Re: [Wikimedia-l] Offwiki
On 10/07/2014, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote: ... So, if you're concerned about your username being phished out, then consider creating an account at http://offwiki.org/wiki/Main_Page. Maybe you'll even stick around for a few minutes to see what we've been up to. :) I have been informed that someone has set up an account under my account name on your 'offwiki' website. I presume it's one of the long term fruitcakes obsessed with my personal life. Please block any account that claims to be me, unless I email you otherwise. I am copying to the public list, so that everyone is aware that should anything defamatory have been written publicly under my name on your website, I officially wash my hands of it. By the way, the same goes for the Wikimedia UK website, which has had some rather stupid systematic abuse recently, which has been deleted without me seeing it. As I was falsely accused only recently of abuse over the internet, I would like to reiterate that this crap has nothing to do with me. I suggest if anyone is harassed by someone claiming to be me, either ignore it, or if the abuse is criminal in nature, do not hesitate to report it to the police, along with any IP addresses or header information you can get hold of. I would be *delighted* to hear of someone being prosecuted, as I suspect these are the same people that have harassed me in the past, and have moved on to systematically attempting to discredit or cause me damage, by being abusive in ways that may be interpreted to be me. Fae -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community RfCs about MediaViewer
Perhaps it's time to stop calling self-selected surveys of a tiny subset of our user base community consensus. The vast majority of our user base never logs in, never edits, and never even hears about these RfC pages. Those are the people we're making an encyclopedia for. -- brion On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 10:03 PM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote: This discussion has closed on English Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Media_Viewer/June_2014_RfC Will WMF deactivate MediaViewer on English Wikipedia per community consensus? Also, as WMF probably knows, Commons is currently having a similar discussion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/Media_Viewer_software_feature Thanks, Pine ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community RfCs about MediaViewer
On 10/07/2014, Brion Vibber bvib...@wikimedia.org wrote: Perhaps it's time to stop calling self-selected surveys of a tiny subset of our user base community consensus. The vast majority of our user base never logs in, never edits, and never even hears about these RfC pages. Those are the people we're making an encyclopedia for. Whole heartedly agree that this is a known and recognized limitation of the RfC process, apart from where we are talking about Wikimedia Commons, not the English Wikipedia. Of course it does not invalidate the RfC as a survey of users that do log in, edit and hear about RfC pages. Was there a report from a survey that supported having a MediaViewer specified as rolled-out and better represents the majority user base rather than the volunteer community of contributors? Fae -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community RfCs about MediaViewer
On 10/07/14 15:53, Brion Vibber wrote: Perhaps it's time to stop calling self-selected surveys of a tiny subset of our user base community consensus. The vast majority of our user base never logs in, never edits, and never even hears about these RfC pages. Those are the people we're making an encyclopedia for. -- brion And those who do log in, edit, and comment on RfCs generally do so with the understanding, on some level, that everything they do, that the entire encyclopedia, is for the readers, because without an audience there would be nothing. They know their audience, they interact directly with this audience on the talkpages and in email, and indeed they often use the site exactly as this audience would, simply taking things a step further to edit as well. So when they speak for the users who never log in, never edit, and never comment, do not discount them. No more than you discount yourself when you try to speak for the users who never log in, never edit, and never comment. -I ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community RfCs about MediaViewer
On Jul 10, 2014 10:36 AM, Isarra Yos zhoris...@gmail.com wrote: On 10/07/14 15:53, Brion Vibber wrote: Perhaps it's time to stop calling self-selected surveys of a tiny subset of our user base community consensus. The vast majority of our user base never logs in, never edits, and never even hears about these RfC pages. Those are the people we're making an encyclopedia for. -- brion And those who do log in, edit, and comment on RfCs generally do so with the understanding, on some level, that everything they do, that the entire encyclopedia, is for the readers, because without an audience there would be nothing. They know their audience, they interact directly with this audience on the talkpages and in email, and indeed they often use the site exactly as this audience would, simply taking things a step further to edit as well. So when they speak for the users who never log in, never edit, and never comment, do not