Magnus, regarding, "...at some point, you have to leave the test
environment, and test your product against reality."

Of course. But VE was far, far too bad for real time when it was released.
Really. It was driving newbies away. The sensible embracers-of-change threw
it out, in the end. The squealing Ludites don't have the numbers for that.
When the sensible majority starts squealing, the developers really need to
pay attention.

I didn't follow it carefully but it seemed to me the release of the Image
Viewer was much better timed and handled. Ludites squealed but genuine
concerns were addressed promptly and respectfully.

Anthony Cole


On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 11:58 PM, Magnus Manske <magnusman...@googlemail.com
> wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 3:40 PM Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Magnus, in the interview you said "From the Media Viewer, the Visual
> > Editor, to Wikidata transclusion, all have been resisted by vocal groups
> of
> > editors, not because they are a problem, but because they represent
> change.
> > For these editors, the site has worked fine for years; why change
> > anything?"
> >
> > Well, yes. No one here, I'm sure, will argue there aren't such groups.
> >
> > But the problem with the blog post is you only mention them.
>
>
> Because they are the problem, and they (by being vocal) often get more
> attention than a more silent, sensible majority. But by getting attention,
> they shape the general consensus, in a negative way.
>
>
> > You don't take
> > into account the very much larger crowd, including myself, who were
> hanging
> > out for the visual editor and were contemptuously flicked off by the
> > developers when we brought up fatal flaws, as just some more
> > superconservative no-vision Ludites - haters of change.
> >
>
> I am not going to get into a who-said-what-to-whom-in-what-tone discussion
> here. I wouldn't be surprised if some developers didn't bother to
> differentiate between sensible feedback and nay-sayers. As I have said in
> this mail thread, I hope the Foundation has learned how to deal with
> feedback more sensibly.
>
>
> >
> > The first version of VE was so bad it was harming our mission. It was far
> > worse than "didn't do everything 100% right." It would have been bounced
> > back from the community to the developers even if that first group of
> > bitter, change-hating autistic ranters hadn't said a word.
> >
>
> Consider this perspective: I doubt the developers would have pushed out
> that first version if it had massively failed their own tests. But at some
> point, you have to leave the test environment, and test your product
> against reality. Remember, WMF is not Microsoft, with an army of thousands
> of paid beta-testers.
>
> So then it turns out there are more (and more really bad) bugs than
> anticipated. Then you go and fix those bugs. Which is what they did. But
> turning a major endeavour on and off repeatedly is just a bad thing to do.
> AFICT the window where wrong edits were made by VE was not /that/ large.
> Apparently, the decision was made to "power through it", rather than flip
> the switch repeatedly. That may or may not have been the right strategy.
>
>
> >
> > I notice VE isn't even an option when I log out and edit en.Wikipedia,
> yet
> > above others are saying it is much improved and ready for release. What
> are
> > we waiting for?
> >
>
> This is the thing. The atmosphere has been poisoned against VE, which now
> makes it much harder to get a good product deployed.
>
> But I agree with the sentiment. What ARE we waiting for?
>
> Cheers,
> Magnus
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Anthony Cole
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 10:56 PM, Andrew Lih <andrew....@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Magnus, you've missed the point of the visual editor revolt. A couple
> > of
> > > > people here have tried to explain that to you, politely. And you're
> > > > persisting with your idée fixe.
> > > >
> > >
> > > To be fair, Magnus was addressing more than just the initial complaints
> > > from 2013. He said, “condemning an entire product forever because the
> > first
> > > version didn’t do everything 100% right is just plain stupid.”
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: 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
> > New messages to: 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
> New messages to: 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
New messages to: 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