Talk:Learning and Evaluation/Community Health learning campaign

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Questions or comments about this learning campaign? Add a topic to begin the conversation.

Переклади[edit]

Я бачу нуль зусиль зробити кампанію доступною іншими мовами ніж англійська. I see zero affords to make the campaign available in other languages than English. --Base (talk) 23:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Привіт Base, Вибачте!
The first time I tried to mark it for translation, I had a problem, and I left this change for the last.
I was able to fix this problem now, and you should be able to translate the campaign pages if you want.
Thanks for pointing this out! MCruz (WMF) (talk) 00:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Too bad the massmessage thing can't be fixed post factum :( Some improvements should be made to pages which are intended to be edited actively, like questions' one. Either translatable part (if it's just header) should be on subpage or vice versa the page actually edited should be a subpage and transcluded. --Base (talk) 01:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


The message also included templates that aren't available in all projects, see e.g. the red link "Vorlage:Dotorg" created in the German-language Wikipedia. Gestumblindi (talk) 16:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Base and Gestumblindi, yes, it is tricky when we want to reach out to a large number of communities. We still don't have a system that allows us to send the message to multiple wikis and change the language for each. I tried to not use any templates, that would slow down this message even more, but still... MCruz (WMF) (talk) 02:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Missing language bar[edit]

@MCruz (WMF): Hello! The language bar is missing from these pages: Instructions, Participants, Questions and Collaborative Mural. Also, in some places you marked the sentences for translation on fragments to leave the links out but that makes it very difficult to come up with a translation for the fragments. Maybe for the future you could consider adding the translation tags at the begining and at the end of the paragraph and use tvar tags to hide the URLs. Regards, Lsanabria (talk) 05:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

HiLsanabria, thank you for pointing this out! This, the language bar was missing. I can see now that someone added the bar, and I am super grateful for all the proactive fixing that the campaign page got in these past few days :-)
thank you for your suggestions, I am still working a lot to learn how to work better with translation tools. Best, MCruz (WMF) (talk) 02:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Header[edit]

Is it really necessary to have a header that fills the entire screen? Without scrolling, I don't see a single word of actual content in any of the pages; the reaction to his is usually closing the tab without a second thought. --Nemo 12:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nemo, thanks for pointing that out! I created a new header, that is thinner, as I see this was a repeated comment from different users that came to the page. You can see this new file here. Even though I updated the header, I cannot see it yet on the different pages. Cheers, MCruz (WMF) (talk) 02:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Answer the questions below[edit]

What questions? 31.52.27.5

The questions can be found here: Grants:Evaluation/Community Health learning campaign/Questions. MCruz (WMF) (talk) 02:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Section Editing seems broken[edit]

https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants:Evaluation/Community_Health_learning_campaign/Questions&action=edit&section=1 gives an error

Cannot find section
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

You tried to edit a section that does not exist. It may have been moved or deleted while you were viewing the page.

Return to Grants:Evaluation/Community Health learning campaign/Questions.

Rich Farmbrough 14:19 1 August 2015 (GMT).

Me too. Kerry Raymond (talk) 05:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Me too. I had to edit the whole page instead of just the section I wished to edit. Gestumblindi (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rich , Kerry Raymond, Gestumblindi: thanks for pointing this out! We originally aimed at having these sections so that users could edit each one they wanted to answer. I think it worked at first, but now it is broken. I just have tried adding the TOC back, but it doesn't solve the issue. Since this is beyond my understanding of wiki markup, I'll seek help and try to solve this ASAP. Best, MCruz (WMF) (talk) 02:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The problem appears to be the translation tags in the headings. I tested it by removing one and then I could edit the section. I think the problem is that it introduces a newline into the heading. I tried putting the translate all into the one line but that broke things too. The only solution I can see is remove the translation from the headings (which has its issues) but then creating an error when someone attempts to edit the section is likely to lose people as it may not be obvious to them that they have to do an edit of the article as a whole. I don't know if the solution is to create a separate page for the different languages? Kerry Raymond (talk) 03:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Aha, read this. You have to put the translate tags above and below the section markup e.g.
<translate>
=== section ===
</translate>

Fixing it now. Kerry Raymond (talk) 03:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC) Fixing now. Kerry Raymond (talk) 03:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Kerry Raymond, this was great help! :-) MCruz (WMF) (talk) 13:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The community of German wikipedia editors[edit]

There is no German version of this campaign. How come? The thoughts of the second largest of all wikipedias should be relevant in this case, isn't it?

In my humble opinion, the community of editors in the German community is quite healthy. There are many meetings, both via internet and in person. Groups of editors coordinate their effort to concentrate on specific topics ("Redaktion", "Qualitätssicherung", "Wiki-Projekt", ...). There are certainly conflicts. But most of them affect only individuals. There are quite a few mechanisms to resolve them in a mannered way ("dritte Meinung", "Schiedsgericht", "Vier-Augen-Prinzip", ...) There is a number of checks and balances to mitigate the power. Admins need 2/3 of votes to be elected. There is an established way to impeach an admin. There is a well established way to have the decision to delete or keep a specific content re-examined ("Löschprüfung").

There is a strong sense of democratic decision making in German language wikipedia. Any fundamental change needs to be passed by a project wide poll ("Meinungsbild"). Unlike an RFC in English wikipedia the result of a meinungsbild is considered binding. Consequently, its inception is governed by a number of formal and informal rules. Of all meinungsbilds since the institution was established in 2003 there is just one whose result was not implemented. It was the one on the default state of the media viewer.

