Hoi, The big question is not so much where and when things happen, the big question is who supports all the muck. There have been enough instances where changes to for instance common.js brought down servers.
This is not a zero sum game. It is not as if there are no consequences. I am certain that the "community" will not be happy when Wikipedia goes black for them or because of them. So when the totality goes down, who to blame and who is to fix it .. the "community"?? Will it blame itself or will it shrug it off like always? Or will it blame the WMF because "it" feels entitled?? Thanks, GerardM
On 14 August 2014 00:54, svetlana svetlana@fastmail.com.au wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2014, at 07:32, Erik Moeller wrote:
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 10:12 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com
wrote:
In favor of the Media Viewer software is a bunch of inquiry and
analysis
Restoring the default state of the software to the state that worked
for
the last decade is a clear precondition for healthier discussion of a positive path forward.
Dear Pete,
[...]
If we're being honest, at the end of the day, a lot of this is about establishing clear governing principles for the MediaWiki: namespace.
This is indeed true. Why does a global.js or whatever edit override user preference in the first place? I would expect user preferences to run after global.js, and set the onClick event back to what it should be (such as, something meaningful where a user has MV enabled).
svetlana
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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe