On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 3:12 AM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Hi.
....
I'm interested to read others' views about options and ways forward here.
I think the most helpful thing would be to not attempt to start wars, and particularly not on behalf of anyone or against individuals. We are all on the same side here: trying to make the projects (and the project interfaces, as a part of that) better. That includes, for instance, trying out a new way of viewing photographs.
I assume of course and as always that you send your message from a place of also wanting the projects to be better and more usable. But it is hard to see how anything you suggest above gets us there.
best, -- phoebe
phoebe ayers skrev 2014-08-11 09:56:
We are all on the same side here: trying to make the projects (and the project interfaces, as a part of that) better. .
I agree, we all want to to improve things. But with no criticism to any individual , I do feel this again highlights my often stated standpoint. - We must have proper user controlled development of the software development.
And this include some sort of Steering group, liaison officers is Not enough. And if such a group had existed they would have discussed on the different opinions from the German communty the the WMF sw development team and made a decisions, perhaps exacly what Eric now decided, perhaps something different, but at least the dialog would have been better.
After just having left FDC I can not help comparing how tough decisions was performed with FDC in place , and here without a steering group made up of community members
I would like to urge the Board and the new ED of WMF to implement asap such a group, which has already been discussed and proposed several times, even by Eric in the yearly plan for 2014-2015
Anders
Anomie, if you have problems with how MediaWiki works and consider it demagoguery, the relevant venue is: < https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Establishing_a_hierarchy_of_bureaucrat...
Phoebe, it's a pity you don't see it, when it's as big as the Tarpeian Rock. MZ, can you help documenting things better at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Administrator to facilitate understanding? I'll try to make it more obvious what MZ's post means.
In MediaWiki, while some specialised roles exist, sysops are designed to be the most trusted group among editors. Similar to the plebeian tribunes, their position is sacrosanct and they hold a ius intercessionis (veto) on each other and on any other user. Overriding the power of the tribunes is unholy, even if a senatus consultum ultimum has been emitted.
Rome close an eye when Cicero strangled Sura; but when he said aloud that he'd also kill a senator, the optimates he was serving quickly exiled him. Until a dictator rei publicae costituendae is proclaimed, even the best citizens of the city are liable to be exiled when they insist being unholy.
Beware of the powers you wish for.
Nemo
I think the most helpful thing would be to not attempt to start wars, and particularly not on behalf of anyone or against individuals. We are all on the same side here: trying to make the projects (and the project interfaces, as a part of that) better. That includes, for instance, trying out a new way of viewing photographs.
I assume of course and as always that you send your message from a place of also wanting the projects to be better and more usable. But it is hard to see how anything you suggest above gets us there.
I agree with everything Phoebe's said.
In particular, I find it difficult to take people seriously when they're suggesting "solutions" like "disabling the German Wikipedia". I am more than a little surprised this even needs to be said.
Chris
On Mon, 11 Aug 2014, at 21:42, Chris Keating wrote:
I think the most helpful thing would be to not attempt to start wars, and particularly not on behalf of anyone or against individuals. We are all on the same side here: trying to make the projects (and the project interfaces, as a part of that) better. That includes, for instance, trying out a new way of viewing photographs.
I assume of course and as always that you send your message from a place of also wanting the projects to be better and more usable. But it is hard to see how anything you suggest above gets us there.
I agree with everything Phoebe's said.
"That includes, for instance, trying out a new way of viewing photographs." do you guys "try out" on the whole userbase? that's not how people "try" things it's not what actually happened wither
maybe say something more like "hi people, in the background we are writing a lot of wonderful code which will be used for refreshing the entire website in the long term"
"we're especially looking at how we fail to match project mission - we're people, we are making mistakes!"
