Open main menu

User talk:Risker

Active discussions

Board elections templateEdit

Hi Risker - just to let you know I've left a response at User talk:Thehelpfulone#Board elections template re the election template. I've made a bunch of tweaks to Template:Board elections 2013 to see how it's going to work with the Translate extension. Now that I've done my tweaks I've removed the <translate> tags from the Board elections/2013 and unmarked it for translation so that you (the Committee) can write up that page. Please let me know when you're ready for things to get translated and I'll help sort it all out. :-) Thehelpfulone 18:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Thehelpfulone. As I noted in my revisions, the majority of what had been added has not yet been determined yet, and it is likely that much of it will be rewritten significantly so it would be inconsiderate of us to ask for translations at this point. I note that there are some "blue" links in the template that lead to sections of the main page that have now been removed, but it's probably not critical at this point. I confess I am curious as to where you got those dates from, since the Committee hasn't even started discussing dates. Risker (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, my apologies for that, I did a lot of work for the steward elections last year and some work on this year so I think I got a little too used to just copying the previous year's content and changing the year which I forgot isn't appropriate for these elections! I've also hidden the blue vote link for now and the one to Board elections/2013/Translation until more pages are ready for translation. Thehelpfulone 23:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

NoteEdit

Hi Risker. Hope that you're fine. As Board ElectCom member and user that raised concerns regarding the Shultze method for voting I wish to tell you that I've opened Talk:Board elections/2013 now that everything is being set up and nothing seems to be definitive so this can be discussed. Best regards. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 17:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

FDC Submissions.Edit

Thank you for your notification - I knew I was logged out but I tried to submit what I could with a connection I was trying to reanimate; I confirmed my identity afterwards.

I am sorry that I have caused some trouble for you and your committee, you(?) will need to decide whether to keep the submission or flush it. For me it is a lesson "not to get persuaded on the last day" - but who would've thought I will have an Internet connection "like in 1999". ;) Or worse.

Trembling while thinking what I must have written in this turmoil,
aegis maelstrom δ 02:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

PingEdit

Hi Risker

I've emailed you on a Signpost matter. Just procedural stuff. Tony (talk) 06:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Re:My candidate statement requestEdit

Hi Risker, should be fixed now. May you confirm? Thanks -- CristianCantoro (talk) 14:05, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Cristian. This meets the length limit. Risker (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: identificationEdit

Hi Risker,   Done. To be honest, I haven't submitted my documents before because I was thinking that I was going to be contacted by someone from WMF before sending it. You may also want to state again that the deadline to send a proof of identity is the same as the one for the candidacy in the instructions. -- CristianCantoro (talk) 09:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!Edit

Thank you and sorry for causing the trouble. --Millosh (talk) 15:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

RE: EmailEdit

Alright. I understand. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

HowdyEdit

Risker, I wasn't aware there was a deadline on answering the questions for the Board elections--is there? I can't edit the sections: "Section is deleted" or something like that. I can edit the page as a whole, but that text is full of scary coding...your help is appreciated. (BTW, this happened to me a few days ago already, before voting started.) Also, I'm PayPalling you my bribe--is $10 enough? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah :( sadly that's a side effect of the translation software when it got used there (one that I know has frustrated me many times as well). It doesn't end up letting you use section editing at all. The easiest way for you to find where to go is likely going to be searching for username on the page (if you want an empty/unanswered question you can search for |Drmies = <translate></translate> and put the answer between the two translates). Templates and translation can help a lot but they also, sadly, cause issues like this. I'm not totally sure where the balance is. I don't think there is a question deadline but I'll leave that for risker. Jalexander (talk) 05:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks, James. Drmies, I asked James to respond to you because I didn't know the answer. Risker (talk) 06:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Help voter pleaseEdit

Hi Risker. Thanks very much for all your help with the elections. And since I'm here, thanks also for your work on ArbCom. It's a very difficult task to take on and has little rewards, so I'm thankful that you and others are willing to help in this area. Anyhoo, a voter from fi:wp is having difficulty voting. Could you please provide some advice at Talk:Wikimedia Foundation elections 2013#I Can't vote when you get a chance. Thanks much. 64.40.54.96 06:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

