Job adverts? Really?. Site notice is for critical stuff (fund raising, servers about to explode) even if you play with the notice to only appear ~%10 of the time. Central notice even more so. For less important stuff where you want to contact the community there is [[MediaWiki:Watchlist-details]] which would have the additional advantage of not putting English ads on the Italian (substitute almost every non english wikipedia of your choice) wikipedia. The size is also problematical. On my screen it takes up about twice the space of the average image thumbnail something people who come to wikipedia actualy want to see.
Incidentally:
"In one or two sentences, describe the process in which users are approved to become administrators on English Wikipedia. "
Is this some kind of test to see if people know how to use semi colons?
On 29 July 2010 22:43, geni [email protected] wrote:
Job adverts? Really?. Site notice is for critical stuff (fund raising, servers about to explode) even if you play with the notice to only appear ~%10 of the time. Central notice even more so. For less important stuff where you want to contact the community there is [[MediaWiki:Watchlist-details]] which would have the additional advantage of not putting English ads on the Italian (substitute almost every non english wikipedia of your choice) wikipedia. The size is also problematical. On my screen it takes up about twice the space of the average image thumbnail something people who come to wikipedia actualy want to see.
The advert says that one of the types of people they are looking for is:
"People belonging to language communities of new and growing Wikipedias and other Wikimedia projects"
If the advert was only on the English Wikipedia, they couldn't achieve that. Anyone working for the Foundation needs to be able to speak English, for practical reasons, so it makes sense not to waste time translating the notice.
All of that said, I have already emailed internal-l with my own criticisms of the advert, mainly the lack of any detail about what jobs they are actually hiring for (apparently they haven't defined that yet and are waiting to see who applies, but I don't know why they didn't explain that in the advert - I'm also not convinced it will work for anything other than entry-level positions).
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 5:43 PM, geni [email protected] wrote:
advantage of not putting English ads on the Italian (substitute almost every non english wikipedia of your choice) wikipedia.
We actually have translations of the notice in 40 languages already and more are coming in as we speak. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CentralNotice/Work_at_Wikimedia
The size is also problematical. On my screen it takes up about twice the space of the average image thumbnail something people who come to wikipedia actualy want to see.
Feel free to hit the "hide" button after you've read it and decided you no longer want to see it or click anymore.
Incidentally:
"In one or two sentences, describe the process in which users are approved to become administrators on English Wikipedia. "
Is this some kind of test to see if people know how to use semi colons?
This actually made me laugh. :-)
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Thomas Dalton [email protected] wrote:
On 29 July 2010 22:43, geni [email protected] wrote: If the advert was only on the English Wikipedia, they couldn't achieve that. Anyone working for the Foundation needs to be able to speak English, for practical reasons, so it makes sense not to waste time translating the notice.
Indeed. That's why the application form is only in English -- it doesn't make sense to waste translators' time translating the application form if you need to be proficient in English to work at the Foundation. However, the notice can be translated into whatever language anyone wants, because it's not really nice to have a big notice at the top of your wiki in a different language... it's rude and sticks out like a sore thumb. :-)
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 10:43 PM, geni [email protected] wrote:
Job adverts? Really?. Site notice is for critical stuff (fund raising, servers about to explode) even if you play with the notice to only appear ~%10 of the time.
Personally I was quite pleased to see it.
It can only add to the number of applicants, which I think is a good thing.
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 9:17 PM, Bod Notbod [email protected] wrote:
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 10:43 PM, geni [email protected] wrote:
Job adverts? Really?. Site notice is for critical stuff (fund raising, servers about to explode) even if you play with the notice to only appear ~%10 of the time.
Personally I was quite pleased to see it.
It can only add to the number of applicants, which I think is a good thing.
Everybody has known for a long time that long-term Wikimedia contributors are far more sensitive to Foundation imposition of visual clutter than the average person.
We can only hope that some day we all become just as sensitised to the clutter we put on the site ourselves ;-).
