Moved Original Wiki Forum to This New One

Map Editors Community Wazeopedia Discussions Wazeopedia Archive
1

Team, for those who may have missed the hangout discussion today, we have moved the original Wiki discussion forum thread to this new Wiki thread as a subforum. We are currently discussing if the content of that subforum should be moved up to this higher level, or if we should consider creating subforums and sort through the older content to divide it up.

I would vote for leaving it as a full subforum if we can define what specific content would go into this parent forum or we define other Wiki subforums we want to have under here. Otherwise I vote it all gets moved up to the new Wiki forum root level.

2

The only reason, I can imagine, to have subforums would be because we would have decided to structure the different threads in categories. Otherwise it is pointless to keep a root level + a subforum.

So, as we do not have yet decided to categorize the threads, I vote for moving that up to the root.

3

Unless you plan on sub categorizing by country or certain criteria, keeping the sub-forum is pointless. Just another step to click on, which is why it was moved in the first place.

I am in favor of moving them all to the main.

4

Karen, from the GHO today we discussed the following:

The current forum structure for the Wiki is:

  • Board Index
  • Community
  • Wiki (3 topics)
  • Wiki Masters (10 topics)
  • Wiki Updates and Discussions (415 topics)
  • Wiki Experts (41 topics)

We propose that the Wiki Update and Discussions thread will serve the same purpose of the new Wiki thread you just created. Therefore we would like to merge the two as follows:

  • Board Index
  • Community
  • Wiki Updates and Discussions (415 topics + the 3 topics from the new Wiki forum)
  • Wiki Masters (10 topics)
  • Wiki Experts (41 topics)

We can further merge the Wiki Masters forum (new) and the Wiki Experts forum (original) into a single forum keeping it restricted to the Wiki Masters, but enabling the new Wiki Masters to see all the prior information covered by the original Wiki Experts.

5

I agree with this.

I think there is a good argument for keeping “Masters” and “Experts” separate. To me, “Masters” is where we answer the big policy questions, determine what should be on the wiki, how it should be organized, etc.; whereas “Experts” is more about the technical side of our wiki – for example, which templates should be used to serve our purposes, how to program the wiki tools, and so forth.

Both forums could be accessible to the entire Masters/Experts group, and whoever is interested can comment on either side. Indeed, there will be times when a question pertains to both groups (“Which template is best to organize this information a certain way?”) But I think there is a good reason to keep the overly technical stuff on one side, and the policy/content stuff on the other.

6

Happy to see that you are perfectly in line with my proposition to do so (during a second, I really believed that you were quoting me :smiley: ) and with this dychotomy that I’ve proposed at thevery begining of this project .

7

Hey Guys,

OK! Just catching up on reading from the weekend. I think this all sounds good and I definitely see the need to separate out the content from the structural editing. I also understand the desire to bring in the folks who have been working on the wiki from the expert group and other wiki forums.

My only concern is that Wiki Experts and Wiki Masters are very close in meaning, and it’s important in the Masters group that we have people who are focused on BOTH structural and content to create a unified look and voice.

And so…my organizational proposition:
Wiki Masters:
Top level users (you guys!). New masters accepted with some variation from the Experts guidelines. Combination of structural and content focused users who help create structure around the two main areas of focus.

All other members of the Wiki editing community (Wiki Warriors???) who would like to be involved in updating pages/structure/content can join a team of their interest (see below):

Team System
I think over time we can separate the community to more nuanced teams - but start with, I suggest:
Architectural (tech, template and structure), and
Content focused (writing, editing, grammar, technical accuracy)

We can also create badges for users to display on their wiki user-pages - and even come up with cool team names :sunglasses:

*Wiki Masters can lead these teams, based on their area of interest/expertise.
*Editors (Masters and not) can join multiple teams
*Masters can use these teams to mentor other wiki-editors
*Forum topics can be created for each team and, eventually, for sub-teams
*Existing pages reviewed by teams for adherence to agreed-upon guidelines (being discussed here).
*Will assist in organization as we take on the major clean-up task of the beautiful :oops: Wiki page inventory.

OK - that’s my two cents :mrgreen: - let me know if you think that’s getting too complex - or strays too far from the problem we are trying to solve.

Thanks all :slight_smile:
-Karen

8

I like the idea Karen. I would suggest creating a chart similar to ranks and roles for wiki to keep it simpler for all to understand.

9

Here’s what I think:

This is not fundamentally about the wiki. The difference between masters and experts of the mediawiki software is not to the heart of the matter. For the vision thing, we need visioneers of some type. They need to understand the domain of knowledge (skills and best practices of Waze map editing) and capabilities of communication platforms (wiki, forum, video, spreadsheet, issue tracking for unlock requests). But the goal is communicating to editors, not to become masters of using one of these technologies.

Most of the content will be in the wiki, so it makes sense to focus there. But “the vision thing” is really about facilitating communication and especially knowledge transfer among editors.

If we found a different platform for deploying that, this mission would not change.
Those thinking through what to communicate and how to organize it would continue to think similar thoughts. The content providers would write the same content. The mandate to write simply would not change.

The list of experts available to implement it, or at least to train others in implementation, might change.

We don’t need “wiki masters” or “wiki experts” to do the vision thing. We need people who understand communication, understand how screen layout can help or hinder readers rapidly identifying the info they want, and those who understand how to keep it all attractive to the greatest number of good and potentially good editors (including identifying characteristics of potentially good editors).

