Talk pages consultation 2019/Phase 1 report/es

La Consulta sobre páginas de discusión de 2019 ha llegado al final de la Fase 1: una consulta global sobre cómo los colaboradores utilizan las páginas de discusión wiki, y los problemas que estos experimentan. Este informe resume lo que los editores han dicho y qué hemos aprendido, propone una dirección para el proyecto, y propone preguntas específicas para explorar en la Fase 2.


 * por el equipo de consulta de las páginas de discusión: Danny Horn, Benoît Evellin, Sherry Snyder, Thomas Meadows y Marshall Miller.

Introducción
Una página de discusión de wikitexto no está hecha de software; es una colección de convenciones culturales que desconcierta a los editores recién llegados y fastidia a los veteranos. Contar los dos puntos necesarios para dar la sangría correcta a tu respuesta, insertar virgulillas para firmar, tener que mirar una página de discusión entera en vez de solamente la sección en la que participas, no contar con un enlace para responder de forma sencilla… Todo esto representa un dolor de cabeza para todos.

Por otro lado, las páginas de discusión de wikitexto se desempeñan bien en otros aspectos. La ventana de edición vacía le ha dado a la gente la libertad de inventar plantillas y técnicas que son extremadamente flexibles y adaptables. Las conversaciones pueden reorganizarse en cualquier momento y por cualquiera. Los enlaces a diffs y las revisiones antiguas muestran lo que se ha hecho en una página, cuándo y por quién. La funcionalidad que ayudó a las personas a colaborar en millones de artículos de enciclopedia durante 17 años no debe descartarse de manera casual.

Los equipos de productos de la Fundación Wikimedia han trabajado en herramientas de comunicación en wiki anteriormente, incluyendo LiquidThreads (iniciado en 2006) y Flow/Structured Discussions (iniciado en 2012). Ambos proyectos se han utilizado con éxito en muchas wikis, aunque ambos también han sido muy criticados, y ninguno de ellos ha ganado una gran aceptación en muchas de las wikis más grandes.

Queremos que todos los colaboradores puedan hablar entre ellos en las wikis: hacer preguntas, resolver diferencias, organizar proyectos y tomar decisiones. La comunicación es vital para la profundidad y la calidad de nuestro contenido y la salud de nuestras comunidades. Creemos que este proyecto es esencial para que podamos alcanzar nuestra meta de compartir libremente la suma de todo el conocimiento.

La consulta global de las páginas de discusión comenzó en marzo de 2019 con discusiones de la Fase 1 organizadas en 20 espacios de wikis y grupos de usuarios. Esto incluía Wikipedias en 15 idiomas, así como Commons, Wikidata, dos Wikcionarios y una reunión de usuarios en persona. Estas discusiones fueron resumidas por un miembro de cada comunidad, y el equipo sobre consultas de página de discusión leyó todas las discusiones en la wiki. El equipo también realizó dos rondas de pruebas de usuarios en UserTesting.com, con personas que leen mucho Wikipedia, pero que no han contribuido porque no saben cómo.

La fase 1 finalizó al terminar abril, y este informe se publicó en mayo. A continuación presentamos un breve sumario de nuestros hallazgos, una propuesta sobre la dirección del proyecto y una lista de preguntas para encaminar las discusiones de la fase 2. A esto le sigue una revisión más larga y detallada de las discusiones y las pruebas de los usuarios.

Lo básico
Existe un acuerdo universal de que se deben mejorar tres elementos básicos de las páginas de conversación de wikitexto: respuestas, sangrías y firmas. Para los nuevos usuarios, estos mecanismos básicos son confusos y desagradables. Incluso los usuarios muy experimentados a veces cometen errores con las sangrías y las firmas. Para mejorar las páginas de discusión, necesitamos agregar una herramienta fácil para responder y hacer que la sangría y las firmas sean automáticas. (Ver #Sangrías, #Respuestas y #Firmas más abajo.)

Colaboradores experimentados
Los colaboradores muy activos que participan en discusiones complejas y flujos de trabajo prefieren la flexibilidad de una página de wikitexto abierta y no estructurada. Para esos usuarios, una página wikitexto abierta es liberadora. Les permite cambiar la estructura de una discusión o página para responder a las necesidades del momento. Tienen un fuerte deseo de mantener la continuidad con el sistema de wikitexto existente. Los editores estuvieron de acuerdo con esta opinión en muchas wikis, incluso en los wikis que han estado usando Flow. (Ver #Estabilidad y #Wikitexto más abajo.)

Hay muchas otras características que a los colaboradores con experiencia les gustaría ver agregadas a las páginas de discusión, incluyendo:
 * La capacidad de ver discusiones específicas, para que los usuarios puedan seguir una conversación en lugar de ver las notificaciones de cada cambio realizado en un artículo o en el resto de la página de discusión. (#Lista de seguimiento)
 * Una función de búsqueda y archivo más consistente, para ayudar a los usuarios a encontrar conversaciones anteriores sobre un tema específico. (Ver #Archivando y #Buscando más abajo.)
 * Una función de notificación (ping) más consistente, para que sea fácil alertar a personas específicas sobre una discusión, y fácil para recibir notificaciones claras tanto dentro como fuera de wiki. (#Notificaciones)
 * Una forma de ver el historial de una conversación específica, especialmente si esa conversación se ha movido a un archivo. (#historia)
 * La capacidad de utilizar las páginas de discusión con fluidez en un dispositivo móvil. (#Usuarios móviles)

En la Wikipedia en inglés, algunos editores mencionaron plantillas de metadatos. Estos se utilizan en las páginas de discusión del artículo para mostrar instrucciones, advertencias, calificaciones de calidad, afiliaciones de WikiProject y otra información sobre el artículo. Otras wikis utilizan herramientas similares. Este tema es importante, pero no recibió atención específica en la Fase 1. Pediremos más información al respecto en la Fase 2. (#Metadata)

Colaboradores nuevos
Los nuevos colaboradores consideran que las páginas de wikitexto no estructuradas son confusas y difíciles de usar. Las herramientas de conversación que han aprendido a usar en Internet son muy diferentes de las herramientas que ofrecemos. Esta diferencia desalienta a las personas a participar y convertirse en miembros activos de la comunidad.

Además de las discusiones en la wiki, ejecutamos pruebas de usuario nuevo con diez potenciales recién llegados. Todos ellos están muy familiarizados con la lectura de Wikipedia y expresaron interés en aprender a editar. En estas pruebas, observamos lo siguiente:


 * Todos los usuarios lucharon para encontrar páginas de discusión. La mayoría pensó que hacer clic en "" en el título de la sección de un artículo los llevaría a un foro de discusión sobre esa sección. Cuando les preguntamos a dónde iban a hacer una pregunta sobre la edición del artículo, solo uno de cada diez notó la pestaña "" en la parte superior izquierda de la página (en inglés, una wiki que se lee de izquierda a derecha). Generalmente buscaron en la parte superior derecha de la página, pensando que el enlace "" (para sus propias páginas de discusión de usuarios) era el lugar correcto para hacer una pregunta.
 * Cuando la prueba los dirigió a la pestaña "", todos los usuarios esperaban ver un panel de mensajes típico o un foro de discusión. Muchos estaban confundidos por la estructura de la página de discusión. La similitud entre el diseño visual del artículo y la página de discusión los llevó a asumir que cada sección del artículo correspondía a una sección de la página de conversación.
 * Los usuarios tuvieron problemas con "los conceptos básicos" descritos anteriormente: respuestas, sangrías y firmas. Algunos usuarios pensaron que el enlace "" en la firma de un usuario era el botón de respuesta. Solo tres de diez pudieron descubrir cómo agregar una firma. La mayoría de los usuarios pudieron descubrir cómo usar dos puntos para la sangría al mirar las publicaciones anteriores.
 * Esta prueba se realizó con copias de páginas de discusión de la Wikipedia en inglés. Las páginas de discusión del artículo a menudo contienen plantillas sobre el artículo (ejemplo). Para la mayoría de los usuarios, las plantillas en la parte superior de la página de discusión parecían estar fuera de lugar. Varios usuarios se enfocaron tanto en los cuadros de la plantilla que no se desplazaron hacia abajo a la discusión sin que se les pidiera; parecían creer que las plantillas en sí mismas eran todo el alcance de la página de discusión. (Ver pruebas de usuario nuevo para más información.)

Estos hallazgos se hicieron eco de los comentarios en las discusiones en wiki. Los nuevos usuarios informaron que responder en una página de discusión fue confuso, y esa confusión lleva a muchos usuarios a rendirse. Muchos usuarios experimentados dijeron que los recién llegados luchan con el diseño y la funcionalidad actuales, y que puede ser una barrera para la participación. (#Recién llegados)

Temas principales
Durante este proceso, han surgido dos temas principales.


