On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 12:03 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 April 2013 12:51, Brad Jorsch bjorsch@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I do not think it is particularly obvious outside of our project the
way
that Wikidata is being "weaponized" as the reason for attempting to
force
changes in local consensus about infoboxes (their existence and
content)
with respect to specific article categories or even individual
articles.
It's not obvious within the project either, at least for someone like me who hasn't been following the endless arguments over whether some WikiProject should be able to decide not to use infoboxes on "their" articles and whether they're ganging up to prevent any local consensus to use infoboxes on "their" articles, etc, etc, etc.
Personally, I don't consider that people making spurious arguments based on the existence of wikidata is a problem with the planned wikidata phase 2 deployment.
Why do you think those arguments are spurious? Just because you don't agree with them doesn't make them spurious. Those articles belong a lot more to the editors of each of the Wikipedias than they do to Wikidata, or Wikimedia, that's for certain.
Not agreeing with the arguments of some editors *also* doesn't mean the entire engineering and operators department is "doing it wrong", or that the Wikidata project (which is not developed by WMF, incidentally, and is having its own interesting discussions *among its own community* as we speak) somehow is not capable of also debating these questions.
I do not agree with your arguments, Risker. I think Wikidata is great and I am happy it has been deployed (or will be soon). I think it will enable lots and lots of super cool things in the years to come, and having over the years lived through the deployments of commons, categories, new skins and who knows what else I am also confident, along with Denny, that we will figure it out in the wild as we go.
That viewpoint doesn't make me a bad Wikipedian, and it doesn't mean I'm not willing to hear you and others who disagree out (and I'm perfectly willing to learn about the infobox debates, which are actually new to me -- somehow in 10 years of editing I've managed to avoid this hotbed of disagreement). But do please bear in mind that in your messages you are telling *the entire* technical list, including all the paid development staff and the longtime technical volunteers, which includes pretty much everyone who has written MediaWiki over the years, that they don't know how wiki development works. In my opinion that's pretty patronizing, and is not helping your argument -- which, as far as I can tell, is that Wikidata phase II shouldn't be enabled on en:wp except after a community-wide RFC, correct? As far as that goes, since you are so strongly arguing for the autonomy of en:wp, I think the ball's in the en:wp court; an en:wp editor should be the one to organize an RFC. If the results skew strongly to one side or another, the WMF has listened to such things in the past. Personally I don't see the need for an RFC at this point in time, but I certainly don't begrudge anyone else the right to organize one, and I will happily vote accordingly.
-- phoebe
And just to add to this, it looks like the best place to propose such an
RFC, or to discuss Wikidata on the English Wikipedia, is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikidata
-- phoebe