It also helps the community to have a common "enemy". In case of the German speaking editors this is unfortunately you, the Wikimedia Foundation in San Francisco. The WMF is viewed as a necessary evil at best. A string of actions in the past established this sentiment -- think "image filter", "visual editor", "tool server", "media viewer", "super protect". In all of these cases the WMF was seen to act against the explicitly stated wish of the community of editors. While a common enemy tends to unite an existing community, it hurts if this enemy is to be found within the project itself. Editors may feel like their contribution is not valued by the powers that be. They may leave and contribute elsewhere instead.---<(kmk)>- (talk) 17:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi -<(kmk)>-, thank you for sharing your views. This is exactly what this learning campaign was set up for, to hear what the Wikimedia editors have to say about Community Health.
To address your point about language, I have to say that almost immediately after the Mass Message was sent around, all the pages in Grants:Evaluation/Community Health were marked for translation. I don't think any language was facilitated (not even Spanish, my mother tongue, but I could be wrong about this) coming from WMF, but all languages now available were translations by community members. I say I could be wrong, because I try to enable at least one other language, but I can't remember if I was successful in this case, because I had some issues with translation this time. We really encourage translation in as many languages as is possible for this campaign specially, and we always try to enable content translation for other Learning and Evaluation resources, as soon as we have a first version. In this sense, I encourage you to translate this campaign to German. I have seen, however, that not having a German translation didn't prevent other users to answer in German, like Sicherlich did. This is, of course, very welcome.
I really appreciate you taking the time to describe how German community comes to consensus, and describing the differences with other languages Wikipedias, in this case, English Wikipedia. This is exactly the kind of views that we need to have more of, and the purpose of this campaign, as I mentioned above. I would love to continue this conversation with you around these topics, if you are interested, of course :-)
I am sorry that in the past some actions by WMF have been so upsetting and stablished such a negative sentiment... so much so as to consider the org an enemy or a necessary evil, as you say. At the Community Engagement department, and specially in the Learning and Evaluation team, we make huge efforts to try and bridge this gap, and I really believe that reaching out to communities with initiatives like this is a way of doing that. We are not setting the tone in any particular way, as you may have seen by the fact that many editors re-wrote most of the wording used in the campaign pages. In fact, the statement «The WMF wants to record community impressions...» was an edit done by Wittylama to move away from an unnecessary «US vs THEY» distinction that I had originally stepped into, unwillingly. We (the L&E team) decided to respect this edit and encourage many more, as we see that many users have a key role in shaping this conversation. However, it has the underlying cost of being regarded with the same eyes as «anything WMF does», even though the approach is so much different here: we are actually opening the conversation with no other further action.
I really appreciate your feedback, as I do any other user's in this campaign, and I look forward to continuing the conversation :-) Best regards, MCruz (WMF) (talk) 03:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Ähem, MCruz (WMF), the WMF wants to communicate with the Wikipedians and learn from them. Then it is your responsibility to provide your request in the languages spoken in those communities that you want to reach. You have such a big apparatus in San Francisco and are evergrowing (what is the reason for the evergrowing need for money, not to keep the serves running like you lie to the donors in your campaigns) that you have to be able to send those messages written in the languages of the big communities. Noone expects you to write in small african dialects, but German, French, Spanish, Dutch ... that can't be asked too much. That the WMF outsources this to the donors of time and workload who want to improve the content is in my opinion a shame and abuse of the volunteer's work. If the WMF wants to be a global organization then you have to fix it. If not then it should step down from the high horse and take its place in the second row as a local chapter of the USA. --Julius1990 (talk) 11:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
+1. What I say since years. Marcus Cyron (talk) 12:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Julius1990, Marcus Cyron thanks for your comments. How to reach out with the same message across communities is definitely something WMF is still learning how to do. I originally thought it was best to send a MassMessage, that cannot be tailored to each Wikipedia language; I can now see that it was best to post one to one in different languages. Further, I also see the benefits that could come from translating the learning campaign in advance. I don't think, however, that this is a question about resources and how to spend them, but rather, about how to approach a learning campaign: originally the spirit of this was to make it open and participatory, and have users contribute in the shaping of the campaign, as opposed to giving a closed product. MCruz (WMF) (talk) 16:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with much of kmk's contribution to the discussion. Although I wouldn't have written "German Wikipedia editors" but "German-language ...", as I'm from the German-speaking part of Switzerland, and I think it's important to know that the community of de.wikipedia.org comes from all German-speaking areas, including Switzerland, Austria, South Tyrol in Italy - and probably also Liechtenstein and the small German-speaking part of Belgium, though I don't know editors from there in person. I especially agree with his assessment of the German-language community as basically healthy. Here in Switzerland, there are regular editor meetups and I have met many of Switzerland's regular Wikipedia contributors several times - the small size of our country helps in that regard. It makes quite a difference when you know your fellow Wikipedians in person - you're less likely to communicate aggressively, I think, as you have the actual person's face in mind, and are likely to meet them again. - Unfortunately, I also have to agree with kmk's assessment of the German-language Wikipedia's view of the Wikimedia Foundation as of late. I wouldn't choose as strong a wording as to say that they see the WMF as an "enemy", but "necessary evil" may be fitting. Not all of the incidents mentioned by kmk were actually affecting our work - e.g. the image filter as the oldest of them was an idea that wasn't implemented, but even just as an idea it caused a lot of anger, as far as I remember. The visual editor remains optional - but this also was seen as an attempt to impose an unwanted feature on the community. More damaging were the tool server migration which broke valued tools, and of course "Mediaviewergate" ;-) - probably nothing has damaged the relation between German-language WP's community and the WMF more in the last years than this affair, especially with the introduction of "superprotect". As kmk says, this has to bee seen in connection with the strong "democratic" elements in de-Wikipedia's tradition. The established "Meinungsbild" tradition gives great importance to community decisions that are formed in that way; de.wikipedia.org is quite different from English Wikipedia in that way, as they heavily emphasize the importance of polling for major decisions, and have created a complex process that tries to make sure that polls are of high quality. So, before even starting a poll, you have to gather ten supporters for your proposal, and then the poll in itself consists of two parts: a vote on formal acceptance (do you agree with this poll being held and consider it valid?) and a vote on the actual proposal. If the poll is successful, usually even the most vocal opponents grudgingly accept the outcome and see it as binding.

