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

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

On 13.08.2014 05:57, Pine W wrote:
Two points I have heard off list are that 1. While it may be that 
disabling
MV by default for logged-in users can be done, disabling it for those 
not
logged-in is effectively another major UI change which a study shows 
likely

will make some of them leave and not return; 2. German Wikimedians are
going inactive in protest.

Can someone confirm that both of those points are true?


Point 2 is essentially impossible to confirm. People are coming, 
leaving and sometimes coming back (when I left the Russian Wikipedia in 
2011, most of my opponents just said they are sure I was playing games 
and would be back soon). You never know why they leave, and even if they 
have left a clear message you never know how serious it is. It is quite 
unlikely that on a short term a significant share of active users will 
leave or has left - the German Wikipedia is not the Acehnese Wikipedia, 
and even if a dozen of users would leave at the same time, it can not be 
detected by the editing statistics. The long-time consequences and 
trends can of course be detected but then you would need to reach the 
active users who really have left and asked them why they left - it is 
unlikely anybody would successfully perform such study.


Cheers
Yaroslav

___
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, 

[Wikimedia-l] Låna konfrum fre 11

[Anders Wennersten]

Jag kommer träffa Hangsna IRL på fredag 11.00

Kan vi använda kontorets konfrum?

träffen blir väl cirka en timme
Anders
väldigt kul med Bot Academy och snygg logga du gjort





___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Låna konfrum fre 11

[Jan Ainali]

Hej!

Det går alldeles utmärkt, ni är varmt välkomna!


*Med vänliga hälsningar,Jan Ainali*

Verksamhetschef, Wikimedia Sverige 
0729 - 67 29 48


*Tänk dig en värld där varje människa har fri tillgång till mänsklighetens
samlade kunskap. Det är det vi gör.*
Bli medlem. 



Den 13 augusti 2014 10:17 skrev Anders Wennersten 
:

> Jag kommer träffa Hangsna IRL på fredag 11.00
>
> Kan vi använda kontorets konfrum?
>
> träffen blir väl cirka en timme
> Anders
> väldigt kul med Bot Academy och snygg logga du gjort
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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,
> 
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] is it possible to accept bitcoins without receiving stolen property?

[James Salsman]

Andre Engels wrote:
>...
> When choosing between unwittingly accepting tainted money
> and forcing people to give up their complete financial privacy, I
> find the first option the least morally repugnant one.

"forcing people to give up their complete financial privacy" happens
when people donate with a charge card? I guess that depends on the
definition of "complete."

Todd Allen wrote:
>...
> You do, of course, realize that any currency anyone accepts
> could at some point have been stolen?

Someone with more legal knowledge than I have should probably correct
me if I'm mistaken, but my understanding is that US courts have
recently drawn a sharp distinction between Bitcoins as "property,"
which can be illegal to receive if it has been stolen whether the
recipient is aware of its status or not, as opposed to currency which
is assumed to be free from such encumbrances unless the recipient is
explicitly aware that it is tainted.

Frankly, bitcoin seems to be just another attempt to evade taxes, to
me. Others may have a different impression. It doesn't seem like the
sort of thing that we should be encouraging unless there is evidence
that taxes cause harm.

___
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, 

[Wikimedia-l] @WikipediaZero Twitter account

[Andy Mabbett]

Who owns the @WikipediaZero Twitter account? It's only ever had one
post, and that seems a missed opportunity.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
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, 

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

[svetlana]

On Wed, 13 Aug 2014, at 10:53, Pete Forsyth wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 5:46 PM, svetlana  wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 12 Aug 2014, at 23:42, Romaine Wiki wrote:
> > > 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!
> >
> > if the community was not so willing to use force (ie a js hack) against
> > the other party
> 
> 
> [...]
> 
> You talk about admin accountability, Svetlana -- but what about
> accountability for the WMF, when it makes sweeping changes that (among
> other things) remove any suggestion of an "edit" functionality from "the
> encyclopedia anyone can edit" from millions and millions of pages?
> 
> Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]

Surely this issue can be solved by talking without force: if you don't think 
so, you get force applied to YOU; you started a fight, and lost it. Because you 
went and did something contradicting user preferences; WMF did not. You'd think 
it's "better" because it's "unchanged compared to what it was X months ago", 
and that justifies your thing? No, it does not.

