Wikimedia:Village pump

From Outreach Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page contains changes which are not marked for translation.
Village pump

Welcome to the Outreach Wiki's village pump. This page has two functions:

  • This is where general outreach-related discussions can be held. Click here to open up a new topic.
  • You can also use this page to request administrator assistance with vandalism or other incidents needing action. Please be as specific as possible, including the name of the user or IP causing problems, the page name, and your signature.

Important:

  • Requests for suppression of private information can be made to the stewards at this page on meta. Do not post in public to request suppression.
  • Requests for permissions should be made on the respective page.


Please sign and date your post (by typing ~~~~ or clicking the signature icon: Insert-signature.png in the edit toolbar). Please add new topics to the bottom of this page.

« Older discussions | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Outreach wiki shutting down?[edit]

I've seen it stated on an email list that this wiki's days are numbered. Is this true? And if so, what is the recommended approach for migrating important pages to Meta Wiki or elsewhere? -Pete (talk) 17:15, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Peteforsyth: This has been discussed and rejected by the community. What is the list? Koavf (talk) 07:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: March 19 on Wikimedia-L, re: Wikipedia & Education User Group. -Pete (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thread. Odd. I don't recall a consensus for this. Maybe I'll have to attend. Thanks, Pete. Koavf (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For future reference: this e-mail mentions it. To me this feels a bit weird, as I am editing this wiki many times and got no request to join in the meeting. Something that will be needed as the infrastructure of thousands of pages I maintain needs to be moved to Meta. Romaine (talk) 23:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Recently there have been some talks about moving the contents of this wiki to meta, starting with the GLAM and Education newsletters. See also: GLAM/Newsletter/October 2021/Contents/WMF GLAM report. Romaine (talk) 05:49, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I totally support them doing what they think is best but I don't know why you can't cross-post the content to both wikis. If the point is visibility, then surely that would be desirable. For that matter, it's easy to be a small fish in a big pond and not get as many eyes elsewhere. Koavf (talk) 07:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Making Outreach content another thing "that is somewhere on Meta" is an opposite of visibility :( Now it is very easy to point new people to this very specific wiki. --Base (talk) 20:29, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits by TMenang[edit]

Can an admin please take a look at Special:Contributions/TMenang, specifically the creation of pages about user groups that aren't used here on outreachwiki? I left them a note on their talk page, but they have continued. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 22:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TMenang: Some of these creations seem confusing at best. E.g. you made Category:Pages using RFC magic links, which is something that is automatically generated via MediaWiki if someone uses a certain syntax. So I can see the value in it not being a redlink, just in case someone actually does make an RFC magic link. I do not see the value in making it a subcategory of Category:Stewards (???), particularly since that is a usergroup at Meta. Nor do I see the value in linking to the equivalent category on Commons. Can you explain more of what your goal is here with these page creations? Koavf (talk) 00:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflcited) @TMenang: I can't see why these pages would be needed, any local descriptions for global or non-standard groups can point to interwiki links if needed - is there another good reason these are needed before we just speedy delete them as G7 (irrelevant here)? Xaosflux (talk) 00:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No response, I'm deleting any of these that broadly meet the criterion described above. Xaosflux (talk) 12:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
YesY Done @DannyS712: if there are any others outside of TMenang's userspace meeting the criteria above feel free to tag for speedy deletion per this discussion. Best regards, Xaosflux (talk) 12:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for helping me, best regard. TMenang(talk) 21:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux, Koavf: still continuing, eg Edu-portaal is an unneeded redirect to Education (unlikely search term), as well as more interwiki redirects for user groups - Wikimedia:Account creators and Wikimedia:Importers, both of which were previously deleted per this discussion. --DannyS712 (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the recreations and have no strong feelings on the redirect as redirects are cheap and maybe this is a term that means something in his language. Koavf (talk) 16:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update: account globally locked as an LTA, so no more edits to come, just cleaning up the old ones --DannyS712 (talk) 06:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving[edit]

