On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
But the idea that WMF
always must slavishly execute the result of a poll or vote is neither
rational nor sustainable,
While there may be some who suggest that WMF should do so, I am not one of
them -- and nor are many of my colleagues.
The RfCs are merely one data point. I would like to remind you (though I am
getting tired of repeating my arguments, while you reflect back to me
arguments that are substantially weaker than my own, and attack straw men)
that mere "reader preference" is a ridiculous measurement to regard as
final and binding, for a project that exists to fulfill a mission, and that
developed a clear strategic plan to fulfill that mission. Where in the
strategic plan does it say that "if we feel that the readers are trending
toward accepting something, then it is good?" What if their ultimate
acceptance of that makes them LESS likely to participate in the community,
and MORE likely to merely consume information -- to have ACCESS to
information, rather than to SHARE in our vision?
I do not ask these questions because I want them answered now; I suggest
that they should have been asked and explored long ago. For instance, when
I brought them up in February.[1]
They're still worthwhile to explore carefully now, but as long as the
software remains enabled by default, in defiance of the thoughtful opinions
of a majority of Wikipedians who have weighed in on 3 projects, I predict
that it will be difficult to do so.
-Pete
[1]
https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?diff=907392