 * Diseño claro y herramientas apropiadas: En este momento, las páginas de artículos y las páginas de discusión son muy similares en su apariencia y funcionalidad. Esa apariencia es engañosa y hace que sea más difícil para las personas aprender a usar las páginas de discusión correctamente. Las personas deben utilizar una página de discusión de una forma diferente a la de un artículo; es una forma diferente de contenido. Un principio fundamental del diseño del producto es que la herramienta debe ayudar al usuario a comprender lo que se supone que debe hacer. Debe ser fácil usar un producto correctamente. Un buen diseño de producto minimiza las oportunidades de que los usuarios cometan errores. Mientras los colaboradores experimentados de la wiki han aprendido a vivir con un diseño de producto limitado –y están justificadamente orgullosos de las soluciones que se han desarrollado para compensar– no es justo permitir que las herramientas mal diseñadas sean un obstáculo para la participación de personas conocedoras y apasionadas que desean unirse a las comunidades y contribuir con el conocimiento.
 * Características contra flexibilidad: El deseo de mejorar la página de discusión no se limita a los novatos. De hecho, los colaboradores experimentados son los que mejor saben cuán inadecuadas son realmente las herramientas existentes. Los usuarios experimentados desean participar en una única discusión en una página de conversación activa, sin perder tiempo mirando ediciones irrelevantes en otras secciones de la página. Los usuarios experimentados desean poder encontrar discusiones de manera fácil y rápida, incluso si las discusiones se han movido a un archivo. Para poder proporcionar estas características, el sistema debe poder decir qué es "una discusión"; que esta parte específica de la página es una discusión única y separada de otras ediciones en la misma página. Esto puede requerir algunos cambios que limitan la flexibilidad infinita de una página abierta de wikitexto. Esos cambios deben considerarse y acordarse cuidadosamente, y los cambios que limitan la flexibilidad deben conectarse a una mejora visible y positiva de la funcionalidad. Eso es lo que queremos discutir en la Fase 2 de esta consulta: ¿Cómo deberíamos abordar el equilibrio entre las características solicitadas desde hace mucho tiempo y la flexibilidad?

Dirección del producto propuesto
Based on these findings, we propose that wikitext talk pages should be improved, and not replaced.

Experienced contributors in the larger communities have built a very large number of important workflows based on the ability to manipulate wikitext, and the list of use cases is long and intimidating. LiquidThreads and Flow both involved replacing talk pages with a new system, which then had to handle all of those use cases before they were fully adopted. In complex ecosystems like this, it's better to start with a product that works (called a "minimum viable product"), and then make improvements that can be built and released over time, learning more with each release. As flawed as wikitext talk pages are, they've powered wiki discussions for more than 15 years, and that's a minimum viable product.

Our idea is to build a new design on top of wikitext talk pages that changes the page's default appearance and offers key tools – the "clear design and appropriate tools" described above. This new design should communicate to the user that this is not a content page, and help the user interact appropriately with the tools. This should include clear signals for how to start a new discussion, and to respond to an existing discussion or to a specific message within that discussion. It should add the signature automatically, and place the message in the correct nesting order.

In order to keep consistency with the existing tools, this new design will be a default experience that existing users can opt out of. With some caveats discussed below, it should be possible for users to keep the view that they currently have, and work in wikitext instead of using the new tools.

The caveats: as we said above in "Features vs Flexibility", improving talk pages may require small-to-medium changes in wikitext conventions and practices.

Por ejemplo:


 * To build the ability to watchlist a single discussion, the system will have to be able to tell the difference between one discussion and the next. The page can't just be a pile of unconnected edits. That might mean changing the wikitext convention for a discussion header. Maybe editors would type  instead of , or  . (These examples are purely for illustration, not actual suggestions.) Experienced people would still be able to use wikitext, but they'd have to learn a new convention.
 * To make the new features work, and not interfere with non-discussion pages, it may be necessary to specify where they are enabled. We could have them work only on pages in the "talk" namespaces (such as,  ,  , etc.). If so, then some existing project-wide discussion pages (such as the deletion discussions at some wikis) would have to relocate from   to   pages, to be able to use these tools. Another possibility is that the features work automatically in the talk namespaces, and that people could turn them on for other individual pages with a wikitext magic word. Or maybe they'll work anywhere, as long as you use the   prefix. (Again, purely for illustration.)
 * To build the ability to move a discussion to an archive without breaking links to it, it may be necessary to create a unique ID for each discussion. This could mean that you need to use one of the new tools to create a new thread, merge two threads, or archive an old thread.
 * To improve page history, we may have to make some decisions. Some experienced contributors talked about the need for a complete history for the whole page. Others emphasized the need for a thread history, for individual discussions. (Right now, wikitext talk pages have a page history but not a thread history; in Flow, it's the other way around.) It would be ideal to provide both page history and thread history. We'll have to think and talk about how to make that possible.

The intention is to only make changes that are necessary, in order to enable functionality that's worth making the change. Ideally, the result should be approximately the same amount of work or less for contributors. For example, if you want to move a discussion from one page to another without breaking people's watchlist, you might need to click a new "move discussion" link and enter the name of the target page, so the system can keep the permalink active. That would be a new habit to learn, but moving a thread by cutting and pasting wikitext takes just as long.

