All,

I just want to call your attention to Lila's statement at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LilaTretikov#On_a_Scale_of_Billions
.

pb


*Philippe Beaudette * \\  Director, Community Advocacy \\ Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc.
 T: 1-415-839-6885 x6643 |  phili...@wikimedia.org  |  :  @Philippewiki
<https://twitter.com/Philippewiki>


On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Magnus Manske <magnusman...@googlemail.com>
wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Henning Schlottmann <
> h.schlottm...@gmx.net>
> wrote:
>
> > On 12.08.2014 16:57, Magnus Manske wrote:
> > > German Wikipedia had 1.1 billion page views in June [1]. ~300 votes
> (~2/3
> > > against MediaViewer) do not represent the readers, IMHO.
> >
> > Claiming to speak for a perceived silent majority will not help you much
> > in this discussion.
> >
>
> I do not make any such claim. All I say is that the 300 (is there a movie
> plot here?) do not necessarily speak for it, either.
>
>
> >
> > There is a common pattern in the conflicts between WMF and several
> > communities over software developments during the last few years. As I
> > wrote two weeks ago to Rachel:
> >
> > | Decision making seems to be focused on reader experience, including
> > | winning readers to become authors, but existing authors and their
> > | experience (in both meanings of the word) is ignored. Even by people |
> > like Eric, who once was a prolific author himself
> >
> > | Authors see themselves as the single most important group in the
> > |Wikimedia universe. Without their content, there would be nothing: No
> > | readers, no fundraising banners, no donations, no employees, no
> > | foundation. On the other hand, WMF seems to see the readers (and
> > | donors) as their main target audience. Of course WMF knows, that all
> > | the projects need content and authors, but in my opinion most of them
> > | fail in appreciating the existing authors and focus too much on
> > | winning readers to become authors, by simplifying the entry.
> >
> > This is serious. WMF really needs to appreciate the expertise of the
> > author community and accept their experience a important and valid. If
> > authors tell the WMF and particularly the devs, that a particular
> > function is necessary, then the devs really, really need to think.
> >
>
> I do agree with this. Visual Editor (which works much better these days)
> and MediaViewer are not aimed at the experienced editor. They aim to make
> the reader more comfortable, and try to ease the first steps into editing.
> Winning new editors has been deemed a priority, somewhat at the expense of
> WMF-made support for the power user. This is a judgement call the
> Foundation has to make.
>
>
> >
> > If the community tells the devs, that a particular idea is a bad one, a
> > feature is too buggy to be rolled out (as default) or is unsuitable for
> > a project at all, this warrants more than just a cursory thought.
> >
> > A formal RfD must not be taken lightly, overruling it by creating a
> > whole new user class, and crippling the elected admins is inpermissible.
> > WMF has broken trust again and this time in a unprecedented way.
> >
>
> As Erik pointed out, WMF had made it quite clear that they reserve the
> right to overrule the community in that specific matter, before the
> Meinungsbild was done. WMF then acted as announced, and refused to be
> "hacked" out of their own servers. An unfortunate escalation on both sides,
> but since they never promised to accept the Meinungsbild (quite the
> opposite!), it was not a breach of trust.
>
>
> >
> > Until this event, I thought the dev process to be broken, not just the
> > communication around devs. But now I believe the conflict runs deeper.
> >
>
> It points out an issue we (community and WMF) should discuss, in a more
> general sense. What should the decision process be for technical changes?
> When does the Foundation get precendence, and when should the community
> have the last word? What weight should small-scale "votes" of editors have?
> Should random polls be done, and included in such votes? Etc.
>
> The MediaViewer "affair" itself gets blown out of proportion IMO.
>
>
> 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,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
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>

Reply via email to