On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
But the idea that WMF always must slavishly execute the result of a poll or vote is neither rational nor sustainable,
While there may be some who suggest that WMF should do so, I am not one of them -- and nor are many of my colleagues.
The RfCs are merely one data point. I would like to remind you (though I am getting tired of repeating my arguments, while you reflect back to me arguments that are substantially weaker than my own, and attack straw men) that mere "reader preference" is a ridiculous measurement to regard as final and binding, for a project that exists to fulfill a mission, and that developed a clear strategic plan to fulfill that mission. Where in the strategic plan does it say that "if we feel that the readers are trending toward accepting something, then it is good?" What if their ultimate acceptance of that makes them LESS likely to participate in the community, and MORE likely to merely consume information -- to have ACCESS to information, rather than to SHARE in our vision?
I do not ask these questions because I want them answered now; I suggest that they should have been asked and explored long ago. For instance, when I brought them up in February.[1]
They're still worthwhile to explore carefully now, but as long as the software remains enabled by default, in defiance of the thoughtful opinions of a majority of Wikipedians who have weighed in on 3 projects, I predict that it will be difficult to do so.
-Pete