The inspiration for this approach was the eager adoption of the ping feature, which was created around six years ago and is now widely used by experienced users. To send someone a notification that you'd like them to look at a discussion, you have to post their user name in brackets, or use a specific template, such as  or. But the ping only works if you sign that edit with. If you misspell the person's name, then you have to fix the error, and sign the message again, on a new line. That's a new set of wikitext habits to learn and remember, but lots of people have happily switched their habits, because it enables a feature that's incredibly helpful.

The adoption of the ping feature demonstrates that it's possible to make widely accepted small-to-medium changes in wikitext conventions, as long as we can find that balance between the trouble it takes to learn and use the new convention, and the value that users get from a new feature. It will take serious thought and discussion to find this balance for each stage of the project. We're willing to think and talk and try new things, in order to make talk pages easier to learn and use. We hope that many of you are willing to join us as we figure out how to make this work.

Cuestiones para la fase 2
Posting this report marks the end of Phase 1 for the Talk pages consultation, and kicks off Phase 2, which will be a new round of discussions and surveys.

An important part of Phase 2 is to hear your responses to the proposed product direction. That can begin right now on the talk page of this report, for people who would like to share their thoughts, ideas, and questions there. We will also ask groups that participated in Phase 1 to tell us what they think.

In the Phase 2 discussions, we're asking the following questions:
 * 1) What do you think of the proposed product direction?
 * Context: The Wikimedia Foundation proposes building a new, clearer design on top of existing wikitext talk pages. It will offer simpler tools for replying, indentation and signatures. You could continue to use wikitext on talk pages, if you prefer that. It should also be possible to participate in a discussion without using wikitext.
 * Question: What do you think of this product direction?
 * 1) Marking separate discussions
 * Context: People want to watch individual sections on the talk page. They want better notifications, archiving, and search. To do any of this, we may need to create a more structured definition of what counts as a single discussion. This may mean making changes to the wikitext conventions on a talk page. For example, we may create a new way that discussion headings look in wikitext, or a new link that you need to use to create, rename or split a thread.
 * Question: What are the advantages and disadvantages of that approach?
 * 1) Helping newcomers find the talk pages
 * Context: Newcomers have difficulty finding talk pages. During user tests, only one person out of ten found the  tab. Most testers looked for a  tab on the opposite side of the page, where all of the other tabs and links are. Many people also expected to see links to discussions about specific sections in the article. We may want to move the link to the talk page to the opposite side of the article page. We might add discussion functionality connected to individual sections.
 * Question: What are the advantages and disadvantages of making the connection between article content and discussions more visible?
 * 1) Dónde mostrar las herramientas de discusión
 * Context: Currently, many wikis have community discussion spaces in the project namespace (  or  ), rather than in a talk namespace (  or  ). The project namespace is often used for village pumps/cafés, noticeboards, and some workflows, such as Articles for deletion. The system will need to know where discussions happen, so that it can display the new tools in those discussions, and not display them on other pages. There are several potential ways to do this. One of them is to move all discussions to a talk namespace.
 * Question: What are the advantages and disadvantages of doing that?
 * 1) History tradeoffs
 * Context: Sometimes, you need to see the history of the entire page. Other times, it would be more helpful to see the history of only a single discussion thread. It would be ideal if we could provide both, but we're not sure how to do that.
 * Question: What are the advantages and disadvantages of having a complete page history or a specific thread history?
 * 1) Ubicación de los metadatos
 * Context: Some wikis place templates at the top of article talk pages. These may show instructions, warnings, or FAQs. They may hold page quality information, link to relevant WikiProjects, or identify past activities. Many new users are confused by finding non-discussion material at the top of an article talk page. It would be helpful to move some or all of that content somewhere else on the page, or under a different tab.
 * Question: What are the advantages and disadvantages of that approach? Which templates are crucial for the proper use of a discussion page, and which could be moved somewhere else?

The rest of the report continues below with detailed findings, but first, here's how you can participate in Phase 2 as part of your local community, or as an individual.

Communities can sign up to host a discussion about the Phase 2 questions at .

Here are the current consultations:



w:pl:Dyskusja Wikipedii:Konsultacje w sprawie stron dyskusji w:ru:Википедия:Форум/Предложения 

w:cs:Wikipedie:Konzultace_diskusních_stránek_2019 w:de:Wikipedia:Projektdiskussion/Globale Konsultation zum Thema Kommunikation 2019/Phase2 w:en:Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019/Phase 2 w:fr:Wikipédia:Consultation sur la communication 2019/Phase 2 w:nl:Wikipedia:Overlegpagina's raadpleging 2019 w:th:วิกิพีเดีย:สภากาแฟ/อภิปราย/ขอความเห็นการพูดคุยหารือระหว่างผู้ใช้ (2562) ระยะที่ 2 w:zh:Wikipedia:2019年討論頁諮詢/第二階段 

s:en:WS:S 

d:Wikidata:Requests for comment/Talk pages consultation 2019, phase 2

Check to see if your community is hosting a discussion -- and if not, please sign up and create one on your wiki! We'll ask the hosts to write a summary for the local discussions by 15 June 2019.

