User talk:Timeshifter

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

Start[edit]

This page has been started. --Timeshifter 18:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Philip Greenspun illustration project[edit]

Hey Timeshifter, thanks for your input. :) I moved the 'see also' links you added to Philip Greenspun illustration project/Community. cheers, pfctdayelise 13:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


Ping: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/greenspun-illustrations --pfctdayelise 23:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

PGIP/illustration tutorials[edit]

Hi Timeshifter,

I was wondering if you are interested in working more on standardising and collecting the various illiustration(map, graph etc) tutorials. I know you've found lots all over the place as have I, so it would be good if we had a concerted effort to have them all in one place (Commons) and identify gaps, and also look at which tutorials exist or don't in various other languages.

What do you think? Write me an email or drop me a note on my talk page. cheers, pfctdayelise 07:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for whatever good links you can dig up as you go along. it all helps. :) --pfctdayelise 13:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Meta-Wiki[edit]

Hi. I see that you think Meta-Wiki needs to be better integrated with other Wikimedia wikis, and there should be features like the global watchlist. I don't think it's fair to say that Meta is responsible for LiquidThreads. That was a Google Summer of Code project on MediaWiki.org. It's not even enabled here. I also noticed that you think Commons and Meta should be merged. The projects have very different purposes (Commons = files, Wikidata = knowledge base, Meta = coordination). So how do you think Meta can be made better without removing it? PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Without integrated watchlists (See: w:WP:Integrated watchlist) I believe Meta-Wiki will continue to flounder. If you want to get some in-depth participation in Meta-Wiki projects, move all of Meta-Wiki to the Wikimedia Commons or English Wikipedia. The Commons gets a lot of participation from editors worldwide. English Wikipedia has even more editors from around the world. Meta has far fewer editors from around the world, and few check their Meta watchlist after awhile.
Commons can be whatever we want it to be. I am a longtime editor on the Commons and English Wikipedia. I have edited occasionally on Meta since 2006. Meta was involved in the feedback process for LiquidThreads. See this site search of Meta:
https://www.google.com/search?q=LiquidThreads+site%3Ameta.wikimedia.org
I don't think Meta can be made very useful without moving it to the Commons or English Wikipedia. Many people have tried. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I think you would be interested in Proposals for closing projects/Closure of meta-wiki. I agree that cross-wiki watchlists should be a higher priority. PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. Skimmed the page, will read more later. My first reaction is that the discussion was here instead of at English Wikipedia or the Commons. After looking at it some more, I see that the discussion was closed the same day. That just shows how out of touch Meta-Wiki and its admins are. Another reason so many people stop looking at their Meta watchlist. Why bother when discussion is so biased, and the pool of opinions is so small? Unbelievable that this was done with a proposal from such a respected editor as User:Rd232. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I know several editors who primarily edit other Wikimedia sites who absolutely hate both the English Wikipedia and Commons. Meta needs to be neutral in order to be successful; also, there are many editors banned from enwiki who are still active members of the Wikimedia community, and moving Meta to the English Wikipedia would exclude them from participation. --Rschen7754 02:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
No great loss if some banned editors are lost, versus the many more editors that would be gained. The Commons and English Wikipedia are neutral overall. A lot more neutral, in my experience than Meta-Wiki. These tiny wikis like Meta-Wiki, like most of the other Wikimedia Projects outside Wikipedia and Commons, get their own little fiefdoms of regulars, big fish in little ponds. Hardly neutral in my experience after observing Meta since 2006. Whereas on English Wikipedia, or the Commons, the larger quantity of editors prevents this from happening as much; from my experience on Wikipedia since 2005, and the Commons since 2006. They both have far more editors from around the world than Meta-Wiki. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you should read through the votes on the steward elections (Stewards/Elections 2013) and see how people hate English domination on Wikimedia sites, then. --Rschen7754 18:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Well then, move Meta to the Commons. From my experience there the admins who are not from English-speaking countries do not take crap from anybody. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
And a lot of people hate Commons too, because of the porn and the admins defending the porn. A lot of Wikipedias don't like Commons either. --Rschen7754 23:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

(unindent). w:WP:Wikipedia is not censored is a guideline followed on all Wikipedias to one degree or another. I have not been involved in those decisions concerning nudity and sexual images, and couldn't care less. For most people that is not a reason they would not come to the Commons. A better reason is that unless one edits on the Commons one might not want to check the Commons watchlist regularly in order to keep up with Meta activities. But far more people from around the world check their Commons watchlist versus check the Meta watchlist.

So I guess it comes down to which wiki do people hate the least, combined with which wikis have a lot of editors from around the world that check the watchlist. I understand your valid point about systemic bias on English Wikipedia, though I don't think it would greatly effect Meta decisions made on English Wikipedia. This is because there are a lot of editors nowadays that understand systemic bias, and who would get involved in Meta discussions taking place on English Wikipedia.

