I find the idea that one might discount the views of editors by
claiming that we are ignoring the views of readers a bit bizarre when
discussing a feature that by definition is used by editors.
Consequently any consensus or statistics on feedback from editors that
may have actually used such tools
--
Message: 7
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 13:05:37 +0100
From: Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Message-ID:
Hoi,
You are missing the point completely as far as I am concerned. The
community was involved in defining our strategy. Making our community more
friendly is a strategic choice defined by the strategy project and endorsed
by the board.
I doubt very much that one of our many communities has the
Re OKeyes Switching authorisation and prioritisation over to the editors
completely ignores readers, and assumes that editors will act outside their
own/interests to ensure that reader-specific features do get some
traction; I'm not convinced that the community would want to ignore
readers, I'm
I'm not saying that they would *ignore* readers, just that consistently
taking outside parties into account is something every group finds
difficult. I can see the community noting, in such discussions, that
readers have a stake. I can even see them taking this stake into account
when making
Hoi,
I totally agree that Commons needs tagging and that such tagging will do
much more to help people find the illustrations they are looking for then
the current category and whatever system. WereSpielCheckers we agree on
this. Now let us concentrate on things where we can win.
When Commons has
