Media Viewer - A new hope

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Fri Jul 11, 2014 12:27 am

They seem happy...

Why is that surprising though? It is not the first time they ignore consensus. Consensus *here* is meaningless to them when it comes to their pet projects. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any way that Eloquence's warning comes under the umbrella of an office action: labeling it as such does not make it so. An office action is defined under WP:OFFICE as "Office actions are official changes made on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, by members of its office. These are removals of questionable or illegal Wikimedia content following complaints. Office actions are performed so that the end result is a legally compliant article on the subject". There's no way that enabling tools that were disabled based on local consensus to do so falls under that definition.—Kww(talk) 23:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

He just overrode community consensus with a single revert and threat. You can't expect the community to just look the other way. added Although the below may in part explain the authority, perhaps that should have been explained. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

It is a hell of a way to talk to a volunteer. Chillum 23:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

To put it as eloquently as I can, he can fuck right off with that bullshit. This is a consensus based community project, we do not kowtow to the corporate hierarchy. -- John Reaves 00:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Fri Jul 11, 2014 12:32 am

Erik Mo:eller, completely involved.
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=67826

Erik Moeller 2014-07-11 00:13:02 UTC

Closing WONTFIX per previously provided explanation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =616407785

Just wow.

He's got an unhappy group of loyal customers who want him to change a very minor configuration switch. They voted on it and it was 10-1 in favor of this change.

"Fuck you," crowed Mo:eller.

The non-answers, the attempt to call it a "WMF Action", the threat of desysopping, the ignoring of consensus, the involved closing of the bugzilla ticket, the evasive smugness...

Lila, if you accomplish nothing else in your tenure, fire this shit.

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Fri Jul 11, 2014 1:14 am

It might be time for a blog post reviewing Erik Möller's career, controversial opinions, and a brief review of his recent work.

Just as a quick guide for anyone who might have to make a critical decision based on incomplete facts...

Call it, "Erik Möller, This Is Your Life!"

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Fri Jul 11, 2014 4:58 am

While I still like the Media Viewer better than the old system, I find Erik Moeller's attitude highly offensive.

Adding his current hubris to the Reader Feedback, VE, and Flow debacles, I think it is time for him to lay his head down on the chopping block for a burly black-hooded fellow...

Maybe someone can start an RFC calling for his dismissal...

RfB

Sparky · Unread post by **Sparky** » Fri Jul 11, 2014 5:44 am

Randy from Boise wrote:While I still like the Media Viewer better than the old system, I find Erik Moeller's attitude highly offensive.

Adding his current hubris to the Reader Feedback, VE, and Flow debacles, I think it is time for him to lay his head down on the chopping block for a burly black-hooded fellow...

Maybe someone can start an RFC calling for his dismissal...

RfB

Who would respond on behalf of the WMF to say that local consensus doesn't really mean anything to the Federation Foundation.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Fri Jul 11, 2014 5:57 am

This should be a watershed moment.

You have the head of engineering for the wikimedia foundation telling sysops on a wiki that use that software how they may or may not configure their local setup and threatening the local sysops with desysoping if they thwart the will of the developers.

en.wp is no longer a customer of the WMF. They are now a hostage.

dogbiscuit · Unread post by **dogbiscuit** » Fri Jul 11, 2014 7:30 am

Vigilant wrote:This should be a watershed moment.

You have the head of engineering for the wikimedia foundation telling sysops on a wiki that use that software how they may or may not configure their local setup and threatening the local sysops with desysoping if they thwart the will of the developers.

en.wp is no longer a customer of the WMF. They are now a hostage.

Perhaps the full answer is more, "We are not going to take it out and we aren't really interested in making it work the way you want because we think it is good enough or it's the best we can manage."

If they could release properly functional product then they wouldn't be having these mini-revolutions.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Fri Jul 11, 2014 7:40 am

dogbiscuit wrote:
Vigilant wrote:This should be a watershed moment.

