I do however lean towards @Aced. As I’m reading through the thread I was also reflecting and thought about why am I easily accessible in social media platforms (Facebook, WhatsApp, Telegram) and email but not so much accessible on, for example, talk page on meta. Then it hit me:
ecosystem that is integrated with my phone and laptop,
system that is intuitive,
a place where I can easily have access to everyone, and by everyone I mean everyone - sort of like social media for Wikimedia.
For me, if this platform will have this factors I don’t see why I should feel the need to leave to somewhere else.
Having said this I think this is a great platform to centralise the strategy discussions. Like really great idea that we have this platform dedicated to the strategy.
From the three points you make, critical mass of users is the deal or break, and the one that we all have more possibilities to act upon.
The other two are more related to business and tech (tightly related). Discourse cannot compete with the budget and tech of Google, Facebook, etc. But the desktop and mobile user experience is good, Wikimedia login helps, and here nobody is tracking you and selling your private data (the only reason why those companies can be among the most profitable in human history while users don’t pay a cent for their services).
Perhaps more importantly, Google and Facebook aren’t focused on productive public discussion. Google is not focused on public discussion at all (or at least not in a sustainable way; the regular rise and demise of its social platform products has become a running joke), and Facebook optimizes its discussion surfaces to be maximally distracting so as to maximize the time for which the user is on their platform, which in many aspects is a conflicting goal. Discourse, even at its modest current size, is one of the top players in the “collaboration platform” space IMO.
Hola, gracias por la invitación a este espacio. Pienso que es una buena herramienta para sostener conversaciones internacionales y asíncronas. Muchas personas en el Movimiento quedan fuera de las conversaciones al sentirse rechazadas o avergonzadas por no poder opinar en un nivel de inglés adecuado. Por tanto, cualquier herramienta de inclusión siempre será bienvenida.
Opino igualmente que el problema de “no es otra plataforma más” puede solucionarse llegando a un consenso colectivo que este espacio tenga una preeminencia sobre otras conversaciones o bien, que exista un compromiso de que lo expuesto aquí pasará a Meta de alguna manera.
Por otro lado, creo que las problemáticas de participación tienen que ver con otros factores y no con las herramientas, precisamente. La Estrategia ha sido un proceso largo en el que no todas las personas pueden sostener participación, especialmente en sitios del mundo en donde factores socioeconómicos no permiten estar en todo lo que se desea estar.
Agree, and I think it would be a big deal if the Movement Charter Drafting Committee could commit to using this platform for ongoing dialogue, in addition to meta and its talk pages. The translation capabilities here are so powerful and something we have never had before. The only way to get widespread feedback and buy-in for the future Movement Charter is through a platform that can provide for widespread, translation on-demand.
No. This forum will only make MediaWiki more abandonware. Invest money and time in making our discussion system better. We have plenty of money, and plenty of workers. -Theklan (talk) 10:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
The first post contains a summary of the discussion so far. The top post is editable, and anyone can contribute to improving it. We will try to update it on a weekly basis in conjunction with the community review weekly reports.
Discourse would have been amazing to have much earlier (personally asked for it few times), now it feels a bit it is less obvious since so many initiatives already formed and have their own communication and work dynamics. Anyway I am supportive of it as a method and a tool, but coutious to see if it is too-late for onboarding critical mass of users *(agree with more conservative opinions that Meta should remain central, just not only and just not as alternative, but co-existing).
Samun wuri irin wannan zai yi matuƙar taimakawa wajen tattara mabanbantan mutane daga ko’ina su san abin da ake gudanarwa dangane da Movement Strategy, musamman samun damar jin ra’ayoyi daga mutane da dama akan fahimtar su da tunanin su game da Movement Strategy shirin wanda zai iya zama a baya basu damar sanin hakan, musamman yanda yanzu kowa zai iya magana acikin harshen shi sannan kuma wani ya ga fassarar zancen shi ya fahimce shi. Ganin irin wannan shafin yayi kama da shafin sada zumunta zai fi ɗaukar ra’ayin masu amfani da basu saba da yin rubutu da bibiyar abubuwa akan meta ba.
I agree with other opinions stating Meta should remain the central place of gathering. But I must say: This forum feels so much more welcoming to newcomers. I speak for myself.
So from where I stand, if Meta is hard enough, here the participation can be significantly easier. The interface walk us through it. Any hard-time might be due to the great amount of text, that is intrinsic to forums. But if the point is to ~mass discuss the movement strategy~ then a lot of discussion among lots of people is actually the goal. If people feel pushed back by it, then they are just not that interested in the discussion. Which is OK. They can keep up with the outcomes.
Plus, when the established alternatives so far are Telegram and similar, closed channels, I believe forums are much more useful to the goal.
I think this forum can play a highly beneficial role in basic wikipedia and WMF processes. I am highly optimistic about its potential benefits. I am working on a small but hopefully useful navbox; one role it might serve is to provide an inviting link to this forum website, in order to draw more of the community here. I will keep you posted.
This forum can improve things, for sure. Not just because of it’s multilingually, but because it’s user friendly and designed for the purpose of conversing. Wiki engine is not. It’s made for articles, not to enable complex discussions to be held.
when I first got to this forum, I was elated to find it; however I was a little unsure about my own objective opinion regarding this forum. now that I have been here a little longer, I am much more sure of my own opinion.
I think this forum is absolutely a highly valuable resource, which plays an absolutely vital resource for promoting discussion, AND for promoting real development and expansion of wiki community values.
the reasons are simple. until now I have been UNABLE to find ANY forum that truly welcomed actual interchange, brainstorming, actual ideas or real positive development. this forum is the first venue that I have found where genuine new ideas are genuinely welcomed, in an atmosphere of genuine discussion, real community, and mutual respect. in general, in OTHER venues, actual new ideas are often shouted down, as anyone who seeks to offer any new ideas are generally treated like children, or like interlopers, or like amateurs, or like they are intrinsically intruding.
in short, now that I have been here for an extended time, and now that my period of initial introduction has ended, I can honestly say that this forum has genuinely provided an altogether necessary and vital resource; namely, a genuine community, one which engenders genuine discussion and creativity. I highly recommend this forum for continuation as a resource, and I highly encourage and applaud the approach, format and content now being developed in this forum.
in closing, I would like to share a highly similar comment which I posted just today on a thread with a topic that is very similar. I offer this comment in order to reiterate my own highly positive feelings about this forum and the role it does play and the larger role that it can potentially grow into. I commend and applaud everyone who is participating here, and I look forward to future discussions with great anticipation and optimism. thanks!!
Re “adding images is a nightmare” on Meta: Isn’t that partly a licensing issue? Meta is supposed to be CC BY-SA. If it were as easy to add pictures to Meta as it is on Twitter or Facebook, it would instantly end up hosting all sorts of media files that are not compatible with that license.
It’s mainly a licensing issue. But then, the reasons for choosing free licensing (we wanted to ensure Wikipedia & co could be freely used and modified by anyone) don’t really apply to talk page discussions. They just can’t be exempted without causing major disruption to image copyright policing in general, because of how MediaWiki handles images.