Talk:Collaboration/Flow satisfaction survey/translations

Bugs in the source English page to translate

• The link at top of page (not part of the translation) uses a broken URL to a non-existing domain name: http://wikimedia.qualtrics.org/

  The Quatrics website is linked correctly from https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Evaluation/Qualtrics as : https://www.qualtrics.com/

  If you setup a domain name, the link should be using HTTPS preferably to HTTP for all surveys (necessary for the privacy). So in that case, it should probably be: https://qualtrics.wikimedia.org/

  I found however a working URL: https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/ (using ".com", not ".org", for the Wikimedia subdomain in the Qualtrics domain)

• Missing "you" word before "find" in:

  "What aspects of Flow discussions, if any, do you find useful?"

• Typo in first letter of

  "Heither satisfied or unsatisfied" (should be "Either")

verdy_p (talk) 02:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Wrong wordings in english text

The wording is imho quite significantly biased by fanboys of this tool, and not in the slightest sense impartial:

Flow is a structured discussion tool supported by the Collaboration team.

That should be inflexible forum tool, that some want to replace the current flexible talk page with, the words structured discussion tool are just the advertising lingo of those developers, who want to push it.

At the moment, there are two different kind of talk pages on wikis: the usual ones using the wikitext and the ones using Flow with visual editing or wikitext.

That's plain wrong wording: the main difference is the disconnection of the Flow pages from the rest of the wikiverse. It's the inflexibility of Flow, a very strict and unchangeable layout of the page vs. the flexible and customisable layout of normal talk pages.

Editing is possible in both versions in the normal editor or VE, that's no difference at all.

Could you please change the wording to something impartial, where not every sentence breathes the strong bias of those, who ask this questions? Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 07:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sänger

That survey is targeting people who already use Flow. It is gathering an appreciation on both Flow an wikitext pages and provide a way for users to express which improvements they would like to have on structured discussions. That survey may reveal the fact that people want a different system than Flow. But that will certainly change Collaboration team's strategy concerning structured discussions.

Flow is not as flexible as the wikitext discussions, yes, that's a fact. We don't hide that and anyone can compare both systems. But we don't hide the fact Flow has also some advantages which are appreciated by users and communities who use Flow.

These communities have decided, by a way or an other, to use Flow. They want to try it because they find it useful or promising or because that's easier for newbies. Some other communities have refused the deployment, pushed it back or stalled it. That's their choice. We, as WMF, don't impose that product and, when people want to use it, it is always as a Beta feature. We respect communities' decisions.

I'll be very happy to work with you to improve the discussions system, as always in a cordial and respectful conversation. :)

All the best, Trizek (WMF) (talk) 13:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

There is no difference between the normal, flexible talk page and the restricted, narrow Flow one in regard of visual editing. Don't try to get false positives by connecting the completely unconnected Flow and VE somehow, and distinguish them from the Wikieditor. That would be plain deception.

Regarding That survey is targeting people who already use Flow:

If you don't ask those, who are not so proselytic about this new kid on the block, you will get the answers that the fanboys want, but the shit will hit the fan with more force later. Do you really want another MV/superprotect disaster? Do you want a honest evaluation or de:Jubelperser that help to elongate the de:Wolkenkuckucksheim-feeling in the ivory tower in SF?

As long as the questions in the survey don't adhere to the strict WP-must of NPOV, it's just for the rubbish bin and must not be used for any proper argumentation. The first run was by the fanboys, utter pov, should I restructure it the other way around, so that you can average the NPOV from the two positions (I'm clearly POV against this facebookisation attempt)? Or do you get it right on your own? As it was created first, it would have been a secure case of speedy deletion because of advertising language and plain POV-pushing. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 16:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

First of all, I'm sad to see you don't want to have a cordial and respectful conversation, by using threats and having such a bad opinion about my moral integrity. That will not help. :(

Concerning "visual editing", I'm sorry but I don't share your opinion at all. Using wikitext and then preview the result is not "visual editing" as defined by "WYSIWYG". Flow allow people to use visual editing and visual editor, wikitext editing it not. And to say that is just honesty.

<quetsch> This sentence has absolutely no connection to reality. visual editing is about the Visual Editor, that works an any page. Wikitext editing on the other hand works an any page as well, including Flow. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 18:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

You are considering Flow as a bad thing and a bad product and that's your absolute right to express that opinion. But that survey is based on community feedback (of any kind) and has been reviewed by community members, who both gave us positive and negative feedback. That process has been documented publicly. I didn't write that survey one day just because I wanted it. :)

Concerning POV, we are not writing a Wikipedia article here. That comparison is out of topic. We are having a community consultation about a product. That's really different and that kind of consultation is anyway a POV. All questions are based on A/ a comparison of actions allowed both by Flow and Wikitext and B/ a critique of Flow features based on good/useful or bad/useless. I would have agreed with you if that survey would have been written like in a totally oriented POV (like "do you find it useful?" "yes / absolutely / fantastic / I do") but we are far, far away from that.

We are collecting feedback about a specific product based on a specific audience. Again, that audience is really critic: Flow users see all defaults of that product. And again, we don't enforce that product to people or communities who don't want it and we welcome all feedback. The link to that survey will be distributed to Flow users and will of course remain public for all users who want to express their opinion.

I'm not going to change that survey. As I've explained, that survey has been created through a public process and reviewed, and I didn't get any feedback like yours during that process. I understand your concerns concerning Flow and discussions, and I respect the fact that you don't like that product. We can discus about all that any time: I stay open to any conversation with you regarding structured discussions (on a more quiet mode, maybe with a drink if possible? :)). But that said, the process concerning that survey will go to its end.

Thanks, Trizek (WMF) (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I fail to see the mentioned public documented open process, I just saw a phabricator item, and that's just inside jobs. Public is in a Wiki, at least in Meta and the upper few dozen sister projects. Where is this public discussion?

Concerning NPOV: You are the service organisation of the Wiki communities, and NPOV is one of the core principles of this communities. It has to be followed as much as possible. Pushing pet projects with dishonest lingo and wrong statements simply should have no place anywhere in the wikiverse.

Concerning Flow in general: Flow was ditched by Lila, at least that was what all hoped for. It was officially just in no more development mode, with critical maintenance still in work, but no propagation any more. So nobody should spend any time about a dead project, let alone follow it to some obscure places like phapricator, where only security patches would be developed.

Developing a survey in such an echo chamber, without critical, open input, is a sure way for a useless survey. Nobody will take it serious outside the echo chamber, as it was biased from creation. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 18:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Sänger: Sorry, but Meta has no NPOV policy. Meta is not Wikipedia. And in this talk page, I mostly see you criticizing Flow. I know criticizing is a right (and even helpful), but overcriticizing is disruptive and not helpful. Please stop overcriticizing. Thanks, Pokéfan95 (talk) 13:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Flow and Visual Editor are two separate things, completely disconnected

I think I'll start a new threat for this, so that it doesn't get buried in the one above about more general stuff.

Visual editing have absolutely nothing to do with Flow or normal talk pages, on both pages both kind of editing is possible. To create thze impression, that Flow and VE are somehow connected, and without Flow only plain text editing is possible, is plain wrong.

VE vs. Wikitext editor is about visual and/or plain text editing. It's the same on every page, be it article space, talk space, meta space, user space or whatever. How the structure of this pages look like has nothing to do with the editor, there's a difference between the structure of an RfC-page, an article or a discussion page, but that's got nothing to do with the editor.

The only difference between Flow and normal wikipages is, that the Flow structure is very strict and inflexible, while normal wikipages are very flexible and adjustable to certain use-cases. VE and Wikieditor are used on both.

Why do you create this false impression, that VE and Flow are in any way connected? Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 18:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I think you are confusing two things: editing and reading.

• editing is possible on WMF wikis by using wikitext editor or, in very particular cases, by using Flow or VE. Flow has both WYSIWYG editing and wikitext editing, VE has only WYSIWYG editing. So Flow and VE are "visual editors" because they both use Parsoid and other common components. To me (so as many people) Wikitext editor is not "visual", because you don't have the expected result before previsualizing or saving (a "visual editor" is a WYSIWYG editor by definition).
• reading depends of a specific design. There is the classical system that we use at the moment (which I call "wikitext" because it is based on wikitext formatting) and Flow which is different. Some people appreciate the first one, other the second one, that normal and fair. Any wiki can impact both design by using commons.css. Future plans concerning Flow may conduct to have more flexibility concerning that structure or to have a total redesign, based on community feedback and wished and technical feasibility (time and resources).

I don't create a false impression about a possible connection between Fow and VE but I just report facts because that connection exists.

I'm off for now, I'll read your answer (if any) tomorrow. Trizek (WMF) (talk) 18:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

You are confusing things.:

• Visual editing is possible with the Visual Editor on every page, anywhere where the concerned community wants it; it has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with Flow.
• Flow is a certain restricted layout and behaviour system for talk pages, it is no editor at all. I uses both current editors, the wikitext editor and the Visual Editor.
• For reading the editor is completely irrelevant. For reading the rendered layout and the structure of the page is important. And the searchability for certain topics on the page in case of long pages.

I have never called the wikitext editor a visual editor, I would call it the old fashioned, up to now more mighty, plain editor, which I use with a few enhancements, like WikiEd, because just plain is too plain ;) I don't use VE because it needs far too long to start the script before you can start editing, and I don't know the right buttons and short-cuts to use it as efficient as I can use them in the wikitext editor. But I will probably change one day, and at least try from time to time, the VE. I can switch between VE and WE with one click (and some waiting for start-up for VE), so editing with any of these is not strictly WYSIWYG or not, but both everywhere. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 19:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Late P.S.: Up to now the VE is not switched on on many talk pages (like here for example) for one or more of several reasons unbeknownst to me: The community of that certain projects doesn't want it there, central services hasn't deployed it to that project, whatever. Of course it could be done with probably just a few clicks by an admin, I don't know, as I'm neither admin nor developer. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 05:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I still don't know why you propagate the false impression, that the normal talk-page layout could not be edited with the VE? Currently that's impossible, because someone deliberately chose not to activate it there, but there's no real reason imho to do so. ABF would let me say, it's not done to have some positive argument for the new pet project Flow, but I don't think that bad of the WMF. Visual editing is in principle possible on every page in the wikiverse, perhaps on some it will (yet) not be as feasible, like RfC or such, but on talk I see no real problem. So this is definitely not a mayor difference between the two layouts of talk pages, that is a straw man. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 11:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Bias on German translations

I've quickly reviewed the German translation.

Sänger, you have the right to disagree with the purpose of the survey, but you have the duty to provide a correct and honest translation, not your own with your own point of view.

Please review your translations to make them matching the English language source.

Thanks, Trizek (WMF) (talk) 15:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

If you could Change your questions to let them be in line with the reality, I'd be fine. You just had this wrong assumptions, that I told you in the paragraphs above this one hardcoded in the questions, do they were plain wrong. Could you please Change them? Or do you want to Keep them this way, and thus render the complete Survey as just rubbish? A survey based on questions without connection to the reality are futile as best, and misleading as worst. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 16:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I've changed the translations a bit, but you won't get me to write something wrong and misleading in the survey, as you have done in the English version. Flow is not an editor, and VE is possible on any page, also talk pages. The difference is not visual editing or wiktext editing, it's something completely different. If you want someone to do this, delete my translation and look for some dishonest person who will play with your deceitful charade. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 16:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@Sänger: your distorted translations and your derogatory comments are out of place, and I ask you please to redress them. More in your talk page.--Qgil-WMF (talk) 10:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I won't translate plain falsehoods into German, I can't mislead the German participants in such a crass way. I will change my translations, where I had to deviate from the verbatim to the English original text, should someone else translate that falsehood. if s/he can do so. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 10:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Nobody forces you to translate anything. If you disagree with the survey, then the correct choices are to discuss the survey or to stay away from translating it. Providing your own version of the translations (hence offering different meanings across different languages, which would result in unreliable data gathered) is akin to sabotaging the survey.--Qgil-WMF (talk) 11:02, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I've changed them back. I was under the, obviously wrong, impression, that this should be a valid survey, not based on wrong assumptions, and thus asked here to change them to something right, while doing so simultaneously in my translations myself. I could not comprehend, that someone really wanted to make such a survey in such a invalid way, even less if he's got the (WMF)-tag behind his nick. But OK, so be it. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 11:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Let's try a fresh start

In this survey Flow talkpages with the Visual Editor (VE) are compared to normal talkpages with the wikitext editor (WE). That's not a good comparison, as the VE could be used as well on normal talk pages, it's just for some (for me) unknown reason not activated there. So the survey creates the false impression, that visual editing is impossible on normal talkpages, while this is just a deliberate decision by whoever not to make this possible. To compare the two different layouts of talk pages, and pretend that the VE is an advantage of one, while it's in reality not, is imho dishonest. I don't know why this wrong comparison was inserted, just because of the false impression, that VE is really impossible on talkpages, and thus this is really an advantage, or because of deliberate bias. I tend to the first solution, as I usually go for AGF. OK, in regard of the attitude of the WMF, definitely not all staffers in person, I tend more towards ABF, that's right and well earned by the WMF, but generally... I just don't understand why you don't see this, or still insist, that this is a real difference. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 07:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

How is this a fresh start when you are insisting on the same points, discussed in detail above? This is a user satisfaction survey. It is a fact that the only options available to users today are wikitext or Flow pages (the latter allowing for visual or wikitext editing). This survey asks their opinions about the existing choices. It is a conscious choice to ask users about the options available to them, and not about the many potential additional options that could exist. This is what most user satisfaction surveys do, by the way. The assumption that Discussion pages using plain visual editor would be a good solution is debatable, but most importantly it is out of scope in this survey, because it is not an option available to users today. The "false impression", the "pretend that the VE is an advantage", the "dishonest", the "wrong comparison", the "deliberate bias", and the "ABF, that's right and well earned by the WMF" are all your opinions, very clear at this point, but all based on your assumptions and not on the basic fact that this is a user satisfaction survey for Flow users. If you keep insisting on this very same point again, and if you keep suggesting that the creators of this survey are dishonest, then it is better to leave it here and move forward.--Qgil-WMF (talk) 08:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, it's just about the current situation, that has a artificial and unnecessary difference between Flow and normal talkpages. So this survey should always be seen through this lens, and it's not something about the comparison between Flow and normal talkpages in general. It must never be used in discussions about the advantages of Flow without the caveat, that it was inherently biased because of this artificial setup.