Maybe one of the, surprisingly, biggest current issues in de.wikipedia.org should be mentioned here: It's the formatting of the dates of birth and death in article introductions. Seems like a small matter? Well, it created the most bitter dispute, which is still ongoing. It's one of the few issues which couldn't be resolved even though multiple "Meinungsbild" polls were held. To give a short overview: German-language Wikipedia is one of few that use the symbols * and † in biography introductions for "birth" and "death". This is a convention introduced in de-WP's early years without a lot of discussion; it's based on practice in several established (printed) German-language encyclopedias. Well, for some years now, there's a seemingly never ending dispute, as some say that especially the † is inappropriate in articles about non-Christian people, as the symbol is seen as a Christian cross. Others say its a "dagger" symbol and perfectly neutral; others again say that the symbols were introduced by genealogists with questionable views on "race" in the 19th century and thus should be avoided (not because of religious connotations); then there are those who say that they really don't care, but just want the articles to be formatted all the same, and just want to keep the established formatting; others think it should be the standard format, but with exceptions; then there are discussions regarding possible rules for exceptions etc. etc. - people are really enraged, the strongest words are exchanged, and as there is no clear majority for any approach, it goes on and on... - Yes, that actually seems to be the biggest issue in German-language Wikipedia right now. Funny, isn't it? Gestumblindi (talk) 00:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Gestumblindi, thank you for giving a more detailed description of polls on German Wikipedia. The discussion about how to format birth and death dates seems super interesting, and I have a follow up question: what happens when the «Meinungsbild» doesn't seem to bring a solution? How do you solve a dispute? Thanks again for sharing your views and looking forward to your comments! Best, MCruz (WMF) (talk) 03:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
There's only one possibility, that a «Meinungsbild» brings no solution. That's a patt situation. Than the Status quo remains. Even all other results, even with only one yes or no more than the needed quota or over/under 50% (depends on the «Meinungsbild») there is a result. Marcus Cyron (talk) 12:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
@MCruz (WMF) and Marcus Cyron: Whether a Meinungsbild has a useful result depends also on the question asked. MCruz' question was how we solve disputes if a Meinungsbild didn't bring a solution, which certainly is the case with the "star and cross" issue, where even multiple Meinungsbilder didn't lead to a widely accepted decision. One of the latest was called "Verbindlichkeit genealogische Zeichen" and proposed to make the use of * and † in biographical articles mandatory, without exceptions. It was formally accepted, but the proposal was denied (by a small majority). So, this is of course a "result" - but a result that left the discussion at the point where it was, unresolved, maybe complicating it even more. This Meinungsbild is now used by proponents of alternative formats to support their point that there may be exceptions to * and †, whilst supporters of the symbols refer e.g. to the Meinungsbild Form der Lebensdaten in der Einleitung von Personenartikeln where there was no majority for changing * und † into "geboren" and "gestorben" in the template for biographies - whilst, on the other hand, people say that this was only about a non-binding template anyway ;-). Others still refer to a Meinungsbild from 2010, Verwendung des genealogischen Kreuzzeichens, where there was a majority for * and †, and even older ones (the dispute goes back more than ten years). - It's complicated, it's an exhausting discussion. In a way, it's a unique case in German-language Wikipedias community culture, and so we don't really have found a way to solve this dispute. I suppose that it would be a case for the ArbCom in English-language Wikipedia, and de-Wikipedias ArbCom ("Schiedsgericht") got indeed involved at some stage: de:Wikipedia:Schiedsgericht/Anfragen/Verbindlichkeit der Formatvorlage Biografie - they were asked whether the template for biographies is of a binding nature. However, they didn't really make a decision, as the de-Schiedsgericht is also very different from the English ArbCom (I think), as it's conceived only as an institution for solving disputes between users, with strictly no authority to make decisions on content issues. Such decisions are seen as something which always the wider community has to decide on. Therefore, the Schiedsgericht proposed to create a Meinungsbild - the one I mentioned here first, "Verbindlichkeit genealogischer Zeichen", with said unsatisfactory outcome... Gestumblindi (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
@Gestumblindi: German Wikipedia - German does not necessarily stay for Germany but as well for the language. I don't see how one here on meta would missunderstand that ...Sicherlich Post 10:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
@Sicherlich: Of course I know that. It's the same ambiguity as in German with "Deutsche Wikipedia" (which may mean the language or the country) vs. "Deutschsprachige Wikipedia". In theory, "German Wikipedia" is perfectly fine as well, but in practice people tend to think of Germany only. So I prefer to use "German-language", so that, maybe, people are a bit reminded of the fact that German is a language spoken in multiple countries, and that de-Wikipedia's community shouldn't be called "the Germans". Gestumblindi (talk) 18:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
@User:MCruz (WMF): sorry but that some german speakers do answer does not help at all. at least if you are really interested. If you approach people in English people who speak the language will answer. The others will not; as they don't know what it is all about so why care. WMF has a huge amount of money. If you really would care about the communities you would, at least for the the big languages, approach them in theire native language. And further more you totaly miss the cultural point. you are working in an global organisation. But you think you can handle all your unpaid employees (the autors) and customers (the readers) the same? Let's call it funny not to be offending. (and by the way thats culture as well; while British would be much more restrained Germans are rather direct ...Sicherlich Post 10:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
There are already some german native speakers in Frisco. It can't be that big problem. Marcus Cyron (talk) 12:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
@User:MCruz (WMF) one more thing more or less what -<(kmk)>- wrote: some might not answer because they don't believe WMF cares, because. I don't trust you as well and the few comments on de:Wikipedia Diskussion:Kurier#More information show that as well. ...Sicherlich Post 10:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

