Open main menu

Talk:Community Tech

Active discussions

Scope of this pageEdit

As we are a small team with limited resources, I would prefer that we try to keep discussions and information concerning the Community Tech team as centralized as possible and not spread over a multitude of pages on different projects, as it will be impossible for us keep them all up-to-date. I'm fine with posting some links to information about the team here, but let's keep the more detailed info on MediaWiki, which is where most (all?) WMF Engineering teams are currently documented. That should make communications a bit smoother, IMO. Ryan Kaldari (WMF) (talk) 01:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

What would you suggest as the best way to cross-document? Soft redirect? Basic info with big push to visit MW page? There has been some discussion of how to handle this at Meta:Babel. Curious what your thoughts are as an engineering team leader. The feeling seems to be that we need to do something to document all teams on Meta as most will not think to look at three wikis for team info. However, I am personally open to a lot of ideas on how that could be done. ;) --Varnent (talk)(COI) 16:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
My top preference would be a soft redirect to MW. That would minimize the chances of people starting separate discussions here. My second choice would be having just basic info about the team here with a strong push to visit the MW page. Ryan Kaldari (WMF) (talk) 21:21, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I think that is a reasonable approach to take for now. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 20:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
It does raise a question about the future of Community Tech project ideas. What or where does the team see as the future for that page? Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 20:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I see that page as a forum for brainstorming and discussing ideas that can then be submitted to the cross-project technical request survey that we will be conducting (hopefully by the end of September). Ryan Kaldari (WMF) (talk) 00:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Garbage data in Special:GadgetUsage?Edit

See discussion at de:MediaWiki_Diskussion:Gadgets-definition#Special:GadgetUsage. --Atlasowa (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not familiar with German, could you provide a gist of that discussion please? Thanks. -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 02:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi NKohli (WMF)! Let me start with confessing that i think gadget usage stats would be really useful and that I AM PUMPED TO GET THEM ;-) The problem is that the gadget/preferences data is really messy. When dewiki tried to list gadget usage in 2013 (de:MediaWiki_Diskussion:Gadgets-definition/Archiv_2013#old-diff-style.css), we found that it is pretty useless/inaccurate for several reasons:
  • gadget prefs of dead/inactive users is indistinguishable from gadget prefs of active users. And there are much more old/inactive accounts. Makes the stats rather useless.
  • (translated:) "In the decade that we have been collecting properties, all kinds of values have been used sometime. There is null, "", 0, NUL, true, false, y and so on."
  • A gadget becomes default -> what happens to users that had opted-in before, how are they counted? For example CommonsDirekt was optional gadget, then default (with opt-out possibility), then optional gadget again (after MediaViewer activation). It doesn't appear in the usage stats at all?
This translation is difficult ;-) You can ask further questions in english at de:MediaWiki_Diskussion:Gadgets-definition#Special:GadgetUsage, and please describe how you got these gadget usage stats. Best, --Atlasowa (talk) 12:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for translating! Here are my few comments:
  • Default gadgets are not shown in the list at all because of all the data inconsistency issues. This was not reflected in the description on top yet, but I've pushed a patch to do that now.
  • We are working on adding a column to the table showing the number of active users per gadget. Hopefully you'll be able to see it by next week.
  • CommonsDirekt does not appear in the list because it is marked as default in MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition#VeraenderungOberflaeche, as per my first point above.
I'll copy over this comment to the discussion page too. Thank you! :) -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 15:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

@ NKohli (WMF): Any updates? [1] and [2] still show no "active" users per gadget. --Atlasowa (talk) 11:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that, it's still a work under progress and might take a while. Additionally, the deployment train goes out once a week and the page is generated infrequently, it might be some time before you actually get to see it. Thanks for your patience. :) -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Cool, Special:GadgetUsage now with active users, thank you NKohli (WMF)! Brought the good news to Commons. "This list excludes gadgets enabled for everyone by default" - why not add a list of default gadgets to the special page, or a link where to find a list of the default gadgets (for the corresponding wiki)? --Atlasowa (talk) 09:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

