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