___
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, 

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

[svetlana]

On Wed, 13 Aug 2014, at 12:01, Romaine Wiki wrote:
> 2014-08-13 2:46 GMT+02:00 svetlana :
> > [..]
> [...]
> > instead of talking properly
> >
> > then the superprotect wouldn't exist at all
> >
> > you seeing the problem there? whose problem is it?
> > desire to act out of the blue instead of collaborating
> > they didn't collaborate at all
> > they added the js hack as if it was something urgent, that needs saving
> > people from
> >
> > i would only do this if someone added a virus into mv by mistake
> >
> > this community thinks that its power structures allow to tromp onto other
> > people
> >
> 
> I do not think the community thinks that way.

It doesn't think so inherently, but it lacks some useful habits.

> Members of the community can
> make mistake and staff members of WMF can make mistakes, I think that both
> that community and WMF are grown up enough to correct mistakes if they
> arise. Certainly inside the community are many critical people who watch
> these kind of things carefully and do correct those things when a mistake
> is made.
> 
> The German community did collaborate, did communicate. Having a voting is a
> desperate way of getting the attention of the big problems WMF has too
> little insight in apparently. The community does not think in power
> structures, WMF does.

Writing an RFC is a complicated process. You don't ask people whether they want 
to go backwards, for one; they almost always do, but it is not always a good 
thing.

svetlana

___
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, 

[Wikimedia-l] Writing an RFC is a complicated process. Thoughts? (was: [Wikitech-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you)

[svetlana]

On Wed, 13 Aug 2014, at 20:36, svetlana wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2014, at 12:01, Romaine Wiki wrote:
> > 2014-08-13 2:46 GMT+02:00 svetlana :
> > > [..]
> > [...]
> > > instead of talking properly
> > >
> > > then the superprotect wouldn't exist at all
> > >
> > > you seeing the problem there? whose problem is it?
> > > desire to act out of the blue instead of collaborating
> > > they didn't collaborate at all
> > > they added the js hack as if it was something urgent, that needs saving
> > > people from
> > >
> > > i would only do this if someone added a virus into mv by mistake
> > >
> > > this community thinks that its power structures allow to tromp onto other
> > > people
> > >
> > 
> > I do not think the community thinks that way.
> 
> It doesn't think so inherently, but it lacks some useful habits.
> 
> > Members of the community can
> > make mistake and staff members of WMF can make mistakes, I think that both
> > that community and WMF are grown up enough to correct mistakes if they
> > arise. Certainly inside the community are many critical people who watch
> > these kind of things carefully and do correct those things when a mistake
> > is made.
> > 
> > The German community did collaborate, did communicate. Having a voting is a
> > desperate way of getting the attention of the big problems WMF has too
> > little insight in apparently. The community does not think in power
> > structures, WMF does.
> 
> Writing an RFC is a complicated process. You don't ask people whether they 
> want to go backwards, for one; they almost always do, but it is not always a 
> good thing.
> 
> svetlana

I started drafting some thoughts on what /not to do/ in an RFC.
These thoughts can be found here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment#Guidelines

___
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, 

[Wikimedia-l] Clarification by Lila Tretikov about MediaViewer

[Thehelpfulone]

Forwarding on request.

-- 
Thehelpfulone
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thehelpfulone

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Ad Huikeshoven 
> Date: 13 August 2014 12:40:14 BST
> To: wikimedia-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Clarification by Lila Tretikov about MediaViewer
> 
> Dear fellow Wikipedians and Wikimedians,
> 
> Your work in creating the awesome thing Wikipedia is very much appreciated 
> and you're all recognized for contributing towards it's success. Last weekend 
> I have been to Wikimania. I really enjoyed the presentation by Fabrice Florin 
> about A Culture of Kindness [1]. One of the slide contains a picture of Jimmy 
> Wales holding a sheet of paper on which he has written 'be kind to everyone, 
> including the annoying ones'.
> 
> There have been multiple threads on this list with many postings about 
> actions on the German Wikipedia with respect to MediaViewer. On meta Lila 
> Tretikov has posted several remarks including an additional clarification 
> [2], which I copy below:
> 
> 
> * Our overall communication, design, prioritization, testing, roll-out 
> mechanisms and general product development practices are insufficient and 
> must be brought on-par with our user’s expectations. We are not planning any 
> new major deployments until some of those basic improvements are put into 
> place. This will be done in the open; it is fundamental and urgent. I've 
> touched on it at Wikimania.
> * We are not removing MV.  It has been in production for months. Its removal 
> will cause more problems and confusion for our users.  We will hold ourselves 
> accountable to getting it to the level of quality that is expected of the top 
> site.
> * We are working to post next steps to clarify development and deployment 
> process including rights and responsibilities; you can expect more 
> information in coming days.
> * I encourage you to help us improve our process as a whole as well as this 
> specific feature by offering your time, advice, and collaboration. We will be 
> engaging you on it. Please refrain from making unassisted changes to  the 
> feature’s configuration.
> 
> 
> What Fabrice and Jimmy ask for is to be kind. What I would like to express is 
> that many of the postings about MediaViewer do annoy me, and some are very 
> annoying. What I do ask of my fellow Wikipedians is to continue to contribute 
> to Wikipedia in a kind way, to pay attention to what Lila has posted on meta 
> and which I copied above. 
> 
> Some of you might be curious to learn to know the ideas of Lila. She made a 
> presentation at Wikimania, which can be viewed on line [3]. Please 
> collaborate in the development of processes in a kind way. Thank you.
> ---
> [1] https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions/A_Culture_of_Kindness
> [2] 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALilaTretikov&diff=9501584&oldid=9501543
> [3] http://new.livestream.com/wikimania/saturday2014
> -- 
> Ad Huikeshoven
> 
> Bestuurslid / Board member Wikimedia Nederland
> Internationaal / International Affairs
> Educatieprogramma / Education Program
> 
> tel.(+31) (0)70 3608510
> mob. (+31) (0)6 40293574
> 
> Steun vrije kennis! Kijk op wikimedia.nl 
> Postadres:  Bezoekadres:
> Postbus 167Mariaplaats 3
> 3500 AD  Utrecht Utrecht
> 
> ABNAMRO NL33 ABNA 0497164833 - Kamer van Koophandel 17189036
___
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, 

