On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 4:21 PM, Romaine Wiki <romaine.wiki(a)gmail.com>
2014-08-12 16:57 GMT+02:00 Magnus Manske
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 3:19 PM, rupert THURNER
so i did not vote. because i can live with both.
but i do respect the
i do respect admin decisions, i even voted for
at the end it is very simple. the one who produces software has a
> of interest. so this person or organisation is not in a good position
when it is used.
wmf, its employees and voluntary officers need to be exemplary with
to conflicts of interest, imo. always. errors are
allowed as well as
excuses of course.
There needs to be a balance between the wishes of (some members of) the
logged-in community, the (otherwise silent) majority of readers, and the
German Wikipedia had 1.1 billion page views in June . ~300 votes (~2/3
against MediaViewer) do not represent the
I think it is more relevant to look at the number of unique visitors, in
stead of the 1.1 billion page views.
I agree, but I couldn't find that number on the report card, so I used the
next best thing.
Assuming 100 page views per visitor would give 10M visitors. 80M people in
Germany alone, so probably not too far off.
That would mean that 0.003% of visitors voted, and 0.002% voted against
MediaViewer, with a ~0.001% "edge".
The Foundation is tasked with managing the hardware and software that runs
Wikipedia. On Wikimania, several remarks were
made about how outdated
Wikipedia appears. WMF tries to improve that situation. No, MediaViewer
not perfect. What software is? When is it
"perfect" enough to go live by
default? WMF should have a say there.
I agree that WMF should have a say, but how it is done now is certainly not
the way WMF should handle it. Also I think it would be good to define for
future cases how such situations should be handled. If a community has a
strong oppose in something, such situation should be considered more
carefully and be handled with more care. A community can't represent all
readers, but they are themselves readers too who feel to have a large
responsibility to the readers. They usually have valid arguments and
considerations which should be taken more seriously. We all are on the same
ship with the same vision on the horizon, with the same goals.
Yes, it could have been handled better. Actually, just saying "this is
coming by default, you can turn it off individually" /before/ the "vote"
was initiated would have been much clearer, and I don't think it would have
caused as much uproar as we have now. It also could have helped to focus
the community on finding and reporting bugs, which might have lead to
earlier improvements to the software.
And yes, the community should have a say, but this is a rather technical
issue, even if it is an interface change. The community is, and always has
been, very much in charge of content and editorial policies, beyond the
Finally, I think that an open and detailed description by the WMF about
what, exactly, happened, and why MediaViewer is pushed against the wishes
of a small but vocal group, would help a lot to smooth the waves.