. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Translation[edit]

I am seriously confused how this translation system is supposed to word. I honestly do not get the instructions provided, where exactly I am to put it. Can we just do good old #switch:int:lang if we cannot use Translate for this? --Base (talk) 09:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, we had a plan and it didn't work and ended up with an ad hoc solution that's not what we wanted to do. Sorry about that. What is it you want to translate that confuses you?
(Honest question, I'm assuming what we have now works better for some things than for others.) /Johan (WMF) (talk) 13:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, I was planning to start with my own proposal, 2017 Community Wishlist Survey/Mobile and apps/Permanent opt-out of mobile frontend, it has link to some weird bot created middle of nowhere of 2017 Community Wishlist Survey/Translations/Mobile and apps/Permanent opt-out of mobile frontend. I will probably try to use something custom but it might be a bit too late to have any system rolled out well for all the proposals :/ --Base (talk) 13:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Yeah. There was a plan and the plan didn't work. Our apologies. We're looking into implementing a better solution next year. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 13:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

A little late?[edit]

I had a proposal to submit, but I only got this banner today. Joy. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@Maury Markowitz:, there was a previous banner up for over a week during the proposal fase, as well as notifications to village pumps, mailings lists, social media pages etc.. I would definitely advise you to at least make sure that there is a matching phabricator ticket for your proposal, even if it is not possible to include in the voting phase right now. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 13:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry about that, Maury Markowitz. As TheDJ mentions, we've had about the same amount of information for the proposal phase as for the voting phase. This is a constant balance of trying to make sure the information is as widely available as possible, but at the same time not take over all the wikis and alienate everyone by being incredibly annoying. There's been a banner, Village Pump posts, Tech News announcement, mailing list posts etc etc about the proposal phase. Do you have anything in particular in mind you think we should be doing that we haven't been?
I know it's scant consolation now, but a few ways to keep track of what's happening to avoid this next year is to sign up for Tech/News, or the mw:Newsletter:The Community Tech Newsletter. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 13:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I did not see anything during the proposal phase, only voting. Why might that be? Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:07, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Could you please show me the Village Pump post at Persian Wikipedia? I did not see anything and I missed the proposal phase. I had actively contributed to this project in previous years, especially in 2015. 4nn1l2 (talk) 21:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
There probably wasn't one. We relied on CentralNotice, Tech News, mailing lists, social media, old talk pages of wishlist surveys, Village Pumps posts in languages we could get translations in when we asked around, and asked other users on wikimedia-l, wikitech-ambassadors-l etc to spread the news on Village Pumps in their home communities, since a combination of CentralNotice banners and untranslated MassMessage posts too 800 pages tend to be considered spamming by many in the Wikimedia communities – turning the noise up too high. By using CentralNotice, we hoped to for example not add to the burden of Village Pumps on smaller projects being covered in posts in English, making them seem like no one ever talks there.
I understand you're disappointed if you missed the proposal phase. There is, however, no way for us to make sure everyone knows this that also doesn't create irritation and other problems. There's so much information coming from the Foundation and the international community that it would bury most Village Pumps, but if there are specifik things we should be doing that we aren't, please tell us. I'm very happy to try to make things better next year.
As stated above, I understand this is scant consolation now, but one way to make sure you don't miss things like this is to sign up for Tech/News, or the mw:Newsletter:The Community Tech Newsletter. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 22:07, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
If anyone's reading this and would like to help out spreading information like this, there are a few things you could do:
And to exemplify the problem with MassMessaging all Village Pumps all the time, User:786r puts it like this on their presentation: "As with many small wp:s, central mass-messages from the WMF etc kills all potential discussion: when you go to the Village pump, you'll find a deluge of 100+ long mass messages, which would effectively hide any actual discussion, and likely scare a novice wanting to ask a question away. If you archive, in a few months or a year the VP will look the same again." /Johan (WMF) (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate all your efforts, but still I think a decent Village Pump post is much more effective than all of those mailing lists, twitter etc posts. In my opinion, WMF has many not-so-useful programs, but this one (Community Wishlist) is different. It definitely worths a Village Pump post.
And Persian Wikipedia is far from being a small project; it has almost 600K articles, and according to List of Wikipedias, it is placed 17th (or 15th if you exclude Cebuano and Waray-Waray which do not have a natural expansion). It is the largest RTL wiki (larger than Arabic and Hebrew), and one of the largest wikis with non-Latin scripts. We count on such occasions to solve our special problems. At least two other users have been disappointed by not being notified of the proposal phase: fa:ویکی‌پدیا:قهوه‌خانه/گوناگون#نظرسنجی ۲۰۱۷ خواسته‌های فنی اجتماع. ‎ 4nn1l2 (talk) 09:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I understand where you're coming from, and why you're disappointed. It's just that with 800 wikis, it's incredibly difficult to make case-by-case decisions on whether to post somewhere or not, which is why we primarily depend on venues like Tech News (which is posted on community pages on most larger wikis) and CentralNotice (which is the most important way we have to reach out). This isn't to say that we can't make things better – I'm sure we can – just to explain why we've done things the way we do them. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 13:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
User:Ladsgroup: Do you think that fawiki's Village Pump (or similar page) should be on Tech News' regular mailing list? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I also did not see any notices of this survey. I came looking for it because I had participated here in previous years, and was curious to see if the the process was improved. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:22, 9 December 2017 (UTC) Please ping me

