User talk:MPinchuk (WMF) (usurped)/Archive 7

Feedback on the mobile site?
Hello there! I've just been using the mobile site; it's very good, but I have a request about it. Your userpage says you are no longer involved with the mobile site; perhaps you could point me to someone who is? (Or should I just file a bug?) Thanks!  Ignatz mice•talk 12:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

P.S. My 2¢ on your current project: I am opposed to the idea of Flow. But oh well.
 * You should probably just file a bug as it will then be in the system and tracked. The new PM for mobile is Keenan Wang but I don't think he has much of a presence on enwiki.
 * Regarding your thoughts on Flow: it's best to have actionable or constructive feedback.  "I oppose this" doesn't provide either.--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * @ Ignatz The mobile team is very responsive to bugs, so that's usually the best way to go. You can also email the mobile mailing list, mobile-l@undefinedlists.wikimedia.org. Lastly, there's IRC: . Hope that helps! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 22:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Maryana, I've come here following the same path as Ignatzmice above: I've left a message on the Help talk:Mobile access page, but could you ask your colleagues who are now looking after mobile access to please have a presence somewhere on enwiki so that mobile users can be helped? Thanks. Pam D  08:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And when I try to report a bug, using the link provided on Help:Mobile access, I get the message "Sorry, entering a bug into the product Wikimedia Mobile has been disabled.". This is crazy. I don't use IRC, I don't want to get involved in a whole mailing list about mobile editor, but I want to talk about it, make a suggestion, get a response. Where do I go? Pam  D  08:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I finally got into Bugzilla and have created, but there should be a better way to discuss a problem rather than the horrendously un-user-friendly Bugzilla. Please bring these comments to the attention of whoever I should be talking to, given that it's no longer your territory! Thanks. Pam  D  08:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've updated the 2 bugzilla links. There's also the Guided Form (still quite new and not linked prolifically) which you might prefer, for next time. I'll leave it to Maryana to actually nudge the Mobile devs in person. :) –Quiddity (talk) 00:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Pam  D  17:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Motivations behind editing Wikipedia
Maryana, I'm highly interested in retaking your research on. I think it was a great first step but the sample size is way too small to consider the findings significant. I strongly believe that we need to find out several things:


 * 1) What compels someone to make their first edit?
 * 2) What compels someone to make their subsequent first edits?
 * 3) What compels people to remain editing Wikipedia?
 * 4) What compels people to donate to Wikipedia?

This research needs to be done on a larger sample size. Considering that the WMF is a 501(c)(3) and that it has enough funds, perhaps we can pursue a federal grant to achieve this in conjunction with San Francisco State University? (as WMF is located in San Francisco) Federal grants are listed on grants.gov and there are several that can be pursued by WMF—such as those sponsored by the Department of Education (since Wikipedia educates people), the Institute of Museum and Library Services (since Wikipedia behaves like a library), the National Endowment for the Humanities, and so on.

We can bring in User:Ocaasi (another researcher), User:Anne Delong (a librarian), and anyone else interested on this matter.

The reason for this is that we need to find out first, without any single doubt, what compels people to then build the proper programs to foster such motivations. This first step is key for everything else. Right now we are just shooting without really knowing where we should aim at. We call this market research on the corporate world, which is something that, INEXPLICABLY, the WMF is not doing.

This idea is sparked by the phenomenon of User:Anne Delong which has and is defying our judgement on why people remain active. Her background is explained at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention.

Please let me know if you are interested in moving this forward.

&mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Don't forget that the Wikimedia Foundation itself has grants. They choose new recipients every six months. I am on the committee, although I haven't done much yet.  I am finding this whole thing embarrassing, and I wish that you would refer to me in a "neutral, encyclopedic tone"! &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 23:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * , while I do think more studies on new editor motivations would be valuable, it's important to be aware of survivor bias. Any qualitative study of new users who've gone on to become successful Wikipedians is going to be limited in what it can tell us about how to turn people who aren't, for whatever reason, "naturally" inclined to edit into productive contributors with various help and outreach programs. The Wikimedia Foundation is also not the best-equipped institution for the job. We aren't a research think-tank or a neutral, unbiased team of academic researchers – we're a tiny nonprofit that runs a very popular website ;) I'd suggest pitching this to the folks at Individual Engagement Grants and/or reaching out to Wikipedia researchers (there are many of them!) and getting them excited about the idea of running this kind of study.
 * Also, agreed with Anne that your tone comes off as a tad bit problematic. In particular, it strikes me as strange that you find it so "phenomenal" that a woman librarian would become a Wikipedian; we have several of them... Maryana (WMF) (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * We are of course all phenomenal; just perhaps not as unusual as the OP suggests ;) Anyway, User:Ahnoneemoos, you might take a look at the research index on meta that Maryana linked if you are interested in research on Wikimedia projects. There's a very large independent research community, not all housed at the WMF, and there are lots of people who are interested in motivation. It's not quite as simple as simple 'market research' because our community is so complex, and there are many, many variables for what affects anyone's individual experience, but I agree with you that there are many important questions to be investigated. We're not going to get easy answers, though :) -- phoebe / (talk to me) 18:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Err, yeah, that's what market research is exactly.. any organization involving humans is complex by nature, wether it is Wikipedia or something else. Don't place Wikipedia so high. =P &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 02:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but the study would not be focused on "users who have become successful". The study would focus on what motivates people to contribute to Wikipedia, wether they are considered successful or not. Did you read the four points I listed above? None of them mention successful editors. Regarding WMF, no, I disagree, WMF is the perfect institution to do this as (1) it has a surplus, (2) it provides grants specifically for this, (3) it is in WMF's best interests to research this, and (4) it is full of people that understand Wikipedia. Notice too that the research would be done in conjunction with San Francisco State University. This is what we call principal investigators (PIs) while WMF will simply provide the human capital for subject matter experts on Wikipedia. Perhaps you can point me to who manages research on WMF? It seems you are unfamiliar with how research is conducted at the academic level with non-profits. Regarding Anne, I don't find it phenomenal that a librarian became a Wikipedian. I find it phenomenal that someone who did not receive any support from one whole week and that was highly frustrated with Wikipedia because of that was capable of becoming a highly successful editor after WP:WER and WP:TEAHOUSE intervened. Do you see the value of the "Anne phenomenon" now? It is not about Anne, it is about the initiatives that we have built and the results these have and can yield. The "Anne phenomenon" is a marketing term geared towards the layperson, our donators. Quite frankly, I'm baffled by how you have reacted to this as someone who is paid to be a Product Manager and paid to drive a product forward. Thanks for your reply anyway, I won't be contacting you further. Good luck in your future endeavors. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 02:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

thumb|left|400px|"What might make you contribute more?" Arabic Wikipedia Reader Survey 2012|page=32 Interesting discussion. I think we're not totally clueless about motivation. Thanks for the link to the wikimania 2012 talk! --Atlasowa (talk) 21:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem with that kind of research is that it is based on a survey and the questions, and its answers, are preconceived. Henry Ford once said that if he would have asked people what they wanted they would have asked for a better horse. He invented a car instead. We need to do the same on Wikipedia. We can't be constrained to pre-conceived notions. We need to let our editors speak freely and then interpret that in a way that help us build a better product. It's kinda similar to what Steve Jobs did. He listened to everyday people, and didn't run any focus groups whatsoever. Still a good start anyway, thanks brosef. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 02:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for posting the charts. They were quite interesting.

Wikiprojects interested in assisting with Flow's first release
The Core features team is looking for a few WikiProjects to collaborate with on building and testing the first release of Flow. If you'd like to be part of the Flow pilot sometime in December, please let us know here.

Here a few quick links and answers:
 * Timeline: WP:Flow
 * Pilot release specifications: WP:Flow/MVP
 * FAQs:
 * WP:Flow/FAQ
 * WP:Flow/Design FAQ
 * Our collaboration plans: WP:Flow/Community engagement

Thanks. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 21:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd be up for us trying it out at WP:HANTS. I've started a thread at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Hampshire to see if any of my fellow project members object. W a g g e r s  TALK  08:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Great to hear – thanks, ! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 20:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Not a WikiProject, but if you need a medium-sized wiki to test Flow, how about the English Wikivoyage? We are open to changes, quite close to Wikimedia and probably know Bugzilla/Gerrit/etc more than other communities. We were the first non-Wikipedia content wiki to get Echo, and early adopters for Wikidata too. Nicolas1981 (talk) 09:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The Military History Project is interested; the conversation is at WT:MHC. - Dank (push to talk) 23:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Ideology
I must say I was quite surprised to read this about ideological disagreement. I thought that 'framing Wikipedia processes in the engineering-centric "workflow" way' was exactly what the overarching Flow project was all about: am I wrong, or have you changed your mind about the risk that it will 'cement this trend toward automatization, and, in the process, kill the spark of humanity and community'? If I have misunderstood, then perhaps Wikipedia talk:Flow is the place to make it clearer to me and the other users, because that's the basis on which I've been making various suggestions. If there's no misunderstanding and it's just that you've changed your mind, then nothing much needs to be said. Spectral sequence (talk)


