[Wikimedia-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
118 messages Options
123456
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you

Yaroslav M. Blanter
On 12.08.2014 02:26, svetlana wrote:

> If we accept the policy in principle, I don't care who enforces such
> policy, that be community or WMF. Such policy does not go against
> community entirely, unless WMF shows a will to reject community
> patches related to issues which community finds important. Whether or
> not this is the case, I don't care; it's a website in their hands and
> they're welcome to shut it off without notice, or to experiment at
> leisure.
>

> svetlana
>

Whoever believes that an administration of a crowdsourcing website can
do whatever they want just because they are running the website should
recollect what recently happened to Internet Brands and Wikitravel.

Cheers
Yaroslav

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you

Peter Southwood
As one has been there, done that, I would like to point out that there is an order of magnitude difference between Internet Brands and WMF.
Cheers,
Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Yaroslav M. Blanter
Sent: 12 August 2014 02:00 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you

On 12.08.2014 02:26, svetlana wrote:

> If we accept the policy in principle, I don't care who enforces such
> policy, that be community or WMF. Such policy does not go against
> community entirely, unless WMF shows a will to reject community
> patches related to issues which community finds important. Whether or
> not this is the case, I don't care; it's a website in their hands and
> they're welcome to shut it off without notice, or to experiment at
> leisure.
>

> svetlana
>

Whoever believes that an administration of a crowdsourcing website can do whatever they want just because they are running the website should recollect what recently happened to Internet Brands and Wikitravel.

Cheers
Yaroslav

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4744 / Virus Database: 4007/8020 - Release Date: 08/11/14


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you

Magnus Manske-2
Also, 118 people (190 vs. 72 votes in the "poll" [1] on German Wikipedia)
are not "the community". They are a small part of the community.

The people who would profit [2]  from the Media Viewer as a default feature
were not consulted.

Cheers,
Magnus

[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Medienbetrachter
[2] Value of ""profit" TBD




On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Peter Southwood <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> As one has been there, done that, I would like to point out that there is
> an order of magnitude difference between Internet Brands and WMF.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:
> [hidden email]] On Behalf Of Yaroslav M. Blanter
> Sent: 12 August 2014 02:00 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near
> you
>
> On 12.08.2014 02:26, svetlana wrote:
>
> > If we accept the policy in principle, I don't care who enforces such
> > policy, that be community or WMF. Such policy does not go against
> > community entirely, unless WMF shows a will to reject community
> > patches related to issues which community finds important. Whether or
> > not this is the case, I don't care; it's a website in their hands and
> > they're welcome to shut it off without notice, or to experiment at
> > leisure.
> >
>
> > svetlana
> >
>
> Whoever believes that an administration of a crowdsourcing website can do
> whatever they want just because they are running the website should
> recollect what recently happened to Internet Brands and Wikitravel.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2014.0.4744 / Virus Database: 4007/8020 - Release Date: 08/11/14
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you

Erik Moeller-4
In reply to this post by Craig Franklin
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Craig Franklin
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> I'll be writing a longer post on the Meta RFC later, but can you confirm
> whether the idea is to "superprotect" key interface pages like
> [[Mediawiki:common.js]] on a permanent basis, or will this feature only be
> used to lock pages temporarily in the case of wheel warring or other
> circumstances like what happened on de.wp?

Dear Craig,

Thank you for the question. Definitely the latter. In general, as I
mentioned in my original note, we intend to bring on-wiki
functionality that directly relates to the UI and code (i.e. chiefly
the MediaWiki: namespace, which is a highly unusual software feature
to begin with) in closer alignment with off-wiki software development,
review and deployment practices, including permission levels (e.g.
actually make it easier for anyone to submit changes, but gate changes
that impact all users).

Lila and I will post more thoughts on the larger issues within the
coming days. We deeply regret the disruptive impact this discussion is
having on Wikimedia's mission and our work together. At the same time,
working through these questions has long been overdue, and my hope is
that we can come out of this with greater clarity regarding how we
partner on issues that are often likely to be contentious, which
includes user experience changes.

Sincerely,

Erik

--
Erik Möller
VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you

Romaine Wiki-2
In reply to this post by Erik Moeller-4
Has it ever come to the mind that something is going wrong on how the
community is approached?

Has it ever come to the mind that some software implementations have gone
to hastily with negative effects?

That the community reacts the way it does now, is because they care very
much about the site and they notice something is terrible going wrong on
WMF side and too less is done to fix those problems/issues!

Apparently nothing (or not enough) has been learned from the VE 2013 fiasco.

