On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 12:03 PM, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Risker <risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 8 April 2013 12:51, Brad Jorsch
<bjorsch(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Risker
<risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I do not think it is particularly obvious outside of our project the
way
> that Wikidata is being
"weaponized" as the reason for attempting to
force
> changes in local consensus about infoboxes
(their existence and
content)
> with respect to specific article categories
or even individual
articles.
It's not obvious within the project either, at least for someone like
me who hasn't been following the endless arguments over whether some
WikiProject should be able to decide not to use infoboxes on "their"
articles and whether they're ganging up to prevent any local consensus
to use infoboxes on "their" articles, etc, etc, etc.
Personally, I don't consider that people making spurious arguments
based on the existence of wikidata is a problem with the planned
wikidata phase 2 deployment.
Why do you think those arguments are spurious? Just because you don't
agree with them doesn't make them spurious. Those articles belong a lot
more to the editors of each of the Wikipedias than they do to Wikidata, or
Wikimedia, that's for certain.
Not agreeing with the arguments of some editors *also* doesn't mean the
entire engineering and operators department is "doing it wrong", or that
the Wikidata project (which is not developed by WMF, incidentally, and is
having its own interesting discussions *among its own community* as we
speak) somehow is not capable of also debating these questions.
I do not agree with your arguments, Risker. I think Wikidata is great and
I am happy it has been deployed (or will be soon). I think it will enable
lots and lots of super cool things in the years to come, and having over
the years lived through the deployments of commons, categories, new skins
and who knows what else I am also confident, along with Denny, that we will
figure it out in the wild as we go.
That viewpoint doesn't make me a bad Wikipedian, and it doesn't mean I'm
not willing to hear you and others who disagree out (and I'm perfectly
willing to learn about the infobox debates, which are actually new to me --
somehow in 10 years of editing I've managed to avoid this hotbed of
disagreement). But do please bear in mind that in your messages you are
telling *the entire* technical list, including all the paid development
staff and the longtime technical volunteers, which includes pretty much
everyone who has written MediaWiki over the years, that they don't know how
wiki development works. In my opinion that's pretty patronizing, and is not
helping your argument -- which, as far as I can tell, is that Wikidata
phase II shouldn't be enabled on en:wp except after a community-wide RFC,
correct? As far as that goes, since you are so strongly arguing for the
autonomy of en:wp, I think the ball's in the en:wp court; an en:wp editor
should be the one to organize an RFC. If the results skew strongly to one
side or another, the WMF has listened to such things in the past.
Personally I don't see the need for an RFC at this point in time, but I
certainly don't begrudge anyone else the right to organize one, and I will
happily vote accordingly.
-- phoebe
And just to add to this, it looks like the best place to propose such an