discount them. No more than you discount yourself when you try to speak for the users who never log in, never edit, and never comment. -I ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe Yes. Exactly this. I am beyond tired of hearing that those who have volunteered hundreds or thousands of hours per person toward building the greatest educational work in history do not have at heart the interests of those who would use it. If I didn't care, there are plenty of other ways I could spend my free time. We should value those volunteers, and quit belittling their concerns. They made this thing and they keep it running day to day. They deal with readers who get upset or confused about something. They do it for no pay and often very little thanks, for no other reason than that they care deeply about the project and its goals. To say we don't care for the end users of that work is nonsensical and insulting. We differ with you on how to serve those users and our volunteers, who also greatly matter. Stop handwaving that away. Todd ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community RfCs about MediaViewer
In order to anticipate and meet the needs of readers, you have to have a theory of what those needs are, and what will meet them. The RfC process is one way of getting toward such a theory, and the kind of work done by the WMF's Multimedia Team over the last year or so is another. The pros and cons of RFC-based consensus have been pretty well covered by others in this thread, and I won't go through them all again -- but I do want to strongly endorse the point Todd Allen made, that many regular volunteers DO care about the experience of readers, and many of us DO have important insights into how readers, new contributors, etc. experience the site, and what would work for them. The Multimedia Team's approach, on the other hand, seems at this point to be all con, no pro. Many people in the discussions on ENWP, Commons, and MediaWiki have elaborated on the many problems in the methodology. English Wikipedian Nyttend's comment, while phrased a bit more harshly than I would choose, summarizes the points fairly well: Here at Wikipedia, we have a term for [aspects of the Multimedia Team's gathering of statistics]: votestacking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votestacking, which is a form of inappropriate canvassing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CANVASS. Discussions affected by canvassing are not considered to result in consensus, and those engaged in votestacking are shown the door https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLOCK: we do not accept their ideas. -Nyttend https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_Viewer/June_2014_RfCdiff=614906589oldid=614904248 So -- if we are to eschew the RfC process, what better process is available? How are we going to develop a clear shared understanding of the needs of readers, and the best methods to meet those needs? -Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Brion Vibber bvib...@wikimedia.org wrote: Keep in mind also that power users like you have access to power tools: preferences, user scripts, gadgets, and API client applications exist EXACTLY so that you guys can completely customize the entire user experience for your specialized workflows. -- brion On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Pierre-Selim pierre-se...@huard.info wrote: Well thank you Brion, at least that may explains why things are imposed to the editors community and that also explains the high rejection rate from the editors community of the new big features such as VE. For once take time, think about editors workflow. For exemple on french wikipedia we used to have a direct link to Wikimedia Commons (we technically removed the description page proxy), now we have totally lost this feature. So yes you may think it's not important, but as an administrator on Wikimedia Commons it screws my workflow when I see an obvious copyvio on the French Wikipedia. So yes you make software for your users, but I think you're underestimating part of your users that you should not. 2014-07-10 18:36 GMT+02:00 Isarra Yos zhoris...@gmail.com: On 10/07/14 15:53, Brion Vibber wrote: Perhaps it's time to stop calling self-selected surveys of a tiny subset of our user base community consensus. The vast majority of our user base never logs in, never edits, and never even hears about these RfC pages. Those are the people we're making an encyclopedia for. -- brion And those who do log in, edit, and comment on RfCs generally do so with the understanding, on some level, that everything they do, that the entire encyclopedia, is for the readers, because without an audience there would be nothing. They know their audience, they interact directly with this audience on the talkpages and in email, and indeed they often use the site exactly as this audience would, simply taking things a step further to edit as well. So when they speak for the users who never log in, never edit, and never comment, do not discount them. No more than you discount yourself when you try to speak for the users who never log in, never edit, and never comment. -I ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- Pierre-Selim ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community RfCs about MediaViewer
