Jump to content

Talk:Contact us/Archive 1

From Wikimedia Foundation Governance Wiki
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Mdennis in topic Content issues

September 2012 redesign

I've removed the box pending the discussion of some issues. :)

First, some of the text is inaccurate. There are not "chapters of the Wikimedia Foundation"; these are entirely separate entitites. The "Content" section linked to doesn't address how to change content, only reuse; the address for talking to people about content is actually in the first section, which was listed as "Contact the nonprofit that operates the Wikimedia reference projects" To fix this, we'd either have to change the descriptions of both that section and the first section, or move down the 'info" address to the "Reuse" section, retooling it appropriately. I'm not sure it's a good idea to push down the info@ address, since it is most frequently the one people need.

While I think it was a very eye popping image, I also think it may have some implementation challenges. It takes up an awful lot of real estate. The chapter listing is rather large and is squeezed to the side by unneeded empty space. :) --Maggie Dennis (talk) 19:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Text tweaks are easy enough to implement. I agree that it'd probably be better if the navigation to the sections were horizontal, rather than vertical. That would address the squeezing issue. It'd also be nice if the chapter blocks of text were dynamic, putting three per row if there's room, two per row if there's less room, one per row on a mobile platform, etc. This is kind of what Staff does currently. I think it works well. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
P.S. I'm renaming this section from "Box" to "September 2012 redesign" as I think it's more fitting.
I agree with Mdennis on all points. I also think that the __TOC__ is the best tool we have for that purpose. The page is short and making people understand what are the right contacts for the different things is the very purpose of the page, not of an index. --Nemo 05:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I've resolved the header issue. The chapters section is the biggest mess - perhaps we could divide it by continent or something? I like MZMcBride's idea of a sort of grid, not sure how Staff does it. Monomium (talk) 01:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


Making people understand when they have to contact chapters rather than the WMF and vice versa is quite hard, knowledge of the distinction can't be assumed. Anyway, splitting chapters out requires way broader discussion (or a decree by the Communications area of the WMF, of course). --Nemo 21:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

There's already a Local chapters page. What do you feel needs to be discussed? --MZMcBride (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
What I said. --Nemo 06:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Last evening before dinner, I took some notes about why I think splitting off the "Local chapters" section from Contact us to Local chapters makes sense. Here's what I came up with.

  1. This is the contact page for the Wikimedia Foundation (hosted at wikimediafoundation.org), not individual chapters.
  2. Chapters have their own Web sites and contact pages (for example, wmuk:Contact us or wmdc:Contact).
  3. The local chapters information is of limited utility to most readers. Not many people want to send snail mail to most of these chapters, presumably.
  4. Chapters have their own page (Local chapters).
  5. Increased noise often reduces signal: the list of chapter addresses is already a bit overwhelming and it will only grow with time. There is virtue to a simpler Contact us page.
  6. Contact us features a very prominent link to the detailed chapters page.
  7. Merging the "Local chapters" content from Contact us with the Local chapters page de-duplicates (or centralizes) the listings, introductory text, and image. The two lists are currently out-of-sync and incomplete. Even minor link fixes have not propagated to both. Duplication here is harmful.
  8. By having two separate pages, it makes it clearer to readers that chapters are not "Wikimedia Foundation branches," which I find somewhat unclear currently. One can reasonably look at this page and think that they could contact the Wikimedia Foundation Germany branch or the Wikimedia Foundation Argentina branch using the information provided. But really one would be contacting similar, but very different organizations. I think putting all of the chapter-related contact information at Local chapters reduces this potential confusion.

Regarding "way broader discussion," I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Information is not being removed: it's only being moved (with a prominent link to its new location).

Who needs to be informed of this proposed change? I'd be happy to write an e-mail or post to talk pages as necessary to solicit feedback. (Though I doubt I'll get much feedback, to be honest.) What do you recommend?

It's unclear to me whether you personally object to this move or if this is a pro forma objection to the change. Beyond your edit summary ("always been here"), I haven't read much from you to indicate that you actually object to centralizing this content. If there objections, I'd be happy to discuss with you or anyone else, of course. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It's been a few weeks since this proposed change. I'm still inclined to split this content out. I trust you'll let me know if you still object. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Content issues

Was this decided by the OTRS admins and volunteers?[1] --Nemo 14:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

What, that they handle content issues? Years ago. :) Everything we get related to content at answers@, business@ and donate@ is deferred to them. As an online service provider, the WMF cannot create or curate content and must refer such issues to volunteers. --Maggie Dennis (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. That said, the language could be improved. We don't want people writing to OTRS to ask for more information on articles. :/ Do you have any suggestions for how to word it to help people writing the WMF to complain about their articles without massively increasing pointless inquiries to OTRS? --Maggie Dennis (talk) 14:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I see your point: reducing content-related questions to WMF, right? I could try, but I'm nowhere near being as experienced as long-term OTRS volunteers are in this area. You can probably email the OTRS admins list to make them summarise the current situation in a handful words (if possible). I'm not sure there is consistency across the hundreds contact pages of Wikimedia projects though. --Nemo 14:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
That's good advice, Nemo. I'll ask them. Thanks. :) --Maggie Dennis (talk) 14:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)