Putting response hereEdit

This is a somewhat combative response to your WM forum comment. Dropping it here rather than there as it is quite long, and I certainly take issues with what you have said, how you have said it, and not considered the space and means to communicate it. But hey, that is just me.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

That is a work harder, not smarter, approach. It is my reflection this is sounding more like w:WP:IDONTLIKEIT / w:WP:IDONTLIKETHEM.

  • I am already at and involved at multiple communities, I don't have to go back anywhere, I never left them. If there is not clarity in your proposal outside of that, then maybe you need to go back to your proposal and review and refresh.
  • The fundraising banner is an infinitesimal small component of this wiki and in which there is little real input from metawiki beyond hosting the functionality, it is a WMF staff issue. Only staff and those approved by staff have access to it. It is not a good example of metawiki control.
  • Yes. WMF uses metawiki for coordinating WMF discussions, that is its purpose. WMF also uses Mediawikiwiki for developing technical solutions, as that is its purpose. Announcements are put out to many wikis of things that are happening, announcements, forthcoming changes, etc.
  • If I know I want to hear and discuss central-coordinating things, be it global proposals, global blacklists, global abuse filters, global rights, global blocks, global renames, new wikis, etc., then the coordinating metawiki is the place to be. Which bits are you peeling away? How do you want that done differently.

Can I ask what has your wiki done to educate your users about metawiki? Is the supposed distance partly due to your wikis ignoring of metawiki? Metawiki is just one wiki and it connects to all wikis, it is not about being central, it is about being connected and themed. So stop redesigning in an image that you have, and come and tell us what are your needs that are not being met. Prioritise them.

Also, please don't expect people to pick through the minutiae to understand your broad concept. Especially when your starting approach is ...

What we have today is a Meta formed by users who have migrated from their base communities (home wikis) and formed a new community, who decide and impose these decisions on the base communities in a top-down model of governance. In this model, the design of the relationship between Meta and the base communities is a star, with Meta at the center, where each base community has a relationship only with Meta. In the image on the right, Meta is represented by the central green dot.

  1. Who has migrated? What evidence? Many of the people I see here are at multiple wikis. There is nothing stopping any person participating, in fact invitations are sent out to request participation on behalf of the wikis.
  2. Which decisions are imposed without the communities' ability to participate? Can you show that there has been no consensus on the decisions,
  3. Base communities? What does that mean?
  4. With meta at the centre? So your community has no interaction with Wikidata? Where is that decision-making occurring? Tell us about the consultation there? What about phabricator? Show me where those decisions are influenced primarily by metawiki? If your primary wiki doesn't have a relationship with other wikis, don't come saying it is metawiki at fault. I know that the Wikisources cross-communicate, and independent of metawiki.
  5. Top down? And what does that mean? What top? Apart from the fact that you are now mixing your metaphors you cannot be in the centre and be pushing from top.
  6. new community? Each wiki and its participants is a community and this wiki has been in operation for

To name a few: a) the decisions do not reflect the opinion of the totality of the communities, but only of those who form the community on Meta; b) editors and users who do not have the full confidence of their base communities, but possess that of the Meta community, end up deciding and imposing their decisions on the base communities; c) sometimes decisions of the base community are administratively contested by Meta (formed by outsiders in relation to the base communities), overruling the decisions of the base community; d) several editors that don't frequent Meta (for various reasons, such as language, difference of political and technical structure, lack of time and others) end up not participating in the decisions on Meta; e) there is no knowledge and recognition between communities, since they don't interact other than through Meta; f) etc.

To point the supposed consequences a) {{citation needed}} {{examples needed}}
b) {{citation needed}} {{examples needed}}
c) {{citation needed}} {{examples needed}} who where when what? Can you point me to protests made or global RFCs about the issue? Even local RFCs?
d) here there is scope to change things at metawiki, though it will never be ptwiki
e) what does that even mean? how would your plan change that? Your plan further separates discussions, builds more silos and less reason to leave a wiki. It doesn't expose the people in your community to any outside opinion.
f) etc. what the f?

So after my harsh appraisal, I will come back with the questions. What are the real issues that exist? What information are you not getting? What opportunity for participation are you not getting? What feedback do you need? What is broken that needs resolution? Which of those issues are people? Which are the wiki? Which are the system? Which is people actually not bothering to come outside of their home wiki where they have a comfort zone?

Billinghurst Thank you for the above observations. I am sure you don't expect me to answer them quickly, so I will answer them slowly in parts.--Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 12:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Billinghurst But I can already tell you that if examples and quotes are missing, everyone is invited to provide them, I don't intend to do the work alone.--Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 12:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
IMNSHO, I would think that the whole discussion would be better as an open discussion as an RFC. I don't think that the WM forum is a good spot for complex debates.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Unmarking a page for translationEdit

Hello Felipe,

You have removed the markups from User:Felipe da Fonseca/test. For information, I just wanted to notice you that the page is still a translatable page. Translation admins can use “Remove from translation” feature from Special:PageTranslation. -- Pols12 (talk) 17:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Pols12 Thanks for the information. Could you remove it for me? So I can use the test page for other things?--Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 17:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)