Hi all, I am willing to support a more detailed RfC policy that describes
where and how notices should be distributed for different kinds of RfCs,
although for the MV RfC I feel notice was adequate and there was lots of
opportunity for anyone who felt that notice was inadequate, including WMF,
to s
On 14 July 2014 09:55, Michael Snow wrote:
> On 7/14/2014 4:43 AM, Andrew Gray wrote:
>
>> I've been doing some thinking about this over the past year or so,
>> bubbling away in the back of my mind, after a talk at last Wikimania -
>> would there be any interest/usefulness if I sat down and tried
On 7/14/2014 4:43 AM, Andrew Gray wrote:
I've been doing some thinking about this over the past year or so,
bubbling away in the back of my mind, after a talk at last Wikimania -
would there be any interest/usefulness if I sat down and tried to dump
it into a "how to run a large project RFC, and
Pine,
please read what risker said in this thread. It is not about proper paperwork,
it is about choosing who to reach and what to communicate to them.
Communicate with multimedia team about getting an objective picture and doing
the statistics right.
This is a broad interesting topic that, as
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 1:40 AM, Pine W wrote:
> Hi Gryllida,
>
> As I said on the Arbcom case page, RfCs result in changes to Wikipedia on a
> regular basis despite having a small numbers of participants in each RfC,
> and current English Wikipedia policy does not require a minimum number of
> p
I'd agree with Risker more or less wholeheartedly - communication is a
multilateral thing not a unilateral thing, and I think we dropped the
ball on handling this discussion properly.
This certainly isn't new - holding a large-scale community discussion
is *hard* and both the community and WMF ten
It's time to face reality here: The WMF didn't screw up this RFC, we the
English Wikipedia community did.
When we have RFCs that are of interest to a broad portion of the community
and will have an impact on the entire community, we do certain things. We
advertise it on the watchlist. We arrang
Hi Gryllida,
As I said on the Arbcom case page, RfCs result in changes to Wikipedia on a
regular basis despite having a small numbers of participants in each RfC,
and current English Wikipedia policy does not require a minimum number of
participants beyond what is necessary to establish consensus.
Pine and all,
Please read here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Media_Viewer/June_2014_RfC#Proposal_to_reach_consistency.2Fagreement_first.2C_before_actioning_this_RfC
Gryllida.
On Thu, 10 Jul 2014, at 15:03, Pine W wrote:
> This discussion has closed on English Wikipedia:
> https:
I have requested that the Board clarify WMF policy about office actions
with regard to the software features of wikis.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard#Request:_clarify_policy_for_on-wiki_Office_actions
Pine
On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 1:05 AM, Pine W wrote:
I have made a suggestion to the WMF Board. See
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard#Suggestion_for_the_Board:_Technology_Committee
In the near future, I plan to look at the policies surrounding office
actions as they apply to product decisions made by local commun
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Gergo Tisza wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 3:58 AM, Todd Allen wrote:
>
> > That doesn't, however, help the concern that millions of users are
> pulling
>
> up the images without immediately seeing the license requirements and
>
> author information.
>
>
> To t
On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 12:22 AM, Gergo Tisza wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 3:58 AM, Todd Allen wrote:
>
> > That doesn't, however, help the concern that millions of users are
> pulling
>
> up the images without immediately seeing the license requirements and
>
> author information.
>
>
> To
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 3:58 AM, Todd Allen wrote:
> That doesn't, however, help the concern that millions of users are pulling
up the images without immediately seeing the license requirements and
author information.
To the contrary, Media Viewer displays the license, author and source as an
On 11 July 2014 00:40, Erik Moeller wrote:
> change-aversion tends to correlate pretty strongly with impact
> on existing workflows and noticeable changes to user experience
> and behavior.
It's interesting to read that claim in the content of my "aversion" to
the unexpected removal of the very
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 4:21 AM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_presidential_election,_2014
> http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Indonesian_presidential_election,_2014
>
> The photo of Prabowo in MV has a caption of 'Prabowo wapres'
This happens to be the file'
On 10/07/2014, Erik Moeller wrote:
> 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
Folks
'On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 4:53 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> 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 lice
There is now. There wasn't originally, or if there was, it didn't show up
for me. That was one of the main initial problems, and that's pretty basic
stuff. I already figured out how to get rid of it, but it took a good deal
of digging at the time to even find out that I could.
So, yes, it's good t
Sue,
You have gotten your logic exactly backwards here.
Of course David is right -- we should all have some humility about things
that we don't, and can't, know.
But the people who express certainty about what readers need -- the people
who assert that those needs are paramount, and trump the ne
I agree with Erik here. Media Viewer may have some bugs that need to be
fixed. But there are plenty of issues in other places too (like license
tags). They also need to improved. See this ongoing discussion. [1]
See my comment on RfC on Commons. [2]
Jee
Links:
1.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w
Just a note that I am drafting a request to the Board about governance of
WMF product launches. Similar problems have happened enough times that
I think the Board needs to step in with a more active role. I am also
taking
a look at the policies around office actions as they relate to product
launch
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
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
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
Has a bug request been filed?
On 10 July 2014 15:03, Pine W 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 probabl
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.wikimedi
63 matches
Mail list logo
