What goals should be set to consider this forum successful?

In my opinion, I believe this forum can be considered successful for as long as it stays relevant. If community conversations continue to happen here, then that’s the evidence that there’s a use for this. And in support to what has been said, if we get to attract voices that are different from those dominant in the other channels, then I’ll be even happier about this forum!


Onboarding better ration of non-English native contributors should suffice in my book, but maye having at least 2-3 initiatives activly using it in next 2 months would render it fully relevant beyond just automatic text translation.

I would love if WIKIMANIA or SUMMIT would adopt it as tool as it seems it is most-perfect fit for short term pre/during/post-festum use for onboarding people into highly participative exchanges.


3 posts were split to a new topic: Using this forum in the context of events (Wikimania, the Summit…)

شكراً على رأيك عادل، سؤال: ماذا تقصد بالمواضيع؟ هل هي مواضيع النقاش المطروحة في المنصة؟

1 Like

نعم أقصد المواضيع المطروحة في المنصة. فكلما كانت مبسطة وتعتني بموضوع محدد و/أو يكون حديث الساعة يجعلنا نتشبث بها، ونتطلع لها

1 Like

These are very clear and measurable goals, don’t you think?

Not really, it can mostly be achieved by administrative action (just reduce the number of WMF staff moderators) so aren’t really related to successfullness. A fixed goal (like 5 volunteer mods and 1 volunteer admin) would be a better success metric. Don’t we have something like that already, though?

Sounds good.

Nope, right now we have one moderator and two admins (all Foundation staff) who are very happy to welcome volunteers to the team. :slight_smile:

1 Like

I meant that we already have volunteer mods/admins as success criteria. I might be misremembering though.

Diversity of affiliation (including no affiliation) among moderators is an important goal but it shouldn’t be the only one. Gender, regional and linguistic diversity are very important as well to offset potential biases within the team, also for better coverage of time zones and social & cultural backgrounds.

1 Like

It would have to demonstrate that it makes a valuable contribution to the discussion and solution of an actual pressing problem of some controversy and magnitude. One example of this would be the discussions of the revisions to the universal code of conduct - would use of the Discourse add to the ongoing discussion? Or would it just provided a ‘second consensus’, which would make coming to a real consensus harder? TomDotGov (talk) 14:14, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

(copied from Meta)

My original reply to this comment:

The Movement Charter has been mentioned as an example (see here and here). Pressing, controversy, magnitude… it has all the potential ingredients.

There is an ongoing discussion about [DRAFT] Minimum Criteria for Hub Pilots. Probably by the end of this month, we will be able to evaluate the role of the forum in this conversation.

1 Like

IMHO these are just some of possible criteria and use of ‘have to’ seems like favoring one specific (priviledged English speaker?) position…can easily imagine other scenarious of smaller magnitude, less urgency and yet relevant for them to take place here across languages and specific contexts/topics - no?


2 posts were merged into an existing topic: Just chatting

I think both ideas are compatible. This forum should be able to attract many little conversations not happening anywhere else (and we have identified points about this). The forum should also be useful when bigger discussions happen. These are the situations when Meta and Telegram show their limitations. It would be useful to see whether the forum can make a good contribution to the mix, don’t you think? Giving an option for people to express their opinions in central conversations when otherwise, without a forum, their opinions would be recorded perhaps in their local wiki only (without making it to a report in the Meta discussion) or not at all.


Hm… sorry to go negative now and somewhat off-topic, but in this respect I think it is a bit more complex…IMHO Wikimedia is made up of communities and individuals that have (mostly) shared vision, agree (more-less) on mission and some of the values, but have radically different needs, urgencies and viewpoints. Decision making (even when just consent building) is often suboptimal…so my fear is that when the (singulars) ‘community’ and ‘decision’ come together I feel it can go almost anywhere anytime.

To rephrase my question into two for WMF as current maintainers of Forum:

  • What would be the minimum adoption and support from diferent communities, projects, initiatives, events and individuals for this forum to sustain operations till end of 2022?
  • Would not reaching this minimum by August mean fast close down or option of passing it on to active users is an option? (it was not for WM Spaces)
1 Like

This is a good question for this #forum-community-review question. We are ready to sustain operations for as long as this forum is useful. Defining “useful” in measurable terms would be useful for everyone. :slight_smile:

No. We are ready to close this forum in August if the community review ends with a conclusion that launching this forum officially would be problematic, counterproductive, a bad idea.

Proposal: MS Forum moderation and administration has been shared since the first day of this forum and (if people like the process, as it seems to be the case) we are happy to welcome moderators and administrators without an affiliation with the Foundation. As you can see, it is even identified as a possible success criteria.

Copied from Wikimedia-l

Dan Garry (Deskana)

13 Jun 11:02 p.m.

Hey all, I find myself mostly in agreement with Gergő. A reluctance to experiment is a problem in this movement which prevents meaningful change. The current state of MediaWiki is such that having discussions on it is very painful. We can do better.

However, there’ve been quite a few different experiments with using Discourse as an alternative to on-wiki discussions over the years. What I’m left wondering is, what do we expect to learn from this experiment with Discourse that we didn’t learn from the last ones?

Additionally, as an experiment, I think it lacks clear, objective measures of what would cause the experiment to be branded as either successful or unsuccessful. These should be defined in advance, along with a plan for how to measure them, or confirmation bias will means we’ll all come away from this thinking that our pre-conceived notions were proven correct, and we’ll have achieved nothing.

In fact, after I wrote the above, I realised that the exact question of success metrics was proposed for community input on the talk page for the new forum. I get that we like community consultations and all that, but defining a problem, launching a potential solution, then asking the very people participating in the experiment what they think the experiment’s success measures should be, strikes me as more of an abandonment of responsibility than a consultation, as well as invalidating the experiment.

1 Like

Copied from Wikimedia-l

Ciell Wikipedia

(…) with my MCDC hat on, I hope after this trial period we’ll get to see the data on how many people interacted about the Movement Strategy that we have not heard from in the previous 5 years through any of the other platforms that are in use to gather feedback. Already trying to watch several channels with Strategy discussions, I count on the MSG team to bring back these numbers and a summary of what is being discussed on the forum back to Meta. Even in a virtual world there is a limit on how many channels a Wikimedian can watch.


I agree with this completely!!