Apparently long-time Wikimedia contributors are also far more sensitive to Foundation imposition of /less/ visual clutter as well, judging by the reaction to the Vector rollout. Perhaps we could just say that long-term Wikimedia contributors are just more sensitive ;)
Ryan Kaldari
On 8/2/10 5:11 AM, Andrew Garrett wrote:
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 9:17 PM, Bod Notbod[email protected] wrote:
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 10:43 PM, geni[email protected] wrote:
Job adverts? Really?. Site notice is for critical stuff (fund raising, servers about to explode) even if you play with the notice to only appear ~%10 of the time.
Personally I was quite pleased to see it.
It can only add to the number of applicants, which I think is a good thing.
Everybody has known for a long time that long-term Wikimedia contributors are far more sensitive to Foundation imposition of visual clutter than the average person.
We can only hope that some day we all become just as sensitised to the clutter we put on the site ourselves ;-).
While I appreciate the comments about people being overly sensitive, I do think it is still true that we should avoid unnecessary clutter.
With that in mind, I would like to mention that I don't really like the big empty box approach. On my screen it looks like the banner is about 3.5 times the height of the text, and this feels rather excessive to me.
It seems plausible to me that a bigger banner would have a higher click-through rate, though I don't know of any Wikipedia specific evidence to verify that. Even if that is true though, presumably one could have a smaller banner coupled to a longer campaign and accomplish the same effect as a big banner with a shorter campaign. Personally, I think it would feel less imposing and more friendly to have a smaller banner than ran longer.
That's just my two cents.
-Robert Rohde
Er, I mean: "I think it would feel less imposing and more friendly to have a smaller banner THAT ran longer."
Silly typo.
-Robert Rohde
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 3:37 AM, Ryan Kaldari [email protected] wrote:
Apparently long-time Wikimedia contributors are also far more sensitive to Foundation imposition of /less/ visual clutter as well, judging by the reaction to the Vector rollout. Perhaps we could just say that long-term Wikimedia contributors are just more sensitive ;)
Ryan Kaldari
Yes! because comparing three inch highish "We Want you to work here" messages with a completely empty large box enclosing it, is the same thing as a skin roll out.
-Peachey
Ryan Kaldari wrote:
Apparently long-time Wikimedia contributors are also far more sensitive to Foundation imposition of /less/ visual clutter as well, judging by the reaction to the Vector rollout. Perhaps we could just say that long-term Wikimedia contributors are just more sensitive ;)
A lot of the complaints I heard regarding the Vector rollout were based in the fact that the Wikimedia Usability team has subverted and bastardized the term "usability" in an attempt to impose purely aesthetic choices on the broader community. And in some cases, the Vector skin has demonstrably made the site less usable for "long-term Wikimedia contributors."
To each his own, though.
MZMcBride
On 8/2/2010 6:12 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
A lot of the complaints I heard regarding the Vector rollout were based in the fact that the Wikimedia Usability team has subverted and bastardized the term "usability" in an attempt to impose purely aesthetic choices on the broader community.
This reads to me like you're trying to start a fight with the Usability team, and I don't rightly cotton to that idea. The team is comprised of many people, all with different opinions to be sure - but they are all *dedicated to the mission.*
So you should assume good faith, even if you disagree.
And in some cases, the Vector skin has demonstrably made the site less usable for "long-term Wikimedia contributors."
I haven't seen any studies or data that supports this claim but I'd be very interested in seeing this demonstrated.
It is possible for long-term or power-users of Wikimedia software to change the skin they use if they find serious fault with Vector.
" in an attempt to impose purely aesthetic choices on the broader community." Impose? You know it can be turned off, right?
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 2:32 AM, Brandon Harris [email protected]wrote:
On 8/2/2010 6:12 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
A lot of the complaints I heard regarding the Vector rollout were based
in
the fact that the Wikimedia Usability team has subverted and bastardized
the
term "usability" in an attempt to impose purely aesthetic choices on the broader community.
This reads to me like you're trying to start a fight with theUsability team, and I don't rightly cotton to that idea. The team is comprised of many people, all with different opinions to be sure - but they are all *dedicated to the mission.*
So you should assume good faith, even if you disagree.And in some cases, the Vector skin has demonstrably made the site less usable for "long-term Wikimedia contributors."
I haven't seen any studies or data that supports this claim but I'dbe very interested in seeing this demonstrated.
