Talk:Wikimedia Space

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

This is a Wikimedia Foundation corporate relations space, right?[edit]

Are there any Wikimedia community members named in establishing this project?

Is there any published record of Wikimedia community participation in designing this project? Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: Wikimedia Space is a proposal to the movement in the form of a prototype. The motivations and design of this project are directly derived from the Wimedia strategic direction and the Wikimedia Foundation medium-term plan. While no volunteers have participated in the three weeks that it took us to build this prototype, volunteers’ feedback and participation will be fundamental in bringing this project to production. Qgil-WMF (talk) 11:12, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

New user?[edit]

It seems weird that I could only put two links in my post because I am a new user. Why were my phab credentials needed if not to verify I am not a new user? –MJLTalk 20:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: The age of your Phabricator account presumably has no effect on this, since the Discourse account is still newly created. I don't think they'll change this, and I don't know if it's possible to turn the limits off but only for certain new accounts. Jc86035 (talk) 12:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Hey MJL, Thanks for putting your event on the Space calendar!
To elaborate more on what Jc86035 said, we’re using Phabricator for now as a way to verify that people registering at Space are actual Wikimedians. However, we know that Phabricator doesn’t prevent abuse completely: a spammer can create a Wikimedia account (as they do frequently) followed by a Phabricator account (where there has also been vandalism). This is why all users start as new Space users and move up (quickly) with participation.
We’ve lowered Discourse software’s default requirements to move from Level 0 to Level 1, which should resolve the link limit fairly quickly for everyone (you now only need to post once, read one post and spend 5 minutes reading to move up). Feel free to open a new topic on Discuss in the About Wikimedia Space category to talk further about user rights. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
@ELappen: Thank you for this response. I appreciate that explanation and resolution to my concern! :D –MJLTalk 17:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Reminder[edit] --Nemo 21:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikimedia Blog[edit]

The page seems to describe as a goal to have "blog with comments", i.e. what we had before Wikimedia Foundation website/2017-2018 update shut down the blog, demoted the wiki and gave us a website without a comment area. Why not just restore the previous functionality? Nemo 21:03, 25 June 2019 (UTC) was a WordPress blog with WordPress comments. Wikimedia Space consists of a WordPress blog connected with Discourse, which provides blog comments and way more features that many Wikimedians are missing and finding in Facebook, Google Groups, Telegram, etc. Wikimedia Space is a lot more than a “blog with comments”. I’d encourage you to join and have a look around yourself. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 14:30, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction: we had a blog with comments and now we have a blog with comments (but on two separate softwares), plus a dead blog and a blog without comments. So why not keep and add this new comment system to it? Nemo 14:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Clarification request[edit]

@Qgil-WMF: Is the intention for the governance of this system to be transferred to the community as soon as possible, with the current status being a temporary setup during the early prototype phase? This page says that the proposal is for a "discussion space for the Wikimedia movement run by Community Relations", which could use some clarifying if it's not actually intended to be like that in production. --Yair rand (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@Yair rand: Clarifying expectations about the governance of Wikimedia Space is important, and it makes a lot of sense to have this conversation at Wikimedia Space. We envision governance to take shape during the iterations of this project, with interested participants helping form the structures and policies, and rising to become key players. --Qgil-WMF (talk) 10:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
@Qgil-WMF: Assuming that Wikimedia Space is going to be at some point an actual Wikimedia space, it might make sense to have that conversation there. However, I am very hesitant to participate directly so long as I don't know for certain that this is going to be actually Wikimedian. Could you please clarify specifically, whether there's any intention to eventually make an announcement of community control like those that have been done in similar situations? ("We invite the community to take over this wiki..." - WMDE's announcement at the launch of Wikidata.)
Regardless of any transitional period (during development and such), if this isn't the eventual plan, legitimizing the space would be extremely dangerous. I hope you understand my hesitation. --Yair rand (talk) 20:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
@Yair rand: Yes, we understand this hesitation. Please understand our perspective as well. While "governance" is just one word, having a common understanding of its meaning requires shared definitions and knowledge about the technical possibilities to implement such governance. For instance, currently governance is being applied differently in different Wikimedia projects and channels. MediaWiki-based content projects are following a more or less common schema, but then non-MediaWiki & non-wiki content projects are using other schemes, partly because their purposes (and risks of abuse) are different, partly because their tools are different and offer different access control features. Examples include Phabricator, Gerrit and the previous Wikimedia Blog. For instance, one thing is to discuss the governance of the blog editorial process or the moderation of discussions, another thing is to discuss who has web admin access to Discuss (which implies access to users private data and private conversations) or direct access to the servers powering Wikimedia Space. Let me reiterate the invitation to discuss governance further at the Space. A basic principle we can agree upon is that governance of Wikimedia Space will be defined and assumed by its own contributors.--Qgil-WMF (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Good to see this[edit]

It matches very closely some of the ideas that I had proposed starting from Wikimania Montreal about giving the people who work more in the space of events, wikipedians in residence, editathons etc etc a place that is more representative of their activities and in a way that is also easier to share and document with their own audiences as well. I'm looking forward to how this will evolve and I will gladly provide feedback going forward. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 14:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Safe spaces[edit]

"we lack safe spaces to support that"

"Safe. Code of Conduct observed through community moderation."

