To whom it may concern,
Pursuant to consensus at Commons:Requests for comment/Media Viewer software feature the Media Viewer must be switches off for logged in users and logged out users. The current status is that the feature has been only disabled for logged in user. This tool is not needed on Wikimedia Commons, it makes commons hard to use.
I request the Wikimedia Foundation to disable Media Viewer for logged out users as well. There is consensus to do so. Please respect community consensus.
Regards, Steinsplitter
[1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/Media_Viewer...
On 16-03-14 10:24 AM, Steinsplitter Wiki wrote:
I request the Wikimedia Foundation to disable Media Viewer for logged out users as well. There is consensus to do so. Please respect community consensus.
Really? You have consensus from logged out users? How did you ascertain that?
Or did you mean that you have consensus from a community that is explicitly not affected by the feature to turn it off for people other than themselves?
-- Coren / Marc
Per commons Policy's the RFC is valid.
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org From: marc@uberbox.org Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 10:28:25 -0400 Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Disabe Media Viewer for non-logged-in users and logged-in users on Wikimedia Commons
On 16-03-14 10:24 AM, Steinsplitter Wiki wrote:
I request the Wikimedia Foundation to disable Media Viewer for logged out users as well. There is consensus to do so. Please respect community consensus.
Really? You have consensus from logged out users? How did you ascertain that?
Or did you mean that you have consensus from a community that is explicitly not affected by the feature to turn it off for people other than themselves?
-- Coren / Marc
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 16-03-14 10:33 AM, Steinsplitter Wiki wrote:
Per commons Policy's the RFC is valid.
Then the policy is broken. It seems more than a little insane to me that an opinion poll having had participation of a few % of a small community (active commons users) can make a binding decision for an entirely disjoint community many hundred times it size with neither participation nor even consultation.
At the very least, the opinion of logged out users should be sought or at least vaguely estimated in some manner (I can think of several easy client-side ways of doing a quick opinion poll of at least a sample of them; or a couple of metrics giving hints).
That RfC is akin to asking the print newspaper owners about making new rules for all web sites. While I've no doubt that their collective opinions would be very good for them, I'd like something a bit more objective. :-)
-- Coren / Marc
While this might be a valid request, I'm a bit concern about the % of the participants in the RFC. I don't think it's a good idea for this % of participant to make a binding decision for an entirely disjoint community many hundred if not thousand times it size with neither participation nor even consultation. This seem like a Kangaroo RFC to me. Consult the larger community, reach a consensus then return here for implementation.
Best,
Olatunde Isaac. Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld from Glo Mobile.
-----Original Message----- From: "Marc A. Pelletier" marc@uberbox.org Sender: "Wikimedia-l" wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.orgDate: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 10:40:54 To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Disabe Media Viewer for non-logged-in users and logged-in users on Wikimedia Commons
On 16-03-14 10:33 AM, Steinsplitter Wiki wrote:
Per commons Policy's the RFC is valid.
Then the policy is broken. It seems more than a little insane to me that an opinion poll having had participation of a few % of a small community (active commons users) can make a binding decision for an entirely disjoint community many hundred times it size with neither participation nor even consultation.
At the very least, the opinion of logged out users should be sought or at least vaguely estimated in some manner (I can think of several easy client-side ways of doing a quick opinion poll of at least a sample of them; or a couple of metrics giving hints).
That RfC is akin to asking the print newspaper owners about making new rules for all web sites. While I've no doubt that their collective opinions would be very good for them, I'd like something a bit more objective. :-)
-- Coren / Marc
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org wrote:
On 16-03-14 10:33 AM, Steinsplitter Wiki wrote:
Per commons Policy's the RFC is valid.
Then the policy is broken. It seems more than a little insane to me that an opinion poll having had participation of a few % of a small community (active commons users) can make a binding decision for an entirely disjoint community many hundred times it size with neither participation nor even consultation.
At the very least, the opinion of logged out users should be sought or at least vaguely estimated in some manner (I can think of several easy client-side ways of doing a quick opinion poll of at least a sample of them; or a couple of metrics giving hints).
That RfC is akin to asking the print newspaper owners about making new rules for all web sites. While I've no doubt that their collective opinions would be very good for them, I'd like something a bit more objective. :-)
-- Coren / Marc
Marc, that is how the policies work all over. Non-editing readers have generally (with some exceptions) not participated in the crafting or revision of policies or consensus-based decision-making. Anyone who thinks the reader perspective hasn't been adequately considered should contribute that point of view to the discussion, but the non-participation of non-participants can't render all decisions invalid.
On 16-03-14 10:59 AM, Nathan wrote:
the non-participation of non-participants can't render all decisions invalid.
It rarely becomes a problem in practice; the vast majority of decisions made on projects are editorial or internal management.
In this particular case, there is a tiny segment of the editing community making a sweeping UI decision that - by definition - doesn't even affect *them*.
That can't possibly be right.
-- Marc
That RFC is 20 months old. That media viewer is not today's media viewer.
Anthony Cole
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 11:12 PM, Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org wrote:
On 16-03-14 10:59 AM, Nathan wrote:
the non-participation of non-participants can't render all decisions invalid.
It rarely becomes a problem in practice; the vast majority of decisions made on projects are editorial or internal management.
In this particular case, there is a tiny segment of the editing community making a sweeping UI decision that - by definition - doesn't even affect *them*.
That can't possibly be right.
-- Marc
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
That's a good point. I've started a discussion on Commons' VP about this at: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#2014_RfC_for_the_Med...
Thanks, Mike
On 14 Mar 2016, at 17:03, Anthony Cole ahcoleecu@gmail.com wrote:
That RFC is 20 months old. That media viewer is not today's media viewer.
Anthony Cole
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 11:12 PM, Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org wrote:
On 16-03-14 10:59 AM, Nathan wrote:
the non-participation of non-participants can't render all decisions invalid.
It rarely becomes a problem in practice; the vast majority of decisions made on projects are editorial or internal management.
In this particular case, there is a tiny segment of the editing community making a sweeping UI decision that - by definition - doesn't even affect *them*.
That can't possibly be right.
-- Marc
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Oh I missed dates, this is a good point then. Ignoring a wide community consensus is *always* a mistake. Final decisions might even diverge from consensus but *ignoring* is the worst way.
Vito
2016-03-14 21:31 GMT+01:00 Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net:
That's a good point. I've started a discussion on Commons' VP about this at:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#2014_RfC_for_the_Med...
Thanks, Mike
On 14 Mar 2016, at 17:03, Anthony Cole ahcoleecu@gmail.com wrote:
That RFC is 20 months old. That media viewer is not today's media viewer.
Anthony Cole
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 11:12 PM, Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org wrote:
On 16-03-14 10:59 AM, Nathan wrote:
the non-participation of non-participants can't render all decisions invalid.
It rarely becomes a problem in practice; the vast majority of decisions made on projects are editorial or internal management.
In this particular case, there is a tiny segment of the editing community making a sweeping UI decision that - by definition - doesn't even affect *them*.
That can't possibly be right.
-- Marc
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
In case anybody believes Wikimedia Foundation personnel have entirely forgotten this issue, please be assured that is not the case. https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T119595
Speaking for myself, I'm not convinced that taking action on a two year old RFC at Commons is the most pressing component of this collection of issues (though I understand and respect that others might feel differently).
I strongly agree with the principle that ignoring a request is far worse than merely refusing to grant it. But I also feel that there is more support for that perspective at the WMF these days than there has been during the past two years. I think it's best if we all keep that possibility in mind, as we make choices about what issues to bring up again, and how to present them.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] (author of Letter to WMF on Superprotect and Media Viewer: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Letter_to_Wikimedia_Foundation:_Superprotect... )
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 2:01 PM, Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Oh I missed dates, this is a good point then. Ignoring a wide community consensus is *always* a mistake. Final decisions might even diverge from consensus but *ignoring* is the worst way.
Vito
2016-03-14 21:31 GMT+01:00 Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net:
That's a good point. I've started a discussion on Commons' VP about this at:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#2014_RfC_for_the_Med...
Thanks, Mike
On 14 Mar 2016, at 17:03, Anthony Cole ahcoleecu@gmail.com wrote:
That RFC is 20 months old. That media viewer is not today's media
viewer.
Anthony Cole
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 11:12 PM, Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org wrote:
On 16-03-14 10:59 AM, Nathan wrote:
the non-participation of non-participants can't render all decisions invalid.
It rarely becomes a problem in practice; the vast majority of
decisions
made on projects are editorial or internal management.
In this particular case, there is a tiny segment of the editing community making a sweeping UI decision that - by definition - doesn't even affect *them*.
That can't possibly be right.
-- Marc
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 14 March 2016 at 22:12, Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org wrote:
On 16-03-14 05:01 PM, Vi to wrote:
Ignoring a wide community consensus is *always* a mistake.
It is. I never advocated otherwise.
That old RfC, however, does not show a wide community consensus, let alone a consensus of the actually impacted community.
-- Coren / Marc
You could walk in the shoes of others, as Jimbo advocates, and you could create an RFC to show whether users prefer it, rather than putting the burden of proof onto a community that has already established what it wanted. In fact, if you are creating the RFC then you could make it jump through whatever hoops you would like to see to "prove" whatever it is you think remains unproven, rather than expecting some mug of a volunteer to guess what it is that might satisfy your needs.
As for the reasoning that no community RFC is ever representative of users, as users without an account never voted, this seems a basic logical fallacy. There is no "us and them" with readers/viewers, as all volunteers who happen to have an account are 100% readers and viewers.
