On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:02 PM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
> Or .. sometimes the licensing and attribution information isnt
> correct
In the common case, Media Viewer provides more prominent and
appropriate attribution and license information than the File: page.
The author name, license, lice
There's a easy, clearly accessible, one-click option for disabling
MediaViewer, Todd. Scroll to the bottom of the screen. Click "disable".
Done - it automatically changes your preference.
Risker/Anne
On 11 July 2014 02:44, Todd Allen wrote:
> Risker,
>
> I'm actually not going to disagree wi
Risker,
I'm actually not going to disagree with you in principle. I ultimately see
Media Viewer being used by a good number of users, and said as much from
the start. But I also warned that a bulldozer approach was going to cause
massive blowback, especially after the previous debacles (VE and ACT
While I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, Todd, there were 14,681
users on English Wikipedia alone who had enabled MediaViewer using the Beta
Features preference before it became the default. That's a huge number of
people who were all using it every time they clicked on an image in the
week
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 4:12 PM, MZMcBride 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
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 r
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
On 11 July 2014 00:40, Erik Moeller wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 4:12 PM, MZMcBride 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 10 July 2014 22:21, Juergen Fenn 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 th
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 4:12 PM, MZMcBride 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 use
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 developm
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 3:25 PM, MZMcBride 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:Me
On 10/07/2014, David Gerard wrote:
> On 10 July 2014 23:46, Fæ 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 sugge
On 10 July 2014 23:46, Fæ 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:
http
I am aware they are the same.
John Lewis
On Thursday, 10 July 2014, MZMcBride 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 m
On 10/07/2014, Todd Allen wrote:
> This was clarified as an office action under threat of desysop here:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peteforsyth&diff=616427707&oldid=615757838
Wow. This has fallen apart quickly.
However the WMF's "no" position has been made extremely
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 exp
This was clarified as an office action under threat of desysop here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peteforsyth&diff=616427707&oldid=615757838
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 4:31 PM, John Lewis wrote:
> I don't see any office action at all here. All I see is an administrator
> a
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 wrote:
> Erik Moeller wrote:
> >On
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 wo
Erik Moeller wrote:
>On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 10:03 PM, Pine W 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 immedi
2014-07-10 17:53 GMT+02:00 Brion Vibber :
> 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
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 10:03 PM, Pine W 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_RfC&diff=616407785&oldid=616294249
Erik
--
Erik Möller
VP of Engineering and Product
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:41 AM, David Gerard 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
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
As someone who has engaged with several different grants, in different
roles, through this program (as a grantee, as an advisor, as an interested
volunteer), I would like to wholeheartedly endorse everything Asaf just
said.
Disagreement is a given when money and broad goals involved; if the grant
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 10:15 PM, Pine W 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 fi
On Jul 10, 2014 12:42 PM, "David Gerard" wrote:
>
> On 10 July 2014 19:23, Isarra Yos 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 kin
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
On 10 July 2014 19:23, Isarra Yos 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
>
On 10/07/14 18:01, David Gerard wrote:
On 10 July 2014 17:36, Isarra Yos 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
On 10 July 2014 17:36, Isarra Yos 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
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Pierre-Selim 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 d
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Pierre-Selim
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 administra
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 con
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, Pie
This is exactly why there is an opt-out for the feature.
We don't expect everyone to like everything we make. That's a reality. So
take 10 seconds to go to your preferences and disable it, and you'll never
see it again.
Dan
On Thursday, 10 July 2014, Pierre-Selim wrote:
> Well thank you Brion
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 t
On Jul 10, 2014 10:36 AM, "Isarra Yos" 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
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
On 10/07/2014, 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
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
On 10/07/2014, Wil Sinclair 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
43 matches
Mail list logo
