Requests for comment/Closing the gap to and between the base communities

Translate this page

The following request for comments is closed. The request has been inactive for more than 2 years. --MF-W 16:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Wikimedia Forum#Closing the gap to and between the base communities

Related discussions have been opened on the following wikis (translate and open this discussion in your home wiki):

Proposal

Problem: abysmal distance between Meta/WMF and Homewikis

What we have today is a star design with Meta in center

General exposition

What we have today is a Meta and a WMF (which uses Meta as an essential communication tool) formed by users who have migrated from their Homewikis (base communities) and formed a new community, who decide and impose these decisions on the base communities in a top-down model of governance. In this model, the design of the relationship between Meta (consequently also WMF) and the base communities is a star, with Meta at the center, where each base community has a relationship only with Meta. In the image on the right, Meta is represented by the central green dot (when WMF uses the Meta for global governance, then WMF takes the central position).

Consequences

The negative consequences of these models are several. To name a few: a) the decisions do not reflect the opinion of the totality of the communities, but only of those who form the community on Meta/WMF and those most intimately concerned.; b) editors and users who do not have the full confidence of their base communities, but possess that of the Meta community, end up deciding and imposing their decisions on the base communities; c) sometimes decisions of the base community are administratively contested by Meta/WMF (formed by outsiders in relation to the base communities), overruling the decisions of the base community; d) several editors that don't frequent Meta (for various reasons, such as language, difference of political and technical structure, lack of time and others) end up not participating in the decisions on Meta; e) there is no knowledge and recognition between communities, since they don't interact other than through Meta; f) etc.

Examples

1) Concerns about the fundraising banner, which is not at all harmonious with the Brazilian (Portuguese? Others?) society (therefore probably not very effective), and not even with the Wikipedia.pt community (see the discussion, with participation of Ppena (WMF) and JBrungs (WMF));

2) Serious safety problems caused by deficient or non-existent guidelines on how to behave to protect oneself from lawsuits and other abuses (no response from AKeton (WMF), Jrogers (WMF) and JSutherland (WMF) on the topic). Lack of guidelines that should have a clear line for users to access the protections provided by WMF (discussion of the topic can be found at Legal guidelines and intervention).

Suggestion: Meta as communication channel and organizer

What's proposed is a Mesh design organized by Meta

A modification in the function and structure of some discussions of the Metawiki (and especially WMF's use of Meta) is proposed, changing the communication structure between Meta and base communities from Star to Mesh, where the Meta does not function as a centralizer and separate decision maker, but as a communication channel and organizer of discussions. When the WMF uses this tool, therefore, it also ceases to be the central decision maker and becomes a communication channel and discussion organizer.

In the image on the right, Meta is not symbolized by any points, but by the edges connecting the points. Meta, in this sense, does not form a separate community, but forms the base communities' communication channels.

In practice

In practice, this would work like this: every important decision that the Meta community so decides or every important decision from WMF (for example on finance and security) would have to open a page on Meta and immediately, without fail, open a page on the largest Wikimedia communities, and could be taken to others depending on the interest and willingness of local users.

In this way, in addition to discussions on Meta itself, discussions would take place in parallel on various communities forums and in various languages simultaneously and there will be a link in each of these discussions to all other discussions, so that editors in one base community can easily access the correct discussions in the other base community. In addition and mainly, the Meta will function as a place to organize the flow of discussion, this is best commented on below, organization for which, in cases concerning WMF, they should be facilitated by WMF itself.

It is not necessary that all arguments be brought into Meta, but it is necessary that the main argumentative flow of the different discussions be reproduced in Meta. The Meta will continue to be the place of global monitoring and where decisions should come from, because it is where all the discussion flows come together (more about this below).

Examples

A good example, but limited to the pt.wiki is: Unite Portuguese and Brazilian Portuguese into Portuguese.

The WMF has tried to solve this problem, an example is listed ahead, but this type of solution brings problems as commented below: Universal Code of Conduct;

About the intermediate solution being adopted by WMF

Argumentative flow and the pulverization of discussions

It seems undeniable that there is a chronic communication problem between WMF and Communities, it also seems undeniable that one of the biggest reasons for the failure of this communication is the feeling that the users' opinions are not taken seriously and that therefore participation in discussions, often difficult and extremely time consuming, is pointless.

The multiplication of discussion forums as a solution

One attempt to correct this problem is the multiplication of communication forums. Multiplication of communication forums is not only the opening of several forums, but also the establishment of these forums within the communities and in the language of the communities. This kind of procedure aims to facilitate the participation of as many users as possible in an environment that is comfortable for them.

The pulverization of discussions

While the multiplication of discussion forums is a way forward, it is not in itself a solution and contains serious internal dangers. One of these problems is discussion pulverization. Pulverization of discussions is the situation where discussions are held without a unifying center, a center that is able to put all the relevant lines of argument of the multiple discussions into a single forum. The problem of pulverization of information is caused by the error of connecting all discussions correctly.

Argumentative flow

What is the problem of not having a central forum that brings together not only the links of the various discussions, but the argumentative flow of the discussions? The problem is the difficulty this creates for the individual, the single user, to follow the discussions and participate in them. It is not possible for an individual to follow, and much less participate in, all the forums, which makes it imperative to have a central forum alongside the multiple forums that is capable of reproduce the argumentative flow.

Why Reports Don't Solve It

Although reports are an efficient way to inform users of the status of discussions, the reports produced by control centers are useless for solving the problem of participation of individuals (users) in discussions, because user participation means not only passive absorption of discussions, but active participation in discussions. Active participation in discussions means the possibility to modify the argumentative flow through one's own arguments.

The inherent unfairness of pulverized discussions

If for the individual it is impossible to absorb, process and generate a response to the multiplicity of pulverized argumentative flows, institutions can do it, because they have enough personnel to collect information and take this information to unified internal forums, solving the problem of pulverization and being able to follow the complete flow of the discussions. But individuals are not able to do this.

Conclusion

The pulverization of discussions, instead of helping the active participation of individuals (users), ends up neutralizing their participation, thus increasing the initial problem.

Discussion

This discussion was moved from Closing the gap to and between the base communities

Note: This proposal was made together with Andreas, whom I thank very much for his help.--Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A problem with this is the exclusion of smaller wikis. It is more accurate for your first diagram to include the however many hundred wikis centralized at meta and your second to be surrounded by hundreds of wikis excluded from your new proposal. I feel simultaneous discussions across the select number of large wikis will not only entirely ignore smaller wikis but will themselves be isolated from each other, fracturing the movement. Ultimately, it will result in the WMF pulled in 10 different directions at the same time with no real way to reconcile those directions.

There's a reason many editors don't go on meta; they don't really care about WMF finance, or security, the remote possibility of a lawsuit or what have you, they care about editing the wiki. Bringing those matters to the wikis isn't going to engage more people. The people interested in meta-matters will be the ones discussing it, and the rest will mostly ignore it. The only difference is that those actually discussing these matters will be isolated from their peers in other wikis. More communication, more notifications, and more connections between all wikis are certainly valuable, but this fundamental restructuring of meta's structure does not seem to me to be the best solution. Zoozaz1 (talk) 15:28, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Zoozaz1, I understand what you mean, but on the other hand, there are often discussions going on in other wikis – like the fundraising discussion over on pt.WP the other day, or last year's branding discussion in en:WP – that the rest of the global community may be unaware of. So people do care about WMF issues, but discuss them in their own wikis, and are thus trapped in silos that don't connect. Now you may say what do I care about the fundraising banners in Brazil, but it seems to me it's often a case of the same issues cropping up in multiple wikis – maybe at different times ... the English Wikipedians moan about the fundraising banners in December, the Brazilians evidently in April, but they are all complaining about the same thing, and because they are only ever complaining for a few weeks in any one place, nothing much changes. So I wonder whether volunteers would have a stronger voice in these matters if they weren't so isolated from each other. And a stronger volunteer community is needed in my view, as a counterweight to the ever more wealthy and ever bigger WMF. You need many Davids working together to counter a Goliath. – Speaking about the branding issue, there was actually a list of community discussions provided here, which was a good thing and could be done more often, and more systematically. Cheers, --Andreas JN 466 16:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are certain issues that people really do care about, but most WMF issues aren't as engaging. I agree with you that running misleading fundraising banners and the branding proposal are things that will concern many more editors, and there may be a place for language-specific discussions to engage more editors for those issues. For most things, though, most editors aren't going to care, and meta is the best place to have a discussion. For those more impactful discussions, there has to be a balance; on one hand, a meta discussion is best for uniting the community and engaging smaller wikis, while siloed discussions may bring in more editors participating in their own language. It's not an easy question, but regardless for the majority of discussions meta is the best place. Zoozaz1 (talk) 17:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, take the branding issue. You have a situation here where literally over 90% of volunteers have said, No way, we do not want the WMF appropriating the name Wikipedia for itself. But the WMF response was to make clear that they can absolutely do what they like. This no longer feels like a partnership of equals, because if the WMF changed its name to "Wikipedia Foundation" tomorrow, what would you do about it (assuming you are not one of the 7.5% of the core community who thought it was a fine idea)? I do think that at some point volunteers will have to organise, do their own PR work, unionise, or something ... because however disparate the global community may be, there is remarkably broad agreement on issues like the proposed Wikipedia branding. The WMF's traditional approach has been "Divide et impera". Cheers, --Andreas JN 466 16:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be quite honest, I don't really care about them deciding to change an m to a p. Is it a good idea? Probably not, and I'm sure there are many reasoned arguments to that end. Will it affect the project in any really significant way? Again, probably not. I'm not on board with the whole "sky is falling" viewpoint here.

