https://mwstake.org/mwstake/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=Sabine+Melnicki&feedformat=atom mwstake - User contributions [en] 2024-03-29T09:10:16Z User contributions MediaWiki 1.31.0 https://mwstake.org/mwstake/index.php?title=Event:18&diff=728 Event:18 2016-04-26T14:46:04Z <p>Sabine Melnicki: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Event<br /> |mwstake-meeting=Yes<br /> |start-date=2015/10/09<br /> |start-hour=10<br /> |start-minute=30<br /> |end-date=2015/10/09<br /> |end-hour=11<br /> |end-minute=30<br /> |url=https://plus.google.com/events/c580m0pag5gc8hekekjo9fk1do8?authkey=CJTnrJzpu6O5PQ<br /> |tags=User Survey, Core, Conference,<br /> |attendees=Richard Heigl, Mark Hershberger, Cindy Cicalese, Sabine Melnicki,<br /> }}<br /> [[Blog_Post:29]]</div> Sabine Melnicki https://mwstake.org/mwstake/index.php?title=Event:19&diff=727 Event:19 2016-04-26T14:45:51Z <p>Sabine Melnicki: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Event<br /> |mwstake-meeting=Yes<br /> |start-date=2015/11/06<br /> |start-hour=18<br /> |start-minute=30<br /> |end-date=2015/11/06<br /> |end-hour=18<br /> |end-minute=30<br /> |url=https://plus.google.com/+MarkHershberger/posts/6MfGHGXGu3Q<br /> |attendees=Alexis Hershberger, Mark Hershberger, Cindy Cicalese, Richard Heigl, Natasha Brown, Lex Sulzer, Toni Hermoso Pulido, Sabine Melnicki,<br /> }}<br /> A few of us in #mwstake did some work at SMWCon this past week and created some tasks for ourselves at the upcoming Developer's Summit in January. Unfortunately, we have to come up with an alternative approach to this. Please read the task and comments here: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T117193<br /> <br /> This meeting will be our chance to discuss what issues we want to talk about with the WMF.<br /> <br /> If you're interested in the future of MediaWiki for your organization, please comment on the above task or join this meeting.</div> Sabine Melnicki https://mwstake.org/mwstake/index.php?title=Event:29&diff=726 Event:29 2016-04-26T14:41:47Z <p>Sabine Melnicki: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Event<br /> |mwstake-meeting=Yes<br /> |start-date=2016/04/08<br /> |start-hour=15<br /> |end-hour=16<br /> |url=https://plus.google.com/u/0/events/c4bqnntftkvhb92oi7mglqg38sk<br /> |attendees=Mark Hershberger, Sabine Melnicki, Richard Heigl, Brion Vibber, Cindy Cicalese, Wax Miguel, Chris Koerner, Matthew Flaschen, Frank Schulenburg, FreedomFighter Sparrow,<br /> }}<br /> Meeting date moved from first Monday so as not to conflict with the Hackathon date.<br /> <br /> [https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/MWF20160408 Etherpad from this meeting]</div> Sabine Melnicki https://mwstake.org/mwstake/index.php?title=Event:29&diff=725 Event:29 2016-04-26T14:39:36Z <p>Sabine Melnicki: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Event<br /> |mwstake-meeting=Yes<br /> |start-date=2016/04/08<br /> |start-hour=15<br /> |end-hour=16<br /> |url=https://plus.google.com/u/0/events/c4bqnntftkvhb92oi7mglqg38sk<br /> }}<br /> Meeting date moved from first Monday so as not to conflict with the Hackathon date.<br /> <br /> [https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/MWF20160408 Etherpad from this meeting]</div> Sabine Melnicki https://mwstake.org/mwstake/index.php?title=User:Sabine_Melnicki&diff=687 User:Sabine Melnicki 2016-01-25T23:35:14Z <p>Sabine Melnicki: </p> <hr /> <div>{{User<br /> |mw-username=Zabien<br /> |smw-username=Zabien<br /> }}</div> Sabine Melnicki https://mwstake.org/mwstake/index.php?title=Main_Page&diff=686 Main Page 2016-01-22T21:20:11Z <p>Sabine Melnicki: </p> <hr /> <div>The '''MediaWiki Stakeholders' Group''' is a MediaWiki [[:mw:Groups|user group]] consisting of MediaWiki developers, system administrators, users, consultants, and hosting providers who cooperate in order to improve the software and advocate the needs of MediaWiki users outside the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), its projects and the traditional Wikimedia movement.<br /> <br /> This wiki, MWStake.org, acts as a repository for news and events around our work. To be kept up-to-date on our activities, you can follow the tasks on [https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/tag/mediawiki-stakeholders-group/ our workboard in] Phabricator. You can also follow us on Twitter at [https://twitter.com/@mwstakeholders @mwstakeholders].<br /> <br /> Our scope of influence is deliberately broad and meant to be flexible to encompass the needs of our diverse community. Our areas of collaboration are described on our [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki_Stakeholders%27_Group user group page on mediawiki.org].<br /> <br /> The group was [[:mw:meta:Affiliations_Committee/Resolutions/MediaWiki_Stakeholders%27_Group_-_Liaison_approval,_November_2014|recognized by the Affiliations Committee]] on [[:mw:Thread:Talk:MediaWiki Stakeholder's Group/Congratulations!|November 11, 2014]].<br /> <br /> <br /> {| cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; width=100%<br /> | style=&quot;vertical-align: top;width: 30%;&quot; | {{FancyBox<br /> | color = CCA300<br /> | title = Recent blog posts<br /> | icon = [[File:Blog.png|24px|link=]]<br /> | content =<br /> {{#ask:[[Category:Blog Posts]]<br /> |?Page creator<br /> |?Creation date<br /> |format=ul<br /> |template=Blog Post Row<br /> |link=none<br /> |headers=hide<br /> |sort=Creation date<br /> |order=desc<br /> |limit=10<br /> |searchlabel=<br /> }}<br /> }}<br /> | style=&quot;vertical-align: top;padding-left: 1.2em; width: 30%;&quot; | {{FancyBox<br /> | color = CCA300<br /> | title = Recent MWstake meetings<br /> | icon = [[File:Meeting.png|24px|link=]]<br /> | content =<br /> {{#ask:[[Category:Events]][[MWstake Meeting::true]][[Start Date::≤{{CURRENTYEAR}}-{{CURRENTMONTH}}-{{CURRENTDAY}}]]<br /> |?Date<br /> |?Event URL<br /> |format=ul<br /> |template=Meeting Row<br /> |headers=hide<br /> |link=none<br /> |sort=Start Date<br /> |order=desc<br /> |limit=20<br /> |searchlabel=<br /> }}<br /> }}<br /> | style=&quot;vertical-align: top;padding-left: 1.2em; width: 30%;&quot; | {{FancyBox<br /> | color = CCA300<br /> | title = Upcoming events<br /> | icon = [[File:Calendar.png|24px|link=]]<br /> | content =<br /> {{#ask:[[Category:Events]][[Start Date::&gt;{{CURRENTYEAR}}-{{CURRENTMONTH}}-{{CURRENTDAY}}]]<br /> |?Start Date<br /> |?End Date<br /> |?Event URL<br /> |?MWstake Meeting<br /> |format=ul<br /> |template=Event Row<br /> |headers=hide<br /> |link=none<br /> |sort=Start Date<br /> |order=asc<br /> |limit=10<br /> |searchlabel=<br /> }}<br /> }}<br /> |-<br /> | {{FancyBox<br /> | color = CCA300<br /> | title = Recent other events<br /> | icon = [[File:Meeting.png|24px|link=]]<br /> | content =<br /> {{#ask:[[Category:Events]][[MWstake Meeting::false]][[Start Date::≤{{CURRENTYEAR}}-{{CURRENTMONTH}}-{{CURRENTDAY}}]]<br /> |?Start Date<br /> |?End Date<br /> |?Event URL<br /> |format=ul<br /> |template=Event Row<br /> |headers=hide<br /> |link=none<br /> |sort=Start Date<br /> |order=desc<br /> |limit=20<br /> |searchlabel=<br /> }}<br /> }}<br /> |}<br /> &lt;div style=&quot;display:none;&quot;&gt;<br /> {{DISPLAYTITLE:MediaWiki Stakeholders' Group (#MWstake)}}<br /> [[Category:Framework Pages]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;</div> Sabine Melnicki https://mwstake.org/mwstake/index.php?title=Template:Event_Row&diff=685 Template:Event Row 2016-01-22T21:17:35Z <p>Sabine Melnicki: </p> <hr /> <div>&lt;noinclude&gt;<br /> [[Category:Framework Pages]]<br /> &lt;/noinclude&gt;&lt;includeonly&gt;{{#ifeq:{{{5}}}|true|[[{{{1}}}|MWstake Meeting]]|[[{{{1}}}]]}} {{#if:{{{4|}}}|{{#!:&amp;nbsp; &lt;span class=&quot;pops&quot;&gt;[[Image:URL.png|16px|link={{{4}}}]]&lt;/span&gt;}}}}&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:x-small;&quot;&gt;&lt;br/&gt;{{{2}}}{{#if:{{{3|}}}|{{#ifeq:{{{2}}}|{{{3}}}||&amp;nbsp; – &amp;nbsp;{{{3}}}}}}}&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/includeonly&gt;</div> Sabine Melnicki https://mwstake.org/mwstake/index.php?title=Event:41&diff=684 Event:41 2016-01-22T21:04:14Z <p>Sabine Melnicki: /* Background reading */</p> <hr /> <div>{{Event<br /> |mwstake-meeting=No<br /> |title=Discussion about MW Foundation<br /> |start-date=2016/01/21<br /> |start-hour=17<br /> |end-hour=18<br /> |end-minute=30<br /> |url=https://plus.google.com/u/0/events/cebgth9id4fkodv18ofmqhgnjt0?authkey=CJfyiqnk1vKGVQ&amp;cfem=1<br /> |tags=Governance, Wikimedia Foundation,<br /> |attendees=Richard Heigl, Chris Koerner, Mark Hershberger, Markus Glaser, Matthew Flaschen, Cindy Cicalese, Alexis Hershberger, Yaron Koren, Kunal Mehta, Sabine Melnicki,<br /> }}<br /> Original title: MW Foundation kickoff<br /> <br /> Summary of notes from the [https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/i8XjsnBxxh etherpad] (see full transcript there).<br /> <br /> ==Agenda topics==<br /> * '''Structure''': Which issues need to be solved before we can start? e.g. Scope, Structure, Responsibilities, Communication/Platforms (+working groups for these issues?)<br /> ** Scope: Core code dev, distribution, ecosystem<br /> ** Structure: Stakeholders: WMF, Pfizer, NASA etc.<br /> ** Budget: WMF, Stakeholders, own donations<br /> *** Quim suggests to think of requesting a grant to support the creation of the org, and then per project grants.<br /> *** See https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan and https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T124019 for the possibility to make a dent in the annual plan (I think unlikely, but I could be wrong, depends on strategic push)<br /> *** See https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/2016_Strategy and https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T124021 for the WMF Strategy bit<br /> *** Even if this initiative is not spelled out in WMF Strategy and Annual Plan, it would still have a chance to get a grant through the regular processes, but of course being backed by the Strategy would help a lot.<br /> * '''Timeline''': Rough initial timeline (just to get an idea) – 2016 dates:<br /> **16 February: Strategy discussion close of consultation<br /> **April: Hackathon (Jerusalem), Conference (Berlin)<br /> **May: 1.27 release (LTS)<br /> **June: Wikimania (Esino Lario)<br /> **November: 1.28 release<br /> * '''Name''': Should we call this something besides the &quot;MediaWiki Foundation&quot;? Matt suggested &quot;MediaWiki Association&quot;. Other ideas?<br /> ** MW Association, MW Hub, MW Community, MW Organization, MW Corporation, MW Union, MW Consortium, MW Empowering Knowledge (Management)...<br /> ** In the early MSG discussions, the name &quot;Sunflower something&quot; was thrown around, and I liked it. A little less obvious than MW something though.<br /> *** Sunflower logo is trademarked by WMF (Serial Number 86203034). IANAL, but worth checking if we can use sunflower name.<br /> * '''Legal organization''': 501.3c or 501.6c or?<br /> ** Lego thinks we should focus on what we want MWF to do (i.e. roadmap), and then figure out legal structure after, which will best accomodate that<br /> * '''Roadmap'''<br /> ** To gain legitimacy, focus on smaller improvements we can get shipped in releases *this year*, not grand things like &quot;fix skinning system&quot;<br /> <br /> ==Discussion topics==<br /> * topics of a possible Foundation<br /> ** technical topics: Software distribution (Installer), upgrade process improvements and test integration for extensions; Visual Editor<br /> ** documentation and education of users through how-to's<br /> ** voice for 3rd party users (companies, government, private users, institutions)<br /> * proposal for WMF as basis for discussion and for external funding<br /> ** vision &amp; mission<br /> ** common goals<br /> ** benefit for WMF<br /> * funding: WMF, external sources or combination(s)<br /> * becoming a dialogue partner for the WMF<br /> * 3rd party users' involvement<br /> ** communication with 3rd party users<br /> <br /> * work on low hanging fruits and start small VS. founding a Foundation<br /> * make achievements first, not too much planning VS. having a legal structure from the start<br /> * focus on developers VS. focus on users<br /> * goal to be responsible for MW Core VS. being part of WMF<br /> <br /> ==Next steps==<br /> # Draft proposal for MW Foundation that takes into consideration of how to get what we want. Vision, mission, how to get there. Answer questions in Markus' proposal. What's in for everyone involved. (Mark, Markus, all)<br /> # Involvement in strategy discussions with WMF (all of us)<br /> # Governance discussion (all of us) https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T123606<br /> # Get in contact with Frank Schulenberg from WikiEdu.org (Markus)<br /> # Research for light-weight institution structures &gt; present on next mwstake meeting (Alexis)<br /> # Reach out to users, open communication: ideas, newsletter etc. (Chris, Sabine)<br /> # Put names behind actions and check back later ([[Event:27|next meeting]])<br /> <br /> ==Background reading==<br /> ===Open source foundation examples:===<br /> * WMF https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home<br /> * Magento Commerce (Community/Enterprise edition) https://magento.com<br /> * Linux Foundation http://www.linuxfoundation.org/about<br /> * Alfresco (document management) https://www.alfresco.com/de<br /> * Wordpress Foundation http://wordpressfoundation.org (roadmap &amp; philosophy https://wordpress.org/about/roadmap/), Matt Mullenweg/Automattic<br /> * Mozilla Foundation https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/<br /> * WikiEdu.org https://wikiedu.org<br /> ===Developer Summit January 2016:===<br /> * [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cCf07DiL4bXJ29qvDFESo1Z22HeFajxwS5ihTg_cu1M/edit Agenda for the Meeting with MWStake/WMF] <br /> * [https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/steak_and_wine Etherpad of the Meeting with MWStake/WMF] <br /> ===Non-WM deployments/governance model:===<br /> * [https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T113210 T113210: How should Wikimedia software support non-Wikimedia deployments of its software?]<br /> ** [https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/NonWikimediaDeployments notes about the discussion at Developer summit] <br /> **[https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1_UaZXN3udsRq0tvpm3G4AHE_e0WisBWCoQsK3q4uahU/edit#slide=id.p slides] <br /> * [https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T123606 T123606: WIP RFC: Improving and scaling our technical decision making process]<br /> ** [https://tools.wmflabs.org/meetbot/wikimedia-office/2016/wikimedia-office.2016-01-20-22.02.log.htm #wikimedia-office hour IRC log]<br /> ** for this meeting [https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/E135 task/agenda] <br /> *[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2015_Community_Wishlist_Survey/Results Wikimedia: Results of Community Wishlist Survey 2015]<br /> ===MWStakeholders' Group:===<br /> * [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/2015_MediaWiki_User_Survey User survey] <br /> * [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki_Stakeholders%27_Group/Tasks/Feature_wishlist Feature wishlist] <br /> * [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki_Stakeholders%27_Group/Annual_Report_2015 Annual report 2015] <br /> * [https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/AuhVcJ9rJi Latest Hangout etherpad] <br /> * [https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/tag/mediawiki-stakeholders-group/ Phabricator task board] <br /> ===WMF:===<br /> * [https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Policies WMF Policies] <br /> * [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2016_Strategy/Community_consultation 2016 Strategy/Community consultation] : February 15: Close of consultation!<br /> * related: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2015_Community_Wishlist_Survey/Status_report_1<br /> Quim suggests to think of requesting a grant to support the creation of the org, and then per project grants.<br /> * See https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan and https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T124019 for the possibility to make a dent in the annual plan (I think unlikely, but I could be wrong, depends on strategic push)<br /> * See https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/2016_Strategy and https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T124021 for the WMF Strategy bit<br /> ===RFCs:===<br /> * https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Extensions_continuous_integration<br /> * https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Governance<br /> Log:<br /> * http://bots.wmflabs.org/~wm-bot/logs/%23wikimedia-office/20151119.txt<br /> <br /> ==Wikimania Submission (by Mglaser): Moving out of Home? MediaWiki Governance Revisited==<br /> &lt;small&gt;<br /> As MediaWiki grows up, it's time to move out of home. This session addresses issues about the development of MediaWiki and it's identity inside and outside of the Wikimedia world. A concrete solution is proposed in form of a new MediaWiki Foundation.<br /> <br /> There are many organisations outside Wikipedia and sister projects which use MediaWiki. A lot of the publicly available instances are used to share knowledge that wouldn't be accepted on Wikipedia or sister projects. Supporting them fits perfectly into our mission.<br /> <br /> Yet, because the foundation is rightly focussed on Wikipedia, the development of MediaWiki as a released software is not in the core focus of the Foundation's software engineering. This results in the lack of governance when it comes to MediaWiki core development and features not needed by the WMF, such das an installer. Furthermore, there is little organisational support for extension developers and the (barely existant) ecosystem around MediaWiki.<br /> <br /> We propose a multistakeholder approach to resolve this situation: the MediaWiki Foundation (MWF, working title). There has been a lot of discussion and support for this idea in the past, but with the reorientation of MediaWiki towards service oriented architecture the time now seems ripe to tackle the task. <br /> <br /> In this session, I want to introduce a concrete proposal covering these key issues for the MWF:<br /> * What is the scope of the organisation? MediaWiki core development, distribution and fostering a developer friendly ecosystem.<br /> * Who are the stakeholders of the organisation? The Wikimedia Foundation, of course, but also other groups and organisations, such as NASA, Pfiser, using MediaWiki<br /> * Where does the money come from? Part of it will come from the Wikimedia Foundation as a major stakeholder. But other organisations using MediaWiki have also indicated potential financial support. Also, depending on the for of incorporation, a MediaWiki Foundation could rise it's own donations.<br /> * What is the roadmap? As the idea starts to take shape, there will be a realistic roadmap proposal by the time of the talk.<br /> * What benefits do we get from all of this? MediaWiki core development will be goverend by an independent body that covers the interests of all MediaWiki users. It becomes very easy for involved stakeholders to contribute resources and money specifically to the development of MediaWiki. Furthermore, we will get the chance to raise funds directly for MediaWiki. Wikimedia Foundation will be able to focus on developing features for the public facing sites rather than the maintaining the platform that they all build on. The responsibility gap in MediaWiki development will be closed and the resources needed for development can be provided by more than one organisation.<br /> <br /> The purpose of this talk is to popularize the idea of a MediaWiki Foundation and open the founding process to all relevant stakeholders. I hope during Wikimania, we will make significant steps towards a MediaWiki Foundation, and this talk can be seen as a kick-off. The target audience are all people with an interest in Wikimedia organisiational development, people with interest in the governance of MediaWiki software development and people who use MediaWiki as their platform base.<br /> &lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> *[[Blog_Post:37|#mwstake and the Foundation]]</div> Sabine Melnicki https://mwstake.org/mwstake/index.php?title=Event:41&diff=683 Event:41 2016-01-21T21:05:32Z <p>Sabine Melnicki: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Event<br /> |mwstake-meeting=No<br /> |title=Discussion about MW Foundation<br /> |start-date=2016/01/21<br /> |start-hour=17<br /> |end-hour=18<br /> |end-minute=30<br /> |url=https://plus.google.com/u/0/events/cebgth9id4fkodv18ofmqhgnjt0?authkey=CJfyiqnk1vKGVQ&amp;cfem=1<br /> |tags=Governance, Wikimedia Foundation,<br /> |attendees=Richard Heigl, Chris Koerner, Mark Hershberger, Markus Glaser, Matthew Flaschen, Cindy Cicalese, Alexis Hershberger, Yaron Koren, Kunal Mehta, Sabine Melnicki,<br /> }}<br /> Original title: MW Foundation kickoff<br /> <br /> Summary of notes from the [https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/i8XjsnBxxh etherpad] (see full transcript there).<br /> <br /> ==Agenda topics==<br /> * '''Structure''': Which issues need to be solved before we can start? e.g. Scope, Structure, Responsibilities, Communication/Platforms (+working groups for these issues?)<br /> ** Scope: Core code dev, distribution, ecosystem<br /> ** Structure: Stakeholders: WMF, Pfizer, NASA etc.<br /> ** Budget: WMF, Stakeholders, own donations<br /> *** Quim suggests to think of requesting a grant to support the creation of the org, and then per project grants.<br /> *** See https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan and https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T124019 for the possibility to make a dent in the annual plan (I think unlikely, but I could be wrong, depends on strategic push)<br /> *** See https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/2016_Strategy and https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T124021 for the WMF Strategy bit<br /> *** Even if this initiative is not spelled out in WMF Strategy and Annual Plan, it would still have a chance to get a grant through the regular processes, but of course being backed by the Strategy would help a lot.<br /> * '''Timeline''': Rough initial timeline (just to get an idea) – 2016 dates:<br /> **16 February: Strategy discussion close of consultation<br /> **April: Hackathon (Jerusalem), Conference (Berlin)<br /> **May: 1.27 release (LTS)<br /> **June: Wikimania (Esino Lario)<br /> **November: 1.28 release<br /> * '''Name''': Should we call this something besides the &quot;MediaWiki Foundation&quot;? Matt suggested &quot;MediaWiki Association&quot;. Other ideas?<br /> ** MW Association, MW Hub, MW Community, MW Organization, MW Corporation, MW Union, MW Consortium, MW Empowering Knowledge (Management)...<br /> ** In the early MSG discussions, the name &quot;Sunflower something&quot; was thrown around, and I liked it. A little less obvious than MW something though.<br /> *** Sunflower logo is trademarked by WMF (Serial Number 86203034). IANAL, but worth checking if we can use sunflower name.<br /> * '''Legal organization''': 501.3c or 501.6c or?<br /> ** Lego thinks we should focus on what we want MWF to do (i.e. roadmap), and then figure out legal structure after, which will best accomodate that<br /> * '''Roadmap'''<br /> ** To gain legitimacy, focus on smaller improvements we can get shipped in releases *this year*, not grand things like &quot;fix skinning system&quot;<br /> <br /> ==Discussion topics==<br /> * topics of a possible Foundation<br /> ** technical topics: Software distribution (Installer), upgrade process improvements and test integration for extensions; Visual Editor<br /> ** documentation and education of users through how-to's<br /> ** voice for 3rd party users (companies, government, private users, institutions)<br /> * proposal for WMF as basis for discussion and for external funding<br /> ** vision &amp; mission<br /> ** common goals<br /> ** benefit for WMF<br /> * funding: WMF, external sources or combination(s)<br /> * becoming a dialogue partner for the WMF<br /> * 3rd party users' involvement<br /> ** communication with 3rd party users<br /> <br /> * work on low hanging fruits and start small VS. founding a Foundation<br /> * make achievements first, not too much planning VS. having a legal structure from the start<br /> * focus on developers VS. focus on users<br /> * goal to be responsible for MW Core VS. being part of WMF<br /> <br /> ==Next steps==<br /> # Draft proposal for MW Foundation that takes into consideration of how to get what we want. Vision, mission, how to get there. Answer questions in Markus' proposal. What's in for everyone involved. (Mark, Markus, all)<br /> # Involvement in strategy discussions with WMF (all of us)<br /> # Governance discussion (all of us) https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T123606<br /> # Get in contact with Frank Schulenberg from WikiEdu.org (Markus)<br /> # Research for light-weight institution structures &gt; present on next mwstake meeting (Alexis)<br /> # Reach out to users, open communication: ideas, newsletter etc. (Chris, Sabine)<br /> # Put names behind actions and check back later ([[Event:27|next meeting]])<br /> <br /> ==Background reading==<br /> ===Open source foundation examples:===<br /> * WMF https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home<br /> * Magento Commerce (Community/Enterprise edition) https://magento.com<br /> * Linux Foundation http://www.linuxfoundation.org/about<br /> * Alfresco (document management) https://www.alfresco.com/de<br /> * Wordpress Foundation http://wordpressfoundation.org (roadmap &amp; philosophy https://wordpress.org/about/roadmap/), Matt Mullenweg/Automattic<br /> * Mozilla Foundation https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/<br /> * WikiEdu.org https://wikiedu.org<br /> ===Developer Summit January 2016:===<br /> * [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cCf07DiL4bXJ29qvDFESo1Z22HeFajxwS5ihTg_cu1M/edit Agenda for the Meeting with MWStake/WMF] <br /> * [https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/steak_and_wine Etherpad of the Meeting with MWStake/WMF] <br /> ===Non-WM deployments/governance model:===<br /> * [https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T113210 T113210: How should Wikimedia software support non-Wikimedia deployments of its software?]<br /> ** [https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/NonWikimediaDeployments notes about the discussion at Developer summit] <br /> **[https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1_UaZXN3udsRq0tvpm3G4AHE_e0WisBWCoQsK3q4uahU/edit#slide=id.p slides] <br /> * [https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T123606 T123606: WIP RFC: Improving and scaling our technical decision making process]<br /> ** [https://tools.wmflabs.org/meetbot/wikimedia-office/2016/wikimedia-office.2016-01-20-22.02.log.htm #wikimedia-office hour IRC log]<br /> ** for this meeting [https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/E135 task/agenda] <br /> ===MWStakeholders' Group:===<br /> * [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/2015_MediaWiki_User_Survey User survey] <br /> * [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki_Stakeholders%27_Group/Tasks/Feature_wishlist Feature wishlist] <br /> * [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki_Stakeholders%27_Group/Annual_Report_2015 Annual report 2015] <br /> * [https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/AuhVcJ9rJi Latest Hangout etherpad] <br /> * [https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/tag/mediawiki-stakeholders-group/ Phabricator task board] <br /> ===WMF:===<br /> * [https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Policies WMF Policies] <br /> * [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2016_Strategy/Community_consultation 2016 Strategy/Community consultation] : February 15: Close of consultation!<br /> * related: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2015_Community_Wishlist_Survey/Status_report_1<br /> Quim suggests to think of requesting a grant to support the creation of the org, and then per project grants.<br /> * See https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan and https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T124019 for the possibility to make a dent in the annual plan (I think unlikely, but I could be wrong, depends on strategic push)<br /> * See https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/2016_Strategy and https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T124021 for the WMF Strategy bit<br /> ===RFCs:===<br /> * https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Extensions_continuous_integration<br /> * https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Governance<br /> Log:<br /> * http://bots.wmflabs.org/~wm-bot/logs/%23wikimedia-office/20151119.txt<br /> <br /> ==Wikimania Submission (by Mglaser): Moving out of Home? MediaWiki Governance Revisited==<br /> &lt;small&gt;<br /> As MediaWiki grows up, it's time to move out of home. This session addresses issues about the development of MediaWiki and it's identity inside and outside of the Wikimedia world. A concrete solution is proposed in form of a new MediaWiki Foundation.<br /> <br /> There are many organisations outside Wikipedia and sister projects which use MediaWiki. A lot of the publicly available instances are used to share knowledge that wouldn't be accepted on Wikipedia or sister projects. Supporting them fits perfectly into our mission.<br /> <br /> Yet, because the foundation is rightly focussed on Wikipedia, the development of MediaWiki as a released software is not in the core focus of the Foundation's software engineering. This results in the lack of governance when it comes to MediaWiki core development and features not needed by the WMF, such das an installer. Furthermore, there is little organisational support for extension developers and the (barely existant) ecosystem around MediaWiki.<br /> <br /> We propose a multistakeholder approach to resolve this situation: the MediaWiki Foundation (MWF, working title). There has been a lot of discussion and support for this idea in the past, but with the reorientation of MediaWiki towards service oriented architecture the time now seems ripe to tackle the task. <br /> <br /> In this session, I want to introduce a concrete proposal covering these key issues for the MWF:<br /> * What is the scope of the organisation? MediaWiki core development, distribution and fostering a developer friendly ecosystem.<br /> * Who are the stakeholders of the organisation? The Wikimedia Foundation, of course, but also other groups and organisations, such as NASA, Pfiser, using MediaWiki<br /> * Where does the money come from? Part of it will come from the Wikimedia Foundation as a major stakeholder. But other organisations using MediaWiki have also indicated potential financial support. Also, depending on the for of incorporation, a MediaWiki Foundation could rise it's own donations.<br /> * What is the roadmap? As the idea starts to take shape, there will be a realistic roadmap proposal by the time of the talk.<br /> * What benefits do we get from all of this? MediaWiki core development will be goverend by an independent body that covers the interests of all MediaWiki users. It becomes very easy for involved stakeholders to contribute resources and money specifically to the development of MediaWiki. Furthermore, we will get the chance to raise funds directly for MediaWiki. Wikimedia Foundation will be able to focus on developing features for the public facing sites rather than the maintaining the platform that they all build on. The responsibility gap in MediaWiki development will be closed and the resources needed for development can be provided by more than one organisation.<br /> <br /> The purpose of this talk is to popularize the idea of a MediaWiki Foundation and open the founding process to all relevant stakeholders. I hope during Wikimania, we will make significant steps towards a MediaWiki Foundation, and this talk can be seen as a kick-off. The target audience are all people with an interest in Wikimedia organisiational development, people with interest in the governance of MediaWiki software development and people who use MediaWiki as their platform base.<br /> &lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> *[[Blog_Post:37|#mwstake and the Foundation]]</div> Sabine Melnicki https://mwstake.org/mwstake/index.php?title=Event:41&diff=682 Event:41 2016-01-21T21:03:21Z <p>Sabine Melnicki: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Event<br /> |mwstake-meeting=No<br /> |title=Discussion about MW Foundation<br /> |start-date=2016/01/21<br /> |start-hour=17<br /> |end-hour=18<br /> |end-minute=30<br /> |url=https://plus.google.com/u/0/events/cebgth9id4fkodv18ofmqhgnjt0?authkey=CJfyiqnk1vKGVQ&amp;cfem=1<br /> |tags=Governance, Wikimedia Foundation,<br /> |attendees=Richard Heigl, Chris Koerner, Mark Hershberger, Markus Glaser, Matthew Flaschen, Cindy Cicalese, Alexis Hershberger, Yaron Koren, Kunal Mehta, Sabine Melnicki,<br /> }}<br /> Original title: MW Foundation kickoff<br /> <br /> Summary of notes from the [https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/i8XjsnBxxh etherpad] (see full transcript there).<br /> <br /> ==Agenda topics==<br /> * '''Structure''': Which issues need to be solved before we can start? e.g. Scope, Structure, Responsibilities, Communication/Platforms (+working groups for these issues?)<br /> ** Scope: Core code dev, distribution, ecosystem<br /> ** Structure: Stakeholders: WMF, Pfizer, NASA etc.<br /> ** Budget: WMF, Stakeholders, own donations<br /> *** Quim suggests to think of requesting a grant to support the creation of the org, and then per project grants.<br /> *** See https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan and https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T124019 for the possibility to make a dent in the annual plan (I think unlikely, but I could be wrong, depends on strategic push)<br /> *** See https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/2016_Strategy and https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T124021 for the WMF Strategy bit<br /> *** Even if this initiative is not spelled out in WMF Strategy and Annual Plan, it would still have a chance to get a grant through the regular processes, but of course being backed by the Strategy would help a lot.<br /> * '''Timeline''': Rough initial timeline (just to get an idea) – 2016 dates:<br /> **16 February: Strategy discussion close of consultation<br /> **April: Hackathon (Jerusalem), Conference (Berlin)<br /> **May: 1.27 release (LTS)<br /> **June: Wikimania (Esino Lario)<br /> **November: 1.28 release<br /> * '''Name''': Should we call this something besides the &quot;MediaWiki Foundation&quot;? Matt suggested &quot;MediaWiki Association&quot;. Other ideas?<br /> ** MW Association, MW Hub, MW Community, MW Organization, MW Corporation, MW Union, MW Consortium, MW Empowering Knowledge (Management)...<br /> ** In the early MSG discussions, the name &quot;Sunflower something&quot; was thrown around, and I liked it. A little less obvious than MW something though.<br /> *** Sunflower logo is trademarked by WMF (Serial Number 86203034). IANAL, but worth checking if we can use sunflower name.<br /> * '''Legal organization''': 501.3c or 501.6c or?<br /> ** Lego thinks we should focus on what we want MWF to do (i.e. roadmap), and then figure out legal structure after, which will best accomodate that<br /> * '''Roadmap'''<br /> ** To gain legitimacy, focus on smaller improvements we can get shipped in releases *this year*, not grand things like &quot;fix skinning system&quot;<br /> <br /> ==Discussion topics==<br /> * topics of a possible Foundation<br /> ** technical topics: Software distribution (Installer), upgrade process improvements and test integration for extensions; Visual Editor<br /> ** documentation and education of users through how-to's<br /> ** voice for 3rd party users (companies, government, private users, institutions)<br /> * proposal for WMF as basis for discussion and for external funding<br /> ** vision &amp; mission<br /> ** common goals<br /> ** benefit for WMF<br /> * funding: WMF, external sources or combination(s)<br /> * becoming a dialogue partner for the WMF<br /> * 3rd party users' involvement<br /> ** communication with 3rd party users<br /> <br /> * work on low hanging fruits and start small VS. founding a Foundation<br /> * make achievements first, not too much planning VS. having a legal structure from the start<br /> * focus on developers VS. focus on users<br /> * goal to be responsible for MW Core VS. being part of WMF<br /> <br /> ==Next steps==<br /> # Draft proposal for MW Foundation that takes into consideration of how to get what we want. Vision, mission, how to get there. Answer questions in Markus' proposal. What's in for everyone involved. (Mark, Markus, all)<br /> # Involvement in strategy discussions with WMF (all of us)<br /> # Governance discussion (all of us) https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T123606<br /> # Get in contact with Frank Schulenberg from WikiEdu.org (Markus)<br /> # Research for light-weight institution structures &gt; present on next mwstake meeting (Alexis)<br /> # Reach out to users, open communication: ideas, newsletter etc. (Chris, Sabine)<br /> # Put names behind actions and check back later ([[Event:27|next meeting]])<br /> <br /> ==Background reading==<br /> ===Open source foundation examples:===<br /> * WMF https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home<br /> * Magento Commerce (Community/Enterprise edition) https://magento.com<br /> * Linux Foundation http://www.linuxfoundation.org/about<br /> * Alfresco (document management) https://www.alfresco.com/de<br /> * Wordpress Foundation http://wordpressfoundation.org (roadmap &amp; philosophy https://wordpress.org/about/roadmap/), Matt Mullenweg/Automattic<br /> * Mozilla Foundation https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/<br /> * WikiEdu.org https://wikiedu.org<br /> ===Developer Summit January 2016:===<br /> * [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cCf07DiL4bXJ29qvDFESo1Z22HeFajxwS5ihTg_cu1M/edit Agenda for the Meeting with MWStake/WMF] <br /> * [https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/steak_and_wine Etherpad of the Meeting with MWStake/WMF] <br /> ===Non-WM deployments/governance model:===<br /> * [https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T113210 T113210: How should Wikimedia software support non-Wikimedia deployments of its software?]<br /> ** [https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/NonWikimediaDeployments notes about the discussion at Developer summit] <br /> **[https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1_UaZXN3udsRq0tvpm3G4AHE_e0WisBWCoQsK3q4uahU/edit#slide=id.p slides] <br /> * [https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T123606 T123606: WIP RFC: Improving and scaling our technical decision making process]<br /> ** [https://tools.wmflabs.org/meetbot/wikimedia-office/2016/wikimedia-office.2016-01-20-22.02.log.htm #wikimedia-office hour IRC log]<br /> ** for this meeting [https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/E135 task/agenda] <br /> ===MWStakeholders' Group:===<br /> * [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/2015_MediaWiki_User_Survey User survey] <br /> * [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki_Stakeholders%27_Group/Tasks/Feature_wishlist Feature wishlist] <br /> * [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki_Stakeholders%27_Group/Annual_Report_2015 Annual report 2015] <br /> * [https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/AuhVcJ9rJi Latest Hangout etherpad] <br /> * [https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/tag/mediawiki-stakeholders-group/ Phabricator task board] <br /> ===WMF:===<br /> * [https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Policies WMF Policies] <br /> * [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2016_Strategy/Community_consultation 2016 Strategy/Community consultation] : February 15: Close of consultation!<br /> * related: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2015_Community_Wishlist_Survey/Status_report_1<br /> Quim suggests to think of requesting a grant to support the creation of the org, and then per project grants.<br /> * See https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan and https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T124019 for the possibility to make a dent in the annual plan (I think unlikely, but I could be wrong, depends on strategic push)<br /> * See https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/2016_Strategy and https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T124021 for the WMF Strategy bit<br /> ===RFCs:===<br /> * https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Extensions_continuous_integration<br /> * https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Governance<br /> Log:<br /> * http://bots.wmflabs.org/~wm-bot/logs/%23wikimedia-office/20151119.txt<br /> <br /> ==Wikimania Submission (by Mglaser): Moving out of Home? MediaWiki Governance Revisited==<br /> &lt;small&gt;<br /> As MediaWiki grows up, it's time to move out of home. This session addresses issues about the development of MediaWiki and it's identity inside and outside of the Wikimedia world. A concrete solution is proposed in form of a new MediaWiki Foundation.<br /> <br /> There are many organisations outside Wikipedia and sister projects which use MediaWiki. A lot of the publicly available instances are used to share knowledge that wouldn't be accepted on Wikipedia or sister projects. Supporting them fits perfectly into our mission.<br /> <br /> Yet, because the foundation is rightly focussed on Wikipedia, the development of MediaWiki as a released software is not in the core focus of the Foundation's software engineering. This results in the lack of governance when it comes to MediaWiki core development and features not needed by the WMF, such das an installer. Furthermore, there is little organisational support for extension developers and the (barely existant) ecosystem around MediaWiki.<br /> <br /> We propose a multistakeholder approach to resolve this situation: the MediaWiki Foundation (MWF, working title). There has been a lot of discussion and support for this idea in the past, but with the reorientation of MediaWiki towards service oriented architecture the time now seems ripe to tackle the task. <br /> <br /> In this session, I want to introduce a concrete proposal covering these key issues for the MWF:<br /> * What is the scope of the organisation? MediaWiki core development, distribution and fostering a developer friendly ecosystem.<br /> * Who are the stakeholders of the organisation? The Wikimedia Foundation, of course, but also other groups and organisations, such as NASA, Pfiser, using MediaWiki<br /> * Where does the money come from? Part of it will come from the Wikimedia Foundation as a major stakeholder. But other organisations using MediaWiki have also indicated potential financial support. Also, depending on the for of incorporation, a MediaWiki Foundation could rise it's own donations.<br /> * What is the roadmap? As the idea starts to take shape, there will be a realistic roadmap proposal by the time of the talk.<br /> * What benefits do we get from all of this? MediaWiki core development will be goverend by an independent body that covers the interests of all MediaWiki users. It becomes very easy for involved stakeholders to contribute resources and money specifically to the development of MediaWiki. Furthermore, we will get the chance to raise funds directly for MediaWiki. Wikimedia Foundation will be able to focus on developing features for the public facing sites rather than the maintaining the platform that they all build on. The responsibility gap in MediaWiki development will be closed and the resources needed for development can be provided by more than one organisation.<br /> <br /> The purpose of this talk is to popularize the idea of a MediaWiki Foundation and open the founding process to all relevant stakeholders. I hope during Wikimania, we will make significant steps towards a MediaWiki Foundation, and this talk can be seen as a kick-off. The target audience are all people with an interest in Wikimedia organisiational development, people with interest in the governance of MediaWiki software development and people who use MediaWiki as their platform base.<br /> &lt;/small&gt;</div> Sabine Melnicki https://mwstake.org/mwstake/index.php?title=Event:27&diff=681 Event:27 2016-01-21T20:49:41Z <p>Sabine Melnicki: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Event<br /> |mwstake-meeting=Yes<br /> |start-date=2016/02/05<br /> |start-hour=15<br /> |end-hour=16<br /> }}<br /> ==Agenda==<br /> Development of next steps from [[/Event:41|earlier meeting]].<br /> # Draft proposal for MW Foundation that takes into consideration of how to get what we want. Vision, mission, how to get there. Answer questions in Markus' proposal. What's in for everyone involved. (Mark, Markus, all)<br /> # Involve in strategy discussions with WMF (all of us)<br /> # Involve in [https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T123606 governance discussion (T123606)] (all of us) <br /> # Get in contact with Frank Schulenberg from WikiEdu.org (Markus)<br /> # Research for light-weight institution structures &gt; present on next mwstake meeting (Alexis)<br /> # Reach out to users, open communication: ideas, newsletter etc. (Chris, Sabine)<br /> # Put names behind actions and check back later</div> Sabine Melnicki https://mwstake.org/mwstake/index.php?title=Event:41&diff=680 Event:41 2016-01-21T20:48:58Z <p>Sabine Melnicki: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Event<br /> |mwstake-meeting=No<br /> |title=Discussion about MW Foundation<br /> |start-date=2016/01/21<br /> |start-hour=17<br /> |end-hour=18<br /> |end-minute=30<br /> |url=https://plus.google.com/u/0/events/cebgth9id4fkodv18ofmqhgnjt0?authkey=CJfyiqnk1vKGVQ&amp;cfem=1<br /> |tags=Governance, Wikimedia Foundation,<br /> |attendees=Richard Heigl, Chris Koerner, Mark Hershberger, Markus Glaser, Matthew Flaschen, Cindy Cicalese, Alexis Hershberger, Yaron Koren, Kunal Mehta,<br /> }}<br /> Original title: MW Foundation kickoff<br /> <br /> Summary of notes from the [https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/i8XjsnBxxh etherpad] (see full transcript there).<br /> <br /> ==Agenda topics==<br /> * '''Structure''': Which issues need to be solved before we can start? e.g. Scope, Structure, Responsibilities, Communication/Platforms (+working groups for these issues?)<br /> ** Scope: Core code dev, distribution, ecosystem<br /> ** Structure: Stakeholders: WMF, Pfizer, NASA etc.<br /> ** Budget: WMF, Stakeholders, own donations<br /> *** Quim suggests to think of requesting a grant to support the creation of the org, and then per project grants.<br /> *** See https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan and https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T124019 for the possibility to make a dent in the annual plan (I think unlikely, but I could be wrong, depends on strategic push)<br /> *** See https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/2016_Strategy and https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T124021 for the WMF Strategy bit<br /> *** Even if this initiative is not spelled out in WMF Strategy and Annual Plan, it would still have a chance to get a grant through the regular processes, but of course being backed by the Strategy would help a lot.<br /> * '''Timeline''': Rough initial timeline (just to get an idea) – 2016 dates:<br /> **16 February: Strategy discussion close of consultation<br /> **April: Hackathon (Jerusalem), Conference (Berlin)<br /> **May: 1.27 release (LTS)<br /> **June: Wikimania (Esino Lario)<br /> **November: 1.28 release<br /> * '''Name''': Should we call this something besides the &quot;MediaWiki Foundation&quot;? Matt suggested &quot;MediaWiki Association&quot;. Other ideas?<br /> ** MW Association, MW Hub, MW Community, MW Organization, MW Corporation, MW Union, MW Consortium, MW Empowering Knowledge (Management)...<br /> ** In the early MSG discussions, the name &quot;Sunflower something&quot; was thrown around, and I liked it. A little less obvious than MW something though.<br /> *** Sunflower logo is trademarked by WMF (Serial Number 86203034). IANAL, but worth checking if we can use sunflower name.<br /> * '''Legal organization''': 501.3c or 501.6c or?<br /> ** Lego thinks we should focus on what we want MWF to do (i.e. roadmap), and then figure out legal structure after, which will best accomodate that<br /> * '''Roadmap'''<br /> ** To gain legitimacy, focus on smaller improvements we can get shipped in releases *this year*, not grand things like &quot;fix skinning system&quot;<br /> <br /> ==Discussion topics==<br /> * topics of a possible Foundation<br /> ** technical topics: Software distribution (Installer), upgrade process improvements and test integration for extensions; Visual Editor<br /> ** documentation and education of users through how-to's<br /> ** voice for 3rd party users (companies, government, private users, institutions)<br /> * proposal for WMF as basis for discussion and for external funding<br /> ** vision &amp; mission<br /> ** common goals<br /> ** benefit for WMF<br /> * funding: WMF, external sources or combination(s)<br /> * becoming a dialogue partner for the WMF<br /> * 3rd party users' involvement<br /> ** communication with 3rd party users<br /> <br /> * work on low hanging fruits and start small VS. founding a Foundation<br /> * make achievements first, not too much planning VS. having a legal structure from the start<br /> * focus on developers VS. focus on users<br /> * goal to be responsible for MW Core VS. being part of WMF<br /> <br /> ==Next steps==<br /> # Draft proposal for MW Foundation that takes into consideration of how to get what we want. Vision, mission, how to get there. Answer questions in Markus' proposal. What's in for everyone involved. (Mark, Markus, all)<br /> # Involvement in strategy discussions with WMF (all of us)<br /> # Governance discussion (all of us) https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T123606<br /> # Get in contact with Frank Schulenberg from WikiEdu.org (Markus)<br /> # Research for light-weight institution structures &gt; present on next mwstake meeting (Alexis)<br /> # Reach out to users, open communication: ideas, newsletter etc. (Chris, Sabine)<br /> # Put names behind actions and check back later ([[Event:27|next meeting]])<br /> <br /> ==Background reading==<br /> ===Open source foundation examples:===<br /> * WMF https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home<br /> * Magento Commerce (Community/Enterprise edition) https://magento.com<br /> * Linux Foundation http://www.linuxfoundation.org/about<br /> * Alfresco (document management) https://www.alfresco.com/de<br /> * Wordpress Foundation http://wordpressfoundation.org (roadmap &amp; philosophy https://wordpress.org/about/roadmap/), Matt Mullenweg/Automattic<br /> * Mozilla Foundation https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/<br /> * WikiEdu.org https://wikiedu.org<br /> ===Developer Summit January 2016:===<br /> * [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cCf07DiL4bXJ29qvDFESo1Z22HeFajxwS5ihTg_cu1M/edit Agenda for the Meeting with MWStake/WMF] <br /> * [https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/steak_and_wine Etherpad of the Meeting with MWStake/WMF] <br /> ===Non-WM deployments/governance model:===<br /> * [https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T113210 T113210: How should Wikimedia software support non-Wikimedia deployments of its software?]<br /> ** [https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/NonWikimediaDeployments notes about the discussion at Developer summit] <br /> **[https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1_UaZXN3udsRq0tvpm3G4AHE_e0WisBWCoQsK3q4uahU/edit#slide=id.p slides] <br /> * [https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T123606 T123606: WIP RFC: Improving and scaling our technical decision making process]<br /> ** [https://tools.wmflabs.org/meetbot/wikimedia-office/2016/wikimedia-office.2016-01-20-22.02.log.htm #wikimedia-office hour IRC log]<br /> ** for this meeting [https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/E135 task/agenda] <br /> ===MWStakeholders' Group:===<br /> * [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/2015_MediaWiki_User_Survey User survey] <br /> * [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki_Stakeholders%27_Group/Tasks/Feature_wishlist Feature wishlist] <br /> * [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki_Stakeholders%27_Group/Annual_Report_2015 Annual report 2015] <br /> * [https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/AuhVcJ9rJi Latest Hangout etherpad] <br /> * [https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/tag/mediawiki-stakeholders-group/ Phabricator task board] <br /> ===WMF:===<br /> * [https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Policies WMF Policies] <br /> * [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2016_Strategy/Community_consultation 2016 Strategy/Community consultation] : February 15: Close of consultation!<br /> * related: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2015_Community_Wishlist_Survey/Status_report_1<br /> Quim suggests to think of requesting a grant to support the creation of the org, and then per project grants.<br /> * See https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan and https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T124019 for the possibility to make a dent in the annual plan (I think unlikely, but I could be wrong, depends on strategic push)<br /> * See https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/2016_Strategy and https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T124021 for the WMF Strategy bit<br /> ===RFCs:===<br /> * https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Extensions_continuous_integration<br /> * https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Governance<br /> Log:<br /> * http://bots.wmflabs.org/~wm-bot/logs/%23wikimedia-office/20151119.txt<br /> <br /> ==Wikimania Submission (by Mglaser): Moving out of Home? MediaWiki Governance Revisited==<br /> &lt;small&gt;<br /> As MediaWiki grows up, it's time to move out of home. This session addresses issues about the development of MediaWiki and it's identity inside and outside of the Wikimedia world. A concrete solution is proposed in form of a new MediaWiki Foundation.<br /> <br /> There are many organisations outside Wikipedia and sister projects which use MediaWiki. A lot of the publicly available instances are used to share knowledge that wouldn't be accepted on Wikipedia or sister projects. Supporting them fits perfectly into our mission.<br /> <br /> Yet, because the foundation is rightly focussed on Wikipedia, the development of MediaWiki as a released software is not in the core focus of the Foundation's software engineering. This results in the lack of governance when it comes to MediaWiki core development and features not needed by the WMF, such das an installer. Furthermore, there is little organisational support for extension developers and the (barely existant) ecosystem around MediaWiki.<br /> <br /> We propose a multistakeholder approach to resolve this situation: the MediaWiki Foundation (MWF, working title). There has been a lot of discussion and support for this idea in the past, but with the reorientation of MediaWiki towards service oriented architecture the time now seems ripe to tackle the task. <br /> <br /> In this session, I want to introduce a concrete proposal covering these key issues for the MWF:<br /> * What is the scope of the organisation? MediaWiki core development, distribution and fostering a developer friendly ecosystem.<br /> * Who are the stakeholders of the organisation? The Wikimedia Foundation, of course, but also other groups and organisations, such as NASA, Pfiser, using MediaWiki<br /> * Where does the money come from? Part of it will come from the Wikimedia Foundation as a major stakeholder. But other organisations using MediaWiki have also indicated potential financial support. Also, depending on the for of incorporation, a MediaWiki Foundation could rise it's own donations.<br /> * What is the roadmap? As the idea starts to take shape, there will be a realistic roadmap proposal by the time of the talk.<br /> * What benefits do we get from all of this? MediaWiki core development will be goverend by an independent body that covers the interests of all MediaWiki users. It becomes very easy for involved stakeholders to contribute resources and money specifically to the development of MediaWiki. Furthermore, we will get the chance to raise funds directly for MediaWiki. Wikimedia Foundation will be able to focus on developing features for the public facing sites rather than the maintaining the platform that they all build on. The responsibility gap in MediaWiki development will be closed and the resources needed for development can be provided by more than one organisation.<br /> <br /> The purpose of this talk is to popularize the idea of a MediaWiki Foundation and open the founding process to all relevant stakeholders. I hope during Wikimania, we will make significant steps towards a MediaWiki Foundation, and this talk can be seen as a kick-off. The target audience are all people with an interest in Wikimedia organisiational development, people with interest in the governance of MediaWiki software development and people who use MediaWiki as their platform base.<br /> &lt;/small&gt;</div> Sabine Melnicki https://mwstake.org/mwstake/index.php?title=Event:41&diff=679 Event:41 2016-01-21T20:45:13Z <p>Sabine Melnicki: /* Next steps */</p> <hr /> <div>{{Event<br /> |mwstake-meeting=No<br /> |title=Discussion about MW Foundation<br /> |start-date=2016/01/21<br /> |start-hour=17<br /> |end-hour=18<br /> |end-minute=30<br /> |url=https://plus.google.com/u/0/events/cebgth9id4fkodv18ofmqhgnjt0?authkey=CJfyiqnk1vKGVQ&amp;cfem=1<br /> |tags=Governance, Wikimedia Foundation,<br /> |attendees=Richard Heigl, Chris Koerner, Mark Hershberger, Markus Glaser, Matthew Flaschen, Cindy Cicalese, Alexis Hershberger, Yaron Koren, Kunal Mehta,<br /> }}<br /> Original title: MW Foundation kickoff<br /> <br /> Summary of notes from the [https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/i8XjsnBxxh etherpad] (see full transcript there).<br /> <br /> ==Agenda topics==<br /> * '''Structure''': Which issues need to be solved before we can start? e.g. Scope, Structure, Responsibilities, Communication/Platforms (+working groups for these issues?)<br /> ** Scope: Core code dev, distribution, ecosystem<br /> ** Structure: Stakeholders: WMF, Pfizer, NASA etc.<br /> ** Budget: WMF, Stakeholders, own donations<br /> *** Quim suggests to think of requesting a grant to support the creation of the org, and then per project grants.<br /> *** See https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan and https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T124019 for the possibility to make a dent in the annual plan (I think unlikely, but I could be wrong, depends on strategic push)<br /> *** See https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/2016_Strategy and https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T124021 for the WMF Strategy bit<br /> *** Even if this initiative is not spelled out in WMF Strategy and Annual Plan, it would still have a chance to get a grant through the regular processes, but of course being backed by the Strategy would help a lot.<br /> * '''Timeline''': Rough initial timeline (just to get an idea) – 2016 dates:<br /> **16 February: Strategy discussion close of consultation<br /> **April: Hackathon (Jerusalem), Conference (Berlin)<br /> **May: 1.27 release (LTS)<br /> **June: Wikimania (Esino Lario)<br /> **November: 1.28 release<br /> * '''Name''': Should we call this something besides the &quot;MediaWiki Foundation&quot;? Matt suggested &quot;MediaWiki Association&quot;. Other ideas?<br /> ** MW Association, MW Hub, MW Community, MW Organization, MW Corporation, MW Union, MW Consortium, MW Empowering Knowledge (Management)...<br /> ** In the early MSG discussions, the name &quot;Sunflower something&quot; was thrown around, and I liked it. A little less obvious than MW something though.<br /> *** Sunflower logo is trademarked by WMF (Serial Number 86203034). IANAL, but worth checking if we can use sunflower name.<br /> * '''Legal organization''': 501.3c or 501.6c or?<br /> ** Lego thinks we should focus on what we want MWF to do (i.e. roadmap), and then figure out legal structure after, which will best accomodate that<br /> * '''Roadmap'''<br /> ** To gain legitimacy, focus on smaller improvements we can get shipped in releases *this year*, not grand things like &quot;fix skinning system&quot;<br /> <br /> ==Discussion topics==<br /> * topics of a possible Foundation<br /> ** technical topics: Software distribution (Installer), upgrade process improvements and test integration for extensions; Visual Editor<br /> ** documentation and education of users through how-to's<br /> ** voice for 3rd party users (companies, government, private users, institutions)<br /> * proposal for WMF as basis for discussion and for external funding<br /> ** vision &amp; mission<br /> ** common goals<br /> ** benefit for WMF<br /> * funding: WMF, external sources or combination(s)<br /> * becoming a dialogue partner for the WMF<br /> * 3rd party users' involvement<br /> ** communication with 3rd party users<br /> <br /> * work on low hanging fruits and start small VS. founding a Foundation<br /> * make achievements first, not too much planning VS. having a legal structure from the start<br /> * focus on developers VS. focus on users<br /> * goal to be responsible for MW Core VS. being part of WMF<br /> <br /> ==Next steps==<br /> # Draft proposal for MW Foundation that takes into consideration of how to get what we want. Vision, mission, how to get there. Answer questions in Markus' proposal. What's in for everyone involved. (Mark, Markus, all)<br /> # Involvement in strategy discussions with WMF (all of us)<br /> # Governance discussion (all of us) https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T123606<br /> # Get in contact with Frank Schulenberg from WikiEdu.org (Markus)<br /> # Research for light-weight institution structures &gt; present on next mwstake meeting (Alexis)<br /> # Reach out to users, open communication: ideas, newsletter etc. (Chris, Sabine)<br /> # Put names behind actions and check back later ([[Event:27|next meeting]])<br /> <br /> ==Background reading==<br /> ===Open source foundation examples:===<br /> * WMF https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home<br /> * Magento Commerce (Community/Enterprise edition) https://magento.com<br /> * Linux Foundation http://www.linuxfoundation.org/about<br /> * Alfresco (document management) https://www.alfresco.com/de<br /> * Wordpress Foundation http://wordpressfoundation.org (roadmap &amp; philosophy https://wordpress.org/about/roadmap/), Matt Mullenweg/Automattic<br /> * Mozilla Foundation https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/<br /> * WikiEdu.org https://wikiedu.org<br /> ===Developer Summit January 2016:===<br /> * [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cCf07DiL4bXJ29qvDFESo1Z22HeFajxwS5ihTg_cu1M/edit Agenda for the Meeting with MWStake/WMF] <br /> * [https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/steak_and_wine Etherpad of the Meeting with MWStake/WMF] <br /> ===Non-WM deployments/governance model:===<br /> * [https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T113210 T113210: How should Wikimedia software support non-Wikimedia deployments of its software?]<br /> ** [https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/NonWikimediaDeployments notes about the discussion at Developer summit] <br /> **[https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1_UaZXN3udsRq0tvpm3G4AHE_e0WisBWCoQsK3q4uahU/edit#slide=id.p slides] <br /> * [https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T123606 T123606: WIP RFC: Improving and scaling our technical decision making process]<br /> ** [https://tools.wmflabs.org/meetbot/wikimedia-office/2016/wikimedia-office.2016-01-20-22.02.log.htm #wikimedia-office hour IRC log]<br /> ** for this meeting [https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/E135 task/agenda] <br /> ===MWStakeholders' Group:===<br /> * [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/2015_MediaWiki_User_Survey User survey] <br /> * [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki_Stakeholders%27_Group/Tasks/Feature_wishlist Feature wishlist] <br /> * [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki_Stakeholders%27_Group/Annual_Report_2015 Annual report 2015] <br /> * [https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/AuhVcJ9rJi Latest Hangout etherpad] <br /> * [https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/tag/mediawiki-stakeholders-group/ Phabricator task board] <br /> ===WMF:===<br /> * [https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Policies WMF Policies] <br /> * [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2016_Strategy/Community_consultation 2016 Strategy/Community consultation] : February 15: Close of consultation!<br /> * related: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2015_Community_Wishlist_Survey/Status_report_1<br /> ===RFCs:===<br /> * https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Extensions_continuous_integration<br /> * https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Governance<br /> Log:<br /> * http://bots.wmflabs.org/~wm-bot/logs/%23wikimedia-office/20151119.txt<br /> <br /> ==Wikimania Submission (by Mglaser): Moving out of Home? MediaWiki Governance Revisited==<br /> &lt;small&gt;<br /> As MediaWiki grows up, it's time to move out of home. This session addresses issues about the development of MediaWiki and it's identity inside and outside of the Wikimedia world. A concrete solution is proposed in form of a new MediaWiki Foundation.<br /> <br /> There are many organisations outside Wikipedia and sister projects which use MediaWiki. A lot of the publicly available instances are used to share knowledge that wouldn't be accepted on Wikipedia or sister projects. Supporting them fits perfectly into our mission.<br /> <br /> Yet, because the foundation is rightly focussed on Wikipedia, the development of MediaWiki as a released software is not in the core focus of the Foundation's software engineering. This results in the lack of governance when it comes to MediaWiki core development and features not needed by the WMF, such das an installer. Furthermore, there is little organisational support for extension developers and the (barely existant) ecosystem around MediaWiki.<br /> <br /> We propose a multistakeholder approach to resolve this situation: the MediaWiki Foundation (MWF, working title). There has been a lot of discussion and support for this idea in the past, but with the reorientation of MediaWiki towards service oriented architecture the time now seems ripe to tackle the task. <br /> <br /> In this session, I want to introduce a concrete proposal covering these key issues for the MWF:<br /> * What is the scope of the organisation? MediaWiki core development, distribution and fostering a developer friendly ecosystem.<br /> * Who are the stakeholders of the organisation? The Wikimedia Foundation, of course, but also other groups and organisations, such as NASA, Pfiser, using MediaWiki<br /> * Where does the money come from? Part of it will come from the Wikimedia Foundation as a major stakeholder. But other organisations using MediaWiki have also indicated potential financial support. Also, depending on the for of incorporation, a MediaWiki Foundation could rise it's own donations.<br /> * What is the roadmap? As the idea starts to take shape, there will be a realistic roadmap proposal by the time of the talk.<br /> * What benefits do we get from all of this? MediaWiki core development will be goverend by an independent body that covers the interests of all MediaWiki users. It becomes very easy for involved stakeholders to contribute resources and money specifically to the development of MediaWiki. Furthermore, we will get the chance to raise funds directly for MediaWiki. Wikimedia Foundation will be able to focus on developing features for the public facing sites rather than the maintaining the platform that they all build on. The responsibility gap in MediaWiki development will be closed and the resources needed for development can be provided by more than one organisation.<br /> <br /> The purpose of this talk is to popularize the idea of a MediaWiki Foundation and open the founding process to all relevant stakeholders. I hope during Wikimania, we will make significant steps towards a MediaWiki Foundation, and this talk can be seen as a kick-off. The target audience are all people with an interest in Wikimedia organisiational development, people with interest in the governance of MediaWiki software development and people who use MediaWiki as their platform base.<br /> &lt;/small&gt;</div> Sabine Melnicki https://mwstake.org/mwstake/index.php?title=Event:41&diff=678 Event:41 2016-01-21T20:42:38Z <p>Sabine Melnicki: Created page with &quot;{{Event |mwstake-meeting=No |title=Discussion about MW Foundation |start-date=2016/01/21 |start-hour=17 |end-hour=18 |end-minute=30 |url=https://plus.google.com/u/0/events/ceb...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>{{Event<br /> |mwstake-meeting=No<br /> |title=Discussion about MW Foundation<br /> |start-date=2016/01/21<br /> |start-hour=17<br /> |end-hour=18<br /> |end-minute=30<br /> |url=https://plus.google.com/u/0/events/cebgth9id4fkodv18ofmqhgnjt0?authkey=CJfyiqnk1vKGVQ&amp;cfem=1<br /> |tags=Governance, Wikimedia Foundation,<br /> |attendees=Richard Heigl, Chris Koerner, Mark Hershberger, Markus Glaser, Matthew Flaschen, Cindy Cicalese, Alexis Hershberger, Yaron Koren, Kunal Mehta,<br /> }}<br /> Original title: MW Foundation kickoff<br /> <br /> Summary of notes from the [https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/i8XjsnBxxh etherpad] (see full transcript there).<br /> <br /> ==Agenda topics==<br /> * '''Structure''': Which issues need to be solved before we can start? e.g. Scope, Structure, Responsibilities, Communication/Platforms (+working groups for these issues?)<br /> ** Scope: Core code dev, distribution, ecosystem<br /> ** Structure: Stakeholders: WMF, Pfizer, NASA etc.<br /> ** Budget: WMF, Stakeholders, own donations<br /> *** Quim suggests to think of requesting a grant to support the creation of the org, and then per project grants.<br /> *** See https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan and https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T124019 for the possibility to make a dent in the annual plan (I think unlikely, but I could be wrong, depends on strategic push)<br /> *** See https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/2016_Strategy and https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T124021 for the WMF Strategy bit<br /> *** Even if this initiative is not spelled out in WMF Strategy and Annual Plan, it would still have a chance to get a grant through the regular processes, but of course being backed by the Strategy would help a lot.<br /> * '''Timeline''': Rough initial timeline (just to get an idea) – 2016 dates:<br /> **16 February: Strategy discussion close of consultation<br /> **April: Hackathon (Jerusalem), Conference (Berlin)<br /> **May: 1.27 release (LTS)<br /> **June: Wikimania (Esino Lario)<br /> **November: 1.28 release<br /> * '''Name''': Should we call this something besides the &quot;MediaWiki Foundation&quot;? Matt suggested &quot;MediaWiki Association&quot;. Other ideas?<br /> ** MW Association, MW Hub, MW Community, MW Organization, MW Corporation, MW Union, MW Consortium, MW Empowering Knowledge (Management)...<br /> ** In the early MSG discussions, the name &quot;Sunflower something&quot; was thrown around, and I liked it. A little less obvious than MW something though.<br /> *** Sunflower logo is trademarked by WMF (Serial Number 86203034). IANAL, but worth checking if we can use sunflower name.<br /> * '''Legal organization''': 501.3c or 501.6c or?<br /> ** Lego thinks we should focus on what we want MWF to do (i.e. roadmap), and then figure out legal structure after, which will best accomodate that<br /> * '''Roadmap'''<br /> ** To gain legitimacy, focus on smaller improvements we can get shipped in releases *this year*, not grand things like &quot;fix skinning system&quot;<br /> <br /> ==Discussion topics==<br /> * topics of a possible Foundation<br /> ** technical topics: Software distribution (Installer), upgrade process improvements and test integration for extensions; Visual Editor<br /> ** documentation and education of users through how-to's<br /> ** voice for 3rd party users (companies, government, private users, institutions)<br /> * proposal for WMF as basis for discussion and for external funding<br /> ** vision &amp; mission<br /> ** common goals<br /> ** benefit for WMF<br /> * funding: WMF, external sources or combination(s)<br /> * becoming a dialogue partner for the WMF<br /> * 3rd party users' involvement<br /> ** communication with 3rd party users<br /> <br /> * work on low hanging fruits and start small VS. founding a Foundation<br /> * make achievements first, not too much planning VS. having a legal structure from the start<br /> * focus on developers VS. focus on users<br /> * goal to be responsible for MW Core VS. being part of WMF<br /> <br /> ==Next steps==<br /> # Draft proposal for MW Foundation that takes into consideration of how to get what we want. Vision, mission, how to get there. Answer questions in Markus' proposal. What's in for everyone involved. (Mark, Markus, all)<br /> # Involvement in strategy discussions with WMF (all of us)<br /> # Governance discussion (all of us) https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T123606<br /> # Get in contact with Frank Schulenberg from WikiEdu.org (Markus)<br /> # Research for light-weight institution structures &gt; present on next mwstake meeting (Alexis)<br /> # Reach out to users, open communication: newsletter etc. (Chris, Sabine)<br /> # Put names behind actions and check back later ([[Event:27|next meeting]])<br /> <br /> ==Background reading==<br /> ===Open source foundation examples:===<br /> * WMF https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home<br /> * Magento Commerce (Community/Enterprise edition) https://magento.com<br /> * Linux Foundation http://www.linuxfoundation.org/about<br /> * Alfresco (document management) https://www.alfresco.com/de<br /> * Wordpress Foundation http://wordpressfoundation.org (roadmap &amp; philosophy https://wordpress.org/about/roadmap/), Matt Mullenweg/Automattic<br /> * Mozilla Foundation https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/<br /> * WikiEdu.org https://wikiedu.org<br /> ===Developer Summit January 2016:===<br /> * [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cCf07DiL4bXJ29qvDFESo1Z22HeFajxwS5ihTg_cu1M/edit Agenda for the Meeting with MWStake/WMF] <br /> * [https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/steak_and_wine Etherpad of the Meeting with MWStake/WMF] <br /> ===Non-WM deployments/governance model:===<br /> * [https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T113210 T113210: How should Wikimedia software support non-Wikimedia deployments of its software?]<br /> ** [https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/NonWikimediaDeployments notes about the discussion at Developer summit] <br /> **[https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1_UaZXN3udsRq0tvpm3G4AHE_e0WisBWCoQsK3q4uahU/edit#slide=id.p slides] <br /> * [https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T123606 T123606: WIP RFC: Improving and scaling our technical decision making process]<br /> ** [https://tools.wmflabs.org/meetbot/wikimedia-office/2016/wikimedia-office.2016-01-20-22.02.log.htm #wikimedia-office hour IRC log]<br /> ** for this meeting [https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/E135 task/agenda] <br /> ===MWStakeholders' Group:===<br /> * [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/2015_MediaWiki_User_Survey User survey] <br /> * [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki_Stakeholders%27_Group/Tasks/Feature_wishlist Feature wishlist] <br /> * [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki_Stakeholders%27_Group/Annual_Report_2015 Annual report 2015] <br /> * [https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/AuhVcJ9rJi Latest Hangout etherpad] <br /> * [https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/tag/mediawiki-stakeholders-group/ Phabricator task board] <br /> ===WMF:===<br /> * [https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Policies WMF Policies] <br /> * [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2016_Strategy/Community_consultation 2016 Strategy/Community consultation] : February 15: Close of consultation!<br /> * related: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2015_Community_Wishlist_Survey/Status_report_1<br /> ===RFCs:===<br /> * https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Extensions_continuous_integration<br /> * https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Governance<br /> Log:<br /> * http://bots.wmflabs.org/~wm-bot/logs/%23wikimedia-office/20151119.txt<br /> <br /> ==Wikimania Submission (by Mglaser): Moving out of Home? MediaWiki Governance Revisited==<br /> &lt;small&gt;<br /> As MediaWiki grows up, it's time to move out of home. This session addresses issues about the development of MediaWiki and it's identity inside and outside of the Wikimedia world. A concrete solution is proposed in form of a new MediaWiki Foundation.<br /> <br /> There are many organisations outside Wikipedia and sister projects which use MediaWiki. A lot of the publicly available instances are used to share knowledge that wouldn't be accepted on Wikipedia or sister projects. Supporting them fits perfectly into our mission.<br /> <br /> Yet, because the foundation is rightly focussed on Wikipedia, the development of MediaWiki as a released software is not in the core focus of the Foundation's software engineering. This results in the lack of governance when it comes to MediaWiki core development and features not needed by the WMF, such das an installer. Furthermore, there is little organisational support for extension developers and the (barely existant) ecosystem around MediaWiki.<br /> <br /> We propose a multistakeholder approach to resolve this situation: the MediaWiki Foundation (MWF, working title). There has been a lot of discussion and support for this idea in the past, but with the reorientation of MediaWiki towards service oriented architecture the time now seems ripe to tackle the task. <br /> <br /> In this session, I want to introduce a concrete proposal covering these key issues for the MWF:<br /> * What is the scope of the organisation? MediaWiki core development, distribution and fostering a developer friendly ecosystem.<br /> * Who are the stakeholders of the organisation? The Wikimedia Foundation, of course, but also other groups and organisations, such as NASA, Pfiser, using MediaWiki<br /> * Where does the money come from? Part of it will come from the Wikimedia Foundation as a major stakeholder. But other organisations using MediaWiki have also indicated potential financial support. Also, depending on the for of incorporation, a MediaWiki Foundation could rise it's own donations.<br /> * What is the roadmap? As the idea starts to take shape, there will be a realistic roadmap proposal by the time of the talk.<br /> * What benefits do we get from all of this? MediaWiki core development will be goverend by an independent body that covers the interests of all MediaWiki users. It becomes very easy for involved stakeholders to contribute resources and money specifically to the development of MediaWiki. Furthermore, we will get the chance to raise funds directly for MediaWiki. Wikimedia Foundation will be able to focus on developing features for the public facing sites rather than the maintaining the platform that they all build on. The responsibility gap in MediaWiki development will be closed and the resources needed for development can be provided by more than one organisation.<br /> <br /> The purpose of this talk is to popularize the idea of a MediaWiki Foundation and open the founding process to all relevant stakeholders. I hope during Wikimania, we will make significant steps towards a MediaWiki Foundation, and this talk can be seen as a kick-off. The target audience are all people with an interest in Wikimedia organisiational development, people with interest in the governance of MediaWiki software development and people who use MediaWiki as their platform base.<br /> &lt;/small&gt;</div> Sabine Melnicki https://mwstake.org/mwstake/index.php?title=Event:25&diff=677 Event:25 2016-01-17T22:08:49Z <p>Sabine Melnicki: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Event<br /> |mwstake-meeting=Yes<br /> |start-date=2015/12/11<br /> |start-hour=14<br /> |end-hour=15<br /> |url=https://plus.google.com/events/cfgusmekvmc13spplpi14qv1cso<br /> |attendees=Richard Heigl, Cindy Cicalese, Mark Hershberger, Markus Glaser, Lex Sulzer, Natasha Brown, Sabine Melnicki,<br /> }}<br /> ==Proposed agenda==<br /> * Developer summit 2016 (Mark, Markus, Cindy, Chris)<br /> * [http://bots.wmflabs.org/~wm-bot/logs/%23wikimedia-office/20151119.txt IRC talk] with [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Performance_Team Gilles Dubuc] on shared hosting – report and outlook (Chris, Cindy)<br /> * Extension Store – report from working group (Richard, Cindy, Sabine)<br /> * Case study idea (James HK, Sabine, Karsten)<br /> * Definition of mwstake and SMW community, overlaps, vision and goals. smw.org as best showcase. (Lex)<br /> * Reachout – incl. deliverables<br /> ** Contact with WikiApiary (Jamie Thingelstad) – for annual statistics of users moving away from MW<br /> ** Contact with hosting companies like Bluehost, Dreamhost – for insights into users' needs and desires on shared hosting<br /> ** Contact with companies – for case studies<br /> * The group: Goals, vision, roadmap. mw.org/smw.org/mwstake.org (Sabine)<br /> <br /> ==Info==<br /> *[https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/dashboard/view/140/ Phabricator dashboard]<br /> *[https://plus.google.com/events/cfgusmekvmc13spplpi14qv1cso Google Hangout link]<br /> *[https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/ZlkAeRsNeI/timeslider#1293 Etherpad]</div> Sabine Melnicki https://mwstake.org/mwstake/index.php?title=Event:26&diff=676 Event:26 2016-01-17T22:07:14Z <p>Sabine Melnicki: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Event<br /> |mwstake-meeting=Yes<br /> |start-date=2016/01/08<br /> |start-hour=15<br /> |end-hour=16<br /> |url=https://plus.google.com/u/0/events/cv0h8if0dq11lvl0v4p60ppcpfc?authkey=CMCSvrPy6djVjAE<br /> |attendees=Richard Heigl, Cindy Cicalese, Frank Taylor, Mark Hershberger, Markus Glaser, Lex Sulzer,<br /> }}<br /> ==Info==<br /> *[https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/AuhVcJ9rJi Etherpad]</div> Sabine Melnicki https://mwstake.org/mwstake/index.php?title=Event:26&diff=675 Event:26 2016-01-17T22:04:42Z <p>Sabine Melnicki: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Event<br /> |mwstake-meeting=Yes<br /> |start-date=2016/01/08<br /> |start-hour=15<br /> |end-hour=16<br /> |url=https://plus.google.com/u/0/events/cv0h8if0dq11lvl0v4p60ppcpfc?authkey=CMCSvrPy6djVjAE<br /> |attendees=Richard Heigl, Cindy Cicalese, Frank Taylor, Mark Hershberger, Markus Glaser, Lex Sulzer,<br /> }}<br /> Etherpad: https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/AuhVcJ9rJi</div> Sabine Melnicki https://mwstake.org/mwstake/index.php?title=Event:25&diff=590 Event:25 2015-11-22T15:50:47Z <p>Sabine Melnicki: /* Proposed agenda */</p> <hr /> <div>{{Event<br /> |mwstake-meeting=Yes<br /> |start-date=2015/12/11<br /> |start-hour=14<br /> |end-hour=15<br /> }}<br /> ==Proposed agenda==<br /> * Developer summit 2016 (Mark, Markus, Cindy, Chris)<br /> * [http://bots.wmflabs.org/~wm-bot/logs/%23wikimedia-office/20151119.txt IRC talk] with [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Performance_Team Gilles Dubuc] on shared hosting – report and outlook (Chris, Cindy)<br /> * Extension Store – report from working group (Richard, Cindy, Sabine)<br /> * Case study idea (James HK, Sabine, Karsten)<br /> * Definition of mwstake and SMW community, overlaps, vision and goals. smw.org as best showcase. (Lex)<br /> * Reachout – incl. deliverables<br /> ** Contact with WikiApiary (Jamie Thingelstad) – for annual statistics of users moving away from MW<br /> ** Contact with hosting companies like Bluehost, Dreamhost – for insights into users' needs and desires on shared hosting<br /> ** Contact with companies – for case studies<br /> * The group: Goals, vision, roadmap. mw.org/smw.org/mwstake.org (Sabine)<br /> <br /> ==Info==<br /> *[https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/dashboard/view/140/ Phabricator dashboard]</div> Sabine Melnicki https://mwstake.org/mwstake/index.php?title=Event:25&diff=589 Event:25 2015-11-21T20:18:59Z <p>Sabine Melnicki: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Event<br /> |mwstake-meeting=Yes<br /> |start-date=2015/12/11<br /> |start-hour=14<br /> |end-hour=15<br /> }}<br /> ==Proposed agenda==<br /> * Developer summit 2016 (Mark, Markus, Cindy, Chris)<br /> * [http://bots.wmflabs.org/~wm-bot/logs/%23wikimedia-office/20151119.txt IRC talk] with [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Performance_Team Gilles Dubuc] on shared hosting – report and outlook (Chris, Cindy)<br /> * Extension Store – report from working group (Richard, Cindy, Sabine)<br /> * Case study idea (James HK, Sabine, Karsten)<br /> * Definition of mwstake and SMW community, overlaps, vision and goals. (Lex)<br /> * Reachout – incl. deliverables<br /> ** Contact with WikiApiary (Jamie Thingelstad) – for annual statistics of users moving away from MW<br /> ** Contact with hosting companies like Bluehost, Dreamhost – for insights into users' needs and desires on shared hosting<br /> ** Contact with companies – for case studies<br /> * The group: Goals, vision, roadmap.<br /> <br /> ==Info==<br /> *[https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/dashboard/view/140/ Phabricator dashboard]</div> Sabine Melnicki https://mwstake.org/mwstake/index.php?title=Event:25&diff=588 Event:25 2015-11-21T17:23:09Z <p>Sabine Melnicki: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Event<br /> |mwstake-meeting=Yes<br /> |start-date=2015/12/11<br /> |start-hour=14<br /> |end-hour=15<br /> }}<br /> ==Proposed agenda==<br /> * Developer summit 2016 (Mark, Markus, Cindy, Chris)<br /> * [http://bots.wmflabs.org/~wm-bot/logs/%23wikimedia-office/20151119.txt IRC talk] with [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Performance_Team Gilles Dubuc] on shared hosting – report and outlook (Chris, Cindy)<br /> * Extension Store – report from working group (Richard, Cindy, Sabine)<br /> * Case study idea (James HK, Sabine, Karsten)<br /> * Definition of mwstake and SMW community, overlaps, vision and goals. (Lex)<br /> * Reachout – incl. deliverables<br /> ** Contact with WikiApiary (Jamie Thingelstad) – for annual statistics of users moving away from MW<br /> ** Contact with hosting companies like Bluehost, Dreamhost – for insights into users' needs and desires on shared hosting<br /> ** Contact with companies – for case studies<br /> * The group: Goals, vision, roadmap.</div> Sabine Melnicki https://mwstake.org/mwstake/index.php?title=Event:25&diff=587 Event:25 2015-11-21T17:22:20Z <p>Sabine Melnicki: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Event<br /> |mwstake-meeting=Yes<br /> |start-date=2015/12/11<br /> |start-hour=14<br /> |end-hour=15<br /> }}<br /> ==Proposed agenda==<br /> * Developer summit 2016 (Mark, Markus, Cindy, Chris)<br /> * [http://bots.wmflabs.org/~wm-bot/logs/%23wikimedia-office/20151119.txt IRC talk] with [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Performance_Team Gilles Dubuc] on shared hosting – report and outlook (Chris, Cindy)<br /> * Extension Store – report from working group (Richard, Cindy, Sabine)<br /> * Case study idea (James HK, Sabine, Karsten)<br /> * Definition of mwstake and SMW community, overlaps, vision and goals. (Lex)<br /> * Reachout – incl. deliverables<br /> ** Contact with WikiApiary (Jamie Thingelstad) – for annual statistics of users moving away from MW<br /> ** Contact with hosting companies like Bluehost, Dreamhost – for insights into users' needs and desires on shared hosting<br /> ** Contact with companies – for case studies</div> Sabine Melnicki https://mwstake.org/mwstake/index.php?title=Event:25&diff=586 Event:25 2015-11-20T00:49:30Z <p>Sabine Melnicki: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Event<br /> |mwstake-meeting=Yes<br /> |start-date=2015/12/11<br /> |start-hour=14<br /> |end-hour=15<br /> }}<br /> ==Proposed agenda==<br /> * Developer summit 2016 (Mark, Markus, Cindy, Chris)<br /> * [http://bots.wmflabs.org/~wm-bot/logs/%23wikimedia-office/20151119.txt IRC talk] with [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Performance_Team Gilles Dubuc] on shared hosting – report and outlook (Chris, Cindy)<br /> * Extension Store – report from working group (Richard, Cindy, Sabine)<br /> * Case study idea (James HK, Sabine, Karsten)<br /> * Definition of mwstake and SMW community, overlaps, vision and goals. (Lex)<br /> * Reachout<br /> ** Contact with WikiApiary – for annual statistics of users moving away from MW<br /> ** Contact with hosting companies like Bluehost, Dreamhost – for insights into users' needs and desires on shared hosting<br /> ** Contact with companies – for case studies</div> Sabine Melnicki https://mwstake.org/mwstake/index.php?title=Event:25&diff=585 Event:25 2015-11-19T12:51:57Z <p>Sabine Melnicki: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Event<br /> |mwstake-meeting=Yes<br /> |start-date=2015/12/11<br /> |start-hour=14<br /> |end-hour=15<br /> }}<br /> ==Agenda==<br /> * Developer summit 2016 (Mark, Markus, Cindy, Chris)<br /> * Extension Store – report from working group (Richard, Cindy, Sabine)<br /> * Case study idea (James HK, Sabine, Karsten)</div> Sabine Melnicki https://mwstake.org/mwstake/index.php?title=Event:25&diff=584 Event:25 2015-11-19T12:36:48Z <p>Sabine Melnicki: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Event<br /> |mwstake-meeting=Yes<br /> |start-date=2015/12/11<br /> }}<br /> ==Agenda==<br /> * Developer summit 2016 (Mark, Markus, Cindy, Chris)<br /> * Extension Store – report from working group (Richard, Cindy, Sabine)<br /> * Case study idea (James HK, Sabine, Karsten)</div> Sabine Melnicki https://mwstake.org/mwstake/index.php?title=Talk:MediaWiki_Usage_Report_2015&diff=553 Talk:MediaWiki Usage Report 2015 2015-11-05T20:52:46Z <p>Sabine Melnicki: /* Some conclusions from the survey */</p> <hr /> <div>Trailer<br /> (Chris?)<br /> <br /> ==Distribution== <br /> There's a huge wiki world beyond Wikimedia Foundation.&lt;ref&gt;https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T113210&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> (Sabine?)<br /> <br /> ===Downloads===<br /> * The downloads in China are remarkable high<br /> <br /> ===Hosting===<br /> * Thousands of installed MediaWiki on shared hosting (one-click) providers<br /> <br /> ===Most downloaded extensions===<br /> Even to know, which extensions are popular is nearly impossible. Some data from December 2014 (shared by Legoktm) are interesting. And give a first impression of needed add-ons in wikis beyond the Wikimedia Foundation. Many &quot;top 20&quot; extensions already prove the intense use of MediaWiki in companies and organizations. <br /> <br /> ===Comparisons with Wordpress and other content management systems===<br /> (Richard)<br /> * Compare trends. Searches for Wordpress and MediaWIki, Confluence ... <br /> * Comparison searches for wiki and blog: Wiki more popular. But MediaWiki is not the most important player<br /> * Reason: No ecosystem for MediaWiki established, SMW, BlueSpice, Wikia, WMF ... working separated.<br /> <br /> ==Typical MediaWiki users==<br /> The '''typical survey participant''' is either a developer/administrator or in management and works in a small organization with 25 or less people. Using MediaWiki now for over 5 years, he counts as long time user. He is managing 2–5 wikis, from which at least 1 is public and 1 private. The user sees 25 or less people on his wiki. The user uses MediaWiki because of it being Open Source and easy to use due to its similarity to Wikipedia. His public wiki is a fun site and his enterprise wiki is used for internal knowledge creation and management. He is unhappy with the upgrade process and the installation of new extensions and would like to see WordPress-like simple update buttons in the admin backend. For the enterprise wiki, access control and a functioning easy Visual Editor are important, but even more important is a slick, superpretty GUI. The user is part of the software community and contributes some feedback and bug reports. He also spreads the word. Irritating is the connection to Wikipedia and the scrambled software documentation, which isn't very user-friendly. Community-wise, he wishes for a master plan, good communication and easy ways of involvement to give back to the community and support the project.<br /> <br /> ===Position/Title===<br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;„Sysadmin, high Queen, that idiot.“&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> Out of 134 participants of the survey, almost every fifth (20 %, 27) is in software development, every sixth (16 %, 22) is a software admin. External functions like management and leadership can be found in every sixth participant (14 %, 20), one eighth (12 %, 17) has science and academic background. Defined wiki users only acount for 12 % (12 %, 16) of the participants. 1 out of 10 have any other external background. (10 %, 14). At maximum 4 percent of the participants (4 %, 5) have direct or indirect relation to WMF or are software distributors. About one eighth of the answers (12 %, 16) were either unclear or unanswered.<br /> <br /> In 10 survey participants:<br /> * 2 are software developers<br /> * 2 administrators<br /> * 2 are in management/leadership position<br /> * 1 have academic background<br /> * 1 are solely wiki-users<br /> * 2 are doing something else...<br /> * 1 does not answer the question<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/What is your position or title?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Sizes of organization===<br /> About half of all participants work in organizations with 25 or less people (48,12 %, 64). Every fourth participant is part of an organization between 25 and 500 people (21 %, 28). Organizations with 500 or more people account for almost a third of all (28 %, 37).<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/How large is your organization?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Usage time of MediaWiki===<br /> More than half of the survey participants are long time users of MediaWiki, they use it 5+ years (54 %, 72). Almost a quarter is still using the software for 3–5 years (22 %, 30). The last quarter of participants is using the software for 1-2 years or less than 6 months. (24 %, 32). New users, who use the software for less than 6 months, account for about 5 % of the participants (5 %, 7). This figure can be an indication for how visible the survey was to new users.<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/How long have you been using MW?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Number of MediaWiki sites===<br /> The vast majority of users is managing 2 or more MediaWiki sites (almost 70 % of all). More than a third of all users / 4 out of 10 users manage 2–5 wikis. This is the highest figure in total (40 %, 54). Together with managers of 5-10 wikis, this accounts for half of all users. Every third participant is managing 5 or more. (30 %, 40). The figure of users managing more than 10 wikis is double as high (19 %, 26) as those managing 5 to 10 wikis (10 %, 14). Still, a quarter of the participants is managing 1 single MW site (25 %, 34). Only a few participants (4,5 %, 6) are not managing any MW site.<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/How many MediaWiki sites do you manage?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Public and private sites===<br /> Out of 133 answers, 36 users manage public wikis (27 %), 38 users manage private wikis (28,5 %) and 59 users manage a mix of both (44 %).<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/Are your sites public or private?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Number of users===<br /> Out of 133 answers, about a third of all survey parcicipants have 25 people or less on their wikis (36 %, 48), 1 in 10 participants are using the wiki just to themselves (11 %, 15).<br /> <br /> Relatively equally spread are the numbers of wikis with more users than 25:<br /> * 25–100 &gt; (19 %, 26)<br /> *100–500 &gt; (15 %, 20)<br /> *500+ &gt; (25 %, 33)<br /> <br /> Significant is the number of large wikis with 500 users or more, which account for a quarter of all participants (25 %, 33).<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/Approximately how many people are there on your MediaWiki sites?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Extensions and age of the used wikis==<br /> <br /> ===MediaWiki versions===<br /> <br /> ===Updates===<br /> <br /> ===Most important extensions===<br /> <br /> ==Reasons for using MediaWiki==<br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;„bad habits die hard.“&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;''Note: Telling from the answers, the question could have been clearer or separated into more than one. People understood different questions: ''<br /> <br /> * ''Why do you use MediaWiki –&amp;nbsp;and no other (collaboration) software?''<br /> * ''Why do you use MediaWiki –&amp;nbsp;and no other wiki software?''<br /> * ''What features and strengths do you value in the MediaWiki software?''<br /> * ''What do you use MediaWiki for? (I use it as...)''<br /> &lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> === Features / Functions, also in comparison to other software ===<br /> Participants choose MW mainly for these reasons: It is easy to use, it is simple, but flexible, adaptable and expandible, it has an active Open Source community. A role in this play general public reputation, the possibility to participate and the proximity to the widely known Wikipedia.<br /> <br /> ==== Wikipedia. ====<br /> In comparison to other wiki software, primarily for public wikis the similarity to Wikipedia was the most motivating reason for choosing MW. Wikipedia here functions on the one hand as an acceleration for implementation and change management due to the known code base (wikitext) and the familiarity with the interface. Good experiences should transfer. Reputation also plays a role. And on the other hand as a motivator („learn 1, know 2“). '''<br /> <br /> ====Open Source / Free. Community, Movement.====<br /> Users choose MW, because of it being Open Source, the big and active community, the trust in the broad authorship and hence the stability. Being free of charge also helps.<br /> <br /> Nice to see that one user mentioned that, when MW is &quot;developed by a non-profit organization and volunteers from all over the world and when you run a non-profit site it is a major plus for you if you can run your site on open-source free software&quot;.<br /> <br /> ====Simple, easy to use, stable.====<br /> An important part plays also the independence of the user in relation to functionalities: MW is easy to setup, easy to extend (good scalability), easy to adapt/adjust to ones needs, to many different needs. MediaWiki is simple, but extendible. This high flexibility is a valued feature.<br /> <br /> ====Questionable aspects====<br /> ''On the positive side, the software feels easy to handle and update, with an active, approachable community:''<br /> *„[...] features including easy-to-configure wikifarm set up […]”<br /> *&quot;[…] solid single-source solution for corporate knowledge management.&quot;<br /> *&quot; It's perfect for our company&quot;<br /> *&quot;The data model and core upgrade with simplicity&quot;<br /> ''These are all things later being answered to the contrary.''<br /> <br /> ''The user interface is mentioned once as a reason FOR MediaWiki, although it will later become rather a feature AGAINST it. Participants mention the editing as straightforward and easy, which will, again, later heavily questioned in the wishes for better editing options. This contradiction also holds true for software speed.''<br /> <br /> Some more aspects mentioned:<br /> *The internationalization out of the box<br /> *the version history as attribution of collaboration<br /> *the automation functions via bots and API<br /> *templates<br /> * Semantic MediaWiki<br /> <br /> ===Use cases in public and private wikis===<br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;“MediaWiki is the best and best known tool to organize data in an open way for many users.&quot;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> Specific use cases in public wikis circle around public documentation for cultural institutions and NPOs, fun sites and last but not least as a knowledge tool: for collaborative creation, presentation and documentation of knowledge.<br /> <br /> In corporate and therefore private (non-public) situations, wikis are mostly used for internal communication and internal knowledge transfer. <br /> The wiki also serves as a document repository or for manuals and machine documentation, especially technical documentation seems to be an important use case – whether it's meant to share with the public or the company.<br /> <br /> In the rather rarely mentioned personal situations, wikis are used for a personal knowledgebase (e.g. as a collection for research material in scientific contexts) or as a publication platform among a chosen few, like the family.<br /> <br /> MediaWiki is valued as a good platform for organizing big amounts of dynamic knowledge, as a memory base, an information portal. &quot;Sharing&quot; is key here. MediaWiki is also used for Wikipedia's original use case of an encyclopedia.<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;“As a platform for almost everything.”&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/Why do you use MediaWiki?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Feature requests==<br /> (Richard)<br /> ===Primary requirements===<br /> <br /> ===Secondary requirements===<br /> <br /> === What would you like to see most improved in MediaWiki the software? ''–– The feature wish list.'' ===<br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;„I pretty much love it as is.“&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> Out of 113 answers, the most wanted features (mentions) are easy software and extension management, installation and upgrade process (30), detailed access control and enterprise support (12), a feature-rich and functioning editor out of the box (13). An extremely important valued feature is the GUI, UX, usability and the skinning process (18). Users see themselves confronted with the spam problem (6). Participants also see improvements in speed (4), in the development itself (4), have ideas for the codebase (5). File (3) and image handling (4) can be improved, as well as language support (3). Better handling of wiki farms (4). They would like to see support for other databases (2), better error messages (2) and better support for new users (in a wiki) (2). Mobile Frontend (2) could be there out of the box. Template handling (2) can bee improved as well as the search function (2). The discussion pages (2) and the watchlist feature (2) could be improved.