Can you, or anyone else with the (WMF)-tag behind the nick, tell me the reason, why VE is currently not activated on talk pages, even in projects where the VE is standard for IPs and new users? Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 08:57, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

VE is not activated on talk pages because it can't deal with the indentation scheme and it don't create structured discussions. There is no plans to use it on talk pages.

You can use VE on some pages used for discussions on certain wikis, into very particular pages and namespaces. That's only because a discussion happen on a page where discussions are not supposed to be (typically not happening on a "talk" namespace). That's too rare and not the normal behavior for VE to introduce it as a talk pages editor on that survey.

Just having VE as a talk page editor don't create a real structured discussion system and is an artificial solution: it doesn't solve the problem of following talk page topic by topic, allow searching, tagging, filtering and more. These features for structured discussions where on Flow's original roadmap which, as you know, has been stalled to work on other projects (cross-wiki notifications and notifications sorting revision).

That is just and only for information. Trizek (WMF) (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

It can't deal with the indentation scheme sounds a bit far fetched for me, it's just putting colons at the beginning of each paragraph, seems far more easy then dealing with tables or templates. But here's probably the wrong place to discuss this. I know, some want a talk page, that's just for so called structured discussions, and don't think the rift created by this between this forumesque pages, and the complete other wikiverse, is important. I'd like to have this wee change (possibility of using colons) incorporated into VE rather then creating a disconnected forum, but that's not what this is about. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 15:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Page setup and integration

Hello

If you are watching that page or associated translations, you may have seen some big changes. All these changes are related to the creation of that survey on Qualtrics, the software we are going to use for that survey.

Here is what's currently happening.

1. Page setup is changed in order to make it compatible with CSV format, to facilitate its integration in Qualtrics
2. All translations have been changed manually, for minor fixes to makt them compatible with Qualtrics
   • sometimes these changes have been undone, because I found an other way to change these minor things. Sorry for the disturbance.
3. A new page setup is created, in a more wiki-compatible design. That page will be kept for archive.

I'm at the moment at the middle of step 2. I plan to achieve it and also finish step 3 this afternoon.

Thank you for your patience, Trizek (WMF) (talk) 10:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Change phrasing of 'useful'

To what extent are the following features of Flow useful?

Can you change the phrasing there? Asking if something is "useful" can be very ambiguous and confusing in some cases. You will get skewed or non-meaningful results if different people people interpret it in different ways. I know for a fact that some other people have found "useful" phrasing confusing in the past, and that they have given answers which were in the exact opposite direction of how the the survey-taker was interpreting the results.

• If someone has mixed view on a product, and/or mixed view on a feature, it can be really hard to decide how to answer it. And it's not clear how meaningful the response would be.
• If something is good, but worse than an alternative, is it "useful"? I don't know.
• If a product is good, and the feature is utterly essential to being able to the product, but the feature itself has problems, is it "useful"? I don't know.
• If the feature itself is good, but you never want to use it because it's on a bad product, is it "useful"? I don't know.

I'd love to suggest alternate wording, but I don't have a good understanding of how you intend to interpret the results. Alsee (talk) 14:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello Alsee

Thanks for raising that vocabulary point.

I'm afraid it is too late: all translations have been requested, reviewed and integrated. I'm finishing other things at the moment (related to Notifications) in order to have more time to release that survey. Plus, as a non-native speaker, I've asked for multiple reviews of the English version by native speakers (staff and users) and also WMF survey specialist. I had no comment about "useful", so I've kept it.

I'll not forget to take that vocabulary point into account for next surveys.

Thanks again, Trizek (WMF) (talk) 18:05, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Trizek (WMF), I don't think it's merely a "vocabulary" issue. You don't tell people what you are asking for. The question itself is ambiguous or meaningless for respondents who do not share the WMF's assumptions about Flow, and any results to the questions will be meaningless. Alsee (talk) 15:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

That survey is based on community feedback and has been created for communities who want to have more features for Flow, not a whish list from WMF staff. At the moment, Flow's development is stalled. That survey will help WMF to define a strategy to support these communities, if any. Trizek (WMF) (talk) 09:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)