Every second volunteers organize, do PR work, unionize, or other such things is a second not spent collecting the sum of human knowledge. It's just a distraction from our mission and one that duplicates the efforts of the WMF. Yes, there is a place for pushback, discussion, and disagreement, and the WMF should take that into account, but at the end of the day it best serves our mission to spend time being constructive (by improving content) rather than destructive (by fighting with the WMF). Zoozaz1 (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zoozaz1, thank you very much for your attention to the proposal and comments. If the proposal is consistent and interesting, it should withstand criticism, so these are also welcome. Andreas has arrived before me to answer, but I haven't read your debate yet, so I will concentrate on your initial comment for the moment. There are things in your comments that I agree with and things that I disagree with. I will start my comments with the second of your two paragraphs and then tackle the first, which I find more constructive.

Predictable: this is likely to be the speech of those who already know the way "they don't do it because they don't want to". Well, on that, and based only on wiki.pt, I vehemently disagree. We don't do it because we can't. This is, for example, my personal experience: I always had interest in these subjects, but I could never come here, get to know a new community in a language I don't know well, get to know new ways of editing (it took me about an hour to find the template above), find the right places and the right language, etc etc etc. If I come today it is because the need is immense.

Note: I'm not talking about editors who just edit... I'm talking about administrators and various user on wiki.pt who are extremely interested in all topics, and who don't come here, because of the above difficulties, and others. Note also that we have 70 administrators on wiki.pt today, and I can guarantee that on a daily basis we have the presence of something like 30 administrators only, or less. We have backlogs to deal with, which take up all our volunteer time, who has time to migrate to Meta?

Now to your first paragraph: No! The WMF will not go in ten different directions, decisions will still be made, the direction will still be only one, but it will be that of universal consensus, and not of the consensus of the few meta editors. About the miniwikis, you are right: those wikis that do not have their own administration will not be able to enter the mesh model, and will continue in the star model. But those small ones that have administration, these are fully covered by the proposal.

Thanks again. Best,--Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 18:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You bring up some valid points, and I think a more nuanced understanding is valuable here. There are barriers to getting on meta, the language one being a big one. But while recognizing that, I think we have to recognize greater barriers exist when we have 10 separate discussions in 10 separate languages. There is bound to be disagreements and differences of opinion in those various discussions, and unlike on meta where it can be worked out and discussed with this proposal such a task is much more difficult.

The way to reconcile those two competing priorities is to have discussions on the various wikis for only the most important issues, such as a rebranding of the foundation. That way, we don't get bogged down in the inefficiency of a bunch of discussions that will likely not attract anyone new (as these less significant discussions would only attract the people really dedicated to them, who would already be on meta). It also means the discussions where there are a large number of users who would care but have barriers to using meta can participate. That being said, for the purpose of communication between communities the discussions on each should be subordinate to a meta discussion where users can report and discuss the opinions of their communities (as well as to get the opinion of those on smaller wikis, who offer a different perspective). Zoozaz1 (talk) 18:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is clear and is in the proposal: only the most important issues should be dealt with in this way. Now, what these important issues are should be discussed, because we probably have different opinions about this.

I also note an important point: the discussions in the meta will continue to be the ~~central~~ organizer ones, but there will be parallel discussions on the same topic everywhere, so that everyone can have a say and their opinions can be taken into account.

