Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-10-28/Special report


 * ...improved tools for them to use which only the Wikimedia Foundation can develop -- WMF software is open source. There are hundreds of volunteer developers who have contributed to MediaWiki, and Page Curation is no different. Any developer is able to contribute to it. &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  16:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not strictly accurate - the Page Curation extension  is indeed very different, it  was developed directly and exclusively for the precise needs of the Wikipedia encyclopedia(s) and it  was developed by paid WMF employees on the decision of the then WMF executive officer and vice executive officer. They are therefore the people who should provide the support for the software they developed. Volunteer MediaWiki software developers are arguably more specifically interested in developing MediaWiki software for all its other, non-Wikimedia Foundation uses. Wikipedia editors were never supposed to develop the software as well - else,  why  would a WMF exist and with a $75M budget that comes exclusively from the work of the content providers - the content for which, ironically,  New Page Curation exists?  And which exists for the very reason and purpose of  keeping the corpus clean and free of all that Wikipedia is not and hence upholding the tenets of the Foundation and its founders - and keeping the donations flowing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:16, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not here to argue, or comment on the other low blows in this article, but saying only WMF can work on this extension is patently false. &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  01:03, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Where does it say that, ? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:31, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe MusikAnimal is referring to his original citation of a passage from the first paragraph of this piece: ...improved tools for them to use which only the Wikimedia Foundation can develop. Airplaneman   ✈  17:51, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed. That sentence could have been better worded. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what you are implying with 'low blows' but perhaps  this serious low blow for New Page Reviewing in the last  few hours will shed some light on the need for the article above  and clarifying  just who is dealing low blows to whom -  who due to this has now completely retired from Wikipedia was one of the most  prolific reviewers. If after all this time Mr Horn's department, whose mandate is ostensibly not user retention per this discussion, still doesn't accept the importance and priority of developing tools for NPP, and continues to lose users and patrollers, Wikipedia will end up with no gatekeepers for new content  at  all, and the Foundation will be to blame. I don't know what   and  make of all this, but it's already happening, and you're wondering why The Signpost reports on it? I feel I have wasted hundreds of hours over the last 10 years shepherding the process until I jumped ship in March last year, and even if the NPP crowd don't want me on board anymore, the volunteers are sick of being the WMF's galley slaves. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:27, 3 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Hundreds of hours over ten years? That's, like, a couple of weekends each year. MPS1992 (talk) 00:22, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Coordinating NPP can be a lot of work, something I'm just beginning to realise after spending around fifty hours in the last few weeks trying to organise everything for the community wishlist push. I believe that Kudpung meant hundreds of hours each year over ten years. He's been one of the most active reviewers ever, and has done more for NPP than anybody else. He's gotten a bit jaded on the process (it is amazing he lasted so long), but he isn't the only prolific reviewer we've lost. I'd think again before doubting his commitment to the project. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  10:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well it's a shame someone decided to retire, but that is their decision. As far as I can tell the proposal was well made, likely to be a popular one, and it would seem Danny shares the same sentiment. You should continue to pursue it. All I can say is Community Tech's commitment to the top 10 wishes is genuine, and I suspect Page Curation improvements would receive special attention. The "low blows" I'm referring to in this article are the mockery of this process and the team. Page Curation was not developed by Community Tech, and it is and always has been under the purview of the Growth team (or the other historical variations of that team). Remarks like there is not an available category for requests for work on core software extensions seem to undermine the wishlist system, and frankly it doesn't make any sense. Probably most of the wishes pertain to an extension, and extensions are by definition not part of core. Most people don't know what extensions are anyway, so we wouldn't want to confuse people by creating a category for it. Anyway, the purpose of your publication is totally fine... I definitely am not wondering why The Signpost reports on it. This sort of thing is exactly what you should do. The factual inaccuracies aside, the tone could be much better, but this is merely my opinion. I assume there won't be another Signpost in time to advertise voting on the proposal, but you should feel free to advertise in any way you can. I sincerely hope it pans out. If I were able to vote on it, I would :) &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  20:29, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , many of us neither know or care whether it is an extension, an apple, a core, an API, Ajax, Java, Perl, Python, or PHP - they  just  want  the tools to do  the work they  are not  paid for,  and they  want  those tools developed by  the people  who  are paid to  do  it. And if that isn't clear, here's an analogy: You don't need to know how an internal combustion engine works to be able to drive your car, and you can drive that car for free, but you expect your paid garage man to fix it when it's broke. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC)