User talk:Alsee

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Alsee!

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 02:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Link in message you left on my page[edit]

On User talk:Jmabel, you asked for my comment on a discussion, but left me a link that goes to a blank page. Could you please correct the link to whatever you actually wanted me to look at? Thanks in advance. - Jmabel ! talk 22:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Re: wmf[edit]

Commons:Village_pump#WMF_response_to_proposal_to_uninstall_Flow

I can't believe a patch was written and rejected without any concerns. If these concerns were inadequate, they need to be cited (copy/pasted in quotation marks and author indicated) to make them available for discussion.

--Gryllida (talk) 05:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Gryllida I agree. I am flabberghasted that the WMF has refused to provide any explanation whatsoever. I am flabberghasted that the WMF somehow feels it's worth fighting the community over this... and further damaging the already poor WMF-Community relations.
I've already contacted a member of the WMF Board of Trustees that I know (Doc James), asking him investigate why the WMF feels it is worth damaging WMF-community relations over this.
Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised. DannyH didn't just trash a Commons consensus, he also recently threw an EnWiki consensus in the garbage. (The WMF is forcing Wikidata's article-descriptions on EnWiki, against explicit consensus.) I was going to let it slide because the community could in-effect carry out consensus anyway. However now I think I'm going to have to open a new EnWiki RFC explicitly based on an absence of WMF collaboration. Alsee (talk) 06:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
To correct myself, they had refused to explain for weeks... then I missed the explanation they offered in the latest commons post. Not that anyone cares about log entries for non-existent Flow-test pages. Alsee (talk) 09:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Im just wondering about Flow[edit]

you seem to not be happy with Flow. If you don't mind, can you share some of the reasons why? My knowledge of Flow is incomplete and benefit from extra knowledge. Thanks. Artix Kreiger (talk) 13:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Artix Kreiger I'd like to start by noting that I do a lot of work on behalf of the community, trying to get the WMF to listen to the community. In the case of Flow, it has overwhelmingly been rejected by editors. So aside from my personal view on Flow, I see myself working on behalf of the community. The WMF has been ignoring and battling the community on Flow since before the prototype was even built - 2013. It was designed with no community input, and when the community learned of it one of the first things asked was whether it would have proper wikitext support. A horde of editors all stated it could never be deployed without proper wikitext support. The lead developer gave an elaborate answer amounting to "no, Flow would not properly handle wikitext". He said he would dearly love to kill off wikitext. He said that the community should seek "Zen acceptance" that he was going to ignore the community, and that it was the WMF's decision to deploy Flow whether we wanted it or not. He then proceeded to build the most broken and insane forum software on the planet. Anywhere else on the planet, what you type is is what gets saved. Flow doesn't do that. When you preview or save, Flow translates it into something else (HTML/RDFa), then Flow throws away whatever you typed in. When you return from preview back to edit, or if you save and edit again, it doesn't have what you typed in. It has to show you something, so it has to try to convert the HTML/RDFa into NEW wikitext to display. Sometimes it comes back the same. Sometimes it randomly changes what you typed in, but changes it in a way that renders the same. And sometimes it just destroys the content. In fact it's so screwed up that even the revert button is broken. It never saved the original content, so it's possible for a revert to damage the original content. Flow even has cancer. It can generate a garbage "tumor" in the wikitext, and each time you preview or save&edit, the tumor of garbage wikitext grows bigger. If you preview 10 times, you get 20 characters of garbage. If you preview 100 times, you get 200 characters of garbage. Every preview or re-edit makes the garbage grow bigger. On top of those issues, Flow has assorted bugs and errors in rendering wikitext. One of those bugs is so severe that it can literally display entire paragraphs IN THE WRONG ORDER.

I'll give you two examples. I'll start with a more "minor" issue. Go to Flow, switch to simulated-wikitext-mode, and type this in:

''italics '''bold-italics'' bold'''

It displays like this: italics bold-italics bold

Click preview. It does render correctly. Now switch back to "wikitext" mode you'll see that it gives you something completely different from what you typed in. It still renders correctly, but now it's a mangled mess.

This next example shows how insanely broken Flow is. Go to "wikitext" mode and type this in:

{{#if:redflag|<span style="color:red;|<span style="}} font-weight: bold">Sometimes this should be red</span>

It's supposed to render like this: Sometimes this should be red

Click to preview (or save), and you'll see that Flow dumps mangled markup onto the screen. Now the fun part. Return to "wikitext" mode and compare it with what you typed in. Flow destroyed random pieces from the middle and the end.

There are plenty of other reasons to hate Flow, but that's just STUPID. I'm a programmer; Flow is one gigantic unholy hack. The WMF has been neglecting important work on things we do want and need, devoting vast resources to this project. Some individuals at the WMF are dead-set on pushing the project forwards, whether we want it or not.

If the WMF ever starts work on a NEW project from scratch, the community must be part of the planning. Talk pages aren't chatboards. They are an incredibly powerful and incredibly flexible wiki-workplace. A wiki-workplace inherently supports all discussions, but a chatboard doesn't support all wikiwork. Alsee (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll add another point. A Flow discussion is readable if it's two or maybe three people. However it turns into an unreadable mess when more people try to have a more complicated discussion. Before Flow was removed from EnWiki, we had a discussions in Flow with about 8 people (some of whom only left a single comment). Not only did Flow critics complain that the discussion was unreadable, Flow-advocates complained that the discussion was unreadable. That was a fairly small and simple discussion by EnWiki standards. Flow cannot support complex discussions involving significant numbers of people. It turns into unreadable spaghetti. Alsee (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

May I waltz in with another argument? I simply do ;)
Flow creates a deep rift between talk pages and every other page. Before the advent of Flow (and it's failed predecessor Liquid) every single wikipage was a wikipage was a wikipage. They all behaved more or less the same, some had a wee bit software structure, voting pages for example, but most were just ordinary wikipages. You could do anything on any page, and it worked out everywhere in the same way. You could test stuff for the front page on the talk page and got the same layout etc. Flow changes that, aas it's a completely different layout and look-and-feel.
There was one use-case, that came up in early discussions with Lila am Meta, and that was derived from a use-case of Liquid on some project (News or Voyage, I don't remember), where there were three pages for any article: the real one, one normal talk page for valuable content discussions, and one Liquid one, called "troll space" by the real editors, as it attracted trolls and kept them from the normal talk pages, so it could be ignored by the earnest editors. Sänger (talk) 07:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC)