On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 12:03 PM, phoebe ayers <phoebe.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 8 April 2013 12:51, Brad Jorsch <bjor...@wikimedia.org> wrote: >> >> > On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Risker <risker...@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 RFC, or to discuss Wikidata on the English Wikipedia, is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikidata -- phoebe _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
