Thank you, also for the explanation. I am glad we could defuse this. On Apr 10, 2013 7:07 AM, "Risker" <risker...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9 April 2013 12:15, Denny Vrandečić <denny.vrande...@wikimedia.de> > wrote: > > > Risker, > > > > I find myself unconvinced by your argumentation as I perceive it as > > inconsistent. > > > > On the one hand, you suggest that before we enable the option to access > > data from Wikidata using either Lua or a parser function should be > > discussed and decided by the community beforehand - the same community, > > that has been informed since mid 2011 that this change is coming. You > > suppose that the community can actually come together and decide this > > globally. > > > > > On the other hand, you are not trusting the community with the use of the > > same feature. You say they would "weaponize" the feature, that the > > community will be unable to adapt to the new feature, and that it needs > to > > discuss first how to use it, and for deployment to wait a few months (I > do > > not fully understand why you assume that a few months will be enough to > > sort things out). You seem to assume that a wiki as large and active as > the > > English Wikipedia is not resilient enough to absorb the rather minor > > technical change we are introducing. > > > > It is, technically, a minor change. Socially it can lead to bigger > changes > > -- but I found it hard to believe that anyone can predict the actual > effect > > on the English Wikipedia community. This has to be seen and experienced, > > and I, for one, trust the English Wikipedia community to be as awesome as > > always, and to absorb and use this new features in ways no one has even > > imagined yet. > > > > I'll just quickly point out the dichotomy in what you're saying here: first > you say that you doubt the project can come together and make a global > decision, and then you say that it is resilient enough to ... make a global > decision. > > This is, from the technical perspective, a small change. It is a major > philosophical change: actively preventing editors from making content > changes on the home project. It's also a contradictory change: it makes it > more complex to edit content, but at the same time major investment of > developer time and talent is being invested into making the editing process > simpler and more intuitive through Visual Editor (and ultimately projects > like Flow and Echo). Infoboxes (and ultimately lists) are an integral part > of the content of Wikipedias; making text easier to edit and other integral > content more difficult to edit suggests that, at minimum, there are some > fairly significant philosophical and practical conflicts within the overall > platform development. From the community perspective, a simpler editing > interface has been a community priority for almost as long as Wikipedia has > been in existence. It is good to see the WMF putting its (much improved) > financial resources into a project that has been near the top of the > editorial wish list for so long, and that investment has very good > prospects of paying off with both editor retention and editor recruitment. > Unless I've missed something, that's still a key metric for measuring > success. I agree that Wikidata is "cool" (to use others' expressions), but > I've not seen anything indicating it is attracting new editors; instead it > seems to be drawing in editors from other WMF projects, who are now doing > less editing in their "home" projects. I'd hope that is a short-term > change as Wikidata develops as a project. > > I suppose what I am saying here is that Wikidata doesn't seem to be working > within the articulated "master vision" of the platform (which focuses on > simplifying the editorial process), and absent the ability to edit the > wikidata on the project where it appears, I don't see how it's going to get > there. It doesn't make Wikidata any less of a great idea, and I still > think it has potential for new projects to build content. I'm just having a > hard time seeing where it's fitting with everything else that is going on, > if data can't be changed by using "real words" directly on the wikipedia > project. > > > What I am looking for is a good, plain-English explanation of how these two > different directions in software development are not divergent, and how > they are intended to co-exist without one adversely affecting the > effectiveness of the other. > > > > Since you are saying that our communication has not been sufficient, I > > would be very glad to hear which channels we have missed so that we can > add > > them in the future. > > > > > > > > Since Wikidata phase 2 is actually a less intrusive change than phase > > 1, > > > > and based on the effectiveness of the discussion about phase 2 on the > > > > English Wikipedia so far, I think that a post-deployment discussion > is > > > the > > > > right way to go. > > > > > > In what way is this less intrusive? Phase 1 changed the links to other > > > projects beside articles, a task that was almost completely done by > bots, > > > and did not in any way affect the ability to edit or to modify the > > content > > > of the articles. Phase 2 is intended to directly affect content and the > > > manner in which it is edited. > > > > > > > It is less intrusive on in the sense that simply nothing happens until an > > editor consciously decides to do something, i.e. use the new > functionality. > > > > Ah, I see. This may be different for less mature or smaller wikis, but > editors on English Wikipedia paid almost no attention to interwiki links; > it was something bots (or a tiny number of editors) did, and was just > another one of those contentless edits that made an article pop back up in > their watchlist. It did nothing to affect the editing process of the > article, and any random passerby could still edit every aspect of the > content, so wikidata taking over that task is not perceived as intrusive. > > Phase 2 affects the ability to edit the content of the article, the moment > it is applied by one editor, and it can only be returned to its "natural" > editing state by an experienced editor who will know how to revert the > infobox back to its old format if desired. And yes, from the perspective > of editors, infoboxes are part of the content of the article. The > technology change may be minor, but its use means changing the core "anyone > can edit" philosophy that has created, and constantly renewed and > developed, the wikipedia projects. > > > > > > > You seem to assume that the eleven Wikipedias currently using Wikidata > > phase 2 have asked us for a deployment. This was not the case (besides on > > Hungarian). They were informed that they would be the first Wikipedias to > > experience the roll out. This lead to several conversations, just as on > the > > English Wikipedia as well. > > > > > You are correct, I had made that assumption. I remembered reading about > the discussions on hewiki, and that huwiki had clearly expressed interest, > and assumed that this was a consensual decision on the part of all involved > wikipedias. Thank you for correcting me. > > > > > > > > I am sorry to have disturbed you so deeply, but I remain with my > statement: > > based on the small engagement in this discussion, compared to the size of > > the English Wikipedia community, I regard this discussion as > undemocratic, > > i.e. not representative of the editor body as a whole. > > > > Do not misunderstand me: I am not claiming that the decision to switch on > > Wikidata has been democratic, or actually indeed that technical decisions > > in the Wikimedia Movement are in general achieved through democratic > > processes. I am merely noticing that I do not consider the current > > discussion to be any more democratic than that - I do not think that the > > community is represented here any better (or worse) than in the many > > channels we have used for communication before. > > > > As I have explained to Danny more personally, this appears to have been a > miscommunication by word selection. In common English usage, the term > "undemocratic" is a charged political term associated with dictators and > the revocation of rights like the right to liberty or the right to free > speech. On off-line discussion, as well as in reading Denny's further > comments here, it became apparent that he meant "not democratic". I > entirely agree that software deployment is not democratic, on WMF or any > other projects, nor would I expect it to be. I apologize to Denny for my > being too much of a word wonk, and perhaps spending too much time reading > political history. > > Risker/Anne > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
