FYI, Lila had chosen to engage in discussion on her meta talk page.
Numerous editors are commenting there. Discussion also continues on the
meta RFC and on the English Wikipedia arbitration workshop page.
On Aug 14, 2014 12:03 AM, "Russavia" <russavia.wikipedia(a)gmail.com>
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 5:32 AM, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
This is why on all major sites, you see a gradual ramp-up of a new
feature, and continued improvement once it's widely used. Often
there's an opt-in and then an opt-out to ease users into the change.
But once a change is launched, it very rarely gets rolled back unless
it's just clearly not doing what it's supposed to.
Are you are familiar with the Flickr experience in the last 12 months by
any chance? I think that is a very pertinent and prominent example of what
goes against what you say. The Flickr attitude was much the same as the
WMF's. That ended up in a revolt, much like the WMF is seeing against it.
In the end, they ended up doing what Erik?
Also, the other day I received a Flickr email from someone wishing to use
an image which I had not taken, but which I had uploaded to Commons. They
mentioned that they saw the photo on Commons.
When I told them that I am not the author, and that they would need to
contact Joe Bloggs, their response: "I'm sorry, this is SO confusing to
I put that down to MediaViewer and its adding irrelevant information, and
also the fact that file information is more difficult to find.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: