Topic on Talk:Structured Discussions

Where is the discussion of whether Flow is a good idea?

13
DCDuring (talkcontribs)

I have seen lots of discussion about how to implement "Flow" and I have read the rationale. What I haven't seen is any evidence that there is a net benefit to any concrete version of the ideal. Where would I find that? BTW, do I have to drink the kool aid to get notification of any response to my questions? Can I get an e-mail?

Hhhippo (talkcontribs)

Due to causality constraints, evidence that there is a benefit of a software version can only manifest itself after that version came into existence. You can configure your kool aid consumption under Preferences > Notifications.

Eirikr (talkcontribs)

I hope your rejoinder is in jest? Surely there must be a specification somewhere? Or is Flow being implemented entirely willy-nilly, with no consideration of requirements or usefulness? That does not inspire confidence.

Sänger (talkcontribs)

I think the main reason is, there are so many software developers over there, with so little experience as wikipedians, the somehow have to be occupied. And instead of looking for improvements of the good existing software, they are more interested in developing completely new one from scratch, regardless of the usefulness. It seems to be the more interesting way from their perspective, but it's of course absolutely detrimental for the Wikiverse.

They no longer know that they are only the support organisation for the communities, and have to listen to them, definitely not the other way around.

Quiddity (WMF) (talkcontribs)

DCDuring, you can see some recent user testing videos (and notes) at Flow/Moderated Testing, November, 2014: talk pages and Flow. The index of everything, is at Flow/Pages.

The overall idea of a more intuitive, and structured, and powerful discussion system, has been suggested since at least 2004. The overall idea of a less-complicated and more-powerful workflow system is regularly discussed when bots break or fail, or when editors are overwhelmed by the (needlessly) multi-step processes that many wikis use for various tasks, or when smaller wikis try to implement/import the heaps of templates/bots that the larger wikis rely on.

For working examples, the French Wikipedia has been trialling Flow in a secondary fr:Wikipédia:Forum des nouveaux/Flow (newcomers helpdesk) for a few months, and the Catalan Wikipedia has just revived their (dormant for a few years) ca:Viquipèdia:La taverna/Tecnicismes (Village Pump (Technical)).

Flow is not even close to its final state. There are a lot of features to build, and bugs to fix, and design elements to discuss. The more constructive feedback/requests/suggestions that come up over the coming months, the better. The team is starting with the basics/foundations, and building towards the complex.

Eirikr (talkcontribs)
Sänger (talkcontribs)

Do you regard it as "constructive feedback" if you're told to stop wasting resources, both money and manpower, on this futile gadget and try instead to do something for the communities, like improving the existing and quite well working wikitext?

Quiddity (WMF) (talkcontribs)

@Eirikr: The short-term roadmap is already outdated, but lives at Flow#Roadmap. Danny is working on updating that, over the Christmas period. The longer term roadmap of planned features is roughed out at Flow/Release planning, and updates for that are also being worked on. The best way to get updates (once I start writing it again) is to add your username or local Villagepump to w:Wikipedia:Flow/Newsletter.

The wording that Gryllida used at the original request was quite a bit too brief, and confused many people - it is not rolling out widely anytime soon.

Quiddity (WMF) (talkcontribs)

@Sänger S.G: That is fairly polite feedback, and comments on the software-options, and doesn't ascribe hypothetical motives to people, all of which I appreciate.

Many other editors (including myself) are cautiously optimistic about the long-term potential of Flow, so I would disagree that the extension could be dismissed based on its current lack of magnificence. I agree that wikitext works quite well, at least for power-editors, and newcomers who are willing to learn about replying to *:::::odd indents, and watchlisting everything, and where to reply to usertalk questions, and etc... But I think it could be massively improved, and not just by adding more band-aids to the existing system; and I think our workflow systems could be massively more powerful, enabling editors to accomplish more, with less manual labor.

Just like small wikis and stub-articles often start out imperfectly; so too does software. Mistakes will be made along the way, but they will be examined/discussed/changed, slowly and steadily. Eventualism got the wiki-contents, and the hundreds of extensions and features in core, to where they are today. Eventualism is what keeps us (and me) going.

This post was hidden by 110.149.188.132 (history)
192.166.53.202 (talkcontribs)

@Sänger S.G: Since there is no interaction between users and developers there won't be any discussion about wether this is a sensible feature. Since the users are not paying for the feature this is a sensible approach. It is what the Wikimedia Foundation wants to have, which is only fair since they pay for it.

Sänger (talkcontribs)

The users are paying with donations, the editors are paying with donations and content contributions, the WMF is only distributing the donated money of the users as a trustee.

The WMF is responsible for the interaction, that it's taking place and is exhaustive. If it doesn't take place or is just superficial, the WMF is to blame, they have lot's of money trusted to them, so it should not be any problem.

This post was hidden by 121.214.190.213 (history)
Reply to "Where is the discussion of whether Flow is a good idea?"