Erik said: >We are very open to continuing the discussion about how the feature >should be configured, how it should be improved, and how it should be >integrated in the site experience
The message that is being given, though is, to quote Mathilda "I'm smart; you're dumb; I'm big, you're little; *I'm right, you're wrong*, and there's nothing you can do about it." And this continues in this post. Assuming for example that those who do not opt-out "support" the media viewer. Let me just make my position on the media viewer clear, since I am being uncharacteristically vocal on this subject. I am undecided, but I think it is probably a good thing. However when I hear respected communities saying there are functional and legal problems, I am inclined to believe them. I support therefore the "not-yet" faction. Personally I find it irritating (and at the same time potentially very cool), but I keep it on because I want to see what the bulk of our readers see. So there are interconnecting layers of issues here - and I think they are clear, but I will lay them out in case we are talking at cross purposes. 1. Erik's actions. This sort of thing happens a lot on on-line communities (and elsewhere - see the Crimea!) and I did not get too excited about the socially inept blundering on en:WP. But to repeat the same script on German Wikipedia within a few days shows a lack of wisdom unbecoming to "Deputy Director". 2. The specific question of Media Viewer. That I believe can be resolved, and is all about "not yet", it should never have been allowed to cause drama. I would like to see some metrics for the value delivered by the Media Viewer, though, rather than "Flikr does it, it must be good". I am disappointed after a mostly unusable Visual Editor was released with content breaking bugs that another project is being forced down the same path - Erik's comment "That's no way to develop software" rings rather hollow in this context. 3. The ongoing question of software development. The WMF is supposed to "to empower and engage" the communities to disseminate content "effectively and globally." It is not supposed to run with its own agenda. Bugs and feature requests by the community are allowed to stand unattended for years - one was closed (WONTFIX) because of an off-hand comment made by a dev on a mailing list! Meanwhile "nice to have" features absorb apparently huge amounts of financial and staff resoruces. In the style re-work, extensive feedback was solicited and provided - and ignored when it didin't suit. (Notably a/b testing, mixing serif and sans, and using typefaces where the glyphs are more distinct) 4. The culture at the Foundation needs to be more focussed on collaborative and collegial work with the communities. The Foundation is an essential part of the Movement, if it did not exist it would be necessary to invent it. However it is not the senior partner, certainly not in terms of age or resource, and, due to the open licensing, not in content. To work effectively with the community the Foundation needs to consider the community as its customer, be responsive to its needs and wants, in this way it can deliver on its charitable objectives. Note: This does not mean a namby-pamby relationship, but rather a robust one, where evidence based decisions can be made jointly and collegialy. Indeed one value add from having an organisation like the WMF is the resource to gather significant evidence on usability, readability, accessibility, clarity, interrogability and so forth. On 14 August 2014 14:35, David Gerard <[email protected]> wrote: > On 14 August 2014 13:56, David Cuenca <[email protected]> wrote: > > > It would be more sensible to let contributors participate in the tech > > roadmap in more formal and empowered way than now, because without that > > early participation there is no possibility for later consensus. > > > A pattern we see over and over is that the developers talk at length > about what they're working on in several venues, then it's released > and people claiming to speak for the community claim they were not > adequately consulted. Pretty much no matter what steps were taken to > do so, and what new steps are taken to do so. Because there's always > someone who claims their own lack of interest is someone else's fault. > > > - d. > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > -- Landline (UK) 01780 757 250 Mobile (UK) 0798 1995 792 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