Romaine


2014-08-10 15:27 GMT+02:00 Erik Moeller <[hidden email]>:

> Hi folks,
>
> Admins are currently given broad leeway to customize the user
> experience for all users, including addition of site-wide JS, CSS,
> etc. These are important capabilities of the wiki that have been used
> for many clearly beneficial purposes. In the long run, we will want to
> apply a code review process to these changes as with any other
> deployed code, but for now the system works as it is and we have no
> intent to remove this capability.
>
> However, we've clarified in a number of venues that use of the
> MediaWiki: namespace to disable site features is unacceptable. If such
> a conflict arises, we're prepared to revoke permissions if required.
> This protection level provides an additional path to manage these
> situations by preventing edits to the relevant pages (we're happy to
> help apply any urgent edits) until a particular situation has calmed
> down.
>
> Thanks,
> Erik
> --
> Erik Möller
> VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you

rupert THURNER-2
In reply to this post by Magnus Manske-2
magnus, a vote always has 3 options.
* i am for it
* i am against it
* i can live with the outcome of the vote

so i did not vote. because i can live with both. but i do respect the vote.
i do respect admin decisions, i even voted for some admins.

at the end it is very simple. the one who produces software has a conflict
of interest. so this person or organisation is not in a good position to
decide when it is used.

wmf, its employees and voluntary officers need to be exemplary with respect
to conflicts of interest, imo. always. errors are allowed as well as
excuses of course.

magnus you said you are not happy with media viewer. and you always produce
software people like. what should they improve?

rupert
Am 12.08.2014 14:45 schrieb "Magnus Manske" <[hidden email]>:

> Also, 118 people (190 vs. 72 votes in the "poll" [1] on German Wikipedia)
> are not "the community". They are a small part of the community.
>
> The people who would profit [2]  from the Media Viewer as a default feature
> were not consulted.
>
> Cheers,
> Magnus
>
> [1]
> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Medienbetrachter
> [2] Value of ""profit" TBD
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Peter Southwood <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > As one has been there, done that, I would like to point out that there is
> > an order of magnitude difference between Internet Brands and WMF.
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [hidden email] [mailto:
> > [hidden email]] On Behalf Of Yaroslav M.
> Blanter
> > Sent: 12 August 2014 02:00 PM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki
> near
> > you
> >
> > On 12.08.2014 02:26, svetlana wrote:
> >
> > > If we accept the policy in principle, I don't care who enforces such
> > > policy, that be community or WMF. Such policy does not go against
> > > community entirely, unless WMF shows a will to reject community
> > > patches related to issues which community finds important. Whether or
> > > not this is the case, I don't care; it's a website in their hands and
> > > they're welcome to shut it off without notice, or to experiment at
> > > leisure.
> > >
> >
> > > svetlana
> > >
> >
> > Whoever believes that an administration of a crowdsourcing website can do
> > whatever they want just because they are running the website should
> > recollect what recently happened to Internet Brands and Wikitravel.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Yaroslav
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> > -----
> > No virus found in this message.
> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > Version: 2014.0.4744 / Virus Database: 4007/8020 - Release Date: 08/11/14
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you

Katie Chan
On 12/08/2014 15:19, rupert THURNER wrote:
> magnus, a vote always has 3 options.
> * i am for it
> * i am against it
> * i can live with the outcome of the vote

No, there are other options.
* I didn't know the poll was happening
* I just want to get on with editing / reading Wikipedia (or sister
project) and are sick of the constant bickering.
* I am happy for the Foundation (after consultation) to decide on what
features to have on the project it is entrusted in running.

> at the end it is very simple. the one who produces software has a conflict
> of interest. so this person or organisation is not in a good position to
> decide when it is used.
>

And the editor community are not in the best position to decide what are
the best features for the (overlapping but much much larger) reader
community either.

Katie

--
Katie Chan
Any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the view of any organisation the author is associated with or employed by.


Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
      - Heinrich Heine


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you

Magnus Manske-2
In reply to this post by rupert THURNER-2
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 3:19 PM, rupert THURNER <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> magnus, a vote always has 3 options.
> * i am for it
> * i am against it
> * i can live with the outcome of the vote
>

<nitpick>
You mean "do not particularly care about it", surely? That you can live
with the outcome of a vote, whatever outcome that is, is a fundamental
principle of democracy, not a voting option.
</nitpick>


> so i did not vote. because i can live with both. but i do respect the vote.
> i do respect admin decisions, i even voted for some admins.
>
> at the end it is very simple. the one who produces software has a conflict
> of interest. so this person or organisation is not in a good position to
> decide when it is used.
>
> wmf, its employees and voluntary officers need to be exemplary with respect
> to conflicts of interest, imo. always. errors are allowed as well as
> excuses of course.
>

There needs to be a balance between the wishes of (some members of) the
logged-in community, the (otherwise silent) majority of readers, and the
WMF.

German Wikipedia had 1.1 billion page views in June [1]. ~300 votes (~2/3
against MediaViewer) do not represent the readers, IMHO.

The Foundation is tasked with managing the hardware and software that runs
Wikipedia. On Wikimania, several remarks were made about how outdated
Wikipedia appears. WMF tries to improve that situation. No, MediaViewer is
not perfect. What software is? When is it "perfect" enough to go live by
default? WMF should have a say there.


>
> magnus you said you are not happy with media viewer. and you always produce
> software people like. what should they improve?
>

Like many other "old hands", it seems to get in the way of my workflow. Not
an issue for me, as long as I can turn it off.

It's probably fine for "modern" viewing, although it's hard to guess that
you get to the file page via the little Commons icon for people who (in all
likelihood) have never seen that icon, or visited Commons.

Cheers,
Magnus

[1] https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/SummaryDE.htm


>
> rupert
> Am 12.08.2014 14:45 schrieb "Magnus Manske" <[hidden email]>:
>
> > Also, 118 people (190 vs. 72 votes in the "poll" [1] on German Wikipedia)
> > are not "the community". They are a small part of the community.
> >
> > The people who would profit [2]  from the Media Viewer as a default
> feature
> > were not consulted.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Magnus
> >
> > [1]
> > https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Medienbetrachter
> > [2] Value of ""profit" TBD
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Peter Southwood <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > As one has been there, done that, I would like to point out that there
> is
> > > an order of magnitude difference between Internet Brands and WMF.
> > > Cheers,
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [hidden email] [mailto:
> > > [hidden email]] On Behalf Of Yaroslav M.
> > Blanter
> > > Sent: 12 August 2014 02:00 PM
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki
> > near
> > > you
> > >
> > > On 12.08.2014 02:26, svetlana wrote:
> > >
> > > > If we accept the policy in principle, I don't care who enforces such
> > > > policy, that be community or WMF. Such policy does not go against
> > > > community entirely, unless WMF shows a will to reject community
> > > > patches related to issues which community finds important. Whether or
> > > > not this is the case, I don't care; it's a website in their hands and
> > > > they're welcome to shut it off without notice, or to experiment at
> > > > leisure.
> > > >
> > >
> > > > svetlana
> > > >
> > >
> > > Whoever believes that an administration of a crowdsourcing website can
> do
> > > whatever they want just because they are running the website should
> > > recollect what recently happened to Internet Brands and Wikitravel.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > Yaroslav
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > > -----
> > > No virus found in this message.
> > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > > Version: 2014.0.4744 / Virus Database: 4007/8020 - Release Date:
> 08/11/14
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you

Romaine Wiki-2
2014-08-12 16:57 GMT+02:00 Magnus Manske <[hidden email]>:

> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 3:19 PM, rupert THURNER <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > so i did not vote. because i can live with both. but i do respect the
> vote.
> > i do respect admin decisions, i even voted for some admins.
> >
> > at the end it is very simple. the one who produces software has a
> conflict
> > of interest. so this person or organisation is not in a good position to
> > decide when it is used.
> >
> > wmf, its employees and voluntary officers need to be exemplary with
> respect
> > to conflicts of interest, imo. always. errors are allowed as well as
> > excuses of course.
> >
>
> There needs to be a balance between the wishes of (some members of) the
> logged-in community, the (otherwise silent) majority of readers, and the
> WMF.
>

True

German Wikipedia had 1.1 billion page views in June [1]. ~300 votes (~2/3
> against MediaViewer) do not represent the readers, IMHO.
>

I think it is more relevant to look at the number of unique visitors, in
stead of the 1.1 billion page views.

The Foundation is tasked with managing the hardware and software that runs
> Wikipedia. On Wikimania, several remarks were made about how outdated
> Wikipedia appears. WMF tries to improve that situation. No, MediaViewer is
> not perfect. What software is? When is it "perfect" enough to go live by
> default? WMF should have a say there.
>

I agree that WMF should have a say, but how it is done now is certainly not
the way WMF should handle it. Also I think it would be good to define for
future cases how such situations should be handled. If a community has a
strong oppose in something, such situation should be considered more
carefully and be handled with more care. A community can't represent all
readers, but they are themselves readers too who feel to have a large
responsibility to the readers. They usually have valid arguments and
considerations which should be taken more seriously. We all are on the same
ship with the same vision on the horizon, with the same goals.

Romaine




> [1] https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/SummaryDE.htm
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you

Magnus Manske-2
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 4:21 PM, Romaine Wiki <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> 2014-08-12 16:57 GMT+02:00 Magnus Manske <[hidden email]>:
>
> > On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 3:19 PM, rupert THURNER <
> [hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > so i did not vote. because i can live with both. but i do respect the
> > vote.
> > > i do respect admin decisions, i even voted for some admins.
> > >
> > > at the end it is very simple. the one who produces software has a
> > conflict
> > > of interest. so this person or organisation is not in a good position
> to
> > > decide when it is used.
> > >
> > > wmf, its employees and voluntary officers need to be exemplary with
> > respect
> > > to conflicts of interest, imo. always. errors are allowed as well as
> > > excuses of course.
> > >
> >
> > There needs to be a balance between the wishes of (some members of) the
> > logged-in community, the (otherwise silent) majority of readers, and the
> > WMF.
> >
>
> True
>
> German Wikipedia had 1.1 billion page views in June [1]. ~300 votes (~2/3
> > against MediaViewer) do not represent the readers, IMHO.
> >
>
> I think it is more relevant to look at the number of unique visitors, in
> stead of the 1.1 billion page views.
>

I agree, but I couldn't find that number on the report card, so I used the
next best thing.
Assuming 100 page views per visitor would give 10M visitors. 80M people in
Germany alone, so probably not too far off.
That would mean that 0.003% of visitors voted, and 0.002% voted against
MediaViewer, with a ~0.001% "edge".


>
> The Foundation is tasked with managing the hardware and software that runs
> > Wikipedia. On Wikimania, several remarks were made about how outdated
> > Wikipedia appears. WMF tries to improve that situation. No, MediaViewer
> is
> > not perfect. What software is? When is it "perfect" enough to go live by
> > default? WMF should have a say there.
> >
>
> I agree that WMF should have a say, but how it is done now is certainly not
> the way WMF should handle it. Also I think it would be good to define for
> future cases how such situations should be handled. If a community has a
> strong oppose in something, such situation should be considered more
> carefully and be handled with more care. A community can't represent all
> readers, but they are themselves readers too who feel to have a large
> responsibility to the readers. They usually have valid arguments and
> considerations which should be taken more seriously. We all are on the same
> ship with the same vision on the horizon, with the same goals.
>

Yes, it could have been handled better. Actually, just saying "this is
coming by default, you can turn it off individually" /before/ the "vote"
was initiated would have been much clearer, and I don't think it would have
caused as much uproar as we have now. It also could have helped to focus
the community on finding and reporting bugs, which might have lead to
earlier improvements to the software.

And yes, the community should have a say, but this is a rather technical
issue, even if it is an interface change. The community is, and always has
been, very much in charge of content and editorial policies, beyond the
pillars.

Finally, I think that an open and detailed description by the WMF about
what, exactly, happened, and why MediaViewer is pushed against the wishes
of a small but vocal group, would help a lot to smooth the waves.

Cheers,
Magnus
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you

Brad Jorsch (Anomie)
In reply to this post by John Mark Vandenberg
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 6:54 PM, John Mark Vandenberg <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 3:49 AM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie)
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 2:01 PM, John Mark Vandenberg <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Before this, there was no expectation that a page could be protected
> >> such that sysops could not alter the content of the superprotected
> >> page.
> >>
> >
> > This is false.
>
> Care to explain?
>

https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Manual:$wgRestrictionLevels&diff=519048&oldid=451673
shows that protection levels that prevent sysops from editing were
considered as far back as 3 April 2012, for example.


> > Most of what MZMcBride posted there has nothing to do with actually
> > breaking superprotection. Editing a page that isn't superprotected isn't
> a
> > break in the protection feature itself, for example.
>
> Of course it is.  It isnt a 'feature' until it actually works at the
> released product level.
>

You appear to be confusing superprotection with something else, likely the
much larger concept of preventing JS hacks to disable MediaViewer.


--
Brad Jorsch (Anomie)
Software Engineer
Wikimedia Foundation
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you

Erik Moeller-4
In reply to this post by Magnus Manske-2
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Magnus Manske
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> It's probably fine for "modern" viewing, although it's hard to guess that
> you get to the file page via the little Commons icon for people who (in all
> likelihood) have never seen that icon, or visited Commons.

Dear Magnus,

Thanks as always for your thoughtful comments. It was great to see you
at Wikimania again, too. :)

Indeed, the icon to the File: page is currently very opaque. We're
preparing for a round of possible changes to the viewing experience,
potentially including
- moving caption above the fold so readers don't have to hunt for it
- moving disable action above-the-fold
- potentially eliminating the below-the-fold panel entirely
- emphasizing the File: page more prominently as the canonical source
of metadata
- separating out download/use actions more clearly

These changes will need to be carefully tested/validated. If you want
to take a look at an early early (!) prototype (!!), see
http://multimedia-alpha.wmflabs.org/wiki/Lightbox_demo , but please
note that anything but the basic view experience is placeholder right
now (as is the "Details" icon etc.), and the caption-above-the-fold is
not implemented yet. We've looked at some of this with folks at
Wikimania, and the community feedback there was very positive. But
like I said, give us a bit more time on this.

In general, Giles made a good point at the multimedia roundtable at
Wikimania: Historically, product development at WMF was so slow that
calling for an immediate rollback of a new thing that doesn't work
quite perfectly yet for everyone was a bit more appropriate. Nowadays
we really can push out a new release in a few weeks, and the constant
turning on/off is not helpful for anyone, especially for a feature
like this that can easily be disabled by anyone who doesn't like it.

In answer to your query regarding how we communicated about this,
please note that we posted the following at the beginning of the poll:
https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_Diskussion:Meinungsbilder/Medienbetrachter&diff=prev&oldid=132469014

Translation: The Wikimedia Foundation reserves the right to make a
final decision about the standard configuration of software features
in Wikimedia projects (see [[m:Limits to configuration changes]]). For
the avoidance of doubt: This includes hacks implemented via the
MediaWiki: namespace. Of course want to find a solution that is
acceptable for readers and editors. We are open to the idea that the
default setting for logged in users and logged out users should be
different.

- - -

I don't think we could have been any clearer that a MediaWiki: disable
hack would not be acceptable -- we said so from the start. We did
indeed agree to implement a different default configuration for logged
in users for Wikimedia Commons, given the unique nature of the
project. We would strongly advise against doing the same for logged in
users on Wikipedia projects, and decided not to do so in response to
the vote on de.wp. While settling on a compromise like this may be
tempting in the short term to de-escalate matters, let's only do it if
it's truly the right thing to do, not for political reasons alone.

Erik

--
Erik Möller
VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you

Henning Schlottmann
In reply to this post by Magnus Manske-2
On 12.08.2014 16:57, Magnus Manske wrote:
> German Wikipedia had 1.1 billion page views in June [1]. ~300 votes (~2/3
> against MediaViewer) do not represent the readers, IMHO.

Claiming to speak for a perceived silent majority will not help you much
in this discussion.

There is a common pattern in the conflicts between WMF and several
communities over software developments during the last few years. As I
wrote two weeks ago to Rachel:

| Decision making seems to be focused on reader experience, including
| winning readers to become authors, but existing authors and their
| experience (in both meanings of the word) is ignored. Even by people |
like Eric, who once was a prolific author himself

| Authors see themselves as the single most important group in the
|Wikimedia universe. Without their content, there would be nothing: No
| readers, no fundraising banners, no donations, no employees, no
| foundation. On the other hand, WMF seems to see the readers (and
| donors) as their main target audience. Of course WMF knows, that all
| the projects need content and authors, but in my opinion most of them
| fail in appreciating the existing authors and focus too much on
| winning readers to become authors, by simplifying the entry.

This is serious. WMF really needs to appreciate the expertise of the
author community and accept their experience a important and valid. If
authors tell the WMF and particularly the devs, that a particular
function is necessary, then the devs really, really need to think.

If the community tells the devs, that a particular idea is a bad one, a
feature is too buggy to be rolled out (as default) or is unsuitable for
a project at all, this warrants more than just a cursory thought.

A formal RfD must not be taken lightly, overruling it by creating a
whole new user class, and crippling the elected admins is inpermissible.
WMF has broken trust again and this time in a unprecedented way.

Until this event, I thought the dev process to be broken, not just the
communication around devs. But now I believe the conflict runs deeper.

Henning
User: H-stt (admin on deWP and Commons)




_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you

Magnus Manske-2
In reply to this post by Erik Moeller-4
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
> These changes will need to be carefully tested/validated. If you want
> to take a look at an early early (!) prototype (!!), see
> http://multimedia-alpha.wmflabs.org/wiki/Lightbox_demo , but please
> note that anything but the basic view experience is placeholder right
> now (as is the "Details" icon etc.), and the caption-above-the-fold is
> not implemented yet. We've looked at some of this with folks at
> Wikimania, and the community feedback there was very positive. But
> like I said, give us a bit more time on this.
>

This looks much better! (though it appears to have problems with PNGs...)


>
> In answer to your query regarding how we communicated about this,
> please note that we posted the following at the beginning of the poll:
>
> https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_Diskussion:Meinungsbilder/Medienbetrachter&diff=prev&oldid=132469014
>
>
Thanks Erik, I somehow missed this. It is indeed ample notification.

Cheers,
Magnus
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you

Abd ulRahman Lomax
In reply to this post by Yaroslav M. Blanter
Whoever believes that an administration of a crowdsourcing website can do whatever they want just because they are running the website should recollect what recently happened to Internet Brands and Wikitravel.

Popcorn, anyone?

Wikipedia is not an organization, and the WMF does not administer the Wikipedias. It owns them, which gives the WMF the *legal right* to administer. It's quite obvious that, as the wikis have been operating, for the WMF to take over administration would require major changes. But it would not be impossible, and only a narrow imagination would conclude so.

This issue of superprotect and how it was used raises issues of power and control. It seems to be assumed in these discussions that this is a deliberate assertion of power, "we are in charge and you are not," and in a sense, it obviously is. However, is that the intention? Why are WMF employees confronting the community at this time and in this way and over a relatively small issue, and without a clear policy statement from the Board? The WMF has been, apparently, silent so far, which could mean that the Board and Executive Director have no plan, that they are trying to figure out what to do. This would be completely unsurprising.

There are now editors suggesting a strike. That would be the community -- or a segment of the community -- attempting to force the WMF to submit to their way. And the superprotect flap was the WMF attempting to force the community to submit to their way. That tends to be where we go first when we are sure we are right, and others are wrong. And if it goes this way, everyone loses, very likely.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Superprotect_rights


is the usual wiki train wreck, which is what happens when raw, unripe proposals are made. But the WMF is not like the community, it is possible for it to come up with reflected, deliberated response. That, indeed, is why they have the money and the control. I recommend no rush. Do this right.

That RfC is generating a lot of comment. Someone can and should refactor it to summarize the arguments, to create a true "consensus document," I've been calling it. But whether or not anyone will find the time to do it, I don't know. It's a lot of work. Still, I'd think that the WMF would be noticing that it touched a live wire. So now what?

 
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
I'm so excited I can't wait for Now.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you

Pete Forsyth-2
In reply to this post by Magnus Manske-2
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Magnus Manske <[hidden email]
> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > These changes will need to be carefully tested/validated. If you want
> > to take a look at an early early (!) prototype (!!), see
> > http://multimedia-alpha.wmflabs.org/wiki/Lightbox_demo , but please
> > note that anything but the basic view experience is placeholder right
> > now (as is the "Details" icon etc.), and the caption-above-the-fold is
> > not implemented yet. We've looked at some of this with folks at
> > Wikimania, and the community feedback there was very positive. But
> > like I said, give us a bit more time on this.
> >
>
> This looks much better! (though it appears to have problems with PNGs...)
>

It does look better, and addresses *some* of the many major problems with
the Media Viewer. But there are still show-stopper problems. Iterating
while badly broken software is still deployed to many millions of readers
is a bad practice, though, so for the moment I'll leave it at that.

Erik, as I have said before -- your request for a bit more time would be
much better received if you would simply revert the change, as per
consensus on 3 major projects, while you work to fix this broken software.
It's a very simple and non-dramatic option you have had available the
entire time.

Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you

Rich Farmbrough
In reply to this post by Magnus Manske-2
It is very disheartening to see that active members of the community have
been Borged by the Foundation, and all tell the same story, albeit with
different levels of enthusiasm.

Quite possibly there are issues over configuration pages, but to implement
a super-protection feature *in the middle of a dispute* is ham-fisted at
best, and a blatant power grab at worst.

Many less extreme alternatives exist, and good reasons for maintaining
the *status
quo* are also not hard to find.

Since this is undoubtedly a fire, the fire-fighting steps that should be
taken immediately are:

1 Un-super-protect the page.

2 Apologise to the community

3 Give an undertaking not to use superprotect except in a clear emergency
(though I can't think of one that would justify its use) - or disable the
feature

4 Engage with the community to discuss superprotect.

Once this discussion is concluded, then and only then should a discussion
about media-viewer be entered into, meanwhile the community consensus
should be respected.

And Magnus - saying X number of people does not represent the community is
all very well,  provided that there is a mechanism for gaining a  more
representative sample - and it has been used.

All the best,  Rich Farmbrough


On 12 August 2014 19:12, Magnus Manske <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > These changes will need to be carefully tested/validated. If you want
> > to take a look at an early early (!) prototype (!!), see
> > http://multimedia-alpha.wmflabs.org/wiki/Lightbox_demo , but please
> > note that anything but the basic view experience is placeholder right
> > now (as is the "Details" icon etc.), and the caption-above-the-fold is
> > not implemented yet. We've looked at some of this with folks at
> > Wikimania, and the community feedback there was very positive. But
> > like I said, give us a bit more time on this.
> >
>
> This looks much better! (though it appears to have problems with PNGs...)
>
>
> >
> > In answer to your query regarding how we communicated about this,
> > please note that we posted the following at the beginning of the poll:
> >
> >
> https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_Diskussion:Meinungsbilder/Medienbetrachter&diff=prev&oldid=132469014
> >
> >
> Thanks Erik, I somehow missed this. It is indeed ample notification.
>
> Cheers,
> Magnus
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--
Landline (UK) 01780 757 250
Mobile (UK) 0798 1995 792
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you

Magnus Manske-2
In reply to this post by Henning Schlottmann
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Henning Schlottmann <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> On 12.08.2014 16:57, Magnus Manske wrote:
> > German Wikipedia had 1.1 billion page views in June [1]. ~300 votes (~2/3
> > against MediaViewer) do not represent the readers, IMHO.
>
> Claiming to speak for a perceived silent majority will not help you much
> in this discussion.
>

I do not make any such claim. All I say is that the 300 (is there a movie
plot here?) do not necessarily speak for it, either.


>
> There is a common pattern in the conflicts between WMF and several
> communities over software developments during the last few years. As I
> wrote two weeks ago to Rachel:
>
> | Decision making seems to be focused on reader experience, including
> | winning readers to become authors, but existing authors and their
> | experience (in both meanings of the word) is ignored. Even by people |
> like Eric, who once was a prolific author himself
>
> | Authors see themselves as the single most important group in the
> |Wikimedia universe. Without their content, there would be nothing: No
> | readers, no fundraising banners, no donations, no employees, no
> | foundation. On the other hand, WMF seems to see the readers (and
> | donors) as their main target audience. Of course WMF knows, that all
> | the projects need content and authors, but in my opinion most of them
> | fail in appreciating the existing authors and focus too much on
> | winning readers to become authors, by simplifying the entry.
>
> This is serious. WMF really needs to appreciate the expertise of the
> author community and accept their experience a important and valid. If
> authors tell the WMF and particularly the devs, that a particular
> function is necessary, then the devs really, really need to think.
>

I do agree with this. Visual Editor (which works much better these days)
and MediaViewer are not aimed at the experienced editor. They aim to make
the reader more comfortable, and try to ease the first steps into editing.
Winning new editors has been deemed a priority, somewhat at the expense of
WMF-made support for the power user. This is a judgement call the
Foundation has to make.


>
> If the community tells the devs, that a particular idea is a bad one, a
> feature is too buggy to be rolled out (as default) or is unsuitable for
> a project at all, this warrants more than just a cursory thought.
>
> A formal RfD must not be taken lightly, overruling it by creating a
> whole new user class, and crippling the elected admins is inpermissible.
> WMF has broken trust again and this time in a unprecedented way.
>

As Erik pointed out, WMF had made it quite clear that they reserve the
right to overrule the community in that specific matter, before the
Meinungsbild was done. WMF then acted as announced, and refused to be
"hacked" out of their own servers. An unfortunate escalation on both sides,
but since they never promised to accept the Meinungsbild (quite the
opposite!), it was not a breach of trust.


>
> Until this event, I thought the dev process to be broken, not just the
> communication around devs. But now I believe the conflict runs deeper.
>

It points out an issue we (community and WMF) should discuss, in a more
general sense. What should the decision process be for technical changes?
When does the Foundation get precendence, and when should the community
have the last word? What weight should small-scale "votes" of editors have?
Should random polls be done, and included in such votes? Etc.

The MediaViewer "affair" itself gets blown out of proportion IMO.


Cheers,
Magnus
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you

Philippe Beaudette-3
All,

I just want to call your attention to Lila's statement at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LilaTretikov#On_a_Scale_of_Billions
.

pb


*Philippe Beaudette * \\  Director, Community Advocacy \\ Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc.
 T: 1-415-839-6885 x6643 |  [hidden email]  |  :  @Philippewiki
<https://twitter.com/Philippewiki>