Clicking "Support" has no effect on mobile[edit]

Ironically, the page https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/2017_Community_Wishlist_Survey/Mobile_and_apps is broken: The "Support" button can be clicked, but long time users who are used to Wikimedia's traditional way of voting will notice that no line is concateneated at the end of the paragraph. It would be great if this could be fixed, as people who do not have access to a desktop computer (ie. most Internet users) can not vote, or believe they voted but their vote is not counted. Cheers! Syced (talk) 09:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Ping User:MusikAnimal (WMF), if I haven't managed to figure this out by the time you see this. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 13:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure gadgets, and stuff in MediaWiki:Common.js aren't loaded in the mobile frontend, meaning this is not fixable. Instead I've just hidden the button entirely from the mobile interface. Mobile users can still manually vote. Thanks for letting us know! MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 15:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I would submit a proposal, but apparently I'm too late.[edit]

Title says all.--Mathmensch (talk) 21:14, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Stryn (talk) 15:27, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Mathmensch: I know it's scant consolation now, but a few ways to keep track of what's happening to avoid this next year is to sign up for Tech/News (which is the main venue for the Wikimedia Foundation to post technical news), and/or the mw:Newsletter:The Community Tech Newsletter. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 08:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Unused ideas from last year?[edit]

Why are we not re-adding all ideas from last year that were not implemented? They may still be relevant today, though the original authors would not resubmit them. Perhaps as a separate category. Perhaps only those that had not many oppose votes at that time. Gryllida 01:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

A few reasons. Among them: It would make the survey harder to navigate (we'd just get more and more proposals every year), things might have changed (people don't feel strongly enough about the proposal to champion at anymore) and as the process is set up, it needs someone to take responsibility for a proposal, adapt it if points to make it better are made in the discussion and so on. It's perfectly fine and encouraged to copy over proposals in the proposing phase, of course, if one has a proposal or a couple of proposals they want to see again. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 12:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
@Johan (WMF): Maybe it would help to automatically copy over the top half of proposals submitted in the last year, or make resubmitted proposals count towards a limit separate from the three-proposal limit. The limit (which I don't think needs to be removed) probably unnecessarily discourages editors from adding proposals from previous years, since I'd imagine many editors can think of more than three unique things that they'd like Community Tech (or maybe the Discovery Maps team?) to fix. Jc86035 (talk) 13:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
That's still a lot of proposals where the posters aren't necessarily interested in taking responsibility for them. But I think User:DannyH (WMF) is better suited to reply to that. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 08:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Gryllida and Jc86035: We wrote about this on the main page of the survey, in the section "Can I resubmit a proposal from the 2016 survey?" The Wishlist Survey is basically a measure of collective enthusiasm, and that applies to the proposal phase as well as the voting. Everyone was invited to post proposals, including ideas from last year's survey, whether they were the original proposer or not. We end up with the proposals that people are inspired to post, and we have a lot of great ones this year. -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 16:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Ugh. Another year, another time not getting any notification until it's too late.[edit]

At least, I never saw anything announcing the proposals.

I have an idea that sorely needs to be implemented. We have a decent library of MIDI files that can no longer be played on any web browser. We already have the software on board that would be needed to convert the MIDI files, save maybe some free sound fonts. So we could convert MIDI to OGG so that these files would be useful again. As it is, they just sit there where they can be downloaded, but are useless on the project.

