On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Risker <risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Well, hold on here.
On 17 August 2014 19:55, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I think it is also a problem to look at this in
terms of "bugs." I don't
think you can retrofit good design into something that has a variety of
substantial problems, by merely "squashing bugs." You might say that is
the
wiki way, but it is widely known that some tasks
are better suited than
others to ad hoc collaborative processes.
Given the current use of bugzilla, which doesn't limit itself to bugs but
also feature requests and enhancements over the base functionality, calling
everything reported using bugzilla a "bug" is incorrect and inappropriate.
While this is true, I have yet to see bugzilla used as a platform for a
design process for Media Viewer, and I don't think I would recommend it.
It's *possible* to use it as a platform for more than mere bugs, and it has
been done before; but I don't think tha'ts what's going on here, or should
go on here.
In this case,
we have a broad range of issues:
* does it let the reader know they can help improve the page or upload
another photo
The Commons/File pages don't do that, why would you expect this software to
do it?
The Commons/File page DOES do that, to the extent that readers have some
familiarity with MediaWiki software and how to find the "Edit" button. You
may not believe that is significant, but I encounter people on an almost
daily basis who are mystified by Wikipedia, but at least have a basic
understanding what the "edit" button does, or could allow them to do. It
may not be all readers or even a majority, but it is my very strong belief
-- rooted, perhaps not in rigorous scientific analysis, but in my very
active engagement with non-Wikipedias since 2006 -- that it's the pool of
people who tend to replenish our declining editor pool. A great many of the
100+ students who signed up for the 4 rounds of my online course on editing
Wikipedia, for instance, had accounts that were several years old, but only
had a dozen or so edits.
* does it reflect copyright holders' licenses
accurately and effectively
Agree this is important. Do you have any evidence that it is any less
accurate than the Commons/File pages?
That evidence is all over the various RFCs and wiki pages related to this,
and also in Bugzilla I believe, I'll leave it to you to track it down.
* does it adequately respect the privacy of the
subjects of photos
The mere fact of the image being used on an article anywhere on a Wikimedia
project suggests that this problem is in the actual usage, not in the
software being used to display more information and detail in the image.
If you believe that this is a serious issue, then it should be addressed
where 100% of readers can see it, not in a subpage viewed only by the
limited number of readers who click on the image. It's not a Media Viewer
problem, it's an image usage problem.
This point has a lot of nuance in it, and I'm happy to discuss it, but not
here and now. If you want to dig into it, I suggest this as a venue:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Consent -- if you leave a
note there, please {{ping|Peteforsyth}} so I can find it.
* does it
reflect a "look and feel" that we feel OK about and is
consistent
with the rest of the software
etc. etc.
What problems are you seeing here? Spell it out, rather than making vague
suggestions that there is an issue.
I don't personally have a big issue with this one; but it's something
others have brought up. I'm trying to capture the breadth of concerns about
the software here, rather than (as WMF staff keep inaccurately accusing me
and many of my colleagues of doing) saying merely "I DON'T LIKE IT."
Fixing one "bug" may well lead to other bugs, or negatively impact those
already reported. What is needed, I believe, is a well-facilitated
process
to identify the problems and the best solutions.
This is not easy to do
and
takes time. But I think the WMF has (not for lack
of trying) managed to
do
a very bad job of that with this software
product, and with many software
products in the last few years. That does not mean it is impossible to do
it that way, only that those specific efforts were insufficient.
Why is this a Media Viewer issue? This is a problem for all types of
software on all types of platforms, and is a challenge even for IT
departments hundreds of times the size of the WMF. I cannot think of any
software I have used in the last 20 years that has not had "bugs" or
unsatisfactory UI elements or seems to miss a functionality I'd like to
have. It is unreasonable to hold a comparatively very small organization
to a standard that can't even be met by IT giants.
It is absolutely a problem for all types of software on all types of
platforms. It is a Media Viewer issue because the design and deployment was
executed so badly that it caused a significant backlash on 3 major projects.
And again -- the WMF has done this well in some cases, there's no need to
look at mega corporations to find good models. All I am suggesting is that
the WMF do a better job of learning from its own successes.
Pete