On a side note: I am not at all afraid of the WMF becoming a virus (i.e. going against the volunteers), because then they will be killing the only host they could colonize. In other words, either the WMF works together with the volunteers, or it is doomed to extinction. So I don't see this as the main issue here.--Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 19:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then yes, I guess this makes sense if we do it for a limited amount of extremely high important discussions. All I would say is that it should be limited to the most important decisions and there should still be a central discussion on meta. Zoozaz1 (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. We agree then, I just prefer to call the discussion in the meta "organizer" and not "centralizer".--Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 21:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I really like the concept of a "mesh" of wikis rather than the "star". It's a good visual/analogy for how I would like to see things be. I think it could produce better progress and cooperation across wikis if it could be made to happen. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Barkeep49, for the support.--Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 04:53, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The issues that I have with the proposal is

that META is the wiki for wikimedia-related and coordinating conversations, that is its sole purpose. Each sister has its family of issues, WPs are encycopaedias, etc. How many places are you expecting conversations to take place? Cherokee Wikipedia? Latin Wiktionary? Russian Wikivoyage? How is that going to work?
it seems that you are condensing metawiki and WMF personnel. This wiki is more than just WMF personnel, and has a range of central coordinating functions.
You are now expecting everyone to travel everywhere to find anything, or to even know where to find a conversation. I equate your idea with rather than a central set of noticeboards, you are expecting me to run to the 5th floor tearoom to find conversation 1, and the changeroom wall for another. AND you are expecting everyone to know where all the spaces are located.
Many of us have not migrated from our home wikis, we are still there. The WMF personnel may not have a homewiki for their WMF accounts, this is their home wiki, or mediawikiwiki is that, depending on their role.
Equating fundraising banner with metawiki is a false example; fundraising is solely controlled by WMF.
Translations. Each wiki is not equipped for the language translations, either in personnel, nor in systems. How is that going to work?

So maybe you can discuss what are the issues that your wiki is missing and how that could be improved. It sounds to me that it is informational and announcing that is what is missing to point people to conversations of interest. Is it some sort of feed of information to a local page(s) of what is happening at metawiki? So rather than jump to your near impossible solutions, create an RFC identifying the issues, and the impediments. If you believe that the WMF staff are not being suitably responsive and attentive, then you should be talking to the community elected board members, they have the role to reflect our opinions back to the board of what is important, and what is and is not working. Where is your "needs" document? — billinghurst sDrewth 09:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Billinghurst:, thank you for your participation and questions. I reserve the right not to answer one by one of your questions, because almost all of them are already answered in the original proposal and those that are not have been answered in the discussion above. I will only answer some as examples:

1) I am not demanding that you stay riding the elevator there and here, that was never said, you can, of your own free will, go to the other communities, if you want to stay only here on the metawiki, you can, because here will continue to be the organizer of the discussions and from where the decisions will be made;

2) The link will be in the meta discussion, as above in the example;

3) The banner is not a fake example: WMF uses the metawiki for discussions;

4) Translation will only be required for a few larger wikis, the other smaller ones will be done on demand.

Best,--Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 10:16, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Dear colleagues Andreas, Barkeep49 and Zoozaz1, billinghurst recommended (see diff) to take this discussion to Requests for comment, as I don't know the intricacies of Meta, I ask if you agree and authorize moving the whole text there, thank you.--Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 16:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An RFC is a static page, and single subject. It allows us to link to it from the main page, and seek opinion from other wikis more readily. It will allow you to draft and frame it for better discussion prior to announcing and seeking comment. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

billinghurst has the right idea with the RfC though it might be worth waiting a few more days. A little discussion beforehand can often help formulate a good RfC. --Andreas JN 466 19:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas right, next week we evaluate if we need to change the proposal, if yes, we modify it and present it in the RFC. billinghurst did several comments in my UP that I won't be able to handle alone, I think, at least not until next week, in case you want help... but I believe answers for this coments should be posted here, not in my UP. Also, I would like to ask if you are getting my pings, because I don't get a sending-ping notification. Thanks,--Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Wouldn't it be better to fully copy the proposal on wiki.en and wiki.de as I did on wiki.pt? That way it stimulates the debate on the home wikis as well.--Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 10:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I included it on en:WP (in a box), but did not have time to translate it in full for de:WP, sorry (and DeepL produced a few awkward phrasings). Been very busy at work this week. :( --Andreas JN 466 13:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas do you have any more modifications to make or can we take the discussion to RFC? If yes, do you know any discussion closure template? I will keep this one closed as a record (I will only pass the proposal).--Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 12:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have nothing to add, Felipe. For a discussion closure template, see Template:Hidden_archive_top. Best, --Andreas JN 466 12:16, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New discussion

Please start new discussions in this section, to keep the previous one (moved) intact. --Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vermont's comment

Hi Felipe, your proposal here shows little understanding of how Meta-Wiki works. I personally find it rather amusing that you wrote up paragraphs of text implying expertise in the current state of Meta-Wiki and it's supposed problems, yet had seemingly no understanding of what an RfC was until it was explained to you by Billinghurst.

I'd highly recommend you try to learn what a project does before trying to trash it. Meta-Wiki is the global hub for discussion on topics with global effects, as well as for grants (which, at the very least, you are specifically well aware of), Steward-related work, various Foundation and personal projects, and other topics related to the Wikimedia movement and coordination.

On the topic of RfCs and your claim that Meta-Wiki utilizes a top-down governance approach, anyone can comment on RfCs, and there is no formed community on Meta that independently imposes rules on other projects. Just look at literally any global RfC (that isn't one of the menial ones), UCOC consultations, Steward elections, or other discussions of importance. There is a long precedent of informing local communities about important global discussions or issues happening on Meta-Wiki, whether it be through MassMessage, site banners, Meta-Wiki's home page, mailing lists, WikiProjects, Wikimedia affiliates and chapters, or any number of other methods.

Regarding your "in practice" bit, it is remarkably similar to a watered down version of UCOC consultations. In fact, that's practically exactly what's happening, just with more steps and varying methods of consultation. There are very few issues of global importance that warrant such wide discussion, and when they exist it's usually the WMF at the helm, so in cases like UCOC consultations, Meta-Wiki policy is irrelevant. On that note, I think you fundamentally misunderstand Meta-Wiki's scope. We do not discuss Foundation finances, policy, security, engineering, infrastructure, or anything of the sort here. The Foundation determines how those are handled, whether it be internal or external, and is independent of Meta-Wiki governance.

We do, however, serve as the host for global RfCs, practically all of which your proposed method would not work for. Under your model, everything from global ban discussions to reports of far-right revisionist administrators on a specific project to minor technical changes would necessitate dozens of independent discussions on other projects to eventually be collated and compared to come up with some global consensus. Well, there's a problem with that: someone has to judge one community's consensus against another. This is arguably the point of Meta-Wiki, to have a place where people from all projects can discuss issues together. If there is insufficient participation on Meta-Wiki, then perhaps methods of informing local communities about issues of relevance to their project could be improved, but there is nothing we can do to force people to participate.

Thank you for your input on this topic, but your concerns are not concerns and your description of the current state of Meta-Wiki is patently devoid of experience or knowledge. It is, in fact, rather insulting. Regards, Vermont (talk) 16:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vermont: thank you for your participation. As I did not claim anywhere that I had great knowledge of the Meta-Wiki, but claimed just the opposite, I will simply disregard your comments on this. Regarding your constructive comment in the fifth chapter, you have certainly misunderstood, I do not claim that all issues need to be handled by meshdesign, but only the most important ones. Best, --Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, what? You created a RfC complaining about the "abysmal distance" between Meta-Wiki and content projects, decried what you believe to be Meta-Wiki's ills and consequences, and argued for your solution. And yet to have the audacity to write that you never claimed knowledge of how Meta-Wiki works, instead that you "claimed just the opposite". This is patently illogical and I'm trying incredibly hard not to view this in bad faith. Are you truly telling me that you believe it appropriate to create a proposal to overturn a project which you recognize you know nothing about? I'd highly recommend you not "simply disregard" my comments on this.

And regarding your bit on "meshdesign", perhaps we are getting somewhere with that. The "most important ones" aren't decided by Meta-Wiki RfCs or processes, but instead by the Wikimedia Foundation. IP masking, the UCOC, rebranding, etc. Truly, this entire proposal should be an email to the appropriate WMF team or staffer recommending a method of consulting communities, which, to note, you basically copied the method they're already using. On that note, what exactly do you want to change? Could you pick an RfC or two from the last few dozen that you believe should have consulted local communities directly in the manner you vaguely advocate for?

And I'm not sure why you un-indented your comment, but generally we like to indent replies in discussions on Wikimedia projects so we know who is replying to whom and the chronological order.