10

Karen,

Ignoring the Wiki Masters or Wiki Experts, we still need one forum for the general Wiki conversations. We can create sup forums for specific groups, but the current split of two separate Wiki general discussions is not making sense. They need to be consolidated and I can at least do that. Please confirm.

Then we can debate the groupings and names of the different skills of people.

Thanks

11

Agreed - please feel free to combine.

Just want to be sure we are not funneling EVERYONE who wants to be involved in the Wiki to the masters group. My suggestion for teams/groups will ensure that we are separating out contributors based on skill and interest.

However, I would also like to vote for our WM group to become hidden to users who are not inside of it. Right now only users can post/reply, but everyone can read.

Thoughts on this?

12

I believe that it promotes a sense of community to have as much discussion as possible visible to the community. And this way, if we have forgotten something, there is the chance that someone from outside the group will notice the discussion and PM a reminder to one of us.

13

Karen,

If I understand well, your suggestion is to keep a reasonably small sized team, known as “Masters”, that will be the core engine of the Wiki edition. This team will be made up of outstanding contributors either through their prior effective contribution (which is measurable), of through their effective skills (also measurable or assessable), or through their interest if they do not have yet the two previous criteria

My concern is about this last criteria. How do we define the “interest” ? how do we know that a future wiki Master, without proven outstanding skills and without prior outstanding contribution to the wiki, is however “outstandingly interested” to join the Wiki Master group ?

Just to bring some substance in this concern : the current Wiki Master group counts 48 members. 12 of them (25%) have only performed very few editions in the wiki (mostly orthographic corrections, maximum 30 minor editions in the wiki log, often less than 10 and 3 members have never made at least one edition). Among these 12 members, none has ever posted a message neither the wiki master forum (One of them has thanked , once, one of your posts), nor in Hangout.
Their only true “contribution” has been to put their name in a Google Form at the inception of this project.
On top of these 12 members, I can count another 10 members (21%) that have a relatively small contribution to the wiki (local duplication of the official wiki, without translation, or some tries in their User: namespace). And again, none of them has ever posted a message to the group (not even, at least, “Hello”)

I thing we need to make a choice.

Either we put in the group Everyone that want who apply for, trying to get the widest and, as far as possible, the most various group in term of country representative, levels, experiences, and so one… But then we cannot consider that we are a true “engine” that will drag and energize the effort of all contributors
Or we really cut down the group to a core team, motivated and able to put a lot into the project, then able to create the momentum with the rest of any other contributor , and therefore able to conduct this project to success.

I guess that, according to your message I’ve quoted at the beginning of this post, you’re more inclined to the second option.

For specific projects, I for one think that task-forces are more efficient than agora. (BTW, task-forces don’t need to be black-ops, to come to voludu’s raised subject. but it is another debate).

14

As long as nothing being discussed is confidential, I see no reason on hiding it. It promotes community for others who are interested to be able to see our rational and decision process. It also removed the division between “the everyday editor” and “those select few in secret forum”. Before this team started we had a Google hangout for mostly US wiki editors. It quickly became apparent that hidden discussions, even if not meant to be secretive, (just hidden by virtue of the easy Google hangouts are invite only) can lead to issues and editors on the outside feeling blindsided and slighted.

I vote to keep the noise down only members can participate. To be transparent in our process, anyone can view. This has a beneficial side effect of others possibly becoming interested after watching us operate, and perhaps motivating new editors to make the necessary effort to join.

Sent using Tapatalk for Android 4.4.2

15

I’ll work on this tomorrow my time.

I agree the team doing specific work need to have a forum to discuss specific actions before they are implemented. The short list of original Wiki Experts team had the same thing. Once we agreed on a solution to something, we proposed it to the larger audience. It worked well. Personally I think it was OK to have it hidden. There were times we discussed security issues and the like that need not be broadcast for everyone to see. We also discussed problem edits and what should be done about it. Possibly this is still needed for the “original experts” group, but not needed for the “new masters” group where the topic is content and organization.

16

Complete. The new “Wiki” forum contents and sub forum have been moved to the original “Wiki Updates and Discussion,” and the original is now at the higher level forum entry as the new “Wiki” forum. The new “Wiki” forum has now been removed to prevent confusion. Both specialty subforums are under the original “Wiki Updates and Discussion.”

17

Looks good Kent. Thanks!

18

I’m trying to catch up on all the info that seems so easily produced by you all. Please consider it is hard for newbies to enter discussions, especially when you are not from USA. For Hangouts one needs to be invited, so missing there a lot too (if you have the time to follow all discussions). And to start working the Wiki in a structured way, it costs months without good guidance. And that is exactly what is missing in my opinion. You go so fast, that others can only follow, trying to keep up.

Perhaps this is not the right topic and maybe i should start a new one, but I do miss a general Vision that is agreed upon by several types of Wazers from several continents/countries/cultures. Or did I miss that too?

19

I agree we should start a new topic on that idea this thread is just about combining the original Wiki forum with the new one Karen created recently.

20

BTW, If it is required to precise it, or if one way or another you felt fingerpointed by my previous post, I just wanted to stress that you are not part of any of the two groups I’ve mentionned (So, you are neither in the 25% nor in the extra 21%), which makes you a totally valid and completely entitled wiki master :wink:

Therefore, If you consider yourself as a newbie (certainly because you’ve started to edit the wiki recently and because your modesty prevents you to consider, at its real value, your already noteworthy contribution to your local wiki), I let you guess what is the right term for the 25% I’ve talking about… which is closing the loop on the question : What is a wiki master ?