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Pierre-Selim pierre-se...@huard.info wrote: For exemple on french wikipedia we used to have a direct link to Wikimedia Commons (we technically removed the description page proxy), now we have totally lost this feature. So yes you may think it's not important, but as an administrator on Wikimedia Commons it screws my workflow when I see an obvious copyvio on the French Wikipedia. Also, try ctrl+click (cmd+click on OS X) or right-click then open link in new tab. You'll find it opens the Commons description page just as always. (I'd generally expect power users to be using multiple browser tabs already.) -- brion ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community RfCs about MediaViewer
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Pierre-Selim pierre-se...@huard.info wrote: For exemple on french wikipedia we used to have a direct link to Wikimedia Commons (we technically removed the description page proxy), now we have totally lost this feature. Actually, Media Viewer consistently displays a prominent link directly to the file page on Wikimedia Commons for files that are from Commons, and as Brion pointed out, if you skip media viewer (e.g. by ctrl+clicking) the French Wikipedia hack will still kick in as well. 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community RfCs about MediaViewer
On 10 July 2014 17:36, Isarra Yos zhoris...@gmail.com wrote: And those who do log in, edit, and comment on RfCs generally do so with the understanding, on some level, that everything they do, that the entire encyclopedia, is for the readers, because without an audience there would be nothing. They know their audience, they interact directly with this audience on the talkpages and in email, and indeed they often use the site exactly as this audience would, simply taking things a step further to edit as well. So when they speak for the users who never log in, never edit, and never comment, do not discount them. No more than you discount yourself when you try to speak for the users who never log in, never edit, and never comment. OTOH, typical mind fallacy is rampant everywhere and the results of an actual decent user survey would probably surprise everyone. - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community RfCs about MediaViewer
On 10 July 2014 19:23, Isarra Yos zhoris...@gmail.com wrote: On 10/07/14 18:01, David Gerard wrote: OTOH, typical mind fallacy is rampant everywhere and the results of an actual decent user survey would probably surprise everyone. That was kind of my point - as much as editors do tend deal more directly with the readers, we've basically got two (rather biased) sides who both think they know what readers want and thus try to speak for them. This may not even be an issue, by itself, but unfortunately it's becoming a rather common tactic among some WMF staff to simply dismiss community feedback saying things like that the editors simply don't speak for the readers. But if this is really the case, what gives the WMF the right to speak for the readers either? Personally I'm getting rather tired of this. I concur that there's a bit much reasoning from no data, and we could do with some. Anecdotally, (a) I don't mind the new viewer (b) I know a lot of people who've said they love it (c) I know a few who've said they hate it. So yeah, real user surveys needed! - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community RfCs about MediaViewer
On 07/10/2014 02:41 PM, David Gerard wrote: Anecdotally, (a) I don't mind the new viewer (b) I know a lot of people who've said they love it (c) I know a few who've said they hate it. That also matches my anecdotal impression, with perhaps the added apparent correlation between (c) and has been around a long time. I keep saying - half in jest - that our editor community shows all the symptoms of Stockholm syndrome vis-a-vis Mediawiki. They have suffered so long and so much at its torturous hands that they've now feeling sympathy and affection under its choke. So yeah, real user surveys needed! Indeed. That remains a *hard* problem to solve, because any sort of online user survey is necessarily suffering from, at least, self-selection bias. Any brilliant ideas from our metrics people? -- Marc ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community RfCs about MediaViewer
On Jul 10, 2014 12:42 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 10 July 2014 19:23, Isarra Yos zhoris...@gmail.com wrote: On 10/07/14 18:01, David Gerard wrote: OTOH, typical mind fallacy is rampant everywhere and the results of an actual decent user survey would probably surprise everyone. That was kind of my point - as much as editors do tend deal more directly with the readers, we've basically got two (rather biased) sides who both think they know what readers want and thus try to speak for them. This may not even be an issue, by itself, but unfortunately it's becoming a rather common tactic among some WMF staff to simply dismiss community feedback saying things like that the editors simply don't speak for the readers. But if this is really the case, what gives the WMF the right to speak for the readers either? Personally I'm getting rather tired of this. I concur that there's a bit much reasoning from no data, and we could do with some. Anecdotally, (a) I don't mind the new viewer (b) I know a lot of people who've said they love it (c) I know a few who've said they hate it. So yeah, real user surveys needed! - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe I agree that's sorely needed. We would need a few things to ensure it would work: --A neutral question. Do you prefer A or B for...?. Half the takers get the new stuff as A, half get the old. No front loading of the results. --No self selection of participants. That's not easy but is necessary. People who take the time to self select may be more likely to perceive a problem. --Getting real feedback and actually analyzing it. Why did people like A or B? Is it for reasons that make sense to default it for logged in editors as well as casual readers? A lot of friction could be reduced if editors' workflows were not unexpectedly disrupted. --Publishing full (anonymized) results (not a summary only) and methodologies prominently. If we can do that, I'm all for the survey. Otherwise, it's useless. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] 2014-15 Annual Plan of the Wikimedia Foundation
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 10:15 PM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote: Thank you for the update, Alex. I find it problematic that WMF would override a community grantmaking committee that WMF previously had agreed to work with, especially if the override is to approve a proposal. I understand that WMF might find a reason to decline a grant after committee approval because WMF finds something in its due diligence process that is unacceptable such as that the grantee has overdue reports on prior grants, but if a grantmaking committee develops consensus against a proposal and WMF approves it anyway, I think that is a problem, it shows a lack of trust, and it suggests that the WMF isn't serious about its own grantmaking process. As Alex explained above, the committee's role is advisory (to both WMF and applicants) and implicit in that is that its opinions -- while always taken carefully into account -- can and (rarely) will be in opposition to the final decision. That's been the committee's design from the start, and we are not breaking any agreement (as you seem to imply by previously had agreed to work with) in doing so. We are doing our job. Also contrary to what you say, we are yet to approve a proposal against which the committee has develop[ed] consensus. Take another look at the examples you brought yourself -- one oppose vote in a committee of 28 does not consensus make. I appreciate the flexibility of GAC's process but apparently the current system is not working, as everyone seems to agree. I disagree. In fact no one agrees the system is not working, as far as I can tell, except you. On the contrary the system, i.e. the Project and Event Grants program, is working fairly well, _despite_ a less-than-desired level of participation in its advisory committee. While that is certainly something we are endeavoring to improve (recognizing, of course, it is ultimately up to the committee members, but we can improve ways and means), it should not be taken to mean the system is not working. I am curious, what alternatives are you exploring? You are welcome to read all about it[1][2][3]. Cheers, Asaf [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:PEG/Grant_Advisory_Committee/Revamp [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:PEG/Grant_Advisory_Committee/Revamp [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grant_Advisory_Committee/Revamp_Discussion -- Asaf Bartov Wikimedia Foundation http://www.wikimediafoundation.org Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! https://donate.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community RfCs about MediaViewer
Hoi, Do appreciate that when you show others the door, you stop conversation. Using such terminology in a confrontation like this can only backfire. Truly, I love Wikidata to bits however its RfC process is as broken as most. People pontificate, do not listen and, the arguments are intentionally academic both in being often irrelevant and often full of terminology that escapes understanding. I have to use this process because there is no alternative... I HATE IT. Thanks, GerardM On 10 July 2014 19:41, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote: In order to anticipate and meet the needs of readers, you have to have a theory of what those needs are, and what will meet them. The RfC process is one way of getting toward such a theory, and the kind of work done by the WMF's Multimedia Team over the last year or so is another. The pros and cons of RFC-based consensus have been pretty well covered by others in this thread, and I won't go through them all again -- but I do want to strongly endorse the point Todd Allen made, that many regular volunteers DO care about the experience of readers, and many of us DO have important insights into how readers, new contributors, etc. experience the site, and what would work for them. The Multimedia Team's approach, on the other hand, seems at this point to be all con, no pro. Many people in the discussions on ENWP, Commons, and MediaWiki have elaborated on the many problems in the methodology. English Wikipedian Nyttend's comment, while phrased a bit more harshly than I would choose, summarizes the points fairly well: Here at Wikipedia, we have a term for [aspects of the Multimedia Team's gathering of statistics]: votestacking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votestacking, which is a form of inappropriate canvassing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CANVASS. Discussions affected by canvassing are not considered to result in consensus, and those engaged in votestacking are shown the door https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLOCK: we do not accept their ideas. -Nyttend https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_Viewer/June_2014_RfCdiff=614906589oldid=614904248 So -- if we are to eschew the RfC process, what better process is available? How are we going to develop a clear shared understanding of the needs of readers, and the best methods to meet those needs? -Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Brion Vibber bvib...@wikimedia.org wrote: Keep in mind also that power users like you have access to power tools: preferences, user scripts, gadgets, and API client applications exist EXACTLY so that you guys can completely customize the entire user experience for your specialized workflows. -- brion On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Pierre-Selim pierre-se...@huard.info wrote: Well thank you Brion, at least that may explains why things are imposed to the editors community and that also explains the high rejection rate from the editors community of the new big features such as VE. For once take time, think about editors workflow. For exemple on french wikipedia we used to have a direct link to Wikimedia Commons (we technically removed the description page proxy), now we have totally lost this feature. So yes you may think it's not important, but as an administrator on Wikimedia Commons it screws my workflow when I see an obvious copyvio on the French Wikipedia. So yes you make software for your users, but I think you're underestimating part of your users that you should not. 2014-07-10 18:36 GMT+02:00 Isarra Yos zhoris...@gmail.com: On 10/07/14 15:53, Brion Vibber wrote: Perhaps it's time to stop calling self-selected surveys of a tiny subset of our user base community consensus. The vast majority of our user base never logs in, never edits, and never even hears about these RfC pages. Those are the people we're making an encyclopedia for. -- brion And those who do log in, edit, and comment on RfCs generally do so with the understanding, on some level, that everything they do, that the entire encyclopedia, is for the readers, because without an audience there would be nothing. They know their audience, they interact directly with this audience on the talkpages and in email, and indeed they often use the site exactly as this audience would, simply taking things a step further to edit as well. So when they speak for the users who never log in, never edit, and never comment, do not discount them. No more than you discount yourself when you try to speak for the users who never log in, never edit, and never comment. -I ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community RfCs about MediaViewer
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:41 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: I concur that there's a bit much reasoning from no data, and we could do with some. Anecdotally, (a) I don't mind the new viewer (b) I know a lot of people who've said they love it (c) I know a few who've said they hate it. So yeah, real user surveys needed! We do have user surveys for MediaViewer and did advertise them quite prominently (see design notes https://wikimedia.mingle.thoughtworks.com/projects/multimedia/cards/261 and analysis of results https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Multimedia/Media_Viewer/Survey; they ran for about a month on enwiki). They turned out to be not so useful; there was usually a large number of responses right after the launch, which were predominantly negative, and a smaller number of predominantly positive responses after that. That can be interpreted in very different ways - could be change aversion, with most users warming up to the new interface after a week or two; it could the effect of bugfixes and added features (after every rollout we quickly fixed the most reported problems); it could even be possible that most users don't like the tool and those who do wait longer before responding for some reason. Also, editors are still way overrepresented (in the enwiki survey results respondents self-identifying as noneditors / casual editors / active editors are somewhere around 40% / 40% / 20%, while the actual ratio is more like 99% / 0.99% / 0.1%), with the more underrepresented groups having a significantly more positive opinion. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community RfCs about MediaViewer
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 10:03 PM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote: Will WMF deactivate MediaViewer on English Wikipedia No. Detailed explanation: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Media_Viewer/June_2014_RfCdiff=616407785oldid=616294249 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community RfCs about MediaViewer
