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.

Pine On Aug 14, 2014 12:03 AM, "Russavia" russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:

Erik

On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 5:32 AM, Erik Moeller erik@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 me."

I put that down to MediaViewer and its adding irrelevant information, and also the fact that file information is more difficult to find.

Russavia _______________________________________________ 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