<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/What would you like to see most improved in MediaWiki the software?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> See also: [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki_Stakeholders%27_Group/Tasks/Feature_wishlist MediaWiki Stakeholders' Group/Tasks/Feature wishlist], where most content was already included.<br /> <br /> ==Community==<br /> <br /> ===Contributions for the community===<br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;„I preach its worth to everyone I talk to“&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> From all survey participants, 5 out of 10 are contributing feedback and bug reports, 4 out of 10 are contributing to extensions.<br /> 3 help with questions and provide support and improve documentation. Only 2 out of 10 contribute patches and bugfixes, even less contribute to MediaWiki core.<br /> <br /> Other contributions worth mentioning are<br /> * Help build the community, organize meetings, like SMWCon<br /> * Support on IRC channel <br /> * Help choosing the SMW of the month<br /> * Promotion and marketing, also like &quot;I preach its worth to everyone I talk to&quot;<br /> * Financial donations<br /> * Writing books about MW<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/Do you make contributions to the MediaWiki community?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Improvements and barriers===<br /> ''Quite a few answers circle around the MediaWiki software, which was part of a preceding question and get mentioned there.''<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;&quot;The underlying perception that MediaWiki's focus should be on Wikipedia. MediaWiki is bigger than Wikipedia and everyone needs to accept that fact. It is critical that the community address the needs of the majority, even if that means working on features that aren't relevant for Wikipedia. MediaWiki and Wikipedia can diverge and still thrive together. The more that the WMF supports &quot;3rd-party users&quot;, the more those 3rd-party users will support the WMF.&quot;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Wikipedia'''. A main aspect was the relation to Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation. The connection to WMF and Wikipedia, wasn't seen as solely positive. The focus on Wikipedia in the MW community and of the WMF was criticized. The non-WMF developer community should be better visible, more active and more in charge. The dev team should be separated from Wikipedia (as in .com for Wikipedia and .org for the Open Source software). The core devs should develop more towards the usage of MW beyond Wikimedia sites. Hence, certain independence from WMF development, a wish for a dedicated MediaWiki conference and other events, where involvement could be discussed.<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;“Documentation, documentation, documentation. But maybe that's just me.”&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;&quot;It's a developers' system with mostly developers' documentation.&quot;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> '''Documentation'''. User documentation could be improved by establishing a common language and adding clear tutorials for difficult installation processes (e.g. Visual Editor on Shared Hosting). Documentation should include the most basic, common use cases as well as less commonly used features. Documentation was criticized to often be outdated, incomplete or missing altogether. Participants wished for simple beginner tutorials and user-centered documentation content. Most of the documentation is technology driven, not use-case-driven.<br /> <br /> Developers should also have better documentation and easier access to help in their extension development, collaborative development should be encouraged. Developers see their code not reviewed at all or not quick enough, <br /> Also, the clearer the roadmap is (supported technologies etc.), the better. Clear regulations and starting points should ease the entry of new developers.<br /> <br /> '''Master plan.''' Quite a few users wished for an overall strategy, a master plan, which is focussing on all MediaWiki users (and not only Wikipedia). Interestingly, some participants asked for a community supporting enterprise users (which could mean, the Stakeholder's Group isn't yet seen as this). Some see this in the for-profit sector, some would only like to see a community, strongly supporting the overall development towards their own needs.<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;&quot;3rd party MediaWiki users unite!&quot;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Communication'''. Some users feel intimidated by the community, it's like an unaccessible &quot;elite&quot; and not easy to join. Communication tools are not yet properly supporting this: IRC as a discussion platform is not well-known, not very accessible for newbies and not always answered. People don't always know who to address their questions to, some wish for non-public ways of asking for help. Also, developers seem to be connected quite well – but not adminstrators.<br /> <br /> '''People want to help, but are not always sure, how.''' New users sometimes feel intimidated and discouraged. Newbies often don't know where to start, where to find help, who to ask. What contribution is asked for? What communication channel should be used for what? Calls for help are not prominent enough. As a new user, it is very difficult to oversee the status of the software development.<br /> <br /> People wish for concise information about the most important news. The system feels very complex. Some see also technical obstacles, like composer and the steep learning curve.<br /> <br /> '''Awareness'''. Many people do not yet know of (Semantic) MediaWiki's possibilities, so it's time to spread the word.<br /> <br /> Other ideas:<br /> *There was a wish for an &quot;editor-in-chief&quot; on mediawiki.org, the site seems sort of abandoned.<br /> *Even the community ressources should be visually appealing.<br /> <br /> Praise: &quot;Actually think the community is very healthy.&quot;<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/What would you like to see most improved in the community around MediaWiki?]]&lt;/small&gt;&lt;br /&gt;<br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/What barriers, if any, do you think exist to participation in the MediaWiki community? What can we do to help?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Next steps and requirements==<br /> (Chris, Mark, Markus, all .....)<br /> * Reliability<br /> * Standardization<br /> * Services in core<br /> * MediaWiki Foundation<br /> <br /> ===Some conclusions from the survey===<br /> Welcome newcomers:<br /> * &gt;&gt; Introduce and include newbies, encourage productivity.<br /> * &gt;&gt; Offer basic technical workshops and tutorials<br /> * &gt;&gt; Call for help on prominant places in a friendly, open and appealing manner<br /> Strengthen the community:<br /> * &gt;&gt; Centralize the community around developers and users.<br /> * &gt;&gt; Estabilsh local events and MediaWiki conference<br /> * &gt;&gt; Improve documentation, include clear documenation for common use cases<br /> * &gt;&gt; Improve documentation from developent-driven towards use-case-driven<br /> * &gt;&gt; Centralize communication channels (IRC, mailing lists, discussion pages, bug reports… &gt; forum?), make clear what channels are best used for what<br /> <br /> &gt;&gt; Raise awareness and visibility of the software and community<br /> <br /> &gt;&gt; Independence from WMF's needs<br /> <br /> Roadmap<br /> * &gt;&gt; Clear plan, roadmap, strategy focussing on MW users<br /> * &gt;&gt; Community supporting enterprise users<br /> <br /> ==Collection of links related to this topic==<br /> * Chris Koerner: [[MediaWiki_Usage_Report_for_Wikimania_2015|MediaWiki User Report]], Wikimania 2015<br /> * [[MediaWiki_Usage_Questions|MediaWiki Usage Questions]]<br /> * [[Blog_Post:29]]<br /> * [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2015_MediaWiki_User_Report.pdf 2015 MediaWiki User Report PDF on Commons] and on [https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1MUDdnj9DEV7IKQbocG1samCxylDHpsISm1Uzf5x4WMc/edit#slide=id.g5a5c0b7c3_0_36 Google Docs]<br /> * [https://archive.org/details/videoeditserver-87 Presentation] (2015-07-18 MediaWiki Stakeholders)<br /> * [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/2015_MediaWiki_User_Survey mw.org: 2015 MediaWiki User Survey]<br /> * [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki_Stakeholders%27_Group/Tasks/Feature_wishlist mw.org: MediaWiki Stakeholders Group/Tasks/Feature wishlist]<br /> * 30 PDFs: [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/File:2015_MediaWiki_User_Survey_Plots.pdf Survey Plots PDF] (overview: [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/File:2015_MediaWiki_User_Survey_Brief_Summary.png Survey Brief Summary PNG])<br /> *[https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T117193 T117193]<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;</div> Sabine Melnicki https://mwstake.org/mwstake/index.php?title=Talk:MediaWiki_Usage_Report_2015&diff=552 Talk:MediaWiki Usage Report 2015 2015-11-05T20:49:20Z <p>Sabine Melnicki: /* Collection of links related to this topic */</p> <hr /> <div>Trailer<br /> (Chris?)<br /> <br /> ==Distribution== <br /> There's a huge wiki world beyond Wikimedia Foundation.&lt;ref&gt;https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T113210&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> (Sabine?)<br /> <br /> ===Downloads===<br /> * The downloads in China are remarkable high<br /> <br /> ===Hosting===<br /> * Thousands of installed MediaWiki on shared hosting (one-click) providers<br /> <br /> ===Most downloaded extensions===<br /> Even to know, which extensions are popular is nearly impossible. Some data from December 2014 (shared by Legoktm) are interesting. And give a first impression of needed add-ons in wikis beyond the Wikimedia Foundation. Many &quot;top 20&quot; extensions already prove the intense use of MediaWiki in companies and organizations. <br /> <br /> ===Comparisons with Wordpress and other content management systems===<br /> (Richard)<br /> * Compare trends. Searches for Wordpress and MediaWIki, Confluence ... <br /> * Comparison searches for wiki and blog: Wiki more popular. But MediaWiki is not the most important player<br /> * Reason: No ecosystem for MediaWiki established, SMW, BlueSpice, Wikia, WMF ... working separated.<br /> <br /> ==Typical MediaWiki users==<br /> The '''typical survey participant''' is either a developer/administrator or in management and works in a small organization with 25 or less people. Using MediaWiki now for over 5 years, he counts as long time user. He is managing 2–5 wikis, from which at least 1 is public and 1 private. The user sees 25 or less people on his wiki. The user uses MediaWiki because of it being Open Source and easy to use due to its similarity to Wikipedia. His public wiki is a fun site and his enterprise wiki is used for internal knowledge creation and management. He is unhappy with the upgrade process and the installation of new extensions and would like to see WordPress-like simple update buttons in the admin backend. For the enterprise wiki, access control and a functioning easy Visual Editor are important, but even more important is a slick, superpretty GUI. The user is part of the software community and contributes some feedback and bug reports. He also spreads the word. Irritating is the connection to Wikipedia and the scrambled software documentation, which isn't very user-friendly. Community-wise, he wishes for a master plan, good communication and easy ways of involvement to give back to the community and support the project.<br /> <br /> ===Position/Title===<br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;„Sysadmin, high Queen, that idiot.“&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> Out of 134 participants of the survey, almost every fifth (20 %, 27) is in software development, every sixth (16 %, 22) is a software admin. External functions like management and leadership can be found in every sixth participant (14 %, 20), one eighth (12 %, 17) has science and academic background. Defined wiki users only acount for 12 % (12 %, 16) of the participants. 1 out of 10 have any other external background. (10 %, 14). At maximum 4 percent of the participants (4 %, 5) have direct or indirect relation to WMF or are software distributors. About one eighth of the answers (12 %, 16) were either unclear or unanswered.<br /> <br /> In 10 survey participants:<br /> * 2 are software developers<br /> * 2 administrators<br /> * 2 are in management/leadership position<br /> * 1 have academic background<br /> * 1 are solely wiki-users<br /> * 2 are doing something else...<br /> * 1 does not answer the question<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/What is your position or title?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Sizes of organization===<br /> About half of all participants work in organizations with 25 or less people (48,12 %, 64). Every fourth participant is part of an organization between 25 and 500 people (21 %, 28). Organizations with 500 or more people account for almost a third of all (28 %, 37).<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/How large is your organization?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Usage time of MediaWiki===<br /> More than half of the survey participants are long time users of MediaWiki, they use it 5+ years (54 %, 72). Almost a quarter is still using the software for 3–5 years (22 %, 30). The last quarter of participants is using the software for 1-2 years or less than 6 months. (24 %, 32). New users, who use the software for less than 6 months, account for about 5 % of the participants (5 %, 7). This figure can be an indication for how visible the survey was to new users.<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/How long have you been using MW?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Number of MediaWiki sites===<br /> The vast majority of users is managing 2 or more MediaWiki sites (almost 70 % of all). More than a third of all users / 4 out of 10 users manage 2–5 wikis. This is the highest figure in total (40 %, 54). Together with managers of 5-10 wikis, this accounts for half of all users. Every third participant is managing 5 or more. (30 %, 40). The figure of users managing more than 10 wikis is double as high (19 %, 26) as those managing 5 to 10 wikis (10 %, 14). Still, a quarter of the participants is managing 1 single MW site (25 %, 34). Only a few participants (4,5 %, 6) are not managing any MW site.<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/How many MediaWiki sites do you manage?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Public and private sites===<br /> Out of 133 answers, 36 users manage public wikis (27 %), 38 users manage private wikis (28,5 %) and 59 users manage a mix of both (44 %).<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/Are your sites public or private?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Number of users===<br /> Out of 133 answers, about a third of all survey parcicipants have 25 people or less on their wikis (36 %, 48), 1 in 10 participants are using the wiki just to themselves (11 %, 15).<br /> <br /> Relatively equally spread are the numbers of wikis with more users than 25:<br /> * 25–100 &gt; (19 %, 26)<br /> *100–500 &gt; (15 %, 20)<br /> *500+ &gt; (25 %, 33)<br /> <br /> Significant is the number of large wikis with 500 users or more, which account for a quarter of all participants (25 %, 33).<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/Approximately how many people are there on your MediaWiki sites?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Extensions and age of the used wikis==<br /> <br /> ===MediaWiki versions===<br /> <br /> ===Updates===<br /> <br /> ===Most important extensions===<br /> <br /> ==Reasons for using MediaWiki==<br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;„bad habits die hard.“&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;''Note: Telling from the answers, the question could have been clearer or separated into more than one. People understood different questions: ''<br /> <br /> * ''Why do you use MediaWiki –&amp;nbsp;and no other (collaboration) software?''<br /> * ''Why do you use MediaWiki –&amp;nbsp;and no other wiki software?''<br /> * ''What features and strengths do you value in the MediaWiki software?''<br /> * ''What do you use MediaWiki for? (I use it as...)''<br /> &lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> === Features / Functions, also in comparison to other software ===<br /> Participants choose MW mainly for these reasons: It is easy to use, it is simple, but flexible, adaptable and expandible, it has an active Open Source community. A role in this play general public reputation, the possibility to participate and the proximity to the widely known Wikipedia.<br /> <br /> ==== Wikipedia. ====<br /> In comparison to other wiki software, primarily for public wikis the similarity to Wikipedia was the most motivating reason for choosing MW. Wikipedia here functions on the one hand as an acceleration for implementation and change management due to the known code base (wikitext) and the familiarity with the interface. Good experiences should transfer. Reputation also plays a role. And on the other hand as a motivator („learn 1, know 2“). '''<br /> <br /> ====Open Source / Free. Community, Movement.====<br /> Users choose MW, because of it being Open Source, the big and active community, the trust in the broad authorship and hence the stability. Being free of charge also helps.<br /> <br /> Nice to see that one user mentioned that, when MW is &quot;developed by a non-profit organization and volunteers from all over the world and when you run a non-profit site it is a major plus for you if you can run your site on open-source free software&quot;.<br /> <br /> ====Simple, easy to use, stable.====<br /> An important part plays also the independence of the user in relation to functionalities: MW is easy to setup, easy to extend (good scalability), easy to adapt/adjust to ones needs, to many different needs. MediaWiki is simple, but extendible. This high flexibility is a valued feature.<br /> <br /> ====Questionable aspects====<br /> ''On the positive side, the software feels easy to handle and update, with an active, approachable community:''<br /> *„[...] features including easy-to-configure wikifarm set up […]”<br /> *&quot;[…] solid single-source solution for corporate knowledge management.&quot;<br /> *&quot; It's perfect for our company&quot;<br /> *&quot;The data model and core upgrade with simplicity&quot;<br /> ''These are all things later being answered to the contrary.''<br /> <br /> ''The user interface is mentioned once as a reason FOR MediaWiki, although it will later become rather a feature AGAINST it. Participants mention the editing as straightforward and easy, which will, again, later heavily questioned in the wishes for better editing options. This contradiction also holds true for software speed.''<br /> <br /> Some more aspects mentioned:<br /> *The internationalization out of the box<br /> *the version history as attribution of collaboration<br /> *the automation functions via bots and API<br /> *templates<br /> * Semantic MediaWiki<br /> <br /> ===Use cases in public and private wikis===<br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;“MediaWiki is the best and best known tool to organize data in an open way for many users.&quot;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> Specific use cases in public wikis circle around public documentation for cultural institutions and NPOs, fun sites and last but not least as a knowledge tool: for collaborative creation, presentation and documentation of knowledge.<br /> <br /> In corporate and therefore private (non-public) situations, wikis are mostly used for internal communication and internal knowledge transfer. <br /> The wiki also serves as a document repository or for manuals and machine documentation, especially technical documentation seems to be an important use case – whether it's meant to share with the public or the company.<br /> <br /> In the rather rarely mentioned personal situations, wikis are used for a personal knowledgebase (e.g. as a collection for research material in scientific contexts) or as a publication platform among a chosen few, like the family.<br /> <br /> MediaWiki is valued as a good platform for organizing big amounts of dynamic knowledge, as a memory base, an information portal. &quot;Sharing&quot; is key here. MediaWiki is also used for Wikipedia's original use case of an encyclopedia.<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;“As a platform for almost everything.”&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/Why do you use MediaWiki?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Feature requests==<br /> (Richard)<br /> ===Primary requirements===<br /> <br /> ===Secondary requirements===<br /> <br /> === What would you like to see most improved in MediaWiki the software? ''–– The feature wish list.'' ===<br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;„I pretty much love it as is.“&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> Out of 113 answers, the most wanted features (mentions) are easy software and extension management, installation and upgrade process (30), detailed access control and enterprise support (12), a feature-rich and functioning editor out of the box (13). An extremely important valued feature is the GUI, UX, usability and the skinning process (18). Users see themselves confronted with the spam problem (6). Participants also see improvements in speed (4), in the development itself (4), have ideas for the codebase (5). File (3) and image handling (4) can be improved, as well as language support (3). Better handling of wiki farms (4). They would like to see support for other databases (2), better error messages (2) and better support for new users (in a wiki) (2). Mobile Frontend (2) could be there out of the box. Template handling (2) can bee improved as well as the search function (2). The discussion pages (2) and the watchlist feature (2) could be improved.<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/What would you like to see most improved in MediaWiki the software?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> See also: [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki_Stakeholders%27_Group/Tasks/Feature_wishlist MediaWiki Stakeholders' Group/Tasks/Feature wishlist], where most content was already included.<br /> <br /> ==Community==<br /> <br /> ===Contributions for the community===<br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;„I preach its worth to everyone I talk to“&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> From all survey participants, 5 out of 10 are contributing feedback and bug reports, 4 out of 10 are contributing to extensions.<br /> 3 help with questions and provide support and improve documentation. Only 2 out of 10 contribute patches and bugfixes, even less contribute to MediaWiki core.<br /> <br /> Other contributions worth mentioning are<br /> * Help build the community, organize meetings, like SMWCon<br /> * Support on IRC channel <br /> * Help choosing the SMW of the month<br /> * Promotion and marketing, also like &quot;I preach its worth to everyone I talk to&quot;<br /> * Financial donations<br /> * Writing books about MW<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/Do you make contributions to the MediaWiki community?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Improvements and barriers===<br /> ''Quite a few answers circle around the MediaWiki software, which was part of a preceding question and get mentioned there.''<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;&quot;The underlying perception that MediaWiki's focus should be on Wikipedia. MediaWiki is bigger than Wikipedia and everyone needs to accept that fact. It is critical that the community address the needs of the majority, even if that means working on features that aren't relevant for Wikipedia. MediaWiki and Wikipedia can diverge and still thrive together. The more that the WMF supports &quot;3rd-party users&quot;, the more those 3rd-party users will support the WMF.&quot;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Wikipedia'''. A main aspect was the relation to Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation. The connection to WMF and Wikipedia, wasn't seen as solely positive. The focus on Wikipedia in the MW community and of the WMF was criticized. The non-WMF developer community should be better visible, more active and more in charge. The dev team should be separated from Wikipedia (as in .com for Wikipedia and .org for the Open Source software). The core devs should develop more towards the usage of MW beyond Wikimedia sites. Hence, certain independence from WMF development, a wish for a dedicated MediaWiki conference and other events, where involvement could be discussed.<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;“Documentation, documentation, documentation. But maybe that's just me.”&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;&quot;It's a developers' system with mostly developers' documentation.&quot;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> '''Documentation'''. User documentation could be improved by establishing a common language and adding clear tutorials for difficult installation processes (e.g. Visual Editor on Shared Hosting). Documentation should include the most basic, common use cases as well as less commonly used features. Documentation was criticized to often be outdated, incomplete or missing altogether. Participants wished for simple beginner tutorials and user-centered documentation content. Most of the documentation is technology driven, not use-case-driven.<br /> <br /> Developers should also have better documentation and easier access to help in their extension development, collaborative development should be encouraged. Developers see their code not reviewed at all or not quick enough, <br /> Also, the clearer the roadmap is (supported technologies etc.), the better. Clear regulations and starting points should ease the entry of new developers.<br /> <br /> '''Master plan.''' Quite a few users wished for an overall strategy, a master plan, which is focussing on all MediaWiki users (and not only Wikipedia). Interestingly, some participants asked for a community supporting enterprise users (which could mean, the Stakeholder's Group isn't yet seen as this). Some see this in the for-profit sector, some would only like to see a community, strongly supporting the overall development towards their own needs.<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;&quot;3rd party MediaWiki users unite!&quot;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Communication'''. Some users feel intimidated by the community, it's like an unaccessible &quot;elite&quot; and not easy to join. Communication tools are not yet properly supporting this: IRC as a discussion platform is not well-known, not very accessible for newbies and not always answered. People don't always know who to address their questions to, some wish for non-public ways of asking for help. Also, developers seem to be connected quite well – but not adminstrators.<br /> <br /> '''People want to help, but are not always sure, how.''' New users sometimes feel intimidated and discouraged. Newbies often don't know where to start, where to find help, who to ask. What contribution is asked for? What communication channel should be used for what? Calls for help are not prominent enough. As a new user, it is very difficult to oversee the status of the software development.<br /> <br /> People wish for concise information about the most important news. The system feels very complex. Some see also technical obstacles, like composer and the steep learning curve.<br /> <br /> '''Awareness'''. Many people do not yet know of (Semantic) MediaWiki's possibilities, so it's time to spread the word.<br /> <br /> Other ideas:<br /> *There was a wish for an &quot;editor-in-chief&quot; on mediawiki.org, the site seems sort of abandoned.<br /> *Even the community ressources should be visually appealing.<br /> <br /> Praise: &quot;Actually think the community is very healthy.&quot;<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/What would you like to see most improved in the community around MediaWiki?]]&lt;/small&gt;&lt;br /&gt;<br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/What barriers, if any, do you think exist to participation in the MediaWiki community? What can we do to help?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Next steps and requirements==<br /> (Chris, Mark, Markus, all .....)<br /> * Reliability<br /> * Standardization<br /> * Services in core<br /> * MediaWiki Foundation<br /> <br /> ===Some conclusions from the survey===<br /> Welcome newcomers:<br /> * &gt;&gt; Introduce and include newbies, encourage productivity.<br /> * &gt;&gt; Offer basic technical workshops and tutorials<br /> * &gt;&gt; Call for help on prominant places in a friendly, open and appealing manner<br /> Strengthen the community:<br /> * &gt;&gt; Centralize the community around developers and users.<br /> * &gt;&gt; Estabilsh local events and MediaWiki conference<br /> * &gt;&gt; Improve documentation, include clear documenation for common use cases<br /> * &gt;&gt; Improve documentation from developent-driven towards use-case-driven<br /> * &gt;&gt; Centralize communication channels (IRC, mailing lists, discussion pages, bug reports… &gt; forum?), make clear what channels are best used for what<br /> <br /> Raise awareness and visibility of the software and community<br /> <br /> Independence from WMF's needs<br /> <br /> Roadmap<br /> * &gt;&gt; Clear plan, roadmap, strategy focussing on MW users<br /> * &gt;&gt; Community supporting enterprise users<br /> <br /> ==Collection of links related to this topic==<br /> * Chris Koerner: [[MediaWiki_Usage_Report_for_Wikimania_2015|MediaWiki User Report]], Wikimania 2015<br /> * [[MediaWiki_Usage_Questions|MediaWiki Usage Questions]]<br /> * [[Blog_Post:29]]<br /> * [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2015_MediaWiki_User_Report.pdf 2015 MediaWiki User Report PDF on Commons] and on [https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1MUDdnj9DEV7IKQbocG1samCxylDHpsISm1Uzf5x4WMc/edit#slide=id.g5a5c0b7c3_0_36 Google Docs]<br /> * [https://archive.org/details/videoeditserver-87 Presentation] (2015-07-18 MediaWiki Stakeholders)<br /> * [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/2015_MediaWiki_User_Survey mw.org: 2015 MediaWiki User Survey]<br /> * [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki_Stakeholders%27_Group/Tasks/Feature_wishlist mw.org: MediaWiki Stakeholders Group/Tasks/Feature wishlist]<br /> * 30 PDFs: [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/File:2015_MediaWiki_User_Survey_Plots.pdf Survey Plots PDF] (overview: [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/File:2015_MediaWiki_User_Survey_Brief_Summary.png Survey Brief Summary PNG])<br /> *[https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T117193 T117193]<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;</div> Sabine Melnicki https://mwstake.org/mwstake/index.php?title=Talk:MediaWiki_Usage_Report_2015&diff=551 Talk:MediaWiki Usage Report 2015 2015-11-05T20:39:19Z <p>Sabine Melnicki: /* Position/Title */</p> <hr /> <div>Trailer<br /> (Chris?)<br /> <br /> ==Distribution== <br /> There's a huge wiki world beyond Wikimedia Foundation.&lt;ref&gt;https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T113210&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> (Sabine?)<br /> <br /> ===Downloads===<br /> * The downloads in China are remarkable high<br /> <br /> ===Hosting===<br /> * Thousands of installed MediaWiki on shared hosting (one-click) providers<br /> <br /> ===Most downloaded extensions===<br /> Even to know, which extensions are popular is nearly impossible. Some data from December 2014 (shared by Legoktm) are interesting. And give a first impression of needed add-ons in wikis beyond the Wikimedia Foundation. Many &quot;top 20&quot; extensions already prove the intense use of MediaWiki in companies and organizations. <br /> <br /> ===Comparisons with Wordpress and other content management systems===<br /> (Richard)<br /> * Compare trends. Searches for Wordpress and MediaWIki, Confluence ... <br /> * Comparison searches for wiki and blog: Wiki more popular. But MediaWiki is not the most important player<br /> * Reason: No ecosystem for MediaWiki established, SMW, BlueSpice, Wikia, WMF ... working separated.<br /> <br /> ==Typical MediaWiki users==<br /> The '''typical survey participant''' is either a developer/administrator or in management and works in a small organization with 25 or less people. Using MediaWiki now for over 5 years, he counts as long time user. He is managing 2–5 wikis, from which at least 1 is public and 1 private. The user sees 25 or less people on his wiki. The user uses MediaWiki because of it being Open Source and easy to use due to its similarity to Wikipedia. His public wiki is a fun site and his enterprise wiki is used for internal knowledge creation and management. He is unhappy with the upgrade process and the installation of new extensions and would like to see WordPress-like simple update buttons in the admin backend. For the enterprise wiki, access control and a functioning easy Visual Editor are important, but even more important is a slick, superpretty GUI. The user is part of the software community and contributes some feedback and bug reports. He also spreads the word. Irritating is the connection to Wikipedia and the scrambled software documentation, which isn't very user-friendly. Community-wise, he wishes for a master plan, good communication and easy ways of involvement to give back to the community and support the project.<br /> <br /> ===Position/Title===<br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;„Sysadmin, high Queen, that idiot.“&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> Out of 134 participants of the survey, almost every fifth (20 %, 27) is in software development, every sixth (16 %, 22) is a software admin. External functions like management and leadership can be found in every sixth participant (14 %, 20), one eighth (12 %, 17) has science and academic background. Defined wiki users only acount for 12 % (12 %, 16) of the participants. 1 out of 10 have any other external background. (10 %, 14). At maximum 4 percent of the participants (4 %, 5) have direct or indirect relation to WMF or are software distributors. About one eighth of the answers (12 %, 16) were either unclear or unanswered.<br /> <br /> In 10 survey participants:<br /> * 2 are software developers<br /> * 2 administrators<br /> * 2 are in management/leadership position<br /> * 1 have academic background<br /> * 1 are solely wiki-users<br /> * 2 are doing something else...<br /> * 1 does not answer the question<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/What is your position or title?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Sizes of organization===<br /> About half of all participants work in organizations with 25 or less people (48,12 %, 64). Every fourth participant is part of an organization between 25 and 500 people (21 %, 28). Organizations with 500 or more people account for almost a third of all (28 %, 37).<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/How large is your organization?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Usage time of MediaWiki===<br /> More than half of the survey participants are long time users of MediaWiki, they use it 5+ years (54 %, 72). Almost a quarter is still using the software for 3–5 years (22 %, 30). The last quarter of participants is using the software for 1-2 years or less than 6 months. (24 %, 32). New users, who use the software for less than 6 months, account for about 5 % of the participants (5 %, 7). This figure can be an indication for how visible the survey was to new users.<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/How long have you been using MW?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Number of MediaWiki sites===<br /> The vast majority of users is managing 2 or more MediaWiki sites (almost 70 % of all). More than a third of all users / 4 out of 10 users manage 2–5 wikis. This is the highest figure in total (40 %, 54). Together with managers of 5-10 wikis, this accounts for half of all users. Every third participant is managing 5 or more. (30 %, 40). The figure of users managing more than 10 wikis is double as high (19 %, 26) as those managing 5 to 10 wikis (10 %, 14). Still, a quarter of the participants is managing 1 single MW site (25 %, 34). Only a few participants (4,5 %, 6) are not managing any MW site.<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/How many MediaWiki sites do you manage?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Public and private sites===<br /> Out of 133 answers, 36 users manage public wikis (27 %), 38 users manage private wikis (28,5 %) and 59 users manage a mix of both (44 %).<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/Are your sites public or private?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Number of users===<br /> Out of 133 answers, about a third of all survey parcicipants have 25 people or less on their wikis (36 %, 48), 1 in 10 participants are using the wiki just to themselves (11 %, 15).<br /> <br /> Relatively equally spread are the numbers of wikis with more users than 25:<br /> * 25–100 &gt; (19 %, 26)<br /> *100–500 &gt; (15 %, 20)<br /> *500+ &gt; (25 %, 33)<br /> <br /> Significant is the number of large wikis with 500 users or more, which account for a quarter of all participants (25 %, 33).<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/Approximately how many people are there on your MediaWiki sites?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Extensions and age of the used wikis==<br /> <br /> ===MediaWiki versions===<br /> <br /> ===Updates===<br /> <br /> ===Most important extensions===<br /> <br /> ==Reasons for using MediaWiki==<br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;„bad habits die hard.“&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;''Note: Telling from the answers, the question could have been clearer or separated into more than one. People understood different questions: ''<br /> <br /> * ''Why do you use MediaWiki –&amp;nbsp;and no other (collaboration) software?''<br /> * ''Why do you use MediaWiki –&amp;nbsp;and no other wiki software?''<br /> * ''What features and strengths do you value in the MediaWiki software?''<br /> * ''What do you use MediaWiki for? (I use it as...)''<br /> &lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> === Features / Functions, also in comparison to other software ===<br /> Participants choose MW mainly for these reasons: It is easy to use, it is simple, but flexible, adaptable and expandible, it has an active Open Source community. A role in this play general public reputation, the possibility to participate and the proximity to the widely known Wikipedia.<br /> <br /> ==== Wikipedia. ====<br /> In comparison to other wiki software, primarily for public wikis the similarity to Wikipedia was the most motivating reason for choosing MW. Wikipedia here functions on the one hand as an acceleration for implementation and change management due to the known code base (wikitext) and the familiarity with the interface. Good experiences should transfer. Reputation also plays a role. And on the other hand as a motivator („learn 1, know 2“). '''<br /> <br /> ====Open Source / Free. Community, Movement.====<br /> Users choose MW, because of it being Open Source, the big and active community, the trust in the broad authorship and hence the stability. Being free of charge also helps.<br /> <br /> Nice to see that one user mentioned that, when MW is &quot;developed by a non-profit organization and volunteers from all over the world and when you run a non-profit site it is a major plus for you if you can run your site on open-source free software&quot;.<br /> <br /> ====Simple, easy to use, stable.====<br /> An important part plays also the independence of the user in relation to functionalities: MW is easy to setup, easy to extend (good scalability), easy to adapt/adjust to ones needs, to many different needs. MediaWiki is simple, but extendible. This high flexibility is a valued feature.<br /> <br /> ====Questionable aspects====<br /> ''On the positive side, the software feels easy to handle and update, with an active, approachable community:''<br /> *„[...] features including easy-to-configure wikifarm set up […]”<br /> *&quot;[…] solid single-source solution for corporate knowledge management.&quot;<br /> *&quot; It's perfect for our company&quot;<br /> *&quot;The data model and core upgrade with simplicity&quot;<br /> ''These are all things later being answered to the contrary.''<br /> <br /> ''The user interface is mentioned once as a reason FOR MediaWiki, although it will later become rather a feature AGAINST it. Participants mention the editing as straightforward and easy, which will, again, later heavily questioned in the wishes for better editing options. This contradiction also holds true for software speed.''<br /> <br /> Some more aspects mentioned:<br /> *The internationalization out of the box<br /> *the version history as attribution of collaboration<br /> *the automation functions via bots and API<br /> *templates<br /> * Semantic MediaWiki<br /> <br /> ===Use cases in public and private wikis===<br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;“MediaWiki is the best and best known tool to organize data in an open way for many users.&quot;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> Specific use cases in public wikis circle around public documentation for cultural institutions and NPOs, fun sites and last but not least as a knowledge tool: for collaborative creation, presentation and documentation of knowledge.<br /> <br /> In corporate and therefore private (non-public) situations, wikis are mostly used for internal communication and internal knowledge transfer. <br /> The wiki also serves as a document repository or for manuals and machine documentation, especially technical documentation seems to be an important use case – whether it's meant to share with the public or the company.<br /> <br /> In the rather rarely mentioned personal situations, wikis are used for a personal knowledgebase (e.g. as a collection for research material in scientific contexts) or as a publication platform among a chosen few, like the family.<br /> <br /> MediaWiki is valued as a good platform for organizing big amounts of dynamic knowledge, as a memory base, an information portal. &quot;Sharing&quot; is key here. MediaWiki is also used for Wikipedia's original use case of an encyclopedia.<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;“As a platform for almost everything.”&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/Why do you use MediaWiki?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Feature requests==<br /> (Richard)<br /> ===Primary requirements===<br /> <br /> ===Secondary requirements===<br /> <br /> === What would you like to see most improved in MediaWiki the software? ''–– The feature wish list.'' ===<br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;„I pretty much love it as is.“&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> Out of 113 answers, the most wanted features (mentions) are easy software and extension management, installation and upgrade process (30), detailed access control and enterprise support (12), a feature-rich and functioning editor out of the box (13). An extremely important valued feature is the GUI, UX, usability and the skinning process (18). Users see themselves confronted with the spam problem (6). Participants also see improvements in speed (4), in the development itself (4), have ideas for the codebase (5). File (3) and image handling (4) can be improved, as well as language support (3). Better handling of wiki farms (4). They would like to see support for other databases (2), better error messages (2) and better support for new users (in a wiki) (2). Mobile Frontend (2) could be there out of the box. Template handling (2) can bee improved as well as the search function (2). The discussion pages (2) and the watchlist feature (2) could be improved.<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/What would you like to see most improved in MediaWiki the software?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> See also: [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki_Stakeholders%27_Group/Tasks/Feature_wishlist MediaWiki Stakeholders' Group/Tasks/Feature wishlist], where most content was already included.<br /> <br /> ==Community==<br /> <br /> ===Contributions for the community===<br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;„I preach its worth to everyone I talk to“&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> From all survey participants, 5 out of 10 are contributing feedback and bug reports, 4 out of 10 are contributing to extensions.<br /> 3 help with questions and provide support and improve documentation. Only 2 out of 10 contribute patches and bugfixes, even less contribute to MediaWiki core.<br /> <br /> Other contributions worth mentioning are<br /> * Help build the community, organize meetings, like SMWCon<br /> * Support on IRC channel <br /> * Help choosing the SMW of the month<br /> * Promotion and marketing, also like &quot;I preach its worth to everyone I talk to&quot;<br /> * Financial donations<br /> * Writing books about MW<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/Do you make contributions to the MediaWiki community?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Improvements and barriers===<br /> ''Quite a few answers circle around the MediaWiki software, which was part of a preceding question and get mentioned there.''<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;&quot;The underlying perception that MediaWiki's focus should be on Wikipedia. MediaWiki is bigger than Wikipedia and everyone needs to accept that fact. It is critical that the community address the needs of the majority, even if that means working on features that aren't relevant for Wikipedia. MediaWiki and Wikipedia can diverge and still thrive together. The more that the WMF supports &quot;3rd-party users&quot;, the more those 3rd-party users will support the WMF.&quot;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Wikipedia'''. A main aspect was the relation to Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation. The connection to WMF and Wikipedia, wasn't seen as solely positive. The focus on Wikipedia in the MW community and of the WMF was criticized. The non-WMF developer community should be better visible, more active and more in charge. The dev team should be separated from Wikipedia (as in .com for Wikipedia and .org for the Open Source software). The core devs should develop more towards the usage of MW beyond Wikimedia sites. Hence, certain independence from WMF development, a wish for a dedicated MediaWiki conference and other events, where involvement could be discussed.<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;“Documentation, documentation, documentation. But maybe that's just me.”&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;&quot;It's a developers' system with mostly developers' documentation.&quot;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> '''Documentation'''. User documentation could be improved by establishing a common language and adding clear tutorials for difficult installation processes (e.g. Visual Editor on Shared Hosting). Documentation should include the most basic, common use cases as well as less commonly used features. Documentation was criticized to often be outdated, incomplete or missing altogether. Participants wished for simple beginner tutorials and user-centered documentation content. Most of the documentation is technology driven, not use-case-driven.<br /> <br /> Developers should also have better documentation and easier access to help in their extension development, collaborative development should be encouraged. Developers see their code not reviewed at all or not quick enough, <br /> Also, the clearer the roadmap is (supported technologies etc.), the better. Clear regulations and starting points should ease the entry of new developers.<br /> <br /> '''Master plan.''' Quite a few users wished for an overall strategy, a master plan, which is focussing on all MediaWiki users (and not only Wikipedia). Interestingly, some participants asked for a community supporting enterprise users (which could mean, the Stakeholder's Group isn't yet seen as this). Some see this in the for-profit sector, some would only like to see a community, strongly supporting the overall development towards their own needs.<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;&quot;3rd party MediaWiki users unite!&quot;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Communication'''. Some users feel intimidated by the community, it's like an unaccessible &quot;elite&quot; and not easy to join. Communication tools are not yet properly supporting this: IRC as a discussion platform is not well-known, not very accessible for newbies and not always answered. People don't always know who to address their questions to, some wish for non-public ways of asking for help. Also, developers seem to be connected quite well – but not adminstrators.<br /> <br /> '''People want to help, but are not always sure, how.''' New users sometimes feel intimidated and discouraged. Newbies often don't know where to start, where to find help, who to ask. What contribution is asked for? What communication channel should be used for what? Calls for help are not prominent enough. As a new user, it is very difficult to oversee the status of the software development.<br /> <br /> People wish for concise information about the most important news. The system feels very complex. Some see also technical obstacles, like composer and the steep learning curve.<br /> <br /> '''Awareness'''. Many people do not yet know of (Semantic) MediaWiki's possibilities, so it's time to spread the word.<br /> <br /> Other ideas:<br /> *There was a wish for an &quot;editor-in-chief&quot; on mediawiki.org, the site seems sort of abandoned.<br /> *Even the community ressources should be visually appealing.<br /> <br /> Praise: &quot;Actually think the community is very healthy.&quot;<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/What would you like to see most improved in the community around MediaWiki?]]&lt;/small&gt;&lt;br /&gt;<br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/What barriers, if any, do you think exist to participation in the MediaWiki community? What can we do to help?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Next steps and requirements==<br /> (Chris, Mark, Markus, all .....)<br /> * Reliability<br /> * Standardization<br /> * Services in core<br /> * MediaWiki Foundation<br /> <br /> ===Some conclusions from the survey===<br /> Welcome newcomers:<br /> * &gt;&gt; Introduce and include newbies, encourage productivity.<br /> * &gt;&gt; Offer basic technical workshops and tutorials<br /> * &gt;&gt; Call for help on prominant places in a friendly, open and appealing manner<br /> Strengthen the community:<br /> * &gt;&gt; Centralize the community around developers and users.<br /> * &gt;&gt; Estabilsh local events and MediaWiki conference<br /> * &gt;&gt; Improve documentation, include clear documenation for common use cases<br /> * &gt;&gt; Improve documentation from developent-driven towards use-case-driven<br /> * &gt;&gt; Centralize communication channels (IRC, mailing lists, discussion pages, bug reports… &gt; forum?), make clear what channels are best used for what<br /> <br /> Raise awareness and visibility of the software and community<br /> <br /> Independence from WMF's needs<br /> <br /> Roadmap<br /> * &gt;&gt; Clear plan, roadmap, strategy focussing on MW users<br /> * &gt;&gt; Community supporting enterprise users<br /> <br /> ==Collection of links related to this topic==<br /> * Chris Koerner: [[MediaWiki_Usage_Report_for_Wikimania_2015|MediaWiki User Report]], Wikimania 2015<br /> * [[MediaWiki_Usage_Questions|MediaWiki Usage Questions]]<br /> * [[Blog_Post:29]]<br /> * [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2015_MediaWiki_User_Report.pdf 2015 MediaWiki User Report PDF on Commons] and on [https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1MUDdnj9DEV7IKQbocG1samCxylDHpsISm1Uzf5x4WMc/edit#slide=id.g5a5c0b7c3_0_36 Google Docs]<br /> * [https://archive.org/details/videoeditserver-87 Presentation] (2015-07-18 MediaWiki Stakeholders)<br /> * [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/2015_MediaWiki_User_Survey mw.org: 2015 MediaWiki User Survey]<br /> * [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki_Stakeholders%27_Group/Tasks/Feature_wishlist mw.org: MediaWiki Stakeholders Group/Tasks/Feature wishlist]<br /> * Image: [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/File:2015_MediaWiki_User_Survey_Plots.pdf Survey Plots PDF] and [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/File:2015_MediaWiki_User_Survey_Brief_Summary.png Survey Brief Summary PNG] (same content)<br /> *[https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T117193 T117193]<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;</div> Sabine Melnicki https://mwstake.org/mwstake/index.php?title=Talk:MediaWiki_Usage_Report_2015&diff=550 Talk:MediaWiki Usage Report 2015 2015-11-05T20:27:31Z <p>Sabine Melnicki: /* See also */</p> <hr /> <div>Trailer<br /> (Chris?)<br /> <br /> ==Distribution== <br /> There's a huge wiki world beyond Wikimedia Foundation.&lt;ref&gt;https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T113210&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> (Sabine?)<br /> <br /> ===Downloads===<br /> * The downloads in China are remarkable high<br /> <br /> ===Hosting===<br /> * Thousands of installed MediaWiki on shared hosting (one-click) providers<br /> <br /> ===Most downloaded extensions===<br /> Even to know, which extensions are popular is nearly impossible. Some data from December 2014 (shared by Legoktm) are interesting. And give a first impression of needed add-ons in wikis beyond the Wikimedia Foundation. Many &quot;top 20&quot; extensions already prove the intense use of MediaWiki in companies and organizations. <br /> <br /> ===Comparisons with Wordpress and other content management systems===<br /> (Richard)<br /> * Compare trends. Searches for Wordpress and MediaWIki, Confluence ... <br /> * Comparison searches for wiki and blog: Wiki more popular. But MediaWiki is not the most important player<br /> * Reason: No ecosystem for MediaWiki established, SMW, BlueSpice, Wikia, WMF ... working separated.<br /> <br /> ==Typical MediaWiki users==<br /> The '''typical survey participant''' is either a developer/administrator or in management and works in a small organization with 25 or less people. Using MediaWiki now for over 5 years, he counts as long time user. He is managing 2–5 wikis, from which at least 1 is public and 1 private. The user sees 25 or less people on his wiki. The user uses MediaWiki because of it being Open Source and easy to use due to its similarity to Wikipedia. His public wiki is a fun site and his enterprise wiki is used for internal knowledge creation and management. He is unhappy with the upgrade process and the installation of new extensions and would like to see WordPress-like simple update buttons in the admin backend. For the enterprise wiki, access control and a functioning easy Visual Editor are important, but even more important is a slick, superpretty GUI. The user is part of the software community and contributes some feedback and bug reports. He also spreads the word. Irritating is the connection to Wikipedia and the scrambled software documentation, which isn't very user-friendly. Community-wise, he wishes for a master plan, good communication and easy ways of involvement to give back to the community and support the project.<br /> <br /> ===Position/Title===<br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;„Sysadmin, high Queen, that idiot.“&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> Out of 134 participants of the survey, almost every fifth (20 %, 27) is in software development, every sixth (16 %, 22) is a software admin. External functions like management and leadership can be fond in every sixth participant (14 %, 20), one eight (12 %, 17) has science and academic background. Defined wiki-users only acount for 12 % (12 %, 16) of the participants. 1 out of 10 have any other external background. (10 %, 14). A maximum 4 percent of the participants (4 %, 5) have direct or indirect relation to WMF or are software distributors. About one eighth of the answers (12 %, 16) were either unclear or unanswered.<br /> <br /> In 10 survey participants:<br /> * 2 are software developers<br /> * 2 administrators<br /> * 2 are in management/leadership position<br /> * 1 have academic background<br /> * 1 are solely wiki-users<br /> * 2 are doing something else...<br /> * 1 does not answer the question<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/What is your position or title?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Sizes of organization===<br /> About half of all participants work in organizations with 25 or less people (48,12 %, 64). Every fourth participant is part of an organization between 25 and 500 people (21 %, 28). Organizations with 500 or more people account for almost a third of all (28 %, 37).<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/How large is your organization?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Usage time of MediaWiki===<br /> More than half of the survey participants are long time users of MediaWiki, they use it 5+ years (54 %, 72). Almost a quarter is still using the software for 3–5 years (22 %, 30). The last quarter of participants is using the software for 1-2 years or less than 6 months. (24 %, 32). New users, who use the software for less than 6 months, account for about 5 % of the participants (5 %, 7). This figure can be an indication for how visible the survey was to new users.<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/How long have you been using MW?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Number of MediaWiki sites===<br /> The vast majority of users is managing 2 or more MediaWiki sites (almost 70 % of all). More than a third of all users / 4 out of 10 users manage 2–5 wikis. This is the highest figure in total (40 %, 54). Together with managers of 5-10 wikis, this accounts for half of all users. Every third participant is managing 5 or more. (30 %, 40). The figure of users managing more than 10 wikis is double as high (19 %, 26) as those managing 5 to 10 wikis (10 %, 14). Still, a quarter of the participants is managing 1 single MW site (25 %, 34). Only a few participants (4,5 %, 6) are not managing any MW site.<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/How many MediaWiki sites do you manage?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Public and private sites===<br /> Out of 133 answers, 36 users manage public wikis (27 %), 38 users manage private wikis (28,5 %) and 59 users manage a mix of both (44 %).<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/Are your sites public or private?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Number of users===<br /> Out of 133 answers, about a third of all survey parcicipants have 25 people or less on their wikis (36 %, 48), 1 in 10 participants are using the wiki just to themselves (11 %, 15).<br /> <br /> Relatively equally spread are the numbers of wikis with more users than 25:<br /> * 25–100 &gt; (19 %, 26)<br /> *100–500 &gt; (15 %, 20)<br /> *500+ &gt; (25 %, 33)<br /> <br /> Significant is the number of large wikis with 500 users or more, which account for a quarter of all participants (25 %, 33).<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/Approximately how many people are there on your MediaWiki sites?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Extensions and age of the used wikis==<br /> <br /> ===MediaWiki versions===<br /> <br /> ===Updates===<br /> <br /> ===Most important extensions===<br /> <br /> ==Reasons for using MediaWiki==<br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;„bad habits die hard.“&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;''Note: Telling from the answers, the question could have been clearer or separated into more than one. People understood different questions: ''<br /> <br /> * ''Why do you use MediaWiki –&amp;nbsp;and no other (collaboration) software?''<br /> * ''Why do you use MediaWiki –&amp;nbsp;and no other wiki software?''<br /> * ''What features and strengths do you value in the MediaWiki software?''<br /> * ''What do you use MediaWiki for? (I use it as...)''<br /> &lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> === Features / Functions, also in comparison to other software ===<br /> Participants choose MW mainly for these reasons: It is easy to use, it is simple, but flexible, adaptable and expandible, it has an active Open Source community. A role in this play general public reputation, the possibility to participate and the proximity to the widely known Wikipedia.<br /> <br /> ==== Wikipedia. ====<br /> In comparison to other wiki software, primarily for public wikis the similarity to Wikipedia was the most motivating reason for choosing MW. Wikipedia here functions on the one hand as an acceleration for implementation and change management due to the known code base (wikitext) and the familiarity with the interface. Good experiences should transfer. Reputation also plays a role. And on the other hand as a motivator („learn 1, know 2“). '''<br /> <br /> ====Open Source / Free. Community, Movement.====<br /> Users choose MW, because of it being Open Source, the big and active community, the trust in the broad authorship and hence the stability. Being free of charge also helps.<br /> <br /> Nice to see that one user mentioned that, when MW is &quot;developed by a non-profit organization and volunteers from all over the world and when you run a non-profit site it is a major plus for you if you can run your site on open-source free software&quot;.<br /> <br /> ====Simple, easy to use, stable.====<br /> An important part plays also the independence of the user in relation to functionalities: MW is easy to setup, easy to extend (good scalability), easy to adapt/adjust to ones needs, to many different needs. MediaWiki is simple, but extendible. This high flexibility is a valued feature.<br /> <br /> ====Questionable aspects====<br /> ''On the positive side, the software feels easy to handle and update, with an active, approachable community:''<br /> *„[...] features including easy-to-configure wikifarm set up […]”<br /> *&quot;[…] solid single-source solution for corporate knowledge management.&quot;<br /> *&quot; It's perfect for our company&quot;<br /> *&quot;The data model and core upgrade with simplicity&quot;<br /> ''These are all things later being answered to the contrary.''<br /> <br /> ''The user interface is mentioned once as a reason FOR MediaWiki, although it will later become rather a feature AGAINST it. Participants mention the editing as straightforward and easy, which will, again, later heavily questioned in the wishes for better editing options. This contradiction also holds true for software speed.''<br /> <br /> Some more aspects mentioned:<br /> *The internationalization out of the box<br /> *the version history as attribution of collaboration<br /> *the automation functions via bots and API<br /> *templates<br /> * Semantic MediaWiki<br /> <br /> ===Use cases in public and private wikis===<br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;“MediaWiki is the best and best known tool to organize data in an open way for many users.&quot;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> Specific use cases in public wikis circle around public documentation for cultural institutions and NPOs, fun sites and last but not least as a knowledge tool: for collaborative creation, presentation and documentation of knowledge.<br /> <br /> In corporate and therefore private (non-public) situations, wikis are mostly used for internal communication and internal knowledge transfer. <br /> The wiki also serves as a document repository or for manuals and machine documentation, especially technical documentation seems to be an important use case – whether it's meant to share with the public or the company.<br /> <br /> In the rather rarely mentioned personal situations, wikis are used for a personal knowledgebase (e.g. as a collection for research material in scientific contexts) or as a publication platform among a chosen few, like the family.<br /> <br /> MediaWiki is valued as a good platform for organizing big amounts of dynamic knowledge, as a memory base, an information portal. &quot;Sharing&quot; is key here. MediaWiki is also used for Wikipedia's original use case of an encyclopedia.<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;“As a platform for almost everything.”&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/Why do you use MediaWiki?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Feature requests==<br /> (Richard)<br /> ===Primary requirements===<br /> <br /> ===Secondary requirements===<br /> <br /> === What would you like to see most improved in MediaWiki the software? ''–– The feature wish list.'' ===<br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;„I pretty much love it as is.“&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> Out of 113 answers, the most wanted features (mentions) are easy software and extension management, installation and upgrade process (30), detailed access control and enterprise support (12), a feature-rich and functioning editor out of the box (13). An extremely important valued feature is the GUI, UX, usability and the skinning process (18). Users see themselves confronted with the spam problem (6). Participants also see improvements in speed (4), in the development itself (4), have ideas for the codebase (5). File (3) and image handling (4) can be improved, as well as language support (3). Better handling of wiki farms (4). They would like to see support for other databases (2), better error messages (2) and better support for new users (in a wiki) (2). Mobile Frontend (2) could be there out of the box. Template handling (2) can bee improved as well as the search function (2). The discussion pages (2) and the watchlist feature (2) could be improved.<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/What would you like to see most improved in MediaWiki the software?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> See also: [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki_Stakeholders%27_Group/Tasks/Feature_wishlist MediaWiki Stakeholders' Group/Tasks/Feature wishlist], where most content was already included.<br /> <br /> ==Community==<br /> <br /> ===Contributions for the community===<br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;„I preach its worth to everyone I talk to“&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> From all survey participants, 5 out of 10 are contributing feedback and bug reports, 4 out of 10 are contributing to extensions.<br /> 3 help with questions and provide support and improve documentation. Only 2 out of 10 contribute patches and bugfixes, even less contribute to MediaWiki core.<br /> <br /> Other contributions worth mentioning are<br /> * Help build the community, organize meetings, like SMWCon<br /> * Support on IRC channel <br /> * Help choosing the SMW of the month<br /> * Promotion and marketing, also like &quot;I preach its worth to everyone I talk to&quot;<br /> * Financial donations<br /> * Writing books about MW<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/Do you make contributions to the MediaWiki community?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Improvements and barriers===<br /> ''Quite a few answers circle around the MediaWiki software, which was part of a preceding question and get mentioned there.''<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;&quot;The underlying perception that MediaWiki's focus should be on Wikipedia. MediaWiki is bigger than Wikipedia and everyone needs to accept that fact. It is critical that the community address the needs of the majority, even if that means working on features that aren't relevant for Wikipedia. MediaWiki and Wikipedia can diverge and still thrive together. The more that the WMF supports &quot;3rd-party users&quot;, the more those 3rd-party users will support the WMF.&quot;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Wikipedia'''. A main aspect was the relation to Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation. The connection to WMF and Wikipedia, wasn't seen as solely positive. The focus on Wikipedia in the MW community and of the WMF was criticized. The non-WMF developer community should be better visible, more active and more in charge. The dev team should be separated from Wikipedia (as in .com for Wikipedia and .org for the Open Source software). The core devs should develop more towards the usage of MW beyond Wikimedia sites. Hence, certain independence from WMF development, a wish for a dedicated MediaWiki conference and other events, where involvement could be discussed.<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;“Documentation, documentation, documentation. But maybe that's just me.”&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;&quot;It's a developers' system with mostly developers' documentation.&quot;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> '''Documentation'''. User documentation could be improved by establishing a common language and adding clear tutorials for difficult installation processes (e.g. Visual Editor on Shared Hosting). Documentation should include the most basic, common use cases as well as less commonly used features. Documentation was criticized to often be outdated, incomplete or missing altogether. Participants wished for simple beginner tutorials and user-centered documentation content. Most of the documentation is technology driven, not use-case-driven.<br /> <br /> Developers should also have better documentation and easier access to help in their extension development, collaborative development should be encouraged. Developers see their code not reviewed at all or not quick enough, <br /> Also, the clearer the roadmap is (supported technologies etc.), the better. Clear regulations and starting points should ease the entry of new developers.<br /> <br /> '''Master plan.''' Quite a few users wished for an overall strategy, a master plan, which is focussing on all MediaWiki users (and not only Wikipedia). Interestingly, some participants asked for a community supporting enterprise users (which could mean, the Stakeholder's Group isn't yet seen as this). Some see this in the for-profit sector, some would only like to see a community, strongly supporting the overall development towards their own needs.<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;&quot;3rd party MediaWiki users unite!&quot;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Communication'''. Some users feel intimidated by the community, it's like an unaccessible &quot;elite&quot; and not easy to join. Communication tools are not yet properly supporting this: IRC as a discussion platform is not well-known, not very accessible for newbies and not always answered. People don't always know who to address their questions to, some wish for non-public ways of asking for help. Also, developers seem to be connected quite well – but not adminstrators.<br /> <br /> '''People want to help, but are not always sure, how.''' New users sometimes feel intimidated and discouraged. Newbies often don't know where to start, where to find help, who to ask. What contribution is asked for? What communication channel should be used for what? Calls for help are not prominent enough. As a new user, it is very difficult to oversee the status of the software development.<br /> <br /> People wish for concise information about the most important news. The system feels very complex. Some see also technical obstacles, like composer and the steep learning curve.<br /> <br /> '''Awareness'''. Many people do not yet know of (Semantic) MediaWiki's possibilities, so it's time to spread the word.<br /> <br /> Other ideas:<br /> *There was a wish for an &quot;editor-in-chief&quot; on mediawiki.org, the site seems sort of abandoned.<br /> *Even the community ressources should be visually appealing.<br /> <br /> Praise: &quot;Actually think the community is very healthy.&quot;<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/What would you like to see most improved in the community around MediaWiki?]]&lt;/small&gt;&lt;br /&gt;<br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/What barriers, if any, do you think exist to participation in the MediaWiki community? What can we do to help?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Next steps and requirements==<br /> (Chris, Mark, Markus, all .....)<br /> * Reliability<br /> * Standardization<br /> * Services in core<br /> * MediaWiki Foundation<br /> <br /> ===Some conclusions from the survey===<br /> Welcome newcomers:<br /> * &gt;&gt; Introduce and include newbies, encourage productivity.<br /> * &gt;&gt; Offer basic technical workshops and tutorials<br /> * &gt;&gt; Call for help on prominant places in a friendly, open and appealing manner<br /> Strengthen the community:<br /> * &gt;&gt; Centralize the community around developers and users.<br /> * &gt;&gt; Estabilsh local events and MediaWiki conference<br /> * &gt;&gt; Improve documentation, include clear documenation for common use cases<br /> * &gt;&gt; Improve documentation from developent-driven towards use-case-driven<br /> * &gt;&gt; Centralize communication channels (IRC, mailing lists, discussion pages, bug reports… &gt; forum?), make clear what channels are best used for what<br /> <br /> Raise awareness and visibility of the software and community<br /> <br /> Independence from WMF's needs<br /> <br /> Roadmap<br /> * &gt;&gt; Clear plan, roadmap, strategy focussing on MW users<br /> * &gt;&gt; Community supporting enterprise users<br /> <br /> ==Collection of links related to this topic==<br /> * Chris Koerner: [[MediaWiki_Usage_Report_for_Wikimania_2015|MediaWiki User Report]], Wikimania 2015<br /> * [[MediaWiki_Usage_Questions|MediaWiki Usage Questions]]<br /> * [[Blog_Post:29]]<br /> * [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2015_MediaWiki_User_Report.pdf 2015 MediaWiki User Report PDF on Commons] and on [https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1MUDdnj9DEV7IKQbocG1samCxylDHpsISm1Uzf5x4WMc/edit#slide=id.g5a5c0b7c3_0_36 Google Docs]<br /> * [https://archive.org/details/videoeditserver-87 Presentation] (2015-07-18 MediaWiki Stakeholders)<br /> * [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/2015_MediaWiki_User_Survey mw.org: 2015 MediaWiki User Survey]<br /> * [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki_Stakeholders%27_Group/Tasks/Feature_wishlist mw.org: MediaWiki Stakeholders Group/Tasks/Feature wishlist]<br /> * Image: [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/File:2015_MediaWiki_User_Survey_Plots.pdf Survey Plots PDF] and [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/File:2015_MediaWiki_User_Survey_Brief_Summary.png Survey Brief Summary PNG] (same content)<br /> *[https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T117193 T117193]<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;</div> Sabine Melnicki https://mwstake.org/mwstake/index.php?title=Talk:MediaWiki_Usage_Report_2015&diff=544 Talk:MediaWiki Usage Report 2015 2015-10-19T09:10:06Z <p>Sabine Melnicki: /* Position/Title */</p> <hr /> <div>Trailer<br /> (Chris?)<br /> <br /> ==Distribution== <br /> There's a huge wiki world beyond Wikimedia Foundation.&lt;ref&gt;https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T113210&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> (Sabine?)<br /> <br /> ===Downloads===<br /> * The downloads in China are remarkable high<br /> <br /> ===Hosting===<br /> * Thousands of installed MediaWiki on shared hosting (one-click) providers<br /> <br /> ===Most downloaded extensions===<br /> Even to know, which extensions are popular is nearly impossible. Some data from December 2014 (shared by Legoktm) are interesting. And give a first impression of needed add-ons in wikis beyond the Wikimedia Foundation. Many &quot;top 20&quot; extensions already prove the intense use of MediaWiki in companies and organizations. <br /> <br /> ===Comparisons with Wordpress and other content management systems===<br /> (Richard)<br /> * Compare trends. Searches for Wordpress and MediaWIki, Confluence ... <br /> * Comparison searches for wiki and blog: Wiki more popular. But MediaWiki is not the most important player<br /> * Reason: No ecosystem for MediaWiki established, SMW, BlueSpice, Wikia, WMF ... working separated.<br /> <br /> ==Typical MediaWiki users==<br /> The '''typical survey participant''' is either a developer/administrator or in management and works in a small organization with 25 or less people. Using MediaWiki now for over 5 years, he counts as long time user. He is managing 2–5 wikis, from which at least 1 is public and 1 private. The user sees 25 or less people on his wiki. The user uses MediaWiki because of it being Open Source and easy to use due to its similarity to Wikipedia. His public wiki is a fun site and his enterprise wiki is used for internal knowledge creation and management. He is unhappy with the upgrade process and the installation of new extensions and would like to see WordPress-like simple update buttons in the admin backend. For the enterprise wiki, access control and a functioning easy Visual Editor are important, but even more important is a slick, superpretty GUI. The user is part of the software community and contributes some feedback and bug reports. He also spreads the word. Irritating is the connection to Wikipedia and the scrambled software documentation, which isn't very user-friendly. Community-wise, he wishes for a master plan, good communication and easy ways of involvement to give back to the community and support the project.<br /> <br /> ===Position/Title===<br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;„Sysadmin, high Queen, that idiot.“&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> Out of 134 participants of the survey, almost every fifth (20 %, 27) is in software development, every sixth (16 %, 22) is a software admin. External functions like management and leadership can be fond in every sixth participant (14 %, 20), one eight (12 %, 17) has science and academic background. Defined wiki-users only acount for 12 % (12 %, 16) of the participants. 1 out of 10 have any other external background. (10 %, 14). A maximum 4 percent of the participants (4 %, 5) have direct or indirect relation to WMF or are software distributors. About one eighth of the answers (12 %, 16) were either unclear or unanswered.<br /> <br /> In 10 survey participants:<br /> * 2 are software developers<br /> * 2 administrators<br /> * 2 are in management/leadership position<br /> * 1 have academic background<br /> * 1 are solely wiki-users<br /> * 2 are doing something else...<br /> * 1 does not answer the question<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/What is your position or title?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Sizes of organization===<br /> About half of all participants work in organizations with 25 or less people (48,12 %, 64). Every fourth participant is part of an organization between 25 and 500 people (21 %, 28). Organizations with 500 or more people account for almost a third of all (28 %, 37).<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/How large is your organization?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Usage time of MediaWiki===<br /> More than half of the survey participants are long time users of MediaWiki, they use it 5+ years (54 %, 72). Almost a quarter is still using the software for 3–5 years (22 %, 30). The last quarter of participants is using the software for 1-2 years or less than 6 months. (24 %, 32). New users, who use the software for less than 6 months, account for about 5 % of the participants (5 %, 7). This figure can be an indication for how visible the survey was to new users.<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/How long have you been using MW?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Number of MediaWiki sites===<br /> The vast majority of users is managing 2 or more MediaWiki sites (almost 70 % of all). More than a third of all users / 4 out of 10 users manage 2–5 wikis. This is the highest figure in total (40 %, 54). Together with managers of 5-10 wikis, this accounts for half of all users. Every third participant is managing 5 or more. (30 %, 40). The figure of users managing more than 10 wikis is double as high (19 %, 26) as those managing 5 to 10 wikis (10 %, 14). Still, a quarter of the participants is managing 1 single MW site (25 %, 34). Only a few participants (4,5 %, 6) are not managing any MW site.<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/How many MediaWiki sites do you manage?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Public and private sites===<br /> Out of 133 answers, 36 users manage public wikis (27 %), 38 users manage private wikis (28,5 %) and 59 users manage a mix of both (44 %).<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/Are your sites public or private?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Number of users===<br /> Out of 133 answers, about a third of all survey parcicipants have 25 people or less on their wikis (36 %, 48), 1 in 10 participants are using the wiki just to themselves (11 %, 15).<br /> <br /> Relatively equally spread are the numbers of wikis with more users than 25:<br /> * 25–100 &gt; (19 %, 26)<br /> *100–500 &gt; (15 %, 20)<br /> *500+ &gt; (25 %, 33)<br /> <br /> Significant is the number of large wikis with 500 users or more, which account for a quarter of all participants (25 %, 33).<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/Approximately how many people are there on your MediaWiki sites?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Extensions and age of the used wikis==<br /> <br /> ===MediaWiki versions===<br /> <br /> ===Updates===<br /> <br /> ===Most important extensions===<br /> <br /> ==Reasons for using MediaWiki==<br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;„bad habits die hard.“&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;''Note: Telling from the answers, the question could have been clearer or separated into more than one. People understood different questions: ''<br /> <br /> * ''Why do you use MediaWiki –&amp;nbsp;and no other (collaboration) software?''<br /> * ''Why do you use MediaWiki –&amp;nbsp;and no other wiki software?''<br /> * ''What features and strengths do you value in the MediaWiki software?''<br /> * ''What do you use MediaWiki for? (I use it as...)''<br /> &lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> === Features / Functions, also in comparison to other software ===<br /> Participants choose MW mainly for these reasons: It is easy to use, it is simple, but flexible, adaptable and expandible, it has an active Open Source community. A role in this play general public reputation, the possibility to participate and the proximity to the widely known Wikipedia.<br /> <br /> ==== Wikipedia. ====<br /> In comparison to other wiki software, primarily for public wikis the similarity to Wikipedia was the most motivating reason for choosing MW. Wikipedia here functions on the one hand as an acceleration for implementation and change management due to the known code base (wikitext) and the familiarity with the interface. Good experiences should transfer. Reputation also plays a role. And on the other hand as a motivator („learn 1, know 2“). '''<br /> <br /> ====Open Source / Free. Community, Movement.====<br /> Users choose MW, because of it being Open Source, the big and active community, the trust in the broad authorship and hence the stability. Being free of charge also helps.<br /> <br /> Nice to see that one user mentioned that, when MW is &quot;developed by a non-profit organization and volunteers from all over the world and when you run a non-profit site it is a major plus for you if you can run your site on open-source free software&quot;.<br /> <br /> ====Simple, easy to use, stable.====<br /> An important part plays also the independence of the user in relation to functionalities: MW is easy to setup, easy to extend (good scalability), easy to adapt/adjust to ones needs, to many different needs. MediaWiki is simple, but extendible. This high flexibility is a valued feature.<br /> <br /> ====Questionable aspects====<br /> ''On the positive side, the software feels easy to handle and update, with an active, approachable community:''<br /> *„[...] features including easy-to-configure wikifarm set up […]”<br /> *&quot;[…] solid single-source solution for corporate knowledge management.&quot;<br /> *&quot; It's perfect for our company&quot;<br /> *&quot;The data model and core upgrade with simplicity&quot;<br /> ''These are all things later being answered to the contrary.''<br /> <br /> ''The user interface is mentioned once as a reason FOR MediaWiki, although it will later become rather a feature AGAINST it. Participants mention the editing as straightforward and easy, which will, again, later heavily questioned in the wishes for better editing options. This contradiction also holds true for software speed.''<br /> <br /> Some more aspects mentioned:<br /> *The internationalization out of the box<br /> *the version history as attribution of collaboration<br /> *the automation functions via bots and API<br /> *templates<br /> * Semantic MediaWiki<br /> <br /> ===Use cases in public and private wikis===<br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;“MediaWiki is the best and best known tool to organize data in an open way for many users.&quot;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> Specific use cases in public wikis circle around public documentation for cultural institutions and NPOs, fun sites and last but not least as a knowledge tool: for collaborative creation, presentation and documentation of knowledge.<br /> <br /> In corporate and therefore private (non-public) situations, wikis are mostly used for internal communication and internal knowledge transfer. <br /> The wiki also serves as a document repository or for manuals and machine documentation, especially technical documentation seems to be an important use case – whether it's meant to share with the public or the company.<br /> <br /> In the rather rarely mentioned personal situations, wikis are used for a personal knowledgebase (e.g. as a collection for research material in scientific contexts) or as a publication platform among a chosen few, like the family.<br /> <br /> MediaWiki is valued as a good platform for organizing big amounts of dynamic knowledge, as a memory base, an information portal. &quot;Sharing&quot; is key here. MediaWiki is also used for Wikipedia's original use case of an encyclopedia.<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;“As a platform for almost everything.”&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/Why do you use MediaWiki?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Feature requests==<br /> (Richard)<br /> ===Primary requirements===<br /> <br /> ===Secondary requirements===<br /> <br /> === What would you like to see most improved in MediaWiki the software? ''–– The feature wish list.'' ===<br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;„I pretty much love it as is.“&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> Out of 113 answers, the most wanted features (mentions) are easy software and extension management, installation and upgrade process (30), detailed access control and enterprise support (12), a feature-rich and functioning editor out of the box (13). An extremely important valued feature is the GUI, UX, usability and the skinning process (18). Users see themselves confronted with the spam problem (6). Participants also see improvements in speed (4), in the development itself (4), have ideas for the codebase (5). File (3) and image handling (4) can be improved, as well as language support (3). Better handling of wiki farms (4). They would like to see support for other databases (2), better error messages (2) and better support for new users (in a wiki) (2). Mobile Frontend (2) could be there out of the box. Template handling (2) can bee improved as well as the search function (2). The discussion pages (2) and the watchlist feature (2) could be improved.<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/What would you like to see most improved in MediaWiki the software?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> See also: [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki_Stakeholders%27_Group/Tasks/Feature_wishlist MediaWiki Stakeholders' Group/Tasks/Feature wishlist], where most content was already included.<br /> <br /> ==Community==<br /> <br /> ===Contributions for the community===<br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;„I preach its worth to everyone I talk to“&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> From all survey participants, 5 out of 10 are contributing feedback and bug reports, 4 out of 10 are contributing to extensions.<br /> 3 help with questions and provide support and improve documentation. Only 2 out of 10 contribute patches and bugfixes, even less contribute to MediaWiki core.<br /> <br /> Other contributions worth mentioning are<br /> * Help build the community, organize meetings, like SMWCon<br /> * Support on IRC channel <br /> * Help choosing the SMW of the month<br /> * Promotion and marketing, also like &quot;I preach its worth to everyone I talk to&quot;<br /> * Financial donations<br /> * Writing books about MW<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/Do you make contributions to the MediaWiki community?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Improvements and barriers===<br /> ''Quite a few answers circle around the MediaWiki software, which was part of a preceding question and get mentioned there.''<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;&quot;The underlying perception that MediaWiki's focus should be on Wikipedia. MediaWiki is bigger than Wikipedia and everyone needs to accept that fact. It is critical that the community address the needs of the majority, even if that means working on features that aren't relevant for Wikipedia. MediaWiki and Wikipedia can diverge and still thrive together. The more that the WMF supports &quot;3rd-party users&quot;, the more those 3rd-party users will support the WMF.&quot;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Wikipedia'''. A main aspect was the relation to Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation. The connection to WMF and Wikipedia, wasn't seen as solely positive. The focus on Wikipedia in the MW community and of the WMF was criticized. The non-WMF developer community should be better visible, more active and more in charge. The dev team should be separated from Wikipedia (as in .com for Wikipedia and .org for the Open Source software). The core devs should develop more towards the usage of MW beyond Wikimedia sites. Hence, certain independence from WMF development, a wish for a dedicated MediaWiki conference and other events, where involvement could be discussed.<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;“Documentation, documentation, documentation. But maybe that's just me.”&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;&quot;It's a developers' system with mostly developers' documentation.&quot;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> '''Documentation'''. User documentation could be improved by establishing a common language and adding clear tutorials for difficult installation processes (e.g. Visual Editor on Shared Hosting). Documentation should include the most basic, common use cases as well as less commonly used features. Documentation was criticized to often be outdated, incomplete or missing altogether. Participants wished for simple beginner tutorials and user-centered documentation content. Most of the documentation is technology driven, not use-case-driven.<br /> <br /> Developers should also have better documentation and easier access to help in their extension development, collaborative development should be encouraged. Developers see their code not reviewed at all or not quick enough, <br /> Also, the clearer the roadmap is (supported technologies etc.), the better. Clear regulations and starting points should ease the entry of new developers.<br /> <br /> '''Master plan.''' Quite a few users wished for an overall strategy, a master plan, which is focussing on all MediaWiki users (and not only Wikipedia). Interestingly, some participants asked for a community supporting enterprise users (which could mean, the Stakeholder's Group isn't yet seen as this). Some see this in the for-profit sector, some would only like to see a community, strongly supporting the overall development towards their own needs.<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;&quot;3rd party MediaWiki users unite!&quot;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Communication'''. Some users feel intimidated by the community, it's like an unaccessible &quot;elite&quot; and not easy to join. Communication tools are not yet properly supporting this: IRC as a discussion platform is not well-known, not very accessible for newbies and not always answered. People don't always know who to address their questions to, some wish for non-public ways of asking for help. Also, developers seem to be connected quite well – but not adminstrators.<br /> <br /> '''People want to help, but are not always sure, how.''' New users sometimes feel intimidated and discouraged. Newbies often don't know where to start, where to find help, who to ask. What contribution is asked for? What communication channel should be used for what? Calls for help are not prominent enough. As a new user, it is very difficult to oversee the status of the software development.<br /> <br /> People wish for concise information about the most important news. The system feels very complex. Some see also technical obstacles, like composer and the steep learning curve.<br /> <br /> '''Awareness'''. Many people do not yet know of (Semantic) MediaWiki's possibilities, so it's time to spread the word.<br /> <br /> Other ideas:<br /> *There was a wish for an &quot;editor-in-chief&quot; on mediawiki.org, the site seems sort of abandoned.<br /> *Even the community ressources should be visually appealing.<br /> <br /> Praise: &quot;Actually think the community is very healthy.&quot;<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/What would you like to see most improved in the community around MediaWiki?]]&lt;/small&gt;&lt;br /&gt;<br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/What barriers, if any, do you think exist to participation in the MediaWiki community? What can we do to help?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Next steps and requirements==<br /> (Chris, Mark, Markus, all .....)<br /> * Reliability<br /> * Standardization<br /> * Services in core<br /> * MediaWiki Foundation<br /> <br /> ===Some conclusions from the survey===<br /> Welcome newcomers:<br /> * &gt;&gt; Introduce and include newbies, encourage productivity.<br /> * &gt;&gt; Offer basic technical workshops and tutorials<br /> * &gt;&gt; Call for help on prominant places in a friendly, open and appealing manner<br /> Strengthen the community:<br /> * &gt;&gt; Centralize the community around developers and users.<br /> * &gt;&gt; Estabilsh local events and MediaWiki conference<br /> * &gt;&gt; Improve documentation, include clear documenation for common use cases<br /> * &gt;&gt; Improve documentation from developent-driven towards use-case-driven<br /> * &gt;&gt; Centralize communication channels (IRC, mailing lists, discussion pages, bug reports… &gt; forum?), make clear what channels are best used for what<br /> <br /> Raise awareness and visibility of the software and community<br /> <br /> Independence from WMF's needs<br /> <br /> Roadmap<br /> * &gt;&gt; Clear plan, roadmap, strategy focussing on MW users<br /> * &gt;&gt; Community supporting enterprise users<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> * Chris Koerner: [[MediaWiki_Usage_Report_for_Wikimania_2015|MediaWiki User Report]], Wikimania 2015<br /> * [[MediaWiki_Usage_Questions|MediaWiki Usage Questions]]<br /> * [[Blog_Post:29]]<br /> * [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2015_MediaWiki_User_Report.pdf 2015 MediaWiki User Report PDF on Commons] and on [https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1MUDdnj9DEV7IKQbocG1samCxylDHpsISm1Uzf5x4WMc/edit#slide=id.g5a5c0b7c3_0_36 Google Docs]<br /> * [https://archive.org/details/videoeditserver-87 Presentation] (2015-07-18 MediaWiki Stakeholders)<br /> * [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/2015_MediaWiki_User_Survey mw.org: 2015 MediaWiki User Survey]<br /> * [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki_Stakeholders%27_Group/Tasks/Feature_wishlist mw.org: MediaWiki Stakeholders Group/Tasks/Feature wishlist]<br /> * Image: [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/File:2015_MediaWiki_User_Survey_Plots.pdf Survey Plots PDF] and [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/File:2015_MediaWiki_User_Survey_Brief_Summary.png Survey Brief Summary PNG] (same content)<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;</div> Sabine Melnicki https://mwstake.org/mwstake/index.php?title=MediaWiki_Usage_Report_2015/Why_do_you_use_MediaWiki%3F&diff=543 MediaWiki Usage Report 2015/Why do you use MediaWiki? 2015-10-19T08:58:51Z <p>Sabine Melnicki: Created page with &quot;''Note: Telling from the answers, the question could have been clearer or separated into more than one. People understood different questions: '' * ''Why do you use MediaWiki...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>''Note: Telling from the answers, the question could have been clearer or separated into more than one. People understood different questions: ''<br /> <br /> * ''Why do you use MediaWiki –&amp;nbsp;and no other (collaboration) software?''<br /> * ''Why do you use MediaWiki –&amp;nbsp;and no other wiki software?''<br /> * ''What features and strengths do you value in the MediaWiki software?''<br /> * ''What do you use MediaWiki for? (I use it as...)''<br /> <br /> === FEATURES/FUNCTIONS (ALSO IN COMPARISON TO OTHER SOFTWARE) ===<br /> ==== '''WIKIPEDIA.''' ====<br /> <br /> PUBLIC<br /> * “We wanted to replicate the Wikipedia '''experience''' with our wiki. “ <br /> *“Because people know Wikipedia and it is easier to motivate them to edit when they know that they will learn to edit Wikipedia as well.” <br /> *“We wanted a wiki it seemed the natural choice as we knew it from WP.”<br /> *“Familiarity, Completeness” <br /> *“We need a wiki and we want as well text as multimedia We also wanted a wiki with a wikisyntax that people know” <br /> *“Used on Wikipedia, wiki of Wikimedia Belgium, etc”<br /> *“Because - I am familiar with it from Wikipedia”<br /> *“Our business is a gaming wiki farm. Mediawiki is by far the best choice of software for our purposes since it is the dominant wiki platform. […]”<br /> *“Why MediaWiki? '''Familiarity''' with Wikipedia's '''interface''' […]” <br /> PRIVATE <br /> *“Best Wiki Engine, known to everybody. […]”<br /> *“Best wiki software available and it's recognized so widely by all people the change management is easier for corporations” <br /> MIX <br /> *“Educational platforms, free of charge, use is known by many users because of the wikipedia.&quot;<br /> <br /> ==== OPEN SOURCE / FREE. COMMUNITY, MOVEMENT.====<br /> PRIVATE<br /> * “Open Source based on extensions and has developer community.”<br /> *“it's perfect for our company, a lot of extensions, a big community”<br /> *“It's a great set of code because of it's broad authorship, features, and stability. It gets better-and-better over time, and yet the data model and core upgrades with simplicity. I can count on it, and a corporation is not going to mess it up because of *their plans*.”<br /> PUBLIC <br /> *“Good developer environment” <br /> PUBLIC <br /> *“Open Source, free, it's the best, extensions available, sense of community, the entire movement I love between wikipedia, commons, and others, free open source and sharing.” – <br /> MIX <br /> *“[…] with an active community.”<br /> *“Open Source with large community, very stable, many extensions, great wiki engine […]”<br /> * “I *trust* it (the software) and know it'll be around forever (the community).”<br /> *“Primarily for community engagement and involvement.” <br /> *“MediaWiki has big and vivid community.”<br /> *“Is the software that runs wikipedia and is pretty well maintained and active” <br /> *“MediaWiki is open-source and developed by a non-profit organization and volunteers from all over the world, and when you run a non-profit site it is a major plus for you if you can run your site on open-source free software.”<br /> <br /> ====Simplicity====<br /> PUBLIC <br /> *„ease of extensibility”<br /> MIX <br /> *„A simple piece of software which has a wide range of features including easy-to-configure wikifarm set up using wgConf”<br /> * “It is great and powerful software that offers very many opportunities to build a tailored wiki.”<br /> *“[…] it open up possibilities for new extensions and configurations”<br /> *[…] As Open Source Software it is flexible and adjustable to many different needs. […]”<br /> *“MediaWiki makes it possible to work with wiki software which has many functions, can easily be extended with hundreds of extensions and everyone can contribute to it.”<br /> *“many options ( Extensions), free, possible to add own Extensions”<br /> *“MediaWiki is an open-source, widely-supported, and extendible wiki platform providing the flexibility of an open wiki and the power of a database (through extensions). This provides a solid single-source solution for corporate knowledge management.” <br /> *“user interface, application transparency and user control / translation of multilingual content / excellent support by WMF”<br /> *“* I want a fully versioned, community-safe CMS in many projects * Best integrated data management of any CMS I know * I know how to use it and can fix issues when needed”<br /> <br /> === Flexibilty. Stability. Built-in consisteny checks. ===<br /> PRIVATE<br /> *&lt;nowiki&gt;“For its extreme flexibility” <br /> * “We use MediaWiki primarily for company process, policy, and technical documentation. We use it (instead of other options) primarily because of the stability and flexibility it provides. […]”<br /> “[…]built-in consistency checks (red links, redirects) […]&quot;<br /> <br /> === Easy to use. === <br /> PRIVATE <br /> *“It's easy to use and provide a good concept for my use case.”<br /> * “It is easy to setup, easy to use, and reliable. Also has many ways to organize a bunch of information and turn that into a shippable product.” <br /> * “[…] Easy website set-up.”<br /> * ““[…] We wanted something that is familiar, easy to use, and has a good search.”<br /> PUBLIC <br /> * “The editing is straigtforward” <br /> MIX<br /> * “easy to edit, easy to link”<br /> * “It's flexible, I can set it up very quickly, and users do understand how to use it easily.” <br /> *“* easy to use * available everywhere (webbased) * expandable * flexible information management (just start writing, re-arrange / expand / improve later) * all information in one place -&gt; search” <br /> *“Gathering information easily. Presenting information easily. Connect people.” <br /> *“Preinstalled”<br /> <br /> <br /> '''Scalable. '''<br /> <br /> &lt;nowiki&gt;MIX It's a scalable software platform […]”&lt;/nowiki&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> '''Reputation.'''<br /> <br /> &lt;nowiki&gt;MIX „It's the leading open source MediaWiki […]” –&amp;nbsp;“It´s a well known knowledge plattform tool. […]” – “Global standard, high quality, has the right features to organize big/smart/scientific information ; open source ; I can be involved “&lt;/nowiki&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> '''Translated. i8n.'''<br /> <br /> MIX “It's the only platform that is widely translated and supports all the forms etc. we need.” – “Because it is flexible and has a good i18n.”<br /> <br /> <br /> '''Semantic MediaWiki'''<br /> <br /> &lt;nowiki&gt;PRIVATE “[…] Semantic capability.” – “[…] Semantic Mediawiki is great to collect and proces facts internally and imported from other sources.” –&amp;nbsp;“[…]Additionally Semantic MediaWiki and its related extensions provide a lot of power that we haven't seen in other platforms.” – PUBLIC „Because of Semantic MediaWiki” – “The features and functions of Semantic Mediawiki facilitate my work with terminology and create new possibilities for my projects.” MIX “[…] especially great in combination with Semantic MediaWiki” – “For Semantic Mediawiki and Semantic Forms' ability to allow for easily user-editable database functions.”–&amp;nbsp;“easy of access for users and editors. wide range of possibilities due to semanticmediawiki.”&lt;/nowiki&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> '''Speed.'''<br /> <br /> MIX “It's fast. Work really in a group.” –&amp;nbsp;“I need to be able to do fast updates to web site content. “<br /> <br /> <br /> '''Version history, version control.'''<br /> <br /> PUBLIC “clear attribution of collaboration (version control system for educators), ease of reuse of text data” – MIX “I had Lotus Notes before and migrated to MediaWiki. I need traceability in my sofware projects so the linking is important.”<br /> <br /> <br /> '''I keep using it because I used to.'''<br /> <br /> MIX “When we started our project, a wiki fit our immediate needs better than any available CMS; inside the wiki world, I picked the most active project. This was in 2009, and a visual editor, etc., was just around the corner. I'm using it nowadays because of the momentum - switching just seems to be too hard now for our single-developer outfit. Also, I keep hoping for those changes right around the corner...”<br /> <br /> <br /> '''Collaboration.'''<br /> <br /> &lt;nowiki&gt;PRIVATE “Best in class collaborative document writing. […]”PUBLIC “Collaboration” – MIX “Group editable knowledge base” – “Community knowledge building” – PUBLIC “Why wikis? Most shareable, evergreen platform I've found for professionals to share their stuff. &lt;/nowiki&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> '''Automation.'''<br /> <br /> &lt;nowiki&gt;PRIVATE “[…]automation (bots, api).”&lt;/nowiki&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> '''Structure Information.'''<br /> <br /> PRIVATE “Information structuring.” –&amp;nbsp;“Structured information handling and presentation.”<br /> <br /> <br /> '''Templates.'''<br /> <br /> PUBLIC “template and semwiki functionality”<br /> <br /> <br /> '''PHP.'''<br /> <br /> PUBLIC “Because it replaced phase1 / wiki.pl and was PHP based.”<br /> <br /> === Use cases in public wikis ===<br /> '''Specific use cases especially in public wikis circle around public documentation for cultural institutions and NPOs, fun sites and last but not least knowledge sharing.'''<br /> <br /> <br /> '''Public cultural archive.'''<br /> <br /> “To support a cultural archive site for a not-for-profit foundation”<br /> <br /> '''Public game/fantasy wiki.'''<br /> <br /> “To host a wiki farm of gaming content comprised of 900+ individual wikis.” –&amp;nbsp;“I use media wiki for text RPG games, where we house game information and records of roleplay.” – “We house the largest gaming wiki community.” – “Encyclopedic historical database for a medieval/fantasy combat organization with 35+ years of history and culture.”<br /> <br /> '''Public website with comic strips.'''<br /> <br /> “I use MediaWiki in a similar fashion as Wikipedia, but as an &quot;encyclopedia&quot; exclusively for my comic strip and the rest of my site built around it. As of this writing, this wiki is publicly readable, but I am the only sysop and the sole contributor. MediaWiki makes this relatively easy, and having an interface familiar to my users (who are likely to already be familiar with Wikipedia) makes my wiki easier to use. (I once considered building my entire site around Wikipedia, but for reasons outlined in the following question, I'm glad I didn't go that route.)”<br /> <br /> '''Public collaborative knowledge creation tool.'''<br /> <br /> “Collaberative knowledge and information organization tool” – “Collaborative authoring potential, ease of content entry and editing, easy integration with other tools, fostering the perception of an open system (even though few choose to take part)”<br /> <br /> '''Public knowledge presentation tool.'''<br /> <br /> “Knowledge base for manufacturing equipment” – “trying to provide alternative for Texas attorneys to non-attorney corporate owned websites” –&amp;nbsp;<br /> <br /> '''Public documentation tool.'''<br /> <br /> “We run our customer-facing documentation site on MediaWiki and the PonyDocs extension. We chose MW for documentation because we wanted to enable every employee to edit documentation.”<br /> <br /> <br /> === Use cases in private wikis ===<br /> '''In corporate and therefore private (non-public) situations, wikis are mostly used for internal communication and internal knowledge transfer. The wiki also serves as a document repository or for manuals and machine documentation. '''<br /> <br /> '''In personal situations, wikis are used for a personal knowledgebase (e.g. as a collection for research material in scientific contexts) or as a publication platform among a chosen few, like the family.'''<br /> <br /> <br /> '''Wikipedia-related.'''<br /> <br /> “Testing for Wikipedia” – “I provide online spaces for Wikimedians, so MediaWiki is a natural choice for their familiarity with the software.”<br /> <br /> '''Internal communication. Knowledge transfer. Knowledge base.'''<br /> <br /> “Internal communications” – “Intranet solution” – “I wanted to improvisieren The Knowledge Transfer and - Exchange in my workplace / professional Group.” – “It provides a easy way for co-workers to provide a low-friction way of sharing and finding information within our organization.” – “To share information company-wide.” – “Knowledge sharing and management, Requirements analisys, Development Tools discussion and documentation, Internal education.” –“Internal site used for engineering knowledge management”<br /> <br /> '''Machine documentation. '''<br /> <br /> „Machine documentation”<br /> <br /> '''Manuals. Document repository.'''<br /> <br /> &lt;nowiki&gt;“manuals and info” – “Document repository for internal corporate handbooks. […]” &lt;/nowiki&gt;<br /> <br /> '''CRM.'''<br /> <br /> „CRM“<br /> <br /> '''Special wikis.'''<br /> <br /> “FERCipedia will be built during 2016”<br /> <br /> '''Scientific research material, datasets.'''<br /> <br /> “Am building a personal knowledgebase to house research materials for my Phd.” – “Building research dataset and Data integration”<br /> <br /> '''Family history.'''<br /> <br /> “It's a nice flexible system for doing what I want (I've adapted it to support a family history site for my relatives).”<br /> <br /> <br /> === Specific use cases MIX: ===<br /> '''Organize data.'''<br /> <br /> “MediaWiki is the best and best known tool to organize data in an open way for many users. My private Wiki is used to remember things and organize notes and ideas, another Wiki I host is an informationportal for my hometown, to integrate the people in collecting and organizing data about the town.” – “To bring order to massive amounts of rapidly changing knowledge.”<br /> <br /> '''Information sharing system. Intranet system.'''<br /> <br /> “Because it provides a very good platform for developing information systems for businesses.” – “Sharing knowledge in an organisation, * Sharing information about a game” – “It's has been the primary intranet system at Cimpress/Vistaprint for sharing knowledge since 2007. It is low-cost and scalable. The wiki model is ideal for an educated community of users.”<br /> <br /> '''Self-study and education.'''<br /> <br /> “Part of my Self-Study About How network goes” –&amp;nbsp;“Archive presentations and tutorials.”<br /> <br /> '''Public facing technical documentation. Internal technical documentation.'''<br /> <br /> “We use MW for our public-facing technical documentation. Originally, because free and open source. As time went on, the ability to customize as we needed - stable platform, can make it look and work how you need it to. As opposed to asking a vendor to make changes.”–&amp;nbsp;“We make documentation about our technical project, 3d printing, &quot;fablab all day making&quot; “ –<br /> <br /> '''Personal notebook.'''<br /> <br /> “To store my online notebook...” – “Personal wiki for technical notes.” – “Website, internal documentation”<br /> <br /> '''Collaboration.'''<br /> <br /> “Web based document collaboration (sharing editing duties).”<br /> <br /> '''Encyclopedia.'''<br /> <br /> “For the same reasons as the Wikipedia project that it was originally authored for. Our site(s) are enycopedia-like rather than news, current afffairs of social-media based.” <br /> <br /> '''Wikipedia-related.'''<br /> <br /> “For activities related to the Wikimedia community (MW development, chapter activities)” – “Closely related to wikimedia, we use a convenient and extensible platform called MediaWiki for a crowd sourced translation website”<br /> <br /> '''Special wikis.'''<br /> <br /> “Uncyclopedia is a parody of Wikipedia, which uses MediaWiki.” –&amp;nbsp;“To host the Orain farm”<br /> <br /> <br /> === Simple praise. (And unclear answers.)  Public wikis. ===<br /> '''Central platform.'''<br /> <br /> “As a platform for almost everything.” – “It's an efficient platform to host content and information”<br /> <br /> '''Just because.'''<br /> <br /> “because i make wikis” – “I like wikis.” – “The perfect platform for our needs (PetroWiki)” – “my main goal at begin was: create my personal learning space, see more at (1). The current mission for my wiki is at (2). (1) http://skilledtests.com/wiki/Blog:Observations/question_to_myself:_so,_where_is_the_learning_%3F (2) http://skilledtests.com/wiki/WikiNode” ''(links don’t work) – “''to run a wiki” – “Because I can :P”<br /> <br /> '''It wasn’t my choice.'''<br /> <br /> “Started because of my job, and now I see the value in the software.” – “Was there when I joined” – “Because it's a part of the job.” – “ I was told to install MW by senior management. I still have no idea actually 'why' - despite asking. Usually I am asked to look into providing a 'service' (eg a wiki), and am then allowed to determine a suitable product. For some reason that didn't happen with the wiki.”<br /> <br /> <br /> “It's most convinient for me.”<br /> <br /> “Bad habits die hard.”<br /> <br /> “Best Wiki Software”<br /> <br /> “No better free wiki”<br /> <br /> <br /> '''??'''<br /> <br /> “Only way to capture free form information about our customer based on top of structured relationships”<br /> <br /> “We use MediaWiki as base for semantic wikis on top of SMW.”<br /> <br /> “Market traction”<br /> <br /> “Developing a public Semantic MediaWiki site.”</div> Sabine Melnicki https://mwstake.org/mwstake/index.php?title=Talk:MediaWiki_Usage_Report_2015&diff=542 Talk:MediaWiki Usage Report 2015 2015-10-19T08:58:35Z <p>Sabine Melnicki: /* Reasons for using MediaWiki */</p> <hr /> <div>Trailer<br /> (Chris?)<br /> <br /> ==Distribution== <br /> There's a huge wiki world beyond Wikimedia Foundation.&lt;ref&gt;https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T113210&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> (Sabine?)<br /> <br /> ===Downloads===<br /> * The downloads in China are remarkable high<br /> <br /> ===Hosting===<br /> * Thousands of installed MediaWiki on shared hosting (one-click) providers<br /> <br /> ===Most downloaded extensions===<br /> Even to know, which extensions are popular is nearly impossible. Some data from December 2014 (shared by Legoktm) are interesting. And give a first impression of needed add-ons in wikis beyond the Wikimedia Foundation. Many &quot;top 20&quot; extensions already prove the intense use of MediaWiki in companies and organizations. <br /> <br /> ===Comparisons with Wordpress and other content management systems===<br /> (Richard)<br /> * Compare trends. Searches for Wordpress and MediaWIki, Confluence ... <br /> * Comparison searches for wiki and blog: Wiki more popular. But MediaWiki is not the most important player<br /> * Reason: No ecosystem for MediaWiki established, SMW, BlueSpice, Wikia, WMF ... working separated.<br /> <br /> ==Typical MediaWiki users==<br /> The '''typical survey participant''' is either a developer/administrator or in management and works in a small organization with 25 or less people. Using MediaWiki now for over 5 years, he counts as long time user. He is managing 2–5 wikis, from which at least 1 is public and 1 private. The user sees 25 or less people on his wiki. The user uses MediaWiki because of it being Open Source and easy to use due to its similarity to Wikipedia. His public wiki is a fun site and his enterprise wiki is used for internal knowledge creation and management. He is unhappy with the upgrade process and the installation of new extensions and would like to see WordPress-like simple update buttons in the admin backend. For the enterprise wiki, access control and a functioning easy Visual Editor are important, but even more important is a slick, superpretty GUI. The user is part of the software community and contributes some feedback and bug reports. He also spreads the word. Irritating is the connection to Wikipedia and the scrambled software documentation, which isn't very user-friendly. Community-wise, he wishes for a master plan, good communication and easy ways of involvement to give back to the community and support the project.<br /> <br /> ===Position/Title===<br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;„Sysadmin, high Queen, that idiot.“&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> Out of 134 participants of the survey, almost every fifth (20 %, 27) is in software development, every sixth (1  %, 22) is a software admin. External functions like management and leadership can be fond in every sixth participant (1  %, 20), one eight (12 %, 17) has science and academic background. Defined wiki-users only acount for 12 % (12 %, 16) of the participants. 1 out of 10 have any other external background. (10 %, 14). A maximum 4 percent of the participants (4 %, 5) have direct or indirect relation to WMF or are software distributors. About one eighth of the answers (12 %, 16) were either unclear or unanswered.<br /> <br /> In 10 survey participants:<br /> * 2 are software developers<br /> * 2 administrators<br /> * 2 are in management/leadership position<br /> * 1 have academic background<br /> * 1 are solely wiki-users<br /> * 2 are doing something else...<br /> * 1 does not answer the question<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/What is your position or title?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Sizes of organization===<br /> About half of all participants work in organizations with 25 or less people (48,12 %, 64). Every fourth participant is part of an organization between 25 and 500 people (21 %, 28). Organizations with 500 or more people account for almost a third of all (28 %, 37).<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/How large is your organization?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Usage time of MediaWiki===<br /> More than half of the survey participants are long time users of MediaWiki, they use it 5+ years (54 %, 72). Almost a quarter is still using the software for 3–5 years (22 %, 30). The last quarter of participants is using the software for 1-2 years or less than 6 months. (24 %, 32). New users, who use the software for less than 6 months, account for about 5 % of the participants (5 %, 7). This figure can be an indication for how visible the survey was to new users.<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/How long have you been using MW?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Number of MediaWiki sites===<br /> The vast majority of users is managing 2 or more MediaWiki sites (almost 70 % of all). More than a third of all users / 4 out of 10 users manage 2–5 wikis. This is the highest figure in total (40 %, 54). Together with managers of 5-10 wikis, this accounts for half of all users. Every third participant is managing 5 or more. (30 %, 40). The figure of users managing more than 10 wikis is double as high (19 %, 26) as those managing 5 to 10 wikis (10 %, 14). Still, a quarter of the participants is managing 1 single MW site (25 %, 34). Only a few participants (4,5 %, 6) are not managing any MW site.<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/How many MediaWiki sites do you manage?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Public and private sites===<br /> Out of 133 answers, 36 users manage public wikis (27 %), 38 users manage private wikis (28,5 %) and 59 users manage a mix of both (44 %).<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/Are your sites public or private?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Number of users===<br /> Out of 133 answers, about a third of all survey parcicipants have 25 people or less on their wikis (36 %, 48), 1 in 10 participants are using the wiki just to themselves (11 %, 15).<br /> <br /> Relatively equally spread are the numbers of wikis with more users than 25:<br /> * 25–100 &gt; (19 %, 26)<br /> *100–500 &gt; (15 %, 20)<br /> *500+ &gt; (25 %, 33)<br /> <br /> Significant is the number of large wikis with 500 users or more, which account for a quarter of all participants (25 %, 33).<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/Approximately how many people are there on your MediaWiki sites?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Extensions and age of the used wikis==<br /> <br /> ===MediaWiki versions===<br /> <br /> ===Updates===<br /> <br /> ===Most important extensions===<br /> <br /> ==Reasons for using MediaWiki==<br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;„bad habits die hard.“&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;''Note: Telling from the answers, the question could have been clearer or separated into more than one. People understood different questions: ''<br /> <br /> * ''Why do you use MediaWiki –&amp;nbsp;and no other (collaboration) software?''<br /> * ''Why do you use MediaWiki –&amp;nbsp;and no other wiki software?''<br /> * ''What features and strengths do you value in the MediaWiki software?''<br /> * ''What do you use MediaWiki for? (I use it as...)''<br /> &lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> === Features / Functions, also in comparison to other software ===<br /> Participants choose MW mainly for these reasons: It is easy to use, it is simple, but flexible, adaptable and expandible, it has an active Open Source community. A role in this play general public reputation, the possibility to participate and the proximity to the widely known Wikipedia.<br /> <br /> ==== Wikipedia. ====<br /> In comparison to other wiki software, primarily for public wikis the similarity to Wikipedia was the most motivating reason for choosing MW. Wikipedia here functions on the one hand as an acceleration for implementation and change management due to the known code base (wikitext) and the familiarity with the interface. Good experiences should transfer. Reputation also plays a role. And on the other hand as a motivator („learn 1, know 2“). '''<br /> <br /> ====Open Source / Free. Community, Movement.====<br /> Users choose MW, because of it being Open Source, the big and active community, the trust in the broad authorship and hence the stability. Being free of charge also helps.<br /> <br /> Nice to see that one user mentioned that, when MW is &quot;developed by a non-profit organization and volunteers from all over the world and when you run a non-profit site it is a major plus for you if you can run your site on open-source free software&quot;.<br /> <br /> ====Simple, easy to use, stable.====<br /> An important part plays also the independence of the user in relation to functionalities: MW is easy to setup, easy to extend (good scalability), easy to adapt/adjust to ones needs, to many different needs. MediaWiki is simple, but extendible. This high flexibility is a valued feature.<br /> <br /> ====Questionable aspects====<br /> ''On the positive side, the software feels easy to handle and update, with an active, approachable community:''<br /> *„[...] features including easy-to-configure wikifarm set up […]”<br /> *&quot;[…] solid single-source solution for corporate knowledge management.&quot;<br /> *&quot; It's perfect for our company&quot;<br /> *&quot;The data model and core upgrade with simplicity&quot;<br /> ''These are all things later being answered to the contrary.''<br /> <br /> ''The user interface is mentioned once as a reason FOR MediaWiki, although it will later become rather a feature AGAINST it. Participants mention the editing as straightforward and easy, which will, again, later heavily questioned in the wishes for better editing options. This contradiction also holds true for software speed.''<br /> <br /> Some more aspects mentioned:<br /> *The internationalization out of the box<br /> *the version history as attribution of collaboration<br /> *the automation functions via bots and API<br /> *templates<br /> * Semantic MediaWiki<br /> <br /> ===Use cases in public and private wikis===<br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;“MediaWiki is the best and best known tool to organize data in an open way for many users.&quot;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> Specific use cases in public wikis circle around public documentation for cultural institutions and NPOs, fun sites and last but not least as a knowledge tool: for collaborative creation, presentation and documentation of knowledge.<br /> <br /> In corporate and therefore private (non-public) situations, wikis are mostly used for internal communication and internal knowledge transfer. <br /> The wiki also serves as a document repository or for manuals and machine documentation, especially technical documentation seems to be an important use case – whether it's meant to share with the public or the company.<br /> <br /> In the rather rarely mentioned personal situations, wikis are used for a personal knowledgebase (e.g. as a collection for research material in scientific contexts) or as a publication platform among a chosen few, like the family.<br /> <br /> MediaWiki is valued as a good platform for organizing big amounts of dynamic knowledge, as a memory base, an information portal. &quot;Sharing&quot; is key here. MediaWiki is also used for Wikipedia's original use case of an encyclopedia.<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;“As a platform for almost everything.”&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/Why do you use MediaWiki?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Feature requests==<br /> (Richard)<br /> ===Primary requirements===<br /> <br /> ===Secondary requirements===<br /> <br /> === What would you like to see most improved in MediaWiki the software? ''–– The feature wish list.'' ===<br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;„I pretty much love it as is.“&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> Out of 113 answers, the most wanted features (mentions) are easy software and extension management, installation and upgrade process (30), detailed access control and enterprise support (12), a feature-rich and functioning editor out of the box (13). An extremely important valued feature is the GUI, UX, usability and the skinning process (18). Users see themselves confronted with the spam problem (6). Participants also see improvements in speed (4), in the development itself (4), have ideas for the codebase (5). File (3) and image handling (4) can be improved, as well as language support (3). Better handling of wiki farms (4). They would like to see support for other databases (2), better error messages (2) and better support for new users (in a wiki) (2). Mobile Frontend (2) could be there out of the box. Template handling (2) can bee improved as well as the search function (2). The discussion pages (2) and the watchlist feature (2) could be improved.<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/What would you like to see most improved in MediaWiki the software?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> See also: [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki_Stakeholders%27_Group/Tasks/Feature_wishlist MediaWiki Stakeholders' Group/Tasks/Feature wishlist], where most content was already included.<br /> <br /> ==Community==<br /> <br /> ===Contributions for the community===<br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;„I preach its worth to everyone I talk to“&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> From all survey participants, 5 out of 10 are contributing feedback and bug reports, 4 out of 10 are contributing to extensions.<br /> 3 help with questions and provide support and improve documentation. Only 2 out of 10 contribute patches and bugfixes, even less contribute to MediaWiki core.<br /> <br /> Other contributions worth mentioning are<br /> * Help build the community, organize meetings, like SMWCon<br /> * Support on IRC channel <br /> * Help choosing the SMW of the month<br /> * Promotion and marketing, also like &quot;I preach its worth to everyone I talk to&quot;<br /> * Financial donations<br /> * Writing books about MW<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/Do you make contributions to the MediaWiki community?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Improvements and barriers===<br /> ''Quite a few answers circle around the MediaWiki software, which was part of a preceding question and get mentioned there.''<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;&quot;The underlying perception that MediaWiki's focus should be on Wikipedia. MediaWiki is bigger than Wikipedia and everyone needs to accept that fact. It is critical that the community address the needs of the majority, even if that means working on features that aren't relevant for Wikipedia. MediaWiki and Wikipedia can diverge and still thrive together. The more that the WMF supports &quot;3rd-party users&quot;, the more those 3rd-party users will support the WMF.&quot;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Wikipedia'''. A main aspect was the relation to Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation. The connection to WMF and Wikipedia, wasn't seen as solely positive. The focus on Wikipedia in the MW community and of the WMF was criticized. The non-WMF developer community should be better visible, more active and more in charge. The dev team should be separated from Wikipedia (as in .com for Wikipedia and .org for the Open Source software). The core devs should develop more towards the usage of MW beyond Wikimedia sites. Hence, certain independence from WMF development, a wish for a dedicated MediaWiki conference and other events, where involvement could be discussed.<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;“Documentation, documentation, documentation. But maybe that's just me.”&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;&quot;It's a developers' system with mostly developers' documentation.&quot;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> '''Documentation'''. User documentation could be improved by establishing a common language and adding clear tutorials for difficult installation processes (e.g. Visual Editor on Shared Hosting). Documentation should include the most basic, common use cases as well as less commonly used features. Documentation was criticized to often be outdated, incomplete or missing altogether. Participants wished for simple beginner tutorials and user-centered documentation content. Most of the documentation is technology driven, not use-case-driven.<br /> <br /> Developers should also have better documentation and easier access to help in their extension development, collaborative development should be encouraged. Developers see their code not reviewed at all or not quick enough, <br /> Also, the clearer the roadmap is (supported technologies etc.), the better. Clear regulations and starting points should ease the entry of new developers.<br /> <br /> '''Master plan.''' Quite a few users wished for an overall strategy, a master plan, which is focussing on all MediaWiki users (and not only Wikipedia). Interestingly, some participants asked for a community supporting enterprise users (which could mean, the Stakeholder's Group isn't yet seen as this). Some see this in the for-profit sector, some would only like to see a community, strongly supporting the overall development towards their own needs.<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;&quot;3rd party MediaWiki users unite!&quot;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Communication'''. Some users feel intimidated by the community, it's like an unaccessible &quot;elite&quot; and not easy to join. Communication tools are not yet properly supporting this: IRC as a discussion platform is not well-known, not very accessible for newbies and not always answered. People don't always know who to address their questions to, some wish for non-public ways of asking for help. Also, developers seem to be connected quite well – but not adminstrators.<br /> <br /> '''People want to help, but are not always sure, how.''' New users sometimes feel intimidated and discouraged. Newbies often don't know where to start, where to find help, who to ask. What contribution is asked for? What communication channel should be used for what? Calls for help are not prominent enough. As a new user, it is very difficult to oversee the status of the software development.<br /> <br /> People wish for concise information about the most important news. The system feels very complex. Some see also technical obstacles, like composer and the steep learning curve.<br /> <br /> '''Awareness'''. Many people do not yet know of (Semantic) MediaWiki's possibilities, so it's time to spread the word.<br /> <br /> Other ideas:<br /> *There was a wish for an &quot;editor-in-chief&quot; on mediawiki.org, the site seems sort of abandoned.<br /> *Even the community ressources should be visually appealing.<br /> <br /> Praise: &quot;Actually think the community is very healthy.&quot;<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/What would you like to see most improved in the community around MediaWiki?]]&lt;/small&gt;&lt;br /&gt;<br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/What barriers, if any, do you think exist to participation in the MediaWiki community? What can we do to help?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Next steps and requirements==<br /> (Chris, Mark, Markus, all .....)<br /> * Reliability<br /> * Standardization<br /> * Services in core<br /> * MediaWiki Foundation<br /> <br /> ===Some conclusions from the survey===<br /> Welcome newcomers:<br /> * &gt;&gt; Introduce and include newbies, encourage productivity.<br /> * &gt;&gt; Offer basic technical workshops and tutorials<br /> * &gt;&gt; Call for help on prominant places in a friendly, open and appealing manner<br /> Strengthen the community:<br /> * &gt;&gt; Centralize the community around developers and users.<br /> * &gt;&gt; Estabilsh local events and MediaWiki conference<br /> * &gt;&gt; Improve documentation, include clear documenation for common use cases<br /> * &gt;&gt; Improve documentation from developent-driven towards use-case-driven<br /> * &gt;&gt; Centralize communication channels (IRC, mailing lists, discussion pages, bug reports… &gt; forum?), make clear what channels are best used for what<br /> <br /> Raise awareness and visibility of the software and community<br /> <br /> Independence from WMF's needs<br /> <br /> Roadmap<br /> * &gt;&gt; Clear plan, roadmap, strategy focussing on MW users<br /> * &gt;&gt; Community supporting enterprise users<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> * Chris Koerner: [[MediaWiki_Usage_Report_for_Wikimania_2015|MediaWiki User Report]], Wikimania 2015<br /> * [[MediaWiki_Usage_Questions|MediaWiki Usage Questions]]<br /> * [[Blog_Post:29]]<br /> * [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2015_MediaWiki_User_Report.pdf 2015 MediaWiki User Report PDF on Commons] and on [https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1MUDdnj9DEV7IKQbocG1samCxylDHpsISm1Uzf5x4WMc/edit#slide=id.g5a5c0b7c3_0_36 Google Docs]<br /> * [https://archive.org/details/videoeditserver-87 Presentation] (2015-07-18 MediaWiki Stakeholders)<br /> * [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/2015_MediaWiki_User_Survey mw.org: 2015 MediaWiki User Survey]<br /> * [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki_Stakeholders%27_Group/Tasks/Feature_wishlist mw.org: MediaWiki Stakeholders Group/Tasks/Feature wishlist]<br /> * Image: [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/File:2015_MediaWiki_User_Survey_Plots.pdf Survey Plots PDF] and [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/File:2015_MediaWiki_User_Survey_Brief_Summary.png Survey Brief Summary PNG] (same content)<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;</div> Sabine Melnicki https://mwstake.org/mwstake/index.php?title=Talk:MediaWiki_Usage_Report_2015&diff=541 Talk:MediaWiki Usage Report 2015 2015-10-19T08:56:00Z <p>Sabine Melnicki: /* See also */</p> <hr /> <div>Trailer<br /> (Chris?)<br /> <br /> ==Distribution== <br /> There's a huge wiki world beyond Wikimedia Foundation.&lt;ref&gt;https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T113210&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> (Sabine?)<br /> <br /> ===Downloads===<br /> * The downloads in China are remarkable high<br /> <br /> ===Hosting===<br /> * Thousands of installed MediaWiki on shared hosting (one-click) providers<br /> <br /> ===Most downloaded extensions===<br /> Even to know, which extensions are popular is nearly impossible. Some data from December 2014 (shared by Legoktm) are interesting. And give a first impression of needed add-ons in wikis beyond the Wikimedia Foundation. Many &quot;top 20&quot; extensions already prove the intense use of MediaWiki in companies and organizations. <br /> <br /> ===Comparisons with Wordpress and other content management systems===<br /> (Richard)<br /> * Compare trends. Searches for Wordpress and MediaWIki, Confluence ... <br /> * Comparison searches for wiki and blog: Wiki more popular. But MediaWiki is not the most important player<br /> * Reason: No ecosystem for MediaWiki established, SMW, BlueSpice, Wikia, WMF ... working separated.<br /> <br /> ==Typical MediaWiki users==<br /> The '''typical survey participant''' is either a developer/administrator or in management and works in a small organization with 25 or less people. Using MediaWiki now for over 5 years, he counts as long time user. He is managing 2–5 wikis, from which at least 1 is public and 1 private. The user sees 25 or less people on his wiki. The user uses MediaWiki because of it being Open Source and easy to use due to its similarity to Wikipedia. His public wiki is a fun site and his enterprise wiki is used for internal knowledge creation and management. He is unhappy with the upgrade process and the installation of new extensions and would like to see WordPress-like simple update buttons in the admin backend. For the enterprise wiki, access control and a functioning easy Visual Editor are important, but even more important is a slick, superpretty GUI. The user is part of the software community and contributes some feedback and bug reports. He also spreads the word. Irritating is the connection to Wikipedia and the scrambled software documentation, which isn't very user-friendly. Community-wise, he wishes for a master plan, good communication and easy ways of involvement to give back to the community and support the project.<br /> <br /> ===Position/Title===<br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;„Sysadmin, high Queen, that idiot.“&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> Out of 134 participants of the survey, almost every fifth (20 %, 27) is in software development, every sixth (1  %, 22) is a software admin. External functions like management and leadership can be fond in every sixth participant (1  %, 20), one eight (12 %, 17) has science and academic background. Defined wiki-users only acount for 12 % (12 %, 16) of the participants. 1 out of 10 have any other external background. (10 %, 14). A maximum 4 percent of the participants (4 %, 5) have direct or indirect relation to WMF or are software distributors. About one eighth of the answers (12 %, 16) were either unclear or unanswered.<br /> <br /> In 10 survey participants:<br /> * 2 are software developers<br /> * 2 administrators<br /> * 2 are in management/leadership position<br /> * 1 have academic background<br /> * 1 are solely wiki-users<br /> * 2 are doing something else...<br /> * 1 does not answer the question<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/What is your position or title?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Sizes of organization===<br /> About half of all participants work in organizations with 25 or less people (48,12 %, 64). Every fourth participant is part of an organization between 25 and 500 people (21 %, 28). Organizations with 500 or more people account for almost a third of all (28 %, 37).<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/How large is your organization?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Usage time of MediaWiki===<br /> More than half of the survey participants are long time users of MediaWiki, they use it 5+ years (54 %, 72). Almost a quarter is still using the software for 3–5 years (22 %, 30). The last quarter of participants is using the software for 1-2 years or less than 6 months. (24 %, 32). New users, who use the software for less than 6 months, account for about 5 % of the participants (5 %, 7). This figure can be an indication for how visible the survey was to new users.<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/How long have you been using MW?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Number of MediaWiki sites===<br /> The vast majority of users is managing 2 or more MediaWiki sites (almost 70 % of all). More than a third of all users / 4 out of 10 users manage 2–5 wikis. This is the highest figure in total (40 %, 54). Together with managers of 5-10 wikis, this accounts for half of all users. Every third participant is managing 5 or more. (30 %, 40). The figure of users managing more than 10 wikis is double as high (19 %, 26) as those managing 5 to 10 wikis (10 %, 14). Still, a quarter of the participants is managing 1 single MW site (25 %, 34). Only a few participants (4,5 %, 6) are not managing any MW site.<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/How many MediaWiki sites do you manage?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Public and private sites===<br /> Out of 133 answers, 36 users manage public wikis (27 %), 38 users manage private wikis (28,5 %) and 59 users manage a mix of both (44 %).<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/Are your sites public or private?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Number of users===<br /> Out of 133 answers, about a third of all survey parcicipants have 25 people or less on their wikis (36 %, 48), 1 in 10 participants are using the wiki just to themselves (11 %, 15).<br /> <br /> Relatively equally spread are the numbers of wikis with more users than 25:<br /> * 25–100 &gt; (19 %, 26)<br /> *100–500 &gt; (15 %, 20)<br /> *500+ &gt; (25 %, 33)<br /> <br /> Significant is the number of large wikis with 500 users or more, which account for a quarter of all participants (25 %, 33).<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/Approximately how many people are there on your MediaWiki sites?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Extensions and age of the used wikis==<br /> <br /> ===MediaWiki versions===<br /> <br /> ===Updates===<br /> <br /> ===Most important extensions===<br /> <br /> ===Reasons for using MediaWiki===<br /> <br /> ==Feature requests==<br /> (Richard)<br /> ===Primary requirements===<br /> <br /> ===Secondary requirements===<br /> <br /> === What would you like to see most improved in MediaWiki the software? ''–– The feature wish list.'' ===<br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;„I pretty much love it as is.“&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> Out of 113 answers, the most wanted features (mentions) are easy software and extension management, installation and upgrade process (30), detailed access control and enterprise support (12), a feature-rich and functioning editor out of the box (13). An extremely important valued feature is the GUI, UX, usability and the skinning process (18). Users see themselves confronted with the spam problem (6). Participants also see improvements in speed (4), in the development itself (4), have ideas for the codebase (5). File (3) and image handling (4) can be improved, as well as language support (3). Better handling of wiki farms (4). They would like to see support for other databases (2), better error messages (2) and better support for new users (in a wiki) (2). Mobile Frontend (2) could be there out of the box. Template handling (2) can bee improved as well as the search function (2). The discussion pages (2) and the watchlist feature (2) could be improved.<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/What would you like to see most improved in MediaWiki the software?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> See also: [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki_Stakeholders%27_Group/Tasks/Feature_wishlist MediaWiki Stakeholders' Group/Tasks/Feature wishlist], where most content was already included.<br /> <br /> ==Community==<br /> <br /> ===Contributions for the community===<br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;„I preach its worth to everyone I talk to“&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> From all survey participants, 5 out of 10 are contributing feedback and bug reports, 4 out of 10 are contributing to extensions.<br /> 3 help with questions and provide support and improve documentation. Only 2 out of 10 contribute patches and bugfixes, even less contribute to MediaWiki core.<br /> <br /> Other contributions worth mentioning are<br /> * Help build the community, organize meetings, like SMWCon<br /> * Support on IRC channel <br /> * Help choosing the SMW of the month<br /> * Promotion and marketing, also like &quot;I preach its worth to everyone I talk to&quot;<br /> * Financial donations<br /> * Writing books about MW<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/Do you make contributions to the MediaWiki community?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Improvements and barriers===<br /> ''Quite a few answers circle around the MediaWiki software, which was part of a preceding question and get mentioned there.''<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;&quot;The underlying perception that MediaWiki's focus should be on Wikipedia. MediaWiki is bigger than Wikipedia and everyone needs to accept that fact. It is critical that the community address the needs of the majority, even if that means working on features that aren't relevant for Wikipedia. MediaWiki and Wikipedia can diverge and still thrive together. The more that the WMF supports &quot;3rd-party users&quot;, the more those 3rd-party users will support the WMF.&quot;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Wikipedia'''. A main aspect was the relation to Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation. The connection to WMF and Wikipedia, wasn't seen as solely positive. The focus on Wikipedia in the MW community and of the WMF was criticized. The non-WMF developer community should be better visible, more active and more in charge. The dev team should be separated from Wikipedia (as in .com for Wikipedia and .org for the Open Source software). The core devs should develop more towards the usage of MW beyond Wikimedia sites. Hence, certain independence from WMF development, a wish for a dedicated MediaWiki conference and other events, where involvement could be discussed.<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;“Documentation, documentation, documentation. But maybe that's just me.”&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;&quot;It's a developers' system with mostly developers' documentation.&quot;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> '''Documentation'''. User documentation could be improved by establishing a common language and adding clear tutorials for difficult installation processes (e.g. Visual Editor on Shared Hosting). Documentation should include the most basic, common use cases as well as less commonly used features. Documentation was criticized to often be outdated, incomplete or missing altogether. Participants wished for simple beginner tutorials and user-centered documentation content. Most of the documentation is technology driven, not use-case-driven.<br /> <br /> Developers should also have better documentation and easier access to help in their extension development, collaborative development should be encouraged. Developers see their code not reviewed at all or not quick enough, <br /> Also, the clearer the roadmap is (supported technologies etc.), the better. Clear regulations and starting points should ease the entry of new developers.<br /> <br /> '''Master plan.''' Quite a few users wished for an overall strategy, a master plan, which is focussing on all MediaWiki users (and not only Wikipedia). Interestingly, some participants asked for a community supporting enterprise users (which could mean, the Stakeholder's Group isn't yet seen as this). Some see this in the for-profit sector, some would only like to see a community, strongly supporting the overall development towards their own needs.<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;&quot;3rd party MediaWiki users unite!&quot;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Communication'''. Some users feel intimidated by the community, it's like an unaccessible &quot;elite&quot; and not easy to join. Communication tools are not yet properly supporting this: IRC as a discussion platform is not well-known, not very accessible for newbies and not always answered. People don't always know who to address their questions to, some wish for non-public ways of asking for help. Also, developers seem to be connected quite well – but not adminstrators.<br /> <br /> '''People want to help, but are not always sure, how.''' New users sometimes feel intimidated and discouraged. Newbies often don't know where to start, where to find help, who to ask. What contribution is asked for? What communication channel should be used for what? Calls for help are not prominent enough. As a new user, it is very difficult to oversee the status of the software development.<br /> <br /> People wish for concise information about the most important news. The system feels very complex. Some see also technical obstacles, like composer and the steep learning curve.<br /> <br /> '''Awareness'''. Many people do not yet know of (Semantic) MediaWiki's possibilities, so it's time to spread the word.<br /> <br /> Other ideas:<br /> *There was a wish for an &quot;editor-in-chief&quot; on mediawiki.org, the site seems sort of abandoned.<br /> *Even the community ressources should be visually appealing.<br /> <br /> Praise: &quot;Actually think the community is very healthy.&quot;<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/What would you like to see most improved in the community around MediaWiki?]]&lt;/small&gt;&lt;br /&gt;<br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/What barriers, if any, do you think exist to participation in the MediaWiki community? What can we do to help?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Next steps and requirements==<br /> (Chris, Mark, Markus, all .....)<br /> * Reliability<br /> * Standardization<br /> * Services in core<br /> * MediaWiki Foundation<br /> <br /> ===Some conclusions from the survey===<br /> Welcome newcomers:<br /> * &gt;&gt; Introduce and include newbies, encourage productivity.<br /> * &gt;&gt; Offer basic technical workshops and tutorials<br /> * &gt;&gt; Call for help on prominant places in a friendly, open and appealing manner<br /> Strengthen the community:<br /> * &gt;&gt; Centralize the community around developers and users.<br /> * &gt;&gt; Estabilsh local events and MediaWiki conference<br /> * &gt;&gt; Improve documentation, include clear documenation for common use cases<br /> * &gt;&gt; Improve documentation from developent-driven towards use-case-driven<br /> * &gt;&gt; Centralize communication channels (IRC, mailing lists, discussion pages, bug reports… &gt; forum?), make clear what channels are best used for what<br /> <br /> Raise awareness and visibility of the software and community<br /> <br /> Independence from WMF's needs<br /> <br /> Roadmap<br /> * &gt;&gt; Clear plan, roadmap, strategy focussing on MW users<br /> * &gt;&gt; Community supporting enterprise users<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> * Chris Koerner: [[MediaWiki_Usage_Report_for_Wikimania_2015|MediaWiki User Report]], Wikimania 2015<br /> * [[MediaWiki_Usage_Questions|MediaWiki Usage Questions]]<br /> * [[Blog_Post:29]]<br /> * [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2015_MediaWiki_User_Report.pdf 2015 MediaWiki User Report PDF on Commons] and on [https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1MUDdnj9DEV7IKQbocG1samCxylDHpsISm1Uzf5x4WMc/edit#slide=id.g5a5c0b7c3_0_36 Google Docs]<br /> * [https://archive.org/details/videoeditserver-87 Presentation] (2015-07-18 MediaWiki Stakeholders)<br /> * [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/2015_MediaWiki_User_Survey mw.org: 2015 MediaWiki User Survey]<br /> * [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki_Stakeholders%27_Group/Tasks/Feature_wishlist mw.org: MediaWiki Stakeholders Group/Tasks/Feature wishlist]<br /> * Image: [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/File:2015_MediaWiki_User_Survey_Plots.pdf Survey Plots PDF] and [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/File:2015_MediaWiki_User_Survey_Brief_Summary.png Survey Brief Summary PNG] (same content)<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;</div> Sabine Melnicki https://mwstake.org/mwstake/index.php?title=Talk:MediaWiki_Usage_Report_2015&diff=540 Talk:MediaWiki Usage Report 2015 2015-10-19T08:50:26Z <p>Sabine Melnicki: /* Improvements and barriers */</p> <hr /> <div>Trailer<br /> (Chris?)<br /> <br /> ==Distribution== <br /> There's a huge wiki world beyond Wikimedia Foundation.&lt;ref&gt;https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T113210&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> (Sabine?)<br /> <br /> ===Downloads===<br /> * The downloads in China are remarkable high<br /> <br /> ===Hosting===<br /> * Thousands of installed MediaWiki on shared hosting (one-click) providers<br /> <br /> ===Most downloaded extensions===<br /> Even to know, which extensions are popular is nearly impossible. Some data from December 2014 (shared by Legoktm) are interesting. And give a first impression of needed add-ons in wikis beyond the Wikimedia Foundation. Many &quot;top 20&quot; extensions already prove the intense use of MediaWiki in companies and organizations. <br /> <br /> ===Comparisons with Wordpress and other content management systems===<br /> (Richard)<br /> * Compare trends. Searches for Wordpress and MediaWIki, Confluence ... <br /> * Comparison searches for wiki and blog: Wiki more popular. But MediaWiki is not the most important player<br /> * Reason: No ecosystem for MediaWiki established, SMW, BlueSpice, Wikia, WMF ... working separated.<br /> <br /> ==Typical MediaWiki users==<br /> The '''typical survey participant''' is either a developer/administrator or in management and works in a small organization with 25 or less people. Using MediaWiki now for over 5 years, he counts as long time user. He is managing 2–5 wikis, from which at least 1 is public and 1 private. The user sees 25 or less people on his wiki. The user uses MediaWiki because of it being Open Source and easy to use due to its similarity to Wikipedia. His public wiki is a fun site and his enterprise wiki is used for internal knowledge creation and management. He is unhappy with the upgrade process and the installation of new extensions and would like to see WordPress-like simple update buttons in the admin backend. For the enterprise wiki, access control and a functioning easy Visual Editor are important, but even more important is a slick, superpretty GUI. The user is part of the software community and contributes some feedback and bug reports. He also spreads the word. Irritating is the connection to Wikipedia and the scrambled software documentation, which isn't very user-friendly. Community-wise, he wishes for a master plan, good communication and easy ways of involvement to give back to the community and support the project.<br /> <br /> ===Position/Title===<br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;„Sysadmin, high Queen, that idiot.“&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> Out of 134 participants of the survey, almost every fifth (20 %, 27) is in software development, every sixth (1  %, 22) is a software admin. External functions like management and leadership can be fond in every sixth participant (1  %, 20), one eight (12 %, 17) has science and academic background. Defined wiki-users only acount for 12 % (12 %, 16) of the participants. 1 out of 10 have any other external background. (10 %, 14). A maximum 4 percent of the participants (4 %, 5) have direct or indirect relation to WMF or are software distributors. About one eighth of the answers (12 %, 16) were either unclear or unanswered.<br /> <br /> In 10 survey participants:<br /> * 2 are software developers<br /> * 2 administrators<br /> * 2 are in management/leadership position<br /> * 1 have academic background<br /> * 1 are solely wiki-users<br /> * 2 are doing something else...<br /> * 1 does not answer the question<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/What is your position or title?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Sizes of organization===<br /> About half of all participants work in organizations with 25 or less people (48,12 %, 64). Every fourth participant is part of an organization between 25 and 500 people (21 %, 28). Organizations with 500 or more people account for almost a third of all (28 %, 37).<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/How large is your organization?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Usage time of MediaWiki===<br /> More than half of the survey participants are long time users of MediaWiki, they use it 5+ years (54 %, 72). Almost a quarter is still using the software for 3–5 years (22 %, 30). The last quarter of participants is using the software for 1-2 years or less than 6 months. (24 %, 32). New users, who use the software for less than 6 months, account for about 5 % of the participants (5 %, 7). This figure can be an indication for how visible the survey was to new users.<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/How long have you been using MW?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Number of MediaWiki sites===<br /> The vast majority of users is managing 2 or more MediaWiki sites (almost 70 % of all). More than a third of all users / 4 out of 10 users manage 2–5 wikis. This is the highest figure in total (40 %, 54). Together with managers of 5-10 wikis, this accounts for half of all users. Every third participant is managing 5 or more. (30 %, 40). The figure of users managing more than 10 wikis is double as high (19 %, 26) as those managing 5 to 10 wikis (10 %, 14). Still, a quarter of the participants is managing 1 single MW site (25 %, 34). Only a few participants (4,5 %, 6) are not managing any MW site.<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/How many MediaWiki sites do you manage?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Public and private sites===<br /> Out of 133 answers, 36 users manage public wikis (27 %), 38 users manage private wikis (28,5 %) and 59 users manage a mix of both (44 %).<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/Are your sites public or private?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Number of users===<br /> Out of 133 answers, about a third of all survey parcicipants have 25 people or less on their wikis (36 %, 48), 1 in 10 participants are using the wiki just to themselves (11 %, 15).<br /> <br /> Relatively equally spread are the numbers of wikis with more users than 25:<br /> * 25–100 &gt; (19 %, 26)<br /> *100–500 &gt; (15 %, 20)<br /> *500+ &gt; (25 %, 33)<br /> <br /> Significant is the number of large wikis with 500 users or more, which account for a quarter of all participants (25 %, 33).<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/Approximately how many people are there on your MediaWiki sites?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Extensions and age of the used wikis==<br /> <br /> ===MediaWiki versions===<br /> <br /> ===Updates===<br /> <br /> ===Most important extensions===<br /> <br /> ===Reasons for using MediaWiki===<br /> <br /> ==Feature requests==<br /> (Richard)<br /> ===Primary requirements===<br /> <br /> ===Secondary requirements===<br /> <br /> === What would you like to see most improved in MediaWiki the software? ''–– The feature wish list.'' ===<br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;„I pretty much love it as is.“&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> Out of 113 answers, the most wanted features (mentions) are easy software and extension management, installation and upgrade process (30), detailed access control and enterprise support (12), a feature-rich and functioning editor out of the box (13). An extremely important valued feature is the GUI, UX, usability and the skinning process (18). Users see themselves confronted with the spam problem (6). Participants also see improvements in speed (4), in the development itself (4), have ideas for the codebase (5). File (3) and image handling (4) can be improved, as well as language support (3). Better handling of wiki farms (4). They would like to see support for other databases (2), better error messages (2) and better support for new users (in a wiki) (2). Mobile Frontend (2) could be there out of the box. Template handling (2) can bee improved as well as the search function (2). The discussion pages (2) and the watchlist feature (2) could be improved.<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/What would you like to see most improved in MediaWiki the software?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> See also: [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki_Stakeholders%27_Group/Tasks/Feature_wishlist MediaWiki Stakeholders' Group/Tasks/Feature wishlist], where most content was already included.<br /> <br /> ==Community==<br /> <br /> ===Contributions for the community===<br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;„I preach its worth to everyone I talk to“&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> From all survey participants, 5 out of 10 are contributing feedback and bug reports, 4 out of 10 are contributing to extensions.<br /> 3 help with questions and provide support and improve documentation. Only 2 out of 10 contribute patches and bugfixes, even less contribute to MediaWiki core.<br /> <br /> Other contributions worth mentioning are<br /> * Help build the community, organize meetings, like SMWCon<br /> * Support on IRC channel <br /> * Help choosing the SMW of the month<br /> * Promotion and marketing, also like &quot;I preach its worth to everyone I talk to&quot;<br /> * Financial donations<br /> * Writing books about MW<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/Do you make contributions to the MediaWiki community?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Improvements and barriers===<br /> ''Quite a few answers circle around the MediaWiki software, which was part of a preceding question and get mentioned there.''<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;&quot;The underlying perception that MediaWiki's focus should be on Wikipedia. MediaWiki is bigger than Wikipedia and everyone needs to accept that fact. It is critical that the community address the needs of the majority, even if that means working on features that aren't relevant for Wikipedia. MediaWiki and Wikipedia can diverge and still thrive together. The more that the WMF supports &quot;3rd-party users&quot;, the more those 3rd-party users will support the WMF.&quot;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Wikipedia'''. A main aspect was the relation to Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation. The connection to WMF and Wikipedia, wasn't seen as solely positive. The focus on Wikipedia in the MW community and of the WMF was criticized. The non-WMF developer community should be better visible, more active and more in charge. The dev team should be separated from Wikipedia (as in .com for Wikipedia and .org for the Open Source software). The core devs should develop more towards the usage of MW beyond Wikimedia sites. Hence, certain independence from WMF development, a wish for a dedicated MediaWiki conference and other events, where involvement could be discussed.<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;“Documentation, documentation, documentation. But maybe that's just me.”&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;&quot;It's a developers' system with mostly developers' documentation.&quot;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> '''Documentation'''. User documentation could be improved by establishing a common language and adding clear tutorials for difficult installation processes (e.g. Visual Editor on Shared Hosting). Documentation should include the most basic, common use cases as well as less commonly used features. Documentation was criticized to often be outdated, incomplete or missing altogether. Participants wished for simple beginner tutorials and user-centered documentation content. Most of the documentation is technology driven, not use-case-driven.<br /> <br /> Developers should also have better documentation and easier access to help in their extension development, collaborative development should be encouraged. Developers see their code not reviewed at all or not quick enough, <br /> Also, the clearer the roadmap is (supported technologies etc.), the better. Clear regulations and starting points should ease the entry of new developers.<br /> <br /> '''Master plan.''' Quite a few users wished for an overall strategy, a master plan, which is focussing on all MediaWiki users (and not only Wikipedia). Interestingly, some participants asked for a community supporting enterprise users (which could mean, the Stakeholder's Group isn't yet seen as this). Some see this in the for-profit sector, some would only like to see a community, strongly supporting the overall development towards their own needs.<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;&quot;3rd party MediaWiki users unite!&quot;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Communication'''. Some users feel intimidated by the community, it's like an unaccessible &quot;elite&quot; and not easy to join. Communication tools are not yet properly supporting this: IRC as a discussion platform is not well-known, not very accessible for newbies and not always answered. People don't always know who to address their questions to, some wish for non-public ways of asking for help. Also, developers seem to be connected quite well – but not adminstrators.<br /> <br /> '''People want to help, but are not always sure, how.''' New users sometimes feel intimidated and discouraged. Newbies often don't know where to start, where to find help, who to ask. What contribution is asked for? What communication channel should be used for what? Calls for help are not prominent enough. As a new user, it is very difficult to oversee the status of the software development.<br /> <br /> People wish for concise information about the most important news. The system feels very complex. Some see also technical obstacles, like composer and the steep learning curve.<br /> <br /> '''Awareness'''. Many people do not yet know of (Semantic) MediaWiki's possibilities, so it's time to spread the word.<br /> <br /> Other ideas:<br /> *There was a wish for an &quot;editor-in-chief&quot; on mediawiki.org, the site seems sort of abandoned.<br /> *Even the community ressources should be visually appealing.<br /> <br /> Praise: &quot;Actually think the community is very healthy.&quot;<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/What would you like to see most improved in the community around MediaWiki?]]&lt;/small&gt;&lt;br /&gt;<br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/What barriers, if any, do you think exist to participation in the MediaWiki community? What can we do to help?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Next steps and requirements==<br /> (Chris, Mark, Markus, all .....)<br /> * Reliability<br /> * Standardization<br /> * Services in core<br /> * MediaWiki Foundation<br /> <br /> ===Some conclusions from the survey===<br /> Welcome newcomers:<br /> * &gt;&gt; Introduce and include newbies, encourage productivity.<br /> * &gt;&gt; Offer basic technical workshops and tutorials<br /> * &gt;&gt; Call for help on prominant places in a friendly, open and appealing manner<br /> Strengthen the community:<br /> * &gt;&gt; Centralize the community around developers and users.<br /> * &gt;&gt; Estabilsh local events and MediaWiki conference<br /> * &gt;&gt; Improve documentation, include clear documenation for common use cases<br /> * &gt;&gt; Improve documentation from developent-driven towards use-case-driven<br /> * &gt;&gt; Centralize communication channels (IRC, mailing lists, discussion pages, bug reports… &gt; forum?), make clear what channels are best used for what<br /> <br /> Raise awareness and visibility of the software and community<br /> <br /> Independence from WMF's needs<br /> <br /> Roadmap<br /> * &gt;&gt; Clear plan, roadmap, strategy focussing on MW users<br /> * &gt;&gt; Community supporting enterprise users<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> * Chris Koerner: [[MediaWiki_Usage_Report_for_Wikimania_2015|MediaWiki User Report]], Wikimania 2015<br /> * [[MediaWiki_Usage_Questions|MediaWiki Usage Questions]]<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;</div> Sabine Melnicki https://mwstake.org/mwstake/index.php?title=Talk:MediaWiki_Usage_Report_2015&diff=539 Talk:MediaWiki Usage Report 2015 2015-10-19T08:48:02Z <p>Sabine Melnicki: /* Next steps and requirements */</p> <hr /> <div>Trailer<br /> (Chris?)<br /> <br /> ==Distribution== <br /> There's a huge wiki world beyond Wikimedia Foundation.&lt;ref&gt;https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T113210&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> (Sabine?)<br /> <br /> ===Downloads===<br /> * The downloads in China are remarkable high<br /> <br /> ===Hosting===<br /> * Thousands of installed MediaWiki on shared hosting (one-click) providers<br /> <br /> ===Most downloaded extensions===<br /> Even to know, which extensions are popular is nearly impossible. Some data from December 2014 (shared by Legoktm) are interesting. And give a first impression of needed add-ons in wikis beyond the Wikimedia Foundation. Many &quot;top 20&quot; extensions already prove the intense use of MediaWiki in companies and organizations. <br /> <br /> ===Comparisons with Wordpress and other content management systems===<br /> (Richard)<br /> * Compare trends. Searches for Wordpress and MediaWIki, Confluence ... <br /> * Comparison searches for wiki and blog: Wiki more popular. But MediaWiki is not the most important player<br /> * Reason: No ecosystem for MediaWiki established, SMW, BlueSpice, Wikia, WMF ... working separated.<br /> <br /> ==Typical MediaWiki users==<br /> The '''typical survey participant''' is either a developer/administrator or in management and works in a small organization with 25 or less people. Using MediaWiki now for over 5 years, he counts as long time user. He is managing 2–5 wikis, from which at least 1 is public and 1 private. The user sees 25 or less people on his wiki. The user uses MediaWiki because of it being Open Source and easy to use due to its similarity to Wikipedia. His public wiki is a fun site and his enterprise wiki is used for internal knowledge creation and management. He is unhappy with the upgrade process and the installation of new extensions and would like to see WordPress-like simple update buttons in the admin backend. For the enterprise wiki, access control and a functioning easy Visual Editor are important, but even more important is a slick, superpretty GUI. The user is part of the software community and contributes some feedback and bug reports. He also spreads the word. Irritating is the connection to Wikipedia and the scrambled software documentation, which isn't very user-friendly. Community-wise, he wishes for a master plan, good communication and easy ways of involvement to give back to the community and support the project.<br /> <br /> ===Position/Title===<br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;„Sysadmin, high Queen, that idiot.“&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> Out of 134 participants of the survey, almost every fifth (20 %, 27) is in software development, every sixth (1  %, 22) is a software admin. External functions like management and leadership can be fond in every sixth participant (1  %, 20), one eight (12 %, 17) has science and academic background. Defined wiki-users only acount for 12 % (12 %, 16) of the participants. 1 out of 10 have any other external background. (10 %, 14). A maximum 4 percent of the participants (4 %, 5) have direct or indirect relation to WMF or are software distributors. About one eighth of the answers (12 %, 16) were either unclear or unanswered.<br /> <br /> In 10 survey participants:<br /> * 2 are software developers<br /> * 2 administrators<br /> * 2 are in management/leadership position<br /> * 1 have academic background<br /> * 1 are solely wiki-users<br /> * 2 are doing something else...<br /> * 1 does not answer the question<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/What is your position or title?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Sizes of organization===<br /> About half of all participants work in organizations with 25 or less people (48,12 %, 64). Every fourth participant is part of an organization between 25 and 500 people (21 %, 28). Organizations with 500 or more people account for almost a third of all (28 %, 37).<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/How large is your organization?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Usage time of MediaWiki===<br /> More than half of the survey participants are long time users of MediaWiki, they use it 5+ years (54 %, 72). Almost a quarter is still using the software for 3–5 years (22 %, 30). The last quarter of participants is using the software for 1-2 years or less than 6 months. (24 %, 32). New users, who use the software for less than 6 months, account for about 5 % of the participants (5 %, 7). This figure can be an indication for how visible the survey was to new users.<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/How long have you been using MW?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Number of MediaWiki sites===<br /> The vast majority of users is managing 2 or more MediaWiki sites (almost 70 % of all). More than a third of all users / 4 out of 10 users manage 2–5 wikis. This is the highest figure in total (40 %, 54). Together with managers of 5-10 wikis, this accounts for half of all users. Every third participant is managing 5 or more. (30 %, 40). The figure of users managing more than 10 wikis is double as high (19 %, 26) as those managing 5 to 10 wikis (10 %, 14). Still, a quarter of the participants is managing 1 single MW site (25 %, 34). Only a few participants (4,5 %, 6) are not managing any MW site.<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/How many MediaWiki sites do you manage?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Public and private sites===<br /> Out of 133 answers, 36 users manage public wikis (27 %), 38 users manage private wikis (28,5 %) and 59 users manage a mix of both (44 %).<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/Are your sites public or private?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Number of users===<br /> Out of 133 answers, about a third of all survey parcicipants have 25 people or less on their wikis (36 %, 48), 1 in 10 participants are using the wiki just to themselves (11 %, 15).<br /> <br /> Relatively equally spread are the numbers of wikis with more users than 25:<br /> * 25–100 &gt; (19 %, 26)<br /> *100–500 &gt; (15 %, 20)<br /> *500+ &gt; (25 %, 33)<br /> <br /> Significant is the number of large wikis with 500 users or more, which account for a quarter of all participants (25 %, 33).<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/Approximately how many people are there on your MediaWiki sites?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Extensions and age of the used wikis==<br /> <br /> ===MediaWiki versions===<br /> <br /> ===Updates===<br /> <br /> ===Most important extensions===<br /> <br /> ===Reasons for using MediaWiki===<br /> <br /> ==Feature requests==<br /> (Richard)<br /> ===Primary requirements===<br /> <br /> ===Secondary requirements===<br /> <br /> === What would you like to see most improved in MediaWiki the software? ''–– The feature wish list.'' ===<br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;„I pretty much love it as is.“&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> Out of 113 answers, the most wanted features (mentions) are easy software and extension management, installation and upgrade process (30), detailed access control and enterprise support (12), a feature-rich and functioning editor out of the box (13). An extremely important valued feature is the GUI, UX, usability and the skinning process (18). Users see themselves confronted with the spam problem (6). Participants also see improvements in speed (4), in the development itself (4), have ideas for the codebase (5). File (3) and image handling (4) can be improved, as well as language support (3). Better handling of wiki farms (4). They would like to see support for other databases (2), better error messages (2) and better support for new users (in a wiki) (2). Mobile Frontend (2) could be there out of the box. Template handling (2) can bee improved as well as the search function (2). The discussion pages (2) and the watchlist feature (2) could be improved.<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/What would you like to see most improved in MediaWiki the software?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> See also: [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki_Stakeholders%27_Group/Tasks/Feature_wishlist MediaWiki Stakeholders' Group/Tasks/Feature wishlist], where most content was already included.<br /> <br /> ==Community==<br /> <br /> ===Contributions for the community===<br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;„I preach its worth to everyone I talk to“&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> From all survey participants, 5 out of 10 are contributing feedback and bug reports, 4 out of 10 are contributing to extensions.<br /> 3 help with questions and provide support and improve documentation. Only 2 out of 10 contribute patches and bugfixes, even less contribute to MediaWiki core.<br /> <br /> Other contributions worth mentioning are<br /> * Help build the community, organize meetings, like SMWCon<br /> * Support on IRC channel <br /> * Help choosing the SMW of the month<br /> * Promotion and marketing, also like &quot;I preach its worth to everyone I talk to&quot;<br /> * Financial donations<br /> * Writing books about MW<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/Do you make contributions to the MediaWiki community?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Improvements and barriers===<br /> ''Quite a few answers circle around the MediaWiki software, which was part of a preceding question and get mentioned there.''<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;&quot;The underlying perception that MediaWiki's focus should be on Wikipedia. MediaWiki is bigger than Wikipedia and everyone needs to accept that fact. It is critical that the community address the needs of the majority, even if that means working on features that aren't relevant for Wikipedia. MediaWiki and Wikipedia can diverge and still thrive together. The more that the WMF supports &quot;3rd-party users&quot;, the more those 3rd-party users will support the WMF.&quot;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Wikipedia'''. A main aspect was the relation to Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation. The connection to WMF and Wikipedia, wasn't seen as solely positive. The focus on Wikipedia in the MW community and of the WMF was criticized. The non-WMF developer community should be better visible, more active and more in charge. The dev team should be separated from Wikipedia (as in .com for Wikipedia and .org for the Open Source software). The core devs should develop more towards the usage of MW beyond Wikimedia sites. Hence, certain independence from WMF development, a wish for a dedicated MediaWiki conference and other events, where involvement could be discussed.<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;“Documentation, documentation, documentation. But maybe that's just me.”&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;It's a developers' system with mostly developers' documentation.&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> '''Documentation'''. User documentation could be improved by establishing a common language and adding clear tutorials for difficult installation processes (e.g. Visual Editor on Shared Hosting). Documentation should include the most basic, common use cases as well as less commonly used features. Documentation was criticized to often be outdated, incomplete or missing altogether. Participants wished for simple beginner tutorials and user-centered documentation content. Most of the documentation is technology driven, not use-case-driven.<br /> <br /> Developers should also have better documentation and easier access to help in their extension development, collaborative development should be encouraged. Developers see their code not reviewed at all or not quick enough, <br /> Also, the clearer the roadmap is (supported technologies etc.), the better. Clear regulations and starting points should ease the entry of new developers.<br /> <br /> '''Master plan.''' Quite a few users wished for an overall strategy, a master plan, which is focussing on all MediaWiki users (and not only Wikipedia). Interestingly, some participants asked for a community supporting enterprise users (which could mean, the Stakeholder's Group isn't yet seen as this). Some see this in the for-profit sector, some would only like to see a community, strongly supporting the overall development towards their own needs.<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;&quot;3rd party MediaWiki users unite!&quot;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Communication'''. Some users feel intimidated by the community, it's like an unaccessible &quot;elite&quot; and not easy to join. Communication tools are not yet properly supporting this: IRC as a discussion platform is not well-known, not very accessible for newbies and not always answered. People don't always know who to address their questions to, some wish for non-public ways of asking for help. Also, developers seem to be connected quite well – but not adminstrators.<br /> <br /> '''People want to help, but are not always sure, how.''' New users sometimes feel intimidated and discouraged. Newbies often don't know where to start, where to find help, who to ask. What contribution is asked for? What communication channel should be used for what? Calls for help are not prominent enough. As a new user, it is very difficult to oversee the status of the software development.<br /> <br /> People wish for concise information about the most important news. The system feels very complex. Some see also technical obstacles, like composer and the steep learning curve.<br /> <br /> '''Awareness'''. Many people do not yet know of (Semantic) MediaWiki's possibilities, so it's time to spread the word.<br /> <br /> Other ideas:<br /> *There was a wish for an &quot;editor-in-chief&quot; on mediawiki.org, the site seems sort of abandoned.<br /> *Even the community ressources should be visually appealing.<br /> <br /> Praise: &quot;Actually think the community is very healthy.&quot;<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/What would you like to see most improved in the community around MediaWiki?]]&lt;/small&gt;&lt;br /&gt;<br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/What barriers, if any, do you think exist to participation in the MediaWiki community? What can we do to help?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Next steps and requirements==<br /> (Chris, Mark, Markus, all .....)<br /> * Reliability<br /> * Standardization<br /> * Services in core<br /> * MediaWiki Foundation<br /> <br /> ===Some conclusions from the survey===<br /> Welcome newcomers:<br /> * &gt;&gt; Introduce and include newbies, encourage productivity.<br /> * &gt;&gt; Offer basic technical workshops and tutorials<br /> * &gt;&gt; Call for help on prominant places in a friendly, open and appealing manner<br /> Strengthen the community:<br /> * &gt;&gt; Centralize the community around developers and users.<br /> * &gt;&gt; Estabilsh local events and MediaWiki conference<br /> * &gt;&gt; Improve documentation, include clear documenation for common use cases<br /> * &gt;&gt; Improve documentation from developent-driven towards use-case-driven<br /> * &gt;&gt; Centralize communication channels (IRC, mailing lists, discussion pages, bug reports… &gt; forum?), make clear what channels are best used for what<br /> <br /> Raise awareness and visibility of the software and community<br /> <br /> Independence from WMF's needs<br /> <br /> Roadmap<br /> * &gt;&gt; Clear plan, roadmap, strategy focussing on MW users<br /> * &gt;&gt; Community supporting enterprise users<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> * Chris Koerner: [[MediaWiki_Usage_Report_for_Wikimania_2015|MediaWiki User Report]], Wikimania 2015<br /> * [[MediaWiki_Usage_Questions|MediaWiki Usage Questions]]<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;</div> Sabine Melnicki https://mwstake.org/mwstake/index.php?title=Talk:MediaWiki_Usage_Report_2015&diff=538 Talk:MediaWiki Usage Report 2015 2015-10-19T08:46:53Z <p>Sabine Melnicki: /* Improvements and barriers */</p> <hr /> <div>Trailer<br /> (Chris?)<br /> <br /> ==Distribution== <br /> There's a huge wiki world beyond Wikimedia Foundation.&lt;ref&gt;https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T113210&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> (Sabine?)<br /> <br /> ===Downloads===<br /> * The downloads in China are remarkable high<br /> <br /> ===Hosting===<br /> * Thousands of installed MediaWiki on shared hosting (one-click) providers<br /> <br /> ===Most downloaded extensions===<br /> Even to know, which extensions are popular is nearly impossible. Some data from December 2014 (shared by Legoktm) are interesting. And give a first impression of needed add-ons in wikis beyond the Wikimedia Foundation. Many &quot;top 20&quot; extensions already prove the intense use of MediaWiki in companies and organizations. <br /> <br /> ===Comparisons with Wordpress and other content management systems===<br /> (Richard)<br /> * Compare trends. Searches for Wordpress and MediaWIki, Confluence ... <br /> * Comparison searches for wiki and blog: Wiki more popular. But MediaWiki is not the most important player<br /> * Reason: No ecosystem for MediaWiki established, SMW, BlueSpice, Wikia, WMF ... working separated.<br /> <br /> ==Typical MediaWiki users==<br /> The '''typical survey participant''' is either a developer/administrator or in management and works in a small organization with 25 or less people. Using MediaWiki now for over 5 years, he counts as long time user. He is managing 2–5 wikis, from which at least 1 is public and 1 private. The user sees 25 or less people on his wiki. The user uses MediaWiki because of it being Open Source and easy to use due to its similarity to Wikipedia. His public wiki is a fun site and his enterprise wiki is used for internal knowledge creation and management. He is unhappy with the upgrade process and the installation of new extensions and would like to see WordPress-like simple update buttons in the admin backend. For the enterprise wiki, access control and a functioning easy Visual Editor are important, but even more important is a slick, superpretty GUI. The user is part of the software community and contributes some feedback and bug reports. He also spreads the word. Irritating is the connection to Wikipedia and the scrambled software documentation, which isn't very user-friendly. Community-wise, he wishes for a master plan, good communication and easy ways of involvement to give back to the community and support the project.<br /> <br /> ===Position/Title===<br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;„Sysadmin, high Queen, that idiot.“&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> Out of 134 participants of the survey, almost every fifth (20 %, 27) is in software development, every sixth (1  %, 22) is a software admin. External functions like management and leadership can be fond in every sixth participant (1  %, 20), one eight (12 %, 17) has science and academic background. Defined wiki-users only acount for 12 % (12 %, 16) of the participants. 1 out of 10 have any other external background. (10 %, 14). A maximum 4 percent of the participants (4 %, 5) have direct or indirect relation to WMF or are software distributors. About one eighth of the answers (12 %, 16) were either unclear or unanswered.<br /> <br /> In 10 survey participants:<br /> * 2 are software developers<br /> * 2 administrators<br /> * 2 are in management/leadership position<br /> * 1 have academic background<br /> * 1 are solely wiki-users<br /> * 2 are doing something else...<br /> * 1 does not answer the question<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/What is your position or title?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Sizes of organization===<br /> About half of all participants work in organizations with 25 or less people (48,12 %, 64). Every fourth participant is part of an organization between 25 and 500 people (21 %, 28). Organizations with 500 or more people account for almost a third of all (28 %, 37).<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/How large is your organization?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Usage time of MediaWiki===<br /> More than half of the survey participants are long time users of MediaWiki, they use it 5+ years (54 %, 72). Almost a quarter is still using the software for 3–5 years (22 %, 30). The last quarter of participants is using the software for 1-2 years or less than 6 months. (24 %, 32). New users, who use the software for less than 6 months, account for about 5 % of the participants (5 %, 7). This figure can be an indication for how visible the survey was to new users.<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/How long have you been using MW?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Number of MediaWiki sites===<br /> The vast majority of users is managing 2 or more MediaWiki sites (almost 70 % of all). More than a third of all users / 4 out of 10 users manage 2–5 wikis. This is the highest figure in total (40 %, 54). Together with managers of 5-10 wikis, this accounts for half of all users. Every third participant is managing 5 or more. (30 %, 40). The figure of users managing more than 10 wikis is double as high (19 %, 26) as those managing 5 to 10 wikis (10 %, 14). Still, a quarter of the participants is managing 1 single MW site (25 %, 34). Only a few participants (4,5 %, 6) are not managing any MW site.<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/How many MediaWiki sites do you manage?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Public and private sites===<br /> Out of 133 answers, 36 users manage public wikis (27 %), 38 users manage private wikis (28,5 %) and 59 users manage a mix of both (44 %).<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/Are your sites public or private?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Number of users===<br /> Out of 133 answers, about a third of all survey parcicipants have 25 people or less on their wikis (36 %, 48), 1 in 10 participants are using the wiki just to themselves (11 %, 15).<br /> <br /> Relatively equally spread are the numbers of wikis with more users than 25:<br /> * 25–100 &gt; (19 %, 26)<br /> *100–500 &gt; (15 %, 20)<br /> *500+ &gt; (25 %, 33)<br /> <br /> Significant is the number of large wikis with 500 users or more, which account for a quarter of all participants (25 %, 33).<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/Approximately how many people are there on your MediaWiki sites?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Extensions and age of the used wikis==<br /> <br /> ===MediaWiki versions===<br /> <br /> ===Updates===<br /> <br /> ===Most important extensions===<br /> <br /> ===Reasons for using MediaWiki===<br /> <br /> ==Feature requests==<br /> (Richard)<br /> ===Primary requirements===<br /> <br /> ===Secondary requirements===<br /> <br /> === What would you like to see most improved in MediaWiki the software? ''–– The feature wish list.'' ===<br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;„I pretty much love it as is.“&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> Out of 113 answers, the most wanted features (mentions) are easy software and extension management, installation and upgrade process (30), detailed access control and enterprise support (12), a feature-rich and functioning editor out of the box (13). An extremely important valued feature is the GUI, UX, usability and the skinning process (18). Users see themselves confronted with the spam problem (6). Participants also see improvements in speed (4), in the development itself (4), have ideas for the codebase (5). File (3) and image handling (4) can be improved, as well as language support (3). Better handling of wiki farms (4). They would like to see support for other databases (2), better error messages (2) and better support for new users (in a wiki) (2). Mobile Frontend (2) could be there out of the box. Template handling (2) can bee improved as well as the search function (2). The discussion pages (2) and the watchlist feature (2) could be improved.<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/What would you like to see most improved in MediaWiki the software?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> See also: [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki_Stakeholders%27_Group/Tasks/Feature_wishlist MediaWiki Stakeholders' Group/Tasks/Feature wishlist], where most content was already included.<br /> <br /> ==Community==<br /> <br /> ===Contributions for the community===<br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;„I preach its worth to everyone I talk to“&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> From all survey participants, 5 out of 10 are contributing feedback and bug reports, 4 out of 10 are contributing to extensions.<br /> 3 help with questions and provide support and improve documentation. Only 2 out of 10 contribute patches and bugfixes, even less contribute to MediaWiki core.<br /> <br /> Other contributions worth mentioning are<br /> * Help build the community, organize meetings, like SMWCon<br /> * Support on IRC channel <br /> * Help choosing the SMW of the month<br /> * Promotion and marketing, also like &quot;I preach its worth to everyone I talk to&quot;<br /> * Financial donations<br /> * Writing books about MW<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/Do you make contributions to the MediaWiki community?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Improvements and barriers===<br /> ''Quite a few answers circle around the MediaWiki software, which was part of a preceding question and get mentioned there.''<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;&quot;The underlying perception that MediaWiki's focus should be on Wikipedia. MediaWiki is bigger than Wikipedia and everyone needs to accept that fact. It is critical that the community address the needs of the majority, even if that means working on features that aren't relevant for Wikipedia. MediaWiki and Wikipedia can diverge and still thrive together. The more that the WMF supports &quot;3rd-party users&quot;, the more those 3rd-party users will support the WMF.&quot;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Wikipedia'''. A main aspect was the relation to Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation. The connection to WMF and Wikipedia, wasn't seen as solely positive. The focus on Wikipedia in the MW community and of the WMF was criticized. The non-WMF developer community should be better visible, more active and more in charge. The dev team should be separated from Wikipedia (as in .com for Wikipedia and .org for the Open Source software). The core devs should develop more towards the usage of MW beyond Wikimedia sites. Hence, certain independence from WMF development, a wish for a dedicated MediaWiki conference and other events, where involvement could be discussed.<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;“Documentation, documentation, documentation. But maybe that's just me.”&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;It's a developers' system with mostly developers' documentation.&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> '''Documentation'''. User documentation could be improved by establishing a common language and adding clear tutorials for difficult installation processes (e.g. Visual Editor on Shared Hosting). Documentation should include the most basic, common use cases as well as less commonly used features. Documentation was criticized to often be outdated, incomplete or missing altogether. Participants wished for simple beginner tutorials and user-centered documentation content. Most of the documentation is technology driven, not use-case-driven.<br /> <br /> Developers should also have better documentation and easier access to help in their extension development, collaborative development should be encouraged. Developers see their code not reviewed at all or not quick enough, <br /> Also, the clearer the roadmap is (supported technologies etc.), the better. Clear regulations and starting points should ease the entry of new developers.<br /> <br /> '''Master plan.''' Quite a few users wished for an overall strategy, a master plan, which is focussing on all MediaWiki users (and not only Wikipedia). Interestingly, some participants asked for a community supporting enterprise users (which could mean, the Stakeholder's Group isn't yet seen as this). Some see this in the for-profit sector, some would only like to see a community, strongly supporting the overall development towards their own needs.<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;&quot;3rd party MediaWiki users unite!&quot;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Communication'''. Some users feel intimidated by the community, it's like an unaccessible &quot;elite&quot; and not easy to join. Communication tools are not yet properly supporting this: IRC as a discussion platform is not well-known, not very accessible for newbies and not always answered. People don't always know who to address their questions to, some wish for non-public ways of asking for help. Also, developers seem to be connected quite well – but not adminstrators.<br /> <br /> '''People want to help, but are not always sure, how.''' New users sometimes feel intimidated and discouraged. Newbies often don't know where to start, where to find help, who to ask. What contribution is asked for? What communication channel should be used for what? Calls for help are not prominent enough. As a new user, it is very difficult to oversee the status of the software development.<br /> <br /> People wish for concise information about the most important news. The system feels very complex. Some see also technical obstacles, like composer and the steep learning curve.<br /> <br /> '''Awareness'''. Many people do not yet know of (Semantic) MediaWiki's possibilities, so it's time to spread the word.<br /> <br /> Other ideas:<br /> *There was a wish for an &quot;editor-in-chief&quot; on mediawiki.org, the site seems sort of abandoned.<br /> *Even the community ressources should be visually appealing.<br /> <br /> Praise: &quot;Actually think the community is very healthy.&quot;<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/What would you like to see most improved in the community around MediaWiki?]]&lt;/small&gt;&lt;br /&gt;<br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/What barriers, if any, do you think exist to participation in the MediaWiki community? What can we do to help?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Next steps and requirements==<br /> (Chris, Mark, Markus, all .....)<br /> * Reliability<br /> * Standardization<br /> * Services in core<br /> * MediaWiki Foundation<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> * Chris Koerner: [[MediaWiki_Usage_Report_for_Wikimania_2015|MediaWiki User Report]], Wikimania 2015<br /> * [[MediaWiki_Usage_Questions|MediaWiki Usage Questions]]<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;</div> Sabine Melnicki https://mwstake.org/mwstake/index.php?title=MediaWiki_Usage_Report_2015/What_barriers,_if_any,_do_you_think_exist_to_participation_in_the_MediaWiki_community%3F_What_can_we_do_to_help%3F&diff=537 MediaWiki Usage Report 2015/What barriers, if any, do you think exist to participation in the MediaWiki community? What can we do to help? 2015-10-19T08:38:47Z <p>Sabine Melnicki: Created page with &quot;'''Connection to WMF, Wikipedia &gt; community of 3&lt;sup&gt;rd&lt;/sup&gt; party users''' * The underlying perception that MediaWiki's focus should be on Wikipedia. MediaWiki is bigger tha...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>'''Connection to WMF, Wikipedia &gt; community of 3&lt;sup&gt;rd&lt;/sup&gt; party users'''<br /> * The underlying perception that MediaWiki's focus should be on Wikipedia. MediaWiki is bigger than Wikipedia and everyone needs to accept that fact. It is critical that the community address the needs of the majority, even if that means working on features that aren't relevant for Wikipedia. MediaWiki and Wikipedia can diverge and still thrive together. The more that the WMF supports &quot;3rd-party users&quot;, the more those 3rd-party users will support the WMF.<br /> * I think MediaWiki is not attractive to either enterprise users (lack of proper permission controls is the main reason) or freelancers (great documentation and a nice admin interface are missing the most) and that limits involvement from developers outside the Wikimedia universe and in the end endangers self-sustainability. I would love to see a separate MediaWiki organization, funded by the Foundation for a few years with the goal of becoming self-sustainable, that tries to make MediaWiki attractive to a wider demographic of developers and into more of a framework than a CRM (Drupal is a good role model).<br /> * WMF development feels much like a closed shop<br /> * the preception is that WMF is interested only in MediaWiki for the WMF and not for outsiders<br /> * <br /> <br /> '''Not (good) enough documentation &gt; improve documentation'''<br /> * 2) Documentation - it's hard to start out because documentation is the last thing a developer wants to work on. So it is often outdated or incomplete.Documentation is either absent or incredibly verbose and detailed as a giant wall of text. <br /> * Documentation, documentation, documentation. But maybe that's just me.<br /> * There is a huge barrier of entry, for users and admins alike. MediaWiki is &quot;programmed&quot; in content pages (templates, but also advanced HTML layouts, queries, and forms), but this programming is left almost entirely to the user. It's a developers' system with mostly developers' documentation. A starting point might be to create tutorials that focus on a functionality that an actual user might want in her or his wiki (&quot;mobile-friendly portal page&quot;, &quot;twitter feed box&quot;, &quot;MW-based news feed&quot;, &quot;multi-language wiki&quot;, &quot;event calendar&quot;, &quot;in-page search form&quot;, ...). Right now, most of our documentation is technology driven, not use-case-driven.<br /> * Poor documentation, which is either outdated or entirely missing.<br /> <br /> '''Focus on development &gt; focus on use cases'''<br /> * Way too developer/tech focused. There are many people who don't (or won't) spend the time trying to figure out MediaWiki with it's crazy dependencies and issues - composer, extensions are ill-supported, updates break things, newest (and best) editor requires more technical debt.<br /> * Provide easy to understand use cases that show more than classical wiki tasks - MediaWiki is much more useful and powerful than most people know.<br /> <br /> '''Versioning'''<br /> * Due to the difficulty in keeping versions and extensions up-to-date, our wiki is always lagging behind in updates. That is why I am always using older versions and unable to contribute bug reports.<br /> <br /> '''People try and want to help, but are not always sure, how they can.'''<br /> <br /> '''Introduce, include newbies, encourage productivity –&amp;nbsp;user/devs, Centralizing community'''<br /> * 3) Intimidation - there are many strong-minded developers in the community and newcomers can easily be discouraged from contributing.<br /> * Not clear how to get newbies like myself going productively at hackathons<br /> * Ease the entrance – at the beginning it's hard to find out: How can I help – without stepping on somebody's toes? How can I help without being the 100% expert yet? Where is my help needed and wished?<br /> * getting in is a rather tedious process. people already in the community knw each other and - most of the time - don't see the necessity to include new people.<br /> * Getting into mediawiki extension programming was really hard. Often the documentation was not detailed enough. Most of the things I needed to know I had to reverse engineer. One of the reasons was also that in many parts of mediawiki code there is no or only bad documentation. Most of the comments don't explain what it is used to do but rather repeat the function name.<br /> * I feel like a bit of an outsider, and don't know where to participate... Discussion pages, bug reports, IRC, etc. Have sort of given up on finding 'a place' I guess. <br /> * If anything, perhaps centralizing the community better. It feels today like there's so many community corners, such as IRC channels, mailing lists, etc. that the average person doesn't know where to begin.<br /> * In honesty, the community is fairly open, possibly even more so that the Wikipedia community at large. However, for newcomers, the organisation and sprawl within the mediawiki project is a little disconcerting. It has improved greatly in recent times though<br /> * Knowing good ways to help. I know there are resources, but they could be more prominent. <br /> * MediaWiki development is focused on Wikipedia, which ignores the needs of thousands other users and hundreds other use cases.