Talk:Wikimedia Resource Center/Archive 1

Update

Taken from comment by MCruz (WMF). Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

A place for feedback

Please use this talk page to give feedback on this new hub. All user feedback is key to improve the site, so we appreciate any time you take to provide insight. Once we have incorporated the information, we will be regularly archiving comments left on this Talk Page. You can find past conversations on the Archives on the right.
If you prefer a private channel to offer feedback, you can do so via a third party survey, which should take about 4 minutes to complete.

• Click here to take the survey. (Read the privacy statement here.)

How to give feedback on the Talk Page

Please remain civil and polite to provide feedback.
If your issue has not been addressed yet:

1. Add a new topic
2. Enter the problem or feature you are addressing as the subject of your message.
3. Describe the issue in the new section.
4. Don't forget to sign using 4 tildes: ~~~~

If your issue has been addressed by others:

1. Add a comment to the section. Start your comment with indent, using: :
2. Don't forget to sign using 4 tildes: ~~~~

Feedback on Product Development page

Maria, I believe that the checklist and the taskforce for the visual editor are self-help resources that are relevant in the context of a resource center, but can't figure out well where to place them. Best, --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 12:30, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

This question moved here from Talk:Wikimedia Resource Center/Product Development in the process of me streamlining the talk pages. Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 15:42, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Elitre (WMF), sorry for the late response. This is a good suggestion. There are other suggestions for content, such as the one you make, that are related in some way with enabling technology features. We have to work on developing a new category, maybe; for the time being, I'm adding this to the feedback documentation. María (WMF) (talk) 16:15, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion on Contact and Questions

I wonder if a new user asking a public question on the "Contact and Question" section would be familiar with editing in wikitext. One idea that popped into my mind is that you could consider rolling out Flow on that public QnA page. By the way, Indonesian Wikipedia is currently using Flow for the QnA page targeted for new users (see id:Wikipedia:Warung Kopi (Bantuan)). My only complaint of Flow is that admins could not protect only the board description for editing (it's either the whole board or none at all; tracked at phab:T113902). Hope you could consider it. Thank you very much. Kenrick95 (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kenrick95, sorry for the late response. This is a good suggestion, I have added this for the upcoming features of the WRC. María (WMF) (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation

Hello. This looks great :) Thank you for putting it together. I'm sure many volunteers will appreciate not having to look through dozens of pages across half a dozen wikis to find the information they're looking for.

I have a minor question about the name; if this portal's goal is to provide easier access to "specific Wikimedia Foundation teams' support and resources", why not call it "Wikimedia Foundation Resource Center"? It seems that it would make it clearer to understand the page's purpose. Unless "Wikimedia" refers to the audience, but in this case pretty much all of Meta is a resource for Wikimedians as well :) Guillaume (WMF) (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I came here to say exactly the same thing. So I second the minor question about the name and find that "Wikimedia Foundation Resource Center" is the more accurate title. Delphine (WMF) (talk) 18:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Quoting, "as well as to bring knowledge exchange systems to a centralized location to reduce searching for shared movement resources." Suggestions about how to make this more obvious? Elitre (WMF) (talk) 12:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Isn't all of Meta-Wiki hosting "shared movement resources"? Also, I have no idea what "knowledge exchange systems" means (and suspect many others don't either, especially non-native English speakers). Guillaume (WMF) (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

If it was just Resource Center, the only hint that it's not about the site but the movement would be that it's not in the Help namespace, IMHO, and that's a technicality. From Maria's email to wikimedia-l, "it is intended to evolve into a single point of entry for Wikimedians all over the world to the variety of resources and types of staff support they may need to develop new initiatives or also expand existing ones. This version of the Resource Center is only the beginning. For phase two of the project, we will enable volunteer Wikimedians to add resources developed by other individuals or organizations to the Wikimedia Resource Center, and in phase three, the Wikimedia Resource Center will include features to better connect Wikimedians to other Wikimedians that can support them", so it's definitely not about WMF only. Elitre (WMF) (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

OK. I still don't understand how it's both not just about the Foundation and not duplicating other parts of Meta (particularly because "resource" is so generic a word), but I trust you and the other people involved in this and will therefore not spend more of our collective time trying to understand :) Guillaume (WMF) (talk) 04:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

If we are going to keep the generic "Wikimedia", I see this as a "hub", and even an "organizational hub" rather than a "resource center". As Guillaume puts it, meta is the resource center by itself. This is a (great) place to understand and find all the organizational resources (right now with a strong focus on Foundation staff resources, but ok, apparently with a goal to gather all existing, no matter where they come from) that exist, but is by no means the central place where every resource about Wikimedia in the larger sense of the word (ie. the movement, the projects etc.) are concentrated. And at this stage, it states very clearly "to access specific Wikimedia Foundation teams' support and resources" Delphine (WMF) (talk) 14:52, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Guillaume (WMF), Delphine (WMF), Elitre (WMF) , thank you for your feedback. To respond to your specific questions:

• Only Wikimedia Foundation resources. Yes, this is true, for now. We started with those resources because it was the most effective way to launch a minimum viable product as this: we knew the resource relevance in the movement, we had access to the creator of the resource (usually, a team) and we could engage them in designing a cross-discipline resource center. As Elitre (WMF), the next phase of the project involves enabling Wikimedians to add their own resources, as we know are many in the movement. Having a different name just for a few months works against communication goals like awareness and engagement.
• Are we duplicating Meta in its functionality and content? No, we are not. In terms of functionality, we have consistently heard from community that it is really hard to find relevant resources on Meta. There are many, scattered away, and finding them takes up useful time that could be use developing projects, or learning something new. By pointing at resources, the WRC intends to improve findability of these resources, increase their visibility and for this, increase community engagement with the tool, and avoid duplicate work as well. Furthermore, the resources that we are gathering here are not all on Meta: they can be found on Outreach wiki and on Mediawiki as well. Knowing where to look for what is a skill developed with practice working in the movement. By creating a centralized hub in one place, we reduce the time people spend looking for things, including that time to figure out where to look for those things. Finally, we are not duplicating Meta in terms of content duplication: any content that was originally created on Meta is transcluded to its WRC page.
• We intend this to be a central place for Meta-Wikimedia resources. The goal is to be able to classify guides, events, documentation, toolkits, etc, that help to advance the Wikimedia Mission. Some resources are not supposed to be here: for example, en:WP:5PILLARS. However, a guide to introduce Wikipedia to newcomers, that includes the 5 pillars, the notability policy and a basic style guide, should be here.

I hope this clarifies any doubts. Thanks again for your feedback! María (WMF) (talk) 15:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

But it is wrong. If you create a resource centre called "Wikimedia Resource Center" we expect you to make a "Wikimedia Resource Center" since the beginning, not a "Wikimedia Foundation Resource Center" and then in second phase "enabling" the others (I was not aware in the Wikimedia movement we "enable" people to contribute). If anyone would create a page on Wikipedia and cite only its own work we would consider it unacceptable. You are doing the same. It is simply wrong. A basic research can allow you to include in "your" resource centre content from other sources, it is not such an impossible task. Just include them. If you do not include other sources, call this page "Wikimedia Foundation Resource Center". --iopensa (talk) 13:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback iopensa. I see what you mean in terms of the names and the words I used. What I meant is that we are going to facilitate contributions, as in, make it easier. Right now, anyone can contribute resources, but due to the templates, it is not easy to do. We published the resource center now as it is, because we believe that is is better for the development of the platform to publish a work in progress. In this way, we can receive more specific and actionable feedback. Certainly, including more movement resources is key and it is not an impossible task. We have scoped work this for the coming three months, actually. It requires many hours because it is not only researching and finding tasks, we want to involve Wikimedians in how to navigate and find those resources. I don't believe we should just include them as we see fit, that process should also be participatory. The differentiation you make between Wikimedia Foundation resources and other movement resources is not so black and white either. For example, the Learning Patterns are created by community members, and linked to from the WRC. Most GLAM resources were developed by community leaders. The Wikipedia Library was started by Jake, who was first a Wikipedian, then a grantee, then became WMF staff. There are many more resources we need to include out there, but if we didn't publish the first version of the WRC, we risk investing in a platform that is not usable. It is basic principle in product development.

