Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

社群願望清單調查/願望清單的未來意向/重新命名

< Community Wishlist Survey‎ | Future Of The Wishlist
This page is a translated version of the page Community Wishlist Survey/Future Of The Wishlist/Renaming and the translation is 100% complete.
Other languages:
願望清單的未來意向

請協助我們重新命名願望清單。

2024年5月更新

為什麼要更名？

在重新設計過程中，我們意識到「社群願望清單調查」這個名稱已不再適用。有了新的辦法，我們認為現在是考慮新名稱的最佳時機。

在新辦法中，我們將從三個領域來定義成功：

  • 影響：基金會、自治體和志願開發者在特定會計年度認領或解決的重點領域數量。
  • 參與：在新流程中提出新想法和回報新問題的人數、不同語言和專案的數量。
  • 協作：圍繞著人們想法的對話的數量，我們能獲得的投票或支持的數量。

名稱中該有什麼？

理想情況下，新名稱應該反映維基媒體人在這個空間中共同努力，找出社群技術中最迫切的需求，集思廣益，提出解決方案，並將其變為現實。它既不是解決方案服務台（對於提交階段來說過於規範），也不是創意匯總器（我們希望對結果負責）：

經過集思廣益後，幾個候選名稱脫穎而出，我們希望您能對此提供意見：

  • Wikimedia Opportunities registry
    維基機會登記表
  • Wikimedia Collaboration hub
    維基協作中心
  • ImagineWiki
    想像維基

如果上方列出的名稱沒能引起您的共鳴，請至討論頁提出名稱。

我們希望您能在5月31日前審視這些可能的名稱並提出替代方案。之後，我們將確定排名前二或前三的命名方案，並邀請您對新名稱進行投票。

2024年6月更新

感謝為社群願望清單調查重新命名提供反饋意見的所有人。在回顧了大家的意見後，很明顯我們需要在名稱中加入「社群」。我們希望鼓勵社群參與，促進合作，相互借鑒。

儘管如此，「願望清單」和「願望」這兩個詞還是有一些意外的包袱，導致人們的期望不一致。展望未來，我們希望確保我們的名稱能夠反映出這一計劃的合作性和想法驅動的性質，並且在解決社群確定的問題領域方面更加透明，而不是建立在單一建議的基礎上。

我们有三个备选名称，它们能更好地体现该项目的精神和宗旨。这些名称侧重于思想交流和社群参与，以打造更好、更具包容性的产品：

1. 社群思想交流。

想法：社群思想交流中心强调了我们对社群合作和成为思想交流中心的期望。

2. 社群功能请求。

请求：社群功能请求 "简单明了，符合常见的产品开发实践。虽然「名称」不包括错误报告，但我们会在工作中考虑错误报告。

3. 社群建议门户网站。

建议：社群建议门户网站强调该平台是社群建议的集中地，包括新想法和改进建议。

我们非常重视您的意见，并希望确保这一平台继续有效地为社群服务。请为新名称投票，帮助我们塑造合作努力的未来。

投票将于2024年6月20日截止，我们迫不及待地想在7月15日重新开启这一进程！

投票指引

  • 请使用{{Support}}模板去投票您喜欢的名称。在该名称下输入模板。
  • 请确保您已登录。
  • 请在您的投票上签名（参见User: STei (WMF)的投票示例）
  • 请为一个名字投票

–– Jack Wheeler, Lead Community Tech Manager, Wikimedia Foundation

立即投票

投票

Community Ideas Exchange

Community Feature Requests

Community Suggestions Portal

None of the above

  •   Support I object to and boycott this voting because giving each voter only one ballot to cast with no runoff means the most favored candidate can end up in second place and the result will not be reflective of the participants' opinion. Nardog (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. Additionally, as I allueded to in my unanswered question below, change should be on consensus and not on numerical voting counts. RudolfRed (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment Hello @Nardog regarding the rules around this election, we intended for this to be a majority carries the vote poll, since it is the simplest system to run. Certainly if there is a tie, there should be a runoff. –– STei (WMF) (talk) 10:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Simple or not, first-past-the-post is a terribly unfair voting system when there are more than two candidates. All the people who voted in this section below may prefer one name to another, a second preference to a third one, and so on. But alas you can't know them because you gave them only one vote to cast instead of making them rank the options (like they did for c:Commons:Sound Logo Vote).
    To act on the result of this voting alone would be to ignore the voice of its participants (unless one option outnumbers all the others combined)—which would be ironic given the whole point of the very thing you're trying to rename is gathering community input. Nardog (talk) 10:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nardog how terrible the first-past-post-system is, as opposed to other systems, will always be an opinion depending on the context. However, your opinion matters, thank you for sharing it. –– STei (WMF) (talk) 11:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One would not say that if one were actually interested in objectively gauging what the community thinks is best overall. Which... I had a hunch, but thanks for the confirmation I guess. Nardog (talk) 13:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I change my vote to "keep the current name", which by my count currently has a simple majority, which is what they're going by (as established above). I want the wishlist to succeed, and antagonizing and not listening to the very community whose input you sought is a great way to make sure it won't. Nardog (talk) 12:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support The three options are all bad (the Feature/Suggestions ones a little less but those aren't only features or mere suggestions) and the problem is not the name of the things but the long grave neglect of technical development / implementation of these wishes by the WMF as pointed out here, here and elsewhere. Technical needs survey is the term used on Commons and "Technical requests" may also be good. Instead of thinking long about which name may or may not be better just implement or facilitate implementation of the supported wishes. --Prototyperspective (talk) 16:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for sharing this, @Prototyperspective. We're working hard to put a better system in place for WMF to respond to and address needs addressed by the communities. This new system should better align technical needs to our annual planning process and thus implement more wishes. Ultimately, CommTech and the Foundation will be measured by the impact of our work. As we began implementing this new system, we believed it was (and is) time for a new name. Once we launch the new system, I hope you'll start seeing the impact you've longed for. JWheeler-WMF (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds great. (Nevertheless, I don't think the three suggested names are fitting and would suggest "Technical requests" (features, bugfixes, tools, meta, config-/code-changes).) Prototyperspective (talk) 17:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Missed to clarify: I prefer to just keep the current name rather than renaming even if a fitting term like "Technical proposals/requests" is chosen. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand how we are going to build a better system if it should be aligned with the Annual Plan, a plan which is closed to innovation and improvement. Theklan (talk) 06:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support Please keep the existing name because it is accurately descriptive and well known. Certes (talk) 17:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support e/c. Glrx (talk) 17:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support It better to keep "wishlist survey" because it belong the wish of the user. WikiFer msg 19:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer something along the lines of Community Feature Priorities. As an aside, it's hard to look at this and wonder if we could've gotten one more wishlist item instead of a rebranding initiative... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the input @Rhododendrites. The process to rebrand the Wishlist has no impact on WMF's ability to address Wishlist items, as stakeholders in Movement Comms, Product, and Brand have engaged here, and not engineers.
    As far as progress on Wishlist items, CommTech is building out a new form to accept wishes. This is a tradeoff against progress on individual wishes. We made this tradeoff because the previous process was built on a series of patches, and with the Foundation's focus on making the Wishlist even more successful (ie, achieve more), we need a more resilient and inclusive wish intake process. JWheeler-WMF (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment @Rhododendrites and anyone concerned about the cost of spending time on the rebrand of Wishlist as opposed to wish fulfilment.
    Community Tech over the past few months as the Wishlist is being rebranded has also been working on some wishes.
    We have completed work on the 2023 #8 wish Edit Recovery (formerly Auto Save). We spent time inviting and testing on wikis which are accessible by regions that report power and internet outages and have a need for a way to recover edits so their work is not disrupted by data loss. For regions that don't have these issues, editors who accidentally close their browsers or crash their computers can still recover edits. The feature is now deployed to all wikis.
    We also worked on QR Code wish. Now you can make QR codes for any Wikimedia project and we have added some nice functionalities too.
    We also have been consulting with some admins over the design of Multiblocks (formerly Layering/timing of blocks), the #14 wish. We chose this to be able to balance our support and include users who have advanced flags.
    We have also conducted investigations on 4 wishes related to how we use templates which we recently announced. Those 4 wishes will be handled as one project known as Template Picker Improvements. We are happy to say, our approach to grouping related wishes aligns with the future of the Wishlist, where we create what we call Focus Areas.
    We have also been working on an upgrade for CodeMirror, we are bringing needed updates to the extension for better syntax highlighting.
    There is also work on Autosuggest linking Wikidata item after creating an article.
    Within this period, we also piloted Wishathon for the first time ever as a community event, where our engineers looked to address wishes alongside community, in a hackathon session.
