Why this Site?

  • Our Mission:
  • We exist to shine the light of scrutiny into the dark crevices of Wikipedia and its related projects; to examine the corruption there, along with its structural flaws; and to inoculate the unsuspecting public against the torrent of misinformation, defamation, and general nonsense that issues forth from one of the world’s most frequently visited websites, the “encyclopedia that anyone can edit.”
  • How you can participate:
  •  Visit the Wikipediocracy Forum, a candid exchange of views between Wikipedia editors, administrators, critics, proponents, and the general public.
  • 'Like' our Wikipediocracy page on Facebook.
  •  Follow Wikipediocracy on Twitter!

Press Releases

  • Please click here for recent Wikipediocracy press releases.

Media Viewer fails the grade

Wikipedia volunteers at war with the Wikimedia Foundation over new software feature

By Andreas Kolbe

The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) is facing yet another community backlash over the introduction of a major new software feature, the Media Viewer. One month after implementation, volunteer administrator Pete Forsyth unceremoniously switched the new feature off, only to find his change reverted by none other than the Wikimedia Foundation’s Deputy Director and VP of Engineering and Product Development, Erik Möller, who threatened to remove Forsyth’s administrative privileges. Möller in turn has now been hauled in front of Wikipedia’s arbitration committee, accused of overstepping his authority.

The spat follows similar controversies over other new software features the Foundation has tried to deploy in recent years, such as the now-defunct “Article Feedback Tool” and the “VisualEditor”, both of which were met with concerted resistance from the international volunteer community. The VisualEditor, too, was disabled by a volunteer administrator last year. Faced with massive community rebellion, the Wikimedia Foundation backed down then, allowing the change to stand. But this time, fearing a complete loss of authority, the Foundation seems to want to stand its ground.

The Media Viewer

Media Viewer zoom prototype

Media Viewer zoom prototype

The Media Viewer, a Facebook-like feature enabling users to view larger versions of images included in Wikipedia articles, had been in beta testing since November 2013. According to the Foundation’s 8-strong Multimedia team led by Fabrice Florin, the rate of favourable feedback had been “increasing across all languages over time”. This changed rapidly, however, when the tool was finally launched on June 3, 2014, becoming the English Wikipedia’s default image viewer.

Four days later, the English Wikipedia community began an “RfC” (Request for comment) on the new feature. Wikipedia’s requests for comment usually run for about a month, and are then closed by a volunteer administrator. In this case, the RfC’s conclusion came to read as follows:

There is a clear consensus that the Media Viewer should be disabled by default for both logged-in and non-logged-in users. 

A similar Request for Comment in Wikimedia Commons, Wikimedia’s central media archive, is still ongoing, but strongly tending towards the same result. In fact, even the Wikimedia Foundation’s own survey results and generally negative feedback show that most users of the English Wikipedia, both readers and editors, do not find the feature useful, something the Foundation attributes to software changes always being unpopular initially.

The Wikipedia RfC having concluded, a computer-savvy volunteer editor posted a line of code which would switch the unloved feature off. Less than an hour later, admin and former Wikimedia Foundation staff member Pete Forsyth implemented the change, citing the RfC result, thus disabling the Media Viewer in Wikipedia. Seven minutes after that, WMF Deputy Director Möller (user name “Eloquence”) reverted the change and left an eloquent message on Forsyth’s talk page:

Per Fabrice’s explanation, please refrain from further edits to the site JavaScript, or I will have to temporarily revoke your admin privileges. This is a WMF action.–Eloquence* 20:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

This got the Wikipedians’ backs up. WMF Office actions are very rare, and have generally only been taken when there was a clear external threat, say of a copyright or defamation lawsuit. They are not taken to enforce internal policies.

While no one reverted Möller’s re-implementation of the Media Viewer, less than a day later the WMF Deputy Director found himself the subject of a request for arbitration, faced with potential loss of his admin rights for violating “community norms”. By threatening to remove administrative privileges from a volunteer who was merely implementing community consensus, Wikipedians argued, Möller had overstepped his authority.

At the time of writing, five members of the arbitration committee, the highest dispute resolution body within the English Wikipedia, had voted to accept the case, one arbitrator opining that Möller’s conduct “may have fallen below the required standard”. None have declined the case (one recused, four are undecided, and two more are yet to comment).

Buggy software releases

Perceived shortcomings of the new Media Viewer include inadequate protection of copyrights and personality rights and a consumerist design that fails to draw new editors into Wikipedia’s steadily diminishing volunteer community. And “design flaws and bugs”, as described by Wikipedia administrator John Vandenberg in a parallel discussion on the Wikimedia mailing list:

… sometimes the licensing and attribution information isn’t correct, sometimes you get resolutions which are silly (especially svgs at launch, but also slideshows on a file page include a very large license logo), it takes extra clicks to get to the full-size version, only some of the categories are shown including otherwise ‘hidden’ categories, and sometimes the summary isn’t shown.

These are a combination of design flaws and blatant bugs which were known before launch. Has the WMF done a quick estimate on the amount of time before these basic functions of media viewer are working correctly? Has the WMF allocated developers to ensure these basic functions of media viewer work correct? I would be much happier to support it remaining opt-out if WMF could give an estimate on when this will be completed, rather than reading WMF directors say ‘most of the functionality people expect … is there’. It’s not, except in the ‘proof of concept’ mode. It’s a long way from being ready to leave beta, much like VisualEditor was. 

The VisualEditor, announced with great fanfare in the press last year and described as “epically important” by Jimmy Wales, was a WYSIWYG text editor that was supposed to revolutionise Wikipedia, making its articles as easy to edit as a Word document and bypassing the site’s complicated and idiosyncratic markup language. When the VisualEditor was finally launched, years behind schedule, the community hated it, calling the new feature “buggy” and complaining that it broke articles (which it did). It was simply substandard. Eventually, an administrator went over the Foundation’s heads and disabled the code that made the new feature the default editor. The Foundation backed down.

This time, however, Möller apparently considers that his credibility as Wikimedia’s VP of Engineeering and Product Development is at stake. Already there are widespread misgivings in the community about future software changes such as Flow, a planned Facebook-like revamp of Wikipedia discussion pages. If the English Wikipedia community were allowed to disable the Media Viewer, just like it scuppered the VisualEditor, Möller’s department might as well forget about its efforts to modernise the site’s antiquated user interface.

Growing pains


The Wikimedia Foundation is rolling in money. At the end of June 2013, its net assets stood north of $45 million. Earlier this month, it was announced that the WMF had generated another $50.5 million in donations in the July 2013 – June 2014 financial year. (To put this into perspective, in the 2006–2007 financial year, when Wikipedia was already a top-ten website, the Foundation’s total revenue amounted to $2.7 million.) Wikipedia’s fundraising banners work so well that the Foundation practically has money on tap. And it is this new-found wealth that has funded the growth of Möller’s Engineering and Product Development Department.

A few years ago, the Wikimedia Foundation got by on a handful of employees, and the site’s software was written and maintained by unpaid volunteers. Today, Möller presides over an empire of around 130 staff, their salaries paid from Wikipedia donations.

The department has grown so large, encompassing about two-thirds of all WMF employees, that Möller may be out of his depth. In November 2013, he announced on the Wikimedia Foundation blog that he was looking for a Vice President of Engineering to enable him to carry on as VP for Product only, thus splitting his present department in two. Apparently, the WMF are still looking for that person who will share the load.

Meanwhile, a good number of the rank-and-file engineering staff at the Foundation are simply former volunteer Wikipedia editors, with little or no relevant industry experience, who were looking for a job and career. The quality of the software they produce is attracting increasingly strident criticism from the unpaid volunteer community, who say that the work is inept, complain that volunteer editors’ views are disregarded, and begin to feel that they and their fellow Wikipedians are “no longer a customer of the WMF. They are now a hostage.”

Not a good sign for a project that has no shortage of readers and donors, but a steadily diminishing volunteer base.


A new Executive Director

It remains to be seen whether Lila Tretikov, the Wikimedia Foundation’s new Executive Director, can turn this dynamic around. Given her professional background, including a stint as Chief Information Officer and Vice President of Engineering at SugarCRM, Inc., she certainly would seem to have the necessary qualifications and experience.

Earlier this month, in a staff presentation citing The Lord of the Rings and Yoda, Tretikov reminded WMF employees: Remember … You work for the Users.

However, there was consolation too. One slide provided the reassuring reminder, “In practice … CHEER UP. If all else fails, you can set the building on fire.”

