Flow

At the time that Flow was conceived, the Wikimedia Foundation believed that:

Flow features:

• No edit conflicts, except when trying to edit someone else's comment.
• No {{unsigned}} posts in discussions—all posts and comments will be automatically signed and dated.
• No need to tell new users how to sign their posts or how to indent their comments.
• No need to archive discussions—old posts will automatically "fall off" the page, and can be retrieved by scrolling down.
• No way for inexperienced people to accidentally remove your posts or vandalize them.
• A place for an 'introduction' to the page, which can contain free-form text, user boxes, templates, etc.
• A way to close or hat old threads to prevent further replies.
• A way to link to previous discussions or individual comments.

 

Flow was intended to be rethinking of how we do collaborative work in the projects rather than a mere discussion system. Flow hoped to include:

• The Feed module. This is a powerful way for users to have insight into their discussions and interests, and introduces several modern software conveniences (such as subscriptions and tagging)
• The User Discussion module. We are starting our focus only on what we call "User to user discussion" as these discussion types are not overly complex. As we learn more, we can expand the technology to cover additional cases
• A Workflow Description Language module. This will allow local wikis to create both simple and complex software workflows that work with in Flow. Example workflow ideas include:
  • A Block Module. This is an example of a specific user-discussion use case that is best solved in software.
  • A Welcome Module. This is an example of a specific use case that is best served in software rather than templates (think: welcome templates that are interactive and teach new users how to edit before they make mistakes).

Other less concrete ideas included:

• A Watchlist module
• A WikiProjects module
• Further Discussion modules to cover additional use cases (like !voting, noticeboards, the Teahouse, reference desks, article discussions, and so forth)

In the end, none of the modules other than "Feed" (via Echo notifications) and "User discussion" were ever built.

The primary problems that Flow's user-to-user discussion system attempted to solve are:

Ease of use

The User talk system of responding in Wikitext is user-hostile.

Fragmented discussions

It is difficult to determine where a discussion is to take place.

Determining what's new

There is no easy way to see what has changed in a discussion without resorting to complex, power-user behaviors (such as viewing the diff between the current revision and the last viewed revision).

Contextual interest

Users are required to watch all discussion topics, not just the ones they are involved in.

Using wikitext as a discussion system was seen as antiquated, opaque, and frankly embarrassing in its difficulty. New users are often scared away by viewing talk pages. They are often afraid of "breaking" them and, once inside the code, don't have a clue about how to respond. There isn't a reply button. How do you indicate that you are replying to someone in particular? What are all these curly braces?

There are no other discussion systems in the world that require users to sign their own posts.

Even reading talk pages is problematic. Users can quickly get lost within deeply threaded discussions. Think about every other kind of conversation you get involved in—in person, via physical letters, via email, via forum software, chat systems, blog comments—you always know who is speaking before you read (or hear) the words. Always. Only in talk pages do you not know who is talking until after the fact.

When you leave a message on my talk pages, do I respond to you on my talk or yours? What happens if I do? How do you get notified if there are responses on my page? When I leave a message for you on your talk page and you respond to it, how am I alerted to this?

For many power users, using the watchlist to track conversations is useless. Some talk pages have such high activity that hundreds of responses to non-relevant topics are created per day. Some users will page back through their contributions to find changes (which is again a power user ploy and still doesn't display if there has been new activity).

Watchlists can tell us if there has been a change to a page, but determining what's changed requires a peek into the history. The typical way that one reads discussion pages on MediaWiki is by selecting different revisions and reading the diff. That is, frankly, crazy.