Overleg Wikipedia:Overleghulpmiddelen - Wikipedia
Naar inhoud springen
Uit Wikipedia, de vrije encyclopedie
Laatste reactie:
4 jaar geleden
door Whatamidoing (WMF) in het onderwerp
Subscribe to single sections
Reacties gemaakt met de
overleghulpmiddelen
zie je bij de recente wijzigingen terug met label
Reageerfunctie
, met een link naar
Wikipedia:Overleghulpmiddelen
. In eerste instantie werd feedback op de Overleghulpmiddelen verzameld op
Wikipedia:Discussietools
. Die pagina is nu hernoemd naar deze overlegpagina (
Overleg Wikipedia:Overleghulpmiddelen
). Zie het
Archief
voor de betreffende gearchiveerde project- en bijbehorende overlegpagina.
Als uitvloeisel van
Wikipedia:Overlegpagina's raadpleging 2019
zijn er
discussietools
in ontwikkeling. De eerste tool is nu als bètafeature beschikbaar. Dat is de Antwoordentool of Reageerfunctie. In het Engels: Reply-tool. Deze tool is sinds maart 2020 als pilot beschikbaar op vier wiki's. Een algemene beschrijving van de functie staat op
Wikipedia:Overleghulpmiddelen
, waaronder uitleg hoe je 'm aan en uitzet.
Wat zijn de ervaringen met de Reageerfunctie op de Nederlandstalige Wikipedia? Die vraag staat centraal op deze pagina.
Feedback op de Antwoordentool
brontekst bewerken
Laatste bericht:
5 jaar geleden
14 berichten
6 personen in overleg
Zie ook
archief van eerdere feedback
Wat heb je opgemerkt bij het gebruik van de Reageerfunctie op de Nederlandstalige Wikipedia?
PPelberg (WMF)
No idea what triggered the
blockquote function
here? (I don't even know what it does, let alone how to use it in the visual editor...
;-) )
Ciell
8 jul 2020 22:04 (CEST)
Reageren
Ciell
that's curious...can you please confirm the below accurately describes what
actually
happened and what you
expected
to happen?
What you actually happened
Click the [ reply ] link that follows this comment,
"Zie
en:Wikipedia:Funding Wikipedia through advertisements
. –
bdijkstra
overleg
8 jul 2020 10:56 (CEST)
[reply]"
Reageren
Type
En
[[Wikipedia:Donatie]]
in the Reply tool's
visual
mode
Post the comment you typed in "Step 2"
✅ Notice the following is posted to the page:
::::
En [[Wikipedia:Donatie]]
:::: [[
Gebruiker
Ciell
Ciell
]] 8 jul 2020
21
59
(CEST)
What you expect to happen
Click the [ reply ] link that follows this comment,
"Zie
en:Wikipedia:Funding Wikipedia through advertisements
. –
bdijkstra
overleg
8 jul 2020 10:56 (CEST)
[reply]"
Reageren
Type
En
[[Wikipedia:Donatie]]
in the Reply tool's
visual
mode
Post the comment you typed in "Step 2"
✅ Notice the following is posted to the page:
::::En
[[Wikipedia:Donatie]]
:::: [[
Gebruiker
Ciell
Ciell
]] 8 jul 2020
21
59
(CEST)
PPelberg (WMF)
overleg
9 jul 2020 02:14 (CEST)
Reageren
PPelberg (WMF)
: not exactly.
What actually happened
Click the [ reply ] link that follows this comment,
"Zie
en:Wikipedia:Funding Wikipedia through advertisements
. –
bdijkstra
overleg
8 jul 2020 10:56 (CEST)
[reply]"
Reageren
Type
En
[[Wikipedia:Donatie]]
in the Reply tool's
visual
mode
I used a colon (:) here to fix the line out with the next comment, I wanted it to move just one more place to the right to empathise my new remark on the same comment and make the difference known to the comment by Gebruiker:Wikidrinker. So: Type
:En
[[Wikipedia:Donatie]].
in the Reply tool's
visual
mode.
Ciell
9 jul 2020 10:51 (CEST)
Reageren
En
Wikipedia:Donatie
. (Ik tikte
en daarna
Ctrl-z
. Kennelijk triggert een dubbele punt dus block quote. En ik heb nog steeds last van de cursor die op een gegeven moment terugspringt in visuele modus als ik de shift toets indruk.
Ad Huikeshoven
overleg
9 jul 2020 15:36 (CEST)
Reageren
Ad Huikeshoven
think
I might have just experienced the cursor jumping issue you reported above! Can you please have a look at this video (
) and tell me if it shows (pressing shift causes the cursor to jump to the beginning of the line) what you are experiencing as well? cc @
Whatamidoing (WMF)
PPelberg (WMF)
overleg
12 jul 2020 21:23 (CEST)
Reageren
Looks like it. Does the cursor jump when you press shift?
Ad Huikeshoven
overleg
12 jul 2020 23:58 (CEST)
Reageren
It does! I've filed a ticket for this issue here:
phab: T258235
PPelberg (WMF)
overleg
17 jul 2020 03:57 (CEST)
Reageren
The colon (
) is an undocumented keyboard shortcut in the visual editor for blockquotes. We might want to turn that off (unless you think people will want a lot of blockquotes on talk pages?).
Whatamidoing (WMF)
overleg
10 jul 2020 02:47 (CEST)
Reageren
Whatamidoing (WMF)
maybe the colon isn't a suitable keyboard shortcut for blockquotes. What about a right bracket "]" as a keyboard shortcut to start a block quote, as I can't imagine starting a context wherein I would want to start a comment with a right bracket.
Ad Huikeshoven
overleg
10 jul 2020 10:58 (CEST)
Reageren
I agree with Ad here. A
: is a bad shortcut, certainly because you are on talkpages where you expect a colon to give some more ident.
Akoopal
overleg
10 jul 2020 21:45 (CEST)
Reageren
"I used a colon (:) here to fix the line out with the next comment, I wanted it to move just one more place to the right to empathise my new remark on the same comment..."
Understood! Thank you for clarifying this, @
Ciell
and good thought, @
Whatamidoing (WMF)
...here is the ticket where we will be deciding on how the tool should behave when
is typed in the tool's
visual
mode:
phab:T257709
PPelberg (WMF)
overleg
11 jul 2020 00:47 (CEST)
Reageren
New talk sections
brontekst bewerken
Laatste bericht:
5 jaar geleden
4 berichten
2 personen in overleg
Hi, one I realised now, when you add a new section (like I am doing now) it would be nice to have the same visual mode to be able to easily ping somebody and some of the other features like an automatic signature. Don't think that will be difficult to implement?
Akoopal
overleg
10 jul 2020 21:48 (CEST)
Reageren
Akoopal
good idea! In fact, a tool for creating new sections, as you described, will be the next thing we are working on. Would you mind if I copied and pasted the comment you posted above to the
project's
talk page?
