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>