<br /> * Mediawikifoundation is revolving around it's own agenda which is based on the experience with millions of people using the wikipedia sites. This is a great thing and has made a lot of success possible. Now for enterprise usage some of the basic assumptions e.g. about security and non-public wikis are in the way of needed progress for enterprise use.<br /> * which media to use ? what kind of contribution is wanted ?<br /> * Not easy to find who to contact or status of the software development.<br /> * Need a beginners group or new to mediwiki group.<br /> * newbies should be taken seriously, sometimes I miss that, <br /> * No direct contact, slow answer or no answer rate in support chats, no people guiding you at the beginning.<br /> * Not regularly basic technical workshops to get involce in mediawiki community.<br /> * Outside of the software, it can hard to be new to any group, so that perceived barrier is probably the largest for newcomers. I know it was for me and my team. Especially since we come from a community building background, as opposed to a coding or computing background. That said, now that I feel part of the community, I feel the community is warm and welcoming. <br /> * Tough for beginners to break-in. Always the feedback we get from contributors at our site. And as an admin of a wiki, it is hard learning how run the site properly. Even our IT staff has a difficult time administering the wiki.<br /> * Use the same medium as users, wiki and IRC. Avoid Google docs.<br /> * There are a lot of communication channels <br /> * Some of us are just too busy. I think that good calendars and organization and plans can help people like me to be better players in the space because it's factored into my plans.<br /> * The only way I'm really connected to the &quot;community&quot; is via the mailing list, but I don't find it a very engaging way to be connected. I get the digest and usually just scan the subject lines. Not sure what tools would increase my participation - possibly Discourse style forums.<br /> * Probably too many know-everything-people around, no easy path to integration of newbies<br /> * Maybe more and frequent local meetings<br /> <br /> '''Development'''<br /> * easier pushing existing very old extensions to git/gerrit<br /> * Easy to post an extension, and never get any feedback from others. No way to see who has downloaded or used it; no feedback from the general community. <br /> * Faster, more active code review.<br /> * From a developer's perspective, some patches take an extremely long time (I've had patches go over a year) to be reviewed.<br /> * Nobody cares about things that are important to us. We have to do everything ourselves, but attempts to get code merged upstream languish or outright fail.<br /> * Publishing an extension in a good way requires a rather complex setup. Can we make that easier?<br /> * Resources. We have a couple custom extensions that work for us, but it is difficult for us to actually release them open source - test them against various versions, strip out idiosyncratic company-specific features, and make useful for a wider audience. We do intend to release a couple of these extensions at some point though.<br /> * The complexity (compared to e.g. Github) of contributing code.<br /> * The GIT / Labs process is very confusing and there is conflicting information in the documentation. I started the process 3 different times before finally completing it, and I had to ask for support as my account didn't get created properly.<br /> * Software development seems highly tied to Wikipedia. We would like to contribute more to software development but there is no software grants available for us to improve core and extensions to the project. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:PEG/Offline_MediaWiki_search_for_NASA_and_Medicine Lots of community development grants but the software has so much potential it would be good to allow the disparate groups to be brought into the fold (ie. SemanticMediawWiki)<br /> * Some sort of incentives for keeping up and participating. I'm not talking financial, I just often fail to see the benefits of upgrading and/or participating. It would be good to see some tutorials for doing things like upgrading old tag-style extensions to first-class parser functions, for example. (I've started to upgrade one extension about three times, and get blocked on &quot;what's next...&quot;)<br /> <br /> '''Awareness, spread the word.'''<br /> *&quot;Awareness. It is amazing how many people still don't know about this great tool-set&quot;<br /> * &quot;Most of the local people to whom I have mentioned Semantic Mediawiki are not familiar with it, so I continue to mention it whenever I think that it might be helpful.&quot;<br /> <br /> '''Continuity'''<br /> *&quot;developer tools are changing all the time&quot;<br /> <br /> '''Concise Information about the most important'''<br /> * &quot;Difficulty receiving information of what really matters and is interesting; it's basically all or nothing.&quot;<br /> * &quot;Ways to provide small doses of feedback (votes, etc) without having to subscribe to or follow noisy channels.&quot;<br /> *&quot; It's complex as hell, both on the community level and the development level&quot;<br /> <br /> '''Enterprise issues: Competition'''<br /> * &quot;Many companies still want to try the SharePoint Wiki offering since they use SharePoint so readily - IT departments in corporations are often reluctant to support MediaWiki&quot;<br /> <br /> '''Technical obtacles: Composer'''<br /> *&quot;One of my concerns is the use of Composer and how it affects the newbies. There are a lot of users who are tech savvy enough to grab MW and install it on the shared server. Yes, I know Composer has a lot of benefits in maintaining and deploying libraries. I worry though you're limiting new users to a smaller group. &quot;<br /> <br /> <br /> '''Complexity of the software'''<br /> *&quot;Steep learning curve, some devs have good answers very fast most of the time, so its most of the time already answered, if there is a question that one can answer.&quot;<br /> *&quot;steep technical learning curve&quot;<br /> *&quot;the only barrier I see is the user has a hard time interpreting the language of the developers. Even after reading Yoran's book for Mediawiki and doing a ton of research I find myself scratching my head about many things within Mediawiki. &quot;<br /> *&quot;too difficult to understand&quot;<br /> <br /> '''Responsibility'''<br /> *&quot;See above. There is basically nobody (dedicated person) listening if you enter via mediawiki.org. I just depends if there is a good WMF product manager around (this group is by far the worst), an involved person on the support page or a good extension maintainer if you want to get heard. To cut it short: There is nobody taking care of the unanswered rest, i.e. someone who could give pointers to some directions.&quot;<br /> <br /> '''Other'''<br /> *&quot;People already know a lot. I'm amazed at the nuances that get discussed on the mailing list.&quot;<br /> *&quot;perform surveys using SemForms not Google&quot;<br /> *I don't know - I love mediawiki, but I don't have the knowledge or time to participate in the broader community really. <br /> *I don't know.<br /> *I can't think of any major barriers to participation. <br /> *I don't do PHP or JavaScript<br /> *Learning PHP and MediaWiki PHP<br /> *I've sent polite emails to a WMF developer and not received a response. Please respond to polite email queries.<br /> *No idea.<br /> *Thanks for doing this survey!<br /> *None that I am aware of.<br /> *None that I know of.<br /> *Nothing as far as I know.<br /> *We don't see barriers. It may be 'more appealing' however if modern skins (we use Chameleon as the standard skin for our solutions) are mainstream and MediaWiki use for business is promoted.<br /> *that being said, I am very happy with Mediawiki and the movement. I am a donor as well.<br /> <br /> '''Time'''<br /> *time - no help possible<br /> *Not enough time<br /> *Sorry out of time<br /> *Unfortunately, the main barriers that prevent my personal participation are my own constraints on time and other obligations. While I try to contribute to answering questions on the mailing lists from time to time, they usually get answered by someone more knowledgeable than me by the time I finally get around to them. I'm afraid there's not much I could offer in ways to improve participation at this time.<br /> <br /> '''?'''<br /> *Proxies: people I can provide feedback casually and they will consolidate / prioritize / do the right thing.<br /> *English as lingua franca, WMF, usurpation of projects by single coders or two usually from WMF or affiliate staff.<br /> *Enjoy the Friday sessions when I can attend. <br /> *Making the internet accessible for all. But, it needs a lot of Self discipline to consider this!From zerO to herO is what I mean<br /> *Nothing significant in the 'community' itself. However, since it is comprised largely of clever, young people, there is a subtle obstacle; viz - successful careers depend largely upon the necessity of (at least tacit) adherence to official narratives of the West's moral superiority, in its notions pf 'progress' and its dealings with the rest of the world; when in reality it is becoming - and probably by design of its a defacto masters - a veritable moral sewer. Wikispooks sits way outside such official narrative concensus. We are thus apt to be dimissed at tin-foil-hat-wearing conspiracy-loons<br /> *plugin jungle to add user friendly uses as user_board, gift, contribution score.lot a people want a mini blog around their contributions, or just web-ify their mindings. maybe a mediawiki-diaspora mixed thing? [http://wiki.funlab.fr/index.php/Sp%C3%A9cial:Version http://wiki.funlab.fr/index.php/Sp%C3%A9cial:Version], [http://wiki.funlab.fr/index.php/Funlab http://wiki.funlab.fr/index.php/Funlab] http://wiki.funlab.fr/index.php/Utilisateur:Tuxun<br /> *There must be a friendly environment, better documentation (imo especially old docs from 8 years ago are a mess) and no one should be afraid of contributing :)</div> Sabine Melnicki https://mwstake.org/mwstake/index.php?title=MediaWiki_Usage_Report_2015/What_would_you_like_to_see_most_improved_in_the_community_around_MediaWiki%3F&diff=536 MediaWiki Usage Report 2015/What would you like to see most improved in the community around MediaWiki? 2015-10-19T08:36:42Z <p>Sabine Melnicki: Created page with &quot;Out of 83 answers. Wishes are: '''Development less Wikimedia-centric, visibility and impact of dev community''' * “Dedicated software team separated from wikipedia so that...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>Out of 83 answers.<br /> <br /> Wishes are:<br /> <br /> '''Development less Wikimedia-centric, visibility and impact of dev community'''<br /> * “Dedicated software team separated from wikipedia so that the nonprofit foundation unctions separately. Right now improvements to software seem highly tied to wikipedia and ideally the software should exist similarly to the wordpress setup with a .org and a .com (one maintained open source and one maintaining wikipedia). Hopefully this would allow for greater software development for the growing distributed install based of mediawiki based sites so we feel more apart of a software community even though we don't have content on wikipedia.”<br /> * This has been brought up on the mailing lists before, but it would be nice if the development around MediaWiki were less Wikipedia-centric and took more into consideration the needs of MW users outside WikiMedia. While we all understand that Wikipedia is the chief user and poster child for the software, by releasing it for others to use WikiMedia now has an obligation to listen to its outside users. Bug reporting and handling isn't the issue there, but adding or changing features requires better coordination and communication.<br /> * Less influence from WMF<br /> * Also, there's very much a wikipedia centric focus. That's not unsurprising or necessarily always bad, but there are cases where it's detrimental to the improvement of the community. For instance, from what I've seen the development of an Upload UI for VisualEditor has been stalled out due to copyright concerns. While this is a very valid concern for the open internet at large, but for internal wikis we'd at at least like something bare-bones we can use. In a corporate environment, lacking an editor that is &quot;easy to use&quot; is a big detractor. <br /> * I'd love to see the Wikimedia Foundation engage the MediaWiki community - specifically the enterprise group of MediaWiki users. I think that rich exchange could be mutually beneficial. <br /> <br /> '''MediaWiki conference'''<br /> * It would be good to have a MediaWiki conference.<br /> * More collaboration and involvement in the third-party MediaWiki community from all users. More events about MediaWiki not directly tied to Wikipedia or other WMF-lead events.<br /> <br /> '''Editor-in-chief on mediawiki.org'''<br /> * There should be somebody for community liaison (as well as editor in chief) on mediawiki.org too. At least I am not aware of any person doing such thing. mediawiki.org is basically an abandoned wiki.<br /> <br /> '''Visually appealing community ressources'''<br /> * Better community resources that don't look like web pages from the late 1990s. One can do modern-looking web pages in MediaWiki, too. Extension and skin search could be done with SMW and friends using very nice UIs. There is support for in-wiki faceted browsers and query forms to find pages. Everything can be skinned to use more images in search results. But someone has to put in the work to build these web pages.<br /> <br /> '''Documentation – for users'''<br /> * Common language for users, and tutorials for common users for installation of the more complex extensions, for example, I still cannot figure out how to install Visual Editor successfully on Shared Hosting. There is nothing out there that explains how.<br /> * Some of the documentation should be improved, including cleaning up the discussion pages on documentation.<br /> * better documentation<br /> * Better documentation of the minor/less common features. (ca. all the red links on MediaWiki.org)<br /> <br /> '''Documentation – for developers'''<br /> * Better developer docs<br /> * Better documentation for both new users and extension developers, easier access to core developers for help in developing extensions, more mechanisms to foster collaborative development.<br /> <br /> Development<br /> * As a volunteer, I find it hard to get code reviews in a timely fashion or at all. I've resorted to regularly +2ing my own commits to keep forward progress on the extension I maintain. I was fastidious and extremely patient for reviews of my initial rewrite but gave up shortly after. I must say i18n/l10n reviews are timely and very good.<br /> * Clear regulations how developers can participate and which technologies are supported in the next years. <br /> * &quot;Extension champions&quot; to counter the &quot;extension nazis&quot; who seem to delete every extension I find essential at some point!<br /> * Easier entry in points of development.<br /> * group of devs seem a rather closed up group. questions regarding development issues get seldom answered<br /> * Better process and docs - gerrit, git, etc. a real pain for beginners.<br /> * Technical knowledge, understanding architecture and best standards to extensions. Create developers communities in the region or countries, migth in LATAM.<br /> * I'm not critical but I want it to be easy to get into and use phabricator and the other developer tools which seem to be changing all the time. my attentiveness is sporadic so I am never caught up, sometimes trying to catch up. easier setup and ways to help fix.<br /> * People being super picky about commit message formatting in Gerrit. It is 2015. This is why word wrap exists.<br /> <br /> A community for enterprise users<br /> * Creating a Company that supports Enterprise users. I'd love to see a &quot;Genossenschaft&quot; for this. That would be a for profit Foundation that targets Enterprises.<br /> * I'd like to see the enterprise community find ways to be on the same page, and the contribute together to help make MediaWiki even stronger.<br /> * It should start to care about the needs of 3rd party (non-WMF) users and it's own projects that are not just Wikipedia.<br /> <br /> Sharing knowledge<br /> * A bit more user-orientated (compared to developers' orientation), more women, more sharing of knowledge apart from dev's<br /> <br /> Strategy<br /> * Have a plan.<br /> * There is no strategy for all MediaWiki users. Only Wikipedia is in the focus.<br /> * Missing a vision on where stuff is going for normal users <br /> * More leadership, an actual roadmap. The recent changes in the role of the architecture committee are promising.<br /> * Roadmap/architecture/governance model<br /> * The creation of a clear strategy going forward so we know what to expect in the development roadmap<br /> <br /> Ease of joining the community<br /> * It feels like there is an elite and they are unaccessible for you.<br /> * To actually allow new people to join the community.<br /> * Ease of joining<br /> <br /> Communication tools and help<br /> * IRC is no help, BTW. It's alien to 99% of people, and the only times I've tried asking there, I was ignored. It's hopeless for newcomers. <br /> * I would like to see better participation in IRC. I have asked questions at times and received great response. Other times, no reply at all. It's also confusing to be directed to another channel (like VisualEditor), but then have no voice privilege there to ask a question.<br /> * Easier to know who to speak to for talking about a subject<br /> * Non-public ways to get help from the community<br /> * People backing up their words with actions.<br /> * Best solution, IMO, would be a mediawiki channel on StackOverflow... If this already exists, stop having discussion on mw.org.<br /> * It's very hard to find relevant discussion threads, because stuff goes stale so fast (wrt versions of things mainly). Often there is no input at all from the developers or other people that could probably help. <br /> <br /> Connection between admins, 3rd party users<br /> * Improved connectivity between users. We are making a lot of effort to connect developers, but have never managed to empower the tens of thousands of wiki administrators. This might also boost the number of contributors.<br /> * 3rd party MediaWiki users unite!<br /> * Support for private wikis, or maybe better communication around private wikis. The impression that I get is that private wikis are a little bit of an afterthought. It's still good that we're addressed and not ignored, but I suspect there may be more out there in corporate environments than people are aware of. <br /> <br /> Support for new admins/users<br /> * More support for absolute beginners like myself<br /> <br /> Other: Extension and software handling<br /> * 2. Extensions should be easier to install.<br /> * I could see Mediawiki, in combination with query-based tools (SMW, DPL, Cargo) making serious inroads in this space, if it was easier to get a platform set up and working. It works for us, but only with heavy investment from developers in our group. <br /> * In particular, the Ponydocs extension holds GREAT promise to transform the whole industry - but only IF there were a lot more folks using it, contributing extensions and query-based tools samples, to solve the various content problems software orgs come up against.<br /> * Continuous extension development. Lot's of extensions are not up to date with the latest MediaWiki version and the risk is quite high that a current extension cannot be used in future.<br /> * better, more centralized extension, &quot;app store&quot;. hard to find some extensions and hard to guess if extensions still work with the latest mw versions when they are very old.<br /> * Visibility of extensions. How can I know which ones are good and widely used?<br /> * Technical support of third party extensions<br /> * identification of core extensions. skins, configuration details (extensions)<br /> * Semantic MediaWiki and related extensions<br /> * Does anyone use vanilla MW? The MW download page should encourage certain standardized builds of MW+extensions. <br /> * Prompt alerts and advice for spam and intrusion prevention.<br /> <br /> * shared maintenance and updating of core extensions. easy ways to find other MW hackers or implementers near me. access to good ~free wikifarms for times when I don't have time to spin up a new wiki myself.<br /> <br /> Other: Documentation<br /> *The documentation.<br /> *the software documentation needs a lot improvement<br /> *More support for easy-to-use plugins/extensions that help with data display &amp; visualization<br /> *I believe mediawiki.org doesn't serve the community well enough. We need:1. a proper system for extension listing and rating.&lt;nowiki&gt;2. a major overhaul of documentation - just look at the list of orphaned pages, for example... [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:LonelyPages]&lt;/nowiki&gt;<br /> *More examples of how to do things<br /> <br /> ?? <br /> *IMO, the vendor software around this industry, which is all XML-based, is out of date and not responsive to modern web-based users. <br /> *Asked jUan? To be jUan!<br /> *A focus on the software technical documentation industry.<br /> *Continued improvements to the organisation of developer materials, and perhaps even the possibly of offering hosted platforms to facilitate take-up for potential users.<br /> *github/gerrit installation and use<br /> *Paladox<br /> *I understand why it is what it is but the extensions documentation is often lacking in depth and timeliness.<br /> *see above<br /> *maybe the visibility of the ability to anybody to help. oh, bot is quite speed and rude with people try to help<br /> *More awareness and support on each other hosting MediaWiki sites. EnterpriseMediaWiki and the GitHub page are good starts.<br /> *The design is looking a little dated, but otherwise it's familiar and useful.<br /> <br /> +++<br /> *Actually think the community is very healthy.<br /> *Community is OK, as far as I can see.<br /> *Nothing<br /> *No complaints<br /> *N/A<br /> *I don't see that the community needs to be improved.<br /> *Everything fine. :)<br /> *Well, it is impressive as it is. Can't think of improvements really.<br /> *I'm not sure what I have to fill in here :)<br /> *I'm not too involved in the community, so it's difficult to comment.<br /> *i don't know.... i'm not really active in the community.<br /> *Not enough experience to comment on that</div> Sabine Melnicki https://mwstake.org/mwstake/index.php?title=Talk:MediaWiki_Usage_Report_2015&diff=535 Talk:MediaWiki Usage Report 2015 2015-10-19T08:36:22Z <p>Sabine Melnicki: /* Improvements and barriers */</p> <hr /> <div>Trailer<br /> (Chris?)<br /> <br /> ==Distribution== <br /> There's a huge wiki world beyond Wikimedia Foundation.&lt;ref&gt;https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T113210&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> (Sabine?)<br /> <br /> ===Downloads===<br /> * The downloads in China are remarkable high<br /> <br /> ===Hosting===<br /> * Thousands of installed MediaWiki on shared hosting (one-click) providers<br /> <br /> ===Most downloaded extensions===<br /> Even to know, which extensions are popular is nearly impossible. Some data from December 2014 (shared by Legoktm) are interesting. And give a first impression of needed add-ons in wikis beyond the Wikimedia Foundation. Many &quot;top 20&quot; extensions already prove the intense use of MediaWiki in companies and organizations. <br /> <br /> ===Comparisons with Wordpress and other content management systems===<br /> (Richard)<br /> * Compare trends. Searches for Wordpress and MediaWIki, Confluence ... <br /> * Comparison searches for wiki and blog: Wiki more popular. But MediaWiki is not the most important player<br /> * Reason: No ecosystem for MediaWiki established, SMW, BlueSpice, Wikia, WMF ... working separated.<br /> <br /> ==Typical MediaWiki users==<br /> The '''typical survey participant''' is either a developer/administrator or in management and works in a small organization with 25 or less people. Using MediaWiki now for over 5 years, he counts as long time user. He is managing 2–5 wikis, from which at least 1 is public and 1 private. The user sees 25 or less people on his wiki. The user uses MediaWiki because of it being Open Source and easy to use due to its similarity to Wikipedia. His public wiki is a fun site and his enterprise wiki is used for internal knowledge creation and management. He is unhappy with the upgrade process and the installation of new extensions and would like to see WordPress-like simple update buttons in the admin backend. For the enterprise wiki, access control and a functioning easy Visual Editor are important, but even more important is a slick, superpretty GUI. The user is part of the software community and contributes some feedback and bug reports. He also spreads the word. Irritating is the connection to Wikipedia and the scrambled software documentation, which isn't very user-friendly. Community-wise, he wishes for a master plan, good communication and easy ways of involvement to give back to the community and support the project.<br /> <br /> ===Position/Title===<br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;„Sysadmin, high Queen, that idiot.“&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> Out of 134 participants of the survey, almost every fifth (20 %, 27) is in software development, every sixth (1  %, 22) is a software admin. External functions like management and leadership can be fond in every sixth participant (1  %, 20), one eight (12 %, 17) has science and academic background. Defined wiki-users only acount for 12 % (12 %, 16) of the participants. 1 out of 10 have any other external background. (10 %, 14). A maximum 4 percent of the participants (4 %, 5) have direct or indirect relation to WMF or are software distributors. About one eighth of the answers (12 %, 16) were either unclear or unanswered.<br /> <br /> In 10 survey participants:<br /> * 2 are software developers<br /> * 2 administrators<br /> * 2 are in management/leadership position<br /> * 1 have academic background<br /> * 1 are solely wiki-users<br /> * 2 are doing something else...<br /> * 1 does not answer the question<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/What is your position or title?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Sizes of organization===<br /> About half of all participants work in organizations with 25 or less people (48,12 %, 64). Every fourth participant is part of an organization between 25 and 500 people (21 %, 28). Organizations with 500 or more people account for almost a third of all (28 %, 37).<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/How large is your organization?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Usage time of MediaWiki===<br /> More than half of the survey participants are long time users of MediaWiki, they use it 5+ years (54 %, 72). Almost a quarter is still using the software for 3–5 years (22 %, 30). The last quarter of participants is using the software for 1-2 years or less than 6 months. (24 %, 32). New users, who use the software for less than 6 months, account for about 5 % of the participants (5 %, 7). This figure can be an indication for how visible the survey was to new users.<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/How long have you been using MW?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Number of MediaWiki sites===<br /> The vast majority of users is managing 2 or more MediaWiki sites (almost 70 % of all). More than a third of all users / 4 out of 10 users manage 2–5 wikis. This is the highest figure in total (40 %, 54). Together with managers of 5-10 wikis, this accounts for half of all users. Every third participant is managing 5 or more. (30 %, 40). The figure of users managing more than 10 wikis is double as high (19 %, 26) as those managing 5 to 10 wikis (10 %, 14). Still, a quarter of the participants is managing 1 single MW site (25 %, 34). Only a few participants (4,5 %, 6) are not managing any MW site.<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/How many MediaWiki sites do you manage?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Public and private sites===<br /> Out of 133 answers, 36 users manage public wikis (27 %), 38 users manage private wikis (28,5 %) and 59 users manage a mix of both (44 %).<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/Are your sites public or private?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Number of users===<br /> Out of 133 answers, about a third of all survey parcicipants have 25 people or less on their wikis (36 %, 48), 1 in 10 participants are using the wiki just to themselves (11 %, 15).<br /> <br /> Relatively equally spread are the numbers of wikis with more users than 25:<br /> * 25–100 &gt; (19 %, 26)<br /> *100–500 &gt; (15 %, 20)<br /> *500+ &gt; (25 %, 33)<br /> <br /> Significant is the number of large wikis with 500 users or more, which account for a quarter of all participants (25 %, 33).<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/Approximately how many people are there on your MediaWiki sites?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Extensions and age of the used wikis==<br /> <br /> ===MediaWiki versions===<br /> <br /> ===Updates===<br /> <br /> ===Most important extensions===<br /> <br /> ===Reasons for using MediaWiki===<br /> <br /> ==Feature requests==<br /> (Richard)<br /> ===Primary requirements===<br /> <br /> ===Secondary requirements===<br /> <br /> === What would you like to see most improved in MediaWiki the software? ''–– The feature wish list.'' ===<br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;„I pretty much love it as is.“&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> Out of 113 answers, the most wanted features (mentions) are easy software and extension management, installation and upgrade process (30), detailed access control and enterprise support (12), a feature-rich and functioning editor out of the box (13). An extremely important valued feature is the GUI, UX, usability and the skinning process (18). Users see themselves confronted with the spam problem (6). Participants also see improvements in speed (4), in the development itself (4), have ideas for the codebase (5). File (3) and image handling (4) can be improved, as well as language support (3). Better handling of wiki farms (4). They would like to see support for other databases (2), better error messages (2) and better support for new users (in a wiki) (2). Mobile Frontend (2) could be there out of the box. Template handling (2) can bee improved as well as the search function (2). The discussion pages (2) and the watchlist feature (2) could be improved.<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/What would you like to see most improved in MediaWiki the software?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> See also: [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki_Stakeholders%27_Group/Tasks/Feature_wishlist MediaWiki Stakeholders' Group/Tasks/Feature wishlist], where most content was already included.<br /> <br /> ==Community==<br /> <br /> ===Contributions for the community===<br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;„I preach its worth to everyone I talk to“&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> From all survey participants, 5 out of 10 are contributing feedback and bug reports, 4 out of 10 are contributing to extensions.<br /> 3 help with questions and provide support and improve documentation. Only 2 out of 10 contribute patches and bugfixes, even less contribute to MediaWiki core.<br /> <br /> Other contributions worth mentioning are<br /> * Help build the community, organize meetings, like SMWCon<br /> * Support on IRC channel <br /> * Help choosing the SMW of the month<br /> * Promotion and marketing, also like &quot;I preach its worth to everyone I talk to&quot;<br /> * Financial donations<br /> * Writing books about MW<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/Do you make contributions to the MediaWiki community?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Improvements and barriers===<br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;&quot;3rd party MediaWiki users unite!&quot;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Wikipedia'''. A main aspect was the relation to Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation. The non-WMF developer community should be better visible, more active and more in charge. The dev team should be separated from Wikipedia (as in .com for Wikipedia and .org for the Open Source software). The core devs should develop more towards the usage of MW beyond Wikimedia sites. Hence, certain independence from WMF development, a wish for a dedicated MediaWiki conference and other events, where involvement could be discussed.<br /> <br /> '''Documentation'''. User documentation could be improved by establishing a common language and adding clear tutorials for difficult installation processes (e.g. Visual Editor on Shared Hosting). Documentation should include the most basic, common use cases as well as less commonly used features.<br /> <br /> Developers should have better documentation, too and easier access to help in their extension development, collaborative development should be encouraged. Developers see their code not reviewed at all or not quick enough, <br /> Also, the clearer the roadmap is (supported technologies etc.), the better. Clear regulations and starting points should ease the entry of new developers.<br /> <br /> '''Master plan.''' Quite a few users wished for an overall strategy, a master plan, which is focussing on all MediaWiki users (and not only Wikipedia). Interestingly, some participants asked for a community supporting enterprise users (which could mean, the Stakeholder's Group isn't yet seen as this). Some see this in the for-profit sector, some would only like to see a community, strongly supporting the overall development towards their own needs.<br /> <br /> '''Communication'''. Some users feel intimidated by the community, it's like an unaccessible &quot;elite&quot; and not easy to join. Communication tools are not yet properly supporting this: IRC as a discussion platform is not well-known, not very accessible for newbies and not always answered. People don't always know who to address their questions to, some wish for non-public ways of asking for help. Also, developers seem to be connected quite well – but not adminstrators.<br /> <br /> ''Quite a few answers circle around the MediaWiki software, which was part of a preceding question and get mentioned there.&quot;<br /> <br /> Other ideas:<br /> *There was a wish for an &quot;editor-in-chief&quot; on mediawiki.org, the site seems sort of abandoned.<br /> *Even the community ressources should be visually appealing.<br /> <br /> Praise: &quot;Actually think the community is very healthy.&quot;<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/What would you like to see most improved in the community around MediaWiki?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Next steps and requirements==<br /> (Chris, Mark, Markus, all .....)<br /> * Reliability<br /> * Standardization<br /> * Services in core<br /> * MediaWiki Foundation<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> * Chris Koerner: [[MediaWiki_Usage_Report_for_Wikimania_2015|MediaWiki User Report]], Wikimania 2015<br /> * [[MediaWiki_Usage_Questions|MediaWiki Usage Questions]]<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;</div> Sabine Melnicki https://mwstake.org/mwstake/index.php?title=MediaWiki_Usage_Report_2015/Do_you_make_contributions_to_the_MediaWiki_community%3F&diff=534 MediaWiki Usage Report 2015/Do you make contributions to the MediaWiki community? 2015-10-19T08:35:36Z <p>Sabine Melnicki: Created page with &quot;Out of 104 answers (multiple checkboxes): {| | I contribute feedback and bug reports||75||27,27%||54,74% |- | I contribute to extensions||57||20,73%||41,61% |- | I help answe...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>Out of 104 answers (multiple checkboxes):<br /> <br /> {|<br /> | I contribute feedback and bug reports||75||27,27%||54,74%<br /> |-<br /> | I contribute to extensions||57||20,73%||41,61%<br /> |-<br /> | I help answer questions and provide support||47||17,09%||34,31%<br /> |-<br /> | I help with documentation||47||17,09%||34,31%<br /> |-<br /> | I contribute patches and bug fixes||28||10,18%||20,44%<br /> |-<br /> | I contribute code to MediaWiki core||18||6,55%||13,14%<br /> |-<br /> | Translation||3||1,09%||<br /> |-<br /> ! ||275|| sum of answers ||<br /> |-<br /> | ||||||<br /> |-<br /> ! ||137|| sum of participants||<br /> |-<br /> | ||||||<br /> |}<br /> <br /> <br /> === Other single mentions: ===<br /> Still learning:<br /> <br /> * Beginner<br /> * I continue to learn about Mediawiki and follow related topics.<br /> * I would like to gain the knowledge to support code and patches.<br /> * I'm merely an observer<br /> <br /> Help others, community, events, documentation:<br /> <br /> * I am in the irc channel + help people<br /> * Community building<br /> * help to organise meetings<br /> * Help with Semantic MediaWiki of the month selection process<br /> * Organise SMWCon, do promotion and marketing<br /> * some edits on mediawiki.org<br /> * Try to attend weekly meetings set up by Tom O'<br /> * Visit hackathons and conferences<br /> <br /> Development:<br /> <br /> * I contribute bug reports/fixes to extensions (we had to to get theshibboleth extension working)<br /> * I work in WMF's Engineering Community team<br /> * Minormost patches.<br /> * Offline extension to be contributed in the future once stable.<br /> <br /> Other:<br /> <br /> * Pywikibot<br /> * Financial donations<br /> * I write books about it</div> Sabine Melnicki https://mwstake.org/mwstake/index.php?title=Talk:MediaWiki_Usage_Report_2015&diff=533 Talk:MediaWiki Usage Report 2015 2015-10-19T08:35:08Z <p>Sabine Melnicki: /* Contributions for the community */</p> <hr /> <div>Trailer<br /> (Chris?)<br /> <br /> ==Distribution== <br /> There's a huge wiki world beyond Wikimedia Foundation.&lt;ref&gt;https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T113210&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> (Sabine?)<br /> <br /> ===Downloads===<br /> * The downloads in China are remarkable high<br /> <br /> ===Hosting===<br /> * Thousands of installed MediaWiki on shared hosting (one-click) providers<br /> <br /> ===Most downloaded extensions===<br /> Even to know, which extensions are popular is nearly impossible. Some data from December 2014 (shared by Legoktm) are interesting. And give a first impression of needed add-ons in wikis beyond the Wikimedia Foundation. Many &quot;top 20&quot; extensions already prove the intense use of MediaWiki in companies and organizations. <br /> <br /> ===Comparisons with Wordpress and other content management systems===<br /> (Richard)<br /> * Compare trends. Searches for Wordpress and MediaWIki, Confluence ... <br /> * Comparison searches for wiki and blog: Wiki more popular. But MediaWiki is not the most important player<br /> * Reason: No ecosystem for MediaWiki established, SMW, BlueSpice, Wikia, WMF ... working separated.<br /> <br /> ==Typical MediaWiki users==<br /> The '''typical survey participant''' is either a developer/administrator or in management and works in a small organization with 25 or less people. Using MediaWiki now for over 5 years, he counts as long time user. He is managing 2–5 wikis, from which at least 1 is public and 1 private. The user sees 25 or less people on his wiki. The user uses MediaWiki because of it being Open Source and easy to use due to its similarity to Wikipedia. His public wiki is a fun site and his enterprise wiki is used for internal knowledge creation and management. He is unhappy with the upgrade process and the installation of new extensions and would like to see WordPress-like simple update buttons in the admin backend. For the enterprise wiki, access control and a functioning easy Visual Editor are important, but even more important is a slick, superpretty GUI. The user is part of the software community and contributes some feedback and bug reports. He also spreads the word. Irritating is the connection to Wikipedia and the scrambled software documentation, which isn't very user-friendly. Community-wise, he wishes for a master plan, good communication and easy ways of involvement to give back to the community and support the project.<br /> <br /> ===Position/Title===<br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;„Sysadmin, high Queen, that idiot.“&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> Out of 134 participants of the survey, almost every fifth (20 %, 27) is in software development, every sixth (1  %, 22) is a software admin. External functions like management and leadership can be fond in every sixth participant (1  %, 20), one eight (12 %, 17) has science and academic background. Defined wiki-users only acount for 12 % (12 %, 16) of the participants. 1 out of 10 have any other external background. (10 %, 14). A maximum 4 percent of the participants (4 %, 5) have direct or indirect relation to WMF or are software distributors. About one eighth of the answers (12 %, 16) were either unclear or unanswered.<br /> <br /> In 10 survey participants:<br /> * 2 are software developers<br /> * 2 administrators<br /> * 2 are in management/leadership position<br /> * 1 have academic background<br /> * 1 are solely wiki-users<br /> * 2 are doing something else...<br /> * 1 does not answer the question<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/What is your position or title?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Sizes of organization===<br /> About half of all participants work in organizations with 25 or less people (48,12 %, 64). Every fourth participant is part of an organization between 25 and 500 people (21 %, 28). Organizations with 500 or more people account for almost a third of all (28 %, 37).<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/How large is your organization?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Usage time of MediaWiki===<br /> More than half of the survey participants are long time users of MediaWiki, they use it 5+ years (54 %, 72). Almost a quarter is still using the software for 3–5 years (22 %, 30). The last quarter of participants is using the software for 1-2 years or less than 6 months. (24 %, 32). New users, who use the software for less than 6 months, account for about 5 % of the participants (5 %, 7). This figure can be an indication for how visible the survey was to new users.<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/How long have you been using MW?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Number of MediaWiki sites===<br /> The vast majority of users is managing 2 or more MediaWiki sites (almost 70 % of all). More than a third of all users / 4 out of 10 users manage 2–5 wikis. This is the highest figure in total (40 %, 54). Together with managers of 5-10 wikis, this accounts for half of all users. Every third participant is managing 5 or more. (30 %, 40). The figure of users managing more than 10 wikis is double as high (19 %, 26) as those managing 5 to 10 wikis (10 %, 14). Still, a quarter of the participants is managing 1 single MW site (25 %, 34). Only a few participants (4,5 %, 6) are not managing any MW site.<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/How many MediaWiki sites do you manage?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Public and private sites===<br /> Out of 133 answers, 36 users manage public wikis (27 %), 38 users manage private wikis (28,5 %) and 59 users manage a mix of both (44 %).<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/Are your sites public or private?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Number of users===<br /> Out of 133 answers, about a third of all survey parcicipants have 25 people or less on their wikis (36 %, 48), 1 in 10 participants are using the wiki just to themselves (11 %, 15).<br /> <br /> Relatively equally spread are the numbers of wikis with more users than 25:<br /> * 25–100 &gt; (19 %, 26)<br /> *100–500 &gt; (15 %, 20)<br /> *500+ &gt; (25 %, 33)<br /> <br /> Significant is the number of large wikis with 500 users or more, which account for a quarter of all participants (25 %, 33).<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/Approximately how many people are there on your MediaWiki sites?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Extensions and age of the used wikis==<br /> <br /> ===MediaWiki versions===<br /> <br /> ===Updates===<br /> <br /> ===Most important extensions===<br /> <br /> ===Reasons for using MediaWiki===<br /> <br /> ==Feature requests==<br /> (Richard)<br /> ===Primary requirements===<br /> <br /> ===Secondary requirements===<br /> <br /> === What would you like to see most improved in MediaWiki the software? ''–– The feature wish list.'' ===<br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;„I pretty much love it as is.“&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> Out of 113 answers, the most wanted features (mentions) are easy software and extension management, installation and upgrade process (30), detailed access control and enterprise support (12), a feature-rich and functioning editor out of the box (13). An extremely important valued feature is the GUI, UX, usability and the skinning process (18). Users see themselves confronted with the spam problem (6). Participants also see improvements in speed (4), in the development itself (4), have ideas for the codebase (5). File (3) and image handling (4) can be improved, as well as language support (3). Better handling of wiki farms (4). They would like to see support for other databases (2), better error messages (2) and better support for new users (in a wiki) (2). Mobile Frontend (2) could be there out of the box. Template handling (2) can bee improved as well as the search function (2). The discussion pages (2) and the watchlist feature (2) could be improved.<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/What would you like to see most improved in MediaWiki the software?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> See also: [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki_Stakeholders%27_Group/Tasks/Feature_wishlist MediaWiki Stakeholders' Group/Tasks/Feature wishlist], where most content was already included.<br /> <br /> ==Community==<br /> <br /> ===Contributions for the community===<br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;„I preach its worth to everyone I talk to“&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> From all survey participants, 5 out of 10 are contributing feedback and bug reports, 4 out of 10 are contributing to extensions.<br /> 3 help with questions and provide support and improve documentation. Only 2 out of 10 contribute patches and bugfixes, even less contribute to MediaWiki core.<br /> <br /> Other contributions worth mentioning are<br /> * Help build the community, organize meetings, like SMWCon<br /> * Support on IRC channel <br /> * Help choosing the SMW of the month<br /> * Promotion and marketing, also like &quot;I preach its worth to everyone I talk to&quot;<br /> * Financial donations<br /> * Writing books about MW<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/Do you make contributions to the MediaWiki community?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Improvements and barriers===<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Next steps and requirements==<br /> (Chris, Mark, Markus, all .....)<br /> * Reliability<br /> * Standardization<br /> * Services in core<br /> * MediaWiki Foundation<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> * Chris Koerner: [[MediaWiki_Usage_Report_for_Wikimania_2015|MediaWiki User Report]], Wikimania 2015<br /> * [[MediaWiki_Usage_Questions|MediaWiki Usage Questions]]<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;</div> Sabine Melnicki https://mwstake.org/mwstake/index.php?title=MediaWiki_Usage_Report_2015/What_would_you_like_to_see_most_improved_in_MediaWiki_the_software%3F&diff=532 MediaWiki Usage Report 2015/What would you like to see most improved in MediaWiki the software? 2015-10-19T08:34:23Z <p>Sabine Melnicki: Created page with &quot;''Mentions are in brackets (e.g. 7).'' === Installation, Upgrade/Update. (13) === * easy install and upgrade process, easy management * automatic updates * updates with one cl...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>''Mentions are in brackets (e.g. 7).''<br /> === Installation, Upgrade/Update. (13) ===<br /> * easy install and upgrade process, easy management<br /> * automatic updates<br /> * updates with one click<br /> <br /> * composer-based installation –&amp;nbsp;''not sure if this was mentioned as easy or difficult''<br /> * push updates, similar to WordPress<br /> <br /> „Maintaining the site is a bit of a headache. Some extensions are especially troublesome (particularly Collections, SMW, and even Math).“<br /> <br /> „installability. I also run dokuwiki in a similar org. It's way easier to provide a useful environment to users there within just a couple of clicks. Upgrading is a breeze there.“<br /> <br /> === Extensions. (17) ===<br /> * improve extension discovery<br /> * improve extension installation/deployment<br /> * improve extension configuration<br /> * use webbased interface, configuration through admin panel: „Extension Manager“<br /> * similar to WordPress<br /> * improve sandboxing of extensions to not alter core (similar to WordPress) –&amp;nbsp;''(child theme??)''<br /> * &lt;nowiki&gt;automated dependency check (MW core &lt;&gt; extensions) –&amp;nbsp;backwards compatibility or make sure extensions don’t blow up with updates.&lt;/nowiki&gt;<br /> * package manager<br /> * 1-click-installation<br /> * configuration wizard<br /> * auto-update function<br /> * backword-compatibility of core and extensions to older versions and to PHP-Updates<br /> <br /> „I would like to see Wikimedia stop looking at essential extensions (ElasticSearch, Echo, VisualEditor) as add-ons instead of integral parts of the software. I mainly refer to the fact that development of those continually ignores the release cycle, only taking into account Wikimedia's rolling updates.“<br /> <br /> „Ease of installation of extensions has improved, but a more seamless installation process would be appreciated for me and my team.“<br /> <br /> „For the most part the core MediaWiki code is pretty solid; however, the addition of composer, specifically extension installation via composer, has been a bit of a bear. Using composer for standard libraries that MediaWiki makes sense, and allows easier standardization for any extensions that want to use the same libraries. However, when it comes to extensions it has become a bit of a mess, especially with trying to efficiently control how they are managed. Especially if I need to quickly disable one on the fly for some quick testing (extension conflicts), or just troubleshoot a particular extension with a debugger.“<br /> <br /> === Editor. (13) ===<br /> * WYSIWYG-editor<br /> * complete visual editor, ready to use out of the box, included in standard installation<br /> * Visual Editor stable<br /> * Editor with a lot of features, nearly like Word<br /> * more features, more intuitive<br /> <br /> „Continue developing VisualEditor until it's bulletproof.“<br /> <br /> „ The editing experience (wiki markup) is what puts many people off editing/authoring.“<br /> <br /> „ I would love to see VisualEditor more mature and with a built-in spellcheck - and working for IE. I would also like to see better support for the LTS versions - it seems like VisualEditor development moves forward with the newest updates to core, but they don't always get back-ported to the LTS version in a timely manner.“<br /> <br /> „My users want wysiwym editing.“<br /> <br /> === Enterprise support: Access control. (12) ===<br /> * Bugreport, change request handling, based on the needs of paying customers<br /> * functions for MW to be included easier into enterprise environment, like ACL.<br /> * refined access control lists<br /> * per-page edit and edit rights<br /> * per-category<br /> * per-namespace<br /> * limiting reading-access<br /> <br /> „In an enterprise we *know* who everyone is and they do, generally follow the rules. I would build the easy of watching content, keeping up on changes, who has the rights to change things, and who should check it off as being golden. The articles are great; we have a small set of reviewers and need tools that help us watch and verify the content.“<br /> <br /> „I'd like to see better &quot;enterprise&quot; extensions to provide CMS-like functionality such as fine grained access control. I realize this type of functionality isn't very Wiki-like, but regardless, I get asked for it all the time.“<br /> <br /> „Sometimes I wish, MediaWiki would support ACLs. MediaWiki is not usable as a knowledgebase in our company, because we have to restrict access of some parts to a few users. I would like to use MediaWiki instead of another Wiki or a CMS, but this key feature is not available. But I know that this is not the scope of mediawiki. ;-)“<br /> <br /> „We would use it much more in business if page-level access control were more possible.“<br /> <br /> === Graphic User Interface (GUI), User Experience (UX), Usability (11) ===<br /> * Customization: Easy ways to customize the UI - a more modern look. An extension that lets a company easily brand/color scheme their wiki instance. <br /> * simple usability<br /> * ability to choose skins and/or adapt skins easily (without as much HTML/PHP/CSS knowledge)<br /> * Better customization within the interface without the need for a lot of things going to LocalSettings.php. That is the major bug for Wikifarms.<br /> * An easy to customize user interface where we can blend out everything that is not necessary for the unregistered reader<br /> * General usability and interface. Also the skin and the connectivity to other business tools like tools for process description.<br /> * Convenience for users.<br /> * easier visual editor deployment.<br /> <br /> “IMO, most of the good wiki implementers (consultants) are interested in all the background plumbing of what MW can do - and UI is an afterthought. This is not a good approach for wider update. Average folks can't &quot;see&quot; what is cool about software, if it does not look good. “<br /> <br /> “the ui. haven't tries other skins yet, though.”<br /> <br /> “The reading side of things is kind of okay (though still far behind the rest of the web in terms of design and usability). However the editing side of things still feels very primitive and inaccessible. We need to start treating the special pages, edit page, review systems as a modern web application. Stop throwing more text at problems (endless walls of text) and start simplifying the interface in terms of design and UX. Even ignoring all of wikitext and templates, the experience of being a logged-in user is terribly outdated and full of usability nightmares.”<br /> <br /> === Skin. (7) ===<br /> * improve skin making, theming<br /> * templating system, restructuration of skin system<br /> <br /> „Creating new skins and replacing the background must be easier for end-users.“<br /> <br /> „Skinning (under way now, but I still have to see if any of my current sites can be upgraded without doing all the skinning work again)“<br /> <br /> “Ease of deployment and customization of skins... difficult to go back to managing MediaWiki after experiencing the level of user friendliness of Wordpress.”<br /> <br /> === Spam (6) ===<br /> * automated spam catching<br /> * better spam tools<br /> * Clearer direction and configuration for anti-spamming techniques, though this will vary ending on the spectrum of public to private participation<br /> <br /> „Every one of my wikis ends up dying or having to restrict access because of spam, even the ones maintained by 2+ MW-savvy people, as soon as it first becomes popular on google, and then the # of active patrollers drops too low.“<br /> <br /> “Spam is a major problem on public sites. “<br /> <br /> === Codebase (5) ===<br /> * some standard admin functions into core (rename / merge users, spam stuff)<br /> * Stop removing/renaming core functions and variables<br /> * getting rid of external services (eg. nodejs for VE)<br /> * More ajax instead of reloading whole pages<br /> * More disbundled features from core to extensions, and perhaps a &quot;lite&quot; package of selected features.<br /> <br /> „MediaWiki is a very big piece of software, and it only gets bigger and bigger. There aren't many performance improvements, and high-traffic MediaWiki sites won't run well without the help from HHVM and caching (e.g. Varnish and Redis). It would be cool if a big amount of code can safely be rewritten so that it is more efficiently. (not sure if this belongs to &quot;community around MediaWiki&quot;) Also, it looks like that there are bugs which are very old (e.g. more than 3 years), and still not resolved. Old bugs = long-term bugs, and those are bad.“<br /> <br /> === Speed. (4) ===<br /> * Reduction of memory footprint, increase of performance<br /> <br /> === Development. (4) ===<br /> * As a developer, a modernized architecture (dependency injection, an ORM layer, proper skinning, decent test coverage...).<br /> * Way of making patches.<br /> * The development experience. Documentation is a mess of outdated information, and totally lacking a decent architectural overview and &quot;public&quot; api specification for extension developers.<br /> * easier cross platform deployment. <br /> <br /> === Files (3) ===<br /> * Easier integration for local files and media.<br /> * file handling (ClipUpload etc.), access control (Lockdown etc.)<br /> * Easier management of media files<br /> * Export files or a way to download all files in a zip-file.<br /> <br /> === Images (4) ===<br /> * image upload and licensing within page authoring workflow<br /> * Offline content generation doesn't support any extension-generated images. For example, it doesn't interoperate with the ImageMap or GraphVis extensions. I raised a bug but hey, a little more visibility couldn't hurt.<br /> * Better/easier image management -- the upload/link procedure is a bit tedious. Easier justification for keeping current -- it's not clear why I should suffer the inevitable pain of changing versions.<br /> * Easier upload (too many steps, too complicate for endusers)<br /> <br /> === Language (3) ===<br /> * Improved robustness of i18n caching<br /> * auto multi languages<br /> * Multiple Languages by default, Cache by default pre-installed and outsourceable<br /> <br /> === Database (2) ===<br /> * better support for non-MySQL databases<br /> * support for Oracle database<br /> <br /> === Mobile Frontend (2) ===<br /> * Out-of-the-box mobile support<br /> <br /> === Error messages (2) ===<br /> * clearer, more precise and helpful error messages (often these are easy things to address if one has good access to the code and observes an error condition)<br /> * clearer error reports + solutions<br /> <br /> === Wiki-Farm (4) ===<br /> * single-sign-on for wiki farms<br /> * enable multi-site searching<br /> * better multisite tools/extensions <br /> * support for wiki farms, wiki farm management portal<br /> <br /> === Search. (2) ===<br /> * search engine weak, improve <br /> <br /> === New Users (2) ===<br /> * better onboarding and tools for new users, gamified social aspects to entice prolonged usership<br /> * It is difficult for beginners to learn about the software, especially if they have no formal training in code and the like. The documentation assumes a lot of the users have prior knowledge.<br /> <br /> === Templates (2) ===<br /> * A way to share content (templates, forms, properties). Something similar to the way system messages can be shared in a flexible way.support for easier development of templates.<br /> <br /> === Watchlist (2) ===<br /> * Corporate use doesn't allow users to be anonymous, so ways to share lists of pages/articles to be watched would improve productivity (force watches would also be good) <br /> * Watchlist changes appear in notifications.<br /> <br /> === Discussion (2) ===<br /> * disussion tools, Updated extensions for comment threading in talk pages, <br /> <br /> === Single mentions. ===<br /> * ADMIN: great administrator interface (think WordPress)<br /> * CATEGORIES: Allow categories to be renamed and deleted with single, simple operations.<br /> * Enable small contributions, also per mobile<br /> * PDF export<br /> * RSS integration<br /> * IDE: We have a mix of structured and unstructured content and are building apps inside the mediawiki/SMW infrastructure.. Therefore we would need a real IDE, perhaps some kind of Eclipse for MediaWiki and SMW.<br /> * Import / Export of data, better Schema editing. Mobo (by Simon Heimler) is a good 3rd party tool that develops in the reoght direction<br /> * SMW: Better and more intuitive Semantic MediaWiki integration<br /> * CACHE: Overall Redis support to eventually replace Memcache.<br /> * USER INTERACTION: the interaction between user could be better. profile page, inter member discussion, should be improved ( see MW ep_lite plugin for quick multi user editing ) clarify the free editing concept for use as collaborative tool<br /> * Better ability to handle data that can be used for further scientific data mining: Ability to display (and format) and edit table-like data, eg., handle cvs like data. Representation of units in Wikidata (wikibase) http://neuro.compute.dtu.dk/wiki/Major_Depressive_Disorder_Neuroimaging_Database_-_Amygdala,_total_-_Statistics<br /> * WIDGETS: customized widgets<br /> * WIKITEXT: User-friendliness of wikisyntax, Wiki markup syntax highlighter<br /> * LOGIN: - Standard ways to login with LinkedIn, Facebook or Google credentials. <br /> * (3) Fix numbered lists so you can insert other wikitext into the middle of a list (like images) and not break the numbering.<br /> * As a Wikimedia user, the things I want most are on the way (good WYSIWYG, single sign-on an app integration, sane communication tools, semantic data). The things I would like to see most that are not works in progress are probably better cross-wiki content integration (global modules/gadgets).<br /> * email-Bouncer, Installation Part of the Visual Editor, Possibility to include different links in the side bar depending on the user lanuage, and as a (small) extension developer: a tool or any log to recognize that api calls are deprecated and how to replace them.<br /> * tools to determine the pedigree of each contribution to each page thus enabling the ranking of how trustworthy each bit of knowledge is.<br /> <br /> === Nothing. I love it. ===<br /> „Nothing stands out. Happy to ride the slip-stream of a vast technical user knowledge-base.“<br /> <br /> „the way it is right now is just fine :)“<br /> <br /> „MediaWiki does pretty much everything I expect and want from it. If I have any complaints, they are chiefly around much things change between releases. As an example, I had a significant problem upgrading from version 1.23 because of the complete restructuring of how skins were handled. I was using a custom skin which I had to abandon because I did not have time to completely rewrite it to fit with 1.24+. Fortunately, I was able to work around this by using MediaWiki's built-in custom CSS and JavaScript functionality, but I wasted a full day trying to figure out how this worked. Such a major restructuring in a &quot;minor point release&quot; is an annoyance, and I don't think it was communicated well to downstream, non-WikiMedia users of MediaWiki. MediaWiki development seems to be very fast and volatile, making building a third-party site based upon it a risky and difficult process. Non-WikiMedia users are left to fend for themselves as the software seems to change at the slightest whim of Wikipedians.<br /> <br /> „at the moment it does everything it has to, we are used to it“<br /> <br /> „I pretty much love it as is.”<br /> <br /> &lt;nowiki&gt;“First I want to say that we really love working with MediaWiki! […]”&lt;/nowiki&gt;<br /> <br /> === ?? ===<br /> * You would have to ask my dev team :-)<br /> * Releases &amp; Versions<br /> * More possibilities for easy enhancements<br /> * less favouritism for wikia, better performance<br /> * Multi part content.<br /> * parser function aware editor would be nice...<br /> * server usage<br /> * We are 1FOREVER FREEDOM everywhere<br /> * Ease of sharing information, SMW Like features, stability in the software<br /> * Security<br /> * shadow namespaces<br /> * The main mediawiki parser and job system.</div> Sabine Melnicki https://mwstake.org/mwstake/index.php?title=Talk:MediaWiki_Usage_Report_2015&diff=531 Talk:MediaWiki Usage Report 2015 2015-10-19T08:33:07Z <p>Sabine Melnicki: /* Feature requests */</p> <hr /> <div>Trailer<br /> (Chris?)<br /> <br /> ==Distribution== <br /> There's a huge wiki world beyond Wikimedia Foundation.&lt;ref&gt;https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T113210&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> (Sabine?)<br /> <br /> ===Downloads===<br /> * The downloads in China are remarkable high<br /> <br /> ===Hosting===<br /> * Thousands of installed MediaWiki on shared hosting (one-click) providers<br /> <br /> ===Most downloaded extensions===<br /> Even to know, which extensions are popular is nearly impossible. Some data from December 2014 (shared by Legoktm) are interesting. And give a first impression of needed add-ons in wikis beyond the Wikimedia Foundation. Many &quot;top 20&quot; extensions already prove the intense use of MediaWiki in companies and organizations. <br /> <br /> ===Comparisons with Wordpress and other content management systems===<br /> (Richard)<br /> * Compare trends. Searches for Wordpress and MediaWIki, Confluence ... <br /> * Comparison searches for wiki and blog: Wiki more popular. But MediaWiki is not the most important player<br /> * Reason: No ecosystem for MediaWiki established, SMW, BlueSpice, Wikia, WMF ... working separated.<br /> <br /> ==Typical MediaWiki users==<br /> The '''typical survey participant''' is either a developer/administrator or in management and works in a small organization with 25 or less people. Using MediaWiki now for over 5 years, he counts as long time user. He is managing 2–5 wikis, from which at least 1 is public and 1 private. The user sees 25 or less people on his wiki. The user uses MediaWiki because of it being Open Source and easy to use due to its similarity to Wikipedia. His public wiki is a fun site and his enterprise wiki is used for internal knowledge creation and management. He is unhappy with the upgrade process and the installation of new extensions and would like to see WordPress-like simple update buttons in the admin backend. For the enterprise wiki, access control and a functioning easy Visual Editor are important, but even more important is a slick, superpretty GUI. The user is part of the software community and contributes some feedback and bug reports. He also spreads the word. Irritating is the connection to Wikipedia and the scrambled software documentation, which isn't very user-friendly. Community-wise, he wishes for a master plan, good communication and easy ways of involvement to give back to the community and support the project.<br /> <br /> ===Position/Title===<br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;„Sysadmin, high Queen, that idiot.“&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> Out of 134 participants of the survey, almost every fifth (20 %, 27) is in software development, every sixth (1  %, 22) is a software admin. External functions like management and leadership can be fond in every sixth participant (1  %, 20), one eight (12 %, 17) has science and academic background. Defined wiki-users only acount for 12 % (12 %, 16) of the participants. 1 out of 10 have any other external background. (10 %, 14). A maximum 4 percent of the participants (4 %, 5) have direct or indirect relation to WMF or are software distributors. About one eighth of the answers (12 %, 16) were either unclear or unanswered.<br /> <br /> In 10 survey participants:<br /> * 2 are software developers<br /> * 2 administrators<br /> * 2 are in management/leadership position<br /> * 1 have academic background<br /> * 1 are solely wiki-users<br /> * 2 are doing something else...<br /> * 1 does not answer the question<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/What is your position or title?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Sizes of organization===<br /> About half of all participants work in organizations with 25 or less people (48,12 %, 64). Every fourth participant is part of an organization between 25 and 500 people (21 %, 28). Organizations with 500 or more people account for almost a third of all (28 %, 37).<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/How large is your organization?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Usage time of MediaWiki===<br /> More than half of the survey participants are long time users of MediaWiki, they use it 5+ years (54 %, 72). Almost a quarter is still using the software for 3–5 years (22 %, 30). The last quarter of participants is using the software for 1-2 years or less than 6 months. (24 %, 32). New users, who use the software for less than 6 months, account for about 5 % of the participants (5 %, 7). This figure can be an indication for how visible the survey was to new users.<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/How long have you been using MW?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Number of MediaWiki sites===<br /> The vast majority of users is managing 2 or more MediaWiki sites (almost 70 % of all). More than a third of all users / 4 out of 10 users manage 2–5 wikis. This is the highest figure in total (40 %, 54). Together with managers of 5-10 wikis, this accounts for half of all users. Every third participant is managing 5 or more. (30 %, 40). The figure of users managing more than 10 wikis is double as high (19 %, 26) as those managing 5 to 10 wikis (10 %, 14). Still, a quarter of the participants is managing 1 single MW site (25 %, 34). Only a few participants (4,5 %, 6) are not managing any MW site.<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/How many MediaWiki sites do you manage?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Public and private sites===<br /> Out of 133 answers, 36 users manage public wikis (27 %), 38 users manage private wikis (28,5 %) and 59 users manage a mix of both (44 %).<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/Are your sites public or private?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Number of users===<br /> Out of 133 answers, about a third of all survey parcicipants have 25 people or less on their wikis (36 %, 48), 1 in 10 participants are using the wiki just to themselves (11 %, 15).<br /> <br /> Relatively equally spread are the numbers of wikis with more users than 25:<br /> * 25–100 &gt; (19 %, 26)<br /> *100–500 &gt; (15 %, 20)<br /> *500+ &gt; (25 %, 33)<br /> <br /> Significant is the number of large wikis with 500 users or more, which account for a quarter of all participants (25 %, 33).<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/Approximately how many people are there on your MediaWiki sites?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Extensions and age of the used wikis==<br /> <br /> ===MediaWiki versions===<br /> <br /> ===Updates===<br /> <br /> ===Most important extensions===<br /> <br /> ===Reasons for using MediaWiki===<br /> <br /> ==Feature requests==<br /> (Richard)<br /> ===Primary requirements===<br /> <br /> ===Secondary requirements===<br /> <br /> === What would you like to see most improved in MediaWiki the software? ''–– The feature wish list.'' ===<br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;„I pretty much love it as is.“&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> Out of 113 answers, the most wanted features (mentions) are easy software and extension management, installation and upgrade process (30), detailed access control and enterprise support (12), a feature-rich and functioning editor out of the box (13). An extremely important valued feature is the GUI, UX, usability and the skinning process (18). Users see themselves confronted with the spam problem (6). Participants also see improvements in speed (4), in the development itself (4), have ideas for the codebase (5). File (3) and image handling (4) can be improved, as well as language support (3). Better handling of wiki farms (4). They would like to see support for other databases (2), better error messages (2) and better support for new users (in a wiki) (2). Mobile Frontend (2) could be there out of the box. Template handling (2) can bee improved as well as the search function (2). The discussion pages (2) and the watchlist feature (2) could be improved.<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/What would you like to see most improved in MediaWiki the software?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> See also: [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki_Stakeholders%27_Group/Tasks/Feature_wishlist MediaWiki Stakeholders' Group/Tasks/Feature wishlist], where most content was already included.<br /> <br /> ==Community==<br /> <br /> ===Contributions for the community===<br /> <br /> ===Improvements and barriers===<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Next steps and requirements==<br /> (Chris, Mark, Markus, all .....)<br /> * Reliability<br /> * Standardization<br /> * Services in core<br /> * MediaWiki Foundation<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> * Chris Koerner: [[MediaWiki_Usage_Report_for_Wikimania_2015|MediaWiki User Report]], Wikimania 2015<br /> * [[MediaWiki_Usage_Questions|MediaWiki Usage Questions]]<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;</div> Sabine Melnicki https://mwstake.org/mwstake/index.php?title=MediaWiki_Usage_Report_2015/Approximately_how_many_people_are_there_on_your_MediaWiki_sites%3F&diff=530 MediaWiki Usage Report 2015/Approximately how many people are there on your MediaWiki sites? 2015-10-19T08:31:52Z <p>Sabine Melnicki: Created page with &quot;{| | Just me||15||11,28%|||| |- | Fewer than 25 people||33||24,81%||48||36,09% |- | 25-100 people||26||19,55%|||| |- | 100-500 people||20||15,04%||53||39,85% |- | More than 50...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>{|<br /> | Just me||15||11,28%||||<br /> |-<br /> | Fewer than 25 people||33||24,81%||48||36,09%<br /> |-<br /> | 25-100 people||26||19,55%||||<br /> |-<br /> | 100-500 people||20||15,04%||53||39,85%<br /> |-<br /> | More than 500 people||33||24,81%||||<br /> |-<br /> | Not Sure||6||4,51%||||<br /> |-<br /> ! ||133||||||<br /> |}</div> Sabine Melnicki https://mwstake.org/mwstake/index.php?title=Talk:MediaWiki_Usage_Report_2015&diff=529 Talk:MediaWiki Usage Report 2015 2015-10-19T08:31:40Z <p>Sabine Melnicki: /* Number of users */</p> <hr /> <div>Trailer<br /> (Chris?)<br /> <br /> ==Distribution== <br /> There's a huge wiki world beyond Wikimedia Foundation.&lt;ref&gt;https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T113210&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> (Sabine?)<br /> <br /> ===Downloads===<br /> * The downloads in China are remarkable high<br /> <br /> ===Hosting===<br /> * Thousands of installed MediaWiki on shared hosting (one-click) providers<br /> <br /> ===Most downloaded extensions===<br /> Even to know, which extensions are popular is nearly impossible. Some data from December 2014 (shared by Legoktm) are interesting. And give a first impression of needed add-ons in wikis beyond the Wikimedia Foundation. Many &quot;top 20&quot; extensions already prove the intense use of MediaWiki in companies and organizations. <br /> <br /> ===Comparisons with Wordpress and other content management systems===<br /> (Richard)<br /> * Compare trends. Searches for Wordpress and MediaWIki, Confluence ... <br /> * Comparison searches for wiki and blog: Wiki more popular. But MediaWiki is not the most important player<br /> * Reason: No ecosystem for MediaWiki established, SMW, BlueSpice, Wikia, WMF ... working separated.<br /> <br /> ==Typical MediaWiki users==<br /> The '''typical survey participant''' is either a developer/administrator or in management and works in a small organization with 25 or less people. Using MediaWiki now for over 5 years, he counts as long time user. He is managing 2–5 wikis, from which at least 1 is public and 1 private. The user sees 25 or less people on his wiki. The user uses MediaWiki because of it being Open Source and easy to use due to its similarity to Wikipedia. His public wiki is a fun site and his enterprise wiki is used for internal knowledge creation and management. He is unhappy with the upgrade process and the installation of new extensions and would like to see WordPress-like simple update buttons in the admin backend. For the enterprise wiki, access control and a functioning easy Visual Editor are important, but even more important is a slick, superpretty GUI. The user is part of the software community and contributes some feedback and bug reports. He also spreads the word. Irritating is the connection to Wikipedia and the scrambled software documentation, which isn't very user-friendly. Community-wise, he wishes for a master plan, good communication and easy ways of involvement to give back to the community and support the project.<br /> <br /> ===Position/Title===<br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;„Sysadmin, high Queen, that idiot.“&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> Out of 134 participants of the survey, almost every fifth (20 %, 27) is in software development, every sixth (1  %, 22) is a software admin. External functions like management and leadership can be fond in every sixth participant (1  %, 20), one eight (12 %, 17) has science and academic background. Defined wiki-users only acount for 12 % (12 %, 16) of the participants. 1 out of 10 have any other external background. (10 %, 14). A maximum 4 percent of the participants (4 %, 5) have direct or indirect relation to WMF or are software distributors. About one eighth of the answers (12 %, 16) were either unclear or unanswered.<br /> <br /> In 10 survey participants:<br /> * 2 are software developers<br /> * 2 administrators<br /> * 2 are in management/leadership position<br /> * 1 have academic background<br /> * 1 are solely wiki-users<br /> * 2 are doing something else...<br /> * 1 does not answer the question<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/What is your position or title?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Sizes of organization===<br /> About half of all participants work in organizations with 25 or less people (48,12 %, 64). Every fourth participant is part of an organization between 25 and 500 people (21 %, 28). Organizations with 500 or more people account for almost a third of all (28 %, 37).<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/How large is your organization?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Usage time of MediaWiki===<br /> More than half of the survey participants are long time users of MediaWiki, they use it 5+ years (54 %, 72). Almost a quarter is still using the software for 3–5 years (22 %, 30). The last quarter of participants is using the software for 1-2 years or less than 6 months. (24 %, 32). New users, who use the software for less than 6 months, account for about 5 % of the participants (5 %, 7). This figure can be an indication for how visible the survey was to new users.<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/How long have you been using MW?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Number of MediaWiki sites===<br /> The vast majority of users is managing 2 or more MediaWiki sites (almost 70 % of all). More than a third of all users / 4 out of 10 users manage 2–5 wikis. This is the highest figure in total (40 %, 54). Together with managers of 5-10 wikis, this accounts for half of all users. Every third participant is managing 5 or more. (30 %, 40). The figure of users managing more than 10 wikis is double as high (19 %, 26) as those managing 5 to 10 wikis (10 %, 14). Still, a quarter of the participants is managing 1 single MW site (25 %, 34). Only a few participants (4,5 %, 6) are not managing any MW site.<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/How many MediaWiki sites do you manage?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Public and private sites===<br /> Out of 133 answers, 36 users manage public wikis (27 %), 38 users manage private wikis (28,5 %) and 59 users manage a mix of both (44 %).<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/Are your sites public or private?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Number of users===<br /> Out of 133 answers, about a third of all survey parcicipants have 25 people or less on their wikis (36 %, 48), 1 in 10 participants are using the wiki just to themselves (11 %, 15).<br /> <br /> Relatively equally spread are the numbers of wikis with more users than 25:<br /> * 25–100 &gt; (19 %, 26)<br /> *100–500 &gt; (15 %, 20)<br /> *500+ &gt; (25 %, 33)<br /> <br /> Significant is the number of large wikis with 500 users or more, which account for a quarter of all participants (25 %, 33).<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/Approximately how many people are there on your MediaWiki sites?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Extensions and age of the used wikis==<br /> <br /> ===MediaWiki versions===<br /> <br /> ===Updates===<br /> <br /> ===Most important extensions===<br /> <br /> ===Reasons for using MediaWiki===<br /> <br /> ==Feature requests==<br /> (Richard)<br /> ===Primary requirements===<br /> <br /> ===Secondary requirements===<br /> <br /> ==Community==<br /> <br /> ===Contributions for the community===<br /> <br /> ===Improvements and barriers===<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Next steps and requirements==<br /> (Chris, Mark, Markus, all .....)<br /> * Reliability<br /> * Standardization<br /> * Services in core<br /> * MediaWiki Foundation<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> * Chris Koerner: [[MediaWiki_Usage_Report_for_Wikimania_2015|MediaWiki User Report]], Wikimania 2015<br /> * [[MediaWiki_Usage_Questions|MediaWiki Usage Questions]]<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;</div> Sabine Melnicki https://mwstake.org/mwstake/index.php?title=MediaWiki_Usage_Report_2015/Are_your_sites_public_or_private%3F&diff=528 MediaWiki Usage Report 2015/Are your sites public or private? 2015-10-19T08:31:03Z <p>Sabine Melnicki: Created page with &quot;{| | Mix of Both||59||44,36% |- | Private||38||28,57% |- | Public||36||27,07% |- ! ||133|| |}&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>{|<br /> | Mix of Both||59||44,36%<br /> |-<br /> | Private||38||28,57%<br /> |-<br /> | Public||36||27,07%<br /> |-<br /> ! ||133||<br /> |}</div> Sabine Melnicki https://mwstake.org/mwstake/index.php?title=Talk:MediaWiki_Usage_Report_2015&diff=527 Talk:MediaWiki Usage Report 2015 2015-10-19T08:30:47Z <p>Sabine Melnicki: /* Public and private sites */</p> <hr /> <div>Trailer<br /> (Chris?)<br /> <br /> ==Distribution== <br /> There's a huge wiki world beyond Wikimedia Foundation.&lt;ref&gt;https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T113210&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> (Sabine?)<br /> <br /> ===Downloads===<br /> * The downloads in China are remarkable high<br /> <br /> ===Hosting===<br /> * Thousands of installed MediaWiki on shared hosting (one-click) providers<br /> <br /> ===Most downloaded extensions===<br /> Even to know, which extensions are popular is nearly impossible. Some data from December 2014 (shared by Legoktm) are interesting. And give a first impression of needed add-ons in wikis beyond the Wikimedia Foundation. Many &quot;top 20&quot; extensions already prove the intense use of MediaWiki in companies and organizations. <br /> <br /> ===Comparisons with Wordpress and other content management systems===<br /> (Richard)<br /> * Compare trends. Searches for Wordpress and MediaWIki, Confluence ... <br /> * Comparison searches for wiki and blog: Wiki more popular. But MediaWiki is not the most important player<br /> * Reason: No ecosystem for MediaWiki established, SMW, BlueSpice, Wikia, WMF ... working separated.<br /> <br /> ==Typical MediaWiki users==<br /> The '''typical survey participant''' is either a developer/administrator or in management and works in a small organization with 25 or less people. Using MediaWiki now for over 5 years, he counts as long time user. He is managing 2–5 wikis, from which at least 1 is public and 1 private. The user sees 25 or less people on his wiki. The user uses MediaWiki because of it being Open Source and easy to use due to its similarity to Wikipedia. His public wiki is a fun site and his enterprise wiki is used for internal knowledge creation and management. He is unhappy with the upgrade process and the installation of new extensions and would like to see WordPress-like simple update buttons in the admin backend. For the enterprise wiki, access control and a functioning easy Visual Editor are important, but even more important is a slick, superpretty GUI. The user is part of the software community and contributes some feedback and bug reports. He also spreads the word. Irritating is the connection to Wikipedia and the scrambled software documentation, which isn't very user-friendly. Community-wise, he wishes for a master plan, good communication and easy ways of involvement to give back to the community and support the project.<br /> <br /> ===Position/Title===<br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;„Sysadmin, high Queen, that idiot.“&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> Out of 134 participants of the survey, almost every fifth (20 %, 27) is in software development, every sixth (1  %, 22) is a software admin. External functions like management and leadership can be fond in every sixth participant (1  %, 20), one eight (12 %, 17) has science and academic background. Defined wiki-users only acount for 12 % (12 %, 16) of the participants. 1 out of 10 have any other external background. (10 %, 14). A maximum 4 percent of the participants (4 %, 5) have direct or indirect relation to WMF or are software distributors. About one eighth of the answers (12 %, 16) were either unclear or unanswered.<br /> <br /> In 10 survey participants:<br /> * 2 are software developers<br /> * 2 administrators<br /> * 2 are in management/leadership position<br /> * 1 have academic background<br /> * 1 are solely wiki-users<br /> * 2 are doing something else...<br /> * 1 does not answer the question<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/What is your position or title?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Sizes of organization===<br /> About half of all participants work in organizations with 25 or less people (48,12 %, 64). Every fourth participant is part of an organization between 25 and 500 people (21 %, 28). Organizations with 500 or more people account for almost a third of all (28 %, 37).<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/How large is your organization?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Usage time of MediaWiki===<br /> More than half of the survey participants are long time users of MediaWiki, they use it 5+ years (54 %, 72). Almost a quarter is still using the software for 3–5 years (22 %, 30). The last quarter of participants is using the software for 1-2 years or less than 6 months. (24 %, 32). New users, who use the software for less than 6 months, account for about 5 % of the participants (5 %, 7). This figure can be an indication for how visible the survey was to new users.<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/How long have you been using MW?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Number of MediaWiki sites===<br /> The vast majority of users is managing 2 or more MediaWiki sites (almost 70 % of all). More than a third of all users / 4 out of 10 users manage 2–5 wikis. This is the highest figure in total (40 %, 54). Together with managers of 5-10 wikis, this accounts for half of all users. Every third participant is managing 5 or more. (30 %, 40). The figure of users managing more than 10 wikis is double as high (19 %, 26) as those managing 5 to 10 wikis (10 %, 14). Still, a quarter of the participants is managing 1 single MW site (25 %, 34). Only a few participants (4,5 %, 6) are not managing any MW site.<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/How many MediaWiki sites do you manage?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Public and private sites===<br /> Out of 133 answers, 36 users manage public wikis (27 %), 38 users manage private wikis (28,5 %) and 59 users manage a mix of both (44 %).<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/Are your sites public or private?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Number of users===<br /> <br /> ==Extensions and age of the used wikis==<br /> <br /> ===MediaWiki versions===<br /> <br /> ===Updates===<br /> <br /> ===Most important extensions===<br /> <br /> ===Reasons for using MediaWiki===<br /> <br /> ==Feature requests==<br /> (Richard)<br /> ===Primary requirements===<br /> <br /> ===Secondary requirements===<br /> <br /> ==Community==<br /> <br /> ===Contributions for the community===<br /> <br /> ===Improvements and barriers===<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Next steps and requirements==<br /> (Chris, Mark, Markus, all .....)<br /> * Reliability<br /> * Standardization<br /> * Services in core<br /> * MediaWiki Foundation<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> * Chris Koerner: [[MediaWiki_Usage_Report_for_Wikimania_2015|MediaWiki User Report]], Wikimania 2015<br /> * [[MediaWiki_Usage_Questions|MediaWiki Usage Questions]]<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;</div> Sabine Melnicki https://mwstake.org/mwstake/index.php?title=MediaWiki_Usage_Report_2015/How_many_MediaWiki_sites_do_you_manage%3F&diff=526 MediaWiki Usage Report 2015/How many MediaWiki sites do you manage? 2015-10-19T08:29:14Z <p>Sabine Melnicki: Created page with &quot;{| | 0||6||4,48%|||| |- | 1||34||25,37%|||| |- | 2–5||54||40,30%|||| |- | 5–10||14||10,45%||40||29,85% |- | More than 10||26||19,40%|||| |- ! ||134|||||| |}&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>{|<br /> | 0||6||4,48%||||<br /> |-<br /> | 1||34||25,37%||||<br /> |-<br /> | 2–5||54||40,30%||||<br /> |-<br /> | 5–10||14||10,45%||40||29,85%<br /> |-<br /> | More than 10||26||19,40%||||<br /> |-<br /> ! ||134||||||<br /> |}</div> Sabine Melnicki https://mwstake.org/mwstake/index.php?title=Talk:MediaWiki_Usage_Report_2015&diff=525 Talk:MediaWiki Usage Report 2015 2015-10-19T08:29:04Z <p>Sabine Melnicki: /* Number of MediaWiki sites */</p> <hr /> <div>Trailer<br /> (Chris?)<br /> <br /> ==Distribution== <br /> There's a huge wiki world beyond Wikimedia Foundation.&lt;ref&gt;https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T113210&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> (Sabine?)<br /> <br /> ===Downloads===<br /> * The downloads in China are remarkable high<br /> <br /> ===Hosting===<br /> * Thousands of installed MediaWiki on shared hosting (one-click) providers<br /> <br /> ===Most downloaded extensions===<br /> Even to know, which extensions are popular is nearly impossible. Some data from December 2014 (shared by Legoktm) are interesting. And give a first impression of needed add-ons in wikis beyond the Wikimedia Foundation. Many &quot;top 20&quot; extensions already prove the intense use of MediaWiki in companies and organizations. <br /> <br /> ===Comparisons with Wordpress and other content management systems===<br /> (Richard)<br /> * Compare trends. Searches for Wordpress and MediaWIki, Confluence ... <br /> * Comparison searches for wiki and blog: Wiki more popular. But MediaWiki is not the most important player<br /> * Reason: No ecosystem for MediaWiki established, SMW, BlueSpice, Wikia, WMF ... working separated.<br /> <br /> ==Typical MediaWiki users==<br /> The '''typical survey participant''' is either a developer/administrator or in management and works in a small organization with 25 or less people. Using MediaWiki now for over 5 years, he counts as long time user. He is managing 2–5 wikis, from which at least 1 is public and 1 private. The user sees 25 or less people on his wiki. The user uses MediaWiki because of it being Open Source and easy to use due to its similarity to Wikipedia. His public wiki is a fun site and his enterprise wiki is used for internal knowledge creation and management. He is unhappy with the upgrade process and the installation of new extensions and would like to see WordPress-like simple update buttons in the admin backend. For the enterprise wiki, access control and a functioning easy Visual Editor are important, but even more important is a slick, superpretty GUI. The user is part of the software community and contributes some feedback and bug reports. He also spreads the word. Irritating is the connection to Wikipedia and the scrambled software documentation, which isn't very user-friendly. Community-wise, he wishes for a master plan, good communication and easy ways of involvement to give back to the community and support the project.<br /> <br /> ===Position/Title===<br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;„Sysadmin, high Queen, that idiot.“&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> Out of 134 participants of the survey, almost every fifth (20 %, 27) is in software development, every sixth (1  %, 22) is a software admin. External functions like management and leadership can be fond in every sixth participant (1  %, 20), one eight (12 %, 17) has science and academic background. Defined wiki-users only acount for 12 % (12 %, 16) of the participants. 1 out of 10 have any other external background. (10 %, 14). A maximum 4 percent of the participants (4 %, 5) have direct or indirect relation to WMF or are software distributors. About one eighth of the answers (12 %, 16) were either unclear or unanswered.<br /> <br /> In 10 survey participants:<br /> * 2 are software developers<br /> * 2 administrators<br /> * 2 are in management/leadership position<br /> * 1 have academic background<br /> * 1 are solely wiki-users<br /> * 2 are doing something else...<br /> * 1 does not answer the question<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/What is your position or title?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Sizes of organization===<br /> About half of all participants work in organizations with 25 or less people (48,12 %, 64). Every fourth participant is part of an organization between 25 and 500 people (21 %, 28). Organizations with 500 or more people account for almost a third of all (28 %, 37).<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/How large is your organization?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Usage time of MediaWiki===<br /> More than half of the survey participants are long time users of MediaWiki, they use it 5+ years (54 %, 72). Almost a quarter is still using the software for 3–5 years (22 %, 30). The last quarter of participants is using the software for 1-2 years or less than 6 months. (24 %, 32). New users, who use the software for less than 6 months, account for about 5 % of the participants (5 %, 7). This figure can be an indication for how visible the survey was to new users.<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/How long have you been using MW?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Number of MediaWiki sites===<br /> The vast majority of users is managing 2 or more MediaWiki sites (almost 70 % of all). More than a third of all users / 4 out of 10 users manage 2–5 wikis. This is the highest figure in total (40 %, 54). Together with managers of 5-10 wikis, this accounts for half of all users. Every third participant is managing 5 or more. (30 %, 40). The figure of users managing more than 10 wikis is double as high (19 %, 26) as those managing 5 to 10 wikis (10 %, 14). Still, a quarter of the participants is managing 1 single MW site (25 %, 34). Only a few participants (4,5 %, 6) are not managing any MW site.<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/How many MediaWiki sites do you manage?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Public and private sites===<br /> <br /> ===Number of users===<br /> <br /> ==Extensions and age of the used wikis==<br /> <br /> ===MediaWiki versions===<br /> <br /> ===Updates===<br /> <br /> ===Most important extensions===<br /> <br /> ===Reasons for using MediaWiki===<br /> <br /> ==Feature requests==<br /> (Richard)<br /> ===Primary requirements===<br /> <br /> ===Secondary requirements===<br /> <br /> ==Community==<br /> <br /> ===Contributions for the community===<br /> <br /> ===Improvements and barriers===<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Next steps and requirements==<br /> (Chris, Mark, Markus, all .....)<br /> * Reliability<br /> * Standardization<br /> * Services in core<br /> * MediaWiki Foundation<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> * Chris Koerner: [[MediaWiki_Usage_Report_for_Wikimania_2015|MediaWiki User Report]], Wikimania 2015<br /> * [[MediaWiki_Usage_Questions|MediaWiki Usage Questions]]<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;</div> Sabine Melnicki https://mwstake.org/mwstake/index.php?title=MediaWiki_Usage_Report_2015/How_long_have_you_been_using_MW%3F&diff=524 MediaWiki Usage Report 2015/How long have you been using MW? 2015-10-19T08:28:20Z <p>Sabine Melnicki: Created page with &quot;{| | Less than 6 months||7||5,22%|||| |- | 1-2 years||25||18,66%||32||23,88% |- | 3-5 years||30||22,39%|||| |- | 5+ years||72||53,73%|||| |- ! ||134|||||| |}&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>{|<br /> | Less than 6 months||7||5,22%||||<br /> |-<br /> | 1-2 years||25||18,66%||32||23,88%<br /> |-<br /> | 3-5 years||30||22,39%||||<br /> |-<br /> | 5+ years||72||53,73%||||<br /> |-<br /> ! ||134||||||<br /> |}</div> Sabine Melnicki https://mwstake.org/mwstake/index.php?title=Talk:MediaWiki_Usage_Report_2015&diff=523 Talk:MediaWiki Usage Report 2015 2015-10-19T08:28:11Z <p>Sabine Melnicki: /* Usage time of MediaWiki */</p> <hr /> <div>Trailer<br /> (Chris?)<br /> <br /> ==Distribution== <br /> There's a huge wiki world beyond Wikimedia Foundation.&lt;ref&gt;https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T113210&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> (Sabine?)<br /> <br /> ===Downloads===<br /> * The downloads in China are remarkable high<br /> <br /> ===Hosting===<br /> * Thousands of installed MediaWiki on shared hosting (one-click) providers<br /> <br /> ===Most downloaded extensions===<br /> Even to know, which extensions are popular is nearly impossible. Some data from December 2014 (shared by Legoktm) are interesting. And give a first impression of needed add-ons in wikis beyond the Wikimedia Foundation. Many &quot;top 20&quot; extensions already prove the intense use of MediaWiki in companies and organizations. <br /> <br /> ===Comparisons with Wordpress and other content management systems===<br /> (Richard)<br /> * Compare trends. Searches for Wordpress and MediaWIki, Confluence ... <br /> * Comparison searches for wiki and blog: Wiki more popular. But MediaWiki is not the most important player<br /> * Reason: No ecosystem for MediaWiki established, SMW, BlueSpice, Wikia, WMF ... working separated.<br /> <br /> ==Typical MediaWiki users==<br /> The '''typical survey participant''' is either a developer/administrator or in management and works in a small organization with 25 or less people. Using MediaWiki now for over 5 years, he counts as long time user. He is managing 2–5 wikis, from which at least 1 is public and 1 private. The user sees 25 or less people on his wiki. The user uses MediaWiki because of it being Open Source and easy to use due to its similarity to Wikipedia. His public wiki is a fun site and his enterprise wiki is used for internal knowledge creation and management. He is unhappy with the upgrade process and the installation of new extensions and would like to see WordPress-like simple update buttons in the admin backend. For the enterprise wiki, access control and a functioning easy Visual Editor are important, but even more important is a slick, superpretty GUI. The user is part of the software community and contributes some feedback and bug reports. He also spreads the word. Irritating is the connection to Wikipedia and the scrambled software documentation, which isn't very user-friendly. Community-wise, he wishes for a master plan, good communication and easy ways of involvement to give back to the community and support the project.<br /> <br /> ===Position/Title===<br /> &lt;blockquote class=&quot;surveyquote&quot;&gt;„Sysadmin, high Queen, that idiot.“&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> Out of 134 participants of the survey, almost every fifth (20 %, 27) is in software development, every sixth (1  %, 22) is a software admin. External functions like management and leadership can be fond in every sixth participant (1  %, 20), one eight (12 %, 17) has science and academic background. Defined wiki-users only acount for 12 % (12 %, 16) of the participants. 1 out of 10 have any other external background. (10 %, 14). A maximum 4 percent of the participants (4 %, 5) have direct or indirect relation to WMF or are software distributors. About one eighth of the answers (12 %, 16) were either unclear or unanswered.<br /> <br /> In 10 survey participants:<br /> * 2 are software developers<br /> * 2 administrators<br /> * 2 are in management/leadership position<br /> * 1 have academic background<br /> * 1 are solely wiki-users<br /> * 2 are doing something else...<br /> * 1 does not answer the question<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/What is your position or title?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Sizes of organization===<br /> About half of all participants work in organizations with 25 or less people (48,12 %, 64). Every fourth participant is part of an organization between 25 and 500 people (21 %, 28). Organizations with 500 or more people account for almost a third of all (28 %, 37).<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/How large is your organization?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Usage time of MediaWiki===<br /> More than half of the survey participants are long time users of MediaWiki, they use it 5+ years (54 %, 72). Almost a quarter is still using the software for 3–5 years (22 %, 30). The last quarter of participants is using the software for 1-2 years or less than 6 months. (24 %, 32). New users, who use the software for less than 6 months, account for about 5 % of the participants (5 %, 7). This figure can be an indication for how visible the survey was to new users.<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;Details: [[{{PAGENAME}}/How long have you been using MW?]]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Number of MediaWiki sites===<br /> <br /> ===Public and private sites===<br /> <br /> ===Number of users===<br /> <br /> ==Extensions and age of the used wikis==<br /> <br /> ===MediaWiki versions===<br /> <br /> ===Updates===<br /> <br /> ===Most important extensions===<br /> <br /> ===Reasons for using MediaWiki===<br /> <br /> ==Feature requests==<br /> (Richard)<br /> ===Primary requirements===<br /> <br /> ===Secondary requirements===<br /> <br /> ==Community==<br /> <br /> ===Contributions for the community===<br /> <br /> ===Improvements and barriers===<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Next steps and requirements==<br /> (Chris, Mark, Markus, all .....)<br /> * Reliability<br /> * Standardization<br /> * Services in core<br /> * MediaWiki Foundation<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> * Chris Koerner: [[MediaWiki_Usage_Report_for_Wikimania_2015|MediaWiki User Report]], Wikimania 2015<br /> * [[MediaWiki_Usage_Questions|MediaWiki Usage Questions]]<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;</div> Sabine Melnicki