 * Heh, well, "ideological disagreement" was a bit of hyperbole on my part :)
 * I think there's a subtle but important difference between thinking of discussions in terms of loosely-structured workflows, breaking them down to their components, and optimizing for the best possible outcome with software... and actually writing a workflow engine for every non-article page on Wikipedia. The former is what we're currently doing with Flow. The latter is where I don't want us to go; at least, not yet. There are definitely processes that need to be workflows in the strict sense (like Special:NewPagesFeed, which can't be exported to other wikis besides English Wikipedia without a common workflow language between them), but I think they're the exception, not the rule, and our focus should be on the discussion side in the next 6 months. So I suppose it's not quite as much of an either/or as I may have made it out to be in that comment, but rather a matter of degree. Maryana (WMF) (talk) 23:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Then I for one have been mistaken about the grand design, which I had thought was exactly the latter, namely, writing a workflow engine for every non-article page on Wikipedia. That's what I've been talking about at Wikipedia talk:Flow, apparently at cross-purposes.  If someone such as myself who has been following the project rather closely can still be mistaken as to its proposed remit, I venture to suggest that you may wish to think about your communications with the wider user community.  Spectral sequence (talk) 06:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks, :) Tryin' our best! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 17:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikiproject interested in Flow
Hey Maryana, Can you please come talk to us at Wt_breakf – looks like we may be interested in trying out Flow. XOttawahitech (talk) 14:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Possible active voice level 1 warnings

 * == Re: Level1 Warnings and a possible active voice make over ==

I talked to Steven (WMF) about this and wanted to talk to you to see if your interested to convert the remaining level 1 warnings into active voice.

as seen in his reply at this section on this talk page, he said "it's been enough time that we can move remaining warnings like those you've listed to active voice as well", Now thats past, here is the message: I wonder why some certain level 1 warnings still have passive voice like
 * template:uw-agf1
 * template:uw-create1
 * template:uw-defamatory1
 * template:uw-disruptive1
 * template:uw-move1


 * template:uw-mos1


 * template:uw-own1


 * template:uw-upload1

and last but not least, Template:Uw-ics1. I know some templates might of have been slapped with the "Hello, I'm Jimbo." type at the beginning, You can also see my active voice version ofuw-disruptive1 here. Cheers! Dr et  h  01:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * template:uw-fringe1
 * Template:Uw-afd1
 * Template:Uw-nor1
 * , yes, let's do it :) I guess the question is whether we should just boldly edit the text of the remaining templates, or if we need to start a discussion about these changes first., what do you think? Maryana (WMF) (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we should draft the active voice templates, then if feasible, put them in Requests for Comment? Dr  et  h  20:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas! :-)
 Happy Yuletides! 

Merry Yuletides to you! (And a happy new year!)



~TheGeneralUser (talk)  is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Hi Maryana, Wishing you a very Happy and Wonderful Merry Christmas! Hope you are having a great time with family and friends :-) Best wishes. ~TheGeneralUser (talk)  22:55, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Merry Christmas & Happy New Year to you, too :) Maryana (WMF) (talk) 02:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Maryana (WMF)/Igor blog post
Hi Maryana and thanks for translation. We have approached several people who have made photos of Ihor to ask to provide permission (Ihor did not attend any meetups, so no Wikipedian has a photo of him). We hope to have a photo of him under a free license tomorrow, in the meantime we used a fair use photo from his page in a social network. I will keep you informed on the advancement of our research — NickK (talk) 00:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi – thank you for writing the post! Our Communications team was hoping to republish it + the English translation on the WMF blog tomorrow. Would that be okay? If you do find a freely licensed photo or have any questions/concerns, please email Jay Walsh (jwalsh@undefinedwikimedia.org) or Tilman Bayer (tbayer@undefinedwikimedia.org). They will be happy to help. Best wishes to you and all the Ukrainian Wikipedians in this sad time – тримайтеся! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 01:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Maryana, thanks too for this translation. I've used it to write an article in French. Best regards French user (talk) 12:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Some Tea
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#000066; background-color:#DDEEFF; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks"> Wikipedians also recommend biscuits with tea.

-<font color="Navy">TheGeneralUser <font color="Navy">(talk)  has given you a cup of tea. Tea promotes WikiLove  and hopefully this has made your day ever so slightly better.

Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a tea, especially if it is someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!

Spread the lovely, warm, refreshing goodness of tea by adding {{subst:wikitea}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Just stopping by to share some tea! This will hopefully re-energize you and remove your stress when you edit a lot :) Cheers. Also, the WMF team has done a wonderful work on developing Flow. Haven't tested it myself yet, but I'm sure it's going to be cool and awesome ;) Happy and proud to be a donor to the WMF :) Best. -<font color="Navy">TheGeneralUser <font color="Navy">(talk)  23:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Expanding/Collapsing sections
Every article I try to read, none of the article sections will not expand or collapse.! It is just one annoying long page. Is it my iPhone? It is very frustrating. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billiejeanbrown78 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)