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

[Magnus Manske]

On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 6:51 AM, rupert THURNER 
wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 6:26 PM, Erik Moeller  wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Magnus Manske
> >  wrote:
>
> >> 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.
>
> hehe, i suppose investing a million $$ to get you turning it off because
> it is
> in your way is probably not the goal :)
>

Well, for a million $$ MediaViewer would be slightly overpriced ;-)



>
> >> 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.
>
> > 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
>
> magnus, do these changes make you turn it on again? if not, what would need
> to be better?
>

I think this is a non-issue. It took one click to get to the image page;
now it takes two. That's my main "problem" with it.
As I said, I'm not the target audience for this. I hope.


>
> i think there is two kinds of feedback. (1) technical / feature / workflow
> issues. like "i cannot tag easy", "esc leaves mediaviewer instead of
> fullscreen", "browser zoom (ctrl-/+) does not work". "X takes one click
> more now". i d love this to be taken into account.
>
> while i find design issues more difficult. the whole user experience
> needs, at least imo, consistency. tinkering here and there
> may quite heavily break that. better would be to encourage
> getting alternative full designs. if this would include how to
> clean the commons page ... but that might be too much :)
>
> rupert
>
> ___
> 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,
> 
>
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] @WikipediaZero Twitter account

[Dan Garry]

I could be mistaken, but I think Tomasz is the owner. CCing him.

Dan


On 13 August 2014 11:19, Andy Mabbett  wrote:

> Who owns the @WikipediaZero Twitter account? It's only ever had one
> post, and that seems a missed opportunity.
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> 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,
> 




-- 
Dan Garry
Associate Product Manager, Mobile Apps
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, 

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

[Pete Forsyth]

On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 3:27 AM, svetlana  wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Aug 2014, at 10:53, Pete Forsyth wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 5:46 PM, svetlana 
> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 12 Aug 2014, at 23:42, Romaine Wiki wrote:
> > > > 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!
> > >
> > > if the community was not so willing to use force (ie a js hack) against
> > > the other party
> >
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > You talk about admin accountability, Svetlana -- but what about
> > accountability for the WMF, when it makes sweeping changes that (among
> > other things) remove any suggestion of an "edit" functionality from "the
> > encyclopedia anyone can edit" from millions and millions of pages?
> >
> > Pete
> > [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
> Surely this issue can be solved by talking without force: if you don't
> think so, you get force applied to YOU; you started a fight, and lost it.


I have advocated using force? Where?! Please don't answer -- I am done with
this thread, it has no basis in reality.


> Because you went and did something contradicting user preferences; WMF did
> not. You'd think it's "better" because it's "unchanged compared to what it
> was X months ago", and that justifies your thing? No, it does not.
>

I don't even know what you're talking about here. But again -- let's let it
go.

Pete
___
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, 

[Wikimedia-l] Call for Volunteers: Wikimania Jury to review bids for 2016

[Manuel Schneider]

Dear all,

soon we will starting the bidding process for Wikimania 2016.