"Why take part?"[edit]

The "Why take part? Learn more" link here leads to a page that gives no indication of why someone would take part. - Jmabel (talk) 05:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. It is important to say who is going to use the results of this survey, what they are going to be used for, and when. Please never say "we want to understand" whatever. It's what happens as a result that counts. A clear statement that says something like "The survey is being managed by this team, and will close on this date. That team will collate the result and publish a report on that date. Ideas which are easy to implement will be agreed and carried out by the other date. More far-reaching suggestions will be considered by such a team by such a date and form part of the plans for some later date". This will attract more participants, who are more likely to take part if they see a serious pathway to action in the planning, improve the quality of the suggestions, and make it possible for the community to hold to account those responsible for delivering the changes the community wants. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 06:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
the survey helps the autors to feel important. thats it :) ...Sicherlich Post 20:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, there is some value in a discussion that makes users feel good, and possibly more in a discussion that introduces community members to each other and stimulates productive exchanges of ideas and views. That in itself would probably not be the best use of WMF and community resources right now, though. However, I'm sure there will be more to it than that -- @MCruz (WMF): could you outline the action plan for the results, for example by answering the points I raised a couple of days ago, please? Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 06:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Rogol Domedonfors, Sicherlich, sorry for the delay in the response. The late timing is related to the fact that this learning campaign is part of a larger initiative by all teams in Community Engagement department. The Community Health Campaign is part of ongoing research conducted by both the Foundation and chapters in understanding what makes Wikimedia projects/communities grow and thrive, identifying measurements of community health and identifying interventions to improve the health and growth of Communities.
The results of the campaign will be shared and used as one of several existing and new data sources to define behaviors, potential metrics and assumptions for defining collaborations. This learning campaign is part of the ongoing research on Community Health. The project is outlined in two phases: (a) research and community engagement to define behaviors, potential metrics and assumptions for defining interventions; (b) Identification of potential healthy community prescriptions and investments to improve the health and growth of Wikimedia Communities. The data will be processes during September and October, and a report may be shared towards November, although there is no definite date. One possible outcome of this research are pilots and testing of a self assessment scorecard. Hope this information helps! Best, María (WMF) (talk) 20:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Haie María. Reading your answer and the answers on the question-page:
  1. the answers are actually totaly random so its hard to tell if its really the way or just the opinion of one wikipedian who just droped by why others did not. e.g. is it realy so that in the spanish wikipedia are sysops an isue as Maragm points out? Or is he just one of very few who feel like that. I myself can't tell.
  2. very often at the Unwelcome.section the WMF is mentioned. While agreeing to this; is it maybe just the members who find meta who feel like that? IMO most don't even know that WMF ist existing.
  3. Hispalois mentions barnstars as motivating; well for me its not much more then a funny gadget and IMO specially on en just a bulk good with no deeper meaning
aso. So I would not be able to get any usefull information out of this answers. ... Maybe one thing one can get out of it: WMF has not the smallest clue whats going on in Wikipedia. I think no Wikipedian is by the smallest surprised of the answers. You get these random answers here and there. Some you agree to, some not. Not to delete articles; yeah it might motivate some while demotivating others who complain about to much crap in Wikipedia. What has the largest effect; nobody knows. IMO if(!) you (WMF) want to get to know Wikipedia you either need to do some real research by social scientist and/or you need to get into Wikipedia by yourself. You need people working with you who are autors in the project.
maybe one more; focus (in German: "Weniger ist manchmal mehr"). I got on my talkpage the next invitation to the next survey for the next something. Watching User talk:LilaTretikov (WMF) you see here an example. It seems WMF starts a lot of things but if it has some influence or importants nobody knows, maybe not even WMF.
another example of starting with no reaction at all: Grants talk:Evaluation/Evaluation reports/2015/Writing Contests. There is written "This section is meant to encourage a discussion around next steps" - my input there its a week old. In Wiki terms its ages. No reaction at all.
I think my remark point's it out. WMF does not know whats going on and acts as it wishes. If its similar to the community expectation you stres this. If it does not you just ignore it. So contributing here is just an amusement ...Sicherlich Post 08:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Sicherlich, thanks for your feedback. Of course, there are many ways to distribute a campaign like this one, in order to drive users to the page to respond. Either way, some people will have heard about it, some others will remain ignorant. This doesn't override the campaign or the research, specially considering that the research goes beyond this campaign on Meta. Please have in mind that this campaign is only part of the research. The aim is not to get to know Wikipedia, but to understand how editors feel across different communities; in this sense, any input is valuable. IMHO, I don't think it's up to anyone to say someone's answer is not valid.
I noticed you posted a comment on the talk page 6 days ago. I have notified Amanda and Jaime about it and they will get to it soon. I know you understand that the evaluation reports are not the only project going on within our team. It might help if you post the message in English.
Best, María (WMF) (talk) 12:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you María for the fast answer!!! :o)
'someone's answer is not valid - of course not. But how do you weight the answers? For me this is just a collection of things everybody could tell anyways? Well, seeing for myself and my own text: you don't know Wikipedians so of course you need to get such basic answers . Wow, a very long way for WMF to go ...
I have notified ..." thx a lot. I hope you understand thats not what was my main concern (and I know the 1st challenge is the language. thats on purpose; yes :P. as for me it seems WMF is a slow changing giant whom we telling for a long time that they need to speak the language of people they (pretend to) want to talk with). The main issue here is, that's that the normal way WMF is handling on wiki talks. There might be an answer. Or not. and it might be quick or not. It seems to be just accidental. Its not about me and me wanting an answer. Its about the general handling of on-wiki-talks, so more your (WMF) work routine. (current example: here) ...Sicherlich Post 15:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC) by the way: WMD has the same working routine of answering by chance