Ever onward, Wikimedia.



Image credits: Wikimedia, Flickr/PatLoika ~ licensed under Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 3.0 unported, 2.0 Generic

16 comments to Media Viewer fails the grade

  • HRIP7

    For the Wikipedia Signpost’s take on this story, see News and notes: Echoes of the past haunt new conflict over tech initiative

  • HRIP7

    For Erik Möller’s view, see his statements at the Request for Arbitration here.

    • Minnie

      Most readers and editors on en.wp have rejected the MV. Möller´s reply is, in essence: “The users don´t know what is best for them. We do!”

  • HRIP7

    From the latest Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan (page 5):


    In 2014-2015 our plan is to increase revenue to $58.5 million from a 2013-2014 projection of $52.5 million, an increase of 11%. Our revenue targets are designed to fund investments in the WMF, primarily in product development and engineering. We believe that if we chose to, we could increase revenues more than is reflected in this plan, but we believe this target reflects and appropriate balance between funding growth while minimizing annoyance to the readers of the projects.


    Money on tap. And lots of people who see the fundraising banners donate because they think Wikipedia is having an acute financial crisis and might have to pull the plug any minute now.

    Page 6 has a breakdown of spending. Product / Engineering is by far the largest item – over half, if you include the requisite proportion of HR, Finance and Admin. Given how strongly the unpaid volunteer community, who actually creates most of the value in Wikipedia, has rejected major new features this money has paid for, this is an expensive disconnect.

    Discussion here.

  • Gamaliel

    When Danny Wool unilaterally desysopped Möller back in 2006 when Möller reverted one of Wool’s ambiguous office actions, it was universally seen as a terrible case of overreach. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

  • HRIP7

    According to Wikipedia’s Guide to Arbitration,


    A request will proceed to arbitration if it meets all of the following criteria:

    1. Its acceptance has been supported by either of (i) four net votes (that is, four more “accept” than “decline” votes) or (ii) an absolute majority of active, non-recused arbitrators;

    2. More than 24 hours have elapsed since the request came to satisfy the above provision; and

    3. More than 48 hours have elapsed since the request was filed.

    A proceeding may be opened earlier, waiving provisions 2 and 3 above, if a majority of arbitrators support fast-track opening in their acceptance votes.


    The arbitration case request reached the required net four in support of a case a couple of days ago (it currently stands at 5 Accepts vs. 1 Decline). Unless something exceptional happens, there will indeed be an arbitration case to settle this matter.

  • HRIP7

    The arbitration case is now underway here (note the relevant evidence, workshop and proposed decision subpages, links to which are given in that page’s header).

  • […] rejection of new software features introduced by the Wikimedia Foundation, a matter that resulted in the Foundation’s Deputy Director Erik Möller being hauled before the Arbitration Committee, […]

  • HRIP7


    The arbitration case in the English Wikipedia is still ongoing. In the German Wikipedia, a local admin tried to switch the Media Viewer off after a Request for Comment came to the result that the community did not want the feature enabled by default.

    In response, the Wikimedia Foundation reverted the admin and created a new “superprotect” user right that shuts local admins out of the relevant configuration file. Wikimedia Foundation Deputy Director Erik Möller has in turn been blocked for a month in the German Wikipedia by a local admin – but the Media Viewer remains switched on, protected by the new “superprotect” feature.

    The volunteer community is in uproar.

  • […] volunteer community reared its ugly head. The trigger this time was the forced introduction of the Media Viewer to the German Wikipedia, after the community of editors that work on that version voted to disable […]

  • […] on the German Wikipedia from simply switching that new software feature off, too (see our previous coverage). As a result, the community is in uproar, and a petition has been launched on-wiki and on […]

  • […] the English and German Wikipedias’ volunteer communities over another unloved new feature, the Media Viewer. A volunteer administrator on the English Wikipedia tried to disable the feature, much as the […]

  • […] Its priorities currently are to expand its software engineering staff and modernize its software, especially in the mobile sector, in order to prevent readers from flocking to rival portals and […]

  • […] software produced has been fairly poor, and has been imposed by the foundation on the volunteers, who really wish the foundation wouldn’t do […]

  • […] have so far included VisualEditor, a “what you see is what you get” text editor, and Media Viewer. Both were foisted upon a largely unwilling audience of volunteer editors in an extremely […]