Hoi,
I am so happy that you know so well that all the millions have been wasted.
As so often, an opinion is just that. When you want to learn about the
effect of the development done, it may be useful to look a bit further
afield. Mobile is one area where the development proves really effective.
Without it our numbers of readers would be down. It is also where the
number of new editors are happening.

When your idea of editing Wikipedia is business as usual, you have lost
many people because the experience is awful.

So when I am to accept your argument that the framework is wrong. I will
agree with you when it means that we migrate from the awful framework we
have used for too long. It is exactly the Visual Editor and the Media
Viewer that make sense to our users. Commons as it is is so bad as an
experience that people like me who are committed to WMF do not use it.

Now what do we aim to achieve? Keeping you happy or making sure we have a
public ???
Thanks,
       GerardM


On 22 August 2014 13:05, Henning Schlottmann <h.schlottm...@gmx.net> wrote:

> On 22.08.2014 09:22, Erik Moeller wrote:
> >
> > - The MediaViewer rollout was very smooth until the deployments to
> > German Wikipedia, English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. There could
> > be many reasons for that -- but it's a fact nonetheless. I do see
> > little evidence that users in other communities are especially unhappy
> > about the feature (leaving aside the politics of it now). I would be
> > very curious what reason people do attribute that difference to,
> > however (understanding that Commons is very different from the
> > Wikipedia use case).
>
> This may or may not correlate with a deep commitment to a) the licenses,
> b) quality.
>
> > - The criticism isn't just about that -- it's about a large number of
> > mostly individually small issues. Generally, the idea that we
> > effectively "munge" some of the metadata by displaying a
> > machine-readable subset below the fold is viewed very negatively,
> > because 1) it doesn't reflect all the available information, 2) it
> > makes it harder for users to discover the File: page, and potentially
> > edit it.
>
> If it does not reflect the license information it is broken.
>
> The license is paramount. We can not accept any kind of software that
> hands out "reuse information" that does not display the photographer's
> name and the license (with link to the license text).
>
> We do not want a default setting, that does not show extensive
> descriptions, map legends, image annotations and the like. All that is
> content we created for the readers. You must not block our readers from
> this content.
>
> MV is broken. It is not ready to be deployed. Not by far. Take it back
> and fix it.
>
> In theory I can see a working MV. I can even imagine a working Visual
> Editor, but am very skeptical about it. I can not imagine Flow to work,
> ever. This one needs to be abandoned now.
>
> Eric, your department has an abysmal record. You have wasted millions on
> software that started with the wrong framework and is not working after
> years and years of development. Please think about yourself, not about
> the communities if you want to understand about the conflicts at hand.
>
> Henning
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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