Sue, You have gotten your logic exactly backwards here.
Of course David is right -- we should all have some humility about things that we don't, and can't, know. But the people who express certainty about what readers need -- the people who assert that those needs are paramount, and trump the needs of editors (experienced and occasional), of photographers (with and without Wikimedia accounts), of models (consenting and non-consenting) -- and maybe most significantly, the people who have both the power and the audacity to impose their interpretation of those believes on millions upon millions upon millions of Wikimedia users -- those people all work for the Wikimedia Foundation. You're addressing the wrong audience here. -Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 9:40 PM, Sue Gardner <sgard...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > Hey guys, > > I use MediaViewer, I like it, and I am happy to trust the WMF product team > to build stuff. I didn't know about the RFC, but even if I had I would've > been unlikely to have participated, because I don't think small opt-in > discussions are the best way to do product development -- certainly not at > the scale of Wikipedia. > > I think we should aim on this list to be modest rather than overreaching in > terms of what we claim to know, and who we imply we're representing. It's > probably best to be clear --both in the mails we write and in our own heads > privately-- that what's happening here is a handful of people talking on a > mailing list. We can represent our own opinions, and like David Gerard we > can talk anecdotally about what our friends tell us. But I don't like it > when people here seem to claim to speak on behalf of editors, or users, or > readers, or the community. It strikes me as hubristic. > > Thanks, > Sue > On 10 Jul 2014 16:13, "MZMcBride" <z...@mzmcbride.com> wrote: > > > Erik Moeller wrote: > > >In this case, we will keep the feature enabled by default (it's easy > > >to turn off, both for readers and editors), but we'll continue to > > >improve it based on community feedback (as has already happened in the > > >last few weeks). > > > > Thanks for the reply. :-) > > > > If your feature development model seemingly requires forcing features on > > users, it's probably safe to say that it's broken. If you're building > cool > > new features, they will ideally be uncontroversial and users will > actively > > want to enable them and eventually have them enabled by default. Many new > > features (e.g., the improved search backend) are deployed fairly > regularly > > without fanfare or objection. But I see a common thread among > unsuccessful > > deployments of features such as ArticleFeedbackv5, VisualEditor, and > > MediaViewer. Some of it is the people involved, of course, but the larger > > pattern is a fault in the process, I think. I wonder how we address this. > > > > MZMcBride > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
