Talk:Community Wishlist Survey/Archive 3
|This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.|
Better voting system
Just something I've been personally conflicted with when it comes to the Community Wishlist Survey is that there's no way to say that you would prefer one proposal over another. I'm likely going to support almost every proposal in the survey and because my votes are weighted equally, it feels almost like I'm not voting at all.
It would be nice if there was a ranked-choice voting system so that users could convey the importance of proposals over others. This could also help Community Tech better-judge the importance of proposals. Lectrician1 (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- It's like the priority vote, but for this current voting process, it's nearly impossible to do that. Thingofme (talk) 15:06, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- I like this idea Lectrician1... would two "levels" of choice ranking be enough (e.g. like Support / Strong support), or are you thinking of something wider (e.g. like ranking in order per category)? — TheresNoTime-WMF (talk • they/them) 22:11, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- We could have a run off vote - these are the top 10 which do you want most? My preference is to make it evidence based for the top 10 to stop bloc voting and justify development, (seemy comment Wakelamp (talk) 12:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Can we add a column to the wishlist results for links to ideas, proposals, rfc in the last 12 months. It would be good to know if the community process is working and that proposals are being discussed, or whether we need to modify our process.
This 2018 WMDE white paper on wish lists proposes that we might be better off if became focused on agreeing and prioritising our core problems, and then working with WMF dev to create solutions and finding synergies/opportunities from the various problems , (Mea culpa – I hadn’t discussed my 2 proposals, but I had discussed other solutions to editor retention and reducing abuse) Wakelamp (talk) 12:59, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- (volunteer comment) I personally can't see why y'all shouldn't add information like that to the status column of the results — something like " In discussion at [[link to RfC]]"? It'd be pretty useful, but ymmv
- As to your second point, "we might be better off if [we/the community] focused on agreeing and prioritising our core problems", that's an interesting idea... but how would it work? It sort of sounds like it'd be a collection of Meta RfCs for the community to agree on a "shortlist" of top-priority things? — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 22:16, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Suggestion for New Process - Add un-used WMF develeopments
As part of a new process, maybe WMF should add proposals for some small stuff that WMF has already built, but we don't use, or is only used in some wikis. (Think regifting rather than a Tolkien Mathom-house.
Why? There will always be resource constraints on the wishlist, but there also seems to be a lot of things in mediawiki that we don't use/have rejected in the past (I like the side by side source/wysiwig view).This rejection may have been because of editors wanting an option for an individual preference, or WMF-editor collaboration issues, or assumptions that were false and not checked against evidence, or that tweaks were needed.
From a WMF perspective, offering these existing developments as preferences might simplfy the code base and development cycle.From a developer perspective, creating stuff that never got used must have been depressing. From our perspective, having preferences allows evolution of wikipedia based on choice, and is in line with the open source/usenet/asd/dev norms Wakelamp (talk) 13:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- A significant number of extensions/tools/bots etc. are surprisingly difficult to effectively measure how many people continue to use it — this ongoing usage is a key metric when reviewing our (CommTech's) ongoing maintenance, but I agree that perhaps a table like you describe, especially if built in partnership with the community, could be somewhat useful.. — TheresNoTime-WMF (talk • they/them) 22:27, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Larger suggestions votes should be reflected
I know that there's no appetite to work on those labeled as "larger suggestions" even before the process starts. But the results should reflect that, indeed, they do exist. Not doing it is a lack of respect to the proposals, the users and the democracy itself. Theklan (talk) 15:24, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
- This should of course be the wish list by the community for the WMF, all of them. If they don't follow this instructions by their superiors, i.e. the community, they show clear disdain for the Wikiverse, the real Wikiverse, the communities, not the WMF, that's just a surrogate without inherent own raison d'etre. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 21:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Theklan: The results do reflect that the larger suggestions exist — do you mean we should make them more prominent than the mention on the results page? — TheresNoTime-WMF (talk • they/them) 22:01, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Things "in development" that seems "stalled"
Hello! When we had a discussion about the failure of the wishlist system, it was argued that some things were, actually, in development. There are things like Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Multimedia and Commons/Audio links that play on click that seems completely stalled. Are those really under development? And can we know which is the actual situation of them? Thanks. Theklan (talk) 09:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
MusikAnimal said I think there will be a lot more clarity around the wishlist and its future after we do our retrospective, which happens after the survey. Given the April 27 update I assume the retrospective has taken place. So is there now more clarity about the future of the survey documented in Community Wishlist Survey/Updates/2023 Changes Update, so we can finally issue a correction on the previous Tech News item? Nardog (talk) 13:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Many thanks to all those who implement technical wishes. As a user, I am impressed by the many useful adjustments and extensions following this year's wish list! --Polarlys (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2023 (UTC)