Topic on User talk:Trizek (WMF)/Flow

Hi Trizek,

I suppose you remember the discussion related to the New filters for edit review that was happening in Wikinews. I continued to discuss a little to find what was wrong with deploying the change and got a sensible response from a user. I think the reason as to why they push back changes is well described in that reply.

It seems to be a valid reasoning to me. So, I thought of getting more information to find what would make things smoother for them. The user stated that "design changes should be in the hands of the local communities" as a thesis which might help solve the issue. I'm not sure as to whether it's a good suggestion or not but I thought it would nice to point that to the relevant people so that they could take it into consideration.

That said, I'm not sure who to point that piece of feedback to. It would be nice if you could help me with it. Thanks.

Hello Kaartic

What is precisely the point you refer to? If that's the burden caused by new tools, I haven't seen any good will to try those tools. The lack of volunteers is not a point as well: ORES can help to review edits more easily; we've offered that option. I question myself since the beginning: the discussion is about the filters in theory, but what is the real point behind that discussion? The filters are not imposed to individuals (option to opt-out individually). In your opinion, am I missing something?

Concerning the design of tools let to communities, every design process is open and we do our best to be transparent. I've also seen too many times people refusing facts and figures about why a new tool is useful, or assistance in assimilating those, new tools because those tools and features are not aligned to their personal plans. That mentality really depends on the community and, fortunately, I see more people happy of the changes than the opposite. :)

Hi,

Sorry for the delayed response. Got busy a little these days.

> What is precisely the point you refer to?

I was just conveying a comment of one of the Wikinews community members in which he possibly theorises that "When the design of the tools are given in the hands, the deployment would be more gradual and accepting". It does seem to touch upon the burden of the new tools, I suppose.

> The lack of volunteers is not a point as well: ORES can help to review edits more easily; we've offered that option.

I'm not sure whether that holds for Wikinews. I guess it's mostly about facts and getting them into news and publishing them at the right time. I'm not sure how much ORES could help in that means. If there are way it could, let me know.

> Concerning the design of tools let to communities, every design process is open and we do our best to be transparent.

I do accept this. I've personally felt that and even given some tips myself. May be we should ask for a clarification to the user about why he doesn't feel the design process to be transparent? What do you think?

Hey Kaartic! No apologies needed for your late reply: you're a volunteer already giving a lot of time (than you for that!) and we are all busy. :)

I was just conveying a comment of one of the Wikinews community members in which he possibly theorises that "When the design of the tools are given in the hands, the deployment would be more gradual and accepting". It does seem to touch upon the burden of the new tools, I suppose.

What can we do more than having a long Beta test phase, of people don't take the opportunity to really try the features at that time and provide feedback? Beta features are not Beta forever and at some point they will be deployed by default. The burden can be reduced if people are curious of new tools and aimed to help improving them to fit their needs (in a reasonable way, of course; we can't create custom tools while we try to serve all cases on all wikis).

Concerning ORES, that tool may help people to surface possible vandalism instead of trying to find it edit by edit. They can then have more time to validate new articles. However, it takes time to "feed" ORES.

May be we should ask for a clarification to the user about why he doesn't feel the design process to be transparent? What do you think?

You can if you want, and I'll be curious of the results. But I won't spend time on that while that question has already been commented on English Wikinews, with something I can summarize as "you should do what we want and then prove that's useful to our wiki", which is, in my opinion, a process we can't afford.