Re: [Foundation-l] Self-determination of language versions in questions of skin?
On 4 July 2010 21:20, William Pietri wrote: > No, which makes it especially worth appreciating, on three levels. > First, is says something good about the person. Second, it can really > move a discussion along. And third, it serves as an example for future > discussions, like begetting like. So thanks! I can't promise not to be a [[m:DICK]] in the future, because I have a horrible susceptibility to it. Oh well. (This is why I smell funny, have no mates and am dressed by my mother.) The best thing to answer de:wp's original concern is: fix the specific problems in Vector very quickly indeed. (Does it work on old Blackberrys yet?) Because Vector is test-proven to actually be a better skin for the newbie. But we need to do all the long-tail stuff too. As people know already. Does de:wp have a list of specific problems with the current version of Vector? (I may be biased, as I switched to Vector the moment the beta was announced and have loved using it since.) - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Self-determination of language versions in questions of skin?
On 07/04/2010 11:06 AM, David Gerard wrote: > So I hereby admit to being wrong both > in what I asked and how I asked it, and beg your forgiveness. And I > bet you don't see people do that much on the Internet ;-) > No, which makes it especially worth appreciating, on three levels. First, is says something good about the person. Second, it can really move a discussion along. And third, it serves as an example for future discussions, like begetting like. So thanks! Regarding the last point, I don't have time to run it, but I'm glad to endow the first year of the David Gerard Apology of the Month Prize. (Mensch of the month? WP:COOL of the month? I'm open to better names.) I'm thinking a Wikipedia globe t-shirt sent to the community member who most clearly demonstrates an excess of reasonableness in a difficult community discussion. If anybody wants to wrangle that, just let me know each month's winner and CafePress shirt choice. William ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Self-determination of language versions in questions of skin?
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 7:29 PM, Martin Maurer wrote: > May I ask for an official Yes or No answer from the Foundation, please? I don't think it's reasonable to demand a yes or no answer to a vague hypothetical question. The answer might depend on the community's stated reasons for the request, how many people support or oppose, whether there seems to be a risk of people quitting the project or forking, and many other factors. I think it's safe to guess that there are some possible conditions under which Wikimedia would switch a project temporarily back to Monobook if asked, and other conditions under which it would not. You have to actually formulate a request and get consensus for it to get an answer, because the people responsible for making the decision will need to look at the particular circumstances. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Self-determination of language versions in questions of skin?
On 07/04/2010 03:40 AM, Eugene Eric Kim wrote: > 1. Decision-making processes for development. Many of the large open > source projects have core teams consisting of both paid and volunteer > developers, and they typically have a decision-making process that is > independent of any single organization. For example, decisions on > Firefox are made by the Firefox core team, not by the Mozilla > Foundation. The Firefox core team happens to be mostly made up of > Mozilla Foundation developers, but that is not a structural > requirement. I believe the same holds true for MediaWiki, and if this > is the case, it's worth making explicit. Where there's ambiguity, it's > worth naming the ambiguity. The point of the Firefox project is to create a web browser and the core team has control over that. They cannot decide on the structural conditions of their work environment, e.g. who is employed by the Mozilla Foundation. The point of Wikimedia projects is to create free works and the community has control over that. They do not have control of the structural conditions of their work environment, e.g. WMF servers and such. You can't compare the developement of MediaWiki & the Wikimedia community with the development of Firefox & the Firefox core team, because MediaWiki is just a means for a different goal (free works), whereas Firefox is the goal. Regards, Tobias (User:Church of emacs) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Self-determination of language versions in questions of skin?
On 07/03/2010 06:11 PM, David Gerard wrote: >> That's phrased in terms of dominance. It's in effect asking who's the >> bigger monkey. I think that's a conversation worth avoiding where possible. >> > > The dominance element was brought in, as you well know, by Trevor > Parscal's preremptory reversion of the removal of the collapsed list. > The dominance was, as you well know, already blatantly exercised. The > question now is what defences are possible. > Honestly, I've only followed this casually, so I've lost track of who exactly did what. But "X did it first" is a weak argument. As far as I can tell, this is jusjt another Wrong Version situation. > Please, stop trying to obfuscate. > I'm not trying to obfuscate. I just think power jockeying is a giant waste of time when everybody's allegedly on the same side -- and given our mission, I think we are. This is less a participant's opinion about community/foundation relations, and more my professional opinion about how to handle design questions in modern, highly iterative software development projects. Many of the people doing well at this are intensely data-driven. YouTube, for example, uses four major independent sources of data to inform design hypotheses, and then they rigorously split-test all proposed changes to monitor impacts on a host of key metrics. They tinker relentlessly, running dozens of experiments in parallel and releasing at least weekly. They only give new designs significant traffic when they've found a measurable improvement. Wikipedia, given its open, do-ocractic nature, shouldn't be less data-focused than places like that. We should be striving to be leaders, not 5 years behind best practice. In my view, arguing over who's the biggest monkey, and therefore therefore gets to pick which Wrong Version we settle on, is just a big distraction from actual productive work. Large corporations can afford that sort of waste, but I don't think a mission-driven one should tolerate it. William ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Self-determination of language versions in questions of skin?
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 6:11 PM, David Gerard wrote: > On 4 July 2010 02:03, William Pietri wrote: >> On 07/03/2010 04:47 PM, David Gerard wrote: > >>> Well. not really. He's asking the same question Greg Maxwell and I >>> asked last month about the language list defaulting to open rather >>> than closed: If a wiki voted for it, would that override the usability >>> team's dictates? That was a straight "yes or no" question, like this >>> is, and we only got weaseling too. > >> That's phrased in terms of dominance. It's in effect asking who's the >> bigger monkey. I think that's a conversation worth avoiding where possible. > > The dominance element was brought in, as you well know, by Trevor > Parscal's preremptory reversion of the removal of the collapsed list. > The dominance was, as you well know, already blatantly exercised. The > question now is what defences are possible. Which was then re-reverted. Many people have commit access, not just the usability team, as this example itself demonstrated. Both Tim and Erik's responses clearly addressed your original question, David. Usability changes may be informed by wiki votes, but they will not be determined by them. Martin's original question was much more nuanced, and it's worth some further discussion. Tim suggested that the right place to have this specific discussion with developers is Bugzilla, and I hope that's happening. I think there are also some broader issues worth discussing and eventually clarifying: 1. Decision-making processes for development. Many of the large open source projects have core teams consisting of both paid and volunteer developers, and they typically have a decision-making process that is independent of any single organization. For example, decisions on Firefox are made by the Firefox core team, not by the Mozilla Foundation. The Firefox core team happens to be mostly made up of Mozilla Foundation developers, but that is not a structural requirement. I believe the same holds true for MediaWiki, and if this is the case, it's worth making explicit. Where there's ambiguity, it's worth naming the ambiguity. 2. Developer versus community control. Wikimedia projects retain some measure of independence and control, not just on the development side, but also on the policy side. This is a good thing on many levels. On the development side, it's not realistic to expect that a small team of developers will be able to determine the best set of defaults for 700 different projects. However... 3. Mechanisms for informing decisions. As Erik pointed out, decisions need to take into account different stakeholders, many of whom have no voice in the process. So the question (and opportunity) is, how can we give voice to the voiceless? One way is through the usual wiki and mailing list channels. Another (perhaps less well utilized) is considering OTRS feedback. I think the big opportunity is exposing and incorporating more behavioral data. The usability team has already started down this road, and I think there will be many more things to come in the future. Incorporating this kind of data will better inform both developers and contributors, which will hopefully help move us toward a more informed and effective consensus process. Note that there's been some good discussions/explorations on what sort of data to look at and how to expose it on the strategy wiki: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Analytics =Eugene -- == Eugene Eric Kim http://xri.net/=eekim Blue Oxen Associates http://www.blueoxen.com/ == ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Self-determination of language versions in questions of skin?
