Talk:User Interaction Consultation/start proper maintenance of the really good existing stuff.

• For you, in what ways might social interaction be *useful* for the projects?
• What are your hopes for improving social interaction (if not through these tools)
• What are your biggest fears with "facebookisation?" Is it the look of the design? Is it the process of speaking with users? Talk pages have a specific goal, which is to discuss the content on pages (as I am doing here), so I'm wondering what makes this interaction different? Would be great to learn the specifics to understand your concerns, and perhaps any ideas you might have. Thanks!

@Sänger @EGalvez (WMF) Thank you for engaging on this important topic. I'd like to move this discussion to the discussion page for the entire consultation., where, Sanger will be happy to note, a similar concern has been raised.

As mentioned on the first page of the consultation and the FAQ, any meta discussion should go there and the idea pages should be reserved for suggested solutions for interactivity.

I am going to nominate the idea page for deletion...not sure yet how to make that happen.

Actually, Rogol gave me this idea for this topic, as it should not rot on some meta discussion page but be done as an official recommendation and wish, or how it's called here idea. I'm not in the slightest in agreement with a move from here to the disk over there (and hey, wasn't one of the big proclaimed advantages of this useless forum impersonation the possibility to get certain discussion items on more then one page?). This is my idea for user interaction, it's just some kind of reminder of what's this all is about (and some seem to have forgotten).

This is an answer to the original post by EGalvez, not that by Jkatz. Unfortunately this forum impersonation doesn't get indenting right.

But we are forced to do this in this dumbed down forum impersonation called Flow, that is not remotely as flexible and useful as a real talk page. This is a brilliant example for facebookisation: Some useless feature, that some no-nothings decided to use as a replacement for the normal discussion pages, thus creating a massive rift between article and discussion, or better this discussion and the whole rest of the wikiverse, just to please some people who only want to use it for meaningless blah-blah. If you look at the discussions here on the flow forum (I won't call them discussion pages) and the same on the enWP, you'll see how this next MV/VE-disaster in waiting is taking by editors.

As obviously nobody of the devs wanted to do the not so glamorous task of improving the existing, really great and flexible, wiki discussion pages and program something to make indentation, auto-signing, putting only paragraphs in the watchlist and such happen, they tried to create some completely new, shiny stuff from scratch, that's much more sexy. Only it divides this forum pages completely from the wikiverse in touch and feel, and thus creates a big rift between them.

Gather was something similar. Let's create some nice shiny bling, bugger those who have to maintain it. After it was not met with the (for whatever reason) expected enthusiasm, someone from the WMF even went so search for some rationalisation of this and found some long neglected, and quite unconnected, personal watchlists feature and wrongly proclaimed they are connected.

Social interaction is insofar useful, as it furthers content creation and curation. On the discussion pages should be the same look-and-feel as everywhere in the wikiverse. Flow prevents this.

The devs should be far more concerned with the menial tasks of software maintenance, and finally do something about the hundreds of wished for features it choose to ignore for years and years instead of inventing unasked for new shiny bling, just to impersonate some current social network feature.

Ah, it would be extremely helpful, if as least as possible would be done on non-wiki pages by the WMF, explicitly anything on privacy-raping websites like facebook, google and such should be discouraged. Only what's on a wiki can be official and is valid.

Thanks @Sänger for you sharing your concerns. It sounds like there are a lot of issues with past software that have created more work for users, either with adopting new technology or with creating curation work. Let me see if I can summarize your comments. For you, avoiding "facebookisation" means making sure that ideas for an interactive Wikipedia that are implemented keep in mind the users who curate and create content. In this way, we can avoid creating extra work for editors, who already need curation tools, and we can make sure to stay true to the spirit of Wikipedia editing communities. Is this an accurate summary?

If this is accurate, I am wondering - what work do you do on Wikipedia currently? in what ways could readers *help* you with your Wikimedia work? What are your current software wishes where readers might be able to help with curation backlogs? How might we use interactive Wikipedia ideas to engage new volunteers who can help with the work? I am wondering if exploring these questions might help us avoid your concerns -- and maybe get us closer to an idea!

I would be happy to explore your concerns to reach a concrete project. Thanks again for sharing. I feel this is an interesting conversation and perhaps great projects can surface from it.

One thing: Instead of this weak forum impersonation, that creates a rift between discussion pages and the whole rest of the wikiverse, implement tools to better use the current, rather flexible, normal wikipages. This Flow-thingy is a good example of facebookisation: It's trying to copy facebook (and other such sites) without any need for it, but the wishes from the community to improve the existing pages are not cared about further.

The good thing about the wikiverse is, that all pages are more or less structured in the same way, and thus helping new authors can be done anywhere without disturbing anything, you can test new paragraphs for existing articles on the talk page and they look exactly as they would on the main page. The rather simple and very fast to learn wiki markup behaves just the same anywhere. With VE getting better (I've been told, I prefer the normal editor), even this hurdle is gone for most cases, especially beginners.

Instead of creating a disconnected, facebookish, new forum impersonation, the dev power should better have been put towards improving the existing software, better integrate the may tools created by volunteers (and probably paid staff) for all to use, not only logged in users with an account.

• auto-indent
• auto-signing
• better handling of edit conflicts
• watchlistability for paragraphs
• markup highlighting on the normal editor

Thanks for the ideas @Sänger. I appreciate it. To make sure I'm understanding, you are suggesting that we can make Wikipedia interactive for readers by making editing tools available to them without requiring them to log in - is this accurate? Do you have any links to tools as examples? I am very curious.

Thanks!

One thing I'm using for editing is wikEd, which makes editing, and especially syntax, better understandable.CharInsert could be helpful as well as always on. I haven't tested Syntax highlighter yet, but it looks quite helpful as well. That's for editing help.

Handling of edit conflicts could be better as well. Especially in more frequented discussions it could happen quite frequently ;) I'm no programmer, so don't ask me how to do this, but most of these conflicts are not really a conflict and could be integrated quite easy for the human eye. On the other hand, sometimes you simply don't have to write something, if someone else has already written it, perhaps even in better wording.

Auto-signing on discussion pages could be very helpful for n00bs, as it is everything but self-explanatory to do so with ~~~~. Same goes for auto-indent, perhaps with a question about this.

Hey, since when is this editor capable of converting four tildes?

Hi @Sänger - Thanks so much for your thoughts. To summarize, it seems that you are saying that:

1. Making Wikipedia interactive for readers means that any new tools or features should have a focus on creating encyclopedic content, and these new tools/features should have editors in mind during their design (to avoid facebookisation)
2. One way to make reading Wikipedia interactive (and keep editors in mind) is to improve the editing tools to help brand new users to engage, using tools like WikiEd, Char insert and Syntax Highlighter, auto-signing, and auto-indent. This can improve both talk pages and wiki mark up editing of articles.

If this sounds right to you, I'd be happy to add this to your proposal!

Yes, of course, all interactivity here is for the purpose of creating and curating content.

Interactivity for the cause of interactivity and just being some social network is no goal, only a collateral damage.

Thanks! I will add this to the proposal information. Thanks so much for sharing your perspective.

Please review and edit:

User Interaction Consultation/start proper maintenance of the really good existing stuff.#Fix existing tools that support interactivity with content and readers

Thanks!

Sagner, I already see some suggestions in this post, such as:

1. implementing tools to better use the current wikipages system, but in a rather flexible way. 2. better integration of the may tools created by volunteers (and probably paid staff,) for everyone to use, not only logged in users with an account., such as:

   auto-indent
   auto-signing
   watchlistability for paragraphs
   markup highlighting on the normal editor

My recommendation would be to add those specifics to the suggestion page. You might also want to consider renaming the page, so that it is more relevant to its content and helpful for others who are interested in the same idea to join the discussion.

These are items, that are known (and ignored) by the WMF for years and years. The WMF obviously doesn't like to improve existing stuff, but rather wants to build new shiny bling from scratch.
That's what this thread is about: Don't invent new wheels every few months, only to get them rejected by an increasingly frustrated community, but start proper maintenance of the really good existing stuff.
I think I'll follow your recommendation to add those specifics (again) to some community wish list, probably to be ignored again for the next decade, but why not.

But this topic should stay here, to remind you of what definitely not to do, as well been told hundreds of times before by others (and ignored by WMF).

Well, I can understand the history that lead to you saying " The WMF obviously doesn't like to improve existing stuff, but rather wants to build new shiny bling from scratch" ..but now we have an open space here, where we want to experiment with listening to new idea, or modifications of existing ideas, etc and move on from there. Why would we bother with creating a new space and discussing ideas if we already have a plan? ː). We are trying to do things differently this time.

"start proper maintenance of the really good existing stuff." I totally agree with this. Totally. This is why I asked you to list the specific suggestions you mentioned above, as existing tools that you would like to see improving. Being specific is always more clear.

This is not a wishlist, as it is clearly mentioned here https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:User_Interaction_Consultation, this is a space to add ideas and suggestions. Please add your specific ideas, and give the page a relevant title, and I think it will be a very helpful starting point to engage around the valid and doable items.

I am looking forward to have you add a list of existing tools, which need improvement, and which will improve interacting with content and users, while keeping our project, as authentic as we know them ː). Possibly others will add to yours. Thank you Sagner.

Sägner, as part of being Bold. In fact, I went ahead and added the items to your page. I hope this is OK. You can always add or revert --it is a wiki ;)

As some seem to want to censor this topic, I'd like to have this deletion properly discussed somewhere. Where this place here in this wiki?

Is there anything like this here?

I don't particularly agree with Sänger's recommendation, but it's made in good faith, and out of genuine concern for the future of our projects. Having it nominated for deletion is rather stunning to me. Is there no better way to engage with it? -Pete F (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

(pinging Jkatz (WMF) and EGalvez (WMF)) -Pete F (talk) 21:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

To add a little context -- I have been watching the consultation page since it was advertised a few days ago. To date, it contains only four suggestions. I don't know how many suggestions were expected, but I would hope that it's more on the order of dozens or hundreds by the time this is done. If one of them doesn't precisely fit the criteria of what was imagined, couldn't that be the first step of a generative discussion, rather than cause for calling somebody out-of-process? -Pete F (talk) 21:39, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

@Peteforsyth I apologize if there is a better solution here--I am not as familiar with etiquette as I should be. We simply want to keep all discussion about whether or not we should have interactivity on the meta discussion page. Readers who are looking through "ways to make wikipedia more interactive" will be confused to read an argument against interactivity masquerading as a 'way to make Wikipedia more interactive".

I'm not against interactivity, I'm just against dumb facebookisation, like this Flow forum impersonation. Fratzenbuch is not the gold standard of interactivity, it's just one way of milking money from raping privacy.

In that case, could you maybe rephrase your idea for "How can we make Wikipedia more interactive for readers?" to something that would lead to Wikipedia being more interactive for readers? Maybe simply rephrasing as a positive?

Also, regarding Flow, I hear you loud and clear. You really don't like flow. We are using flow because it is easier for readers to access and contribute to, but your stance on the issue has been noted.

@Peteforsyth just saw your latest. To add more context from my perspective.

I also hope there is more traffic here soon. We have yet to announce it more broadly, but that is the plan.

I assure you I will not be proposing to delete any suggestion made that doesn't fit within the bounds of the question. In other words, if someone, in good faith, suggests "more rubber duckies", I would not be inclined to ask them to move the discussion. But this is specifically the kind of feedback we would like to keep in a place where folks who are interested in the meta question can discuss it without confusing everyone else.

As Feedback I heard from someone running idealab was (paraphrased) "it can be damaging to have meta conversations mixed in with actual submissions, so before you start, you should specify where the meta concerns should go." When crafting the consultation we went through the scenarios and identified that one of the first pieces of feedback we would get is that the consultation is flawed or on flawed premises and we should not be investigating it. Sure enough, this is what happened immediately.

Is this about user interaction as a whole or just about more interactive gimmicks? Where is the distinction between what you disqualify as meta questions and what you want to hear? What do you want to hear?

The direction, in which this whole user interaction should go is very much on topic methinks, and whether or not Fratzenbuch or such are any role model at all is so as well.

Hi all - I've responded to @Sänger in another thread. I think there are some relevant questions and potential ideas to be explored. I'd be happy to help explore! Thanks @Peteforsyth and @Jkatz (WMF).