2014-07-10 17:53 GMT+02:00 Brion Vibber bvib...@wikimedia.org: Perhaps it's time to stop calling self-selected surveys of a tiny subset of our user base community consensus. The vast majority of our user base never logs in, never edits, and never even hears about these RfC pages. Those are the people we're making an encyclopedia for. I don't intend to bother you when you are making an encyclopædia, Brion, but if this is the stance the Wikimedia Foundation takes it's time for me to leave the project. I expect the Wikimedia Foundation to respect a community consensus. If you think you have another community of crowdsourcing workers then go ahead. I won't tolerate this. Regards, Jürgen. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community RfCs about MediaViewer
Erik Moeller wrote: On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 10:03 PM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote: Will WMF deactivate MediaViewer on English Wikipedia No. Erik has stepped in and employed an office action to re-enable Media Viewer on the English Wikipedia. Erik, can you please explain what emergency necessitated immediate (and likely unprecedented) action here? MZMcBride ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wikimedia-l] Deprecating print-on-demand functionality
Since 2008, we've offered a small feature to download printed books from Wikipedia article. This is done in partnership with a company called PediaPress. They've sold about 15K books over that time period, not enough to break even, and the support/maintenance burden for the service is no longer worth it for them. We'll disable this feature in coming weeks. We'd only continue to offer it if there's 1) strong community interest in maintaining it, and 2) a partner who steps up to provide the service. We'll continue to provide PDF downloads (soon with a new rendering engine). 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community RfCs about MediaViewer
This was clarified as an office action under threat of desysop here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peteforsythdiff=616427707oldid=615757838 On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 4:31 PM, John Lewis johnflewi...@gmail.com wrote: I don't see any office action at all here. All I see is an administrator acting per what a WMF staffer has said. The code added as explained on the page; disables the feature fully and does not allow any opt ins. John Lewis On Thursday, 10 July 2014, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: Erik Moeller wrote: On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 10:03 PM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com javascript:; wrote: Will WMF deactivate MediaViewer on English Wikipedia No. Erik has stepped in and employed an office action to re-enable Media Viewer on the English Wikipedia. Erik, can you please explain what emergency necessitated immediate (and likely unprecedented) action here? MZMcBride ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; ?subject=unsubscribe -- John Lewis ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community RfCs about MediaViewer
John Lewis wrote: I don't see any office action at all here. All I see is an administrator acting per what a WMF staffer has said. Sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about here. I think you may not realize that Erik and Eloquence are the same person? For reference: --- Per Fabrice's explanation, please refrain from further edits to the site JavaScript, or I will have to temporarily revoke your admin privileges. This is a WMF action.--Eloquence* 20:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC) --- Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=616427707diffonly=1 MZMcBride ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community RfCs about MediaViewer
On 10/07/2014, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote: This was clarified as an office action under threat of desysop here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peteforsythdiff=616427707oldid=615757838 Wow. This has fallen apart quickly. However the WMF's no position has been made extremely clear to all of us unpaid volunteers. That's a good thing I guess, as there is no point in us volunteers wasting more of our time having an opinion, or expressing our opinion. Fae -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community RfCs about MediaViewer
I am aware they are the same. John Lewis On Thursday, 10 July 2014, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: John Lewis wrote: I don't see any office action at all here. All I see is an administrator acting per what a WMF staffer has said. Sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about here. I think you may not realize that Erik and Eloquence are the same person? For reference: --- Per Fabrice's explanation, please refrain from further edits to the site JavaScript, or I will have to temporarily revoke your admin privileges. This is a WMF action.--Eloquence* 20:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC) --- Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=616427707diffonly=1 MZMcBride ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; ?subject=unsubscribe -- John Lewis ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community RfCs about MediaViewer
On 10 July 2014 23:46, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote: However the WMF's no position has been made extremely clear to all of us unpaid volunteers. You're not on en:wp, so are not part of the us in question. - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community RfCs about MediaViewer