Soon the Wikimania Committee will be kicking off the selection process
for deciding who should host Wikimania 2016.
* https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2016

Request for Proposals (RfP) is being published soon and we want to
invite volunteers to serve on the selection jury. The jury will evaluate
bids and make a recommendation to this committee and the WMF based on
published criteria, reviewing the bids from November onwards until the
final selection is made in December 2014.

This is roughly 30-40 hours' work, and is key to us making Wikimania a
strong, healthy community conference that we all can enjoy. The
Wikimania Committee will select a jury that is a balanced representation
of the community, from a diverse range of backgrounds, sexes, languages,
cultures and regions of the world.

What we are looking for:
* seven members
* geographical diversity
* experience with events of this kind - either outside or inside the
movement, as organiser or long-time Wikimaniac
* members are required to read the Wikimania proposals on Meta Wiki
* members are required to participate in six conference calls to discuss
with each Wikimania proposal team and with the jury, approximate
duration two hours, during the review phase (approx. one to two weeks
around December)

If you would like to serve on the jury, please e-mail Ellie Young
(off-list) eyoung @ wikimedia.org August 24. We will announce the jury
in two weeks' time.

On behalf of the Wikimania Committee with regards,


Manuel
-- 
Manuel Schneider - Chief Information Officer
Wikimedia CH - Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Lausanne, +41 (21) 340 66 22 - www.wikimedia.ch



___
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, 

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

[rupert THURNER]

Am 13.08.2014 15:56 schrieb "Magnus Manske" :
>
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 6:51 AM, rupert THURNER 
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 6:26 PM, Erik Moeller 
wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Magnus Manske
> > >  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.
> >
> > > 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
> >
> > magnus, do these changes make you turn it on again? if not, what would
need
> > to be better?
> >
>
> I think this is a non-issue. It took one click to get to the image page;
> now it takes two. That's my main "problem" with it.
> As I said, I'm not the target audience for this. I hope.

to give back the one click experience one would need two entry points. a
tab or a toolbox link to start mediaviewer, and standard behavior on the
images. for one link more in the gui everybody would be happy?

rupert
___
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, 

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

[Magnus Manske]

On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 6:20 PM, rupert THURNER 
wrote:

> Am 13.08.2014 15:56 schrieb "Magnus Manske" :
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 6:51 AM, rupert THURNER <
> rupert.thur...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 6:26 PM, Erik Moeller 
> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Magnus Manske
> > > >  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.
> > >
> > > > 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
> > >
> > > magnus, do these changes make you turn it on again? if not, what would
> need
> > > to be better?
> > >
> >
> > I think this is a non-issue. It took one click to get to the image page;
> > now it takes two. That's my main "problem" with it.
> > As I said, I'm not the target audience for this. I hope.
>
> to give back the one click experience one would need two entry points. a
> tab or a toolbox link to start mediaviewer, and standard behavior on the
> images. for one link more in the gui everybody would be happy?
>

Thanks for trying, but I wouldn't like to have some "click confusion" to be
added on my part. This is not really the issue that's being discussed here.
Some people felt that MediaViewer is too buggy to be default right now. WMF
disagreed. Disagreement escalated. This needs to calm down again. A quick
single-point tech fix won't make it go away, I'm afraid.

To be clear, I did not vote in the Meinungsbild, because I have no strong
feeling about the MediaViewer one way or the other.

Cheers,
Magnus
___
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, 

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

[Marc A. Pelletier]

On 08/13/2014 01:31 PM, Trillium Corsage wrote:
> [...] that he has affronted "the community."

I've spent no small amount of years involved in the various layers of
administrative/governance/meta aspects of the English Wikipedia and from
this I learned one lesson:

"Whenever someone says 'the community' without qualifying this to an
enumerable set of users means the assertion is definitely false."

There is no such thing as "the community"; we have a huge collection of
communities joined loosely over a number of ambigously shared principles
that often - but not always - move in more or less the same direction.

Anyone who claims to speak for "the community" is - put simply - full of
shit.

-- 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, 

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

[Pete Forsyth]

On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Marc A. Pelletier 
wrote:

> There is no such thing as "the community"; we have a huge collection of
> communities joined loosely over a number of ambigously shared principles
> that often - but not always - move in more or less the same direction.
>
> Anyone who claims to speak for "the community" is - put simply - full of
> shit.
>

So very true! All of the arguments that claim knowledge of what "the
community" wants, or what "the readers" want, need to be regarded with a
strong dose of skepticism, or put aside entirely.

What we are left with is a question: which version is *acceptable*, as an
interim measure, while a more careful decision -- involving things like
research and better executed community consultation -- is made?

In favor of the standard MediaWiki image interface is this: it has been
part of a collection of features that, over a 13 year period, has led to
Wikimedia sites becoming a top 5 web property, and is familiar to all the
millions of people who have interacted with it (in that capacity, and on
other MediaWiki-based sites) in that 13 year period. That is not to say
it's "perfect" or anything close to it, but we do know that it is "good
enough."

In favor of the Media Viewer software is a bunch of inquiry and analysis
done by the WMF's Multimedia Team. The methodology has been widely
criticized, and the results point in various directions. (For example, as I
pointed out here
,
none of the 3 readers consulted by WMF in a User Experience study, although
they were all technically proficient Internet users, were able to find the
"Details" page on Commons using the MV software.)

Restoring the default state of the software to the state that worked for
the last decade is a clear precondition for healthier discussion of a
positive path forward. This is not me drawing a line in the sand, but me
observing what has become readily apparent. I am pretty sure this condition
is outside of anybody's influence at this point -- it is simply the natural
result of a poorly planned and executed product launch.

Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
___
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, 

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

[Trillium Corsage]

13.08.2014, 01:46, "svetlana" :

>
> if the community was not so willing to use force (ie a js hack) against the 
> other party
>
> instead of talking properly
>
> then the superprotect wouldn't exist at all
>
> you seeing the problem there? whose problem is it?
> desire to act out of the blue instead of collaborating
> they didn't collaborate at all
> they added the js hack as if it was something urgent, that needs saving 
> people from
>
> i would only do this if someone added a virus into mv by mistake
>
> this community thinks that its power structures allow to tromp onto other 
> people

I agree with your thinking here Svetlana, but would disagree with your 
terminology that the vocal complainers about superprotect should be shorthanded 
as "the community." That is what they like to think of themselves, but they are 
really a minority of the community. They are the administrative culture. They 
are not really the editors, not really the readers, both of those groups dwarf 
the administrators and administrative participants. 

The community is all the readers, all the editors, and after them in size the 
vocal and visible administrative set. So Mr. Moeller shouldn't feel 
intimidated, and clearly doesn't, when a bunch of very loud people writes 
volumes of complaining text on discussion pages insisting that he has affronted 
"the community."

Trillium Corsage

___
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, 

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

[Michael Peel]

On 13 Aug 2014, at 21:12, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Marc A. Pelletier 
> wrote:
> 
>> There is no such thing as "the community"; we have a huge collection of
>> communities joined loosely over a number of ambigously shared principles
>> that often - but not always - move in more or less the same direction.
>> 
>> Anyone who claims to speak for "the community" is - put simply - full of
>> shit.
>> 
> 
> So very true! All of the arguments that claim knowledge of what "the
> community" wants, or what "the readers" want, need to be regarded with a
> strong dose of skepticism, or put aside entirely.

{{citation needed}}

There are some community members who spend a lot of time thinking about what 
"the community" and "the readers" may want, who actually have a good 
understanding of what is needed to support those stakeholders. There are others 
that say that their views represent the community/readers when they don't. A 
distinction needs to be made there - don't confuse the former with the latter.

Additionally: there is no guarantee that what has worked well in the past will 
continue to work well in the future. The internet is always changing and 
improving, and a lot of organisations that dominated a decade ago now only 
exist in historical record. Wikimedia really needs to match the current state 
of the art, otherwise it will likely also cease to exist. I'd like to see the 
Wikimedia community leading the way with the internet's development, but right 
now it feels like it's lagging by about a decade, and the WMF is having to play 
a leading role to keep it relevant. If the Wikimedia community can catch up 
with the current state of the internet, that would be great, but if it can't 
then supporting the WMF while it does so would make a lot of sense.

Thanks,
Mike
___
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, 

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

[Ziko van Dijk]

A Dutch politician once said in a presentation: 'Sometimes citizens
come to us and say: You don't listen. Then I answer: Well, we do
listen, but we also listen to the millions of inhabitants who have
other opinions.'