What's the Global link all about?[edit]

I could not work out what the Global link in the right-hand column was all about so I just copied what everyone else did (as well as I could as not everyone has a space in their user name). But having clicked it, I am still none the wiser. Can someone explain? Or did I copy it wrongly? Or did I do the wrong thing with the space in my user name? I think we need a few more instructions here. Thanks Kerry Raymond (talk) 05:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kerry Raymond, we originally intended to have participants of the campaign link to their contribution. Instead, everyone started linking to their global contributions, which is fine anyways. The goal of the list is to have a clear register for people who want to participate in the drawing of the scholarship, and have a way to contact them. Best, MCruz (WMF) (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Sólo veo intervenciones en inglés[edit]

Llegué a esta encomiable actividad por un correo recibido de Iberocoop. Un correo en castellano. Luego vi un aviso en el Café de la Wikipedia en español, en inglés (el aviso). Lo traduje. La cosa es que veo que aquí ya sea nuestra lengua nativa el castellano, el alemán, el ucraniano o el hebreo todo acaba siendo en inglés. ¿No crees que se está perdiendo algo?

Llevo nueve años editando y a estas alturas me sorprenden pocas cosas. Por eso me fijo más en mi esposa, que lleva menos de dos años. Le cae encima de todo. Cuando no es que tienes pocos links es que tienes muchos. Cuando no le faltan categorías, le sobran. Con el añadido de que edita en castellano y en catalán, y además sube bastante a Commons. Cada proyecto es un universo distinto, donde la gravedad y la velocidad de la luz tienen valores diferentes, cuando no contradictorios. Y siempre aparece un habitante local que parece que manda más que la media y que le echa una bronca como si hubiera matado a alguien.

Hay muchas cosas aquí que explicadas en inglés monolingüe no tienen mucho sentido. Por ejemplo, en la wikipedia en catalán no puedes abrir una categoría si no hay al menos cinco artículos para incluir. Puede parecer muy sensato, pero ¿qué haces con las provincias de Galicia, que sólo hay cuatro? En el wikiproyecto de al lado (español, francés o commons) habrá una categoría Provincias de Galicia. Lo que implica que en Wikidata también la habrá. Pero no puedes forzar un consenso sobre una comunidad, aunque sea muy pequeña o sea la única que va contracorriente. Y si eso es en catalán, no quiero ni pensar qué pasaría si los que van contracorriente son inglés o alemán (o español, ya puestos).

Hay un aspecto importante que debería desarrollarse y es quién va a editar en 2020, 2025 ó 2050. El mundo no se para y dentro de veinte años seguirá habiendo nuevos presidentes de EE.UU, nuevos delanteros de fútbol y nuevas cantantes melódicas a los que habrá que hacer sus artículos respectivos. Y nosotros andaremos cada vez más viejitos, hasta cesar la actividad. O nos habrán tocado tanto las narices (¿cómo se dice tocar las narices en inglés?¿ves por qué te digo que pierdes información?) que nos habremos pasado a cultivar bonsáis, rellenar sudokus o preparar un plan para la conquista del mundo, cada cual según sus intereses. La cuestión es que la sostenibilidad a medio-largo plazo del proyecto no está nada garantizada. Es una cosa que por ejemplo preocupa a bastante gente de la Wikipedia en catalán, por lo que hemos podido ver, y de hecho Amical planifica actividades para reclutar editores a futuro. De esto le hablaron a mi mujer más, pero ella no habla inglés (¿ves por qué te digo que pierdes información?).

