[Foundation-l] Fwd: How do you fully consult the community consensus?

[Brian]

Sorry, where I said AbuseFilter I meant to say FlaggedRevisions. I'm not
sure on how AbuseFilter came to be agreed on.

On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 7:15 PM, Brian <Brian.Mingus at colorado.edu> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 6:59 PM, Jennifer Riggs <jriggs at wikimedia.org>wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm curious. In your perspective who is doing the central management
>> that makes it difficult for ideas to percolate up? WMF, Jimmy, Board,
>> select administrators/highly involved community members? In your
>> opinion, is there an infrastructure barrier or a personalities one?
>>
>> jriggs
>>
>
> It's an infrastructure, policy and outreach issue. I assume that every
> single person has the very best for the projects in mind and is doing it for
> the right reasons.
>
> That said, I see the definition of community being interpreted very
> narrowly. I liked what I saw with AbuseFilter but that was a singular case.
> Filtering edits is almost on the same level as showing advertisements. In
> these rare cases any change you try to make will quickly make its way
> through the community because many people will be outraged. There are a lot
> of other situations that don't propagate as well, not because they aren't
> very important, but because people just don't know about them.
>
> I really like the ParserFunctions example. Enabled with hardly any
> discussion and now used 500,000 times on the English Wikipedia. It had a
> major effect on Wikipedia that made it much harder to use. And now we are
> stuck in a programming mindset and we all assume that we all agreed to come
> here. It just isn't the case. You won't be able to find where that agreement
> happened.
>
>