Thanks Fae
On Mar 14, 2016 23:47, "Fæ" faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 March 2016 at 22:12, Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org wrote:
On 16-03-14 05:01 PM, Vi to wrote:
Ignoring a wide community consensus is *always* a mistake.
It is. I never advocated otherwise.
That old RfC, however, does not show a wide community consensus, let alone a consensus of the actually impacted community.
-- Coren / Marc
You could walk in the shoes of others, as Jimbo advocates, and you could create an RFC to show whether users prefer it, rather than putting the burden of proof onto a community that has already established what it wanted.
Marc just look at the German Wikipedia which recently voted for the switch on of visual editor. It was community driven and caused no stir.
I really fail to understand that you guys always go down a confrontational path instead of inventing a solution so all users have the option to choose. Maybe a media tab or similar.
Rupert
Rupert
Steinsplitter, if you're interested in reviving this, please have the intellectual honesty of running the RfC again and publicizing it widely. As others already pointed out, the context of that RfC is nothing like today. Not only Media Viewer itself changed a lot, with many fixes based on direct community feedback, but the very people who expressed their opinion in 2014 might have changed their views.
If anything, if you still get the same outcome now, you'll have a much stronger case for what you're asking for.
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 9:16 AM, rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 14, 2016 23:47, "Fæ" faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 March 2016 at 22:12, Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org wrote:
On 16-03-14 05:01 PM, Vi to wrote:
Ignoring a wide community consensus is *always* a mistake.
It is. I never advocated otherwise.
That old RfC, however, does not show a wide community consensus, let alone a consensus of the actually impacted community.
-- Coren / Marc
You could walk in the shoes of others, as Jimbo advocates, and you could create an RFC to show whether users prefer it, rather than putting the burden of proof onto a community that has already established what it wanted.
Marc just look at the German Wikipedia which recently voted for the switch on of visual editor. It was community driven and caused no stir.
I really fail to understand that you guys always go down a confrontational path instead of inventing a solution so all users have the option to choose. Maybe a media tab or similar.
Rupert
Rupert _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Same with consensus from logged-out users to implement MV.
I have no strong feelings about the issue (anons shouldn't be affected by MV side effects but also MV is almost useless on Commons) but well, consensus cannot be ignored.
Vito
2016-03-14 15:28 GMT+01:00 Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org:
On 16-03-14 10:24 AM, Steinsplitter Wiki wrote:
I request the Wikimedia Foundation to disable Media Viewer for logged
out users as well. There is consensus to do so. Please respect community consensus.
Really? You have consensus from logged out users? How did you ascertain that?
Or did you mean that you have consensus from a community that is explicitly not affected by the feature to turn it off for people other than themselves?
-- Coren / Marc
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Consensus can and should be ignored when it is detrimental to improving the end product. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ignore_all_rules is an applicable cite, I think. It's even categorized as global.
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Same with consensus from logged-out users to implement MV.
I have no strong feelings about the issue (anons shouldn't be affected by MV side effects but also MV is almost useless on Commons) but well, consensus cannot be ignored.
Vito
2016-03-14 15:28 GMT+01:00 Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org:
On 16-03-14 10:24 AM, Steinsplitter Wiki wrote:
I request the Wikimedia Foundation to disable Media Viewer for logged
out users as well. There is consensus to do so. Please respect community consensus.
Really? You have consensus from logged out users? How did you ascertain that?
Or did you mean that you have consensus from a community that is explicitly not affected by the feature to turn it off for people other than themselves?
-- Coren / Marc
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I won't take a position on this particular issue, since I rarely visit Commons, but "Ignore all rules" should categorically not be taken as "Ignore consensus" or "Ignore other editors". That way lies madness. On Mar 14, 2016 2:11 PM, "Philippe Beaudette" philippe@beaudette.me wrote:
Consensus can and should be ignored when it is detrimental to improving the end product. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ignore_all_rules is an applicable cite, I think. It's even categorized as global.
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Same with consensus from logged-out users to implement MV.
I have no strong feelings about the issue (anons shouldn't be affected by MV side effects but also MV is almost useless on Commons) but well, consensus cannot be ignored.
Vito
2016-03-14 15:28 GMT+01:00 Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org:
On 16-03-14 10:24 AM, Steinsplitter Wiki wrote:
I request the Wikimedia Foundation to disable Media Viewer for logged
out users as well. There is consensus to do so. Please respect
community
consensus.
Really? You have consensus from logged out users? How did you ascertain that?
Or did you mean that you have consensus from a community that is explicitly not affected by the feature to turn it off for people other than themselves?
-- Coren / Marc
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
--
Philippe Beaudette
philippe@beaudette.me 415-275-1424 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org