Una nota al margen. El año pasado llevé una especie de concurso multilingüe. Aprendí un montón de cosas. Una de las más curiosas es que la gente se lee unos a otros. Se leen las páginas de discusión, comentarios cruzados, páginas de usuario y como puedan hasta la talla de la ropa. Y se leen en cualquier cosa: que dos personas intercambien notas en griego no impide que otro usuario que sólo habla tamil e inglés consiga averiguar plenamente lo que se dicen. Son cosas de los traductores automáticos, que aunque cutres (¿cómo se dice cutre en inglés?) son lo bastante buenos para permitir eso.

Si pasado un tiempo no conseguís ni una sola intervención que no sea en inglés, creo que deberíais replantearos la formulación del asunto, porque de verdad te digo que esto no es que sea importante, es que puede ser vital.

B25es (talk) 07:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Hola B25es, gracias por tu comentario y la dedicación que has puesto a este tema. Disculpa la demora en la respuesta. El idioma original y las traducciones han sido tema de discusión por diversos motivos. En un primer momento, lanzamos la campaña de aprendizaje en inglés, con la posibilidad de traducir el contenido. Mientras muchos usuarios han tomado la iniciativa, como tu, de traducir el contenido ellos mismos, otros se han quejado de que las preguntas no están en X idioma. Por otro lado, en he visto ya que hay personas que respondieron directamente en su lengua madre, lo cual es más que bienvenido. ¿Crees que tener la campaña entera traducida de antemano hubiera facilitado contribuciones en idiomas distintos del inglés? Te pregunto porque a la vez que coordino la campaña, estoy documentando todo lo que yo aprendí en esta oportunidad, y es de gran ayuda. Si comprendí bien: lo que estás tratando de decir es que si hubiera tenido la campaña traducida, distintas comunidades hubieran respondido de acuerdo a las políticas de cada Wikipedia, ¿verdad?
La razón por la que enviamos el mensaje en inglés a las villas de la comunidad es que necesitábamos mandar un mensaje masivo, y no hay forma de enviar uno que se traduzca de acuerdo a la wiki que vaya. Disculpas por eso, y muchísimas gracias por traducir ese mensaje en el café de la comunidad.
Creo que la pregunta sobre quién va a editar los proyectos de aquí a 5, 10, 20 años es muy importante, y super inspiradora.
Espero sientas la confianza de volver por aquí, y también de invitar a otros editores de la Wikipedia en catalán y en castellano a contribuir, porqué no, tal vez tu esposa se quiera sumar ahora. Saludos, MCruz (WMF) (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Creo que ya está respondiendo. El texto de las preguntas no sale traducido, es un problema¡resuelto!. Mi experiencia es que algunas comunidades no se toman a bien que se les hable en otra lengua. Los village-pumps, cafés, tavernes, etc... son de lo más complejo, si miras la página tres de este documento entenderás lo que te quiero decir. Al tiempo, hay problemas específicos dentro de cada proyecto que no se ven si no sabes la lengua local. Por ejemplo, hay comunidades que tienen un editor que se come vivos a los otros, pero los demás se aguantan porque edita mucho (esto me lo contaban unos en Wikimania 2015, las reuniones cara a cara sirven para esto también). Puede haber problemas políticos o de otros tipos que no se vean. Lo del getting local es importante para llegar ahí, aunque también entiendo que no tenéis infinito personal para manejar infinitas lenguas.
Veo que hay pocas respuestas, particularmente de es:wiki. Suele pasar, pero somos voluntarios. Y cada uno va a lo suyo. Así que esperar una respuesta uniforme -en realidad esperar cualquier respuesta- es poco realista. B25es (talk) 07:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Visual Editor users[edit]

Just a comment, but I believe we have the Visual Editor as the default for new users on a number of Wikipedias and as well as being an option on others. By hosting this campaign on Meta where the VE is not enabled, those folks can't participate. While they are mostly going to be newer contributors and perhaps less likely to have opinions on some of the questions (like "life of the projects"), they are probably the best people to tell us about the current welcome/unwelcome experiences, more so than those of who had those experiences many years ago. Kerry Raymond (talk) 00:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kerry Raymond, thanks for sharing this! And sorry for the late response. I see what you mean with Visual Editor enabling more input from new users. However, we have our hands sort of tied together in respect to where to host the campaign: in order for it to be global, and feasible to monitor, we need to host it where all projects meet: Meta. This is the reason behind hosting the campaign on this wiki project. I also saw that users can activate visual editor in their preferences, too. Hopefully, no new editor was scared away! :-) 181.47.140.75 20:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Why not have the welcome/unwelcome as two distinct questions?[edit]

Now that we have section editing restored, I think it would be easier for people to realise there are two questions under Welcome/Unwelcome by having two sections, one for each, rather than two sharing a section. Kerry Raymond (talk) 03:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kerry Raymond, great idea. I just separated the two questions into two different sections. Hope it helps! Thank you for your contributions, MCruz (WMF) (talk) 00:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Work together[edit]

After some hesitation, I post this here. It is a liberal translation of my reaction at the bot-message at our local project's village pump. Someone from our local chapter asked me to translate it here, because he fears you will not read it. You may want to bot-translate the ensuing discussion at our village pump - some of the comments are noteworthy.