 Thank you very much! 64.40.54.149 02:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for serving on the committeeEdit

Hi Risker, I just wanted to thank you for serving on the elections committee. I know a number of people thanked you already, but I wanted to specifically thank you for keeping the election running smoothly. It's an awful big job to take on and you're already busy with AC, so I think it was very generous of you to help out in this important election. I am sure there are many people that appreciate the time and effort you've put in. Thanks. 64.40.54.119 01:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your work making the elections possible this year. PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I appreciate your kind words. Seems we managed to pull it off after all. :) Risker (talk) 02:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your comments on the name changeEdit

Hi Risker, I wanted to let you know I appreciated your sharing your thoughts on the Annual Plan Grants program (formerly known as the FDC process). It is helpful for me to understand how others interpret the names, and I was glad to know your take on the change. Thanks for sharing it. Warm regards, KLove (WMF) (talk) 22:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Your steward candidacyEdit

It's too late to change my vote.... but I noticed something on Wikipedia that has led me to be much friendlier to the idea of your becoming a steward, if you wish to run again in teh future. Your comments in this case show that you saw some of what I confronted, so long ago. The Scibaby sock farm was created by abusive administration.

Obviously, Wikimedians were looking for more cross-wiki experience. Good luck. --Abd (talk) 19:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I too would love to see you run again next year - I think you could bring a lot of good experience to the role. If you wanted to get more experience cross-wiki, the SWMT is a good place to start, or you could look at getting involved more with projects like Wikidata and Commons. Ajraddatz (Talk) 19:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you both for your kind comments. Many people whose opinions I generally respect strongly encouraged me to leave the candidacy open even when it was clear that it would not succeed, with the suggestion that it would leave me in better standing should I run for steward again in the future. Unfortunately, some who disagreed with some of my positions on English Wikipedia took advantage of that and posted blatantly untrue comments about me. As a result, if I run again in the future, this will no doubt rear its ugly head again. I'm not really into self-flaggelation, so it would take a lot of persuasion for me to consider a run again in the future. In particular, I'm not really a vandal-fighter or hat collector, and SWMT is pretty much the antithesis of what I've done over the years on Wikimedia projects. I don't object to the perspective that more multi-project experience is desirable; while I don't agree with it (and there are many stewards who did not have much multi-wiki experience when they were first elected), there is nothing inherently wrong with it. I have experience I thought would be useful, but others don't agree with me. That's okay; there are plenty of other ways that I can contribute to WMF projects. Thanks again for taking the time to share your thoughts with me. Risker (talk) 19:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Well, I had similar issues in terms of the lies, and I still passed, so it certainly is possible. Anyway, [1] may be of interest to you.
    • You know my thoughts on the whole thing already, but I'm sure that your bigger picture experience could be helpful in the development of projects who are still finding their way (and if you look hard enough, there are plenty of well-meaning projects who just need a bit of assistance). Anyway, I'm sure I'll see you around. --Rschen7754 21:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

2014 FDC self-nominationEdit

Hello Risker! Thank you very much for submitting your nomination to join the Funds Dissemination Committee. I am working with the Board representatives to the FDC on the FDC nominations process. As you know, the public question and answer period is now underway. Please do review the questions and respond to them as you are able. If you are selected for an interview, kindly note that interviews will be held the week of the 23rd June and the 30th, if necessary. If the Board appoints you to the FDC, we will be holding orientation for members prior to Wikimania on August 6 and 7 in London. If you have any questions at all, don't hesitate to reach out to me on my Talk page or at FDCsupport@wikimedia.org. Once again, thank you very much for putting yourself forward as a candidate for the FDC! KLove (WMF) (talk) 00:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, KLove (WMF), so noted. I'm starting to work on the questions tonight. Incidentally, that email address returns an "out of office" notice, so I hope that someone other than Anasuya is monitoring it. Risker (talk) 01:04, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi Risker, thanks for the note. The FDCsupport email address goes to the three WMF staff that work on the FDC most closely: Winifred Olliff, Anasuya Sengupta, and me. Unfortunately, when one of us has an out of office notice up, it is triggered by the FDCsupport email. But worry not, our team is always actively monitoring that inbox and responding as quickly as we can. :) KLove (WMF) (talk) 18:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Evaluation portal redesign previewEdit

