Steinsplitter, if you're interested in reviving this, please have the
intellectual honesty of running the RfC again and publicizing it widely. As
others already pointed out, the context of that RfC is nothing like today.
Not only Media Viewer itself changed a lot, with many fixes based on direct
On Mar 14, 2016 23:47, "Fæ" wrote:
> On 14 March 2016 at 22:12, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
> > On 16-03-14 05:01 PM, Vi to wrote:
> >> Ignoring a wide community
> >> consensus is *always* a mistake.
> > It is. I never advocated otherwise.
> > That old
On 14 March 2016 at 22:12, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
> On 16-03-14 05:01 PM, Vi to wrote:
>> Ignoring a wide community
>> consensus is *always* a mistake.
> It is. I never advocated otherwise.
> That old RfC, however, does not show a wide community consensus, let
> alone a
In case anybody believes Wikimedia Foundation personnel have entirely
forgotten this issue, please be assured that is not the case.
Speaking for myself, I'm not convinced that taking action on a two year old
RFC at Commons is the most pressing component
Oh I missed dates, this is a good point then. Ignoring a wide community
consensus is *always* a mistake. Final decisions might even diverge from
consensus but *ignoring* is the worst way.
2016-03-14 21:31 GMT+01:00 Michael Peel :
> That's a good point. I've started a
That's a good point. I've started a discussion on Commons' VP about this at:
> On 14 Mar 2016, at 17:03, Anthony Cole wrote:
> That RFC is 20 months old. That media viewer
I won't take a position on this particular issue, since I rarely visit
Commons, but "Ignore all rules" should categorically not be taken as
"Ignore consensus" or "Ignore other editors". That way lies madness.
On Mar 14, 2016 2:11 PM, "Philippe Beaudette" wrote:
Consensus can and should be ignored when it is detrimental to improving the
end product. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ignore_all_rules is an
applicable cite, I think. It's even categorized as global.
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Vi to wrote:
> Same with
Same with consensus from logged-out users to implement MV.
I have no strong feelings about the issue (anons shouldn't be affected by
MV side effects but also MV is almost useless on Commons) but well,
consensus cannot be ignored.
2016-03-14 15:28 GMT+01:00 Marc A. Pelletier
That RFC is 20 months old. That media viewer is not today's media viewer.
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 11:12 PM, Marc A. Pelletier
> On 16-03-14 10:59 AM, Nathan wrote:
> > the non-participation of
> > non-participants can't render all decisions invalid.
While this might be a valid request, I'm a bit concern about the % of the
participants in the RFC. I don't think it's a good idea for this % of
participant to make a binding decision for an entirely disjoint community many
hundred if not thousand times it size with neither participation nor
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Marc A. Pelletier
> On 16-03-14 10:33 AM, Steinsplitter Wiki wrote:
> > Per commons Policy's the RFC is valid.
> Then the policy is broken. It seems more than a little insane to me
> that an opinion poll having had participation of a
Per commons Policy's the RFC is valid.
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> From: m...@uberbox.org
> Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 10:28:25 -0400
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Disabe Media Viewer for non-logged-in users and
> logged-in users on Wikimedia Commons
> On 16-03-14 10:24 AM,
To whom it may concern,
Pursuant to consensus at Commons:Requests for comment/Media Viewer software
feature the Media Viewer must be switches off for logged in users and logged
out users. The current status is that the feature has been only disabled for
logged in user. This tool is not needed
Mail list logo