I've moved most of the threads (which were fairly old) to Wikimedia:Village pump/Archive 7 --DannyS712 (talk) 08:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Partnership proposal between Kindle and Wikipedia and its affiliated projects[edit]

ATTENTION: This proposal aims to improve Wikipedia as a whole, on the recommendation of members of the Portuguese-speaking Wikipedia I moved this request to this section. Therefore any terms used here are mainly intended for Wikipedia, but, due to this, the nature of the request requires it to be proposed here. NOTE: Sorry if the English is a little bad. I come by means of this proposal that we move to create a partnership between Kindle (Amazon's library) and Wikipedia Lusophone. Benefits: Access to thousands of books, which could help reference thousands of Lusophone Wikipedia articles (Nazism, Mao Tse Tung etc.) and makes it easier to find sources for articles from any wikipedia. Like any proposal, this one also has some flaws, they are: Possible deviation from the end (ie users can use the Kindle for their own benefit, reading books but not using them as a quote). To correct this, we could give administrators, self-reviewers and bureaucrats access to books. But we created another problem with this, we would be "barring" non-users, self-reviewers, bureaucrats and administrators from having access to books. Solution: create a tab to request access to the Kindle. Administrators / bureaucrats can evaluate requests with "support" and "not support" (just as is done with self-review requests). Below is a summary of what I propose for better understanding.

Proposal: Create a partnership between Kindle (Amazon's subscription library) and Wikipedia.

Proposal 2: Grant free access to Kindle for Administrators, Self-Reviewers and Bureaucrats.

Proposal 3: Create a tab for requests for access to the Kindle for those "outside" these groups (exactly as it is done to obtain self-review status).

Purpose of the proposal: To use the books available on Kindle to reference Wikipedia articles.

OBS: I emphasize that this proposal is mainly aimed at Wikipedia, but as this request is of a more complex nature I had to do it here.

OBS 2: I understand that it can be very complicated to achieve this, but it is easy to try. If it works out we can expand our reliability and reliability even more, and we can reference many contents of this wonderful project, which is Wikipedia: The free encyclopedia.

OBS 3: If this place is not the right place to make this proposal, I ask you to guide me.

Graciously, --Editor Master Plus (talk) 21:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Code of Conduct News – Issue 1[edit]

Universal Code of Conduct News
Issue 1, June 2021Read the full newsletter


Welcome to the first issue of Universal Code of Conduct News! This newsletter will help Wikimedians stay involved with the development of the new code, and will distribute relevant news, research, and upcoming events related to the UCoC.

Please note, this is the first issue of UCoC Newsletter which is delivered to all subscribers and projects as an announcement of the initiative. If you want the future issues delivered to your talk page, village pumps, or any specific pages you find appropriate, you need to subscribe here.

You can help us by translating the newsletter issues in your languages to spread the news and create awareness of the new conduct to keep our beloved community safe for all of us. Please add your name here if you want to be informed of the draft issue to translate beforehand. Your participation is valued and appreciated.

  • Affiliate consultations – Wikimedia affiliates of all sizes and types were invited to participate in the UCoC affiliate consultation throughout March and April 2021. (continue reading)
  • 2021 key consultations – The Wikimedia Foundation held enforcement key questions consultations in April and May 2021 to request input about UCoC enforcement from the broader Wikimedia community. (continue reading)
  • Roundtable discussions – The UCoC facilitation team hosted two 90-minute-long public roundtable discussions in May 2021 to discuss UCoC key enforcement questions. More conversations are scheduled. (continue reading)
  • Phase 2 drafting committee – The drafting committee for the phase 2 of the UCoC started their work on 12 May 2021. Read more about their work. (continue reading)
  • Diff blogs – The UCoC facilitators wrote several blog posts based on interesting findings and insights from each community during local project consultation that took place in the 1st quarter of 2021. (continue reading)

Server switch[edit]

SGrabarczuk (WMF) 01:19, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment notification[edit]

Here is a link to a RFC on Meta concerning all Wikimedia projects. Lionel Scheepmans (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The 2022 Community Wishlist Survey will happen in January[edit]

SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 00:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Server switch[edit]

SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 00:45, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk to the Community Tech[edit]

Magic Wand Icon 229981 Color Flipped.svg

Read this message in another languagePlease help translate to your language

Hello!

As we have recently announced, we, the team working on the Community Wishlist Survey, would like to invite you to an online meeting with us. It will take place on September 15th, 23:00 UTC on Zoom, and will last an hour. Click here to join.

Agenda

Format

The meeting will not be recorded or streamed. Notes without attribution will be taken and published on Meta-Wiki. The presentation (first three points in the agenda) will be given in English.

We can answer questions asked in English, French, Polish, and Spanish. If you would like to ask questions in advance, add them on the Community Wishlist Survey talk page or send to sgrabarczuk@wikimedia.org.

Natalia Rodriguez (the Community Tech manager) will be hosting this meeting.

Invitation link

See you! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 03:03, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's talk about the Desktop Improvements[edit]

Annotated Wikipedia Vector interface (logged-out).png

Hello!

Have you noticed that some wikis have a different desktop interface? Are you curious about the next steps? Maybe you have questions or ideas regarding the design or technical matters?

Join an online meeting with the team working on the Desktop Improvements! It will take place on October 12th, 16:00 UTC on Zoom. It will last an hour. Click here to join.

Agenda

  • Update on the recent developments
  • Sticky header - presentation of the demo version
  • Questions and answers, discussion

Format

The meeting will not be recorded or streamed. Notes will be taken in a Google Docs file. The presentation part (first two points in the agenda) will be given in English.

We can answer questions asked in English, French, Polish, and Spanish. If you would like to ask questions in advance, add them on the talk page or send them to sgrabarczuk@wikimedia.org.

Olga Vasileva (the team manager) will be hosting this meeting.

Invitation link

We hope to see you! SGrabarczuk (WMF) 15:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk to the Community Tech[edit]

Magic Wand Icon 229981 Color Flipped.svg

Read this message in another language

Hello!

We, the team working on the Community Wishlist Survey, would like to invite you to an online meeting with us. It will begin on 27 October (Wednesday) at 14:30 UTC on Zoom, and will last an hour. Click here to join.

Agenda

  • Become a Community Wishlist Survey Ambassador. Help us spread the word about the CWS in your community.
  • Update on the disambiguation and the real-time preview wishes
  • Questions and answers

Format

The meeting will not be recorded or streamed. Notes without attribution will be taken and published on Meta-Wiki. The presentation (all points in the agenda except for the questions and answers) will be given in English.

We can answer questions asked in English, French, Polish, Spanish, German, and Italian. If you would like to ask questions in advance, add them on the Community Wishlist Survey talk page or send to sgrabarczuk@wikimedia.org.

Natalia Rodriguez (the Community Tech manager) will be hosting this meeting.

Invitation link

We hope to see you! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 23:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inactivity policy[edit]

There are several inactive admins and bureaucrats that could be removed per Wikimedia:Inactivity policy once given the proper notifications. [1]

Also, since there is a possibility that there could be only 1 bureaucrat left after this - maybe more should be elected? --Rschen7754 07:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. As you may know, it used to be much easier to become a bureaucrat here but the community decided on more restrictions on those rights and it used to be that bureaucrats could assign the bureaucrat user rights but no longer. I can do the notifications to admins. Koavf (talk) 07:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meet the new Movement Charter Drafting Committee members[edit]

The Movement Charter Drafting Committee election and selection processes are complete.

The committee will convene soon to start its work. The committee can appoint up to three more members to bridge diversity and expertise gaps.

If you are interested in engaging with Movement Charter drafting process, follow the updates on Meta and join the Telegram group.

With thanks from the Movement Strategy and Governance team

15:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Nouveau livre sur le mouvement Wikimédia[edit]

Bonjour, comme à mon habitude, je reviens vers vous pour vous communiquer l'avancement de mes travaux et vous les soumettre à relecture, critique et commentaire. Il s'agit cette fois d'un livre intitulé Le mouvement Wikimédia dont je viens de terminer la mise en page sur Wikilivres dans le but d'en produire un éventuel ouvrage papier. Une belle fin de journée à tous et merci d'avance pour ceux qui cliquerons sur le lien. Lionel Scheepmans (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merci, Lionel. Tres interresant. Koavf (talk) 21:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This month in GLAM newsletter migration[edit]

This Month in GLAM logo 2018.png

Hi everyone,

I'm here to announce an important project that the GLAM and Culture team at the Wikimedia Foundation is taking part in during the next few weeks.

Due to Outreach having limited readership and visibility within the movement, our community newsletters don’t always receive the attention they deserve. To address this, we’re working with our colleagues in the Movement Communications team to migrate the This month in GLAM newsletter from Outreach to Meta-Wiki.

Both teams are working on this task in the next few weeks in order to:

  1. Increase visibility and participation in the GLAM newsletter.
  2. Ensure the GLAM community has a place (Meta-Wiki) where they feel seen, engaged, and supported by the Wikimedia community, partners, and Foundation.
  3. Increase the amount of multilingual (or translatable) content to engage contributors from other languages and more regions.

This activity already has the support of the newsletter’s main editors. It was also already announced in this October report in the newsletter, on social media, and on some mailing lists.

The migration of the report pages, talk pages, categories, and templates will happen from November 19th to 30th. This period is important to accommodate the migration before the reports from next month. Any other modifications or corrections will be made before December 15th.