"we're adding edit interface to media viewer ASAP and let everything else burn until we do that"
etc etc
and don't shy out, you ARE empowering the community already ;)
including jquery into list of what gadgets can use is already a huge plus, but i barely know any gadgets which use it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jackmcbarn/editProtectedHelper uses parsoidObj from i think parsoid itself this potential was never exposed to developers, not to mention end users this software is very scriptable and flexible
the world picture is ugly and awkward and the superprotected scandal is special as 1 staff didnt even know about this decision. need better documenting. delays > mistakes.
what i get from working with people is that one needs to make small steps, carefully, and take notes; otherwise big steps may be taken in wrong direction and document things, go screaming and kicking, I did it! for every step made this way people know what is going on
please keep working on documenting what on earth you're doing exactly, in public it should be the base of the entire team are you doing planning in your head? design? ;) definitely not put it onto a public wiki, collaborate out in the open
svetlana
Chris Keating wrote:
In particular, I find it difficult to take people seriously when they're suggesting "solutions" like "disabling the German Wikipedia". I am more than a little surprised this even needs to be said.
Magnus Manske wrote:
Strange. I seem to distinctly remember that, yesterday on Wikimania, many (most) of us agreed that Wikipedia is an incredibly valuable resource to the world, and that it is our mission, as a community, to protect and improve it, and to make it available to even more people.
Your suggestion to sabotage that resource, even if it's just (!) in German, because a few long-time editors there now have to (once) click a checkbox to *not* see the Media viewer, strikes me as somewhat incompatible with that mission.
Just as a thought experiment, I wonder: if a group of German Wikipedians rented office space in San Francisco, gathered in a conference room, and recorded themselves as they cheered on the disabling of the German Wikipedia, would that then be acceptable? There's certainly precedent: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Permalink/67445170.
I don't need to be sold on the value or virtue of Wikipedia and I labeled the extreme options as such. The German Wikipedia discussed and evaluated MediaViewer and decided that MediaViewer should not be enabled by default. German Wikipedians followed the proper procedure to request a wiki configuration change (cf. https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/69292).
Does either of you or anyone else see a valid reason to deny this seemingly reasonable and considered request? It's quite obvious that hacks to achieve the same ends are far from ideal. Why not simply disable MediaViewer by default on the German Wikipedia, as requested?
MZMcBride
Does either of you or anyone else see a valid reason to deny this seemingly reasonable and considered request? It's quite obvious that hacks to achieve the same ends are far from ideal. Why not simply disable MediaViewer by default on the German Wikipedia, as requested?
In my view, the technical configuration and user experience of WMF wikis are areas where community discussion is advisory rather than decisive.
It seems that poor (and insufficient) communication is a pretty widespread problem at WMF.
Balazs
2014-08-12 13:25 GMT+02:00 Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com:
Does either of you or anyone else see a valid reason to deny this seemingly reasonable and considered request? It's quite obvious that
hacks
to achieve the same ends are far from ideal. Why not simply disable MediaViewer by default on the German Wikipedia, as requested?
In my view, the technical configuration and user experience of WMF wikis are areas where community discussion is advisory rather than decisive. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
phoebe ayers wrote:
I think the most helpful thing would be to not attempt to start wars, and particularly not on behalf of anyone or against individuals. We are all on the same side here: trying to make the projects (and the project interfaces, as a part of that) better. That includes, for instance, trying out a new way of viewing photographs.
I assume of course and as always that you send your message from a place of also wanting the projects to be better and more usable. But it is hard to see how anything you suggest above gets us there.
A few weeks ago, Erik reverted on the English Wikipedia and created a storm of drama in the process. Within the past few days, Erik hastily pushed through a new protection level on the German Wikipedia, without any consensus and as a means of inhibiting implementation of consensus. Due to the haste and the fundamental flaw of trying to restrict the admin group, Erik then had to double-down on trying to impose this feature on the German Wikipedia by having the core MediaWiki software altered and hastily deployed. He then re-reverted on the German Wikipedia.
If this issue related to online harassment or child protection or biographies of living people or the ability of users to edit or something else that matters, it might make sense for Erik to step in. But I'd be curious to read whether you think Erik's behavior has been acceptable, appropriate, or proportionate here.