On 4 July 2010 02:03, William Pietri wrote: > On 07/03/2010 04:47 PM, David Gerard wrote: >> Well. not really. He's asking the same question Greg Maxwell and I >> asked last month about the language list defaulting to open rather >> than closed: If a wiki voted for it, would that override the usability >> team's dictates? That was a straight "yes or no" question, like this >> is, and we only got weaseling too. > That's phrased in terms of dominance. It's in effect asking who's the > bigger monkey. I think that's a conversation worth avoiding where possible. The dominance element was brought in, as you well know, by Trevor Parscal's preremptory reversion of the removal of the collapsed list. The dominance was, as you well know, already blatantly exercised. The question now is what defences are possible. Please, stop trying to obfuscate. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Self-determination of language versions in questions of skin?
On 07/03/2010 04:47 PM, David Gerard wrote: > Well. not really. He's asking the same question Greg Maxwell and I > asked last month about the language list defaulting to open rather > than closed: If a wiki voted for it, would that override the usability > team's dictates? That was a straight "yes or no" question, like this > is, and we only got weaseling too. > That's phrased in terms of dominance. It's in effect asking who's the bigger monkey. I think that's a conversation worth avoiding where possible. I'd rather see people discuss this in terms of data, and what it implies for the mission. If an interface choice is controversial, that often means it's good for some people and bad for others. If we can find out which people are which, and the extent of the benefits or harms, we'll all be better off. At the very least, we can have a more useful discussion, one framed by our mission, rather than by politicking. At best, the right answer will be obvious, and perhaps it will be an answer that didn't occur to us before. Ook ook, William ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Self-determination of language versions in questions of skin?
On 4 July 2010 00:34, Liam Wyatt wrote: > You have started with a theoretical question that is complex and interesting > - about the languages/project's relationship to the MediaWiki skin. You have > received a very thorough and well reasoned answer from both the head > software developer and deputy director of the WMF answering this question > with nuance. You can't ask an "open" question and expect/demand a "closed" > response. Well. not really. He's asking the same question Greg Maxwell and I asked last month about the language list defaulting to open rather than closed: If a wiki voted for it, would that override the usability team's dictates? That was a straight "yes or no" question, like this is, and we only got weaseling too. I asked on internal-l and couldn't get a straight answer there either. Straight answer, anyone? - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Self-determination of language versions in questions of skin?
You have started with a theoretical question that is complex and interesting - about the languages/project's relationship to the MediaWiki skin. You have received a very thorough and well reasoned answer from both the head software developer and deputy director of the WMF answering this question with nuance. You can't ask an "open" question and expect/demand a "closed" response. -Liam wittylama.com/blog Peace, love & metadata On 3 July 2010 23:29, Martin Maurer wrote: > May I ask for an official Yes or No answer from the Foundation, please? > > Martin > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Self-determination of language versions in questions of skin?
May I ask for an official Yes or No answer from the Foundation, please? Martin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Self-determination of language versions in questions of skin?