Dear Risker - The Learning & Evaluation team at the WMF is currently redesigning the Evaluation portal! Before we take the next steps in the redesign process, we'd really like to hear your thoughts and feedback about the new design. You have been involved in evaluation portal over the last year and can help us design an improved site.

When you have a moment, please visit the link below for screenshots and more information. We'd really like to hear your feedback by July 21 07:00 UTC so we can incorporate your ideas or comments into the design process.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Evaluation/Boiler_room/Portal_Redesign_Plan/Community_feedback

Thank you so much! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 20:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey Risker! Just wanted to remind you that we'd really appreciate any feedback on this by Monday July 21 7:00UTC. Thanks so much! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 23:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Please fill out our Inspire campaign surveyEdit

Thank you for participating in the Wikimedia Inspire campaign during March 2015!

Please take our short survey and share your experience during the campaign.



Many thanks,

Jmorgan (WMF) (talk), on behalf of the IdeaLab team.

23:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

This message was delivered automatically to Inspire campaign participants. To unsubscribe from any future IdeaLab reminders, remove your name from this list

Please fill out our Inspire campaign surveyEdit

Thank you for participating in the Wikimedia Inspire campaign during March 2015!

Please take our short survey and share your experience during the campaign.



Many thanks,

Jmorgan (WMF) (talk), on behalf of the IdeaLab team.

00:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

This message was delivered automatically to Inspire campaign participants. To unsubscribe from any future IdeaLab reminders, remove your name from this list

How can we improve Wikimedia grants to support you better?Edit

Hi! The Wikimedia Foundation would like your input on how we can reimagine Wikimedia Foundation grants to better support people and ideas in your Wikimedia project.

After reading the Reimagining WMF grants idea, we ask you to complete this survey to help us improve the idea and learn more about your experience. When you complete the survey, you can enter to win one of five Wikimedia globe sweatshirts!

In addition to taking the the survey, you are welcome to participate in these ways:

This survey is in English, but feedback on the discussion page is welcome in any language.

With thanks,

I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources, Wikimedia Foundation.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was sent by I JethroBT (WMF) (talk · contribs) through MediaWiki message delivery. 01:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Last call for WMF grants feedback!Edit

Hi, this is a reminder that the consultation about Reimagining WMF grants is closing on 8 September (0:00 UTC). We encourage you to complete the survey now, if you haven't yet done so, so that we can include your ideas.

With thanks,

I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources, Wikimedia Foundation.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was sent by I JethroBT (WMF) (talk · contribs) through MediaWiki message delivery. 19:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Meek STV for Persian WikipediaEdit

Hey Risker. I was delving deeply into the past discussions of the Board elections. I really appreciate all the great work you have done in the past election committees, especiall 2013 election committee. Your report, which I read thoroughly and eagerly, was really insightful. I want to know the story behind the voting system switch from Schulze to S/N/O system, which is highly vulnerable in my opinion. I noticed that a huge amount of load was carried by you in 2013 election committee. I'd like to know how the committee decided to switch to the enwiki system? Was it a personal choice or a genuine joint one? I wonder how the German user who could barely speak English (en-0) was able to participate in the discussions! Did the members of the committee discuss in a private mailing list? If so, what's wrong with the wiki itself which is available to the public?