We are working really hard to incorporate many different views, focus and balance interests. This includes carefully communicating the Wikimedia Resource Center so that everyone understands it is a work in progress, and that we need community input to go forward. I kindly ask you to be considerate of this work when you provide feedback. María (WMF) (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello. María (WMF), I guess the sentence that really confuses me, especially after everything you have tried to say here, is "Welcome. We are here to help. The Wikimedia Resource Center is a hub designed to be a single point of entry for Wikimedians all over the world to access specific Wikimedia Foundation teams' support and resources, as well as to bring knowledge exchange systems to a centralized location to reduce searching for shared movement resources.. This reads to me in a way that says that the Wikimedia Foundation is the only one with teams and resources, when I believe it is not the case. All it takes is getting rid of the word "Foundation" in that particular sentence and I believe we're already a big step closer to becoming more inclusive. Also, who is "we" in "we are here to help"? As I mentioned above, this page is an amazing hub/signeage/finder, but it does not provide specific access to humans who can help. It points people in the right direction, it does not *help* them per say. Something like "Welcome, find your way to the right resource" or something like this would be more accurate (and incidentally would probably alleviate most of the concerns voiced in this thread). Delphine (WMF) (talk) 14:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Delphine (WMF), thank you for responding. I have made a few edits to change the problem you are flagging. I am still not sure about changing the sentence "We are here to help". I think everyone who contributes a resource is willing to help, so I am not so concerned with defining the we here (this goes back to my point on Feb 8 about focusing on what brings us together, rather than the differences and making clear cut divisions where it doesn't make sense). I will gather feedback from more community members on this point and revisit the sentence then. Thanks again! María (WMF) (talk) 00:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Mobile friendly layout?

The tables that are used for navigation make these pages basically unreadable on small viewport devices (e.g. my cell phone). Could some work be done to develop a navigation structure that actually degrades nicely for narrow viewports? --BDavis (WMF) (talk) 21:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I had the same comment to make. Amqui (talk) 02:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi BDavis (WMF), Amqui, thank you! I am adding this to the list of upcoming tasks. María (WMF) (talk) 15:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

New projects

I don't see any links to resources on how to create a new project (i.e. Wikipedia) in a new language. Resources on how to do so in the Incubator and how to request the creation to the Langcom are needed. The steps to create projects in new languages are very hard and very little information and resources are available to support and help the communities that wish to do so. Those are communities that do not have experienced Wikimedians to help like existing languages Wikipedia do, so if some support and resources are needed it is for them. We say that there is a big learning curve for newcomers on English Wikipedia for example, but the learning curve for somebody to create a Wikipedia in his or her language if none exist is by far way bigger, especially with all the extra that they have to learn. Not only do they have to learn basic Wikipedia rules, principles and functionalities, they have to learn how to use the Incubator and the prefixes and all the extra stuff. I had to show how to use the Incubator and the processes to get a new Wikipedia created to experienced Wikipedians and they found it very difficult and very cumbersome, so imagine how it is for newcomers, and no easy to follow guides exist to support them. More focus need to be done to better support those communities. Amqui (talk) 02:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Amqui, thank you for pointing this out. I will add it to the list where we are documenting requests and comments. I wanted to clarify one thing: I found this resource to start a new language version Wikipedia or other Wikimedia project. Is there any other link you would like to share? Please let me know on this same comment, and ping me. Thanks! María (WMF) (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@MCruz (WMF): This manual is a good start. But this is far from enough to guide people who do not know about Wikipedia, the Wikimedia movement, and how things work. Only people who already understand Wikipedia and Mediawiki can understand this manual in my opinion. This is not newbie friendly. This is what I want to emphasize on. For examples, on the project I am working with, with the Atikamekw community in Canada, we had to create help pages like [1], [2] and [3] (in French only). Thank you for taking time to consider this side of things, Amqui (talk) 03:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Amqui, thank you so much for sharing those links. Those are the resources we need to map for the next phase of the WRC. I have added them to our feedback form for the next round of edits on the Wikimedia Resource Center. If you think of other resources that could use being on the WRC, please share them here, on my talk page or via email to evalwikimedia · org. Thanks! María (WMF) (talk) 12:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@MCruz (WMF): Ok, if you want them all, I also created a series of help pages for the Atikamekw high school students and teachers for their pedagogic project where they have to write Wikipedia articles as part of their computer classes (all in French) : [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Amqui (talk) 22:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Where were those integrated? Amqui (talk) 18:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikimedia Resource Center/Product Development/Events

I feel like transcluding stuff there would be too much. The page could be probably more effective if it only highlighted events that are coming up. Also, I don't think I can find a page linking to IRC office hours in the hub. Elitre (WMF) (talk) 17:09, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Elitre (WMF). While I understand why the current documentation of events may not be as useful, this is up to the owner of the resource to change (in this case, the Product team). The WRC is only pulling from existing resources at this point. About IRC, I will add that feedback on the upcoming tasks for WRC. María (WMF) (talk) 17:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Link to the Wikimedia Resource Center from the Meta mainpage

I like the idea of and the layout of the WRC, and am looking forward to the "bells and whistles" which will be rolled out in future versions. My only concern is, how will people find this page? Have you thought about linking to it from the Meta mainpage? --Rosiestep (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Rosiestep, thank you for your feedback. It would be great to add it to the Main Page. I believe that, in order to do so, we may need a community consultation or similar. I will look more into this, and adding your comment to the feedback documentation. María (WMF) (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

A consultation to add a link looks... heavy. Maybe we could try to be more agile and just suggest on the talk page that it gets added? We also need a good shortcut as WRC is a bit meh. For example, I don't really think Comms should own this redirect. (From the session I'm into right now at WmCon (Wikimedia Foundation + Community Partnerships: Let's work better together!) it's obvious that this hub would be terribly helpful to people who can't really figure out who they should talk to.) Elitre (WMF) (talk) 13:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Introducing the new Wikimedia Resource Center

Hello everyone. After we launched the initial Wikimedia Resource Center in January, we collected significant feedback, including at Wikimedia Conference 2017. Based on your feedback, we have re-designed the resource center to make it easier to navigate and use. Please take a look and let us know what you think. Cheers, Harej (WMF) (talk) 23:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Looks fantastic. Well-organized and easy to navigate, perhaps most importantly by those who don't already know their way around. Well done. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit-a-thon support resources?

I get contacted on almost a weekly basis by non-Wikimedians who are interested in running an edit-a-thon, and they're looking for support materials to do so successfully. Wiki Education does not have a support structure for edit-a-thons, but I try to direct them toward guidelines and materials on Commons that can help them get started. It seems to me that it's one of the primary ways new users come looking for resources. I tried finding a space within the Resource Center that compiles edit-a-thon resources, and I came up short. I'd recommend making this an obvious entry-way within the hub. For non-Wikimedians, I think pointing them (after 4 clicks) to "The Wikipedia Library" or "GLAM initiatives" is less useful than creating an entry point for the activity they're trying to do. Jami (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Jami, thank you for the feedback. I definitely agree edit-a-thon resources should be more prominent; having run several myself I've often felt I didn't have any online resources I could use. Incidentally there is Learning and Evaluation/Program resources/Edit-a-thons, which I have now added under Programs Support. Let me know if you find that page as a useful destination and if there could be any improvements made. Harej (WMF) (talk) 01:13, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Ask a question

The "Ask a question" button does not work in other languages. --Hedda Gabler (talk) 12:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)