It is possible for long-term or power-users of Wikimedia software tochange the skin they use if they find serious fault with Vector.
foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Brandon Harris wrote:
This reads to me like you're trying to start a fight with the Usability team, and I don't rightly cotton to that idea. The team is comprised of many people, all with different opinions to be sure - but they are all *dedicated to the mission.*
I wasn't aware "cotton" could be used a verb. Thanks for that. Your point is hollow, though.
So you should assume good faith, even if you disagree.
When there's a financial incentive to change the interface, the interface is going to change, regardless of whether it's an improvement or necessary. I think this is partially (perhaps more than partially) the reason that Wikimedia is now shifting away from large grants in favor of small donations. (Sue may have said as much explicitly, I'd have to look.) And, for what it's worth, I think it's a smart shift.
Brandon Harris wrote:
It is possible for long-term or power-users of Wikimedia software to change the skin they use if they find serious fault with Vector.
Oliver Keyes wrote:
Impose? You know it can be turned off, right?
Being able to disable the skin is one of the reasons it won't see improvement. It's far less effort to switch your personal skin back to the old default (which is what thousands of people have done) than battle those who have imposed (yes, imposed) the new skin. And when the power-users and long-term contributors (those who have accountsanonymous users can't change their skin) switch back, the incentive to work on improving the skin greatly diminishes.
This is a basic principle of interface design; I'm sure there's a Wikipedia article about it somewhere.
MZMcBride
So if the incentive to improve it will end and the people who contribute will switch over.. you have nothing to complain about, because the quote unquote "imposed" skin will die out. End of problem.
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 2:55 AM, MZMcBride [email protected] wrote:
Brandon Harris wrote:
This reads to me like you're trying to start a fight with the Usability team, and I don't rightly cotton to that idea. The team is comprised of many people, all with different opinions to be sure - but they are all *dedicated to the mission.*
I wasn't aware "cotton" could be used a verb. Thanks for that. Your point is hollow, though.
So you should assume good faith, even if you disagree.
When there's a financial incentive to change the interface, the interface is going to change, regardless of whether it's an improvement or necessary. I think this is partially (perhaps more than partially) the reason that Wikimedia is now shifting away from large grants in favor of small donations. (Sue may have said as much explicitly, I'd have to look.) And, for what it's worth, I think it's a smart shift.
Brandon Harris wrote:
It is possible for long-term or power-users of Wikimedia software to change the skin they use if they find serious fault with Vector.
Oliver Keyes wrote:
Impose? You know it can be turned off, right?
Being able to disable the skin is one of the reasons it won't see improvement. It's far less effort to switch your personal skin back to the old default (which is what thousands of people have done) than battle those who have imposed (yes, imposed) the new skin. And when the power-users and long-term contributors (those who have accounts‹anonymous users can't change their skin) switch back, the incentive to work on improving the skin greatly diminishes.
This is a basic principle of interface design; I'm sure there's a Wikipedia article about it somewhere.
MZMcBride
foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 3 August 2010 02:32, Brandon Harris [email protected] wrote:
On 8/2/2010 6:12 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
A lot of the complaints I heard regarding the Vector rollout were based in the fact that the Wikimedia Usability team has subverted and bastardized the term "usability" in an attempt to impose purely aesthetic choices on the broader community.
This reads to me like you're trying to start a fight with the Usability team, and I don't rightly cotton to that idea. The team is comprised of many people, all with different opinions to be sure - but they are all *dedicated to the mission.* So you should assume good faith, even if you disagree.
This is a strange usage of "assume good faith" that assumes all criticism must necessarily be assumption of bad faith.
It is observed and documented that the Usability team worked in a manner separated from the community, and that they forced their views upon the community with blunt reversion when challenged. And that these actions caused *severe* problems with the community.
Acknowledging severely negative factual events that not only actually occurred, but were apologised for by the perpetrators, does not somehow imply that the people doing these things did them deliberately or with malicious intent, as your message seems to imply.
That these observed behaviours were later acknowledged as severely problematic, and that some effort was gone to in order to make sure they did not recur, is not a reason to try to block acknowledgement that these problems did in fact occur, which is the obvious result of what you here posit. Please don't do this.
- d.