Kind regards
Ziko


2014-08-13 22:47 GMT+02:00 Michael Peel :
>
> On 13 Aug 2014, at 21:12, Pete Forsyth  wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Marc A. Pelletier 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> There is no such thing as "the community"; we have a huge collection of
>>> communities joined loosely over a number of ambigously shared principles
>>> that often - but not always - move in more or less the same direction.
>>>
>>> Anyone who claims to speak for "the community" is - put simply - full of
>>> shit.
>>>
>>
>> So very true! All of the arguments that claim knowledge of what "the
>> community" wants, or what "the readers" want, need to be regarded with a
>> strong dose of skepticism, or put aside entirely.
>
> {{citation needed}}
>
> There are some community members who spend a lot of time thinking about what 
> "the community" and "the readers" may want, who actually have a good 
> understanding of what is needed to support those stakeholders. There are 
> others that say that their views represent the community/readers when they 
> don't. A distinction needs to be made there - don't confuse the former with 
> the latter.
>
> Additionally: there is no guarantee that what has worked well in the past 
> will continue to work well in the future. The internet is always changing and 
> improving, and a lot of organisations that dominated a decade ago now only 
> exist in historical record. Wikimedia really needs to match the current state 
> of the art, otherwise it will likely also cease to exist. I'd like to see the 
> Wikimedia community leading the way with the internet's development, but 
> right now it feels like it's lagging by about a decade, and the WMF is having 
> to play a leading role to keep it relevant. If the Wikimedia community can 
> catch up with the current state of the internet, that would be great, but if 
> it can't then supporting the WMF while it does so would make a lot of sense.
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
> ___
> 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, 
> 

___
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, 

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

[Erik Moeller]

On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 10:12 PM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:
> In favor of the Media Viewer software is a bunch of inquiry and analysis
> Restoring the default state of the software to the state that worked for
> the last decade is a clear precondition for healthier discussion of a
> positive path forward.

Dear Pete,

You speak as if there is no cost to disabling and re-enabling an
interface. That is not the case.

As you say, millions of readers use the site. And just like editors,
introducing a new, very different viewing experience - like MV - takes
some time to adjust to. We saw this in survey responses improving over
time where they were initially negative, and we also saw it in some
comments of the type "I am getting used to it now and I like it". (We
also got plenty of "I love this, this is great" type comments.) To the
extent that there are discoverability issues in the current UI, they
are just that: discoverability issues. That doesn't mean if the same
user keeps using the same inteface, they will never click a button -
it means it's harder to figure out than it needs to be.

Some of this was already fixed in production. For example, adding a
label to the "Use this file" button more than doubled its usage. This
is how this stuff works: You instrument, you change, you learn. Other
changes are underway. Turning off the UI completely means readers who
have gotten used to it or who have always enjoyed it will have to
re-learn the old UI, then re-learn the new UI when some (undetermined)
set of conditions are met. That's jarring, confusing, and avoidable.

This is why on all major sites, you see a gradual ramp-up of a new
feature, and continued improvement once it's widely used. Often
there's an opt-in and then an opt-out to ease users into the change.
But once a change is launched, it very rarely gets rolled back unless
it's just clearly not doing what it's supposed to. Yes, we can all
agree that we need to continually raise the bar for how we build
software (without getting into analysis paralysis) -- but that doesn't
mean that reverting (here or in other cases) once there's an ad hoc
vote (or two, or three) is the right thing to do.

No other significantly sized organization follows the development
methodology you're proposing WMF should follow. Certainly, WMF is an
unusual organization, and we have every desire to take concerns
seriously, engage with people, scrutinize data honestly, and work
iteratively to make things better for everyone. What we can't and
won't accept is the idea that admin-reverts of features are an OK way
to try to enforce the outcome of an ad hoc poll or vote.

We can - and should, and do - talk to figure things out. We can - and
should, and do - work out compromises. (And we did indeed agree to
implement a compromise solution for Commons.) But the idea that WMF
always must slavishly execute the result of a poll or vote is neither
rational nor sustainable, nor has it ever been practice --- much less
controversially so in situations where WMF's decisions cannot be
overriden by admins employing JavaScript hacks.

If we're being honest, at the end of the day, a lot of this is about
establishing clear governing principles for the MediaWiki: namespace.
The fact that WMF doesn't implement every vote and indeed has in the
past even been somewhat capricious at times when it did not
(especially when such decisions were made just by a single dev
applying their own best judgment) is not in question. From a
communications perspective, we handled WP:ACTRIAL much more poorly
than we did this (we responded way too late), for example. But you
can't implement WP:ACTRIAL in JavaScript.

But there is no governing principle - documented clearly - that says
you can't disable a feature using the MW: namespace. WMF is saying it
now, and people perceive that (understandably) as a power grab. Fair
enough - it is the explicit extension of existing authority into a
novel domain. Such a change is always contentious and controversial,
but I don't think it was avoidable. If we are to work together
effectively, we need to define areas of competency and responsibility
clearly.