Dear Foundation, is this not a bit hypocrite? A healthy community is a community where editors are protected from indolent, aggressive or indecent behaviour, and their work protected from promotion, fringe and propaganda. Please help us formulate better rules that make editing enjoyable and put the quality of our work first place.

Over ten years of experience do not give me the impression you are interested in those things. By the choice of your actions we volunteers are constantly reminded that - for you - we are completely exchangeable for an endless reservoir of new users. The vast majority of your actions seem to be directed at attracting as many users as possible, instead of dealing with problems within existing communities.

If you want to make editing more enjoyable, you will have to address the feeling we are emptying an ocean with a thimble, that we are constantly fighting a never-ending battle instead of improving content. This is the reason why editors become frustrated and over-reacting, this is why good editors quit.

You sit like ancient Greek gods on a high mountain far away in San Francisco, high above the clouds, out of touch with what goes on at our projects. More than five years ago we had a Strategic Planning and it made me hopeful things would change for the better. There was a taskforce for community health; they did a great job summarizing the problems and formulating advice. Nothing has happened to implement it since. It was the same for the taskforce for quality I participated in: our vision and advice was practically ignored. When I applied for technical assistance to create an editing environment based on content quality, no help came forth, although many editors co-signed my request. It all makes me wonder whether you are truly committed to better community health.

Currently I am member of an arbitration committee. Before that, I had many years of experience as an admin and in mediating conflicts. I have an e-mail address and talk pages. I am ready to cooperate, help or give you advice. In fact, I think all of your experienced users, admins and conflict mediators are. Leave that high mountain, stop the lip service and listen to us. Ask the volunteers who daily run your projects about their experience. We know the projects and their problems well and we are ready to help you and assist you. <end of translation>

Thanks and best regards, Woodwalkertalk 04:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

+1. As a member of the German Wikipedia for ten years now I can agree with this response 100%, especially one point really nails it: "Over ten years of experience do not give me the impression you are interested in those things. By the choice of your actions we volunteers are constantly reminded that - for you - we are completely exchangeable for an endless reservoir of new users. The vast majority of your actions seem to be directed at attracting as many users as possible, instead of dealing with problems within existing communities."
That's why I have no faith in this new outreach programm to the communities that to me appears just as a further way of appeasement to the communities. I have never seen the WMF truly interested in the existing editors and I don't have the feeling that changed. I might add my own comment later on, but I'm not very motivated to do so. --Julius1990 (talk) 11:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Remembers me on Lila Tretikov's speech at the Wikimania. She, who says, she is still learning, had tried to explain us mostly very experienced Wikimedians in the audience, how Wikimania projects work. Even the outreach of Frisco is only in a kind, that only could reach US citizens, because it is in kind an language propaganda US-americans like it. But for the most other countries there's much more substance needed. Less propaganda and comercial language. We don't need, that the WMF sells Wikimania projects to us. We are already here. Still here. These advertising language is terrible. Speak to us as to humans, not as to people you try to sell something. And hear what we say! But at the end, I guess, you will only hear what you want to hear, all the rest will be ignored as alwys. And this the WMF will take for their actions. Typically politics in not so democratic systems. Marcus Cyron (talk) 12:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more to what Woudloper, Julius1990 and Marcus Cyron mentioned. To sum up and rephrase a part of my Wikimania report: I have the impression that after certain "happenings" of the past twelve months WMF decided to "buzzwordify" the term community. However, using this term and stating the importance of working with the community does not grant legitimacy and can never replace actual community integration. I can't imagine that a healthy community (and in this case I truly consider "my" de.WP community a healthy one) can be kept under control by WMF using superpowers, you need their respect. You them to believe you are doing a good job. You need them to be sure about the question if their opinion is appreciated. You need them to know that there is a common goal, and by saying that I want to stress that WMF needs to integrate community goals into its agenda, not merely the other way around. Communities can be difficult to handle, but their existence is the core of our success story. But, the good news are: You can become part of the community :) → «« Man77 »» [de] 21:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
My message was meant as a call for cooperation, not just critique. The projects need Wikimedia's help. I do not doubt Wikimedia's or Maria's good intentions, but I do not believe that the current set-up will work. I believe more efficient action is needed. The time for having open discussions and talking, talking, talking has long passed. We know the problems, we have postulated solutions. What is needed is the courage in WMF and communities to implement them.
You can invite hundreds of random people to a meeting, but that will not give a useful discussion. Likewise you can invite millions of new contributors to our projects, but that will not make a healthy community. 1 month of contributing to a project is really nothing (I remember myself after 1 month - I was still trying to figure out how to rename a page).
Inviting knowledgeable and experienced contributors to another open discussion is not respectful. If discussions are open to anyone, they become a waste of time. Try implementing a change in the guidelines at the biggest (and therefore often most deranged) project, WP-EN. You have to fight for weeks with an army of trolls; in the end nobody is sure what you were trying to do and why. Does Wikimedia really think experienced contributors have the time to participate in that? We are volunteers, most of us have busy jobs! The ignorant have time to waste, we do not.
We need to discuss why communities do not get healthier, why people still do not see Wikipedia as a reliable source, that type of stuff. These are complex problems and what we do not need is another happy message that we will solve the hurdles by being open and friendly to everyone. That was 8 years ago. Woodwalkertalk 00:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I remember last years FDC request of WMDE. There were stated by the FDC at least, the real Community work of WMDE is nothing worth. Our Community work is for the WMF (and FDC = WMF, we don't need to discuss this) nothing worth. No money for that. So I think it's not hard to understand, why we have that mistrust about such actions... Marcus Cyron (talk) 22:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Community health[edit]

