On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Magnus Manske <magnusmanske(a)googlemail.com
wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Henning Schlottmann <
> h.schlottmann(a)gmx.net>
wrote:
>
> > This is serious. WMF really needs to appreciate the expertise of the
> > author community and accept their experience a important and valid. If
> > authors tell the WMF and particularly the devs, that a particular
> > function is necessary, then the devs really, really need to think.
> >
>
> I do agree with this. Visual Editor (which works much better these days)
> and MediaViewer are not aimed at the experienced editor. They aim to make
> the reader more comfortable, and try to ease the first steps into editing.
> Winning new editors has been deemed a priority, somewhat at the expense of
> WMF-made support for the power user. This is a judgement call the
> Foundation has to make.
>
This is the biggest aspect of the problem, from my perspective: many of us
who have opposed the default enabling of the Media Viewer have done so
*not* on the basis that we personally dislike it, but on the basis that we
believe it causes problems for the process of helping readers become
effective editors. I myself have a great deal of experience with this
process; I was hired in 2009 by WMF for my expertise in this area; I helped
design the Ambassador Training program for the WMF that helps university
students convert from readers to editors; and since I left WMF, I have
trained hundreds of others to edit Wikipedia, most notably in the 6 week
online course I developed and taught 4 times. Whether or not I, as an
experienced editor, like the Media Viewer is indeed unimportant; I have no
problem disabling the software for myself.
Many WMF staff, however, *continue* to summarize the opposition as,
"experienced editors do not like it." This is a straw man argument, and an
absolute failure to absorb the considered criticisms layed out on the
various RfC pages. At the same time, a frequent piece of the WMF argument
is, "many readers *do* like it." But whether or not they *like* it is
completely different from whether or not we are guiding them toward
becoming editors -- the two have almost nothing to do with one another.
Whether the readers "like" it has absolutely nothing to do with the five
goals layed out in the 2010 Five Year Strategic Plan. But whether or not
they are guided effectively toward becoming editors, that does. And
removing the "edit" button, or any suggestion that such a thing might
exist, from millions and millions of pages...that does not serve that goal.
The WMF chose to "Narrow Focus" a couple years ago. I believe that what got
"narrowed out" was, by and large, processes that serve the secondary
purpose of helping the WMF educate itself, in an ongoing way, about how its
projects and communities operate. I believe we are seeing the effects of
that decision now.
Until this event, I thought the dev process to be broken, not just the
communication around devs. But now I believe the conflict runs deeper.
It points out an issue we (community and WMF) should discuss, in a more
general sense. What should the decision process be for technical changes?
When does the Foundation get precendence, and when should the community
have the last word? What weight should small-scale "votes" of editors have?
While I agree that it's important to have some clarity on this stuff, it's
also very important -- more important, perhaps -- to keep in mind that when
things are working smoothly, we very rarely have to consider the question
of "who can overrule whom." That is the kind of ideal the WMF should be
striving for -- in actions, not merely in words.
Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]