PPelberg (WMF)
overleg
11 jul 2020 00:09 (CEST)
Reageren
It is posted under cc-by-sa as everything on the wiki
Akoopal
overleg
11 jul 2020 00:15 (CEST)
Reageren
True
:) I've posted the suggestion you shared on mediawiki.org
here
PPelberg (WMF)
overleg
17 jul 2020 03:29 (CEST)
Reageren
Next
brontekst bewerken
Laatste bericht:
5 jaar geleden
4 berichten
3 personen in overleg
Hello all,
Peter and I have been looking at the Reply tool's numbers, and here's what we see:
People who use the Reply tool tend to use it repeatedly. 78% used it more than once here at nlwiki.
People who used the Reply tool (ever) tend to use it on multiple days. 67% used it on more than one day here at nlwiki. (This number would include editors who have only ever edited on one day, so we would never expect it to be 100%.)
From the "numbers" side, this looks like a tool that's fairly effective. From my own personal experience, I'm happy with it. What I want to know is whether you think this would be helpful overall to the nlwiki community. If you want it turned on for everyone, then I'll ask the team to do that. (Of course anyone could opt out in Special:Preferences, if they didn't want it.) If you don't, then I would like to know what else the team should do (if anything) to make it more appropriate for nlwiki.
There's no deadline on my end of this discussion, but if nlwiki sees an uptick in newbies when the academic school year starts, then maybe it'd be better to have it in place sooner rather than later. I plan to be guided entirely by you about the schedule.
Whatamidoing (WMF)
overleg
16 jul 2020 19:03 (CEST)
Reageren
Hello
Whatamidoing
I'm still very positive about the Reply Tool experience, with respect to both use and development, and I think it would be very welcome to have as a standard feature on nlwiki. I am reluctant though to see Discussion Tools, at this stage, already moving from opt-in beta feature to opt-out preference, because I consider the following discrepancies as (potentially) confusing to both senior and junior users (and making DT feel not 'complete' enough yet). Also, I see no need in connecting the release to some date on the (school year) calendar; there's no need to rush anything.
Not being able to identify (easily) what else changed on the page after publishing a reply — while in fact a lot may have changed/added in the meantime. (
T254116
, also
T250295
and related
T252903
Some elaboration: Without DT, the three main page actions have distinctive purposes;
action=view
for reading,
action=edit
for changing and posting, and
action=history
for tracking changes. DT blurs those clear lines between purposes; the talk page and its edit page are to a certain degree being merged into one, which doesn't need to be navigated out of to post a comment, and doesn't need to be refreshed in order to see the just posted comment appear in its proper place. Plus, with the current approach of "completely updating the entire talk page content" when publishing a comment, a lot more happens to (the presentation of) the page than only adding the comment. The previously
static
talk pages are now getting
dynamic
; the more dynamic the talk page gets, the more I (as a user) expect the page to inform me about what's happening. I think some things need to be done to create a more intuitive user experience – to avoid a big difference between (unconscious) expectations, versus what's actually happening (with unexpected results). Some things to consider:
restrict the 'live updating' (when publishing a comment) to only the current section;
notify the user of changes in the current section before publishing a comment (as a first step in the process of publishing);
add some visual indication of (intermediate) changes to the current section after publishing a comment.
Plus: The notifying of changes in the current section, and the (on demand) live updating of it with visual indications, could (should) actually be happening from the start of the comment writing process (when a 'Reply' link is clicked and the reply widget is initialized).
Not being able to start a new topic on-page (the planned New Discussion Tool) — while being able to reply on-page (the Reply Tool).
Not being able to type/change an edit summary with the Reply Tool — while about any other wiki edit action asks for one. (
T249391
These are my main concerns, which I (if I were the one to make the decision) would like to see tackled before releasing to opt-out preference. I considered also adding "not being able to edit own comments", but i.m.o. that's a feature that can be added later (when in 'alpha' stage); while adding a comment as a
reply
or as a
new topic
are, from a user's perspective, to such an extend the same, that offering only one of the two (to the unexpecting user) feels strange. About the first point: I think the whole "what happens when I publish a comment" process (with its unexpected effects, and with the expectations it raises) needs some more attention. Or does some development roadmap, in this respect, exist?
With kind regards
Mar(c)
overleg
22 jul 2020 23:02 (CEST)
Reageren
Thanks for this detailed response, @
Mar(c)
. I'll number my replies:
Do you think this will become a general expectation, even for normal wikitext editing, or is it specific to the Reply tool? If you look at
w:en:WT:N
yesterday, we were all posting simultaneously, and most of them were using the old wikitext editors. With the watchlist feature that keeps track of what your last-read version is, it's not difficult for volunteer-me to figure out what had changed while I was writing my replies (because that page is on my watchlist). However, I wonder whether people might reasonably expect some sort of notice. Maybe it could be something like the pop-up that says "Your edit was saved", except this time saying "Your edit was saved. There have been other changes to this page." If such notices should always happen, then IMO the Editing team should build the bigger solution and have it work for everything (including the Reply tool), instead of building a small solution for only the Reply tool.
The team has gone back and forth about whether Reply and New Discussion should be considered one feature (e.g., a single pref setting) or two (e.g., you could enable Reply but turn off New Discussion). I don't expect the New Discussion changes to be as big. It's possible that the change could be as small as taking the existing
?action=edit§ion=new
and adding a visual mode or a live preview. If it's on the smaller side, would it still be worth waiting for?
The edit summary work is already underway. While schedules are difficult to predict right now, I expect it to be ready for testing in August (
maybe
early August, if they settle on a specific approach soon). It is possible (because of the suggestion that this be an optional prefs setting) that
phab:T202921
would also become part of this.
I have also wondered whether it would be a good idea to ask more editors here to try out the tool. Is there a group of editors you would recommend trying this tool? Maybe editors working on a busy group of articles, or admins at
Wikipedia:Verzoekpagina voor moderatoren
Whatamidoing (WMF)
overleg
24 jul 2020 19:56 (CEST)
Reageren
Hi @
Whatamidoing (WMF)
I do belief the reply-tool does what it promised to do: the affordance to give a quick reply in an existing discussion on a talkpage, with auto indent and autosign. It also has some extra features. The goal has never been to do complex edits. The concerns of @
Mar(c)
are valid stories for future development, but do not block deployment in my opinion.
Ad Huikeshoven
overleg
24 jul 2020 14:50 (CEST)
Reageren
Dirty diffs
brontekst bewerken
Laatste bericht:
5 jaar geleden
6 berichten
2 personen in overleg
Something broke with the Reply tool. The ticket is
phab:T259855
, and they are working on it now. The main symptom is that English-language namespaces get "fixed" and that some characters get percent-encoded. The team apologizes for the difficulties.
Whatamidoing (WMF)
overleg
7 aug 2020 19:15 (CEST)
Reageren
Whatamidoing
: Sorry for not answering above; I planned to, but haven't gotten to it yet.