I wasn't entirely sure what Community health meant exactly in the context of this survey, as there is no page for that here on Meta. It might be useful to point participants in this exercise to strategy:Community health, which documents the thinking that went into the Strategy/2010-2015 planning. Is there a study somewhere on the effects, and success or otherwise, of that strategy and its implementation (and if there is please publish and point to it) or if not, is this something that is expected to emerge from the current process? Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 06:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

That means, it seems in Frisco they think, we are ill. Marcus Cyron (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Rogol Domedonfors, thank you for pointing to that strategy link. The focus on community health is actually part of the work for several teams at Community Engagement department. The aim of this specific learning campaign is to gather feedback from communities around this topic; with that we will make a map of themes and infographic, and inform the work of other teams in Community Engagement. I have now added an extra paragraph with this information on Grants:Evaluation/Community Health learning campaign/Instructions, and marked it for translation. Hope this helps! MCruz (WMF) (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
So the answer to the question "Is there a study somewhere on the effects ..." is no, there is not. Right? ...Sicherlich Post 09:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Empty-Translation irgendwas[edit]

Hätte gerne was beigetragen. Aber es kam immer nur eine sinnlose Fehlermeldung von wegen Empty-Translation irgendwas. Dann halt nicht. Weissbier (talk) 20:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Hallo, Weissbier. Wenn Sie wollen, Sie können hier auf der Diskussionsseite beitragen. Danke! MCruz (WMF) (talk) 17:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Name and Surname[edit]

Sorry, but I don't edit under a pseudonym for no reason ... if I should win, you can request this information, but how can you ask to publish those openly when adding as a participant? I know after all those years of disappoinments by the WMF I have no good faith left anymore, but how come you people seem so careless of such points? Are you not aware of them? Then how come? Are you simply think you don't have to care for those things? I'm at a loss with all that ... --Julius1990 (talk) 20:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I dont have a problem to write it there down, but on the other side, I dont see a reason, why to do it on such project and publically!--Juandev (talk) 06:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Who is the Sponsor?[edit]

The Grants:Evaluation/Community Health learning campaign/Rules refer numerous times to a mysterious entity known as "Sponsor". Is that the WMF? I note with some dismay that the Rules provide that Any Submission that is considered by Sponsor [...] inapposite to the reputation of Sponsor [...] will be disqualified. and even worse No Submission shall portray Sponsor in a negative light. In other words, no criticism of the WMF is allowed. I think that rules this out as a serious exercise in community consultation. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 18:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rogol Domedonfors, Jmabel, thanks for pointing that out. This is actually in the context of making drawings. The full text says:
No Submission may depict any offensive or obscene subject matter as determined in our sole discretion. No Submission shall portray Sponsor in a negative light. We reserve the right to exclude any design that we believe doesn't meet the above criteria, at our sole discretion.
This is mostly legal terminology, and it is to avoid offensive or obscene drawings. Please note that the feedback is considered regardless of it being positive, since the rules were provided as a frame for prize eligibility. The prize is subject to scholarship rules and regulations. Hope this information helps! María (WMF) (talk) 20:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that, but I can see that it is legal terminology, my question is, what effect do you intend it to have on your submissions. I note that you implicitly accept my guess that "Sponsor" is, in this context, legal terminology for WMF. But -- I really did not need you to explain that a rule that No Submission may depict any offensive or obscene subject matter is to avoid offensive or obscene drawings, I had managed to work that out for myself, and so I did not even trouble ask you about that particular phrase. What I did ask was what you meant to happen by making a rule that Any Submission that is considered by Sponsor [...] inapposite to the reputation of Sponsor [...] will be disqualified. and even worse No Submission shall portray Sponsor in a negative light. I welcome the assurance that feedback is considered regardless of it being positive, so I assume that the intention was to restrict not the opportunity to contribute feedback, but merely the prize, to submissions that praised the WMF. As I said, that seems a fatal flaw to an exercise that might have been intended to elicit feedback across the spectrum of opinions. If you reward only people who sau nice things about you, you will tend to only hear nice things. But you actually need to hear the not-so-nice things too, provided that they are couched in terms that are constructive, in showing how you can learn and do better next time. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 11:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

A more healthy community by promoting sisterprojects[edit]

When I ask Dutch people about their experiences with editing Wikipedia articles, I hear often: I tried to participate, but my changes were reverted. For the people who have to revert the changes it must also be very frustrating. I'm wondering if it is a good idea to promote Wikiversity when we want to attract new people. The Wikiversity has less rules, you can ask questions, etc. Especially in education I think teachers and students will like Wikiversity more than Wikipedia. Just recently I started a discussion about promoting the Wikiversity in the Wikipedia Education Program. See https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Colloquium#Involvement_in_the_Wikipedia_Eduction_Program. Unfortunately not many people reacted on my questions, but I'm convinced more people will like the friendly culture on the Wikiversity project. Timboliu (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Timboliu, thank you so much for sharing this on the campaign! María (WMF) (talk) 20:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Competition results[edit]

Please post the result on the competition -- winner and winning entry -- here at least a pointer to the announcement. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 07:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)