On 10/07/14 18:01, David Gerard wrote:
On 10 July 2014 17:36, Isarra Yos <zhoris...@gmail.com> 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 audience, they interact directly with this audience
on the talkpages and in email, and indeed they often use the site exactly as
this audience would, simply taking things a step further to edit as well.
So when they speak for the users who never log in, never edit, and never
comment, do not discount them. No more than you discount yourself when you
try to speak for the users who never log in, never edit, and never comment.
OTOH, typical mind fallacy is rampant everywhere and the results of an
actual decent user survey would probably surprise everyone.
- d.
That was kind of my point - as much as editors do tend deal more
directly with the readers, we've basically got two (rather biased) sides
who both think they know what readers want and thus try to speak for
them. This may not even be an issue, by itself, but unfortunately it's
becoming a rather common tactic among some WMF staff to simply dismiss
community feedback saying things like that the editors simply don't
speak for the readers. But if this is really the case, what gives the
WMF the right to speak for the readers either?
Personally I'm getting rather tired of this.
-I
_______________________________________________
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,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