I noticed the issue you mention a couple of times, and especially
this disruptive reply tool edit
is pretty serious (I also
reported it
in the ticket). I hope after today's fix getting live we won't see issues like this again. But also note that the reply tool changing other parts of the wikicode isn't a new issue at all, so has it
really
been fixed? I know bugs can happen, but I see this issue as part of the tool's workflow that i.m.o. needs serious reconsideration. My consideration above, to
"restrict the 'live updating' (when publishing a comment) to only the current section"
didn't only arise from that intuitivity/expectations point, but also from other issues like the disappearance of the diff (when using the tool on a diff page), the changing of the collapse state of collapsable parts of the page, the (in general) 'jumping' of the page when publishing a comment (afaik mainly
phab:T252903
touches these related issues), and highlighting different paragraphs than the just published comment (has this been reported yet?).
All in all, this issue strengthens my opinion not to push Discussion Tools from beta/opt-in to alpha/opt-out. I hope one of these days I can find the peace and quiet to dive back into #OWC2020 again (and answering you above!).
With kind regards
Mar(c)
overleg
13 aug 2020 19:55 (CEST)
Reageren
It came back; they reverted it again. (I'm in a meeting right now. More later.)
Whatamidoing (WMF)
overleg
13 aug 2020 22:17 (CEST)
Reageren
Meeting's over. Hi @
Mar(c)
. Thanks for the note and especially for pinging me about the problem. They're trying to deploy a different API for the Reply tool, and it's not going well. I don't know what the underlying technical problem is.
Obviously, that kind of mess is bad, and it's better to keep the Reply tool as an opt-in Beta Feature, with only about 10 of us using it here at nlwiki, than to put it in regular preferences/opt-out and have that mess happening to hundreds or thousands of editors. I'd already pulled this wiki from the next deployment date (mostly because you asked for custom edit summaries), but that deployment is blocked by this problem. Nobody gets the Reply tool as an opt-out tool until the API is stable.
While I'm here, please look for a quick demo of the custom edit summary around 25 August (if all goes well). The best-case timeline is that the devs build the custom edit summary function next week, we can all check their ideas the following week, and the designer can look at our early feedback in the first week of September, and sort out the necessary changes with the devs after that. This means that even if they had the API stable tomorrow, the Dutch Wikipedia won't switch to opt-out any time soon.
Whatamidoing (WMF)
overleg
13 aug 2020 23:14 (CEST)
Reageren
Yikes, I just read in the ticket that this damaging edit actually happened
after
the fix rolled out. Good thing is, such one only appeared to have happened twice (on the participating wikis together).
To be honest,
in a way
I'm glad that it's not only my concerns that's blocking moving it to opt-out; they're founded concerns but still my personal view.
Thanks for the upate!
Mar(c)
overleg
13 aug 2020 23:53 (CEST)
Reageren
You're welcome. This won't happen tomorrow, because they don't deploy new things on Fridays. [Read that as meaning: If something breaks tomorrow, please do ping me/Peter/Matma Rex, or jump on Phabricator and file bug reports, but it'll be a
different
thing that broke, rather than the new API.] I don't expect to have any further information about the new API problems until next week (at least).
Whatamidoing (WMF)
overleg
14 aug 2020 01:24 (CEST)
Reageren
VE or reply tool? Ugly!
brontekst bewerken
Laatste bericht:
5 jaar geleden
4 berichten
4 personen in overleg
Hi
PPelberg (WMF)
Whatamidoing (WMF)
I noticed when I wanted to add an extra sub-topic in the Village Pump just now and
choose to work in VE
, the topic looks really bad. Lots and lots of white space, and editing is almost impossible because of how confusing it is. Is this a VE thing, or does it have to do with the reply-tool maybe?
Ciell
26 aug 2020 15:05 (CEST)
Reageren
It's not the Reply tool. It's sort of VE. It's mostly the parser. Every time we add a blank line or "outdent" a comment (e.g., from
::::::::::
to
::
), the HTML records the end of that part of the list. The visual editor is looking at that series of HTML
and related tags (use "Show Page Source" or equivalent to see the raw HTML) and giving you a chance to add something at
each
of the separate levels. It's "correct" but IMO ugly. The most relevant Phabricator tasks is
phab:T109934
Whatamidoing (WMF)
overleg
26 aug 2020 20:33 (CEST)
Reageren
In principle it has always been said that VE is not suitable for discussion pages. As far as I understand it is enabled per namespace, for a lot of the pages in the Wikipedia namespace it is wanted to have VE, and you can't exclude the 'cafe' pages. A 'fix' would be to move them all to a separate namespace, but that will need discussion first, and not sure if people are open for that. Doing so will make it easier to switch to something like flow for them.
Akoopal
overleg
30 aug 2020 10:52 (CEST)
Reageren
When I open
choose to work in VE
, I don't see a reply link ('reageer') anywhere, so it can't be the reply tool.
Ad Huikeshoven
overleg
31 aug 2020 19:52 (CEST)
Reageren
Reply function in a div
brontekst bewerken
Laatste bericht:
5 jaar geleden
3 berichten
3 personen in overleg
I tried to use the reply function on a
user
that uses a div to give his talkpage a bit of color. When I try to use the reply function I get a remark that it is not possible. Is that already a known issue? Is it fixable?
Akoopal
overleg
16 sep 2020 19:07 (CEST)
Reageren
Isn't that the same as the error that kind of mark up gives with VE?
Because the tool recognize the mark up as a template, they won't work.
Ciell
16 sep 2020 19:40 (CEST)
Reageren
Known problem. This is not expected to be fixed any time soon. My own personal guess is that it won't be fixed
at least
until the old PHP parser has been removed (so, maybe next year, but not this year).
Whatamidoing (WMF)
overleg
18 sep 2020 17:34 (CEST)
Reageren
custom edit mode
brontekst bewerken
Laatste bericht:
5 jaar geleden
3 berichten
3 personen in overleg
Custom edit summary text test found under advanced tab. On my mobile screen the buttons under the box aren't aligned. There is extra wire space above the cancel and reply buttons. On en.wp I couldn't enable dt. @
Whatamidoing (WMF)
Ad Huikeshoven
overleg
23 sep 2020 09:49 (CEST)
Reageren
JKlein (WMF)
will want to know about the mis-aligned buttons.
Ad Huikeshoven
, could you maybe dump a screenshot into a new Phabricator task for this?
Whatamidoing (WMF)
overleg
24 sep 2020 20:01 (CEST)
Reageren
Yes! Thanks, please share if you can.
JKlein (WMF)
overleg
24 sep 2020 21:18 (CEST)
Reageren
New editors starting new sections
brontekst bewerken
Laatste bericht:
5 jaar geleden
3 berichten
2 personen in overleg
Hello, all. The Editing team is working on the
mw:Talk pages project/New discussion
project. They would like to know how things go wrong with the current system for starting a ==New section==. So, for example:
Do new editors here forget to sign? (I assume the answer is 'yes'.)
Do they have trouble finding the "Add topic" tab?
Is there another system that works better for them?
In short, what problems do you think they should be solving with the next set of updates?