Let's do a better work; Let's concentrate on the future (I mean short answers for the above-mentioned questions will suffice). I know that Schulze method is a single-winner system, but what about other alternatives such as en:Meek STV (complex) or Scottish STV (simple)? Take a look at http://www.openstv.org/faq. I have raised a discussion about this issue at Denny's talk page and would be more than glad to see you there. Sincerely 4nn1l2 (talk) 11:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion was carried out on a private mailing list, and it was pretty much the first discussion that the 2013 Committee had shortly after it was appointed. (We were appointed in February 2013 for the May/June election.) There was universal support for moving away from Schulze, but two months' lead time was not enough to have a good community consultation on a different voting method and then to have software written and tested on SecurePoll if a system other than one already verified was chosen, so we were more or less stuck with S/N/O. We knew this was a weakness, and it is one of the reasons for recommending a standing Election Committee; such a discussion would take 6-8 months of researching options, discussing it with the community, and then writing and testing software. I'm actually not a big fan of S/N/O (although I do prefer it to Schulze), but the options were pretty limited at that point.

It is my understanding that a standing Election Committee is or is close to being approved, which I'm very happy to see, because I think a discussion on voting systems is overdue, and because I think it would be great to re-examine quite a few elements of the current process which are "legacy" but the rationales that existed 10 years ago may no longer be valid. The 2015 committee was even more time-constrained from the 2013 one, and they relied quite a bit on the structure that we had designed for the 2013 election just to make sure that critical functions were carried out; they certainly didn't have time to do very much tweaking, especially given the focus on driving up diversity and having documents translated into multiple languages. I'm extremely impressed by the work the 2015 committee did in such short time, and I hope some of their members may join the standing committee. Risker (talk) 12:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I am glad to see a former Election Commissioner has supported my proposal on 2015 Community Wishlist Survey. I'm asking you because the current Board members didn't even bother to respond my query on the noticeboard. Based on what criteria the Board members appoint the Election Committee members?

I'd like to submit my candidacy because I think that I would make a good commissioner. I've done a decent job on our local Election Committee at Persian Wikipedia along with my fellow commissioners. We have created a table of potential voting systems with pros and cons and their users both in the real world and on the net. For example, I have found out that the following organizations use Meek STV for their elections: Stack Exchange, Apache Board of Directors, LOPSA (2015), Document Foundation, Zope Foundation, and London Hackspace. Meek STV is also used in local elections in New Zealand. I have also found four free and open-source software that can be used to tally votes using Meek STV method, namely Voting systems toolbox, OpenSTV (when it was free), Droop, and Apache. I have also filed a bug in Phabricator (another one by a fellow commissioner) regarding SecurePoll and elections on WMF projects. I have also studied some academic books and journal articles about social choice theory. I also tried to involve myself in the current ArbCom elections at English Wikipedia and even notified User:Mdann52 about the possible repercussions of MassMessage which seems to have come true according to this tread. I also tried to come up with a solution for gender gap and civility problems at English Wikipedia.

I am from Iran in the Middle East and would make the committee more diverse, given the concerns about diversity in the last Board Elections. I would gladly represent Persian, Arabic, Turkish, Hebrew, and other Middle Eastern Wikimedia communities and would be more than glad to give all Global South communities a voice. I can communicate decently in English and have a passive understanding of Arabic (i.e. I can read and mostly understand but cannot write), as well as my native Persian. I have also some technical backgrounds which I can develop rapidly if I find the motivation and if need be. 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

What future IdeaLab campaigns would you like to see?Edit

Hi there,

I’m Jethro, and I’m seeking your help in deciding topics for new IdeaLab campaigns that could be run starting next year. These campaigns aim to bring in proposals and solutions from communities that address a need or problem in Wikimedia projects. I'm interested in hearing your preferences and ideas for campaign topics!

Here’s how to participate:

Take care,

I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources, Wikimedia Foundation. 03:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Future IdeaLab Campaigns resultsEdit

Last December, I invited you to help determine future ideaLab campaigns by submitting and voting on different possible topics. I'm happy to announce the results of your participation, and encourage you to review them and our next steps for implementing those campaigns this year. Thank you to everyone who volunteered time to participate and submit ideas.

With great thanks,

I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources, Wikimedia Foundation. 23:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Inspire Campaign on content curation & reviewEdit

I've recently launched an Inspire Campaign to encourage new ideas focusing on content review and curation in Wikimedia projects. Wikimedia volunteers collaboratively manage vast repositories of knowledge, and we’re looking for your ideas about how to manage that knowledge to make it more meaningful and accessible. We invite you to participate and submit ideas, so please get involved today! The campaign runs until March 28th.

All proposals are welcome - research projects, technical solutions, community organizing and outreach initiatives, or something completely new! Funding is available from the Wikimedia Foundation for projects that need financial support. Constructive feedback on ideas is welcome - your skills and experience can help bring someone else’s project to life. Join us at the Inspire Campaign to improve review and curation tasks so that we can make our content more meaningful and accessible! I JethroBT (WMF) 05:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was sent by I JethroBT (WMF) (talk · contribs) through MediaWiki message delivery.

Open Call for Individual Engagement GrantsEdit

Greetings! The Individual Engagement Grants (IEG) program is accepting proposals until April 12th to fund new tools, research, outreach efforts, and other experiments that enhance the work of Wikimedia volunteers. Whether you need a small or large amount of funds (up to $30,000 USD), IEGs can support you and your team’s project development time in addition to project expenses such as materials, travel, and rental space.

With thanks, I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources 15:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Plagiarism detectionEdit

Hi! You voted for improving plagiarism detection as an important suggestions in the community wishlist survey last year. I'm pinging people who showed interest in that task to tell them we have some suggestions for how things could look, if you'd like to glance at them and give us some feedback. They're available here: phab:T120435#2266283. It's easiest if comments are left in Phabricator, since that's where much of the development is happening, but they can be left on Meta too, of course. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Cross-wiki watchlistEdit

Hi again! You also voted for the cross-wiki watchlist as an important suggestions in the community wishlist survey last year. I'm pinging editors who showed interest in that task to tell them we have some suggestions for how things could look, if you'd like to glance at them and give us some feedback. You can find them on the project page on Meta. If you'd like to share any comments, you're very welcome to do so on the talk page. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 00:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Participate in the Inspire Campaign and help address harassment!Edit

Through June, we’re organizing an Inspire Campaign to encourage and support new ideas focusing on addressing harassment toward Wikimedia contributors. The 2015 Harassment Survey has shown evidence that harassment in various forms - name calling, threats, discrimination, stalking, and impersonation, among others - is pervasive. Available methods and systems to deal with harassment are also considered to be ineffective. These behaviors are clearly harmful, and in addition, many individuals who experience or witness harassment participate less in Wikimedia projects or stop contributing entirely.

Proposals in any language are welcome during the campaign - research projects, technical solutions, community organizing and outreach initiatives, or something completely new! Funding is available from the Wikimedia Foundation for projects that need financial support. Constructive feedback on ideas is appreciated, and collaboration is encouraged - your skills and experience may help bring someone else’s project to life. Join us at the Inspire Campaign so that we can work together to develop ideas around this important and difficult issue. With thanks,

I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 17:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC) (Opt-out instructions)

CongratsEdit

On the FDC appointment. I know it must be a lot of work.

Thanks for your contributions

Smallbones (talk) 01:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Smallbones. While it is a lot of work, I've found it to be quite rewarding over the last two years. It's been very educational as well: I've learned a lot about various parts of the movement and some of the brilliant contributions made by our volunteers. I'm looking forward to learning even more as I settle in for the next round. Risker (talk) 01:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Survey on Inspire Campaign for addressing harassmentEdit

Thanks for your participation during the Inspire Campaign focused on addressing harassment from June 2016. I'm interested in hearing your experience during the campaign, so if you're able, I invite you to complete this brief survey to describe how you contributed to the campaign and how you felt about participating.

Please feel free to let me know on my talk page if you have any questions about the campaign or the survey. Thanks! I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 03:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

(Opt-out instructions)

2016 Community Wishlist SurveyEdit

Hi,

You’re getting this message because you participated in the 2015 Community Wishlist Survey and we want to make sure you don't miss it this year – or at least can make the conscious choice to ignore if it you want to. The 2015 survey decided what the Community Tech team should work on during 2016. It was also the focus of Wikimedia hackathons and work by other developers. You can see the status of wishes from the 2015 wishlist at 2015 Community Wishlist Survey/Results.

The 2016 Community Wishlist Survey is now open for wishes. You can create proposals until November 20. You will be able to vote on which wishes you think are best or most important between November 28 and December 12. /Johan (WMF) (talk) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Your revertEdit

So you reverted to ignorant writing that I had bothered to correct. I don't give my time for free to face that kind of bloody-mindedness. Tony (talk) 12:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

FDC round linkEdit

Unblock on enwikiEdit

{{unblock|I'm not a sock. Please help}}. We have time to go now and we should be there right now so we could still go there go (talk) 05:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Inactivating template as unblock request as user is not blocked at Meta. @We have time to go now and we should be there right now so we could still go there go: please use process explained at w:Wikipedia:UTRS  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Re-enable TPAEdit

I'd like to edit my talk page again. Please help me. We have time to go now and we should be there right now so we could still go there go (talk) 07:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

SawEdit

your name over the Wikimania stuff about the ongoing Strategy-Working_Group_Recommendations, which is already attracting quite much criticism. And, on a first glance, you seemed to be the only recognizable (and respected) name from ~en.

A lot many of the recommendations seem to be woefully written and some are outright problematic. I believe that there is a legitimate fear of WMF guiding the project into some kind of social activism through a systematic plan and from the looks of FRAMBAN et al, it seems that the pieces are falling in places.

So, can you kindly share some thoughts about the broader process? Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 14:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello Winged Blades of Godric. There are several other working group members who participate at enwiki, including but not limited to Rosiestep, The Land, Islahaddow, and Kirill Lokshin; these four come to mind immediately mostly because I knew both user and RL names. The draft recommendations are just that, drafts - proposals for broader discussion, if you want to put it another way. And the very best thing that everyone could do right now is discuss them with the working groups. There are some really good ideas in these drafts, and there are also ideas that are pretty far out. For example, the notion of monetizing merchandise (e.g., selling t-shirts and buttons) is probably acceptable to most parts of our broader community, while others, such as pressuring Wikimedians to provide a large amount of personal information on their user pages, are a lot more controversial, and it would be worthwhile to flesh out why those ideas raise concerns. I'd suggest reading each recommendation and giving specific feedback - not just the ones that people don't like, but also the ones that people think are a good idea.

In late August and early September, the working groups will be modifying their recommendations to reflect feedback from a lot of sources, including the community and those who attend Wikimania. Then in late September, representatives from all of the working groups will meet to "harmonize" and "consolidate" the final recommendations. It's my expectation that between these two exercises, there will be significant modifications and accommodations made; some of these draft recommendations will be dropped, others will be changed and still others will be considered high priority. It's really important to point out that NONE of them are final. So please, jump in and start talking about this. It's not been an easy exercise for anyone who has participated - we've all had to do some "give and take" even within our own small working groups, and we are seeing quite a few of the recommendations from the other working groups at more or less the same time as you are.

I'd really love to hear some suggestions on how to get more of our enwiki users involved in reviewing or discussing these recommendations - any thoughts? Risker (talk) 16:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! You add some much-needed clarity, as usual. I have tried leaving feedback on all of those recommendations, that I managed to understand well enough and some of them seemed indeed good. Needless to say that quite many (at the same time) are absolutely poor/radical(??) and some are way too vague.

I tried to attract a few heads from en-wiki to comment over the feedback-t/p(s) but most of them rejected it as yet another of the usual resource-wasting-expenditures of WMF, that will near-certainly lead to nowhere and hence, did not deserve much attention. This is a huge problem - most people don't care enough unless it affects them in the very short run. Only when did I mention the trifecta of NC-ND/user-page-data-collection/universal-knowledge, they landed up over here and at other places.