"In order to make Wikimedia Space a safe place where everyone, regardless of who they are, feels comfortable to contribute"

Safe spaces! Because that went over so well when Reddit tried it! (try Wikibooks for something more serious) So we're fucked ain't we? We don't need safe spaces. You know what's a real safe space? Airstrip One. Safe spaces are an ineffective solution for a problem that doesn't exist.

If there are any Ellen Pao-like figures on WMF's payroll, you need to fire them. Today. - Alexis Jazz (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

  • There is a definite need for some safe spaces in Wikimedia movement if we are going to cite far-right mobs harassing women into oblivion as a good thing. Shame on you, to be quite honest. stjn[ru] 18:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • In addition to the ridiculousness of essentially asserting that harassment doesn't exist, Pao didn't actually have much to do with the incidents that led to her leaving Reddit (and this has been known since two days after her resignation), so this would have been a bad example if the argument had any substance to begin with. Jc86035 (talk) 11:35, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • It is easy not to see harassment, or to deny it, when someone is in a position of privilege. At Wikimedia Space, we try to set high standards of respect and psychological safety, especially for those who have to suffer harassment and/or micro-agressions (like the one opening this section) in many other Wikimedia channels.--Qgil-WMF (talk) 14:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
    • I'd like it if everyone tried a little harder to assume good faith. Wikimedia has a lot of different cultures, a lot of different viewpoints, a lot of very different understandings of certain historical events, a lot of different styles of communication, and a lot of different understandings of certain words. @Alexis_Jazz: The WMF is located in a culture that uses the term "safe space" to refer to, IIUC, a style of communication and moderation, which does not particularly resemble what you likely think the term means. @Stjn, Jc86035, Qgil: Most people in the world - most people on the English-speaking areas of Wikimedia, even - are unfamiliar with a lot of the terminology that you may be used to using. In general, the only time the term "safe space" ever makes its way outside a certain cultural group is when someone horrendously abuses the concept so much that it becomes a scandal. I admit I'm not particularly familiar with all the term's actual intended connotations. (Before today, I don't think I've ever heard the term "microaggression" used by anyone who wasn't trying to discredit it.) No one here is in favor of harassment, no one here is in favor of a dictatorial system that silences anyone opposed to it, no one wants to scare away particular ideological or demographic groups. No one's trying to attack anyone. We have to at least try to overcome the cultural gap and act civilly, seriously. --Yair rand (talk) 18:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
      • @Yair rand: It would be better of you not to assume that people responding to the topic starter are ‘from English-speaking areas of Wikimedia’. My native language is Russian, Qgil’s are Catalan, and Spanish, Jc86035’s are are English, and Chinese. Moreover, since Alexis Jazz demonstrates a big familiarity with some highly American-specific online scandals, it is not strange to think that they know the meaning of the term ‘safe space’ and are just not in agreement with the concept. stjn[ru] 16:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
    • I find it curious to see a WMF staff member lecturing a volunteer about privilege. Nemo 20:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
      • Why? Seniority and authority within the Wikimedia movement are far from the only forms of privilege that exist. Jc86035 (talk) 16:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
        • Indeed, and WMF staff are typically the Wikimedia movement participants with less seniority and authority (conflicts with the community often arise because WMF staffers are inexperienced newbies who perceive a need for protection). But that's irrelevant: I never said that privilege is all on one side. Nemo 16:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Export strategy[edit]

Was a maintenance script developed to export all the content of the Discourse instance to wikitext, so that it can be preserved on Meta-Wiki if/when the domain is shut down? It would be irresponsible to make people spend their time producing content in a place which has no long-term preservation strategy. Are there dumps in an open format? Nemo 20:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

  • WordPress and Discourse store their content in standard MySQL and PostgreSQL databases respectively. We are producing backups on a daily basis. If needed one day, we have the resources to produce a script capable of exporting the content of Wikimedia Space and import it to Meta-Wiki. Meanwhile, our priority is to bring Wikimedia Space to production, where it will inherit the same long-term preservation strategy that the rest of projects in Wikimedia production servers have. (On a slightly related note, Wikimedia Space users can download their contributions in a standard CSV format, whenever they want, from their own Activity page. 🤫) Qgil-WMF (talk) 09:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Success criteria[edit]

The proposed goals for "success" are ridiculously low. The number of registered users is completely irrelevant, yet you compare it to the number of active users on Meta-Wiki. 100 active users would be one order of magnitude less than Meta-Wiki and significantly less than mailing lists (on a random month, a few dozens mailing lists out of hundreds already get over 100 participants with over 2 messages).

Even the Wikimedia Italia internal discussion venues easily reach about 50 active users per month; multiply this by a few chapters and it would easily dwarf the number that you propose to consider a "success".

What's worse, if you indeed count passive engagement as well, the numbers should be reduced by an order of magnitude before they become comparable with everything else. So, a more likely goal to become even remotely effective could be 10k "engaged" users per month, or 5000 to be generous. Nemo 16:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

These criteria aim to define the success of the prototype, not the success of the program itself. Their purpose is to define if/when the prototype should move to a next development phase in production. The participation metrics proposed aim to reflect critical mass of interest and participation. We believe the participation metrics proposed would clearly reflect this critical mass of interest. Qgil-WMF (talk) 07:07, 6 September 2019 (UTC)