Whatamidoing (WMF)
overleg
7 okt 2020 18:59 (CEST)
Reageren
Signing is similar to reactions, new users tend to forgot more but it happens to both. What I see happening is two-fold: veteran users editing the last section, even now the last section also has an 'add section' button, and not at least empty the summary, so it looks like they replied to the last section making it a bit confusing. And secondly, new users either editing the full page and just add their text to the top, or just editing the first section, and either adding their text before or after the section, and of course without a proper heading. For these users I indeed think it is about not finding the 'add section' button. But both these are not easy to solve, priority I think should be to be able to use the reply tool to start a new section, with the option for automatic signing and easy pinging users.
Akoopal
overleg
8 okt 2020 10:05 (CEST)
Reageren
JKlein (WMF)
, you'll want to see Akoopal's points. The one about using the wrong edit summary
drives me nuts
is something I've seen a lot of at the English Wikipedia.
Whatamidoing (WMF)
overleg
12 okt 2020 19:54 (CEST)
Reageren
New screenshots for starting new discussions
brontekst bewerken
Laatste bericht:
5 jaar geleden
1 bericht
1 persoon in overleg
Help met het vertalen in uw taal
Hello, all. Please look at the new designs for starting a new discussion. This will help people (especially new editors) start a ==New section== on a talk page.
mw:Talk pages project/New discussion
– general information
mw:Talk pages project/New discussion#Version 1.0
– see pictures!
mw:Topic:Vwpwr84naer42ovi
– how to share your thoughts
These are the first designs. There will be changes. Your feedback will determine which changes are made. Please share your thoughts, and invite other editors to join these discussions. Thank you,
Whatamidoing (WMF)
overleg
2 nov 2020 20:11 (CET)
Reageren
"Een nieuwe discussie starten"
brontekst bewerken
Laatste bericht:
5 jaar geleden
4 berichten
2 personen in overleg
Wat is precies de bedoeling van
dit kopje
en de (enigszins kreupele) zin eronder?
Encycloon
overleg
3 dec 2020 22:24 (CET)
Reageren
Is
dit
de bedoeling?
Encycloon
overleg
3 dec 2020 22:28 (CET)
Reageren
Dat ziet er een stuk leesbaarder uit inderdaad. Volgens
de 'Deployment status' tabel
is de 'New discussion tool' nog nergens uitgerold, maar in oktober was er al wel een
eerste versie
klaar
om te testen
. (Ik heb er nog niet naar gekeken, het is wat langs me heen gegaan.) Met vriendelijke groeten
Mar(c)
overleg
3 dec 2020 23:48 (CET)
Reageren
"Om te testen" is misschien wat voorbarig (ik heb zo snel even niet kunnen vinden of 'wij' dat ook al ergens kunnen doen). Ik heb de projectpagina wat aangepast om de grotere lijnen van het project wat duidelijker weer te geven. Met vriendelijke groeten
Mar(c)
overleg
4 dec 2020 01:28 (CET)
Reageren
Van opt-in naar opt-out
brontekst bewerken
Laatste bericht:
5 jaar geleden
3 berichten
3 personen in overleg
De Arabische, Hongaarse, en Franse Wikipedia, de drie andere projecten in de pilot voor overleghulpmiddelen zijn reeds over van opt-in naar opt-out. Dat wil zeggen, de reply tool is standaard beschikbaar voor iedereen, en is via voorkeuren uit te zetten op die drie andere wikis. De Nederlandstalige Wikipedia is nog niet zover kennelijk. Een A/B test is aangekondigd waarbij willekeurig de helft van de gebruikers de tool aangeboden gaan krijgen. Wanneer de gemeenschap hier de nieuwe tool als opt-out wil, dan kan dat. Met de reply tool, of reageerfunctie kan met klikken op "Reageer" gemakkelijk een reactie op een bestaande discussiebijdrage reageren. De ontwikkelaars zijn bezig met het ontwikkelen van van een voorziening om een nieuwe discussiebijdrage te beginnen ("kopje toevoegen"). Zelf zie ik het niet als een belemmering om de reageerfunctie op opt-out te zetten terwijl er nog gewerkt wordt aan het ontwikkelen van een voorziening om een nieuwe discussiebijdrage te beginnen. Ik houd van kleine stapjes veranderen, en accepteren dat het niet in een keer perfect is. Hoe is dat voor jullie?
Ad Huikeshoven
overleg
12 dec 2020 13:48 (CET)
Reageren
Praktisch gezien lijkt me dat niet echt handig, tenzij er gemeenschapsbrede vraag naar is; dat gaat namelijk in tegen de uitleg die
hier
is gegeven (en misschien dat het de testresultaten ook beïnvloedt als je een andere variabele tegelijk ook aanpast?). Beter wachten tot na de A/B-test wat mij betreft.
Encycloon
overleg
12 dec 2020 13:55 (CET)
Reageren
Tja, aan de ene kant is een A/B-test wel wat anders dan het 'klakkeloos' voor iedereen aanzetten, wat afgelopen zomer geopperd leek te worden. En zo'n onderzoek heeft wel de potentie om erg nuttig te zijn voor de verdere ontwikkeling, denk ik. Aan de andere kant voelt dit als een manier om dat 'klakkeloos aanzetten' toch in twee stappen door te drukken: voor de helft van de gebruikers gaat de tool feitelijk al naar opt-out, en wat er na die 'several weeks' dat de test zal duren gaat gebeuren, is me niet duidelijk. Wordt dat 'aanzetten' voor de betreffende helft dan weer teruggedraaid? Dat lijkt me voor degenen die inmiddels aan de tool gewend zijn geraakt erg bevreemdend. Maar het is ook vreemd om die halve overgang naar opt-out nog voor onbepaalde tijd te laten hangen, mochten wij en/of het dev-team tot de conclusie komen dat opt-out nog geen goed idee is.
Mijn tijd en energie voor WP is de laatste maanden helaas een stuk minder geworden, en de ontwikkelingen rond de Discussion Tools heb ik nauwelijks meer gevolgd. Dat betekent dat ik geen idee heb of er met mijn eerdere
bezwaren
iets is gedaan, en ook dat ik het op dit moment niet zie zitten om in m'n eentje te gaan spitten en/of doorvragen om te kunnen beoordelen op die A/B-test nu wel of niet alsnog te vroeg komt.
Ad
vond en vindt het prima, ik heb er zo mijn bedenkingen over vanwege diverse bugs (zoals nu weer
WP:SHEIC#Sjabloon:Hola
) en de genoemde mankementen – hoofdzakelijk (1) van dé twee types discussiebijdragen (starten en reageren; beide types zijn voor nieuwe gebruikers enorm gebaat bij dit soort tools, en wezenlijk verschillen ze maar weinig) er maar eentje leveren
in een opt-out-pakket
, en (2) het té stilletjes updaten van een té groot deel van de pagina (waar nogal wat haken en ogen aan zitten) – en verder zijn er afgelopen zomer op deze pagina, en vorige week in de kroeg, geen meningen van anderen gekomen (welke kant de vlag op zusterprojecten op wappert weet ik niet). Ik pleit absoluut niet voor "pas opt-out als het perfect is"; ik pleit voor een solide
basis
, en de mankementen en bugs komen op mij over als een te wankele basis. (Ik lees bovendien in
mw:Talk pages project/replying#Metrics
dat de A/B-test gedaan zal worden ná het afronden van "Analysis 2", maar aan die "Analysis 2" lijkt volgens diezelfde tekst nog niet eens begonnen te zijn.)
Met vriendelijke groeten
Mar(c)
overleg
13 dec 2020 10:01 (CET)
Reageren
A/B test for the Reply tool in January
brontekst bewerken
Laatste bericht:
5 jaar geleden
5 berichten
2 personen in overleg
I posted a quick update on the archived discussion from the De Kroeg (just in case anyone goes looking there for the date), but here's the real message:
The A/B test will start in January 2021, probably during the first week. Setting up these tests is a bit fiddly, and it's taken a little longer than I had hoped. The first attempt will be in the first week of January. I say "attempt", because sometimes it doesn't work on the first try. So people will probably see it around January 5, but if not then, then another day soon after.
Whatamidoing (WMF)
overleg
18 dec 2020 18:58 (CET)
Reageren
It is about to start soon isn't it? @
Whatamidoing (WMF)
Ad Huikeshoven
overleg
26 jan 2021 17:06 (CET)
Reageren
It's supposedly started at idwiki, which is being used as a test case for the software setup. However, the (lack of) use at idwiki has not made me confident that it's working correctly. They're double-checking.
Whatamidoing (WMF)
overleg
27 jan 2021 03:21 (CET)
Reageren
The best guess now is Thursday, 4 February.
Whatamidoing (WMF)
overleg
29 jan 2021 19:11 (CET)
Reageren
Thursday is now possible but a little doubtful. The code will reach the servers on Thursday, but if it needs to be double-checked (again), then that may take a few days, so it might appear the following week.
I apologize for these seemingly endless changes.
Whatamidoing (WMF)
overleg
1 feb 2021 23:50 (CET)
Reageren
Is it just me...?
brontekst bewerken
Laatste bericht:
5 jaar geleden
16 berichten
5 personen in overleg
Hi,
I've been noticing the reply tool making mistakes with the depth of the reply,
like here
. And the preview has gone? Why isn't this available any more? It was such a nice addition.
Ciell
need me? ping me!
29 dec 2020 23:14 (CET)
Pinging
Whatamidoing (WMF)
Reageren
I still have a preview.
Encycloon
overleg
29 dec 2020 23:20 (CET)
Reageren
Ah yes: in source mode, it's still there.
Ciell
need me? ping me!
29 dec 2020 23:28 (CET)
Reageren
Ciell
, are you seeing that on some pages, but not others? If so, then there's probably something unusual in the page's formatting.
Whatamidoing (WMF)
overleg
30 dec 2020 05:51 (CET)
Reageren
I don't see it in the preview, but I think it happens every time I use the reply-tool.
Ciell
need me? ping me!
30 dec 2020 10:19 (CET)
Reageren
But now it didn't. Interesting.
Ciell
need me? ping me!
30 dec 2020 10:19 (CET)
Reageren
Whatamidoing (WMF)
Ciell
Based on my impression of when such 'indentation level mistakes' happen, this issue may be connected to improperly signed comments earlier in the discussion thread (and/or 'wrong' indentation levels earlier in the thread?). An example where it happened to me is
this one
; note the lack of a 'reply' link behind the 2 dec 2020 15:52 comment. Clicking the 'reply' link behind the 2 dec 2020 17:51 comment (also on
the page's state before I replied
and on
the current page
) puts the reply widget at the wrong indentation level, but clicking the 'reply' link behind my 2 dec 2020 18:03 comment (before as well as after I fixed the indentation of my comment) puts the widget at the correct indentation level: one level deeper than my comment.
I wasn't able to recreate such 'misplacement' of the reply widget in Ciell's example though. Because of the quick succession of comments in that case, Ciell may have clicked the 29 dec 2020 22:36 comment's 'reply' link (the 22:39 and 22:41 comments could have been posted between opening the page and publishing the comment with the image)?
P.S. When I notice that the reply widget opens at the wrong indentation level, I usually fix that by putting a
in front of each text line (I always use source mode). This means I can't trace back easily many of the times I notice the issue.
With kind regards
Mar(c)
overleg
6 jan 2021 23:41 (CET)
Reageren
Mar(c)
, you're probably right.
Ciell
, looking at
this error
, I'm going to bet that you will encounter this problem in every thread that
Zanaq
posts in, because the signature doesn't link to any "normal" user page. The custom signature system doesn't treat links to subpages as being equivalent to links directly to the user page, talk page, or Special:Contributions.
According to
this report
, there are 18 (currently active) editors at the Dutch Wikipedia whose signatures will not be recognized by the Reply tool (and/or have HTML-type problems).
mw:New requirements for user signatures/Help
has the information (only in English) about how to fix most of these. Do you think someone here would be willing to contact these 18 editors to let them know about the problem? I'm willing to make the request, if you can tell me the right person/page to post it on, but I think it's likely to be more effective if the situation is explained to the individual editors in Dutch. Technical problems can be complicated enough for most people, and trying to figure it out in a foreign language sounds even worse.
Whatamidoing (WMF)
overleg
7 jan 2021 01:09 (CET)
Reageren
Hello
Whatamidoing
, thanks for the quick reply! A couple of things. Yes, the functioning of the reply tool is hindered by problematic signatures in a few ways. But the specific issue here is mainly caused by errors in the implementation: there is nothing wrong with the comment being replied to, so the reply tool should be able to figure out the indentation level of that comment and simply add one extra indentation level. I know that it's more complex than I put it here, but I also know by now that the implementation of the Discussion Tools feature is way more complex than it needs to be (and this simple bug proves that again). The user you mention
has been given directions how to 'fix' his signature
, to which he responded positively, but never actually changed his signature. I don't know the reason, but although his 'non-cooperation' is annoying to reply tool users, I kinda appreciate it because it helps in discovering flaws like this in the development.
(I hope that my attempt to make my point clear didn't make it too blunt. The latter is not my intention!)
With kind regards
Mar(c)
overleg
7 jan 2021 02:58 (CET)
Reageren
It is my position that the software should support these signatures and that WMF can pay some developers to make this happen. It does not seem to difficult and a better way to spend money than on marketing agencies for some nonsensical rebranding. I will only change it if it is enforced.
Zanaq
7 jan 2021 10:36 (CET)
Your analysis could be right Mar(c):
here
it happened to me again, and there is indeed a template in the conversation, which was added because of an unsigned comment by an anon.
Ciell
need me? ping me!
7 jan 2021 18:25 (CET)
Reageren
I think it's a consequence of the "mixed list level" discussion. If a signature isn't recognized, then the reply will be placed at the wrong level.
Zanaq
, the change to custom signatures will be enforced "eventually", possibly next year. Enforcement will merely make your custom signature be ignored, and you'll get the standard one instead.
