2014-08-12 16:57 GMT+02:00 Magnus Manske <magnusmanske(a)googlemail.com>om>:
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 to
decide 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 readers,
I think it is more relevant to look at the number of unique visitors, in
stead of the 1.1 billion page views.
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about how outdated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 is
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.