1027:
of the problem. Has there been any work done on it. Has there been work done on looking to partner with an external organisation that is capable of doing web-scale development and is will work with us. We need to look at the delivery models and see how they apply here. Is there impetus for actually starting the process now too get change happening now, say if I started talking to folk, put some feelers out. It not still a talking shop? Some momentum needs to be generated at the beginning to get it moving, possibly a strike to show the WMF that we are serious. It needs to be a group effort. The stability over disruption model is not something that can sustained over the long term. I was talking to a mate last night who works for Sony research and we talking about software and how it is driven by fashion and politics but mostly fashion. Its the look of new software that excites people, that newness, that makes them want to use it. Its a truism. When I look at it now I see something which is equivalent of flash. The last time I saw equivalent updates was when the menu system was reworked to look like facebook. That is astounding lack of vision. That vision that we create for a new UX, something beautiful and useful that will be updatable that will drive it. Guy Macon I see your on the WMF engineering team. Tell me what about the WMF, what is stopping them doing it themselves and have they done migration planning or have they looked at large scale feature planning/roll-out. Any research available on it?
840:
software on a day to day basis through the most formal -- and controllable by management -- methods. Thus we see things like the "2019 Talk pages consultation" above. And why I will never, ever, have an open conversation with any WMF developer about our 13 years of discriminating against a minority that is legally protected in the US. We will never see a set of software requirements that includes a testable definition of "done". We will never see a schedule with milestones and updates, and budget and staffing information for solving this. And we will never discuss even the possibility of putting out a call for proposals to solve this.
818:- thank you for this. I have been saying words to this effect for years. However, I do believe that that ACTRIAL/ACPERM was a milestone and finally brought home the message that the devs are not always right and need to listen to the community rather than impose their own management decisions without experience in crucial areas. The other issue of course is that as registered charities (and NGOs , for example) are not answerable to any shareholders, they are notorious for squandering money - easy come, easy go - as long as the paid staff get their salaries.
1046:. With a proper legal basis that is a economic counterweight to the WMF, we can start raising funds and tie into industrial fund givers. The WMF are excellent at running Knowledge (XXG) as a product, but they are not good at delivering feature scale software as the users need on an on-demand basis. The political will is not there and unless there is some kind of change in the culture, it wont happen. The best we can hope for is to get an agreement which states they will implement the feature if editors want it and consensus for it.
110:
619:, and I'm glad to see this writeup; it's a good summary of what's been discussed. The talk page team is currently working on a full report of findings that we hope to publish within a week or two -- bringing all of the discussions together, as well as some user tests that we've done this month. That report will wrap up Phase 1, and kick off Phase 2, where we'll talk about tradeoffs, and zero in on a product direction. Folks who are interested should watchlist
130:
473:
90:
120:
36:
1000:
software that runs
Knowledge (XXG), we submit it to the WMF. If they accept it and add it to the software, we keep submitting new fixes until they reject one and no modification of the fix results in them accepting it. Once we get that first rejection of a good fix (which may be the first fix we submit, or may be the 1,000th) we then need to address the "economic" aspect.
140:
100:
1009:
accepts user input and makes edits to
Knowledge (XXG)? And which blocks a user when Knowledge (XXG) does, reverts vandalism when Knowledge (XXG) does, somehow adapts without breaking when Knowledge (XXG) get new features, and looks to Knowledge (XXG) exactly like a normal user -- including his IP address, browser cookies, etc. -- logging on and editing?
284:
newcomer-friendly, but was more unpopular due to its infinite scrolling (you may be sensing a theme here) which makes it hard to search for section, excessive notifications, unreadable topic names, poor wikitext and history support, and disengagement from the community. That last one will hopefully be resolved with this consultation taking place.
150:
1065:, where the WMF rejected the clear consensus of the community. Your plan must include a workable method for cramming basic things like "stop discriminating against blind people" and "stop assisting marketers and spammers who want to gather data on Knowledge (XXG) users" down the throat of an unwilling and hostile WMF. --
816:...running an encyclopedia does not magically confer the ability to create high-quality software, and the WMF has a pretty dismal track record in this area. Olympic-level athletes don't get angry when you tell them that their athletic ability does not magically confer the ability to repair automobiles or do astronomy
724:
to try. Reduce the number by paying off and thanking the candidates that are of lower quality and giving the remaining teams more money to develop their ideas further. Finally, narrow it down to the one best solution (or decide that all the solutions suck and go back to square one with new requirements).