Regards, Vermont (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to consider it bad faith and block me, go ahead: I can't stop the powerful from exercising power. Now, you miss the point of the argument: the fact that I don't know the Meta-Wiki is exactly the point of the argument... no one should be required to know the Meta-Wiki to participate in core Wikimedia discussions, and that is exactly what the proposal is about. I'm talking about the external perspective. Best, --Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 20:20, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm baffled at your responses here. Participating in discussions on Meta-Wiki is incredibly simple, especially when it comes to the more important discussions that involve cross-wiki collaboration. Take a look at our main page, for one; many links to different forums and places for discussion, as well as links to ongoing important discussions in a current events section. And when massmessages are sent out or site banners shown asking for cross-wiki participation, direct links to the discussions are placed. RfCs are generally simply formatted and consistent, and all of them are listed on the main RfC page, easy to access and read. Participating is as easy as is possible.

And what is supposedly the point of your argument is incredibly illogical; you take the fact that you don't remotely know how Meta-Wiki works, from that you extrapolate how you think it works, and from there you write a convoluted proposal arguing for changes based on your wrong assumptions? You can't possibly expect anyone to accept that.

I originally left a comment here hoping to clarify for you what Meta-Wiki is, as a Meta-Wiki administrator and functionary, but it seems you simply don't care. And now you're doubling down on it. This is more than a bit disappointing.

And regarding your insinuation of a block, I never mentioned a block. Currently there is no reason whatsoever to impose a block on your account. Your arguments have been incredibly misinformed and devoid of a basis in experience or potential for practical application, yes, but such disagreements are not reason for a block.

Regards, Vermont (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vermont Good to know. I really apologize to the Meta community if I was disrespectful in the proposal, I consider myself part of this comundiade now. I'm not opposed to explaining the proposal, but I thought you were threatening me...if it's just an attempt to clarify the issue, I'm certainly available. However, I don't understand exactly where the confusion lies. You see: I am speaking from the external point of view, looking from the outside. Even though I ended up getting involved with Metawiki, the proposal is there and should be kept in its purity: it is for people who have no contact with Metawiki and don't want to have any, but still want to participate in the important discussions that take place here, you know? What exactly would you like me to explain? Does the system already exist? In this case, better yet... is there a similar system? If so, what is the problem with having two systems?--Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 21:29, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Felipe: Well, if you want to participate in global discussions you need to have contact with Meta-Wiki; that's kind of the point of Meta-Wiki. Now you're saying that the proposal exists for people who don't know how Meta-Wiki works, don't want to know how Meta-Wiki works, but want to change how Meta-Wiki works. At this point it seems to me like you no longer believe this proposal is valid, unless I misunderstand you. You also have still failed to address the fact that your proposal doesn't remotely reflect how Meta-Wiki actually works, aside from saying you didn't care. Regards, Vermont (talk) 21:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vermont Notice also that meshdesign not only provides links to discussions in the meta, it proposes that parallel discussions be opened in all comundiades with local languages. But of course, as you noted above, the decision remains in Meta.--Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you would need someone to judge the parallel discussions against each other when making a final decision. The purpose of global RfCs on Meta-Wiki are that people from any project could discuss together to formulate a global consensus, not simply the product of whatever poor steward or staffer ends up trying to mash together a bunch of separate, local consensuses. Regards, Vermont (talk) 21:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vermont Okay, I understand both arguments, thank you for the considerations. Answering separately: 1) My point of departure is exactly that reality does not work as you describe: I think that many people may be interested in Wikimedia issues (global topics discussed on Meta), but uninterested in coming to this wiki, getting to know a new community, risking to disrespect someone or some unknown norm, having to find out where the discussion forums and templates are (exactly what you saw happening to me before and now), all in a language that is not their native language. Meshdesign will enable people to participate in these discussions in their home communities; 2) There is no objection that user come to participate on the corresponding page of the Meta, so no rights are taken away from any editor, it's just added: everyone can keep coming here, but everyone will be able to discuss also in their home communities. Note: I'm going to ask you to excuse me, but I need to leave the internet at this moment, tomorrow I will be back and can continue answering the questions. Thanks again for participating, with this discussion I am understanding better the background arguments of the current star-design. Best regards. --Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's tons of problems with that, especially if you intend to make it into a usual process in certain discussions. It's probably best handled case by case, and honestly in any issues large enough to warrant it, the WMF is usually involved and would do it themselves. Regardless, I think I've made my point clear enough to people reading, which is that you made a RfC about a topic on which you are wholly uninformed and are advocating a fix that is based on false assumptions, and at this point I do not have any further questions. Regards, Vermont (talk) 01:23, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]