On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Magnus Manske <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Henning Schlottmann <
> [hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > On 12.08.2014 16:57, Magnus Manske wrote:
> > > German Wikipedia had 1.1 billion page views in June [1]. ~300 votes
> (~2/3
> > > against MediaViewer) do not represent the readers, IMHO.
> >
> > Claiming to speak for a perceived silent majority will not help you much
> > in this discussion.
> >
>
> I do not make any such claim. All I say is that the 300 (is there a movie
> plot here?) do not necessarily speak for it, either.
>
>
> >
> > There is a common pattern in the conflicts between WMF and several
> > communities over software developments during the last few years. As I
> > wrote two weeks ago to Rachel:
> >
> > | Decision making seems to be focused on reader experience, including
> > | winning readers to become authors, but existing authors and their
> > | experience (in both meanings of the word) is ignored. Even by people |
> > like Eric, who once was a prolific author himself
> >
> > | Authors see themselves as the single most important group in the
> > |Wikimedia universe. Without their content, there would be nothing: No
> > | readers, no fundraising banners, no donations, no employees, no
> > | foundation. On the other hand, WMF seems to see the readers (and
> > | donors) as their main target audience. Of course WMF knows, that all
> > | the projects need content and authors, but in my opinion most of them
> > | fail in appreciating the existing authors and focus too much on
> > | winning readers to become authors, by simplifying the entry.
> >
> > This is serious. WMF really needs to appreciate the expertise of the
> > author community and accept their experience a important and valid. If
> > authors tell the WMF and particularly the devs, that a particular
> > function is necessary, then the devs really, really need to think.
> >
>
> I do agree with this. Visual Editor (which works much better these days)
> and MediaViewer are not aimed at the experienced editor. They aim to make
> the reader more comfortable, and try to ease the first steps into editing.
> Winning new editors has been deemed a priority, somewhat at the expense of
> WMF-made support for the power user. This is a judgement call the
> Foundation has to make.
>
>
> >
> > If the community tells the devs, that a particular idea is a bad one, a
> > feature is too buggy to be rolled out (as default) or is unsuitable for
> > a project at all, this warrants more than just a cursory thought.
> >
> > A formal RfD must not be taken lightly, overruling it by creating a
> > whole new user class, and crippling the elected admins is inpermissible.
> > WMF has broken trust again and this time in a unprecedented way.
> >
>
> As Erik pointed out, WMF had made it quite clear that they reserve the
> right to overrule the community in that specific matter, before the
> Meinungsbild was done. WMF then acted as announced, and refused to be
> "hacked" out of their own servers. An unfortunate escalation on both sides,
> but since they never promised to accept the Meinungsbild (quite the
> opposite!), it was not a breach of trust.
>
>
> >
> > Until this event, I thought the dev process to be broken, not just the
> > communication around devs. But now I believe the conflict runs deeper.
> >
>
> It points out an issue we (community and WMF) should discuss, in a more
> general sense. What should the decision process be for technical changes?
> When does the Foundation get precendence, and when should the community
> have the last word? What weight should small-scale "votes" of editors have?
> Should random polls be done, and included in such votes? Etc.
>
> The MediaViewer "affair" itself gets blown out of proportion IMO.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Magnus
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you

Pete Forsyth-2
In reply to this post by Magnus Manske-2
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Magnus Manske <[hidden email]
> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Henning Schlottmann <
> [hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > This is serious. WMF really needs to appreciate the expertise of the
> > author community and accept their experience a important and valid. If
> > authors tell the WMF and particularly the devs, that a particular
> > function is necessary, then the devs really, really need to think.
> >
>
> I do agree with this. Visual Editor (which works much better these days)
> and MediaViewer are not aimed at the experienced editor. They aim to make
> the reader more comfortable, and try to ease the first steps into editing.
> Winning new editors has been deemed a priority, somewhat at the expense of
> WMF-made support for the power user. This is a judgement call the
> Foundation has to make.
>

This is the biggest aspect of the problem, from my perspective: many of us
who have opposed the default enabling of the Media Viewer have done so
*not* on the basis that we personally dislike it, but on the basis that we
believe it causes problems for the process of helping readers become
effective editors. I myself have a great deal of experience with this
process; I was hired in 2009 by WMF for my expertise in this area; I helped
design the Ambassador Training program for the WMF that helps university
students convert from readers to editors; and since I left WMF, I have
trained hundreds of others to edit Wikipedia, most notably in the 6 week
online course I developed and taught 4 times. Whether or not I, as an
experienced editor, like the Media Viewer is indeed unimportant; I have no
problem disabling the software for myself.

Many WMF staff, however, *continue* to summarize the opposition as,
"experienced editors do not like it." This is a straw man argument, and an
absolute failure to absorb the considered criticisms layed out on the
various RfC pages. At the same time, a frequent piece of the WMF argument
is, "many readers *do* like it." But whether or not they *like* it is
completely different from whether or not we are guiding them toward
becoming editors -- the two have almost nothing to do with one another.
Whether the readers "like" it has absolutely nothing to do with the five
goals layed out in the 2010 Five Year Strategic Plan. But whether or not
they are guided effectively toward becoming editors, that does. And
removing the "edit" button, or any suggestion that such a thing might
exist, from millions and millions of pages...that does not serve that goal.

The WMF chose to "Narrow Focus" a couple years ago. I believe that what got
"narrowed out" was, by and large, processes that serve the secondary
purpose of helping the WMF educate itself, in an ongoing way, about how its
projects and communities operate. I believe we are seeing the effects of
that decision now.


> >
> > Until this event, I thought the dev process to be broken, not just the
> > communication around devs. But now I believe the conflict runs deeper.
> >
>
> It points out an issue we (community and WMF) should discuss, in a more
> general sense. What should the decision process be for technical changes?
> When does the Foundation get precendence, and when should the community
> have the last word? What weight should small-scale "votes" of editors have?
>

While I agree that it's important to have some clarity on this stuff, it's
also very important -- more important, perhaps -- to keep in mind that when
things are working smoothly, we very rarely have to consider the question
of "who can overrule whom." That is the kind of ideal the WMF should be
striving for -- in actions, not merely in words.

Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
123456