On 10/07/2014, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 10 July 2014 23:46, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote: However the WMF's no position has been made extremely clear to all of us unpaid volunteers. You're not on en:wp, so are not part of the us in question. - d. Dear David, Get off my back please. I suggest you get your facts straight before making false allegations. Fae -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community RfCs about MediaViewer
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 3:25 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: Erik, can you please explain what emergency necessitated immediate (and likely unprecedented) action here? Please see Fabrice Florin's explanation, as linked in my original response: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Media_Viewer/June_2014_RfCdiff=616407785oldid=616294249 It's longstanding WMF policy and practice to apply judgment to community RFCs and requests regarding software and configuration changes on a case-by-case basis, depending on the nature of the requested change, the level of participation, the impact on readers/editors, etc. In this case, we will keep the feature enabled by default (it's easy to turn off, both for readers and editors), but we'll continue to improve it based on community feedback (as has already happened in the last few weeks). 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community RfCs about MediaViewer
Erik Moeller wrote: In this case, we will keep the feature enabled by default (it's easy to turn off, both for readers and editors), but we'll continue to improve it based on community feedback (as has already happened in the last few weeks). Thanks for the reply. :-) If your feature development model seemingly requires forcing features on users, it's probably safe to say that it's broken. If you're building cool new features, they will ideally be uncontroversial and users will actively want to enable them and eventually have them enabled by default. Many new features (e.g., the improved search backend) are deployed fairly regularly without fanfare or objection. But I see a common thread among unsuccessful deployments of features such as ArticleFeedbackv5, VisualEditor, and MediaViewer. Some of it is the people involved, of course, but the larger pattern is a fault in the process, I think. I wonder how we address this. MZMcBride ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community RfCs about MediaViewer
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 4:12 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: Many new features (e.g., the improved search backend) are deployed fairly regularly without fanfare or objection. Indeed, change-aversion tends to correlate pretty strongly with impact on existing workflows [1] and noticeable changes to user experience and behavior. This is pretty clearly laid out by a Google UX researcher here: https://www.gv.com/lib/change-aversion-why-users-hate-what-you-launched-and-what-to-do-about-it Media Viewer is actually a perfect example of this -- most of the functionality people expect (get to the File: page, see a summary, see categories, get the full-size version, get multiple resolutions, see attribution information, etc.) is there; it just takes a little while to get used to it being in a different place, and a negative first reaction is perfectly understandable. It's normal and expected that the first reaction to noticeable user experience changes will often be negative. This is why we shouldn't base decision-making solely on early-stage RFCs and first reactions. Just look at the responses to major redesigns by Flickr, NYT, and others -- almost universally negative, irrespective of what the data actually says about user and readership growth or decline as a consequence of these changes. The difference between us and more corporate approaches to product and user experience design is that we work very closely with the community in the product development cycle, and Media Viewer is again a good example of a multi-month development process with lots of community participation and consultation and a dedicated community liaison (Keegan) supporting the process throughout. But we'll still face the normal patterns of first reactions described in the article above. For this reason, we need to apply judgment on a case-by-case basis when interpreting these types of responses. Erik [1] http://xkcd.com/1172/ -- Erik Möller VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community RfCs about MediaViewer
On 10 July 2014 22:21, Juergen Fenn schneeschme...@googlemail.com wrote: I don't intend to bother you when you are making an encyclopædia, Brion, but if this is the stance the Wikimedia Foundation takes it's time for me to leave the project. I expect the Wikimedia Foundation to respect a community consensus. If you think you have another community of crowdsourcing workers then go ahead. I won't tolerate this. Regards, Jürgen. The reallit is that an RFC edited by 131 people total is rather borderline in terms of community consensus with regards to new features and significantly lower than [[Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Default State RFC]]. There is also the factor that any new design results in a certain degree of backlash. Sure the design has problems (I've just noticed that links to images will break if the page they are on moves) but so did monobook and vector when they were first released some of the issues have been fixed and most people have got used to using skins other than classic and don't complain that much. There is also the political side that English wikipedia has resisted several fairly major changes. Pending changes, Visual editor and article rating. The opposition to flow is already starting to dig in. While I'd hope the Visual editor mess isn't held against us there is the issue that a pattern is starting to emerge. The WMF probably can't afford to lose another public facing project to English Wikipedia intransigence. -- geni ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community RfCs about MediaViewer
Hey guys, I use MediaViewer, I like it, and I am happy to trust the WMF product team to build stuff. I didn't know about the RFC, but even if I had I would've been unlikely to have participated, because I don't think small opt-in discussions are the best way to do product development -- certainly not at the scale of Wikipedia. I think we should aim on this list to be modest rather than overreaching in terms of what we claim to know, and who we imply we're representing. It's probably best to be clear --both in the mails we write and in our own heads privately-- that what's happening here is a handful of people talking on a mailing list. We can represent our own opinions, and like David Gerard we can talk anecdotally about what our friends tell us. But I don't like it when people here seem to claim to speak on behalf of editors, or users, or readers, or the community. It strikes me as hubristic. Thanks, Sue On 10 Jul 2014 16:13, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: Erik Moeller wrote: In this case, we will keep the feature enabled by default (it's easy to turn off, both for readers and editors), but we'll continue to improve it based on community feedback (as has already happened in the last few weeks). Thanks for the reply. :-) If your feature development model seemingly requires forcing features on users, it's probably safe to say that it's broken. If you're building cool new features, they will ideally be uncontroversial and users will actively want to enable them and eventually have them enabled by default. Many new features (e.g., the improved search backend) are deployed fairly regularly without fanfare or objection. But I see a common thread among unsuccessful deployments of features such as ArticleFeedbackv5, VisualEditor, and MediaViewer. Some of it is the people involved, of course, but the larger pattern is a fault in the process, I think. I wonder how we address this. MZMcBride ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community RfCs about MediaViewer
If you don't want to do small opt-in trials, release software in a fully production-ready and usable state. What's getting released here is barely ready for beta. It's buggy, it's full of unexpected UX issues, it's not ready to go live on one of the top 10 websites in the world. It's got to be in really good shape to get there. Until software is actually ready for widescale use, small and very limited beta tests are exactly the way to go, followed by maybe slightly larger UAT pools. Yeah, that takes longer and requires actual work to find willing testers. Quit taking shortcuts through your volunteers. On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 10:40 PM, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote: Hey guys, I use MediaViewer, I like it, and I am happy to trust the WMF product team to build stuff. I didn't know about the RFC, but even if I had I would've been unlikely to have participated, because I don't think small opt-in discussions are the best way to do product development -- certainly not at the scale of Wikipedia. I think we should aim on this list to be modest rather than overreaching in terms of what we claim to know, and who we imply we're representing. It's probably best to be clear --both in the mails we write and in our own heads privately-- that what's happening here is a handful of people talking on a mailing list. We can represent our own opinions, and like David Gerard we can talk anecdotally about what our friends tell us. But I don't like it when people here seem to claim to speak on behalf of editors, or users, or readers, or the community. It strikes me as hubristic. Thanks, Sue On 10 Jul 2014 16:13, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: Erik Moeller wrote: In this case, we will keep the feature enabled by default (it's easy to turn off, both for readers and editors), but we'll continue to improve it based on community feedback (as has already happened in the last few weeks). Thanks for the reply. :-) If your feature development model seemingly requires forcing features on users, it's probably safe to say that it's broken. If you're building cool new features, they will ideally be uncontroversial and users will actively want to enable them and eventually have them enabled by default. Many new features (e.g., the improved search backend) are deployed fairly regularly without fanfare or objection. But I see a common thread among unsuccessful deployments of features such as ArticleFeedbackv5, VisualEditor, and MediaViewer. Some of it is the people involved, of course, but the larger pattern is a fault in the process, I think. I wonder how we address this. MZMcBride ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