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, 

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

[rupert THURNER]

Am 13.08.2014 21:53 schrieb "Magnus Manske" :
>
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 6:20 PM, rupert THURNER 
> wrote:
>
> > Am 13.08.2014 15:56 schrieb "Magnus Manske" :
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 6:51 AM, rupert THURNER <
> > rupert.thur...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 6:26 PM, Erik Moeller 
> > wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Magnus Manske
> > > > >  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.
> > > >
> > > > > 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
> > > >
> > > > magnus, do these changes make you turn it on again? if not, what
would
> > need
> > > > to be better?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I think this is a non-issue. It took one click to get to the image
page;
> > > now it takes two. That's my main "problem" with it.
> > > As I said, I'm not the target audience for this. I hope.
> >
> > to give back the one click experience one would need two entry points. a
> > tab or a toolbox link to start mediaviewer, and standard behavior on the
> > images. for one link more in the gui everybody would be happy?
> >
>
> Thanks for trying, but I wouldn't like to have some "click confusion" to
be
> added on my part. This is not really the issue that's being discussed
here.
> Some people felt that MediaViewer is too buggy to be default right now.
WMF
> disagreed. Disagreement escalated. This needs to calm down again. A quick
> single-point tech fix won't make it go away, I'm afraid.

haha, yes, if you express it like that i agree. i was suggesting this more
as a permanent solution, in the lines of googles "images" tab when
presenting search results. it is well established and simple to grasp. one
click less to get what one wants, one option less. the user always has both
choices. bugs of course stay bugs. such a media tab would additionally
allow to not only present images out of the article, but some search result
out of commons if desired. later on it might allow a new workflow for
editing by selecting one of the images and have a "include in the article"
choice. the search box could be adjusted to find text or media depending
which tab is selected.

rupert
___
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, 

[Wikimedia-l] A bunch of nobodies

[David Gerard]

Add evidence of your insignificance here!

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/A_bunch_of_nobodies


- 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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A bunch of nobodies

[Michael Peel]

Why?

On 13 Aug 2014, at 22:40, David Gerard  wrote:

> Add evidence of your insignificance here!
> 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/A_bunch_of_nobodies
> 
> 
> - 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, 
> 


___
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, 

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

[Pete Forsyth]

On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Erik Moeller  wrote:

> But the idea that WMF
> always must slavishly execute the result of a poll or vote is neither
> rational nor sustainable,
>

While there may be some who suggest that WMF should do so, I am not one of
them -- and nor are many of my colleagues.

The RfCs are merely one data point. I would like to remind you (though I am
getting tired of repeating my arguments, while you reflect back to me
arguments that are substantially weaker than my own, and attack straw men)
that mere "reader preference" is a ridiculous measurement to regard as
final and binding, for a project that exists to fulfill a mission, and that
developed a clear strategic plan to fulfill that mission. Where in the
strategic plan does it say that "if we feel that the readers are trending
toward accepting something, then it is good?" What if their ultimate
acceptance of that makes them LESS likely to participate in the community,
and MORE likely to merely consume information -- to have ACCESS to
information, rather than to SHARE in our vision?

I do not ask these questions because I want them answered now; I suggest
that they should have been asked and explored long ago. For instance, when
I brought them up in February.[1]

They're still worthwhile to explore carefully now, but as long as the
software remains enabled by default, in defiance of the thoughtful opinions
of a majority of Wikipedians who have weighed in on 3 projects, I predict
that it will be difficult to do so.

-Pete

[1] https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?diff=907392
___
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, 

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

[svetlana]

On Thu, 14 Aug 2014, at 00:50, Pete Forsyth wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 3:27 AM, svetlana  wrote:
> > [...]
> > Surely this issue can be solved by talking without force: if you don't
> > think so, you get force applied to YOU; you started a fight, and lost it.
> 
> 
> I have advocated using force? Where?! Please don't answer -- I am done with
> this thread, it has no basis in reality.

I am being generic. The "you" refers to whoever made the edit which was 
reverted by WMF and super-protected.

___
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, 

[Wikimedia-l] how global.js works? (was: Re: [Wikitech-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you)

[svetlana]

On Thu, 14 Aug 2014, at 07:32, Erik Moeller wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 10:12 PM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:
> > In favor of the Media Viewer software is a bunch of inquiry and analysis
> > Restoring the default state of the software to the state that worked for
> > the last decade is a clear precondition for healthier discussion of a
> > positive path forward.
> 
> Dear Pete,
> 
> [...]
> 
> If we're being honest, at the end of the day, a lot of this is about
> establishing clear governing principles for the MediaWiki: namespace.

This is indeed true.
Why does a global.js or whatever edit override user preference in the first 
place?
I would expect user preferences to run after global.js, and set the onClick 
event back to what it should be (such as, something meaningful where a user has 
MV enabled).

svetlana

___
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, 

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

[MZMcBride]

Erik Moeller wrote:
>This is why on all major sites, you see a gradual ramp-up of a new
>feature, and continued improvement once it's widely used. Often
>there's an opt-in and then an opt-out to ease users into the change.
>But once a change is launched, it very rarely gets rolled back unless
>it's just clearly not doing what it's supposed to. Yes, we can all
>agree that we need to continually raise the bar for how we build
>software (without getting into analysis paralysis) -- but that doesn't
>mean that reverting (here or in other cases) once there's an ad hoc
>vote (or two, or three) is the right thing to do.
>
>No other significantly sized organization follows the development
>methodology you're proposing WMF should follow. Certainly, WMF is an
>unusual organization, and we have every desire to take concerns
>seriously, engage with people, scrutinize data honestly, and work
>iteratively to make things better for everyone. What we can't and
>won't accept is the idea that admin-reverts of features are an OK way
>to try to enforce the outcome of an ad hoc poll or vote.

Is there anything that the German Wikipedia could do to convince you to
disable MediaViewer there? Some percentage of active users showing up to
say so? Some percentage of users (logged-in or otherwise) disabling the
feature? (Presumably we can get stats of some kind.) I'm curious what it
would take for you to change course here.

We should note that your behavior on the German Wikipedia has resulted in
you being blocked there for a month. I get the sense that many people on
the German Wikipedia feel as though there's no way you'll ever be
convinced to disable MediaViewer. And from the comments I've been reading,
this incident, along with others, has done significant damage to both your
reputation and the reputation of the Wikimedia Foundation.

>We can - and should, and do - talk to figure things out. We can - and
>should, and do - work out compromises. (And we did indeed agree to
>implement a compromise solution for Commons.) But the idea that WMF
>always must slavishly execute the result of a poll or vote is neither
>rational nor sustainable, nor has it ever been practice --- much less
>controversially so in situations where WMF's decisions cannot be
>overriden by admins employing JavaScript hacks.

You've not established an overriding interest here. If this issue related
to online harassment or child protection or biographies of living people
or the ability of users to edit or copyright or something else that
matters, it might make sense for you to step in.

But we're discussing an entirely supplementary feature. A few wikis (three
by my count) have tried MediaViewer and have decided that they'd rather
not have it be opt-out on their wiki. Instead they'd prefer that
MediaViewer be opt-in for now. These communities have politely requested
a configuration change, which should be within the purview of Wikimedia
stewards, but MediaWiki doesn't yet have a graphical configuration user
interface. Why deny these seemingly reasonable requests?

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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] how global.js works? (was: Re: [Wikitech-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you)

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
The big question is not so much where and when things happen, the big
question is who supports all the muck. There have been enough instances
where changes to for instance common.js brought down servers.

This is not a zero sum game. It is not as if there are no consequences. I
am certain that the "community" will not be happy when Wikipedia goes black
for them or because of them. So when the totality goes down, who to blame
and who is to fix it .. the "community"?? Will it blame itself or will it
shrug it off like always? Or will it blame the WMF because "it" feels
entitled??
Thanks,
   GerardM


On 14 August 2014 00:54, svetlana  wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Aug 2014, at 07:32, Erik Moeller wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 10:12 PM, Pete Forsyth 
> wrote:
> > > In favor of the Media Viewer software is a bunch of inquiry and
> analysis
> > > Restoring the default state of the software to the state that worked
> for
> > > the last decade is a clear precondition for healthier discussion of a
> > > positive path forward.
> >
> > Dear Pete,
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > If we're being honest, at the end of the day, a lot of this is about
> > establishing clear governing principles for the MediaWiki: namespace.
>
> This is indeed true.
> Why does a global.js or whatever edit override user preference in the
> first place?
> I would expect user preferences to run after global.js, and set the
> onClick event back to what it should be (such as, something meaningful
> where a user has MV enabled).
>
> svetlana
>
> ___
> 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,
> 
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] how global.js works? (was: Re: [Wikitech-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you)

[John Mark Vandenberg]

On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 1:41 PM, Gerard Meijssen
 wrote:
> Hoi,
> The big question is not so much where and when things happen, the big
> question is who supports all the muck. There have been enough instances
> where changes to for instance common.js brought down servers.

Out of interest, when was the last time that a common.js change
brought down the servers?

-- 
John Vandenberg

___
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,