Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Larger suggestions/50 wishes
Appearance
This proposal is a larger suggestion that is out of scope for the Community Tech team. Participants are welcome to vote on it, but please note that regardless of popularity, there is no guarantee this proposal will be implemented. Supporting the idea helps communicate its urgency to the broader movement. |
50 wishes
- Problem: The wishlist system creates scarcity, making volunteers compete for solution to bugs that should be working without volunteer's need to ask for. Each year, only the 10 most voted are evaluated and, some of them, are declined despite the popular vote. This creates more frustration. Even those that are not declined after the vote, may be forgotten or even not done: 2021 1/10 done, 2020 2/5 done, 2019 4/10 done. In the last three years, 25 proposals were made, and only 7 of those are done. Most of the projects proposed here, discussed and voted by volunteers, investing [hundreds of] hours of volunteer time, are declined, postponed or never done. Only a minority (less than a third) of the projects may be done, and some of them are even proposed to be voted... the next year. This creates even more frustration. Why should we be here proposing or discussing something that we know won't be ever done?
On the other side, we find that the Wikimedia Foundation has funds and budget. The WMF is in good financial shape, but delivers a really scarce part of their budget to solve serious infrastructure issues that can put all our other efforts at risk.
Finally, most of the things that are asked here are not even wishes... but only asking for things to work, even things that were working but broke due to some change made by the WMF. Solving basic infrastructure issues shouldn't be something we ask for in [a scarce handful of] wishes, this should be solved by default, without users and volunteers noting that things are broken.
- Proposed solution: Just implement the first 50 wishes [each year]. That would make thinks work.
- Who would benefit: All the community and volunteers. All the readers, who are reading us in obsolete ways. All the free software environment, because we create more free resources.
- More comments:
- Phabricator tickets:
- Proposer: Theklan (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Discussion
- Wait... I thought all suggestions would be voted on "Support" or "Reject", and the Support's would be then be tried to tackle. Only 10 get selected per year?? --Enyavar (talk) 12:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- Sort of, generally about 5-7 actually get actually completed. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- The real data is 7 done from the last 25 voted proposals. Theklan (talk) 16:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- Sort of, generally about 5-7 actually get actually completed. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- I mean sure.. but realistically this is like asking the genie, as one of your 3 wishes, to give you 50 wishes. Sounds a bit unrealistic. I'd prefer more concrete proposals, like the 'x%' one on this page. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- Both can work together. Furthermore, the 1% is short. Theklan (talk) 16:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- I fully support the description of frustration and desperation this process produced. I was one of the most motivated promoter for Wiktionary community and our proposals increased year after year (in quantity and votes) to finally have one proposal that reached #5 in 2020 (the year dedicated to undersupported projects) but it was finally not done neither. So, I will just copy-past this proposal and not do any publicity for the process anymore. This is just a loss of time for any wikimedian from a small community. I know the Community Tech Team is really well informed of this issue and willing to improve the situation. Thanks a lot for all the job you do, really. I am not judging any decision you made about your priorities, you did what you can do, but it is not what is needed. I think this discussion about funding more people to challenge more issues is fundamental now, but it is also a choice of organization and I think more teams are needed to have product managers closer to the communities, and teams dedicated to each project rather than only team for transversal issues that do not adapt properly the new features to small communities. Noé (talk) 11:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- The wishlist process to date has been treated as a way of 'satisfying a few popular community needs', something nice to have on the fringes of development, rather than 'listening to the most active users and community developers to help prioritize where to tune / generalize / fix systems and pay down technical debt'. The top proposals may be a better source for the latter than the former. [The historical list of most-popular wishes covers a range of things, and is not just "most popular quality of life improvements" :) ]
- Energy spent ensuring that wishes can be resolved effectively at the scale of a few dozen a year would likely be more impactful than many other current initiatives. Some of the wish-granting effort seems to go into overhead that might scale nicely if this were part of a thorough plan for refactoring codebases and related architecture, and the wishes simply helped determine which areas were tackled first. –SJ talk 23:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- Wishing For More Wishes seldom works out well for the wisher! — xaosflux Talk 16:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- In the future, it would be fine to count opposes as well as the supports. We should count based on the support and the support/S+O rate. Thingofme (talk) 14:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Voting
- Oppose CommTech team are not genies and even for a genie in a bottle this would be cheating. That's not how software engineering works nor how humans can deliver value. I do understand the sentiment behind it but it's like wishing for bag of money falling out of sky. And no, we don't have money for wishes like this. Amir (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry @Ladsgroup:, but the fact is that we have bags of money falling out of the sky. Yearly. Tons of bags. Theklan (talk) 11:18, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support anything that would improve responsiveness to the huge number of requests that are posted each year. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support * Pppery * it has begun 18:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 19:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support The amount raised just from people who mistakenly think they are donating to Wikipedia would fund 500 wishes. Certes (talk) 02:06, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support Work more! -- Флаттершай (talk) 07:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support Having a bigger pool of tasks to pick from makes sense. There are some wishes, that are relatively easy to implement, even though they don't make it to the top ten. Šedý (talk) 11:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support Waddles 🗩 🖉 21:46, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support — SHEIKH (Talk) 02:10, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support → «« Man77 »» [de] 14:03, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support Wowzers122 (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support scrapping Community Tech and for the Foundation as a whole to improve partnership and respect with the community. On one hand that's such a simple and obvious thing, but on the other hand, after so many years, it feels like I'm wishing for the moon. Alsee (talk) 23:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose KingAntenor (talk) 07:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support DannyS712 (talk) 03:14, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support Prof.Flip (talk) 14:04, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support Silver hr (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support Unfortunately, it is a shame we are forced to vote for this kind of proposals to be heard and not feel that they play around with this us anymore in this process. The Wishlist has become somehow a fake genius that looks promising and that is not ready to accomplish its most basic tasks. Xavier Dengra (MESSAGES) 23:38, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support Sir Proxima Centauri (talk) 07:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 12:08, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support We need to finish the tasks which are not declined and we shouldn't be slow about the schedule. Thingofme (talk) 13:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support Because we have money to make it happen. Theklan (talk) 11:19, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support Actorsofiran (talk) 19:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support Toadspike (talk) 01:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support This proposal is completely unfeasible but the actual number of successfully completed wishes is abysmal and needs to be improved. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 11:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support, even though I wish there was a better solution available… –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC).
- Support ChimMAG (talk) 12:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Having just voted to support the 1% proposal above I think this would actually undermine anything that might accomplish. The 50 most popular might not necessarily be the highest and best fixes we need to do ... there might be small, obscure fixes that if made could make it much easier to fix others, or obviate entirely, the need for many more popular fixes. Or a popular proposal might require so much work as to make all the others go by the boards. Daniel Case (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support George6996 (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support Some of the wishes on here are rather small and may be easy to implement, it would be nice if they didn’t clog up the bigger issues, but could still be fixed TheFrog001 (talk) 14:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Rzzor (talk) 20:12, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support Wikimedia is a community, right? So please invest more in what the community wants! Le Loy 02:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support Sunpriat (talk) 02:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support Gaurav (talk) 02:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support It's not easy to churn out 50 wishes worthy of implementation in yearly surveys. 20 is a more sensible number. Make it double. Don't set the bar too high. 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support Supporting this for the plain reason that the current system is a bit abhorrent. Fighting for scraps that do not get developed because even the team that is developing them is underfunded and understaffed is really weird and capitalistic in the worst ways. The ideal way to solve it would be to fund teams working on all deployed software, not just on some bits and pieces like VisualEditor, Vector etc. stjn[ru] 17:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)