That's coming soon. It's merged and will be updated after next report refresh. Cheers! NKohli (WMF) (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

citation botEdit

There are a bunch of solutions and possible solutions to the existing bugs in the citation bot listed on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Citation_bot Who is in charge of implementing them in the dev bot for testing? AManWithNoPlan (talk) 22:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi AManWithNoPlan: It looks like the maintainer isn't doing a lot of maintaining anymore. Community Tech has done some work on the Citation bot in the past, but we don't plan on doing more right now. However, seeing your detailed analysis of pretty much every problem on User talk:Citation bot, you may be qualified to become the new maintainer. :) Kaldari and Quiddity: Is there anything we can do to help AManWithNoPlan to fix these bugs? -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 22:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay AManWithNoPlan (talk) 17:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@AManWithNoPlan: I suggest sending an email to Smith609, asking him if he'd be open to adding you as a co-maintainer of the source code; linking to your extensive feedback on the bot's talkpage and any other coding credentials you can share with him; and describing what kinds of work you'd plan to do (bug-fixes, feature-additions, documentation updates, perhaps even moving the master code from googlecode into github or mw:diffusion if that would help more people to collaborate on it). (Note: I am not a dev, but those seem like potential logical next steps!) HTH. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 19:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
@AManWithNoPlan: My suggestion would be to either submit some pull requests to the github repo (https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot) or email Martin (Smith609) and see if he can add you as a maintainer to the repo (and maybe the tool labs projects as well). Martin isn't maintaining the tool any more, but he did merge my last few pull requests. If you don't have any luck with either of those approaches, let me know. Kaldari (talk) 23:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I will attempt pull requests. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 23:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Feedback noteEdit

Hi,

To make it clear for everyone about who is working on what, I've put a feedback note on 2016 Community Wishlist Survey and a few subpages at the bottom. This is like we do it at www.mediawiki.org with some projects. Please check whether the information provided is accurate.

If it is, please put it on other subpages which list the proposals themselves, if desired. Thank you.

--Svetlana Tkachenko / Gryllida 00:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Community-Tech-fixes projectEdit

When somebody proposes some task for the team to work on in this area, I'm not sure whether the tag should be added to subscribers and whether it's ok to just add proposed tasks. From the workboard it's not clear which tasks are actually supposed to be worked on by the team. The description says "Please don't use this on its own", but does this mean that every task should also come with a component (normally #Wikimedia-General-or-Unknown) or that the tag can only be used together with #Community-Tech?

Maybe it's time to actually convert it to a subproject, or a tag, or something, and/or use an existing project used also by others, where to hold such tasks? Meanwhile, I added a mention of the project on phabricator:project/view/151/ (which hopefully doesn't give any false hope). Nemo 14:09, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank youEdit

For fixing the popular pages bot and notifying relevant Wikiprojects. Keep up the good job! --Piotrus (talk) 07:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

List of most edited pages last month in gl.wikipedia.orgEdit

Hi, I have seen that page, and I wanted to know if there is a page to view the most edited articles last month of gl.wikipedia.org. Bye, --Elisardojm (talk) 13:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

You can start with [3] IKhitron (talk) 13:23, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks IKhitron, I had visited that page, but the information is about the most viewed pages, I wanted info about the most edited pages in last month... Bye, --Elisardojm (talk) 13:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
I see. What about the third column here: [4] IKhitron (talk) 13:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Just that! Thanks!, --Elisardojm (talk) 17:21, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
No problem. IKhitron (talk) 17:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Size of the community tech teamEdit

From the project page it seems like there are only a few individuals in the team, is such a team too small to resolve too big of a problem that is all the problems faced by millions of users in thousands of projects and thousands of communities? C933103 (talk) 05:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, the team has been growing a bit every year, as they take on more projects. The team started three years ago with four people, and now it's got eight. We're hoping to be able to hire another engineer this year. I'm glad that you like the team's work and want it to keep growing! :) -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Propose rename to Wikimedia Foundation Community TechEdit

Community Tech to Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech

The issue is that when anyone new sees the link to Community Tech they do not immediately understand that it is a WMF team. Anything WMF related is unusual because WMF people typically are not around in community spaces. Just as WMF staff accounts get labelled with a (WMF) tag, so should most WMF staff organizations. This one is an extra unusual case because the community tech team is for the community, not composed of the community. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: See Meta:Proposed_page_moves#Moving_pages_for_WMF_departments_and_teams. --Yair rand (talk) 09:48, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Cancel 2020 Wishlist?Edit

Seems that the approved projects of the 2019 wishlist are not fully finished yet. I fear that 2020 wishlist would distract the Tech team from the 2019 wishlist. Can the 2020 wishlist be cancelled, so the team can finish the remaining projects by autumn 2021? George Ho (talk) 02:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@George Ho: Apologies for the late response! You may be relieved to know that we had some of the same concerns. For this reason, we announced a new format for the 2020 wishlist. This year, we're just going to focus on the non-Wikipedia content projects, and we're only going to address the top five wishes from this survey. Check out the Community Wishlist Survey 2020 page for more info. Thanks! --IFried (WMF) (talk) 19:41, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Return to "Community Tech" page.