About this page
I talked about this with Pharos. In our conversation we compared this to Microsoft Office (Q11255) and Google Workspace (Q509284). The comparison works for video, where Jitsi is similar to Google Meet or Skype, and text editing, where Etherpad is like Google Docs or Word. The Programs & Events Dashboard is comparable to a social media metrics dashboard for Twitter and the Meetup.com event registration services combined. Mailman is like Google Groups or any mailing list. Wudele is like the calendar service in Microsoft Outlook or like the product Doodle. Ticket management is a business product; I am not sure what is comparable to OTRS but the wiki community uses that. Wikipedia does a lot of voting / !voting, so SecurePoll brings confidence to that process. We still lack a package or workflow to set up community pages, such as for user groups or special projects as for a Wikimedian in Residence or institutional partner. This is where we are! Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
- Agree, but beyond SecurePoll's voting it would be good to have a more elaborate discussion and consensus reaching platform like Loomio (Q15975673)! Also Mastodon (Q27986619) for free/libre/open social media would be good for communities. --Zblace (talk) 08:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Change name to "Collaboration Tools"?
I think Wikimedia needs collaboration tools. But I do not think it needs or should focus much attention on a "social suite".
Of course, like anyone, I love being social and hanging out with friends, and I value friends I've found via Wikimedia. But our own definition of a "social networking service" is to "build social networks or social relationships with other people who share similar personal or career interests, activities, backgrounds or real-life connections". I take the meaning to be explicitly about "off topic" networking, which can quickly become a time suck and/or breed the sort of drama that we don't need. That includes drama about which tools to use, which is pervasive in any communication space, and I'd hate to see Wikimedia staff and resources sunk into arguments about how to sling the latest bling (to coin a phrase which probably already is out there....).
What Wikimedia needs is "on topic" collaboration tools, measured by metrics relevant to our mission (which might include some socializing, but isn't *focused* on socializing), so I suggest moving this article to that title, or perhaps to "Collaboration Suite" if it really is most important that a single "suite" of tools be adopted. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- I disagree, we need social tools to build up free knowledge. The de facto situation of Wikimedia movement discussions all over Facebook etc is not a good one, and this is a community-driven project to provide alternatives to that.--Pharos (talk) 21:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- Even with the best tools, Wikimedia is highly unlikely to displace social use of Facebook by wikimedians. Most would laugh at the suggestion. But with good tools we can displace some of the collaborative discussions on Facebook. Having a clear focus and set of metrics will be important to progess we might make in that world. That isn't to say that we would discourage off-topic conversations. But the focus and use cases should be collaboration, not chit-chat. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 19:54, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what this page is supposed to be about, but on the topic of collaboration software there are also some curated collections of suggestions at FSF and FSFE:
Notes on getting connected to online meetings
Various Wikimedia online meetings have used Zoom, Google Meet, Jitsi, and perhaps other software platforms (Etherpad, Telegram, Wonder, IRC, etc). Each one presents its own hurdles, sometimes requiring 5 to 15 minutes of frantically creating accounts and trying different things to get connected online. Following are a few notes and suggestions based on my personal experiences:
- Some attendees may use an Apple iPad for the meeting connection, because it is the only hardware they have which is equipped with a video camera and a microphone. Some of the meeting software is compatible with the Apple Safari browser, while other software hangs, doesn't connect, or has other problems. The meeting instructions should point out that an alternative browser such as Google Chrome or Firefox may sometimes work better, and should be tried if needed.
- If the iPad attendee also uses a desktop computer, the larger display and full-sized keyboard may be more appropriate for viewing or editing associated text files and meeting notes. If the desktop runs MacOS, it may be possible to copy text to a shared clipboard and paste it on another computer; this may or may not be feasible on other hardware/opsys combinations. The URL pointers should preferably be short and typeable or have a short alias, since they may need to be manually transcribed to another machine.
- Meeting invitations should mention that sending outgoing video is optional, and perhaps not recommended if the internet connection is slow or unreliable, or to reduce bandwidth burdens on the server. Also, outgoing audio should be muted when not in use, especially for larger online meetings.
- Many attendees use over-the-ear headphones, telephone headsets, internal earbuds, or other audio hardware. Recommendations and coverage of tradeoffs among the different audio hardware options might be helpful to newcomers.
These are just a few offhand ideas that come to mind, and others are invited to add further suggestions and hints based on their own experiences and perspectives. It is possible that somebody has written up much more comprehensive sets of guidelines and hints for attendees of online meetings; please post pointers as appropriate. Reify-tech (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Classification and adjuctions
Hey, I just made a quick typological triage of the tool list, and added more links, including things hosted by affiliated chapters. Let me know your opinion about these changes. -Psychoslave (talk) 06:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)