It's easy, if not a bit trite, to call for peace and love on all sides and claim that we're all in this together. But when I look at Erik forcing supplementary software on a community that has clearly stated that it's not interested, wasting developer, system administrator, and translator resources in the process, I'm inclined to think that Erik is not looking to make the projects better. Erik is actively and perhaps permanently damaging the relationship between the Wikimedia Foundation and the German Wikipedia (and other wikis as well). Unelected Erik has a shiny new toy and everyone will experience it, or else.
Copied from Meta-Wiki:
--- Erik has decided to take a "might makes right" approach and I'm concerned to see responsible and clueful users like yourself endorsing his actions here. What do Erik's unilateral actions on the English and German Wikipedias say about him? What does it say about the features he's forcing on users? Users should want new features. Erik shouldn't be coercing employees to try to ensure that new features are active everywhere. ---
MZMcBride
Hoi, Please consider what the role of Erik is. He is responsible for the technical infrastructure of the Wikimedia Foundation. The community has wants and needs but does not have responsibility in the same manner.
When some people in the community want things that is not compatible with implied requirements of the technical infrastructure, it is the job of Erik to take this responsibility seriously.
It is fine when you do not appreciate this. Thanks, GerardM
On 11 August 2014 13:40, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
phoebe ayers wrote:
I think the most helpful thing would be to not attempt to start wars, and particularly not on behalf of anyone or against individuals. We are all on the same side here: trying to make the projects (and the project interfaces, as a part of that) better. That includes, for instance, trying out a new way of viewing photographs.
I assume of course and as always that you send your message from a place of also wanting the projects to be better and more usable. But it is hard to see how anything you suggest above gets us there.
A few weeks ago, Erik reverted on the English Wikipedia and created a storm of drama in the process. Within the past few days, Erik hastily pushed through a new protection level on the German Wikipedia, without any consensus and as a means of inhibiting implementation of consensus. Due to the haste and the fundamental flaw of trying to restrict the admin group, Erik then had to double-down on trying to impose this feature on the German Wikipedia by having the core MediaWiki software altered and hastily deployed. He then re-reverted on the German Wikipedia.
If this issue related to online harassment or child protection or biographies of living people or the ability of users to edit or something else that matters, it might make sense for Erik to step in. But I'd be curious to read whether you think Erik's behavior has been acceptable, appropriate, or proportionate here.
It's easy, if not a bit trite, to call for peace and love on all sides and claim that we're all in this together. But when I look at Erik forcing supplementary software on a community that has clearly stated that it's not interested, wasting developer, system administrator, and translator resources in the process, I'm inclined to think that Erik is not looking to make the projects better. Erik is actively and perhaps permanently damaging the relationship between the Wikimedia Foundation and the German Wikipedia (and other wikis as well). Unelected Erik has a shiny new toy and everyone will experience it, or else.
Copied from Meta-Wiki:
Erik has decided to take a "might makes right" approach and I'm concerned to see responsible and clueful users like yourself endorsing his actions here. What do Erik's unilateral actions on the English and German Wikipedias say about him? What does it say about the features he's forcing on users? Users should want new features. Erik shouldn't be coercing employees to try to ensure that new features are active everywhere.
MZMcBride
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Your responses here are coming across as very personally targeted and focused.
Attempting to demonize Erik is a mistake and clouds the issue. Erik is acting as an officer, not as an individual.
On Aug 11, 2014, at 1:40 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Erik has decided to take a "might makes right" approach and I'm concerned to see responsible and clueful users like yourself endorsing his actions here. What do Erik's unilateral actions on the English and German Wikipedias say about him? What does it say about the features he's forcing on users? Users should want new features. Erik shouldn't be coercing employees to try to ensure that new features are active everywhere.
--- Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
Brandon,
Are you stating that Erik is not calling the shots here? If that's the case, could someone please clarify who is in charge and asked for the new right to be enabled? On Aug 11, 2014 10:13 AM, "Brandon Harris" bharris@wikimedia.org wrote:
Your responses here are coming across as very personally targetedand focused.
Attempting to demonize Erik is a mistake and clouds the issue.Erik is acting as an officer, not as an individual.
On Aug 11, 2014, at 1:40 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Erik has decided to take a "might makes right" approach and I'm concerned to see responsible and clueful users like yourself endorsing his actions here. What do Erik's unilateral actions on the English and German Wikipedias say about him? What does it say about the features he's
forcing
on users? Users should want new features. Erik shouldn't be coercing employees to try to ensure that new features are active everywhere.
Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I'm stating that the tone here implies that Erik is some weird overlord who orders everyone around and we cower in fear and do His Bidding.
It's not true. If you want to be angry, be angry at the Foundation. Targeting Erik (or Jan) specifically is a mistake.
On Aug 11, 2014, at 5:29 PM, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Are you stating that Erik is not calling the shots here? If that's the case, could someone please clarify who is in charge and asked for the new right to be enabled?
--- Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
brandon, erik is an intelligent person. and of course at the end persons are acting, not organizations. if german elected community members, trusted ones, think it is not good enough, why not just let it be? its easy to get the reasons and act on it. wikipedia was and is community driven. your salary is paid indirectly by these community efforts. so do take the artificial time pressure out of it and let it mature. wikipedia will not loose or gain readers depending if mediaviewer is switched on or off by default.
rupert Am 11.08.2014 18:43 schrieb "Brandon Harris" bharris@wikimedia.org:
I'm stating that the tone here implies that Erik is some weirdoverlord who orders everyone around and we cower in fear and do His Bidding.
It's not true. If you want to be angry, be angry at theFoundation. Targeting Erik (or Jan) specifically is a mistake.
On Aug 11, 2014, at 5:29 PM, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Are you stating that Erik is not calling the shots here? If that's the case, could someone please clarify who is in charge and asked for the new right to be enabled?
Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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, Aug 11, 2014 at 9:12 AM, Brandon Harris bharris@wikimedia.org wrote:
Erik is acting as an officer, not as an individual.
Brandon, it is not as clear-cut as you suggest, and the lack of clarity originates at the Wikimedia Foundation.
The most explicit statement I've seen on this topic is then-Executive Director Sue Gardner, in April 2014:
"When WMF staff edit the projects, they (we) are subject to the same policies and guidelines as everybody else. That means that if a staff person breaks a rule on the projects, that person risks being warned or reverted or sanctioned by the community, the same as everybody. There are no special WMF policies related to this. ... Editorial policies are developed, and therefore also best-understood and best-enforced, not by the WMF but by the community."
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-April/071161.html
A decision about how the public consumes Wikipedia content (e.g., Media Viewer) is an editorial decision, and it's one that the WMF has chosen to make unilaterally. WMF has furthermore moved to give its staff rights that facilitate unilateral behavior in the future. But to the degree that Sue Gardner's policy remains in place (and I'm assuming it does), the WMF's position is that any problematic actions taken by individual staff should be subject to community processes.
As I explained in the email thread linked above, I do think this is the wrong policy, and very unsuited to the way Wikimedia works or should work. But it is the policy, nonetheless. Individual WMF staff have crossed important lines, fundamentally challenging our decision-making structure without seeking, much less securing, important buy-in. The WMF will ultimately be accountable for the consequences; but in the meantime, the individuals involved in the decision must be treated as responsible for their actions, specifically because that is what the Office of the Executive Director has stated as its expectation.
Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
A decision about how the public consumes Wikipedia content (e.g., Media Viewer) is an editorial decision,
and it's one that the WMF has chosen to
make unilaterally. WMF has furthermore moved to give its staff rights that facilitate unilateral behavior in the future. But to the degree that Sue Gardner's policy remains in place (and I'm assuming it does), the WMF's position is that any problematic actions taken by individual staff should be subject to community processes.
I think this is a misunderstanding. Erik's actions are pretty clearly made in his capacity as a WMF senior staff member, and it follows from that fact that the WMF regard this a decision that it is (at least in the final analysis) one that is theirs to take (that is to say, not "editorial"
Arguing that Erik ought to be sanctioned on the German wikipedia for doing his job is, being as kind as possible, futile wikilawyering.
If you disagree with what he is doing then some appropriate courses of action involve speaking to Foundation ED or their Board. There are many other inappropriate courses of action that are being pursued as well, though.
Chris
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
A decision about how the public consumes Wikipedia content (e.g., Media Viewer) is an editorial decision,
and it's one that the WMF has chosen to
make unilaterally. WMF has furthermore moved to give its staff rights
that
facilitate unilateral behavior in the future. But to the degree that Sue Gardner's policy remains in place (and I'm assuming it does), the WMF's position is that any problematic actions taken by individual staff should be subject to community processes.
I think this is a misunderstanding. Erik's actions are pretty clearly made in his capacity as a WMF senior staff member, and it follows from that fact that the WMF regard this a decision that it is (at least in the final analysis) one that is theirs to take (that is to say, not "editorial"
Arguing that Erik ought to be sanctioned on the German wikipedia for doing his job is, being as kind as possible, futile wikilawyering.
If you disagree with what he is doing then some appropriate courses of action involve speaking to Foundation ED or their Board. There are many other inappropriate courses of action that are being pursued as well, though.
Yeah -- and speaking for myself, I see much more value in approaching this as an organizational issue, than as individual actions.
But when the organization acts unilaterally, it's reasonable to expect that those being overruled will explore all options available to them. And my point is, this one is not merely available, but is endorsed by the WMF itself.
Those discussing the flaws in the approach taken by individual WMF staff members (which doesn't include me) are doing what the WMF has said they should do.
Pete
On Mon, 11 Aug 2014, at 22:40, MZMcBride wrote:
phoebe ayers wrote:
I think the most helpful thing would be to not attempt to start wars, and particularly not on behalf of anyone or against individuals. We are all on the same side here: trying to make the projects (and the project interfaces, as a part of that) better. That includes, for instance, trying out a new way of viewing photographs.
I assume of course and as always that you send your message from a place of also wanting the projects to be better and more usable. But it is hard to see how anything you suggest above gets us there.
A few weeks ago, Erik reverted on the English Wikipedia and created a storm of drama in the process.
Our community is fragile. It keeps making drama fuss out of policies and rules. Every newcomer to a Wikipedia (surprisingly, by far not to every other sister project) who vandalises is shown a policy page. Every newcomer who wants to create an article is shown a policy page (the pesky notability concept). The Help:* namespace is underused, and Manual:* namespace is also underused.
Our community, or its active part (let's say, clique) is enjoying that it has an "advantage" over the masses. It is "Wikipedians" and the other people are nobody. When someone in power above them makes a step, the clique resists and makes drama. Is that the way to live, people?
We need to go write content. Write tools which help to write content. Write software which we would like to see. It's not all at all hard. The WMF can also do what it likes: in the first place, it's their webserver. And it's not at all hard to work together, either, granted you can edit their tools as required for your needs.
What WM ENG need to do is communicate about their things early, while they're started writing them. They've started working on "Winter" and I only noticed because it was linked on MW.org. There needs to be a central place, like the Wikimedia blog, but dedicated to tech things - actively announcing everything WM ENGINEERING are doing, both in products and in core. It's all lovely and wonderful to /reuse/ in our own projects, and to add new code to their software as needed.
I'm struggling to determine what exactly causes this desire to cause drama. A large part of it is, in my view, lack of a mechanism to remove people who have such a habit.
On 12 August 2014 02:39, svetlana svetlana@fastmail.com.au wrote:
There needs to be a central place, like the Wikimedia blog, but dedicated to tech things - actively announcing everything WM ENGINEERING are doing, both in products and in core.
There is. It's called the monthly report. See here for July's for example: *https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Engineering/Report/2014/July https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Engineering/Report/2014/July*
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 8:44 AM, Dan Garry dgarry@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 12 August 2014 02:39, svetlana svetlana@fastmail.com.au wrote:
There needs to be a central place, like the Wikimedia blog, but dedicated to tech things - actively announcing everything WM ENGINEERING are doing, both in products and in core.
There is. It's called the monthly report. See here for July's for example: *https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Engineering/Report/2014/July
Just a small note: The July report is still being drafted; the latest published report is the one for June: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Engineering/Report/2014/June . My apologies for forgetting to add the draft template when I created the page.
To see the latest status update of all current activities* at any given time, see the Wikimedia engineering status dashboard: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Engineering/Dashboard
[*] Except for those documented on other wikis, like the work of the Operations team.
On Aug 11, 2014 1:57 AM, "phoebe ayers" phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 3:12 AM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Hi.
....
I'm interested to read others' views about options and ways forward
here.
I think the most helpful thing would be to not attempt to start wars, and particularly not on behalf of anyone or against individuals. We are all on the same side here: trying to make the projects (and the project interfaces, as a part of that) better. That includes, for instance, trying out a new way of viewing photographs.
I assume of course and as always that you send your message from a place
of
also wanting the projects to be better and more usable. But it is hard to see how anything you suggest above gets us there.
best, -- phoebe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Helpful to not start wars? Well, yes, that would be helpful. But the war is already underway, started by the shots Erik has fired.
The question now is how we restore peace. But "Shut up and give up local control" is not the answer to that question. As with any conflict, hard lines will lead to escalation and digging in.
There are steps we could take to ensure changes are desired and welcomed by local communities. Some need to take place on the community side, many on the WMF side. But ramming unwanted stuff in is not the way there.
If Erik will not step back from this brink, I fear we will see more escalation. This isn't just about Media Viewer, or Visual Editor, or ACTRIAL. It is about WMF being seen as usurping local project control to deploy its pet projects. Whether that perception is right or not, perception is reality here.
Your move, Erik. Please don't continue on this road. We're supposed to be on the same side.
Guys,
This isn't a war, it's an argument on the internet. No-one is dying and no-one is being shot at. No-one is even being arrested and I doubt anyone has even been shouted at in person.
Can we please view this as what it is - a technical issue which can be resolved - rather than throwing around words like "war" and "firing shots" and "thermonuclear"?
Once again: This isn't a war, it's an argument on the internet, and it can be solved if we all act pleasantly.
Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
On 11 August 2014 15:35, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
On Aug 11, 2014 1:57 AM, "phoebe ayers" phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 3:12 AM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Hi.
....
I'm interested to read others' views about options and ways forward
here.
I think the most helpful thing would be to not attempt to start wars, and particularly not on behalf of anyone or against individuals. We are all
on
the same side here: trying to make the projects (and the project interfaces, as a part of that) better. That includes, for instance,
trying
out a new way of viewing photographs.
I assume of course and as always that you send your message from a place
of
also wanting the projects to be better and more usable. But it is hard to see how anything you suggest above gets us there.
best, -- phoebe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Helpful to not start wars? Well, yes, that would be helpful. But the war is already underway, started by the shots Erik has fired.
The question now is how we restore peace. But "Shut up and give up local control" is not the answer to that question. As with any conflict, hard lines will lead to escalation and digging in.
There are steps we could take to ensure changes are desired and welcomed by local communities. Some need to take place on the community side, many on the WMF side. But ramming unwanted stuff in is not the way there.
If Erik will not step back from this brink, I fear we will see more escalation. This isn't just about Media Viewer, or Visual Editor, or ACTRIAL. It is about WMF being seen as usurping local project control to deploy its pet projects. Whether that perception is right or not, perception is reality here.
Your move, Erik. Please don't continue on this road. We're supposed to be on the same side. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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