Thread:Talk:Flow Portal/The whole concept seems to be based on wrong assumptions/reply

So, in order:


 * "No they don't! I (as a user) always loved Wikipedias concept of talk pages which is unique and unbeatable in it's simplicity. You write what you mean and it just works. No need for a blown-up messaging interface, just pure Wikitext. For their purpose the ucrrent talk pages are a perfect match."
 * I totally appreciate this; I enjoy the customisable elements of wikimarkup, and of talkpages as they stand at the moment. But it's worth appreciating that what a single user needs, be it me or you, is not a good predictor for what is needed overall: this is particularly the case when we're having the conversation in quasi-wikimarkup, on a wiki, between community members. By definition, we've limited the conversation to people who can handle and enjoy handling wikimarkup (or enjoy the things that come with it, anyway). For a look at how non-Wikimedians handle and approach wikimarkup and talkpages as they stand at the moment, check out the user tests we ran.
 * "The "cultural norms" are a fundamental aspect of the Community. The fact that you can call it cultural norms should be enough to know that we have something great going. Who else ("normal" discussion forums, etc.) can claim to have an own subculture?"
 * Also agreed, on the first point; cultural norms are a fundamental aspect. And they're fantastic, most of the time - but as you say, they're confusing at the beginning. It's challenging to get to grips with a site that has 10+ years worth of rules, norms and conventions. What we should be doing is going "okay, this is something people need to get to grips with" and helping them do so, not by reducing the complexity of the community, necessarily, but by reducing the number of other things they have to care about. Complexities around messaging - a communications mechanism for getting help with cultural norms, and understanding them - is an "other thing". It's something else that they have to handle while also getting to grips with policy, our internal slang or conventions, etc, etc. I don't think anyone is saying our culture needs correction: we're saying that we can help people best get to grips with that culture by reducing complexity elsewhere. Less complexity means less time spent figuring out messaging means more time to dedicate to culture, and having conversations about it, and understanding your way around the projects.
 * As an aside, actually a lot of discussion venues and communities on the internet have a distinct subculture. Culture is, largely, a distinct way of representing and classifying experiences and elements through symbols, be those symbols slang, internal terminology, or attitudes. A lot of places on the net have this; just from the ones I'm involved in I can point you to b3ta and reddit, for example, which definitely demonstrate features of subcultures. It's not something specific to Wikipedia - and it's not something our talkpages have enabled. Our talkpages and their limitations have just been a vector for some elements of it to develop.