2010/6/28 Tim Starling : > In this case, I would recommend a process of negotiation. Detail your > concerns in Bugzilla, and give the developers time to respond to them. This is good advice. I want to add that there's something very unusual about the work that's been done over the last year, relative to many other software changes we've made over the years. Its primary audience is not in fact the community of individuals who may participate in polls or file bugs in BugZilla -- its primary audience are the readers of Wikimedia Foundation projects who have knowledge to share, but who may find our user interface and user experience too daunting to do so. The changes we've made have therefore not been directed at experienced editors at all, and insofar as we've considered their needs and interests, our primary intent has been not to cause significant impediments or inconveniences except where such inconveniences were deemed necessary trade-offs to accomplish a better experience for new users. Our motivations for engaging in such a project are rooted in the well-established trend of stagnation and, in some cases, decline of key participation metrics in the largest Wikimedia projects. Those trends can be seen clearly in the numbers of active contributors, and the numbers of new editors joining the projects: http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediansNew.htm http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediansEditsGt5.htm German Wikipedia, by the way, is no exception from this trend, and indeed, shows a significant decline in the number of new editors joining, and a less dramatic but still pronounced decline in the number of active editors from its peak levels. User experience, by its very nature, is habitual. Don Norman, in "The Design of Everyday Things", describes many examples of idiotic design decisions for everyday objects like doors, projectors, or stove top controls. After initial irritation, we accept those design decisions, get used to them, and will suffer another brief irritation when someone tries to fix them. The same is true for user interfaces in software. A degree of temporary inconvenience when changing user interfaces is unavoidable, and thus, any such change tends to be accompanied by voices of frustration and irritation by established users who have learned the habits the software forced them to learn. In no way is such frustration or irritation alone evidence that the change was wrong: it is entirely to be expected. Agile user testing in small groups is a well-established methodology for engineering a better user experience and surfacing key impediments for new users of a given interface. The improvements we've made have been grounded in real impediments people with no prior editing experience have encountered when navigating Monobok's cluttered and tiny tabs, utilizing the mystery toolbar (a trumpet? really?) [*], finding the tiny search box in the sidebar, etc. Thus, we are in favor of continued conversations about the best user experience for Wikipedia, but we're not going to roll back the user interface only because a self-selected majority of active editors vote to decide to make it so. Let's have focused conversations about whether the changes we've made serve the established need (creating a better participation experience for new users) without unintended side effects and unacceptable trade-offs. Surfacing normal change resistance is not particularly helpful; surfacing facts and thoughtful arguments certainly is, and we've tried to respond to those. As many of you have seen, we've continued to make changes and apply fixes to the new UX at a fast pace (see http://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?path=/trunk/extensions/UsabilityInitiative&title=Special:Code/MediaWiki/path ) ; that pace will slow down in July due to Wikimania, but will resume at full swing thereafter. We are also incrementally improving our analytics (using open source tools) so we can better measure the actual impact of everything we do. All best, Erik [*] I'm personally responsible for the initial design of the edit toolbar, and deeply appreciate the work that's been done by the team to identify what people actually click on, come up with sensible icons, and remove clutter. The toolbar was always conceptualized with new editors in mind, and the new design serves that audience much better. -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Self-determination of language versions in questions of skin?
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 5:55 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > Please read what Tim wrote; he suggested for you to take time and not decide > in a hurry to move away from vector. Yes, I read what Tim wrote, but I beg to differ on that suggestion and would like to explain why. The issue is urgent now (we have switched to Vector and get massive complaints about it) and any fixes to Vector will take their time. It is not just one or two small details that can be fixed quickly. Rolling back the default skin would be a quick solution that would *buy us the time needed* to fix the issues with Vector. We're not talking about a long-term decision to keep Monobook as default. Development on Vector will continue and once Vector is sufficiently improved it is likely that a clear majority in the community will prefer it to Monobook and the switch could then be made driven by the community. Tim's suggestion, on the other hand, would mean that we should urge the community and our readers to be patient and wait another couple of months (while using Vector as default) and then, after Vector has been improved, we might perhaps poll the community about whether they still want to switch back or not. The end result of this approach might be the same (we have an improved Vector skin as default), but the process is much more frustrating. The worst thing about it might be that the community and our readers would feel as if a new skin was introduced without asking and possibly against the will of a majority of those who are affected. That would not look good on us. Martin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Self-determination of language versions in questions of skin?
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 3:55 AM, Gerard Meijssen
wrote:
> Effort will be concentrated on further
> development of vector and support for other skins will consequently be an
> afterthought. Expensive at that.
>
{{fact}}?
I know quite a bit of effort goes into maintaining Monobook and Modern,
and issues in either get fixed rather quickly. It's only the old skins (Chic,
Simple, CologneBlue) that have been forgotten. And that's hardly the
WMF's fault...they're ignored by volunteer developers as well.
-Chad
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Self-determination of language versions in questions of skin?