    The rebranding seems more visible, but please be rest assured that engineers have been working on your wishes too. Thank you for engaging. –– STei (WMF) (talk) 11:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second choice behind "feature requests": keep the name the same. Levivich (talk) 22:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support- I like "Community Wish List." That's my choice. But, of course, that's overly descriptive and not nearly bureaucractic-sounding enough to ever suffice. Carrite (talk) 23:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support Retain the existing name. No change is a good change. Pavlor (talk) 05:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the existing name. Ayack (talk) 10:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support. I'd like to see the phrase "community priorities", since this is a prioritization process, not just a list of feature requests. "Community Ideas Exchange" and "Community Suggestions Portal" are too vague and don't give a sense of the scope of topics relevant for the wishlist. Recommendations for WMF grants? Proposals for new projects like WikiTravel? Based on the scope evident in the survey's current selected projects, I would suggest something more descriptive like "Community Priorities for Technical Improvements". Daask (talk) 15:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support. I like the current name a lot. It's an institution. For me, the first and third suggestions are no-gos, as they are overly vague and don't give a sense of priority. The second one may miss wishes which are not a new feature, such as improving current features and possibly fixing bugs. I like the suggestions above in the direction of "technical community priorities", which captures the process well. Femke (talk) 16:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support I support keeping the current name. I have already given my reasons for this in prior discussion. StefenTower (talk) 18:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support. Existing name is fine. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 18:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support - If you want to rename it, by all means rename it, but I object to using voting as a way to legitimize a rename that didn't really come from the community. More generally I am concerned that the direction this rebrand process is going in effectively strips the community of its voice and power. Bawolff (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support The current name seems good. Superzerocool (talk) 19:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support a variation of "Community prioritization" or "technical wishlist". We need a consistent year-over-year prioritization process, not a place to exchange ideas or suggestions (we already have many of those!); and many community priorities aren't FRs. To the concern about baggage: we are all familiar with using wishlists as a place to look for topics for community-run hackathons and other dev sprints, so while some may have expectations of a central group building towards a single implementation, the concept is also familiar as a place for all-purpose discussion, refinement, and even clustering of priority issues. –SJ talk  –SJ talk  01:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support Making people argue about minor variations of a name we are all used to for almost a decade is nothing but a distraction. The name is not the problem. If you really want to change it then just do it. --TMg 06:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. Only after seeing the new system in action can we assess what name best describes it. Nardog (talk) 12:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support No change, per TMg. This is a classic BIKESHED situation. Leave the name alone. RudolfRed (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For me as a non-native English speaker, Wishlist is a way understandable (what this initiative did) than any of proposed titles. MBH (talk) 16:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support I like the existing name, I think it is easy to understand and I think it's pretty appropriate.--Ethn23 (talk) 17:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support – keep the name the same. Am concerned that the new names don't reflect a community-led approach to this, similarly to Bawolff's comments above. --YodinT 03:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support No real argument has been made for changing the name of a well-known area and the current name is fitting. And this appears to be a top-down edict rather than something organic. The WMF should spend more time worrying about fulfilling the requests of the community, not finding a preferred name for the area in which the generally ignored requests are made. The usual style-over-substance WMF thing. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While my first choice is to keep things the same, my second choice would be a name that reflects how the area is treated by the WMF, such as the Futility Folder, the Event Horizon, or the Depository of Ideas Discarded in Favor of the Mid-Tier Silicon Valley Executive Obsession du Jour. OK, the last one may be too wordy. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support Looking at the discussion, I am struggling to see 2 of these 3 voting options having appeared there? I am however seeing various participants expressing preference for the current name. Does "Working with consensus" figure in the WMF staff onboarding process? If not, should it? The present "not-listening" attempt to impose a change expresses a power relationship which would hardly bode well for the future. AllyD (talk) 07:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support the current name is fine. Ingenuity (talk) 12:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support I prefer "WeSpentOurTimeRenamingThisInsteadOfFixingGraphs". Or, if that's a no-go, "Wishlist McWishlistface". AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support Gdansk or Danzig? "mcwish mcwish face". you might want to spend the emotional energy making wishes, lest people stop engaging when they perceive their wishes are unrequited. --Slowking4 (talk) 23:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support Discussing the name is a distraction, as a WMF employee wrote above: "The process to rebrand the Wishlist has no impact on WMF's ability to address Wishlist items". Also, we are in a multilingual project and the proposal fails to adress how it would affect other langugage communities. Arpyia (talk) 08:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support I prefer the status quo. --SHB2000 (t • c) 10:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support keep XtexChooser (talk) 10:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support I consider retaining the existing name because its firstly popular and also its catchy. Macholi (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support No change. Hopeandlink (talk) 03:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support: completely useless rename without any consideration for internationalisation. Most of the variants are hard to translate to all languages. stjn[ru] 15:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support keeping the current name. I like Community Wishlist Survey. The other names sound rather dry and corporate. Plus changing the name may confuse people. Nosferattus (talk) 16:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support Keep the current name is OK for me.--Hehua (talk) 00:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support None of the above suggestions are close to being selectable. Respublik (talk) 04:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support, keep the current name. It is well known by the community and reflects what the process is (wishes that sometimes come true, but not always). No change needed. Alexcalamaro (talk) 04:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support, the expectation is to start working on wishes, to start deliverying and unbreaking our system, not to spend time renaming it. Please, start working on improving our system, and don't expend time in other things. -Theklan (talk) 06:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support keeping the name. ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)     07:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support I'm in favour of not renaming it (except maybe dropping "survey" from the end). Renaming things can be more confusing than helpful, especially when the names are not obviously related, because lots of people/places will still refer to the old name and everyone will end up having to learn two names instead of one. I also think that the WMF deciding that it has to be renamed (without asking whether the community wants it to be renamed) damages the credibility of the wishlist as a whole - if the WMF goes ahead and renames it after so many people have said they don't want it to be renamed, why should we believe the WMF will pay attention to anything we ask for in the wishlist? - Nikki (talk) 10:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Community_Wishlist_Survey/Future_Of_The_Wishlist/Renaming/zh&oldid=26934468"