1026:
Yip. OK. We start with the current software, who guessed it. I'll start working on a plan. The scope is the UX and we need to deal with WMF. Has there been any work done on a plan, or a issues list, or potential problems list, scoping, of that ilk that you can send me, something that defines the size
999:
The technical aspect is feasible. Start with a pilot run of one improvement, carefully chosen to be noncontroversial and easy to implement. Use it to put together all the details of how the team works together, what happens when team members disagree, etc. Once we have one improvement to the existing
723:
One possible solution: Set aside a certain amount of money, and put out a call for third parties to solve this problem. Have the WMF pick some small number of proposals and let the community pick some small number of proposals, and pay the third parties to create prototypes of their solutions for all
748:
So why, after 13 years of inaction, do we not have a set of software requirements (including a testable definition of "done"), a schedule with milestones and updates, and budget and staffing information for solving this? And if the WMF is not capable of solving it, why have we not put out a call for
309:
are more frequent users of offsite services. Like many projects, they would like to see an autosign feature added and see indentation become less confusing. Additional requests to provide incremental talk page improvements include automatic archiving and tools to deal with bad-faith comments. Others
1008:
do is make copies of the 47,986,864 registered users, 115,976 active editors and 850 administrators who, together, have made 1,241,646,299 edits, created 61,472,892 pages of all kinds and created 6,884,404 articles. A new encyclopedia is a non-starter. So, can we create an alternate front end which
971:
I think this week we should start a scoping exercise to determine what software features were a looking for in new software, get a slack group going, a Github project going and start casting around for developers. The thing that worries me is that I feel that by 2029 we will be still using the same
843:
The sad part is that the actual people writing the code are in no way at fault for any of this. They are doing their best under the constraints they work under, and most of them -- maybe all -- are perfectly capable of creating and deploying high-quality software. The problem is the system they are
839:
But if a WMF developer ever dares to get together with Guy Macon or
Kudpung to openly discuss making some improvement to the software that runs Knowledge (XXG), he will be instantly fired and won't get a good reference. Developers are only allowed to communicate with the people who actually use the
835:
This brings to mind a related problem: Guy Macon and
Kudpung could get together and discuss making some improvement to the software that runs Knowledge (XXG). We could talk things over on a talk page, email each other, or even meet at a Starbucks and talk face to face. Likewise, WMF developer A and
283:
preferred wikitext talk pages, even though they saw them as complicated, especially for new users, for many of the reasons
English Knowledge (XXG) contributors mentioned. Users also complained about the requirement of signing posts and it being difficult to notify other users. Flow was seen as more
717:
at running an encyclopedia. Nobody else, anywhere on earth, even comes close. However, running an encyclopedia does not magically confer the ability to create high-quality software, and the WMF has a pretty dismal track record in this area. Olympic-level athletes don't get angry when you tell them
937:
As I have been bringing this up over the last five years or so, I have received multiple good-faith comments of the form "why don't you bring this up at X?" or "This is the wrong place for this, ask at Y". Every time I bring it up where they suggest. By my count, this is the 17th time I have done
343:
users requested section watchlisting. Flow is a divisive issue on
Wikidata; issues with Flow (coming from both Flow supporters and opponents) include its bugginess, no diff support, notification volume, and... if you've read through the rest of this, you know what I'm going to say here. Hint: it
329:
took the WMF to task for taking inspiration from social media sites when that's not what talk pages are used for. Major issues listed with Flow include infinite scrolling and the amount of whitespace. Some users did not oppose a "tree view", but wanted a way to switch between that and a more
836:
WMF developer B can get get together and discuss making some improvement to the software that runs
Knowledge (XXG), using any of the above forms of communication. In both cases the conversation can be completely open, with anyone throwing out possibly bad ideas for the other to tear apart.
896:
you may have spotted that
Diversity is one of the key features of the current work on the movement strategy, which means "are our projects actually accessible to blind people and if not what can we do about it" is the kind of question that is now getting serious thought. I am sure the
249:, which uses Flow, liked Flow for small discussions because it removed the requirements to ping users and sign posts. For longer discussions, there are problems with Flow's inability to manually move off-topic messages. Flow's infinite scrolling was also criticized.
700:"Wikimedia Foundation product teams have worked on communication tools before... By the end of this consultation, we'll have an overall product direction for a set of communication features that a product team will be able to work on in the coming fiscal year".
388:, is not a guideline but it might as well be since people treat it as such these days). A common argument in this discussion against a ban is that the paid editing would continue, but it would be harder to regulate because it would be forced into the shadows.
1003:
The "economic" aspect is this: anyone can set up a new encyclopedia. Many have. They can copy the existing
Knowledge (XXG) software, copy it and modify it, or create brand new software. They can even reuse all existing Knowledge (XXG) content. What they
199:
There were many complaints regarding posting to talk pages using the mobile site, due to the widespread stance that the mobile site is more focused on readers than editors. As such, several users mentioned using the desktop site when editing on mobile
303:, which was going to switch to Flow before this was blocked by this consultation, supported creating something more social media-like to appeal to younger users. They also supported creating an autosign feature, and making indentation less confusing.
765:
980:
model approach, using volunteers software engineers thatincrementally building features using a consensus based approach to feature approval. The software isn't that complex. I think it would take less than three years. What do you think?.
232:
Alsee concluded by saying: "It's worth noting that a member of the
Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees participated in the consultation, and they were part of the near-unanimous support for keeping and improving the existing wikipages for
729:
I have made this sort of proposal before. Inevitably someone claims that the WMF is already doing a a great job in every aspect of software development and that nothing needs to be changed. For those people I have a
593:
296:
apparently had a rather large discussion, but it has not yet been summarized. This is a pity since they are one of the largest Wikimedia projects. The Arabic and Hindi Wikipedias have also not posted their
517:
263:
script conversion system. They also criticized Flow's incomplete wiki markup support, infinite scrolling and poor table-of-contents capabilities. Some users suggested enabling VisualEditor on most talk
547:
537:
527:
459:
512:
542:
567:
522:
497:
76:
182:
322:
wants a reply button, better tools to quote other users, section watching. They also expressed concerns about accessibility to newcomers as well as being able to opt out of any new changes.
316:
wants, you guessed it, autosign, as well as making talk pages more newcomer-friendly. Many participants were mobile users and they found it hard to use talk pages with their mobile devices.
502:
1061:
Re: "The best we can hope for is to get an agreement which states they will implement the feature if editors want it and consensus for it", there is zero hope of that ever happening. See
490:
874:- the community has a right to be informed and whether or not their work and interests are correctly represented by those whose salaries are generated by the unpaid toil of thousands.
1106:
562:
196:
That doesn't mean people don't want change, though—in the same straw poll that asked about support for Flow, 95% of users supported some kind of "incremental" change to talk pages.
484:
55:
44:
557:
532:
441:
369:
552:
832:
ACTRIAL/ACPERM was really good. It surprised me how well it ended up. But it should not have been so hard. It should be easy to work together with the WMF from the start.
713:
We are giving the same people who failed at a task before the job of doing it right this time. I realize that this will anger some people, but why should it? The WMF is
290:
discussed centralization, the complexity of wikitext, and making discussions on multilingual projects like Commons more open to other languages. They also dislike Flow.
996:
There are two aspects; one technical and one (for lack of a better word), "economic". It isn't really economic, but it does involve competition for limited resources.
376:, who posted a message in support of a paid editing ban, argued that it's impossible for paid editors to contribute without violating Knowledge (XXG) guidelines like
1157:
623:
on mediawiki.org to see the report; I think it'll be interesting. I'm also available if people have questions about the consultation, or talk pages in general. --
93:
972:
software if things stay the same and I really think the WMF should be no longer be mentioned in the same breath as software. I am absolutely sure we can build an
417:
21:
1133:
1128:
1123:
867:
423:
1062:
781:
427:
1118:
740:
206:
Many users asserted that user engagement problems are more due to Wikipedian cultural problems, as opposed to issues with the way talk pages work.
448:
357:
921:...and it received that exact same response I got the last dozen times somebody claimed "You just aren't asking in the right place, Guy". :( --
416:
In addition to the ongoing portal deletion discussions, users are discussing whether there should be stricter rules regarding portal creation.
271:
centered mainly around behavioral issues. Users cited newcomers' issues with talk page syntax, as well as incivility by more experienced users.
430:
about whether RfA should be a straight vote or not. Consensus seems to be in favor of the status quo (not a vote, or maybe a bit of both).
