Template talk:Staff and contractors

From the Wikimedia Foundation
Revision as of 18:32, 21 May 2012 by PeterSymonds (talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search

Template architecture

Pros

  • Very easy to change positioning
  • Easy to update all translations simultaneously
  • May be easier for some to translate (clearer flow than all the wikitext)

Cons

  • May be harder for some to translate
  • Wiki newbies can no longer update the staff page

Example

See Talk:現在のスタッフ.

This translation system is not viable

We need to maintain a level of simplicity so that Wikimedia Foundation staff members without extensive template, HTML and wiki-table knowledge can make basic changes and updates. Unless we can come up with something much simpler, with the next update, I will revert this to a simple wiki page. I'm sorry if this makes translations harder and if some translators will not be willing to work on that basis, but having a page that's easy to maintain and update should be our number 1 priority.

Having frequently changing content inside templates is generally a very bad idea, IMHO. Templates are inherently complex and hard to read, and even for me, making basic content updates within a complex template mixing HTML, wiki table syntax, and template parameters (including for things like commas) is a pain. I can live with it in the case of a page like the Donate page, where the underlying code is complex HTML anyway. But as a translation mechanism for basic wiki pages, it's not viable.--Eloquence 17:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It's really not that complex, you just copy&paste a basis for what you are going to have and update the information (it's pretty self-explanatory in that regard). The point of this is to make it *less* complicated. The translators and staff members who have to update the English text (not add new people), can do this much easier without all the table editing and making sure all the other info is correctly fitted. We can make sure all the pages are up to date when a new staff member is added or one leave. Your idea would make more clutter on the plain Staff page. If it's really a problem, you could just add a plain line for the new staff member and we could properly format it. I wish you had spoken up in the earlier stages... it's a lot more difficult to revert everything. Cbrown1023 talk 22:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's very complex either. As long as you have some basic idea of how templates work you should be able to just learn from example and fill in what you need to. :) --Az1568 00:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I understand all the assumptions that went into the design of this system, and I really appreciate the effort you put into it. Let me try to explain the opposite view: I really want WMF staff members who are relatively new to wiki editing to be completely comfortable editing this page whenever they need to for whatever reason. Making sure that our own staff is "wikified" is pretty important to us. And it would be very counter to that goal if I would need Jay or anyone else to go through some sort of process to make a change, because I know that I'm not going to teach them how to edit this.
So, I'd rather make some sacrifices on the complexity of the layout, if that helps translators, than have the crucial content of this page reside inside a complex template. Sorry that I didn't see this earlier - when I saw these edits happening, I assumed only layout changes were being made. But I would generally strongly recommend against using this template-based translation system for pages on this wiki. If we need better approaches to translation, let's have a chat about that and talk through some options.
Az1568, I think your assumptions about templates are not applicable to people with no or limited wiki experience. We know from all workshops that we've done with wiki-inexperienced people that templates are one of the most fundamental barriers to entry. Even the basic syntax of calling a template is confusing to many people and scaring them away from editing; the syntax of the actual templates is an utter nightmare for anyone but the most motivated wiki user.--Eloquence 00:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you, that's why we normally try to stay away from template-based requests. (The reason we have no other ones like this other than Donate.) However, this is a page that changes frequently and should be kept up to date. As you can see above, I really think in this specific case the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. Don't worry, I won't touch any other pages with this icky template schema. ;-) It really wasn't this bad in the beginning... then Arabic and Japanese had to have different commas in their language system... :-) Cbrown1023 talk 01:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Links to user pages

Could someone who can add links to user pages even if staffers are not registered on this wiki, as with Rob Lanphier? Wikis are probably the first way someone reading this page will want to use to contact them or know more about them and what they're doing, and usernames are not always easy to find at least for normal users. Moreover, everyone here should have a user (account and) page on Meta, and this is something worth checking. Nemo 19:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I killed the page protection. Daniel's gone, contractors are now listed on this page, and it seems like most people have been editing through the protection anyway. No reason to keep it locked down.
Feel free to add user page links to your heart's content. The general rule is to link to the local user page (which typically includes a brief bio) unless there's no local account, in which case the primary wiki is linked to (assuming there is one). Not everyone has a public wiki account, I don't think. Staffers and contractors presumably all have office.wikimedia.org accounts. --MZMcBride 04:28, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Missing photos

I'd like to have more, ok, but isn't File:Flag of None.svg a bit too "aggressive"? Nemo 15:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey folks - we really shouldn't use these question marks as stand-ins for the people without images. It sends the wrong message. I know that everyone needs and should have a photo, and that not having an image causes the grid to look funny, but this isn't a viable solution. It implies some sort of mystery or suggests that they are lacking an image for some reason. Please revert that addition - the folks who are represented in this page really pay attention to how they're represented, and they know we're working on getting images. Also, not everyone wants an image - which we respect. Thanks for your understanding. JayWalsh 01:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I kind of liked it (mostly for the symmetry it provided), but gone. Maybe a clear box could be used instead? Dunno. --MZMcBride 01:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Please remove the links to the user job descs

Hi folks - I know the effort on this page is to help bring more information to the reader - helping them understand their job etc. I don't want to carry this out by providing links to the job descriptions. The reality is that many jobs have changed in small or significant ways - or staff have carried out several kinds of jobs. Linking to their original, posted job description is not an accurate way to describe their work. Gayle and I are working on a new userpage format (or possibly a 'what I do' type page) that will essentially be a template with staffers summarizing their work in three points, sharing some info about themselves, and linking to other info if they like. I'd rather have no link until we sort that out (about 2 weeks) - the job descriptions are just not the right option. Thanks for your help. JayWalsh 01:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Killed: [1] [2].
I agree that job descriptions aren't very useful. I'd like to see useful pages created in some way. Your idea about bolstering user pages seems like a good one. --MZMcBride 01:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks MZ - Gayle's working on a model right now. It would be much clearer - this is what I really do, these are the folks I work with, this is what I did before (if relevant). We'll share a demo shortly. Thanks! JayWalsh 01:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

This sentence is not entirely accurate

Everyone else involved with the Wikimedia projects is a volunteer, including members of the Board of Trustees.

I just noticed this text in the template. I totally appreciate the intent of it, but it's actually not accurate: there are lots of paid staff outside the Wikimedia Foundation -- e.g., here, as well as at the French, UK and Dutch chapters. I think it'd probably be pretty easy to rephrase the sentence to preserve its intent while respecting accuracy; could somebody please take a crack at that? Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 04:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Reworded slightly. Does that sound better? PeterSymonds (talk) 18:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)