I don't think people yell "MediaViewer is broken" as much as they yell "MediaViewer broke my workflow!". The problem is that no one cares about some editor's personal workflow, so maybe we should be documenting use cases that could be used for new & old editors and developers alike
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 7:46 AM, Marc A. Pelletier <m...@uberbox.org> wrote: > On 09/02/2014 02:52 AM, Yann Forget wrote: > > OK, I could buy that [fixing image pages]. But then why not > > fixing that *first*, so that > > any MV implementation coming afterwards would be smooth? > > In the best of worlds, that would have been ideal. > > Now, no doubt I'm going to be branded a cynic for this, but have you > ever /tried/ to standardize something on a project? Obviously, my frame > of reference is the English Wikipedia and not Commons; but in a world > where there exists at least six distinct templates whose primary > function is to transclude a single "<references/>" onto a page and where > any attempt to standardize to one of them unfailingly results in edit > wars, that doesn't seem like a plausible scenario. > > Perhaps the problem is more fundamental than this, and we're only seeing > symptoms. I don't know. > > But I /do/ know that waiting until every edge case is handled before > deploying (attempted) improvements to the site is doomed to failure. If > only because most of the edge case won't even be /findable/ until the > software is in place so that it can't work even in principle. > > IMO, in practice, "get it working for the general case and most of the > obvious edge cases" is a reasonable standard; and I'm pretty sure that > MV qualified under that metric (and VE didn't). > > I suppose much of my frustration over the MV keruffle is borne out of a > reaction I see much too often for my taste: editors yelling "OMG, look, > image X isn't properly attributed/licensed/etc in MV! Burn it with > fire!!!" rather than figuring out why X's image page isn't properly > parsed and /fixing/ it (and possibly an underlying template that could > fix dozen/hundred others in one fell swoop).I'm pretty sure that if half > as much effort had been spent fixing issues as was attempting to kill > MV, its fail rate would already be at "statistical anomaly" levels. > > .. but my inner cynic is also pretty sure that many of the loudest > voices wanting to get rid of MV ostensibly because of its failings don't > actually /want/ those failings to be fixed because being able to say > "It's broken" rather than "I don't like it" sounds much more rational. > > -- Marc > > > _______________________________________________ > 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>