To participate as an individual, please think about the six questions above; you can post your answers at Talk pages consultation 2019/Individual feedback#Phase 2 questions.

On approximately 22 May 2019, we will start an off-wiki survey with the same questions, for people who prefer to respond in that format.

Fase 1. Proceso
''Nota sobre las traducciones: The discussion quotes below have been machine-translated into English, and posted in both the original language and English translation. This is a long report, and we don't expect that volunteer translators will have time to translate the English text. We're very grateful to the translators who are working on translating the sections above. ¡Gracias!''

The goal for Phase 1 of the Talk pages consultation was to collect information about how people in the movement communicate with each other. Below is a description of the process, followed by a close look at the discussion results.

On-wiki discussions
Overall, approximately 450 editors, contributors, program organizers, and other people in the movement shared information with the team.

Pruebas con usuarios novatos
In addition to reaching out to existing contributors, we also wanted to incorporate the perspectives of newcomers. These people represent the future Wikimedians who aren't yet part of a community, but whom we hope will start contributing. They may come from different cultures and have different expectations of technology than existing Wikimedians. We don't want our communication tools to keep them away.

In order to try to understand how new users feel about the current state of communication on wiki, we used UserTesting.com. UserTesting.com hires people who record their experiences, reactions, and thoughts while they test software. For these tests, we recruited ten people who have never participated in wiki discussions. They recorded themselves trying out Wikipedia article talk pages for the first time.

We wanted our testers to reflect the sort of people who would be likely to encounter talk pages. That would mean a certain amount of technical literacy, familiarity with Wikipedia, and to be someone who might want to edit. To narrow to those people, we asked a series of screening questions, such as "How often do you look something up on Wikipedia?", "Have you ever engaged in a discussion with other users on Wikipedia?", and "If you have not edited Wikipedia in the past, what would you say is the main reason why you have not edited?" We included only people who were familiar with Wikipedia and who seemed likely to become Wikipedia editors in the future.

A summary of these results, plus information from the on-wiki discussions about newcomers, is on this page at #New contributors. For a detailed description of these tests and what we observed, see the page on New user tests.

Results of on-wiki discussions
El objetivo de la fase 1 de esta consulta fue recabar información sobre cómo se utilizan las páginas de discusión y cuáles problemas se dan al hacerlo. Para iniciar las conversaciones, preguntamos lo siguiente:


 * 1) Cuando quieres debatir un tema con tu comunidad, ¿de qué herramientas te sirves y con cuáles problemas te encuentras? ¿Por qué?
 * 2) ¿De qué maneras utilizan los usuarios recién llegados las páginas de discusión y cuáles impedimentos los disuaden de usarlas?
 * 3) ¿Con qué otras dificultades se encuentran las personas de tu comunidad en las páginas de discusión?
 * 4) What do you wish you could do on talk pages, but can't due to technical limitations?
 * 5) ¿Cuáles son los aspectos importantes de una «discusión wiki»?

Approximately 450 users participated in discussions hosted on 20 wikis and usergroup spaces. This included Wikipedias in 15 languages, as well as Commons, Wikidata and two Wiktionaries. People also participated on the central Talk pages consultation page, and another page set up for individual feedback. The consultation team read all of the discussions (using machine translation where necessary), and sorted responses into themes.

There were strong themes that came up often, which are summarized in the following table. The frequency of comments is estimated on a seven-point scale, going from ✎ (some people mentioned it) to ✎✎✎✎✎✎✎ (a very popular topic). It is based on the number of terms used, how often, in which context and also on the overall feeling from community summaries. This isn't a scientific classification, but it helps to summarize the feedback.

All comments have been translated into English, mostly using machine translation. Se incluye el texto original. Puede haber errores en las traducciones; siéntase libre de corregirlas en dado caso.

Sangría
Popularidad del tema: ✎✎✎✎✎✎✎

There were dozens of complaints about counting colons to create the appearance of indentation. Esta fue la queja más frecuente. Experienced editors find it clunky and difficult, and it is even harder for new editors.

All other communication systems on the internet manage to represent the messages posted by different users as individual messages, without needing the users to set a visual indentation level by hand. Editors of all levels of experience and ability would like to see this simplified and standardized.

Some solutions were proposed, including offering Flow or a similar system, scripts that automatically count and insert the correct number of colons. Some editors talked about replacing colons with some other wikitext code (perhaps typing  to indicate indentation instead of , or perhaps creating a method for clearly marking both the start and stop of a comment) as a way to solve the wikitext discussion system's accessibility problems.

Below are some representative quotations from participants in the Phase 1 consultation. They discuss the desire for automatic formatting, the need to focus on the content of the comment, and the confusion and annoyance the current system causes, as well as HTML semantics and accessibility.

Many individual comments related to more than one theme. Comments about indentation often addressed #Replying, #Design, and the use of #Wikitext as well.

Respuestas
Popularidad del tema: ✎✎✎✎✎✎✎

A common challenge for new users is figuring out where and how to reply to messages. Modern internet users are used to typing into a text box to reply, since this is the model used on other websites. Typing directly under someone else's message, in the same way that a Wikipedia editor might add a new paragraph at the end of an article, is a very unusual model for communication.

Experienced users also have trouble with this on long, complex discussions. Editors sometimes want to be able to reply directly to a comment that's in the middle of a thread, but this requires scanning a window full of wikitext, finding the right spot to add the comment, and using the correct indentation. People also use varying ways to respond to a particularly long or multi-point comment.

These quotations from Wikipedia editors represent the common themes related to replying to an existing discussion: although a precisely formatted large discussion can be followed logically when you're reading, when you are replying to a free-form discussion on an unstructured wikitext page, it can hard to find the right place to add your comment and to quote or otherwise indicate which comment or sentence you're replying to. Editors want a tool that allows them to reply in the correct place, with the normal formatting.

Comments about replying often overlapped with concerns about #Indentation and #Newcomers.

Firmas
Popularidad del tema: ✎✎✎✎✎✎✎

Many users reported that manually "signing" pages by typing  at the end of a typed message is unusual and off-putting. Ningún participante abogó por el proceso de firma actual como un método ideal. Las pruebas con usuarios novatos también identificaron este sistema como un obstáculo.

Uno de los problemas relacionados es que hay personas que utilizan firmas que no se corresponden con sus nombres de usuario. Algunos editores han arremetido contra los elementos decorativos, tales como los fondos coloridos y los caracteres gráficos, que a veces aparecen en las firmas.

Estos comentarios típicos de los participantes hablan de la falta de familiaridad, los esfuerzos importantes que han de hacerse para realizar las correcciones correspondientes, la confusión, las dificultades con que se topan las personas que utilizan dispositivos móviles y las ventajas de Flow relativas a su diseño, que firma automáticamente cada mensaje.

Estabilidad
Popularidad del tema: ✎✎✎✎✎✎

Many established, highly active editors expressed a desire to minimize apparent changes. They did not exclude having some improvements made, but they wanted any new approaches to be fully compatible with what they're already used to. People who favored stability often commented on the flexibility offered by using blank, unstructured pages.

Archivado
Popularidad del tema: ✎✎✎✎✎

La mayoría de los métodos de archivado actuales consisten en trasladar por copipega las discusiones viejas a otra página («el archivo») para su almacenamiento a largo plazo. En los wikis más grandes, esto se realiza por medio de robots en algunas páginas, o bien manualmente en otras. En comunidades más pequeñas, suele hacerse a mano en todos los casos. This breaks page histories (for example, the comment is in, but the page history is left in  )  and links to the original discussion, which still point to the original location.

To reduce some of these problems, some wikis use alternative structures, such as creating a new discussion sub-page for each day/week/month. This usually requires a bot to maintain it, and it makes it hard for people to watch new discussions. Others manually archive central discussions by topic, in the hope that people will be able to find relevant discussions more easily.

The quotations here highlight some of the problems that users have encountered: broken archiving bots, different systems on different pages and different wikis, and finding discussions that previously happened on that page.

This point is related to #History and to #Visibility.

Notificaciones
Popularidad del tema: ✎✎✎✎✎

The Echo Notifications system has become one of the most popular new software features the Wikimedia Foundation has designed, because it helps experienced contributors communicate more smoothly. Some editors have suggested more extensive notifications, such as the ability to get a message on your phone when someone posts a note on your user talk page, a way to triage notifications, a way to know if a message has been read, and a way to invite someone to a conversation.

The sample quotations here describe making it easier to "ping" (notify) a user during a discussion, the difficulty of following discussions, the inability to find out about messages without first visiting a wiki page, having routine notices mixed up with active discussions, not knowing whether your message was read, a clearer way of requesting an answer, and the need to contact and coordinate work by multiple people, such as members of a user group, WikiProject, or other team.

Novatos
Popularidad del tema: ✎✎✎✎

Most of the participants in the on-wiki consultation were highly active, highly experienced editors, leading one of them to comment on the irony of "a discussion about talk pages, on a talk page, advertised on talk pages", since that format would bring in comments from people who are able to use this format. Indeed, comments from new and occasional contributors expressed somewhat different concerns, and experienced editors expressed their concerns about how newer editors were struggling with the current system.

Most newcomers to Wikipedia are already regular users of other websites and/or social media apps. The conversation tools that they have already learned to use are very different from the tools we provide. Our software is perceived as difficult and overly technical to use (even for users with technical experience), obsolete, or counter-intuitive. Current practices, like manual indentation and signing, do not feel like natural behaviors to newcomers.

The quotations here express feelings of exclusion, confusion, and frustration, a desire for a more modern approach (for example, automatic indentation or a quick way to reply without opening the full editing environment), the use of Flow or alternative forum-style discussion systems, and the strangeness of the system compared to user expectations.

Other factors that may block newcomers may be the design of the pages, the lack of replies, the behavior of some experienced users towards newcomers, and their lack of confidence.

Historia
Popularity of the theme: ✎✎✎✎

Editors and other contributors want to be able to see what was written, when, and by whom. Monitoring discussions history should be done the same way as it is for other pages.

Both wikitext talk pages and Flow threads have a problem with page history. On Flow pages, it's easy to see the complete history of a single thread, but you can't see a diff for the entire page. With wikitext pages, you can see a diff for the page, but the history of a specific discussion is spread across the page history, especially if the discussion is copy-pasted to an archive page.

These quotations show experienced contributors' desire to always be able to see pages as they were in the past, to move discussions between pages without losing the history, and to consider some new features, such as the ability to link an edit in the page history to a specific discussion on the talk page.

This problem area is closely related to archiving discussions.

Búsquedas
Popularidad del tema: ✎✎✎✎

Searching could be improved by adding new features that would help to search on current discussions, filter the results, or to handle meta elements around the conversation (e.g., the status of a question). People noted that the normal search tool doesn't, by default, include discussions in search results.

These sample quotations include easily searching for prior discussions, being able to tag discussions by topic, and the need to fix search in Flow.

Being able to search and find previous discussions is somewhat related to #History and #Archiving.

Visibility
Popularity of the theme: ✎✎✎✎

Even when someone figures out how to post a message on the talk page, it's possible that nobody will notice the message and reply. Established editors, like those participating in subject-area WikiProjects, need to be able to find unanswered new comments from their field of expertise. Not replying to comments or questions from newcomers and occasional editors may discourage them from trying to contribute further.

On unstructured wikitext talk pages, it is difficult to visually see which topics or comments have been added since your last visit (Flow supports this workflow). There is no signal on the article's page that there are new or unanswered questions on the talk page.

The quotations here cover questions going unanswered, the difficulty of noticing activity on an article talk page, the need to reach people with relevant expertise or interests, and newcomers' problems with finding the article talk page.

Visual editor
Popularity of the theme: ✎✎✎✎

Both newcomers and established editors requested a non-wikitext editing model for discussions. Some participants preferred updating the visual editor so that it could process discussions; others preferred using Flow, which offers a visual mode with a small toolbar.

These quotations show editors preferring visual editing because it is easier to learn and easier to use.

This theme is related to #Wikitext.

Watchlist
Popularity of the theme: ✎✎✎✎

Editors supported improvements to the watchlist system, especially a way to watch a single section on a busy wikitext-based talk page. This has been a long-requested feature, and it is popular with both newcomers and established contributors alike.

These quotations support being able to follow a single conversation on a busy page, without having to see the other discussions, or a way for groups to find out about new discussions without all of the members putting every page on their regular watchlists.

This theme is related to #Notifications.

Confusión
Popularity of the theme: ✎✎✎

In addition to software design issues, contributors have to figure out many cultural conventions, such as whether a given discussion is a vote, and how the discussion is structured. For example, just at the English Wikipedia, replies are "correctly" placed in the same section as the previous person's comment in most article talk pages, on either person's user talk page if the discussion started on a user talk page, and in your own section for an Arbitration Committee case. As a result of the software limitations and social complexities, the methods for communicating on wiki can generate confusion to both new users and some long-time users, to the point that some even prefer social media to communicating on wiki. (See the section on social media use below.)

These quotations identify several problems: excess difficulty compared to alternatives, unclear social expectations, understanding the discussion format, seeing other people's comments but no obvious place to add your own, and unfamiliarity for people who are accustomed to current web conventions.

Usuarios móviles
Popularity of the theme: ✎✎✎

At the moment, communication through a mobile device is very difficult. Contributions from the apps and the mobile website are increasing in nearly all languages. Accessibility on mobile devices is needed to make contribution easier for all users, to respond to the particular needs of some users with disabilities, and to increase the number of people who can contribute to discussions. As one user said, it shouldn't be noticeably easier to edit an article than to talk about that edit on the article's talk page.

These quotations include confusion, inaccessibility, the changes needed to make a system work on a mobile device, and the location of the main link to the talk page.

This theme is related to #Confusion, #Signatures, #Indentation and #Visibility.

Wikitext
Popularity of the theme: ✎✎✎

There was an interesting divide among editors about the need to use wikitext in discussions. An insistence that wikitext be the key format was largely found among highly active, long-time editors on Wikipedia. This generally took two forms:


 * 1) that the page itself be unstructured (for example, so that editors could choose to start a new discussion anywhere on the page instead of only at the top or the bottom), and
 * 2) that the canonical representation of the discussions be wikitext (for example, so that different formatting codes could be tested and discussed on the talk page, and then be copied and pasted into an article, where it would produce the same result).

For beginners, contributors to other projects, and among people who primarily make non-wikitext contributions (e.g., using the visual editor, adding information to Wikidata, uploading photos), the necessity for using wikitext in discussions was less obvious.

Among the insights from this theme: Long-time Wikipedia editors assume that newcomers will learn wikitext by editing articles, and that the newcomers will only later attempt to communicate with other editors on wiki. As a result, they assume that newcomers will have already developed some level of skill with wikitext before encountering the talk page, and that it therefore makes more sense for discussions to happen in that recently learned format, rather than using conventions and tools that are widely used across the internet for communication.

These quotations reflect Wikipedians' desire to use unstructured pages, the need for improvements, the importance of being able to talk about and test article formatting in discussions. They also reflect the views of others, who question the need for every contributor to learn wikitext, who want more accessible and user-friendly ways to participate in discussions, and who describe communication problems they have encountered.

This point is related to #Visual editor, #Workflows, and how discussions are structured (#Design, #Indentation, #Replying).

Edit conflicts
Popularity of the theme: ✎✎

An edit conflict happens when two editors try to change the same part of a wikitext page at the same time. Edit conflicts are common in busy discussions in free-form wikitext discussions, and very rare in any type of fully structured discussion. The difficulty of resolving the conflict sometimes causes people to give up without participating.

Some work has been done to reduce edit conflicts in the past. Edit conflicts are resolved at the level of a single "line" of wikitext (not a section), but if two people try to reply to the same comment at the same time, or if someone changes the immediately adjacent line while you are typing a new comment, an edit conflict will still be triggered. Wikimedia Deutschland has produced a tool that allows editors to resolve conflicts through a more visual process. However, in the end, edit conflicts are painful and need to be minimized.

These comments reflect the universal dislike that editors have for edit conflicts.

This theme is related to #Wikitext, because edit conflicts are part of the price for using free-form, unstructured discussion pages, and to #Newcomers, because newcomers are unlikely to be able to resolve an edit conflict.

Design
Popularity of the theme: ✎

Overall the design of talk pages is outdated, and discussions are structured in a confusing way.

It's generally accepted that when you want different behaviors in different places – for example, writing articles in the mainspace, discussing improvements to them on a talk page, or reporting spam at a noticeboard – then you want the design of those different pages to reflect and encourage their different purposes.

These Wikipedia editors say that the design is visually awkward and outdated, and that it does not help editors collaborate with others effectively.

Design is related to #Confusion.

Metadata
Popularity of the theme: ✎

Some wikis use large templates at the top of article talk pages to display instructions and warnings, quality ratings, WikiProject affiliations and other information about the page. This came up several times in the English Wikipedia discussion.

Vandalism
Popularity of the theme: ✎

Editors at all experience levels worried about vandalism, harassment, and other destructive behaviors. They want tools to deal with vandalism and related unacceptable behaviors. Identifying and addressing blatant vandalism (e.g., having your vote changed from 'support' to 'oppose') costs time, energy, and goodwill.

These quotations mention people deliberately changing other people's contributions, the way Flow rearranges pages, the need for better anti-harassment systems, and the importance of being able to delete or suppress ("oversight") page histories.

This theme is related to #History and #Newcomers.

Workflows
Popularity of the theme: ✎

Additional software tools could improve the handling ways of the complicated workflows that are used on larger wikis, such as the creation and maintenance of Articles for Deletion discussions or counting up votes in a Meinungsbilder on the German Wikipedia or in an Arbitration Committee case at the English Wikipedia. Improving communication tools and systems used by the Stewards, the Global sysops, and the Small Wiki Monitoring Team would also fall into this category. This type of improvement was largely requested by highly active editors at the largest Wikipedias.

Given how important these processes are, and how much effort is required to maintain them, it is somewhat surprising that more editors did not suggest improvements to these complex systems.

These quotations show an awareness that complex systems could be greatly simplified through new tools, and the importance of building tools that scale to the needs of highly active editors.

This theme is related to #Confusion.

Conclusion
Thank you to all of the people who participated in these discussions so far! We hope that this report is a fair summation of the ideas and opinions that were expressed in Phase 1. We're looking forward to continuing the discussion in Phase 2 of the consultation, and hearing your reactions to the proposed product direction. Talk to you soon!