Sue,
You have gotten your logic exactly backwards here.
Of course David is right -- we should all have some humility about things
that we don't, and can't, know.
But the people who express certainty about what readers need -- the people
who assert that those needs are paramount, and trump the needs of editors
(experienced and occasional), of photographers (with and without Wikimedia
accounts), of models (consenting and non-consenting) -- and maybe most
significantly, the people who have both the power and the audacity to
impose their interpretation of those believes on millions upon millions
upon millions of Wikimedia users --
those people all work for the Wikimedia Foundation.
You're addressing the wrong audience here.
-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 9:40 PM, Sue Gardner <sgardner(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hey guys,
I use MediaViewer, I like it, and I am happy to trust the WMF product team
to build stuff. I didn't know about the RFC, but even if I had I would've
been unlikely to have participated, because I don't think small opt-in
discussions are the best way to do product development -- certainly not at
the scale of Wikipedia.
I think we should aim on this list to be modest rather than overreaching in
terms of what we claim to know, and who we imply we're representing. It's
probably best to be clear --both in the mails we write and in our own heads
privately-- that what's happening here is a handful of people talking on a
mailing list. We can represent our own opinions, and like David Gerard we
can talk anecdotally about what our friends tell us. But I don't like it
when people here seem to claim to speak on behalf of editors, or users, or
readers, or the community. It strikes me as hubristic.
Thanks,
Sue
On 10 Jul 2014 16:13, "MZMcBride" <z(a)mzmcbride.com> wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
In this case, we will keep the feature enabled by
default (it's easy
to turn off, both for readers and editors), but we'll continue to
improve it based on community feedback (as has already happened in the
last few weeks).
Thanks for the reply. :-)
If your feature development model seemingly requires forcing features on
users, it's probably safe to say that it's broken. If you're building
cool
new features, they will ideally be
uncontroversial and users will
actively
want to enable them and eventually have them
enabled by default. Many new
features (e.g., the improved search backend) are deployed fairly
regularly
without fanfare or objection. But I see a common
thread among
unsuccessful
deployments of features such as
ArticleFeedbackv5, VisualEditor, and
MediaViewer. Some of it is the people involved, of course, but the larger
pattern is a fault in the process, I think. I wonder how we address this.
MZMcBride
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>