Whatamidoing (WMF)
overleg
8 jan 2021 22:07 (CET)
Reageren
Ciell
Well, it's not the template but the missing timestamp there.
{afz|
name or IP
timestamp
}}
produces a valid signature (with the 'reply' link showing), so the issue shouldn't occur then. See
below
; click the 'reply' link behind my signature to see at which level the reply widget appears (so no need to publish the reply).
Whatamidoing (WMF)
You kinda lost me now.
Why should the indentation level of a reply to a correctly indented and correctly signed comment be affected by the comment
preceding
that comment (i.e. being one level less deep)?
And with "mixed list level" discussion, are you referring to comments that contain (or actually: end with) an ordered/unordered list, and how replies to such comments should be treated? If that's the case: Currently, the auto-signature is placed at the end of the last list item (so
within
the list) when the comment ends with a list. My advice is to put the auto-signature
below
the list (on a new line) in those cases, which is good practice in the wiki discussion environment (I guess in most use cases of lists in comments), and may take away some complexities in the calculation of the indentation level.
With kind regards
also kinda needed —just putting four tildes there is another option— to force my signature to appear
below
the bullet list.
;-)
Mar(c)
overleg
9 jan 2021 02:10 (CET)
Reageren
When the software can't identify the signature, then it thinks that this:
Hi Mar(c). —Me, with bad signature
:What do you want? —You, with good signature
is the same as
Hi Mar(c).
:What do you want? —You, with good signature
The "correct" indentation level depends on what you think should happen with a mixed-level conversation: Should my reply line up with your first line or with the bullets?
Whatamidoing (WMF)
overleg
12 jan 2021 23:43 (CET)
Reageren
Invalid signature
brontekst bewerken
Some comment with an
invalid signature (without timestamp)
. Because of that, this comment affects the indentation of a reply to the
next
comment.
– De voorgaande bijdrage
werd geplaatst
door
192.168.1.1
overleg
bijdragen
Some reply with a valid signature (and correct indentation). Clicking the 'reply' link behind this reply places the reply widget at the same (i.e. wrong) indentation level.
position of the reply widget
...
Mar(c)
overleg
9 jan 2021 01:56 (CET)
... after clicking
this
'reply' link
Reageren
Valid signature
brontekst bewerken
Some comment with a
valid signature
– De voorgaande bijdrage
werd geplaatst
door
192.168.1.1
overleg
bijdragen
9 jan 2021 01:56 (CET)
Reageren
Some reply with a valid signature (and correct indentation). Clicking the 'reply' link behind this reply places the reply widget at the correct indentation level (one 'deeper').
–––
position of the reply widget
...
Mar(c)
overleg
9 jan 2021 01:56 (CET)
... after clicking
this
'reply' link
Reageren
"New Discussion Tool" - een nieuwe discussie starten met de reageerfunctie
brontekst bewerken
Laatste bericht:
5 jaar geleden
6 berichten
3 personen in overleg
Je kunt de nieuwe tool hier uitproberen met
en dan klikken op "Kopje toevoegen".
Ad Huikeshoven
overleg
26 jan 2021 17:05 (CET)
Reageren
Ad Huikeshoven
, if all goes well, the
mw:Talk pages project/New discussion
Beta Feature will finally appear around 19:00–20:00 UTC tomorrow. The code for who gets it automatically and who shouldn't (=most people) is a bit more complex than usual, so please ping me if you find problems.
Whatamidoing (WMF)
overleg
17 feb 2021 18:54 (CET)
Reageren
Will this be an extra beta-function or integrated in the current reply-tool?
Akoopal
overleg
17 feb 2021 20:20 (CET)
Reageren
It will be integrated into the current one.
I think. It turns out that we need to clear things with Analytics, so that we don't mess up the A/B test. Maybe when I tell you something will happen, you should assume that it will always take longer than that.
;-)
You can use it right now if you use the old
?dtenable=1
trick, if you are running a user script (see the top of
m:User:Whatamidoing (WMF)/global.js
), or if you are editing at arwiki, cswiki, or huwiki (who aren't in the A/B test, and who have the updated Beta Feature).
Whatamidoing (WMF)
overleg
19 feb 2021 20:56 (CET)
Reageren
Update: They should be putting us on the list for
wikitech:Deployments#Wednesday, March 10
, probably for the 19:00–20:00 UTC timeslot. (Standard disclaimers apply; if the regular deployment train fails, then we may lose our timeslot.)
Whatamidoing (WMF)
overleg
8 mrt 2021 20:30 (CET)
Reageren
De "nieuwe discussietools" zitten nu in de reageerfunctie.
Ad Huikeshoven
overleg
23 mrt 2021 11:28 (CET)
Reageren
Top posting and two-line signatures
brontekst bewerken
Laatste bericht:
5 jaar geleden
8 berichten
3 personen in overleg
Do any pages here (or anywhere else) prefer "top posting" (your new message goes at the top of the page, not at the end of the page)?
Does anyone have a custom signature that goes on two lines? Is this ever a good thing? Imagine, for example, that I signed my message like this:
Whatamidoing (WMF)
overleg
27 jan 2021 03:23 (CET)
Do you know anyone who does this?
Whatamidoing (WMF)
overleg
27 jan 2021 03:23 (CET)
Reageren
Whatamidoing (WMF)
Yes, there are some pages where new messages go on top, mainly request pages, where the discussion tool is still relevant because there can be discussion on the request. An example is
WP:VPB
. Also on those request pages there might be a 'done' section, so completely to the bottom is as if you archive. There are more request pages where you do put the request in the bottom, but above the 'done' section as well. Most request pages for moderators, linked from
WP:VPM
are like that.
For the 2 line signature, I don't know of any cases, and I think it will not be appreciated here.
Akoopal
overleg
28 jan 2021 00:41 (CET)
Reageren
Wat is het verschil tussen een 'gewone handtekening' en een '2 line signature'? Er zijn wel verschillende gebruikers die bv een lange wikicode gebruiken voor kleurtjes, maar dat lijkt hier niet te worden bedoeld?
Ciell
need me? ping me!
28 jan 2021 12:19 (CET)
Reageren
2-line = 2 regels, dus een handtekening met een lijnovergang erin waardoor er altijd een nieuwe regel komt.
Akoopal
overleg
28 jan 2021 14:57 (CET)
Reageren
Akoopal
, there's no "New section" tab at WP:VPB. Is that typical for such pages?
Whatamidoing (WMF)
overleg
29 jan 2021 19:15 (CET)
Reageren
Whatamidoing (WMF)
In the top box, there is a link 'een verzoek toevoegen' which translates to 'add a request'. That will do an edit of the first section. There is a comment 'please add a new request directly below here' for this one. Other pages also have the same.
Another tricky part with these request pages is that because the 'new request' and 'handled requests' are on heading level 2, the requests themselves need to be level 3, so the general add section doesn't work.
Akoopal
overleg
30 jan 2021 00:15 (CET)
Reageren
Thanks. The "New Discussion" tool should not interfere. It won't be used in that situation, but it won't break the page. I think that "not breaking stuff" is the best we can hope for at this stage. It might be possible, in the future, to expand the tool to handle those pages.