361:
888:
I'm glad people still read that essay :) Though do bear in mind that it's aimed at community members, as well as the WMF.... By the way
405:
prohibiting deletions of pages under general sanctions (such as blockchain-related pages) outside of normal deletion procedures like
1113:
798:
651:
472:
49:
35:
17:
225:
Other issues discussed include low-visibility talk pages, making it possible to add individual sections of a page (for example, on
177:
With nobody else stepping up to close the English Knowledge (XXG)'s discussion regarding the future of talk pages, it was up to
665:
898:
402:
1074:
1056:
1037:
1021:
991:
966:
951:
930:
910:
883:
853:
827:
802:
758:
672:
655:
632:
916:
330:
traditional wikitext mode. Miscellaneous requests: edit conflicts being automatically resolved and, once again, autosign.
420:
regarding whether portals should have WikiProject sponsorship or should go through a new Portals for Creation process.
242:
Some sister projects, however, came to different conclusions. Here's a summary of all the sister projects' summaries:
664:. I was sorry to have completely missed the original discussion, but will be interested to see what is implemented.
689:
661:
620:
616:
868:
Meta-wiki essay on the dynamics of the relationship between the Wikimedia Foundation and the rest of the movement
255:, which has Flow enabled on a minority of talk pages, complained about Flow's handling of their wiki's automatic
365:
219:
1139:
203:
Several users cited difficulty regarding how to thread discussions, including where to reply and how to indent.
30:
English Knowledge (XXG) community's conclusions on talk pages: Plus: another round of paid editing discussion.
858:
Some readers take exception at criticisms of the WMF - who themselves claim their Executive Officer, though
628:
794:
718:
that their athletic ability does not magically confer the ability to repair automobiles or do astronomy.
647:
860:...based in San Francisco, though it may be more accurate to say she lives in a metal tube in the sky
769:
397:
There has been some drama about administrators deleting pages under community sanctions. Wikipedians
1070:
1017:
947:
926:
849:
754:
260:
906:
256:
173:
Talk Pages Consultation 2019: A summary of the English Knowledge (XXG) and sister projects' ideas
103:
879:
823:
739:
system discriminates against blind people. See . This appears to be a direct violation of the
624:
589:
123:
777:
385:
190:
1049:
1030:
984:
959:
785:
638:
163:
859:
410:
406:
398:
377:
226:
133:
773:
381:
153:
1066:
1013:
943:
922:
891:
845:
811:
750:
373:
360:
about disclosed paid editing on Knowledge (XXG), a full ban on paid editing (excluding
1151:
902:
871:
875:
819:
143:
973:
113:
956:
Are you talking about communication tools or the whole encyclopedia software?
939:
764:
178:
277:
users wanted it to be more clear to new users how to centralize discussions.
918:
I would appreciate some of you who have commented here weighing in there.
1042:
The first thing we really need is a standalone NGO called something like
354:
844:
embedded in. The problem is management, and it goes right to the top. --
209:
Almost everyone wants to keep wikitext and regular page histories/diffs.
736:
977:
784:
instead of making obvious but boring improvements to what we have. —
336:
wanted autosign, auto-reply, and more civility (a behavioral issue).
1012:
Feel free to create a detailed plan that addresses these issues. --
866:
of misogyny. Such detractors would do well to read this excellent
70:
763:
451:, but nobody seems to have created it yet. Am I missing something?
899:
Diversity working group would welcome you highlighting this issue
54:
71:
English Knowledge (XXG) community's conclusions on talk pages
471:
34:
743:
and leaves Knowledge (XXG) open to discrimination lawsuits.
735:
On February 3 2006, it was reported to the WMF that our
605:
598:
578:
603:If your comment has not appeared here, you can try
708:Before reading further, do you see the fatal flaw?
424:The controversy regarding a close of a recent RfA
344:starts with "infinite" and ends with "scrolling".
749:proposals in order to find someone who can? --
193:or a similar talk page replacement to return.
8:
310:supported Flow or something more forumlike.
449:Knowledge (XXG):Current events noticeboard
1158:Knowledge (XXG) Signpost archives 2019-04
1063:User:Guy Macon/Wikimedia referrer policy
615:I'm part of the team that's holding the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Knowledge (XXG) Signpost
741:Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
606:
582:
815:
185:. Here are some of the key takeaways:
222:enabled in talk and other namespaces.
212:Infinite scrolling is very unpopular.
29:
7:
440:The discussion on whether to create
229:) to watchlists, and edit conflicts.
215:Many users want autosigned comments.
1044:Knowledge (XXG) Software Foundation
56:
28:
1105:is written by editors like you –
588:These comments are automatically
349:Paid editing ban under discussion
772:destroying Knowledge (XXG) with
418:Several proposals have been made
148:
138:
128:
118:
108:
98:
88:
370:the administrators' noticeboard
976:software encyclopedia using a
599:add the page to your watchlist
1:
1174:
938:this. As Rocky once said,
656:23:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
633:21:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
940:"That trick never works!"