So a compromise would be to move all Meta pages to a Commons URL for now, and see how that works out. See if more editors would get involved with Meta. If not enough editors get involved then move Meta to English Wikipedia, and see if systemic bias is a problem that can't be overcome. For moving Meta to the Commons the root of all page URLs on Meta would change from meta.wikimedia.org to commons.wikimedia.org/meta or something similar. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

It's more than the porn; it's that a lot of people have had bad experiences at Commons with getting stuff deleted, or getting stuff undeleted, or with certain Commons admins. I've heard of wikis who try not to use Commons at all. --Rschen7754 01:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
People complain about every Wikimedia Project. What is more important in my opinion is where to put Meta-Wiki in order to get more involvement. Putting it off in its own space has not worked. Worse than the many complaints about Meta-Wiki is the fact that it is ignored for the most part. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Timeshifter, I must say, you certainly seem to have come here with strong opinions of Meta. I don't know if you formed that opinion from a bad experience earlier, or primarily from the op-ed you link to on your user page. There are some glaring omissions and bias in that op-ed. I would point out that Jan recently joined WMF as a community advocate, just last month actually. I can point to several dozen things Meta currently does pretty well, from board elections, steward elections, chapter documentation, translations, Wikimania bidding, policy drafting, committee work, GAC/FDC, that no other project can come close to its ever expanding mandate. Meta was envisioned for cross-project work, I'm pretty sure it wasn't envisioned for all the roles it is currently filling in now, and it keeps expanding on top. The Foundation chose to base a lot of FDC and Funding framework here, though I've heard a lot of complaints about procedural issues and grievances about decision on Wikimedia-l and here, I have never seen a single complaint about users complaining about the venue itself. The framework designed by WMF can seem confusing, and it does to a lot of people, I'm not sure why you would single out Meta at fault there. The biggest strength of Meta is, the historical information that resides here - You don't have to jump across projects and go hunting for documents as in the case when user encounter link to closed/inactive wikis like the strategy wiki or outreach. The community here does its best to maintain the old information, and some of us do feel slighted when someone with little interaction here constantly keeps calling our home a mess. You might have opinions of individual users, good/bad - you would be entitled to those, but you've had little direct interaction here to call for the entire project to be removed/merged. I'm sure you've seen constant opposition about overhauling/closing commons on a weekly basis on Jimmy's page and other places on en.wp - I suppose Meta needed its critics too. BTW You omit the part about "...and why the place is indispensable nonetheless." in Jan's headline. Theo10011 (talk) 07:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you understand much of what I wrote. You also make many incorrect assumptions. I don't really have time though to try to re-explain everything. One point, though, I can make is that I am far from the only person with my opinions. Also, I have hundreds of edits on Meta over many years. I also have kept up with many things on Meta, Outreach, and Strategy wikis, even though I may not edit much on those wikis. Mostly because I find that effort applied on all 3 of those wikis is not nearly as productive as effort elsewhere. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
For more info see the comments from many people at w:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-01-07/Op-ed, "Op-ed. Meta, where innovative ideas die". Meta would still exist if it were moved to, not merged with, the Commons. Meta would still be Meta. It would just be located on the Commons. Instead of Meta-Wiki, it would be the Meta Project, or Meta Coordination, or some similar name. All the documents would still exist. All the things you mentioned would still go on: board elections, steward elections, chapter documentation, translations, Wikimania bidding, policy drafting, committee work, GAC/FDC. The only difference would be that they occur on the Commons. Outreach, strategy, and useability projects could occur on the Commons too. The Commons watchlist would tie them all together. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Interwiki watchlist[edit]

Additional work has been done in the last day by Yair rand on this:

Try it out if you are interested. It needs a lot more work. Instructions on how to add watchlists are at the top of the above-linked talk page. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Crosswatch[edit]

See:

--Timeshifter (talk) 13:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Make Meta a folder on the Commons[edit]

Then Meta edits would show up on the Commons watchlist.

It wouldn't be hard to move Meta to the Commons. Just change the base URLs.

For example:

To:

All the old URLs could be automatically redirected. So no one would lose any bookmarks, because all links would still work. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Inspire Campaign survey on outreach to outside knowledge networks[edit]

Inspire Campaign Knowledge Networks Logo.png

Thanks for your participation during the Inspire Campaign focused on outreach to outside knowledge networks from February 2017. I'm interested in hearing your experience during the campaign, so if you're able, I invite you to complete this brief survey to describe how you contributed to the campaign and how you felt about participating. I want to improve how campaigns are run, so let me know if there's something that could be done better for next time.

Please feel free to let me know on my talk page if you have any questions about the campaign or the survey. Thanks! I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 18:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

(Opt-out instructions)

Survey link error fixed[edit]

Hi there, there was a error with the Inspire survey link that caused the survey to be shown as expired, but has now been fixed. The link in the above message should now bring you to the survey. Apologies, I JethroBT (WMF) 19:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)