Whatamidoing (WMF)
overleg
5 feb 2021 02:50 (CET)
Reageren
It will likely require to be able to give parameters to the 'section=new', like &level=3§ion=1&location=[top|bottom], and then have a custom link/button in the header to suit the local customs. But I can imagine that that is not the first priority for the team. But just as a suggestion for a potential interface.
Akoopal
overleg
7 feb 2021 15:48 (CET)
Reageren
Start A/B test
brontekst bewerken
Laatste bericht:
5 jaar geleden
10 berichten
4 personen in overleg
Morgen start de A/B test op deze wiki. De helft van de nieuwe gebruikers krijgt de reageerfunctie direct te zien, voor de andere helft is het opt in. Zie
phab:T273406
Ad Huikeshoven
overleg
3 feb 2021 09:42 (CET)
Reageren
De resultaten worden over 6 tot 10 weken verwacht, zeg eind maart, en zullen op mediawiki.org gepubliceerd worden.
Ad Huikeshoven
overleg
3 feb 2021 09:52 (CET)
Reageren
Ad Huikeshoven
als ik het goed zie betreft het niet "nieuwe gebruikers", maar "gebruikers die de reageerfunctie nog niet eerder hebben gebruikt".
Encycloon
overleg
3 feb 2021 10:46 (CET)
Reageren
Nieuwe gebruikers van de reageerfunctie dus
:)
Ad Huikeshoven
overleg
3 feb 2021 10:55 (CET)
Reageren
Op die manier. Dat was voor mij wat verwarrend, aangezien "nieuwe gebruikers" ook een algemene term is.
Encycloon
overleg
3 feb 2021 10:57 (CET)
Reageren
De start is uitgesteld zie
phab:T273554
Ad Huikeshoven
overleg
3 feb 2021 12:22 (CET)
Reageren
This is finally happening.
Whatamidoing (WMF)
overleg
12 feb 2021 22:10 (CET)
Reageren
I'm hyped, I love it!
Tina
Ping
? Graag!)
13 feb 2021 22:03 (CET)
Reageren
I'm glad that you like it. I do, too. (I think that only one editor in the entire movement uses it more often than I do.)
Whatamidoing (WMF)
overleg
17 feb 2021 18:52 (CET)
Reageren
This is going to be wrapping up soon. Once they stop collecting data, they will start the analysis. I don't know how long it will take. The Analytics team is a bit overloaded. But hopefully we'll get the results in a couple of weeks. They'll be posted on wiki as soon as possible.
Whatamidoing (WMF)
overleg
8 mrt 2021 20:32 (CET)
Reageren
De A/B test is kennelijk afgerond. "Nieuwe discussietools" zijn nu een betafeature
brontekst bewerken
Laatste bericht:
4 jaar geleden
3 berichten
3 personen in overleg
Deze post is gemaakt met de "nieuwe discussietool".
Ad Huikeshoven
overleg
23 mrt 2021 11:29 (CET)
Reageren
En dit ook.
Orlando of Arrakon
Kharakovh
overleg
13 apr 2021 13:02 (CEST)
Reageren
Hello, all,
The results from the A/B test are at
mw:Talk pages project/Replying#23 April 2021
, if anyone wants to have a look. I've been hoping to get official announcements out for two weeks now, but
the best-laid schemes of mice and men go oft awry
. In the meantime, the numbers are so strong that the team thinks the Reply tool (not the New Discussion or other pieces, just the Reply itself) should be offered everywhere as soon as possible. However,
Ops
has some concerns about the parser cache, so nothing is will happen for at least another 10 days. More news later.
:-)
Whatamidoing (WMF)
overleg
12 mei 2021 07:09 (CEST)
Reageren
Verloren!
brontekst bewerken
Laatste bericht:
5 jaar geleden
2 berichten
2 personen in overleg
Ik was aan het typen, toen de persoon waar ik op aan her reageren was, zijn post verwijderde. Ik kon er niet mee lachen dat toen al mijn werk gewoon weg was. Vriendelijke groeten,
Orlando of Arrakon
Kharakovh
overleg
13 apr 2021 13:01 (CEST)
Reageren
Zoiets heb ik ook weleens gehad, maar toen kwam er een foutmelding en kon ik mijn tekst nog kopiëren. Kon dat bij jou niet?
Encycloon
overleg
13 apr 2021 13:05 (CEST)
Reageren
changing indent
brontekst bewerken
Laatste bericht:
4 jaar geleden
5 berichten
2 personen in overleg
Hi, I sometimes have the problem the indent choosen by the tool is not right. As that can be very tricky to get always right, and because there also might be a need to reset the ident in a long discussion, would it be an option to have just two arrows in the menubar to change the indent a level up and down, so it is always possible to finetune it to what is wanted.
Akoopal
overleg
2 mei 2021 12:11 (CEST)
Reageren
Just pinging @
Whatamidoing (WMF)
to make sure he sees this.
Akoopal
overleg
6 mei 2021 17:36 (CEST)
Reageren
Akoopal
, this is planned, but I don't know when it will happen. Months? ("Yesterday" would be my first choice!)
Whatamidoing (WMF)
overleg
12 mei 2021 06:53 (CEST)
Reageren
Whatamidoing (WMF)
Thanks. Is there a ticket I can follow for this?
Akoopal
overleg
12 mei 2021 10:32 (CEST)
Reageren
There are multiple tickets. I think
phab:T265750
is the most important.
Whatamidoing (WMF)
overleg
12 mei 2021 20:50 (CEST)
Reageren
New toolbar for wikitext source mode
brontekst bewerken
Laatste bericht:
4 jaar geleden
1 bericht
1 persoon in overleg
Hello, all! If you want to try out the toolbar for the wikitext 'source' mode, go to the end of
Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing
and tick the box for "
Bewerkingshulpmiddelen inschakelen in bronmodus
" Once you have it enabled, try
to ping someone and either ⌘K (Macs) or Ctrl-K (everyone else) to make a link. This is something editors have repeatedly requested. Please let me know how it can be improved.
Whatamidoing (WMF)
overleg
12 mei 2021 21:29 (CEST)
Reageren
Subscribe to single sections
brontekst bewerken
Laatste bericht:
4 jaar geleden
15 berichten
8 personen in overleg
Hello, all,
The Editing team is working on a way to subscribe to individual ==Sections==. The idea is similar to
phab:T2738
, but it will use
Special:Notifications
instead of
Special:Watchlist
. I think this will be most useful if there is a long/busy page that you don't want on your watchlist, but you only care about a single section, such as the Village pump. My questions:
Are there specific pages where this feature would be useful to you/might be good test cases?
Would Dutch Wikipedia like to be first on the list for testing this?
When this becomes available, it'll be opt-in only as a Beta Feature.
Whatamidoing (WMF)
overleg
27 mei 2021 00:22 (CEST)
Reageren
I think it might be particularly useful for nomination pages (like
Wikipedia:Te beoordelen pagina's/Toegevoegd 20210526
) and for
Wikipedia:De kroeg
(village pump).
As for me: I would like to try this.
Encycloon
overleg
27 mei 2021 09:32 (CEST)
Reageren
Steun
Edoderoo
overleg
28 mei 2021 07:12 (CEST)
Reageren
Steun
Mbch331
overleg
28 mei 2021 09:11 (CEST)
Reageren
Support
Bas dehaan
overleg
31 mei 2021 01:59 (CEST)
Reageren
Thank you all for your interest. It sounds like it will be a few weeks. I'll let you know when it's available.
Whatamidoing (WMF)
overleg
1 jun 2021 20:23 (CEST)
Reageren
Encycloon
, @
Edoderoo
, @
Mbch331
, @
Bas dehaan
, and others: We're
on the schedule
for 18:00 UTC this coming Monday, 28 June. Monday night, please go to
Speciaal:Voorkeuren#mw-prefsection-betafeatures
and try it out.
:-D
As always, ping me or leave a note at
mw:Talk:Talk pages project/Notifications
if you run into any difficulties.
Whatamidoing (WMF)
overleg
25 jun 2021 19:49 (CEST)
Reageren
Vertaling
brontekst bewerken
Sinds gisteren is deze functie inderdaad beschikbaar, met de woorden
en
unscubscribe
naast een kopje. Ik heb via
Translatewiki
ingesteld dat dit binnenkort met
abonneren
en
opzeggen
vertaald wordt, maar misschien zijn er betere ideeën? Ik zat zelf bijvoorbeeld nog te denken aan een concretere omschrijving, zoals
meldingen inschakelen
en
meldingen uitschakelen
Encycloon
overleg
29 jun 2021 11:52 (CEST)
Reageren
Volgen en ontvolgen lijkt mij het meest logische eigenlijk.
Tina
Ping
? Graag!)
29 jun 2021 12:16 (CEST)
Reageren
Kan ook, maar wekt dat niet de verwachting dat de volglijst ermee te maken heeft (wat niet het geval is)?
Encycloon
overleg
29 jun 2021 12:18 (CEST)
Reageren
Op een van de wikis heb ik de subscribe button gezien. En dat is wel een aardig systeem.
Ad Huikeshoven
overleg
18 aug 2021 11:16 (CEST)
Reageren
Hier is hij inmiddels ook actief
:)
Tina
Ping
? Graag!)
18 aug 2021 11:20 (CEST)
Reageren
Question
brontekst bewerken
I have a little worry about subscriptions, and perhaps you can help me think about it.
Imagine that I disagree with another editor. I say that something is true, he says it isn't, and we start to bicker. (Perhaps this only happens at the English Wikipedia? 😜)
The old-fashioned way to do this is: He posts his comment. Maybe I check my watchlist a few hours later, and I see his comment then. I post my comment (I'm right!). Maybe the next morning, he checks his watchlist and sees my comment. I remember the discussion that afternoon (it's so irritating when
someone is wrong on the internet
), so I check the talk page and see his next comment. I reply, and he sees my reply a little while later. Maybe we post two or three times a day. There are hours in between most posts. If one of us is too busy to check, it might even be a day or two before there is a reply. There is time for someone else to see our disagreement, and to join in.
But now imagine that both of us have clicked the [subscribe] button – or imagine that everyone is automatically subscribed to all discussions they participate in. He posts his comment; the next time I load
any
page on Wikipedia, I see a notification at the top saying that someone has commented. I reply right away; he sees it the very next time he opens any page. He replies right away, which gives me a notification right away, so I reply right away – and now we might post two or three times in one hour, and there is not much time for the emotions to fade. I'm irritated that he's wrong, and my irritation builds – and my thoughtfulness and reasonableness declines – with each quick response. There is less opportunity for a third editor to help us.
I worry that we will end up being unhappy if we speed up angry discussions. (For happy discussions, a faster discussion is okay, or maybe even good.) Have you seen any hints of this problem happening on wiki? Do you think there is anything we can do about it (software or otherwise)? Do you have any advice for me?
Whatamidoing (WMF)
overleg
3 sep 2021 18:42 (CEST)
Reageren
Whatamidoing (WMF)
: I do not think the pinging will add to more heated conflicts, because of faster interaction. But maybe the notifications will make you more stressed, to enter the watchlist is more of an active action. I dont go into my watchlist everyday, so I do miss a lot of replies which maybe is good for the discussion climate, but it was not the intention when adding the page to the watchlist.
A simple technical solution could be: Instead of notify in "My notifications" have the notifications in the watchlist instead. That will make the change from "adding a page to the watchlist" a bit smaller as it is "add a thread to the watchlist".--
LittleGun
overleg
10 okt 2021 11:05 (CEST)
Reageren
I agree with you the watchlist is more of an active action. You are mentally prepared for it, because you are choosing to look at it. Notifications might be more stressful and overwhelming, especially if you have several heated discussions going on.
I wonder whether new editors really use their watchlists.
Whatamidoing (WMF)
overleg
20 okt 2021 00:38 (CEST)
Reageren
From opt-in to opt-out
brontekst bewerken
Laatste bericht:
4 jaar geleden
6 berichten
3 personen in overleg
During Wikimania I heard from
Whatamidoing (WMF)
that the reply tool might turn from opt-in to opt-out on September 1, in case all goes well on the tech side.
Ad Huikeshoven
overleg
18 aug 2021 11:18 (CEST)
Reageren
Hopefully, this will happen on this coming Wednesday, 25 August.
Whatamidoing (WMF)
overleg
20 aug 2021 20:54 (CEST)
Reageren
Is everything working okay? Are there any problems? Have hundreds of newcomers overwhelmed the talk pages?
Whatamidoing (WMF)
overleg
2 sep 2021 22:07 (CEST)
Reageren
Whatamidoing (WMF)
Just had a look at recent changes with a filter on the label for this tool, and I did see usage by users I didn't recognize and when checking, looked new users. So newcomers are using it, and I haven't heared about issues. So looks good to me.
Akoopal
overleg
2 sep 2021 23:47 (CEST)
Reageren
Thank you, @
Akoopal
. I appreciate hearing from you that everything looks good.
Whatamidoing (WMF)
overleg
3 sep 2021 18:21 (CEST)
Reageren
Update: The devs have added a new item to
Speciaal:Labels
. It's "hidden", so you have to know that the code is discussiontools-added-comment, but if you paste that into the right place in the URL, you can see all comments. Click
here to see the results for IPs and newer editors
and
here for everyone
. This filter tag captures any new comment, including messages posted in the old wikitext editor or using
Wikipedia:Twinkle
. It does not capture unsigned comments.
It looks like less experienced editors are using the Reply tool for about two-thirds of their (signed) talk-page comments. Experienced editors are using the Reply tool for about 20% of comments, and using Twinkle for about 10%.
Whatamidoing (WMF)
overleg
9 sep 2021 19:43 (CEST)
Reageren
Overgenomen van "
Overleg Wikipedia
Overleghulpmiddelen
Onderwerp toevoegen