Hi,
Thanks for your message. I think it is honest and useful.
2014-09-01 20:40 GMT+05:30 Marc A. Pelletier :
...
>
> MV is a perfect example. 99% of the problems it objectively has (we
> ignore here matters of taste) derive from the difficulty of parsing the
> multitude overcomplicated templates
What is irritating about the ACTRIAL scenario, was that it was a well
defined (6 month) test.
It might have worked, it might not have worked. But we would have known.
We would have had solid comparators.
Most of what we do (WMF and community) has no control to establish whether
it works.
To be
I hope that's not the feature Philippe meant, but maybe. For my clients and
students I think it's generally caused more confusion than it's solved,
since now they have an additional layer of bureaucracy to navigate (AFC).
Is there any data suggesting that's been a net improvement for new users?
Pe
Wasn't the creation of the DRAFT namespace at least in part a response to
concerns raised at ACTRIAL, in particular new, poorly developed articles
showing up in mainspace?
Risker/Anne
On 1 September 2014 19:08, Joe Decker wrote:
> This, to the best of my knowledge, represents the entirety of t
This, to the best of my knowledge, represents the entirety of the WMF's
response to ACTRIAL. To the extent that there was additional feedback
given, it was not given at WP:ACTRIAL, nor any other venue I am aware of.
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30208
--Joe
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014
That's the issue I cited above. You haven't heard more complaints, because
the complaint was pointless the first time and took a massive effort to
produce.
The underlying issue isn't fixed. We're still drowning in crap and spam
from people who never have the slightest intent of editing helpfully,
On Sep 1, 2014 3:21 PM, "Philippe Beaudette"
wrote:
>
> > On Sep 1, 2014, at 8:45 AM, Todd Allen wrote:
> >
> > That's contradicted by, among other things, ACTRIAL as mentioned above.
The
> > en.wp community came to a clear consensus for a major change, and the
WMF
> > shrugged and said "Nah, rat
> On Sep 1, 2014, at 8:45 AM, Todd Allen wrote:
>
> That's contradicted by, among other things, ACTRIAL as mentioned above. The
> en.wp community came to a clear consensus for a major change, and the WMF
> shrugged and said "Nah, rather not."
That's... Not exactly what I remember happening th
-- Forwarded message --
From: Jayanta Nath
Date: Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:45 PM
Subject: Wikimedia India Chapter: Current state of affairs
To: wmin-memb...@googlegroups.com
Cc: "Discussion list on Indian language projects of Wikimedia." <
wikimediaindi...@lists.wikimedia.org>
Dear
Thank you very much, Marc, for this clear and sound statement. It
seems to me that there are many discussions that are far away from the
real points, like the multitude of information on our pages. I once
counted how many links there are on the German main page of Wikimedia
Commons, I stopped when
Hoi,
Dear Pine. I do not care a fig about what "some users" think. You either
support their view or you do not. When they consider that the current
number of readers is adequate, I want to appreciate what they think those
numbers are, what the trends are and how it is possible that their opinion
is
Yes, it is emotions that speak, though emotions are often concealed beneath
"arguments." Basic human psychology.
Any attempt to ascribe this affair to "sour grapes" from a disgruntled software
developer is looking at a bush in the forest and not the massive collection of
trees. No, it's about b
"No employee should be
made to receive that sort of harassment in the course of their job, no
matter how much you disagree with them."
How did it come to be part of Erik's job to create superprotect and attempt to
force the community to accept it? As the WMF is defined in its mission
statement,
On 1 September 2014 17:57, Martijn Hoekstra wrote:
> The same, by the way, goes for VE, which should have had "bail and give me
> what you have now as wikitext" from the onset, and Flow which needs a "bail
> and convert this thread to ye olde talkpage thread" (which I fear will be
> batted away a
On 09/01/2014 12:57 PM, Martijn Hoekstra wrote:
> The *correct* solution is to make MV bail completely on pages it fails to
> parse, falling back to the known bad-but-sufficient behaviour, and maybe
> adding a hidden category unparsable by MV to the image, so that it can be
> addressed. If 10% of t
On Sep 1, 2014 5:10 PM, "Marc A. Pelletier" wrote:
>
> Warning, tl;dr rant below in which live my personal opinion.
Thank you for that. A heartfelt rant feels a lot better than being told my
"call is important to you."
(snip)
> The fundamental issue is that the WMF is attempting to provide some
On 09/01/2014 11:45 AM, Todd Allen wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 9:10 AM, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
> We've heard that before.
Oh, I'm pretty damn sure that the "stick to the timeline" idea isn't
going to get traction ever again. :-) But yeah in general recognizing
an error is not, in itself,
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 9:10 AM, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
> Warning, tl;dr rant below in which live my personal opinion.
>
> On 09/01/2014 08:00 AM, Craig Franklin wrote:
> > fter the catastrophic
> > aborted launch of the Visual Editor, complete with numerous bugs that
> > should have been picked
On 01/09/2014, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
...
> metadata. It's not an argument against MV, it's an argument for getting
> rid of the horrid way we handle File: pages with ad-hoc workarounds.
> The *correct* solution is to fix the damn image pages, not to remove MV.
...
So, can you link me to a pos
Warning, tl;dr rant below in which live my personal opinion.
On 09/01/2014 08:00 AM, Craig Franklin wrote:
> fter the catastrophic
> aborted launch of the Visual Editor, complete with numerous bugs that
> should have been picked up in even a cursory unit testing scheme or
> regression testing sche
I think you've hit the nail on the head here. It's not about MediaViewer
at all, it's about two things:
#1: The frustration of some volunteers that they feel their views are not
being adequately considered in major deployments of new software.
#2: A lack of confidence and faith in the WMF Enginee
The difficulty of working with multiple configurations is one of WMF's main
points, along with its opinion that readers prefer MV and that WMF should
prioritize what WMF feels the readers want. WMF also is making a point of
claiming soveriegnty over software configuration.
Meanwhile, many voluntee
22 matches
Mail list logo