Gerard, I'm not sure such a condescending tone helps anybody. Also, I'm not sure you've understood the intent of Martin's post. I'm under the impression he'd only like to put off implementation of Vector in his community until some problems get worked out, not permanently. Besides, I think the question here is more fundamental than that. -m. On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 12:55 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > Please read what Tim wrote; he suggested for you to take time and not decide > in a hurry to move away from vector. Effort will be concentrated on further > development of vector and support for other skins will consequently be an > afterthought. Expensive at that. > > When you choose to stick to monobook you will have more bugs and issues in > the long run. As Roan indicated, some new features will just work some > won't. > Thanks, > GerardM > > On 30 June 2010 09:42, Martin Maurer wrote: > >> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Tim Starling >> wrote: >> > Editor communities do not have any fundamental rights to choose how >> > MediaWiki is configured. However, the Foundation's goals are closely >> > aligned with those of the communities, and the Foundation respects the >> > central role communities play in the success of the projects, and so >> > the Foundation has usually honoured such configuration requests. >> > >> > In this case, I would recommend a process of negotiation. Detail your >> > concerns in Bugzilla, and give the developers time to respond to them. >> > A premature vote on the issue would make compromise difficult. The >> > Foundation has spent a lot of time and money on the Vector skin, and >> > it would be a pity to see it thrown away. >> > >> > -- Tim Starling >> >> Thanks for your reply, Tim. No worries, in no case would Vector be >> 'thrown away'. We are happy that Wikipedia offers not just one skin, >> the default, but multiple skins, and Vector is certainly appreciated >> as a new option in the list. Variety and choice in the look and feel >> of the user interface is one of our great assets. I trust the >> Foundation sees that the same way. We allow individual users to select >> and customize their skin, and it might be in the same spirit to allow >> individual wikis to choose and customize their default skin. >> >> Everyone is aware that a lot of time and money has gone into the >> development of Vector. But none of that would be lost because a) there >> are many Wikimedia projects in many language versions and Vector seems >> to enjoy good support elsewhere (correct me if I'm wrong), b) Vector >> remains a selectable skin in the preferences and many users use it >> even when it's not the default skin. And surely we will get enough >> feedback from all over the world to fix reported issues with Vector >> even when single wiki communities reverted to (or decided to continue >> to use) Monobook as the default skin for unregistered and newly >> registered users. And at any time (say in a few months) it would be >> easy to poll the community again to see which skin they prefer as >> default now. >> >> In no scenario would it mean an end to Vector. It might even help >> Vector being improved more quickly and extensively than it otherwise >> would. And it would make a good impression if the Foundation granted >> communities that choice, I think. >> >> Martin >> >> ___ >> foundation-l mailing list >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >> > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Self-determination of language versions in questions of skin?
Hoi, Please read what Tim wrote; he suggested for you to take time and not decide in a hurry to move away from vector. Effort will be concentrated on further development of vector and support for other skins will consequently be an afterthought. Expensive at that. When you choose to stick to monobook you will have more bugs and issues in the long run. As Roan indicated, some new features will just work some won't. Thanks, GerardM On 30 June 2010 09:42, Martin Maurer wrote: > On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Tim Starling > wrote: > > Editor communities do not have any fundamental rights to choose how > > MediaWiki is configured. However, the Foundation's goals are closely > > aligned with those of the communities, and the Foundation respects the > > central role communities play in the success of the projects, and so > > the Foundation has usually honoured such configuration requests. > > > > In this case, I would recommend a process of negotiation. Detail your > > concerns in Bugzilla, and give the developers time to respond to them. > > A premature vote on the issue would make compromise difficult. The > > Foundation has spent a lot of time and money on the Vector skin, and > > it would be a pity to see it thrown away. > > > > -- Tim Starling > > Thanks for your reply, Tim. No worries, in no case would Vector be > 'thrown away'. We are happy that Wikipedia offers not just one skin, > the default, but multiple skins, and Vector is certainly appreciated > as a new option in the list. Variety and choice in the look and feel > of the user interface is one of our great assets. I trust the > Foundation sees that the same way. We allow individual users to select > and customize their skin, and it might be in the same spirit to allow > individual wikis to choose and customize their default skin. > > Everyone is aware that a lot of time and money has gone into the > development of Vector. But none of that would be lost because a) there > are many Wikimedia projects in many language versions and Vector seems > to enjoy good support elsewhere (correct me if I'm wrong), b) Vector > remains a selectable skin in the preferences and many users use it > even when it's not the default skin. And surely we will get enough > feedback from all over the world to fix reported issues with Vector > even when single wiki communities reverted to (or decided to continue > to use) Monobook as the default skin for unregistered and newly > registered users. And at any time (say in a few months) it would be > easy to poll the community again to see which skin they prefer as > default now. > > In no scenario would it mean an end to Vector. It might even help > Vector being improved more quickly and extensively than it otherwise > would. And it would make a good impression if the Foundation granted > communities that choice, I think. > > Martin > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Self-determination of language versions in questions of skin?
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Tim Starling wrote: > Editor communities do not have any fundamental rights to choose how > MediaWiki is configured. However, the Foundation's goals are closely > aligned with those of the communities, and the Foundation respects the > central role communities play in the success of the projects, and so > the Foundation has usually honoured such configuration requests. > > In this case, I would recommend a process of negotiation. Detail your > concerns in Bugzilla, and give the developers time to respond to them. > A premature vote on the issue would make compromise difficult. The > Foundation has spent a lot of time and money on the Vector skin, and > it would be a pity to see it thrown away. > > -- Tim Starling Thanks for your reply, Tim. No worries, in no case would Vector be 'thrown away'. We are happy that Wikipedia offers not just one skin, the default, but multiple skins, and Vector is certainly appreciated as a new option in the list. Variety and choice in the look and feel of the user interface is one of our great assets. I trust the Foundation sees that the same way. We allow individual users to select and customize their skin, and it might be in the same spirit to allow individual wikis to choose and customize their default skin. Everyone is aware that a lot of time and money has gone into the development of Vector. But none of that would be lost because a) there are many Wikimedia projects in many language versions and Vector seems to enjoy good support elsewhere (correct me if I'm wrong), b) Vector remains a selectable skin in the preferences and many users use it even when it's not the default skin. And surely we will get enough feedback from all over the world to fix reported issues with Vector even when single wiki communities reverted to (or decided to continue to use) Monobook as the default skin for unregistered and newly registered users. And at any time (say in a few months) it would be easy to poll the community again to see which skin they prefer as default now. In no scenario would it mean an end to Vector. It might even help Vector being improved more quickly and extensively than it otherwise would. And it would make a good impression if the Foundation granted communities that choice, I think. Martin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Self-determination of language versions in questions of skin?
--- On Mon, 6/28/10, Martin Maurer wrote: > From: Martin Maurer > Subject: [Foundation-l] Self-determination of language versions in questions > of skin? > To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Date: Monday, June 28, 2010, 6:11 PM > Hello, > > I posted this yesterday at wikitech-l and was told to ask > this > question here at foundation-l. > > I'm a member of the German language Wikipedia community and > have a > question that no-one could give me a definite answer to so > far. I hope > someone here can answer it, or point me to where I should > go to get a > definite answer. > > The question is, what level of self-determination do the > 260 language > versions of Wikipedia have as to the design of their user > interfaces > (skins)? Can individual wikis choose independently > modifications of > their skins, and which of the available skins to use as the > default > for unregistered users, or is this controlled centrally by > the > Foundation? > > For backgrund, this question arose after the German > language Wikipedia > (de.wikipedia.org) was switched from Monobook to Vector as > the default > skin on the 10th of June 2010, resulting in considerable > criticism > from the community. On the more sober side of the debate, > it was asked > whether it would be theoretically possible to return to > Monobook as > the default skin, at least for some time until the biggest > known > issues with Vector have been fixed. Under the theoretical > scenario > that a majority voted for a return to Monobook as the > default skin, > would it be possible at all to switch it back? Or would the > Foundation > not permit that? > > The question seems to be a very fundamental one and I would > also > appreciate insights into the big picture. How independent > are the > language versions? To what degree can they govern > themselves and to > what degree are they bound by decisions made centrally by > the > Foundation? I don't think you have quite the right question in framing the Foundation as "other". Rather, what degree do should the wikis present a cohesive movement to the world? What issues are so important to you that you might really say, "Forget the unified movement we mean to have our way in this."