As to methods of solicitation; leaving notes at AN, VPP et al is the first step. I don't think that central-banners work well enough with their one/two-liners and participation metrics in the t/p consultation seems to confirm my stand. Watch-list notices/CENT ought not be much different, either. IMHO, leaving a personalized note on the t/p(s) of randomly selected admins, all functionaries and a random but large chunk of active editors (wherein activity is determined by featured content production/net edit count/articles created/...) ought to work well-enough. We can also selectively target certain projects like WiR, LGBT+, India et al who have been the focus of many recommendations, in particular. But that dropped message needs to be straight to the point w/o giving any feel that this is yet another of those thousand and a thirteen consultations done by WMF; contain something like a statement of intent about how the recommendations curated after this feedback phase will shape the future of the broader movement and undeniably, en-wiki. And, it must contain a glimpse into the recommendations summarizing some of the more radical proposals but w/o coming across in a threatening/imposing manner.

The previous stages were very ill-publicized which has been reflected in the near complete lack of non-organised volunteers from the two largest wikis in the working_groups. Even the form for surveys were published at the very fag end, in en-wiki, after Opabinia came across them. I think, the recommendation_feedback_phase merits much larger audience and it will be a pleasure to hear your own takes on publicising this phase over en_wiki:-) Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, I understand where you're coming from on the "non-organized volunteer" end of things: I'm one of the few enwiki volunteers who work at a "meta" or global level without any link at all to any affiliations - no chapters, no user groups, only enwiki- or WMF-based committees/groups. To be honest, a lot of that is because it's hard to find people who are both interested in this area and working only on the projects; and a lot of the project-specific "leaders" aren't really all that interested in spending their volunteer hours this way. Perhaps it's because my "national" chapter is centered a six-hour drive away from me, and I come from a (comparatively) sparsely populated country, but I've never really felt the urge to "join". Ah well. I'm in the process of preparing for Wikimania, where I have the great honour (?) of presenting my working group's recommendations, so doing more outreach to enwiki will have to wait a little bit, but I'm definitely going to take advantage of some of your suggestions. Thanks for the ideas. Risker (talk) 19:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Agree about the scarcity of people willing to work in both the domains:-(
For my own curiosity, were the presentations (your's/others') video-graphed? [Heard that many events of this year's Wikimania was liverstreamed(??)] Will like to watch, if available ....
Also, did you arrive at any plan for more outreach to en-wiki? And, any place where the feedback received during Wikimania is collated? Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 15:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
P.S:- Quite to my dismay, many of the WGs are yet to engage anyone, even trivially, despite editing their main wikis abundantly. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 15:56, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello Winged Blades of Godric. I do not believe that there are any videos of any of the working group presentations, although I understand that all of the presentations were very well attended; certainly the R&R group one was, as were the other ones that I attended. I don't know if there is any *public* place where the feedback was collated - each group received written notes of the feedback received at their presentations. Whether or not the groups are getting into debates on the talk pages of their recommendations, I am certain they are reviewing the feedback and the core team is undoubtedly ensuring that it is brought to their attention. I think the slide shows for the various presentations are all on Meta, but be aware that in most cases they served as introductions, and most of the groups spent a lot of time in breakaways getting feedback on what they identified as key parts of their recommendations, so they couldn't really be seen as complete. The Roles & Responsibilities group also rolled out its suggested models (see near the top of the page, labeled "models", here), and I'd encourage you to read them over and give feedback. We look at them as three possible ways that our recommendations could play out between now and 2030. There was some complaint about these having been released "so late", but the reality is that we were working on them and setting up the feedback channels until the night before our presentation. They've also been mentioned on Jimmy's talk page on English Wikipedia, so at least there's been some engagement there. Risker (talk) 16:16, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Misogyny on English WikipediaEdit

Thank you for reading the report filed a few minutes ago. You say the wording is unclear - could you point to areas where it could be improved? Best, 150.143.107.230 17:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Risker".