Should we turn off LQT

[Peter]

I believe this is a community discussion we should have.

Should we turn off LQT until it is fixed?

I have just again been frustrated by LQT to the point where I think it
makes WE unusable as a collaborative tool. Even though I have my
options set to be emailed when there are discussions I am involved I
never receive emails from LQT. I also just caught up with over a
months LQT threads I was involved because they never showed up as
messages waiting. I consider this to cause WE to be unusable.
particularly in comparison with just regular talk pages. I consider a
feature that causes me to drill though other discussion pages to stay
up to date with things as unusable.

Can we turn LQT off until the recently requested fixes have been put
into place?

By just turning it off we won't lose any discussions (hopefully LQT is
smart enough to allow us to still read the content, but I doubt it) or
could we parse the LQT db and put the LQT discussion into a regular
wiki page so it is still available.

Hopefully this reverting back to regular talk pages will move the
google group discussions back into the WE pages where they should
be...

Sincerely,

Peter

[James Neill]

In complete agreement.

[NELLIE DEUTSCH]

Peter said: Hopefully this reverting back to regular talk pages will move the

google group discussions back into the WE pages where they should
be..."

Peer, I asked about this very thing when I first joined WE. Thank you for bringing up the subject once again.

Nellie

--
Nellie Deutsch
Doctoral Student
Educational Leadership
Curriculum and Instruction
http://www.nelliemuller.com
http://www.integrating-technology.com/pd
http://www.building-relationship.com/education
http://blendedlear.ning.com

[Leigh Blackall]

I support this proposal.. for the 5th time.

--
--
Leigh Blackall
+64(0)21736539
skype - leigh_blackall
SL - Leroy Goalpost
http://learnonline.wordpress.com

[Brent]

i have barely touched a talk page since they were implemented. a real shame.

brent.

--
--------------------------------------
http://digitalsynapse.co.nz
--------------------------------------

[Günther Osswald]

The same like Brent with me.

Günther

[Erik Moeller]

2008/8/18 Peter <praws...@gmail.com>:

>
> I have just again been frustrated by LQT to the point where I think it
> makes WE unusable as a collaborative tool. Even though I have my
> options set to be emailed when there are discussions I am involved I
> never receive emails from LQT.

The same would be true with regular talk pages -- you would get
e-mails only on messages left on your user talk pages, and for pages
in your watchlist. So, unless you explicitly mark any talk page you
edit to be watched, you would get no e-mails for discussions you have
participated in. And if you did mark them to be watched, you would get
an e-mail for any change in any thread, including those you did not
participate in. Again, these deficiencies are inherent in the ways
talk pages are structured (or rather, unstructured).

I am getting the impression that traditional wiki talk pages are
somehow held up to be a panacea which they are not. That is, after
all, the reason LQT was created in the first place. I can guarantee
you that discussions from mailing lists will not move to talk pages --
we've had both mailing lists and talk pages in Wikimedia for years,
and they are separate universes. The only way to unify these two
universes is to build technical bridges between them. Again, LQT is
the critical technical precondition to allow such interfaces to be
constructed.

David McCabe is resuming work on LQT this week. Working out the kinks
with notification is among his first priorities. I have argued before,
and continue to argue, for a period of time in which we improve the
system based on user feedback, and _then_ a period of evaluation in
which we consider the options for WE. Turning off the system now is
disruptive, and makes it in fact harder to address the concerns and
objections that have been voiced.
--
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

[Leigh Blackall]

I hope that this matter will be speedily addressed once the elected council takes effect. It is my experience that trad talk pages do in fact give an indication of what thread has been added to, because alerts come through with detail including which section has been edited. This is much more than LQT has offered to date (no alert at all), which as Peter raises, is causing quite serious disruptions to communication behind projects.

We all recognise the potential that LQT offers as a technology, (along with many many other available add-ons we can only wish for Wikied) but those raising the issue recognise more the impact LQT in its current state is having on project communication and documentation now. Everyone in this thread, and the many other threads before it, are all experienced users of the MediaWiki and contribute to more projects using the MW than just the Wikieducator - so the requests are not based on false panacea, nor on the premise of a technical end justifying a disruptive means.

James Niel has been setting up sub pages as pseudo talk pages to get around this problem - ie: wiked.org/Projectpage/Talk. While this is by no means satisfactory in the mid to long term, I think it is for the short term. I hope this can suffice for projects needing communication documentation while we wait for the election results and for this issue to be addressed democratically.

[Derek Chirnside]

I agree also.  Turn it off in the meantime.

-Derek

2008/8/19 Peter <praws...@gmail.com>

--
From Derek Chirnside.

[Wayne]

Hi Derek, Leigh, Peter, James, Nellie (hope I haven't missed anyone off the list)

I apologise for my silence on the LQT discussion. I'm currently on international mission and my connectivity is intermittent at best.  I hear the calls from members on the list to turn LQT off. At the same time I'm concerned about the impact on many newbies who are silent on this list or who are not members of this forum and feel that I have some responsibility to speak on their behalf.

I've had the privilege of training more than 800 new WikiEducator's -- many who like the functionality of the technology.

I support Erik's earlier proposal that WE constitute a work group to analyse the the pro's and cons of LQT  more thoroughly so that we can take an informed decision in the best interests for WikiEducator's strategy and growth for the future. Naturally - this should be done transparently in the wiki for all to see and participate.

At the same time I do apologise for the delays in actioning this proposal with the community.

At a technical level we have more pressing issues to resolve, i.e. getting our Phase 2 hosting solution in place -- and sadly the resolution of the LQT issue has been on the back burner. Currently we do not have the person power or capacity to respond immediately to all our technical needs -- this is part of the growing pains associated with a successful project <smile>. (We have exceeded our planned growth estimates for WikiEducator by 188% in the first two years.)

Let's do this properly and I look forward to the active engagement and support from the WE family in helping us take the right decisions for all involved.

Cheers
Wayne

[Peter]

Wayne,

I agree with all you have said here. Though I do have a few questions;

1) did your sampling of newbies include those who had exposure to
regular wiki talk pages. I am concerned that your newbies would have
liked the functionality regardless of wikitext or LQT. And have yet to
realize what they have missed by not knowing the collaborative
abilities of regular wiki text.
2) I still believe we need a tabbed approach as suggested by Leigh. If
we are to go down a workshop path we need production versions of both
so we can evaluate both side by side with active learning activies to
assess which is "better".
3) In the end I still don't understand why you wouldn't support the
tabbed approach. This seems like good middle ground that would allow
flexiblity for the learners and facilitators...

If we are going to go for the workshop we really are going to need a
tabbed approach so we can be scientific in our evaluation.

If you need any assistance in bringing the phase 2 hosting to closure,
I'd be happy to assist... Check out my linkedIn profile;
http://www.linkedin.com/in/prawsthorne

Cheers,

> > 2008/8/19 Peter <prawstho...@gmail.com>

> > From Derek Chirnside.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -