@Theklan , I totally agree with the approach that you have expressed here, namely, your clear and apparent ability to provide a critical review of the overall approach of WMF on questions, ideas and proposals for possible community resources, such as the specific items that you reference in your comment above.
I would like us to very much take a thorough look at this, and to discuss and revisit these topics in depth, as much as possible, in the weeks ahead. what is the current status of the proposals that you mentioned?
my own personal opinion on your questions is that, the current site we are in now, i.e. the discourse forums website, is the very first time that the community has had a chat function available. does this meet some of the needs that you have mentioned above? I am very interested in your thoughts on this. Thanks.
Back to Discourse Chat, just FYI there was this announcement this week:
Excerpts that I find interesting because they can’t be provided by other chat applications:
There are several features described that sound useful (at least to try) in the context of developing the Movement Strategy community further without aiming to compete with chat applications people are using for other means.
I’m not discussing about the scarcity created by the Wishlist. I’m talking about the chat feature being ignored systematically. If the chat feature is important, then the WMF should implement it, instead of ignoring it when asked.
I (@Qgil-WMF , not the Foundation) am suggesting to test (just try) a chat plugin that is takes one click to enable (without us spending a minute in development) to see if it contributes to the objectives of this forum (without a goal of fixing chat features for the Wikimedia movement).
That’s it, that’s what it’s being proposed here. Developing a chat extension for MediaWiki for all Wikimedia is a completely different proposal in term of goals and effort required that I am not suggesting, nor the Foundation.
That’s the question. Why the Foundation is not suggesting, more over, is rejecting, a chat feature, even if it has been asked by several times in the wishlist and… it seems interesting. And feasible.
Good question! (I don’t think “rejecting” is accurate but it doesn’t matter). I don’t have the answer. And we won’t find it here, because this topic is not a good place to discuss it.
@Theklan , you should view the thread that Qgil posted a link to. he is trying to get this useful feature set up, simply by approaching Discourse themselves.
the problem here is that there is never a place or way to discuss about what we need. Not in Meta. Not the Wishlist (it was dismissed before voting) not a place created to discuss about the Movement Strategy. Where is the place to discuss about having a chat where we need it (Wikimedia) and who is the responsible for that?
Meanwhile, you can have here stickers if you want. Is not relevant at all for Wikimedia. And no Wikimedia staff member should be using their time for this, while abandoning Wikimedia.
Ok, I appreciate your views. I disagree somewhat. I feel the MS Forums are highly useful as a forum for interchange and discussion. that is simply my own opinion on this. thanks.
there are also discussion resources on Telegram, Discord, IRC, Signal, etc. and yes on Facebook. All of them are highly beneficial and positive, as providing alternate venues where various people can provide ideas, and make their voices heard.
No. After five years they are promoting the use of Discourse because the software we have to use every day to discuss is not “good enough”. Five years. Having millions of dollars.
This topic is about “Test the Discourse Chat beta plugin in this forum”. @Theklan and @Sm8900, please create new topics to discuss chat support on MediaWiki, the Community Wishlist or anything else that fall outside of the scope of this Forum improvement request.
well, I do favor free expression. with that said, it is totally fine to suggest the creation of a new thread, but in my opinion, forum members are free to adhere or to not adhere, with all respect.
and with that said, I think it is also valid to say that if only two people are having a colloquy amongst themselves, then perhaps they should limit and constrain their interchange, to avoid derailing the thread.
so I hope you don’t mind my own small thoughts on this. thanks. and let me just express my own personal sincere and heartfelt admiration and gratitude to Qgil, for all his hard work, dedication, and commitment in keeping these forums active, viable, and growing. thanks for all you do!
And I got access just a few minutes later. Since then I have been lurking in a couple of channels, posting a bit, just getting a basic idea. So far I have checked only lazily on desktop, no thorough testing, nothing on mobile yet.
So far so good. On desktop, I don’t find any big difference with other platforms, although as said here my use is very basic so far.
One interesting feature is that channel moderators can move comments to another channel or to a forum category. This helps to keep the channel on topic, and also move to the forum anything that is worth keeping.
Chat notifications and forum notifications run in parallel, they are distinct, and they have different user settings:
Enable chat
Only send chat push notifications Block all non-chat push notifications from being sent
Ignore channel-wide mentions Do not send notifications for channel-wide mentions (@here and @all)