301:Hungarian Knowledge (XXG)
1075:16:12, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
1057:11:06, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
1038:10:25, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
1022:02:24, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
992:23:05, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
967:22:42, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
952:12:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
931:16:12, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
911:09:07, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
884:03:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
314:Japanese Knowledge (XXG)
854:07:48, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
828:02:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
803:12:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
759:15:14, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
690:Talk pages consultation
673:07:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
662:Talk pages consultation
617:Talk pages consultation
444:closed as no consensus.
401:whether to add text to
368:) has been proposed at
362:Wikipedian in Residence
327:Russian Knowledge (XXG)
253:Chinese Knowledge (XXG)
247:Catalan Knowledge (XXG)
805:
660:V. useful link to the
596:. To follow comments,
476:
320:Polish Knowledge (XXG)
294:German Knowledge (XXG)
281:French Knowledge (XXG)
39:
767:
621:the consultation page
475:
378:Neutral Point of View
269:Dutch Knowledge (XXG)
38:
770:Wikimedia Foundation
592:from this article's
447:Consensus to make a
403:WP:General sanctions
334:Thai Knowledge (XXG)
189:Almost nobody wants
172:
464:"Discussion report"
382:Tendentious Editing
261:Traditional Chinese
806:
583:Discuss this story
518:Arbitration report
477:
275:English Wikisource
267:The discussion on
45:← Back to Contents
40:
669:
607:purging the cache
548:From the archives
538:News from the WMF
528:Technology report
508:Discussion report
288:French Wiktionary
68:Discussion report
50:View Latest Issue
1165:
1142:
1054:
1052:
1035:
1033:
989:
987:
964:
962:
895:
791:
788:
667:
644:
641:
610:
608:
602:
581:
513:Featured content
495:
487:
480:
463:
218:Some users want
166:
152:
151:
142:
141:
132:
131:
122:
121:
112:
111:
102:
101:
92:
91:
62:
60:
58:
1173:
1172:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1148:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1138:
1136:
1131:
1126:
1121:
1116:
1109:
1099:
1098:
1050:
1048:
1031:
1029:
985:
983:
960:
958:
889:
876:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง
820:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง
789:
786:
682:The Fatal Flaw:
642:
639:
612:
604:
597:
586:
585:
579:+ Add a comment
577:
573:
572:
571:
543:Recent research
488:
483:
481:
478:
467:
466:
461:
455:
454:
437:
394:
351:
240:
238:Sister projects
175:
168:
167:
161:
160:
159:
158:
149:
139:
129:
119:
109:
99:
89:
83:
80:
69:
65:
63:
53:
52:
47:
41:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1171:
1169:
1161:
1160:
1150:
1149:
1137:
1132:
1127:
1122:
1117:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1101:
1100:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1040:
1010:
1001:
997:
969:
935:
934:
933:
862:, and accused
841:
837:
833:
762:
761:
745:
744:
732:
731:
726:
725:
720:
719:
710:
709:
705:
704:
703:
702:
694:
693:
685:
684:
678:
677:
676:
675:
658:
587:
584:
576:
575:
574:
570:
568:Community view
565:
560:
555:
550:
545:
540:
535:
530:
525:
523:Traffic report
520:
515:
510:
505:
500:
498:News and notes
494:
482:
470:
469:
468:
458:
457:
456:
453:
452:
445:
436:
433:
432:
431:
421:
414:
393:
390:
353:Following the
350:
347:
346:
345:
337:
331:
325:The closer at
323:
317:
311:
304:
298:
291:
285:
278:
272:
265:
250:
239:
236:
235:
234:
230:
223:
216:
213:
210:
207:
204:
201:
197:
194:
174:
171:
170:
169:
157:
156:
146:
136:
126:
116:
106:
96:
85:
84:
81:
75:
74:
73:
72:
67:
66:
64:
61:
48:
43:
42:
33:
32:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1170:
1159:
1156:
1155:
1153:
1141:
1135:
1130:
1125:
1120:
1115:
1108:
1104:
1076:
1072:
1068:
1064:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1055:
1053:
1045:
1041:
1039:
1036:
1034:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1007:
1002:
998:
995:
994:
993:
990:
988:
979:
975:
970:
968:
965:
963:
955:
954:
953:
949:
945:
941:
936:
932:
928:
924:
920:
919:
917:
914:
913:
912:
908:
904:
900:
893:
887:
886:
885:
881:
877:
873:
869:
865:
861:
857:
856:
855:
851:
847:
842:
838:
834:
831:
830:
829:
825:
821:
817:
813:
810:
809:
808:
807:
804:
800:
796:
792:
783:
779:
775:
774:Visual Editor
771:
768:Depiction of
766:
760:
756:
752:
747:
746:
742:
738:
734:
733:
728:
727:
722:
721:
716:
712:
711:
707:
706:
701:
698:
697:
696:
695:
691:
687:
686:
683:
680:
679:
674:
671:
663:
659:
657:
653:
649:
645:
636:
635:
634:
630:
626:
622:
618:
614:
613:
609:
600:
595:
591:
580:
569:
566:
564:
561:
559:
556:
554:
551:
549:
546:
544:
541:
539:
536:
534:
531:
529:
526:
524:
521:
519:
516:
514:
511:
509:
506:
504:
501:
499:
496:
492:
486:
485:30 April 2019
479:In this issue
474:
465:
450:
446:
443:
439:
438:
434:
429:
425:
422:
419:
415:
412:
408:
404:
400:
396:
395:
391:
389:
387:
384:(which, like
383:
379:
375:
371:
367:
363:
359:
356:
348:
342:
338:
335:
332:
328:
324:
321:
318:
315:
312:
308:
305:
302:
299:
295:
292:
289:
286:
282:
279:
276:
273:
270:
266:
262:
258:
254:
251:
248:
245:
244:
243:
237:
231:
228:
224:
221:
217:
214:
211:
208:
205:
202:
198:
195:
192:
188:
187:
186:
184:
180:
165:
155:
147:
145:
137:
135:
127:
125:
117:
115:
107:
105:
97:
95:
87:
86:
78:
59:
57:30 April 2019
51:
46:
37:
23:
19:
1103:The Signpost
1102:
1047:
1043:
1028:
1005:
982:
957:
864:The Signpost
863:
714:
699:
681:
666:T.Shafee(Evo
637:Thanks! :) —
625:DannyH (WMF)
507:
503:In the media
491:all comments
399:are debating
366:Reward board
352:
340:
333:
326:
319:
313:
306:
300:
297:conclusions.
293:
287:
280:
274:
268:
252:
246:
241:
220:VisualEditor
176:
94:PDF download
1140:Suggestions
1051:scope_creep
1032:scope_creep
986:scope_creep
974:Open source
961:scope_creep
590:transcluded
426:has led to
183:the results
164:Pythoncoder
144:X (Twitter)
782:Mobile App
435:Follow-ups
428:discussion
257:Simplified
82:Share this
77:Contribute
22:2019-04-30
1134:Subscribe
1067:Guy Macon
1014:Guy Macon
944:Guy Macon
923:Guy Macon
892:Guy Macon
846:Guy Macon
812:Guy Macon
751:Guy Macon
730:question:
688:From the
594:talk page
563:Interview
374:Aquillion
307:Iberocoop
1152:Category
1129:Newsroom
1124:Archives
1107:join in!
903:The Land
872:The Land
799:contribs
652:contribs
462:Previous
392:In brief
355:HuffPost
341:Wikidata
200:devices.
181:to post
134:Facebook
124:LinkedIn
114:Mastodon
20: |
737:CAPTCHA
558:Opinion
533:Gallery
386:WP:SNOW
358:article
1006:cannot
978:DevOps
787:python
780:, and
640:python
553:Humour
442:CSD X3
411:WP:AFD
407:WP:CSD
264:pages.
233:Talk."
227:WP:ANI
154:Reddit
104:E-mail
1119:About
915:Done.
790:coder
715:great
692:page:
668:&
643:coder
339:Some
179:Alsee
16:<
1114:Home
1071:talk
1018:talk
948:talk
927:talk
907:talk
880:talk
850:talk
824:talk
814::
795:talk
778:Flow
755:talk
670:Evo)
648:talk
629:talk
380:and
364:and
259:-to-
191:Flow
870:by
409:or
162:By
79:—
1154::
1073:)
1020:)
950:)
942:--
929:)
909:)
901:.
882:)
852:)
826:)
801:)
797:|
776:,
757:)
654:)
650:|
631:)
460:←
372:.
1069:(
1016:(
946:(
925:(
905:(
894::
890:@
878:(
848:(
822:(
793:(
753:(
646:(
627:(
611:.
601:.
493:)
489:(
413:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
