User talk:Jkatz (WMF)/Archive 1

Nemo 20:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Collection
Hi, as you asked to share our experience: I suggest to read the Collection extension reports. If that's not enough, we also have Extension talk:Collection and other feedback pages. If you want to familiarise with the feature, I suggest reading Book tool and/or writing an help page here.

For the watchlist, the most important things should already be listed at Watchlist wishlist. --Nemo 20:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Nemo! Jkatz (WMF) (talk) 20:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm tempted to just make the edit, but do you have any objection to a major edit of Gather/Moderation_Criteria in accordance with the Administrator's Noticeboard discussion and "Alsee option #3":
 * We could accept this as a WMF project and exempt such pages from our policies and Community management, and let the WMF take on all of the work of policing them.

Alsee (talk) 06:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Alsee, thanks for checking in. What did you have in mind? I would rather not make a "major" change, and instead put a line in there at the top that says "due to linked conversation, the current moderation of Gather Collections is not the responsibility of Admins".  I would rather you not delete anything, is what I am getting at, since your input on criteria for how we or other community members manage collections is still welcome.  Jkatz (WMF) (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Your proposed "moderation of Gather Collections is not the responsibility of Admins" is not an accurate reflection of the discussion. The conversation was not just about admins. The participants in that discussion were not all admins.
 * When the project was first posted on Admins Noticeboard it was rejected essentially unanimously. We're used to the WMF having zero respect for the Community and Community Consensus. We're used to the WMF ignoring us and steamrolling forwards with projects. But it was a particularly insulting lack of respect for volunteer community labor when the new WMF page showed up presuming to assign a WORKFLOW to the community, on a project that the community clearly rejected.
 * We do work writing articles on physics, philosophy, genetics, music, art... and yes we also write less lofty articles on Pokemon, but we still treat Pokemon articles in a serious manner for those readers who do value those articles. We do drudge work fighting vandals. We do drudge work of hunting down copyright violations. We do the incredibly stressful work of putting Israelis and Palestinians in the same room and forcing them to come to a livable-agreement with each other on how to cover the Israeli-Palestinian violence. We volunteer to do drudge work to protect and serve the other valuable work we've built.
 * The whole point of "option #3" was that the Community is tired of fighting the WMF.... the whole point was that this case offered us the amusing luxury of inviting you to go ahead with the project and simply rejecting the insulting workflow assignment.
 * We have no interest in being a volunteer babysitter labor force for non-editors making lists of their favorite bands (or when they put politicians-they-hate on a rapist list). We don't want it being a disruptive drain on our volunteer admin labor. We don't want it being a disruptive drain on our volunteer editor labor. If the WMF feels this is an important project, if the WMF thinks that it's worth expending labor on collections, then Option #3 says the WMF is welcome expend that labor itself. Option three put it in bold type that all of the proposed work would be assigned back to the WMF.
 * I'm sorry if I was harsh or snarky. The ongoing dysfunctional relationship between the WMF and the Community has been very frustrating. The brickwall reaction to the first Administrator's Noticeboard discussion was very frustrating. And the presumption to assign unwanted work to us clearly hit a nerve for people. I'd be happy to better explain why we view books and collections differently. I'd be happy to offer any help I can to improve understanding and communication. All the socialnetworking stuff directly conflicts with our EN:WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK policy, it conflicts with who we are, it conflicts with what we do, it conflicts with why we're here. Alsee (talk) 22:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi. I hear your frustration Alsee, and I am sorry that the idea of the feature and the way it has been introduced have caused so much angst and insult to you and to others. Neither Melamrawy (WMF) nor I intended that and would like to find ways to mitigate it.  Our goal was not to push additional work onto you: we are testing this feature and thought you might want to take a role in determining what goes in and what doesn't.  If you don't, I think that is fine, but I don't think it is fair to speak for all existing and future editors or Gather users.  If users of collections who are not otherwise editors want to participate in their moderation, I don't see this as a measurable drain on your resources.  I can tell you're fed up, but hope we can still craft some messaging that captures that we will not drain resources from the existing editing community, but does not preclude the involvement of interested "collections" users?  Perhaps:   "The WMF is ultimately responsible for the policing of Gather content, but anyone who uses Gather is welcome to contribute to the effort"  Let me know Jkatz (WMF) (talk) 23:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I 100% agree with you on the distinction between speaking for myself and speaking for the community. I am extremely conscious of that distinction when I raise issues with the WMF. I'm not here arguing for what I want. If you carefully look at that discussion, I didn't actually take a position! I laid out what I saw as some possible alternatives.... and my phrasing might have been suggestive of my views.... but I didn't actually take a position on any of them. I very deliberately wanted to see what the community position was. Option #2 was setting up our own policy for acceptable collections and devoting ->editor<- time to policing them. As your final comment there noted, the clear consensus was for #3 "let the WMF take on all of the work of policing them".
 * If the Community had a different position than my own, I would have quietly groaned and I would have accepted Community consensus. I'm not here arguing for myself. I'm here because I'm concerned with the WMF-Community relationship.
 * If you consider that discussion to have been just about Admins, if you consider the outcome of that discussion unclear, if you think that "non-Admin" is a viable alternate proposal, then I'd be literally-EAGER to help you take that to the Community. I'd be eager to help if you'll respect an Official Community Consensus on it. We do that sort of thing at the Village Pump. You can lay out the proposal, you can participate in the debate of pros and cons, and the Community can reach a Formal Community Consensus result.
 * If you do that and the result is that the community accepts editor moderation of collections, I'd consider that a HUGE success. My motives here aren't to get what I want on this issue. My motives are for better WMF-Community interaction. If you disregard the negative reception you've gotten so far, if you just steamroll forwards on a presumption of imposing this workflow on "editors" rather than "admins", you risk exacerbating the already strained relationship. Having a good collaborative relationship between us is much more important than any individual project. Alsee (talk) 15:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)