? I am serious there; I know I have my own issues. Mostly about things that I believe that would harm the Wikimedia movement in the long run if not pursued. One of my pet issues is even the self-governance of the wikis (Sister projects as well as languages). It is a well-known proof of independence that some wikis accept fair-use images and others forbid them. But these breaks in unity are not without a price and shouldn't be pursued lightly. I am sure there are still many strong feelings and barriers to collaboration over the fair use issue even after all this time. I believe one the more important debates I have pursued in the past was convincing a wiki to decide through their local process to conform to what the larger community of wikis was promoting. The best thing that came out of that situation, in my opinion, was that we never had to test the bounds of self-governance. Certainly wikis working out local compromises which then make acceptable the adoption of changes that support unity through the WMF is the best case scenario. If you accept the local wiki's as being own decision-makers, you also must expect them to consider the larger benefit to Wikimedia in their decisions. In other words, the wikis are not so independent that they should feel correct in only considering their local community’s preferences when making decisions. You ask how far they are bound by the decisions made centrally by the Foundation, but I would say instead that they bind the Foundation with their decisions and should see this as an important responsibility. Several wikis could easily destroy the ability of the Foundation to create anything useful by each pulling in separate directions due to too much focus on local preferences. And though each wiki might count that as a "win" for their pet issue, alot of possibility would be lost. The whole mission to reach out to every person on the planet cannot survive by Anglophones catering only to Anglophones any more than by de.WP thinking only of what the de.WP community wants. Self-governance is the only option for running the wikis, but it will only serve the mission of WMF if they can each remember to govern themselves as an individual collaborator in a larger project. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Self-determination of language versions in questions of skin?
On 29/06/10 09:11, Martin Maurer wrote: > The question is, what level of self-determination do the 260 language > versions of Wikipedia have as to the design of their user interfaces > (skins)? Can individual wikis choose independently modifications of > their skins, and which of the available skins to use as the default > for unregistered users, or is this controlled centrally by the > Foundation? [...] > The question seems to be a very fundamental one and I would also > appreciate insights into the big picture. How independent are the > language versions? To what degree can they govern themselves and to > what degree are they bound by decisions made centrally by the > Foundation? Editor communities do not have any fundamental rights to choose how MediaWiki is configured. However, the Foundation's goals are closely aligned with those of the communities, and the Foundation respects the central role communities play in the success of the projects, and so the Foundation has usually honoured such configuration requests. In this case, I would recommend a process of negotiation. Detail your concerns in Bugzilla, and give the developers time to respond to them. A premature vote on the issue would make compromise difficult. The Foundation has spent a lot of time and money on the Vector skin, and it would be a pity to see it thrown away. -- Tim Starling ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Self-determination of language versions in questions of skin?
Hello, I posted this yesterday at wikitech-l and was told to ask this question here at foundation-l. I'm a member of the German language Wikipedia community and have a question that no-one could give me a definite answer to so far. I hope someone here can answer it, or point me to where I should go to get a definite answer. The question is, what level of self-determination do the 260 language versions of Wikipedia have as to the design of their user interfaces (skins)? Can individual wikis choose independently modifications of their skins, and which of the available skins to use as the default for unregistered users, or is this controlled centrally by the Foundation? For backgrund, this question arose after the German language Wikipedia (de.wikipedia.org) was switched from Monobook to Vector as the default skin on the 10th of June 2010, resulting in considerable criticism from the community. On the more sober side of the debate, it was asked whether it would be theoretically possible to return to Monobook as the default skin, at least for some time until the biggest known issues with Vector have been fixed. Under the theoretical scenario that a majority voted for a return to Monobook as the default skin, would it be possible at all to switch it back? Or would the Foundation not permit that? The question seems to be a very fundamental one and I would also appreciate insights into the big picture. How independent are the language versions? To what degree can they govern themselves and to what degree are they bound by decisions made centrally by the Foundation? Thanks, Martin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
