Template talk:Header navbar community

Inclusion of discord

The community discord server, with nearly 7000 members, seems like a pretty reasonable community link here. I'm not seeing a reason to remove it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you not? Because I gave one in the edit you have now reverted, twice: rm. Discord, inappropriate here – not an official communications channel and relies on proprietary software. Temporary blindness is not a rebuttal. – Joe (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So your reasoning is that it contravenes lines set forth in your essay, and that despite it being linked at m:Discord, having WMF staff on the server communicating with community members, and having nearly 7000 members it's not official enough? The vast majority of meetups aren't official in anyway either, but we're still linking to them, and there is no community consensus to only allow links to platforms running on open source software, so I find your reasoning insufficient. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is that it's proprietary really a stopper? It is popular, usually freely accessible and used widely for tech-related entities. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 17:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with ScottishFinnishRadish's reasoning here. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely support and prefer to use free and open-source software, but I still use non-free kernel blobs and software on my computers running Linux, because sometimes the FOSS equivalent (when it exists) doesn't do what I need. The Discord server is not hosted on Wikipedia/Wikimedia, so the non-free nature doesn't seem to be a concern in the same way non-free content hosted on-wiki would be. There's certainly no guideline or policy I can think of that would bar such inclusion on that basis. It is my understanding that the community's Discord server (which as a disclaimer I am a member but very infrequent user of) is similarly situated to IRC (per WP:IRCADMIN) with regards to the WMF or other entities that might reasonably confer a measure of officiality. Not all of the meetups are officially recognized either, and since there would be links to non-official ways for the community to interact even if we removed Discord, officiality is not the standard for inclusion here. The standard is and should be the community aspect, and through that lens the Discord server seems to warrant inclusion. - Aoidh (talk) 19:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Official" distinguishes the Discord from e.g. the Wikimedia mailing lists, which while off-wiki are secure, hosted by the WMF, and accepted as a part of our decision-making process. There is no prohibition on links to non-FOSS software; I haven't claimed otherwise. However, "free" is at the top of every single page here and one of the three pillars for a reason: we exist to promote free content, and free software has always been a component of that. So the question here is again one of undue promotion. Wikipedians talk to each other on mailing lists, IRC, Discord, Telegram, Matrix, Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, and all sorts of other places. Why is this one particular Discord server, managed by just two users on server space loaned from an American VC corporation with a dubious history of respecting user privacy, worthy of special mention?

But not to worry, I see that three users active on the server in question have arrived on this brand new template talk page of a projectspace navbox to support its inclusion. Within an hour of each other. A month after the contested edit. On the same day that the admin of that server alluded to that edit in a complete different discussion elsewhere. A totally organic and representative consensus there. – Joe (talk) 06:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quick rundown: 1) The discussion isn't necessarily over (others may still join in); 2) you changed longstanding content that had an implicit consensus; 3) others gave reasonable arguments for keeping the Discord link; 4) nothing is terribly harmed by keeping the Discord link; 5) we don't develop wiki content or make official wiki decisions on Discord (AFAIK); 6) We run things by consensus in the Wikipedia and that means sometimes we as individuals lose arguments (I've been there and you'll get used to it, too).

But to answer the concern of "undue promotion", I would suggest there are counterweights to that, such as Discord being better geared toward technical discussion than other forms of social media and its seemingly obvious broad acceptance as such. Perhaps those more familiar with how the Discord server is run can go through its unique benefits. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 07:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been there and you'll get used to it, too – please try to avoid condescending, you've been editing a year longer than I have.

I'm sure you shared your opinion in good faith and don't see yourself as being unduly influenced. That's how it generally goes with canvassing. Yet the fact remains that the discussion here, inconsequential as it is, has been decided by the sudden arrival of three people invested in the very thing we're talking about (plus Aoidh; the 3O is appreciated). We are seeing this again and again with Discord-related discussion and it makes it impossible to reach a genuine, broad consensus. It was the same thing with IRC in the late 2000s and it ended in tears, I don't know why we don't learn.

There is nothing really special about Discord. It's IRC with better UI and a bigger marketing budget. Given that there clearly aren't 7000 active members of the Discord, I strongly suspect that if you were looking for the off-wiki platform used by the most Wikipedians, it would either be Facebook or Twitter, but since they're more decentralised there's less cliquiness spilling on-wiki from them. – Joe (talk) 07:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I arrived here due to this on-wiki talk page notification. Seems fine to me. Notifications on talk pages (except for user talk pages) is not canvassing. If you are worried about some kind of bias, perhaps you should balance it out with a notification to your preferred talk page. A village pump perhaps? –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Three minutes after the notification at WT:DISCORD. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you notified WP:VPM at the same time you notified WT:DISCORD? Thank you for doing that. Hopefully that puts an end to these unpleasant canvassing aspersions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No aspersions here: SFR was canvassed to this page, then canvassed you two from WT:DISCORD. The diffs are there for anyone to see. The VPM notice was a nice gesture but does not undo the original canvassing. The ownership the Discord clique displays towards even the most minor mentions of it on-wiki (how dare you suggest renaming our page! of course we're one of Wikipedia's main community directories and resource pages!) is plain as day. – Joe (talk) 09:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your RM at WT:DISCORD and thought to myself, "I wonder if they're up to any other shenanigans?" Checked your last 500 contribs, CTRL-F, Discord, and low and behold, more shenanigans. Pretty common methodology I use when I see some disruptive editing. I also check the contributions on everyone I give a CTOP alert to, or warn/block for vandalism. Pretty standard procedure.

Luckily, I notified a wide swath of people so it should mitigate my dastardly canvassing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: my "condescending" remark, I was addressing your flustered demeanor in acting like this discussion is complete, when it isn't necessarily complete, and acting like a final decision was made. That is what I was alluding to. Since you are experienced on Wikipedia, I am befuddled at your stance, and I intentionally reminded you of how out of the wiki norm that is.

Anyway, as for canvassing and what-not, I was called here from a generic post at Village Pump, and I am far from being a Discord fanboy. As this is an open discussion, feel free to disagree with my position on what Discord is and how useful it can be, but your dismissing opinion about it hasn't done anything to move the needle for me. The fact is that Discord is taken very seriously by many techies or others interested in intense, detailed, serious discussion. Regular social media doesn't quite deliver for that. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 17:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it included, per Aoidh and above. This space has existed for 8 years and been in this template for 6 or so years, and is used by broad swathes of the community including the WMF itself, who holds meetings and consultations there. I'll also note since it hasn't been said but I've seen alluded recently on the VP, IRC is not official either. Disclosure, I operate the server. Further disclosure, aware of this discussion explicitly due to the talk page notification to WT:Discord, which I have watchlisted (A surprise, I know). -- ferret (talk) 13:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]