The idea that we are trying to attract new users at the detriment of the
existing ones is putting words in our mouths, but I do know what you mean.
The good news is that many of us are very conscious about these issues.
Here are some excerpts, for instance from the VisualEditor software design
document[1]:
- "Visual editing should first improve the usability of the most common
tasks. Less frequent tasks may still be performed using a source code
editing mode."
- "Visual editing should enhance, not degrade, the ability to inspect
what was changed between revisions."
- "At the very least, a visual editor should not make more work for
administrators and editors who are reviewing edits done by others."
VisualEditor isn't alone in these beliefs, but I realize also that they are
not held widely (yet) enough either.
[1]
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/VisualEditor/Software_design#Objectives
- Trevor
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
About colleagues vs. customers: I don't think it
can be considered a
misunderstanding by the community, it's largely due to what the WMF really
wants.
The WMF, as the article puts it, doesn't [necessarily] want to work better
with the existing community (-> colleagues) by providing what's felt useful
/for them/ to get things done; instead, it largely assumes that what's
disliked or even plainly harmful now is actually good, if it can attract a
new demographic of users which will like it (-> new customers).
And more: changing the demographic by ignoring the existing one is
sometimes the very aim of changes; community is assumed broken (it scares
people off), consensus even more so (we can't get anything decided, we need
"leaders" – surely not pre-emptive consensus), nobody is indispensable (we
have a big turnover, we only need to improve "_new_ editors retention").
And yes, this sometimes borders social experiments (eugenetics? :-) ).
I'm not going to prove all this*; it's nasty to "the community", but
there's also a lot of truth in it and all in good faith.
Nemo
(*) I could quote individual WMF developers or officers but that would be
tough and unnecessary: it's the official strategy, just seen from a
different perspective (by stretching it a bit perhaps).
______________________________**_________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l<https://lists.…