If you have any questions or ideas about the migration, please contact the GLAM & Culture team at glam﹫wikimedia.org and the community editors at thismonthinglam﹫gmail.com. --GFontenelle (WMF) (talk) 19:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GFontenelle (WMF), Romaine, Wittylama, Missvain, Rock drum, Carriearchdale: Well, this is not done the wiki way. The GLAM newsletter is, and I quote from the About section: "a community-driven, monthly newsletter written by the Wikimedia movement about activities with cultural institutions broadly defined". This is not a WMF-led initiative, and important decisions should not be handled top-down by the WMF and without consultation to contributors.
I do not disagree with moving the newsletter to a project with more visibility, BUT this simply cannot happen so fast. This is an impactful change, and I see no plan --or to be even more modest, no concern-- about how this impacts negatively Wikimedians on the ground and how negative impacts will be mitigated. From our perspective, moving from outreach.wikimedia means we will need to review dozens of content pages and even printed resources that link directly to the GLAM newsletter on outreach.wikimedia. What kind of support is provided for reviewing content? Will there be automated redirects? Is this a change in editorial lead and the GLAM newsletter is now being managed by the WMF? Why was there no on-wiki consultation with editors and contributors?
I have been a newsletter editor for Brazil for years now, and I can definitely say I have not been consulted about this speed change, and I am really confused about what is happening here and the impact this will have on our work. I strongly oppose this change as is, and I am pinging editors for the newsletter (as listed here) to also understand from their perspective why this change is happening in such a pace and with no broader consultation to the community. Thanks. --Joalpe (talk) 11:06, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Joalpe, Thank you for your commitment to the GLAM newsletter! As usual WMF is not so good in describing the full perspective that is needed for community members to understand what is happening, but let me try to give some answers.
Basically there are two communities active on Outreach wiki: education and GLAM. A few years ago many of the GLAM program leaders of the affiliates had a meeting in Paris where this topic already was discussed. The conclusion was that moving to Meta would not be an issue and is fine. In March of 2021 there was also a discussion among the Wikipedia & Education User Group. So within the GLAM and education communities there seems to be some agreement on moving. Now WMF takes this move in hand and has decided to go for it.
Last week me and Liam had a meeting with WMF about this topic, in what WMF told us about the plan. In this meeting (and afterwards) I have tried to look at all the risks and possible problems, and I have indicated that if the move takes place what in my opinion should happen. All the things I mentioned seemed to be part of their plan and/or have been adopted into it. I have multiple experiences with moving content from one wiki to another, so I think I can foresee for a large part what risks and possible problems can occur. However, I would be happy to learn from you and others what risks you possible foresee, so those risks can be mitigated.
One of the things that I indicated to be needed is that, after all content has been moved to meta, is that outreach becomes an alias that redirects to Meta. Maybe you don't know, but this has been done before. Originally Wikipedia started not on wikipedia.org but on wikipedia.com. So if you link to https://en.wikipedia.com/wiki/Knowledge you automatically end up on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge . The same should happen to Outreach, if someone links to https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/June_2021/Contents/Brazil_report, you automatically will get to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/June_2021/Contents/Brazil_report (not yet there, with the import it will come there). So all the links made in offline publications, websites, etc should still be working after the move has been completed.
Another thing that is important is that the full history of all the pages is moved with the pages. This is possible thanks to the import function. This makes sure that all the editors in the page history are also still their in the history on Meta.
The GLAM newsletter is written by the community and published by me. I have no signals that this would change. To be more clear: all the content from Outreach wiki is going to be moved to Meta. So for example also the Education newsletter will be moved to Meta too. (I am was also the publisher of the Education newsletter, and thanks to miscommunication by WMF I am kicked out of the publishing team which is now published by other volunteers. But that has nothing to do with the move from Outreach to Meta.)
Based on the first message here above I understand that it raises concerns, but I hope that with this background information you get a better picture of what is upcoming. I also can say that I am following the process with all the steps by WMF very carefully in close details, as I want to avoid any problems and want to make sure the impact on the community is as limited as possible.
If there are any concerns or questions, please raise them! Romaine (talk) 00:56, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Romaine: Thank you for your response. This makes more sense, and the initial communication about the migration was indeed very misleading. To mitigate risks about breaking all links in our outreach materials I request a pilot is done under community supervision. This means that only part of the content would be migrated initially and then we check if the redirects are working. Is this possible? I am told by a Wikimedia friend who is tech savvy it is not so easy to crosswiki redirect if the whole page domain is not shut down. And of course thanks you for all you do for the movement; it gives me more trust in the process knowing that you and Liam are involved. --Joalpe (talk) 12:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Joalpe, I suspect that is not technically possible as the full domain gets redirected. A full domain redirecting is easy, only redirecting a group of pages would mean that somehow it is programmed that only those pages get redirected, which does not seem easy to be done. Romaine (talk) 19:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Romaine, Joalpe, GFontenelle (WMF): There is also the matter of differences in user group memberships between projects.   — Jeff G. ツ 12:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Joalpe:, @Romaine:, @Jeff G.: Hello!
First, I would like to thank you for sharing your concerns and giving us the opportunity to address them and make things clearer.
I will be answering some concerns regarding the GLAM newsletter migration.

“This is not a WMF-led initiative, and important decisions should not be handled top-down by the WMF and without consultation to contributors.”

I agree. This is not a WMF-led initiative, we’re helping with the migration of the pages only. And as Romaine said below, this was discussed and agreed years ago and has the support of the community. In the last few weeks, we have contacted and met with the newsletter editors because we wanted to help with the migration, especially as we wanted to help turn the newsletter more accessible, read, and edited by a broader number of contributors. And this seemed like a good moment to finally do that, as we now have the support capacity at the Foundation to respond to the request and the community has had an agreement on the subject for years.