I do not understand why you separate the two parts, or why it's so hard to be informed about when the proposals happen. I have a feeling I will never get my proposal in. I guess my best bet is to mention it here ande hope that someone in charge thinks it's so obvious it should be added. Or maybe a bug report?Trlkly (talk) 08:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I know it's scant consolation now, but a few ways to keep track of what's happening to avoid this next year is to sign up for Tech/News (which is the main venue for the Wikimedia Foundation to post technical news), and/or the mw:Newsletter:The Community Tech Newsletter.
We separate the two parts for two reasons: We go through the proposals, make sure they're reasonably realistic for what the team can do and within the scope of the survey. For example, this means that a proposal that is too broad and big for the Community Tech team to do something about it can change a fair bit before the proposal phase. If the phases weren't separated, you'd have people voting on wishes that a few days later changed to mean something else. The other reason is that proposals that were posted early would have an unfair benefit. Let's be frank: Even if one could post proposals now, they'd never make it to the top 10.
We reached out mainly in the same way for the proposal phase as for the voting phase: CentralNotice banners, the big Wikimedia mailing lists, IRC channels, Tech News, encouraged Village Pump posts (on your home wiki it was posted here, for example) etc. If there ways you think we should reach out in but we aren't, I'm listening. (: /Johan (WMF) (talk) 08:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Trlkly: This is our third Wishlist Survey, and I'm sure we'll do a fourth next year. The proposal phase happens over the second and third week of November, then there's a week break for checking all the proposals (coinciding with Thanksgiving week in the US), and then the voting happens on the last week of November and first week of December. I know that's now twelve months away, but you can put it on your calendar for next year. -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 16:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
DannyH (WMF), Surely the advice you have just given (almost privately) to user:Trlkly should be available to the hundreds of thousands of wikipedians in a more prominent (clickable) spot? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC) Please ping me

Tie breaker[edit]

Currently, item #10 and item #11 have the same number of votes. If it ends in a tie, does the team have a plan for how to handle this (pick one, do both, do neither)? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

If there's a tie between #10 and #11, then we'll include both #10 and #11 in our work. We always investigate and figure out what's feasible for the year, and we can do that with eleven wishes too. -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 19:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

UTC?[edit]

Is the finish time midnight Sunday night universal time (UTC)? Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

18:00 UTC, the same time the proposal phase ended. I've updated the Survey home page. Sorry we didn't make this clear sooner! MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 18:53, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Turns out we had this wrong, it's 18:00 UTC on Monday, December 11. I assume everyone is OK with the extra day of voting? :) Sorry for the mishap, MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 00:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you MusikAnimal. Last time I checked, my proposal, Simple diff, was ranked #20 with 55 supporters, 24 fewer than #10, so I don't think a little extra time will affect me one way or the other. Face-smile.svg --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with Oppose Oppose not being counted[edit]

If you do not count the opposing votes then it is not a valid survey. G41rn8 (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

An oppose vote is much stronger than a support vote, isn't it? --NaBUru38 (talk) 23:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
We allow everyone to cast as many support votes as they want, because we want to gauge how much enthusiasm there is for each proposal. If we counted oppose votes, then one way to get your favorite proposal to the top is to cast oppose votes for every other proposal. That would give everyone the incentive to cast more oppose votes, and pretty soon every proposal would have more negative votes than positive.
Oppose votes do have a strong effect on the survey, in a couple ways. First, when people see well-explained Oppose votes on the page, it may cause them to reconsider giving that proposal a Support vote. Second, when the Community Tech team starts to work on the top 10 wishes, the discussions from both the proposal and the voting phase are an important part of evaluating how (or whether) to address that wish. In the 2015 survey, we declined the #10 wish (Add a user watchlist), partly because of the comments posted as Oppose votes. -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 23:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Also, I'd like to add, oppose votes are generally better suited for decision-taking on one specific question. "Are we going to do this? Yes or no?" But the wishlist survey doesn't try to ask that question. It's a question of ranking different proposals against each other, rather than deciding on the merits on the proposal at hand. In that situation, oppose votes don't have the same function, and it's not the norm in the same way to have any kind of oppose function. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 06:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Priority votes[edit]

Hello, the main page of the survey says: "The top 10 wishes will be investigated and addressed by the Community Tech team. Some of the other top wishes may be addressed by other development teams."

So the basic criteria to select proposals is support votes. However, this can be misleading. For example, I voted to support several proposals. However, I'm aware that some proposals are more prioritary than others. If others do the same, itś possible that some proposals with low priority get more votes that other proposals with higher priority.

I think that for the next survey, people should be allowed to select top, normal and low priority. THis should be factored to select the top 10 proposals. --NaBUru38 (talk) 23:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

The thing that we're measuring on the survey is how many people want to see us work on each proposal. We're not measuring how strongly each of those people feel about it. Everyone will have their own opinions on what's higher or lower priority. I think you should vote for the ones that you feel most strongly about. -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Should one participate in discussion concerning one’s own proposal?[edit]

My instinct was not to participate in this discussion, because when I tried to participate in an AFD discussion on en.wikipedia I was told by a wiki-admin that I was badgering other paricipants..

Just wondering how others here feel about this topic since this content page does not seem address this (except in a roundabout way under Can I resubmit a proposal from the 2016 survey?) Ottawahitech (talk) 14:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)n Please ping me

We strongly encourage proposers to be part of the discussion regarding the proposal, and edit the proposal (prior to the voting phase) according to the outcome of the discussion. In an assume-good-faith manner, of course. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 05:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
With that said, it's mainly something to remember next year by now. (: Ping Ottawahitech. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 05:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

A parity between places 10 and 11[edit]

Looks like we have a parity between places 10 and 11 (2017 Community Wishlist Survey/Tracking). If this result stands, what does it mean? How will Community Tech react? --Vachovec1 (talk) 20:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

3+4 too! --OrsolyaVirág (talk) 20:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

See #Tie breaker above. The current tallies are not final, though. Official results will be posted on December 15. Best, MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
So, #7 and #8 are on the same place, doesn't that mean that you should be working on #11, too? --OrsolyaVirág (talk) 11:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Not really – see, the point here is to find the top ten wishes. It's one thing if we can't tell which wishes are the ten most popular, but which order #7 and #8 comes from isn't really important here – the top ten are still the same. Two wishes don't become one if they have the same number of votes. (: /Johan (WMF) (talk) 11:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry but you just contradict DannyH above. I have nothing to do with #11 but that's just not fair with the proposer and the Community. --OrsolyaVirág (talk) 11:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Danny specifically meant if there would be a tie between #10 and #11 (see the question he was responding to).
I'm in no way saying our process is perfect, but I don't see why a tie between #7 and #8 would matter here. The process is to find the ten most popular wishes. We do see which ten wishes got the most supporting votes, yes? /Johan (WMF) (talk) 11:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Also: The number of wishes the Community Tech team promises to work on isn't decided by an opinion that the Wikimedia communities deserve to get no more than ten wishes worked on, but the fact that the team has limited resources. We'd love to do everything and give the communities all the tools they want, but for example, we still have wishes from the 2016 wishlist top ten we're not done with and will have to continue working on in 2018, because software development sometimes takes a lot of time and effort. It's not that we don't want to do things. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 11:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Results inaccurate?[edit]

I counted the votes on the "Commons deletion notification bot" proposal. Eighty-nine voted in favor; one opposed. However, the Results say "90". Shall I change it to "89" right away? Also, what about "support" count of other proposals? --George Ho (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

George Ho: All proposals automatically count the proposer as supporting, whether they've voted or not. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 21:10, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Oh... Almost forgot that. :( --George Ho (talk) 21:27, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Translation of the Results page[edit]

What is the meaning of seemingly random selection of proposals for translation with numbers 30+ (e. g. 52, 108, 139)? --Vachovec1 (talk) 00:07, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Not sure. @Johan (WMF) and Noé: Isn't there a <tvar> or something to re-use messages? I see we have a separate message for every instance of "Admins and stewards", "Bots and gadgets", etc. Same for "Related:", which I think could be reused as opposed to translating "Related: [[phab:T123]]", and so forth. I've never done the tvar stuff so pardon my ignorance. Best, MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 01:43, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
AFAIK, there’s no official way of reusing messages. If you manually add the same translation unit marker (e.g. <!--T:123-->), it’s translated only once, but this hack is error-prone (e.g. what happens if not all same-numbered units are identical?). For the categories, I’d use the existing translations from the main page (e.g. Translations:2017 Community Wishlist Survey/96/en as {{TNT|Translations:2017 Community Wishlist Survey/96}}). —Tacsipacsi (talk) 10:14, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I usually set tvar for links. It was boring to copy translate tags everywhere, so I just did it for Wiktionary-related proposals in order to discuss them in French Wiktionary village pump. Feel free to do the others. Noé (talk) 11:49, 16 December 2017 (UTC)