Talk:Community Wishlist Survey 2020

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Feedback[edit]

Hello, everyone! Please let us know your thoughts related to the 2020 wishlist update. In addition, we’ll begin thinking about the guidelines for this new process, so we want your feedback (on what sorts of processes/rules we may want to consider). Thank you, and we’re very curious to see the wishes in November! --IFried (WMF) (talk) 19:16, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I can only say I'm disappointed that this year you only take wishes from other projects than Wikipedia. Also, disappointed that from last year survey there are still many wishes not implemented. It means there should be more resources working on these wishes. Stryn (talk) 07:55, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
@Stryn: Thanks for sharing your thoughts. We're hoping that the 2020 format will grant us the time & flexibility to significantly reduce the items in our backlog, so that we can approach the 2021 Wishlist Survey with a cleaner slate. --IFried (WMF) (talk) 16:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Focus vs. global[edit]

I see there is a focus this year on the non-wikipedia projects. However, there will be suggestions that basically are 'global', not specific on wikidata or wikinews. Are those going to be possible, or are those also going on the shelve for (at least) another year.

Just to note, I do strongly disagree with this format. You are here basically ignoring what the larger communities need (or even, what the global community needs). --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 07:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I gave some inputs about this question below. Pamputt (talk) 13:37, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
@Beetstra and Pamputt: Thanks for sharing your opinions and feedback. We're currently discussing the potential details of the format as a team, and we'll share what we've come up with soon. --IFried (WMF) (talk) 16:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Separate TOPs[edit]

Good idea to focus on sister projects but this model maybe will be possible: add some free statings for non-Wikipedia wished and add some stansings for Wikipedia. Example: "top 10 wishes will be choosen, half of them must be smaller projects, other can als be general/larger projects". --Wargo (talk) 09:07, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

This would sound agreeable. —Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 09:37, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
@Wargo and Beetstra: Thanks! We're excited to focus on sister projects and provide greater support to them as well. Also, we appreciate your suggestions. We're currently discussing the potential guidelines as a team, and we'll share what we've come up with soon. --IFried (WMF) (talk) 16:58, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

This makes sense[edit]

As a planned one-time variation from the "usual" process, I think this works. Many of the projects undertaken as part of the 2019 wishlist are quite labour-intensive, and the assurance that work will continue on them while focusing new requests on non-Wikipedia projects seems like a reasonable method of achieving success. There are some quite significant needs on the part of non-Wikipedia projects that should be addressed; the suggestion above that "global" proposals that coincidentally also impact Wikipedias may be a worthwhile inclusion into the list of proposals to be considered, provided there is a definite impact on non-Wikipedias as well.

One has to wonder, however, if some of the issues causing delay are that either the team devoted to the Community Wishlist is too small/does not have the range of knowledge needed to carry out some of the proposals, or if the commitment from other teams to provide support/education/information related to Community Wishlist proposals has wavered as these proposals have driven closer to the heart of the work of some other teams. This may be a question of internal/organizational priority-setting and hierarchy; if Community Wishlist is working on a proposal involving another specialized team, which does not support that wishlist item or believes it will interfere with their work, there is no clearcut solution here. Risker (talk) 18:02, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Risker: Thank you for your thoughtful and detailed message. Many of the questions that you posed share parallels with the topics that we've been discussing as a team, including: How can we continue to provide meaningful tools and improvements to the community, even as we take on larger wishes? How can we support a range of communities and needs, including smaller projects and/or projects with no dedicated teams? To that end, we're excited to see what we can learn via this new approach, and we hope to see certain processes or functions with fresh eyes. You're certainly correct that there is no clear-cut solution to these complex questions, but we're optimistic to see what can be unearthed in the year to come. Thank you! --IFried (WMF) (talk) 18:53, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Global proposals[edit]

What about proposals that would affect all Wikimedia projects? Would those still be accepted? --Rschen7754 18:22, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

It is indeed THE question. If we look at the 2019 results, it appears that in the 10 selected proposals, 1 was dedicated to Wikisource and the 9 others were global proposals (not only for Wikipedia). Just to say that if proposals that would affect all Wikimedia projects are allowed, it will probably gives something similar to the past years. The same can be said for 2017, 2016 and 2015. Pamputt (talk) 06:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
In one of my considerations one of the points is specifically aimed at the smaller wikifamilies .. though in general the proposal is global. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 17:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Report on 2019 projects?[edit]

