[Foundation-l] Article Feedback Tool 5 testing deployment

[Liam Wyatt]

On 24/12/2011, at 17:38, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro at gmail.com> wrote:

> I hope you will forgive me for being a bit terse and blunt. It is the
season
> for unpalatable truths, and not just in Scotland. To an impartial observer
> this whole exercise has all the earmarks of trying to dig up Nupedia from
> the grave, give it the "kiss of life" and do all sorts of hocus pocus and
arm
> waving and say "It is alive! It is alive!"
>
> ... And then see it just fall on its face like the corpse it is.
>
> Cue even more bubbling vials with smoke and sparks. "Let's try again!
> This time it will work!"
> --
> --
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
>

Jussie-Ville -  terse or blunt is fine IF it is accompanied by a reasoned
argument and preferably also a proposed alternative. I find your posts on
this thread to be both full of hyperbolic metaphor as well as being
unclear. As such I don't think they are helping your argument, however
strong you might hold your opinions on the topic. As you can see I have
fairly strong views on this particular topic myself :-) and I'm making them
known here in a public forum. But I am also trying to make reasoned
arguments and propose solutions without demonising those who are
responsible or the project itself (e.g. "corpse" etc. above). If we want to
make sure that our criticisms raised on Foundation-l are actually addressed
I think we need to make that the relevant people are not afraid of being
demonsided if they admit a mistake. Otherwise we'll just be dismissable as
being "against it": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtMV44yoXZ0

Trying to do something and not succeeding is not a failure - so long as we
learn from the mistakes. As it says on the door as you leave the WMF office
[so I have been told], "Let's make better mistakes tomorrow". This is a
good attitude to have! Rather than trying to avoid mistakes altogether, or
worse, not acknowledge them at all. "let's try again" (as you put it) is,
IMO, a good attitude to have so long as you're not trying the same thing
and expecting a different outcome. In the case of the AFT for example, you
can clearly see in the documentation that each iteration (versions 1-4 and
now 5) have built on the best and discarded the worst of each previous
model. As I've stated, I hold much hope for the usefulness of AFTv5, which
is being build learning from past experience. Which is why I would like to
see AFTv4 removed from the remaining 99.7% of en.wp now that it is being
superseded.

-Liam

Peace, love & metadata


-- 
wittylama.com/blog
Peace, love & metadata