Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-06-05/Technology report
Discuss this story
I haven't used it yet, but I really like both the idea and the execution of the "Thanks" feature. Is there any chance of it coming over to Wikidata soon? Sven Manguard Wha? 22:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- It is tied into the Echo extension, and you can see the status of that discussion at d:WD:PC. --Rschen7754 23:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- "all you were interested in was that ToolLabs provides the same environment so your tools can continue to run there". So, DaB is angry that Toolserver users are trying to make the best of a bad situation and migrate over to Tool Labs precisely because Tool Labs is going to continue running. WMDE saw the writing on the wall. The users - that is, the Wikimedians who use the tools that are hosted on Toolserver/Tool Labs don't really give a fuck so long as the tools work. Who gets to duct it all together is just insider politics and not worth getting in a strop about. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- Is there any way we could try to make the title more biased in future? I'm worried that it may actually neutrally portray the discussion rather than, for example, making an email thread that blew over in a week sound like a massive controversy to pique readers' interest. Ironholds (talk) 00:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see your point here Ironholds. By necessity a headline picks out a single point from a story and then seeks to put that in context in the content of the article (if OTOH your accusation is that the story itself is biased, then I'm all ears). Is your concern that people don't click through (and go away with an incomplete picture)? Or that they click through and... actually I'm not sure what the problem is then. Indeed, hopefully, the interesting headline drew in readers who e.g. hadn't heard of Wikimedia Labs, and now have hopefully an idea of the project and its trajectory. In any case, "blew over in a week" is itself a rather incomplete picture of events -- this is the latest (and IMHO important, but YMMV) part of a discussion that's been going on for seven months already, and will go on for at least another year, if not 18 months. It should be situated in that context. - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 10:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'd disagree that it's by necessity; you couldn't pick out a headline that communicated "Toolserver root admin argues with developers"? My concern is that you seem to be overestimating the instinctive rationality of readers. While I can't speak for every reader, I am instinctively emotional and, upon reflection, rational. If you present me with a biased headline (and what is interesting to the public is not what's in the public interest), my first reaction is going to be emotional and I'll click through on those grounds, leading to a very different read of the story and a very different reaction to it than if the headline had avoided deliberately poking the brain's default schaudenfreude button. Ironholds (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'm annoyed at the loss of the Toolserver. And yes, I do consider it lost since my network doesn't even seem to be able to access it anymore. If Labs is to succeed, they are going to need to at least removing the licensing crap. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 15:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- Licensing crap? And: if it can't be accessed that's a problem at the sysadmins end, I'd think, and not directly the fault of Labs. Ironholds (talk) 16:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'm annoyed at the loss of the Toolserver. And yes, I do consider it lost since my network doesn't even seem to be able to access it anymore. If Labs is to succeed, they are going to need to at least removing the licensing crap. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 15:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'd disagree that it's by necessity; you couldn't pick out a headline that communicated "Toolserver root admin argues with developers"? My concern is that you seem to be overestimating the instinctive rationality of readers. While I can't speak for every reader, I am instinctively emotional and, upon reflection, rational. If you present me with a biased headline (and what is interesting to the public is not what's in the public interest), my first reaction is going to be emotional and I'll click through on those grounds, leading to a very different read of the story and a very different reaction to it than if the headline had avoided deliberately poking the brain's default schaudenfreude button. Ironholds (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see your point here Ironholds. By necessity a headline picks out a single point from a story and then seeks to put that in context in the content of the article (if OTOH your accusation is that the story itself is biased, then I'm all ears). Is your concern that people don't click through (and go away with an incomplete picture)? Or that they click through and... actually I'm not sure what the problem is then. Indeed, hopefully, the interesting headline drew in readers who e.g. hadn't heard of Wikimedia Labs, and now have hopefully an idea of the project and its trajectory. In any case, "blew over in a week" is itself a rather incomplete picture of events -- this is the latest (and IMHO important, but YMMV) part of a discussion that's been going on for seven months already, and will go on for at least another year, if not 18 months. It should be situated in that context. - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 10:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
← Back to Technology report