Where is it? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:49, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

See here for current status and links to the various project pages. Risker (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposal phase overlapping with organization timeframe?[edit]

The page says the proposal phase ends on November 11, while Community Tech starts to organize proposals on November 5. The November 11 should have remained from the previous survey, please correct it. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 14:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Tacsipacsi: I think the CommTech review and organize phase overlaps with the proposal phase on purpose, but I could be wrong. IFried (WMF) would know for sure. Kaldari (talk) 18:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
@Kaldari: As far as I remember, this was not the case in previous years (they can review and organize proposals during the proposal phase, of course, but the schedule contained disjoint timeframes). What makes it even more likely to be a mistake is that the proposal phase ended exactly on November 11 last year, while all other dates are different. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
@Tacsipacsi and Kaldari: Hey there! We decided to allocate more time for the review process this year. So, yes, this schedule is intentional. There are two primary reasons why: First, some of the CommTech team members will be attending the Wikimedia Technical Conference (November 12-15). Second, the team wanted more time to review the proposals overall (as compared to last year’s survey). At the same time, we wanted to be conscientious of our timeline and the various priorities that we’re juggling. For this reason, we decided to begin the review stage earlier (which happens to be when the proposal stage is still occurring), and we'll continue until November 19th. Thanks! --IFried (WMF) (talk) 20:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Diversification[edit]

On the one hand is fine, that focus will be on the other projects. But on the other I am afraid, that majority will be for Wikidata and Commons and smaller projects (Wiktionary, Wikisource etc.) will have at the best one proposal in final. What about to divesificate the results:

  • There will be 10 winning proposals:
    • 5 proposals from places 1-5
    • 5 proposal from places 6-∞, each for different project

This will results that at final will be proposals for at least 5 different projects (WD, COM, WQ, WS, WIKT, WV, VOY, WN, WB = 9 projects). JAn Dudík (talk) 12:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC) JAn Dudík (talk) 12:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

It will be top 5 only, not top 10. Another way to avoid that could be to limit to one for each project, so it couldn't be more than one for Wikidata. I am not sure we need that limit anyway. Noé (talk) 14:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
With my proposal can one project have 0-6 tasks, and should be 5-9 projects.
There should be some minimal limit of votes too, but I believe there will be more good ideas for each project. JAn Dudík (talk) 18:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello. As a user of Wikipedia, Wikisource and Wikidata, I totally agree with the new approach for the Community Wishlist Survey 2020. I am also following the discussion on Talk:Community_Tech/E-Book_Export_Reliability#When_will_the_corrections_be_implemented about the only wish considered done (but not in my opinion), therefore I agree with the idea of focusing on less wishes for better quality in the development. --Consulnico (talk) 12:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Arguments for the new format[edit]

I actually agree with the decision to make the survey for non-wikipedia this time around. The wikisource task on the top 10 last year was easier than most of the others, and it is reasonable to expect similarly easy tasks from the non-wikipedia wikis. Some of the wikis are different from wikipedia. Just because an task is in an anti-vandalism category does not mean that it benefits all of the projects.

  1. Wikisource´s edit process is very different from wikipedia and the criteria of unwanted edits on wikipedia only scratces the surface on wikisource. On wikisource OCR is an big part of it, and editors fix the OCR errors and use wikicode to make it look the same as the original. For example, modern spelling corrections are welcome on wikipedia, but not wikisource (plus an modern spell checker would modernise the word, which is an no-no). Wikisource also has custom extensions and gadgets not used anywhere else.
  2. Wikidata's and wikipedias difference should be obvious. The edit interface is not even the same and automated systems like ORES have been adjusted for wikidata.
  3. Wikivoyage may look similar on the surface to wikipedia, but it actually uses specific extension settings and gadgets not used anywhere else. An example of this is the ability to use templates to mark hotels and restaurants onto an map.
  4. Wiktionary uses the same titles on any language, as it shows the meaning and grammatical cases of an word in several languages, with the difference between languages being that it is explained in the right language. Wiktionary interwiki links do not, for the most part, use the same extension as the rest of the projects.
  5. Commons has an lot more focus on files than wikipedia has. There is an difference between reviewing files and articles. Also, commons is moving closer to semantics (closer to wikidata) with the development of Structured data.--Snaevar (talk) 16:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)