- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it.
- Most likely, new comments will not be taken into account by the new three Working Group members in their work of developing the final Recommendations. You are free however to continue discussing in the spirit of "discussing about Wikipedia is a work in progress". :)
Agree with anything that increases communication between the different stakeholders and move away from a top-down model of imposition by WMF. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 13:25, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- I agree. The decision of what software to develop should not be made by the We Make Failures executives, because they have clearly and repeatedly demonstrated that they are not able to use that power competently. Anything that takes control away from the WMF is a good idea. I say control, because we don't want to see more "consultations" where the WMF ignores community input, especially when an "initiative" is explicitly unwanted. MER-C (talk) 15:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Agree, better communication with different stakeholders is beneficial.--Vulphere 09:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- I agree, but also agree with MER-C: "We don't want this at all" might be an outcome. On the other hand, there are things the community has been asking for for literally years, such as a fix to CAPTCHA accessibility problems for blind users and an improvement to search functionality, that seem to get more or less ignored. That's a waste of time for WMF too, when they put substantial resources into something like LiquidThreads and later Flow, only to later hear "No thanks." If that "no thanks" (or "Not like that, but maybe if it was like this...", or whatever the case may be) feedback could be delivered at an earlier stage, that would save frustration and wasted time on both sides. Seraphimblade (talk) 16:42, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Let's do thisEdit
I think this is the most important recommendation coming out of this group. Product strategy is difficult in the best of times and making good decisions which balance the needs of new editors and existing editors, new readers and existing readers, people who live all around the world in a transparent and collaborative fashion on a platform that’s 15 years old with global scope and resources that pale in comparison to other websites is hard.
In the last couple of years, the Foundation has made progress in collaborative work with our communities and building on this towards a structured process of input across the movement with the associated commitment of wiki communities supporting the output of such a process would be well received by Foundation staff. I don’t think such a process would be easy -- as this working group has seen, there is a lot of work involved in product strategy -- and I think the output would be profoundly influential in the next stage of the movement. TNegrin (WMF) (talk) 00:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
From Catalan SalonEdit
We agree with the reasoning. Community tech ambassadors doesn't works. WMF/Product should come closer to communities (...)