“this simply cannot happen so fast”

It has been happening for a while if you consider the fact that this is something the community has been looking forward to for years. However, especially, we have contacted the GLAM newsletter editors (Romaine, Wittylama, Missvain, Rock drum, Carriearchdale) in October and, since then, have been in conversations with them to understand the best way to accomplish this migration.
The GLAM team also announced it in the GLAM newsletter in October and, per another suggestion, we also let the Meta community know on Babel.

"This is an impactful change, and I see no plan --or to be even more modest, no concern-- about how this impacts negatively Wikimedians on the ground and how negative impacts will be mitigated.”

The plan has been discussed with the newsletter editors and we have shared our concerns, questions, and doubts about the migration in that process.
More than that, this effort is to ensure that the workflow of the authors of the newsletter is not affected. It is important to notice that this also gives the community more optional features, most notably translation, and visual editor support.
We want to move everything in the newsletter over and set up redirects to Meta. We're also making sure the page history is moved as well so we can keep that alive. The focus is moving over the pages and templates so we can publish the next edition of the newsletter on Meta, while we work on moving over the archives and redirects too. Romaine has asked for a bot flag to help with this. CKoerner (WMF) created a phabricator task for input from our technical community for good measure.
As editors and contributors of the GLAM newsletter, you can rest easy that everything will be moved properly, with the right redirects. No one in the community will lose content, no page or link will be erased, nothing will be lost. No content will be inaccessible for any amount of time. The content should be accessible at all times.
While this migration will move a substantial amount of information and activity from Outreach to Meta, the deprecation of Outreach wiki is not in the scope of this work.

“From our perspective, moving from outreach.wikimedia means we will need to review dozens of content pages and even printed resources that link directly to the GLAM newsletter on outreach.wikimedia. What kind of support is provided for reviewing content? Will there be automated redirects? Is this a change in editorial lead and the GLAM newsletter is now being managed by the WMF?”

It won’t be necessary to review content pages. The redirects will happen. And lastly, as this is very important to highlight, there won’t be a change in the editorial lead of the newsletter and WMF will not manage the newsletter’s content in any way. This was never implied in any way or form.
In the GLAM newsletter migration, we have been working with Romaine since the start, with his supervision, to make this entire process right and all our efforts are specifically to ensure that the workflows of the authors of the newsletter are not affected.
Lastly, I would like to make Romaine’s words above mine: I would also be happy to learn from you and others what risks you possibly foresee, so those risks can be mitigated. We are ready to make this migration as smooth as possible for everyone.--GFontenelle (WMF) (talk) 03:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Romaine: As I implicitly mentioned above, when was this discussed with the community here? How was a consensus reached to shut down and redirect Outreach? Koavf (talk) 18:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Koavf, What I know I wrote down in my earlier message. I think WMF has seen agreement within the group of GLAM program leaders and this has been spoken about in the Education group. I think WMF has considered that to be sufficient consensus and high in the hierarchy they have decided to close Outreach Wiki and centralise all the GLAM and Education materials on one wiki: Meta. As from various websites, social media and offline materials Outreach pages have been linked directly, it would be highly problematic to simply close Outreach wiki as this has been done with many other wikis. Therefore the obvious conclusion to keep materials reachable and editable without any extra effort for the readers and users is to setup domain redirecting. I also think WMF has decided to take this step because the "Communications Department at the Foundation conducted research in January 2021 to understand how the Foundation can help make stronger movement communications a reality."source and published this report. One of the recommendations is to "Invest more in centralizing and storing movement information"source. What I understand is that among the movement content is spread over various wikis, which results in that the documentation is hard to find, less used, resulting in a lot of potential not being used because it is so fragmented. This I already concluded myself a decade ago, GLAM program leaders have come to that same conclusion a few years ago, and finally WMF has come to that conclusion as well.
You ask if the decision was "discussed with the community here". That is a contradictio in terminis and a tricky question as the largest part of the users that edit this wiki, Education program leaders and GLAM program leaders, which I consider to be the core of the community that use this wiki, do not follow what is going on on this wiki. So discussing it "here" would mean that the few editors on Outreach are asked, but not the majority of the people involved is asked.
I am not so happy about how the process is going, nor the communication, but to me it is clear WMF has made this decision, just as WMF has taken many decisions in the past decade without asking for community input. Even the founding of Outreach Wiki was by a stand alone decision of WMF and bypassing the community. Romaine (talk) 23:39, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Romaine: You think it is a "contradiction in terms" to ask the community who edits here for their feedback about shutting down the wiki? That speaks volumes. Koavf (talk) 01:33, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Koavf, Can you please try to read what I tried to say, instead of your interpretation of what I said? What I tried to say is that only a very small portion of the people who create the Educational and GLAM content actual reads the village pump, etc, so suggesting that creating a discussion here so the Education and GLAM community, who use this wiki, can have a discussion is hardly going to work to get a representative input. Romaine (talk) 01:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Romaine: Okay, can you do the same and appreciate the point that I am making? Koavf (talk) 05:21, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GFontenelle (WMF): "this was discussed and agreed years ago": when? When was the community here engaged in this? What Romaine mentions is an email thread from this year which says that it was decided but not discussed, not years ago, and not with any input from this community. Where is any of this documented? Koavf (talk) 18:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
@GFontenelle (WMF): Thank you for echoing what Romaine has just said above. Knowing he and others from the community are supervising this process, not just supporting or being consulted, is a really relevant piece of information that was not accurately provided in the misleading initial message. Furthermore, IMHO, the WMF should not take the lead in communicating this kind of changes in a community-driven activity, as it is not its role, and on-wiki deliberative processes should be preferred over decision-making procedures that are not as participatory, like an onsite event in Europe some years ago, and communication over community-driven processes should not have happened exclusively in a WMF report of low visibility. Finally, the initial post was lacking a lot of information that was now provided by Romaine and echoed by you. Thanks. --Joalpe (talk) 11:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


For what it's worth, as the person who originally created the newsletter when I had a "GLAM Fellowship" more than a decade ago (but have not been active in its production for a while) - the only reason that this newsletter exists here, not Meta, is because I was specifically instructed to do so. There was an attempt at that time to make the outreach wiki as a separate 'breakaway' from Meta - with different policies, community, tone. However, it has merely 'forked' the community and results in double-handing of templates among other things (at least, in the interim time, Single-user-login has made that less annoying). I don't think anyone, at any point, explicitly preferred outreach wiki, it just became the de-facto because of inertia. The effort of moving something already in place became too much effort to contemplate - even though people like myself and Romaine had been preferring for it to live on Meta. Now, finally, after all these years - there are staff resources at the WMF who are actively willing to invest the time to do the annoying work of shifting the content and cleaning up the redirects, templates etc. The lack of "hard" redirects between two wikis is annoying but this is significantly outweighed by the advantages of being on Meta (including translation software, enabling this to become a multilingual newsletter if we wish). Wittylama (talk) 11:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk to the Community Tech: The future of the Community Wishlist Survey[edit]

Magic Wand Icon 229981 Color Flipped.svg

Hello!

We, the team working on the Community Wishlist Survey, would like to invite you to an online meeting with us. It will take place on 30 November (Tuesday), 17:00 UTC on Zoom, and will last an hour. Click here to join.

Agenda

  • Changes to the Community Wishlist Survey 2022. Help us decide.
  • Become a Community Wishlist Survey Ambassador. Help us spread the word about the CWS in your community.
  • Questions and answers

Format

The meeting will not be recorded or streamed. Notes without attribution will be taken and published on Meta-Wiki. The presentation (all points in the agenda except for the questions and answers) will be given in English.

We can answer questions asked in English, French, Polish, Spanish, German, and Italian. If you would like to ask questions in advance, add them on the Community Wishlist Survey talk page or send to sgrabarczuk@wikimedia.org.

Natalia Rodriguez (the Community Tech manager) will be hosting this meeting.

Invitation link

We hope to see you! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]