On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 1:00 PM, Gregory Maxwell <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 2:03 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> Sorry for top-posting. >> >> Austin, think about who "everyone" is. The folks here on foundation-l are >> not representative of readers. The job of the user experience team is to >> try to balance all readers' needs, which is not easy, and will sometimes >> involve making decisions that not everyone agrees with. People here have >> given some useful input, but I think it's far from obvious that the user >> experience team has made a "mistake.". (I'm not really intending to weigh in >> on this particular issue -- I'm speaking generally.) > > Sue, you appear to be making the assumption that the folks here are > writing from a position of their personal preferences while the > usability team is working on the behalf of the best interests of the > project. > > I don't believe this comparison to be accurate. > > The interlanguage links can be easily unhidden by anyone who knows > about them. The site remembers that you clicked to expand them. That > memory is short, but it wouldn't take any real effort to override with > personal settings... or people can disable Vector (which is what I've > done, because Vector is slow, even though I like it a lot overall). > In short, there is little reason for a sophisticated user to complain > about this for their own benefit. > > I think the people here are speaking up for the sake of the readers, > and for the sake of preserving the best of the existing design > principles used on the site. I know I am. > > Non-agreement on personal preferences is an entirely different matter > than non-agreement about how to best help our readers and how to best > express the values and principles behind the operation of our sites. > > I was alarmed when I heard the click rates: 1%. That's an enormous > number of clicks, considerably higher than I expected with the large > number of things available for folks to click on. To hear that it > went down considerably with Vector—well, if nothing else, it is a > possible objective indication that the change has reduced the > usability of the site. It is absolutely clear evidence that this > change has made a material impact on how we express ourselves to the > world. I think it's clear from my earlier messages, before I knew the > actual number, that I would have regarded figures like this as > evidence of a clear mistake. > > > > There is a clear attitude from the foundation staff that I, and > others, are perceiving in these discussions. The notion that the > community of contributors is a particularly whiny batch of customers > who must be 'managed', that they express demands unconnected from the > needs of the readers... and that it is more meaningful when a couple > of office staff retreat to some meeting room and say "we reached a > decision". Sadly, this attitude appears to be the worst from the > former volunteers on the staff—they are not afraid to speak up in > community discussion, and feel a need to distinguish themselves from > all the volunteers. > > This needs to stop and a point needs to be made clear: > > This community is who made the sites. I don't just mean the articles. > I mean the user interfaces, the PR statements, the fundraiser > material, _everything_. The success rates for companies trying to > build large and popular websites is miserable. Every successful one is > a fluke, and all the successful ones have a staff and budget orders of > magnitude larger than yours. > > We have an existence proof that the community is able to manage the > operation of the sites at a world class level. Certainly there are > many things which could have been done better, more uniformly, more > completely, or with better planning... but the community has a proven > competence in virtually every area that the foundation is now > attempting to be directly involved in. Not every member of the > community, of course, but the aggregate. > > Wikimedia's ability to do these things is an unknown, but the (lack > of) successes of other closed companies running websites—even ones > staffed by brilliant people—suggests that it is most likely that you > will also be unsuccessful. I don't mean this as a comment on the > competence of anyone involved (as I know many of them to be rather > fantastic people), it's just the most likely outcome. > > Imagine a resume for the community as a unit: > * Expertise in every imaginable subject. > * Simultaneous background in almost every human culture. > * Speaks hundreds of languages. > * Wrote the world's largest encyclopedia. > * Built one of the world's most popular websites, from the ground up. > * Managed to make an encyclopedia somehow interesting enough to be a > popular website. > * Managed the fundraising campaigns to support the entire operating > cost of the above mentioned Top-N website on charitable contributions > for many years. > * On and on, etc. > > (Like all resumes, this does not highlight the negatives--just > proclaims what it's been able to accomplish in spite of them.) > > Somehow, the community knows how to take the ragtag assembly of its > members: the whining, the warped personal preferences, the inspired > motivations of individuals and small groups, the collective voice of > the uninformed, and a smattering of contributions from world class > experts the likes of which we'd never be able to hire and retain, the > good and the bad—and fuse it into something which can build output > with broad appeal and generally consistent, if somewhat strange, > performance. > > I've personally been quick to dismiss people who wax philosophic about > "the wisdom of crowds"... all of the great community work I've seen is > mostly an effort from dedicated individuals and small groups, not some > 'crowd'. And yet there clearly is something there, because the > community delivers results superior to that of most other small groups > and individuals. I guess the real power comes from that fact that > every issue can be attacked by a custom small group from a nearly > infinite set, plus a little crowd input. Whatever it is, it clearly > works. > > If Wikimedia itself can't learn how to either develop the same > coalition-building skills, participate within the existing community > process, or stand out of the way—we'll lose something great. > > I think it's unfortunate that the foundation has an apparent > difficulty in _contributing_ without _commanding_. There are areas > where the community's coverage is inadequate or inconsistent, and I > think that dedicated staff acting as gap-fillers could greatly improve > the results. But not if the price of those contributions is to exclude > or pigeonhole the great work done by the broad community, either > directly by "we reached a decision"-type edicts, or indirectly by > removing the personal pride and responsibility that people feel for > the complete site.
+ 1,000,000. On a day to day level, the Wikimedia community has a challenge to solve: what are those gaps, how to fill them, and how to make those solutions part of the community process. And this is really the entire community's challenge, whether there's a specific Foundation involved or not. -- phoebe _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