You have the head of engineering for the wikimedia foundation telling sysops on a wiki that use that software how they may or may not configure their local setup and threatening the local sysops with desysoping if they thwart the will of the developers.

en.wp is no longer a customer of the WMF. They are now a hostage.
Perhaps the full answer is more, "We are not going to take it out and we aren't really interested in making it work the way you want because we think it is good enough or it's the best we can manage."

If they could release properly functional product then they wouldn't be having these mini-revolutions.

That's exactly right.

But being this broken an engineering organization, they can't seem to produce even beta software for release and they are forced to insist that en.wp to take their offering lest engineering be exposed for the fools that they are ... like the VisualEditor debacle.

That makes this so very clear.
This is life and death for Mo:eller.
If another project ends up in the dustbin of WMF history, he's toast.
If he loses this job, there's absolutely no way he can get anything comparable. He's severely damaged goods.

MediaViewer is his Bastogne.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Fri Jul 11, 2014 3:06 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:I think it is time for him to lay his head down on the chopping block for a burly black-hooded fellow...

We don't condone threats of violence on Wikipediocracy, Tim.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Fri Jul 11, 2014 3:31 pm

thekohser wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:I think it is time for him to lay his head down on the chopping block for a burly black-hooded fellow...
We don't condone threats of violence on Wikipediocracy, Tim.

I am humbled.

t

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Fri Jul 11, 2014 4:02 pm

Pete Forsyth, running the METAPHORICAL razor across Sue Gardner's skinny throat.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wi ... 73259.html

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]]

I'm not a big fan of Pete's but he hits it squarely on the head here.
Aren't you out of here yet, Sue?
Isn't there somewhere else you can shit up?

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Fri Jul 11, 2014 4:28 pm

Kelly Martin wrote:The Wikimedia operations team reports to Erik. If he orders them to desysop someone, they have to do it. That gives him all the authority he needs. The fact that the community doesn't acknowledge such authority is irrelevant, because the community has no ability to resist anything that happens by WMF edict.

But wouldn't this be further evidence that WMF has enough control over the site to undermine its immunity?

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Fri Jul 11, 2014 4:43 pm

Off to arbitration!

Anybody want to bet that the arbs shrink from their duty and refuse the case as a form of pocket veto?

Anybody want to bet that WMF staffers aren't backchannelling them right now in ways that would have gotten Fae launched from this rocky planet?

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Fri Jul 11, 2014 5:18 pm

And true to form, Risker is right in there spreading the dumb as far as she can.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =616542399

Statement by Risker

There are a whole pile of issues going on here, almost none of which have anything to do with the initial proposal. My recommendation to the Committee is to reject the case as framed.

Of course it is. You're a toady.

The assessment of consensus on the RFC is obviously not correct.

Reeeeaaaalllly?
Bold of you to lie so blatantly right to the ARBs, Anne.
From the RFC

Should Media Viewer be enabled or disabled by default for logged-in users, and if disabled, under what conditions should it be re-enabled?

Passed 64-5

Should Media Viewer be enabled or disabled by default for non-logged-in users, and if disabled, under what conditions should it be re-enabled?

Passed 43-10
That's both questions with over 80% for a 30 day RfC.
Looks like standard operating procedure to me

The RFC discussed whether or not MediaViewer should be the default, and there was no proposal to disable it entirely.

Minor changes to the javascript to precheck conditionals in each user's config will fix this. Red herring.

The editor who closed the RFC (not an administrator, it should be noted) seems to have misunderstood the RFC to the point that his closing statement is "There is a clear consensus that the Media Viewer should be disabled for both logged-in and logged-out users", an outcome that was in no way considered by the participants in the RFC.

Ah, pulling out the "admins are better than regular users" schtick again, eh Anne?
Add "by default" and we're there.
You're grasping at straws, as usual.

Essentially, Armbrust has incorrectly declared a consensus for complete disabling by reviewing discussions about disabling default.

It's a typo, you histrionic shitheel.

The code inserted by Pete Forsyth disabled MediaViewer entirely for all users on English Wikipedia.

A one line conditional check against existing configuration information fixes that.
He didn't even have time to find that since he was reverted with threat of desysop by the head of WMF engineering.

This is a breaking change, does not reflect the outcome of the RFC (regardless of the interpretation by Armbrust - Pete as a long-time administrator should be able to recognize the error in the close), prevents users from opting in to the extension, and is presumptively contrary to the wishes of the users who had voluntarily opted in to MV prior to it becoming default.

A one line fix to the proposed javascript on en.wp.
Don't you think that this might be handled better on the WMF side?
They could easily make this change but they won't.
Why aren't you mentioning that? Quisling.

Some statistical information:

AKA - trot out the big lies!

Prior to MediaViewer being activated as the default media viewer, 14,681 English Wikipedia editors had voluntarily opted in for it to be their default viewer.

So? What's your point? How does this RfC affect them?
With the tiny change to the javascript to check their configuration, this will have zero impact on those users.
But, you knew that already and were trying to lie by copious handwaving.

As of around 0600 UTC today, 1652 English Wikipedia editors had actively disabled MediaViewer, either through their preferences or by clicking the "disable" button when looking at an image with MediaViewer (which alters their preferences).

Again, is there a point coming towards this conversation in the near future?
You do realize that this makes you look just as DUMB as you really are? Right?

There were only 111 editors who participated in any way in the RFC. Of those:
64 supported disabling MediaViewer as default for logged-in users
43 supported disabling MediaViewer as default for logged-out users

So? Is there a minimum participation threshold on EN.WP?
Is that written somewhere or are you attempting to intimate, at this late date, that the RfC rules need revising?
WP:SOFIXIT
For this RfC, the rules were followed meticulously. And you know it.

P.S. Passed 64-5. Only FIVE people in all of en.wp opposed this change. Where are the screaming multitudes of people, who opted in for the media viewer, who hate, hate, hate this change?
There aren't any? Really?
Passed 43-10. Only TEN people in all of Christendom think this is a bad idea. Where are the howling masses of enraged users who feel vilely abused by this tiny configuration change?
BTW, 80% is above the level needed to confirm for RfA, the most rigorous rite of passage you have.
But, you knew that too.

Should you accept this case, you need to start with the "root cause",

I actually agree with a sentence fragment from Anne Clin.
Ask the WMF engineering management, "Why can't you manage (ha!) to release beta level products that the customer base actually want. WTF is wrong with you guys?!"

which is the non-standard activation of the RFC, the inadequate advertisement and participation in the RFC,

No, no, no, no...
You're going to need to do more than hand wave here, Anne.
You have the burden of proof, since you've made the claim of inadequacy.

80% after 30 days.
Prove that wrong.
Be specific, show your work.

and the inaccurate assessment of consensus that was made to close the RFC.

Fixed by fixing a typo.
Everyone knew exactly what was meant.
Or haven't you ever made a simple error like that?

The rest of it is just handwaving and stamping of feet because people didn't get their way. Risker (talk) 16:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The WMF stooge has spoken. It is handwaving so stop it, Anne.

Still hoping for an engineering job, Anne?
WMF is (currently) THE PLACE for you.
After Erik gets sacked...not so much.

Kelly Martin · Unread post by **Kelly Martin** » Fri Jul 11, 2014 6:11 pm

Poetlister wrote:
Kelly Martin wrote:The Wikimedia operations team reports to Erik. If he orders them to desysop someone, they have to do it. That gives him all the authority he needs. The fact that the community doesn't acknowledge such authority is irrelevant, because the community has no ability to resist anything that happens by WMF edict.
But wouldn't this be further evidence that WMF has enough control over the site to undermine its immunity?

No. There is no amount of evidence of control that would undermine Section 230 immunity, because control over content is not a factor in whether or not Section 230 immunity applies. We've been over this dozens of times.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Fri Jul 11, 2014 6:38 pm

Media viewer is only the latest in the lineup of programmatic trash that the WMF releases before its ready.

Now you have the community performing an RFC to turn it off, an administrator threatened by Eloquence/Erik Mohller for following the communities consensus, Risker trying to justify Eloquences threats by beefing up the support numbers through imaginery interpretation and an Arbcom case link brewing about the whole thing. Its almost Shakespearean, except Shakespeare is well regarded and popular and Wikipedia is not and becoming less so every day.

Peryglus · Unread post by **Peryglus** » Fri Jul 11, 2014 9:00 pm

Kumioko wrote:Wikipedia is not [popular] and becoming less so every day.

{{Citation needed}}?

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 2:08 am

Peryglus wrote:
Kumioko wrote:Wikipedia is not [popular] and becoming less so every day.
{{Citation needed}}?

I think 'not well regarded' would be more defensible.

Anroth · Unread post by **Anroth** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 8:34 am

Seems sensible. Needs some fine tuning...

No way in hell Moeller will allow any committee to have oversight over his work though.

Sparky · Unread post by **Sparky** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 6:29 pm

Vigilant wrote:And true to form, Risker is right in there spreading the dumb as far as she can.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =616542399

Is that the Chewbacca defense (T-H-L)?

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 8:39 pm

Anroth wrote:Seems sensible. Needs some fine tuning...

No way in hell Moeller will allow any committee to have oversight over his work though.

One member from a non-Wikimedia Foundation organization that uses MediaWiki or other software created, maintained, or used by the Wikimedia Foundation. This member will be appointed by the Board for a two-year term. Terms will be renewable once consecutively for a maximum of four consecutive years.

We use MediaWiki, and we are definitely "a non-Wikimedia Foundation organization."

I nominate Lilburne.

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 8:40 pm

Zoloft wrote:
One member from a non-Wikimedia Foundation organization that uses MediaWiki or other software created, maintained, or used by the Wikimedia Foundation. This member will be appointed by the Board for a two-year term. Terms will be renewable once consecutively for a maximum of four consecutive years.
We use MediaWiki, and we are definitely "a non-Wikimedia Foundation organization."

I nominate Lilburne.

I second the nomination. Godspeed, my friend.

Bielle · Unread post by **Bielle** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 8:49 pm

Hex wrote:
Zoloft wrote:
One member from a non-Wikimedia Foundation organization that uses MediaWiki or other software created, maintained, or used by the Wikimedia Foundation. This member will be appointed by the Board for a two-year term. Terms will be renewable once consecutively for a maximum of four consecutive years.
We use MediaWiki, and we are definitely "a non-Wikimedia Foundation organization."

I nominate Lilburne.
I second the nomination. Godspeed, my friend.

Say "aye"!

mac · Unread post by **mac** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 8:54 pm

Zoloft wrote:
Anroth wrote:Seems sensible. Needs some fine tuning...

No way in hell Moeller will allow any committee to have oversight over his work though.

One member from a non-Wikimedia Foundation organization that uses MediaWiki or other software created, maintained, or used by the Wikimedia Foundation. This member will be appointed by the Board for a two-year term. Terms will be renewable once consecutively for a maximum of four consecutive years.
We use MediaWiki, and we are definitely "a non-Wikimedia Foundation organization."

I nominate Lilburne.

With all due respect to Zoloft and to Lilburne, I nominate Vigilant.

The Adversary · Unread post by **The Adversary** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 9:06 pm

mac wrote:
Zoloft wrote:
Anroth wrote:Seems sensible. Needs some fine tuning...

No way in hell Moeller will allow any committee to have oversight over his work though.

One member from a non-Wikimedia Foundation organization that uses MediaWiki or other software created, maintained, or used by the Wikimedia Foundation. This member will be appointed by the Board for a two-year term. Terms will be renewable once consecutively for a maximum of four consecutive years.
We use MediaWiki, and we are definitely "a non-Wikimedia Foundation organization."

I nominate Lilburne.
With all due respect to Zoloft and to Lilburne, I nominate Vigilant.

I second this.

Kelly Martin · Unread post by **Kelly Martin** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 10:47 pm

Anroth wrote:Seems sensible. Needs some fine tuning...

No way in hell Moeller will allow any committee to have oversight over his work though.

This is basically my TechCom proposal from 2006. Of course, no credit where credit is due.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 10:51 pm

That's very funny. You folks really think they're going to allow someone from Wikipediocracy to run for this board? Not a chance in hell, ever. They will abuse and ignore their own rules, and anything else, to keep their critics out. And even if they do manage to set up this board, it will prove to be a joke. Moeller and Forrester will not take orders from anyone.

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 11:42 pm

EricBarbour wrote:That's very funny. You folks really think they're going to allow someone from Wikipediocracy to run for this board? Not a chance in hell, ever. They will abuse and ignore their own rules, and anything else, to keep their critics out. And even if they do manage to set up this board, it will prove to be a joke. Moeller and Forrester will not take orders from anyone.

But we could have a lot of fun with a nomination process.

Anroth · Unread post by **Anroth** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 11:56 pm

Zoloft wrote:
EricBarbour wrote:That's very funny. You folks really think they're going to allow someone from Wikipediocracy to run for this board? Not a chance in hell, ever. They will abuse and ignore their own rules, and anything else, to keep their critics out. And even if they do manage to set up this board, it will prove to be a joke. Moeller and Forrester will not take orders from anyone.
But we could have a lot of fun with a nomination process.

Well Russavia from commons would be amusing.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Sun Jul 13, 2014 2:18 am

The Adversary wrote:
mac wrote:
Zoloft wrote:
Anroth wrote:Seems sensible. Needs some fine tuning...

No way in hell Moeller will allow any committee to have oversight over his work though.

One member from a non-Wikimedia Foundation organization that uses MediaWiki or other software created, maintained, or used by the Wikimedia Foundation. This member will be appointed by the Board for a two-year term. Terms will be renewable once consecutively for a maximum of four consecutive years.
We use MediaWiki, and we are definitely "a non-Wikimedia Foundation organization."

I nominate Lilburne.
With all due respect to Zoloft and to Lilburne, I nominate Vigilant.
I second this.

If he'd be willing to self-identify to the foundation, this would be be biggest punch for the buck...

RfB

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Sun Jul 13, 2014 2:52 am

I generally agree with Seraphimblade's discussion in his statement. I think we always have jurisdiction to determine our own jurisdiction, including whether Eloquence's actions fall within one of the exceptions to our jurisdiction, and whether we may nonetheless take notice of it in light of the third paragraph of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Jurisdiction. Thinking about this some more. T. Canens (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Can anyone else parse that?

mac · Unread post by **mac** » Sun Jul 13, 2014 3:15 am

EricBarbour wrote:
I generally agree with Seraphimblade's discussion in his statement. I think we always have jurisdiction to determine our own jurisdiction, including whether Eloquence's actions fall within one of the exceptions to our jurisdiction, and whether we may nonetheless take notice of it in light of the third paragraph of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Jurisdiction. Thinking about this some more. T. Canens (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Can anyone else parse that?

If I had to guess, that's arbspeak for "give me a minute to figure out how to do nothing".

Kevin · Unread post by **Kevin** » Sun Jul 13, 2014 3:20 am

EricBarbour wrote:
I generally agree with Seraphimblade's discussion in his statement. I think we always have jurisdiction to determine our own jurisdiction, including whether Eloquence's actions fall within one of the exceptions to our jurisdiction, and whether we may nonetheless take notice of it in light of the third paragraph of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Jurisdiction. Thinking about this some more. T. Canens (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Can anyone else parse that?

He should have done some of that thinking first, instead of writing this incomprehensible garbage.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Sun Jul 13, 2014 3:52 am

EricBarbour wrote:
I generally agree with Seraphimblade's discussion in his statement. I think we always have jurisdiction to determine our own jurisdiction, including whether Eloquence's actions fall within one of the exceptions to our jurisdiction, and whether we may nonetheless take notice of it in light of the third paragraph of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Jurisdiction. Thinking about this some more. T. Canens (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Can anyone else parse that?

"I'm not sure whether this is an office action, or whether Erik Moeller abused normal En-WP administrative tools in reversing a valid RFC. ArbCom has the right to exert its authority over English WP, and to opine upon (if not to control) the actions of the office which affect English WP. I'm still trying to decide whether it is worth our effort to push forward on this. The relevant passage of policy which may apply is this one:

The Committee may take notice of conduct outside its jurisdiction when making decisions about conduct on the English Wikipedia if such outside conduct impacts or has the potential to impact adversely upon the English Wikipedia or its editors.

"

link

happy to translate for you,
RfB

Unread post by **tarantino** » Sun Jul 13, 2014 4:11 am

Randy from Boise wrote: happy to translate for you

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Sun Jul 13, 2014 4:35 am

tarantino wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote: happy to translate for you

I differ. They should push back as hard as they can, even though they are going to lose this one.

The precedent set here is important to stopping the next turd floating down the pipe, which is Flow.

RfB

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Sun Jul 13, 2014 10:03 am

Zoloft wrote:
Anroth wrote:Seems sensible. Needs some fine tuning...

No way in hell Moeller will allow any committee to have oversight over his work though.

One member from a non-Wikimedia Foundation organization that uses MediaWiki or other software created, maintained, or used by the Wikimedia Foundation. This member will be appointed by the Board for a two-year term. Terms will be renewable once consecutively for a maximum of four consecutive years.
We use MediaWiki, and we are definitely "a non-Wikimedia Foundation organization."

I nominate Lilburne.

I could represent Wikilivres.

The Adversary · Unread post by **The Adversary** » Sun Jul 13, 2014 10:27 am

Where does Risker gets her data from? She writes at the arb.com that "Prior to MediaViewer being activated as the default media viewer, 14,681 English Wikipedia editors had voluntarily opted in for it to be their default viewer."
The thing is: she does not mention out of how many potential users: 30,000? 500,000? 1 million? The number 14,681 is absolutely meaningless, if we are not told of the total potential number.

This Media Viewer Survey Results - 06-20-2014 ..operate with a total of about 15,000. It shows that
65% of readers find MV useful
45% of editors find MV useful
35% of frequent editors find MV useful

Those who participate in RfC basically always belong to the "super- frequent editors", an exclusive sub-group of the "frequent editor" group.

So who do WMF want to cater most for? "Super- frequent editors", or casual readers? Apparently casual readers.

I didn´t think Wikipedia was losing readers; it is losing editors.

The Adversary · Unread post by **The Adversary** » Sun Jul 13, 2014 10:39 am

EricBarbour wrote:That's very funny. You folks really think they're going to allow someone from Wikipediocracy to run for this board?

Of course they will.
And i was born on the 12th of July....2014.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Sun Jul 13, 2014 11:23 am

The Adversary wrote:Where does Risker gets her data from? She writes at the arb.com that "Prior to MediaViewer being activated as the default media viewer, 14,681 English Wikipedia editors had voluntarily opted in for it to be their default viewer."
The thing is: she does not mention out of how many potential users: 30,000? 500,000? 1 million? The number 14,681 is absolutely meaningless, if we are not told of the total potential number.

This Media Viewer Survey Results - 06-20-2014 ..operate with a total of about 15,000. It shows that
65% of readers find MV useful
45% of editors find MV useful
35% of frequent editors find MV useful

Those who participate in RfC basically always belong to the "super- frequent editors", an exclusive sub-group of the "frequent editor" group.

So who do WMF want to cater most for? "Super- frequent editors", or casual readers? Apparently casual readers.

I didn´t think Wikipedia was losing readers; it is losing editors.

There are several twists to this. Firstly, the people who opted into the MediaViewer include all those who opt in to all beta features via the "Beta" link at the top of their Wikipedia page. Yes, you can opt in to individual beta features, but my guess is that most everyone interested in the beta features uses the top option, "Automatically enable all new beta features", rather than going through the list, picking and choosing.

Secondly, the results for the English Wikipedia (which is the biggest sample) are very different from the results for some of the other languages. As things stood on 20 June, only

1,376 = 28% of all respondents said the feature was useful
2,947 = 61% of all respondents said the feature was not useful
520 = 11% of all respondents were not sure

(Total number of English Wikipedia respondents: 4,843; the English Wikipedia represented the biggest sample in the survey.)

Of the 4,843 English Wikipedia respondents, 3,842 stated their role (reader, editor or frequent editor), and only

37% of self-identified readers said the feature was useful
21% of self-identified editors said the feature was useful
16% of self-identified frequent editors said the feature was useful

This is quite consistent with the RfC: the Media Viewer is unpopular among readers and editors of the English Wikipedia.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Sun Jul 13, 2014 11:35 am

There is more information on this at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Multimedia/Media_Viewer/Survey.

On that page, the Foundation explains that

English and German approval rates are lower than other languages, as Media Viewer was only launched one week ago on their Wikipedia sites (approval rates are usually lower right after launch)
On the English Wikipedia, daily approval rates have increased from 23% a day after launch to 35% a week after launch (see data trends graph)

That page also includes links to the survey participation forms that users of various language projects should use to communicate their opinions to the WMF.

The link for users of the English Wikipedia is

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/media-viewer-1

For the German Wikipedia it is

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/media-viewer-1-de

For the English Wikipedia there is also a dashboard, which shows live updates of the approval/disapproval ratings:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-6N66NXL8/

Current status is:

Useful 36.18% 2,383
Not useful 53.56% 3,528
Not sure 10.26% 676

Plus there is a tab for data trends:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-6N66NXL8/data-trends/

There have only been a handful responses over the past few days (mostly negative, i.e. "not useful").

The Adversary · Unread post by **The Adversary** » Sun Jul 13, 2014 12:35 pm

HRIP7 wrote: ..the results for the English Wikipedia (which is the biggest sample) are very different from the results for some of the other languages. As things stood on 20 June, only

1,376 = 28% of all respondents said the feature was useful
2,947 = 61% of all respondents said the feature was not useful
520 = 11% of all respondents were not sure

(Total number of English Wikipedia respondents: 4,843; the English Wikipedia represented the biggest sample in the survey.)

Of the 4,843 English Wikipedia respondents, 3,842 stated their role (reader, editor or frequent editor), and only

37% of self-identified readers said the feature was useful
21% of self-identified editors said the feature was useful
16% of self-identified frequent editors said the feature was useful

This is quite consistent with the RfC: the Media Viewer is unpopular among readers and editors of the English Wikipedia.

Thanks, this was very useful. (I hadn´t noticed that en.wp was that negative)
Now, this gives *quite* a different picture from the one Risker paints, doesn´t it?

I agree that the hack that Pete did (which people couldn´t over-ride if they wanted to) had to go, but with these numbers I cannot see how they can argue that it should be opt-out, and not opt-in on en.wp.

Iow: default should be set to opt-out.....unless they want to scare away more editors?

^^^^^
Note that Risker wrote:
"Some statistical information:
"Prior to MediaViewer being activated as the default media viewer, 14,681 English Wikipedia editors had voluntarily opted in for it to be their default viewer. "
In other words: she announce that she will give some "statistical information", and then she proceeds to give a number which isn´t really any "statistical information"....

Ok, ok, this is nit-picking, but it does indicate to me that she has not taken Statistical Methods 101.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Sun Jul 13, 2014 2:52 pm

mac wrote:With all due respect to Zoloft and to Lilburne, I nominate Vigilant.

I'll see your Vigilant nomination, and raise you one Wil Sinclair, who has been running Mediawiki for some time now on his site.

mac · Unread post by **mac** » Sun Jul 13, 2014 5:46 pm

thekohser wrote:
mac wrote:With all due respect to Zoloft and to Lilburne, I nominate Vigilant.
I'll see your Vigilant nomination, and raise you one Wil Sinclair, who has been running Mediawiki for some time now on his site.

Hasten the day.

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Sun Jul 13, 2014 6:07 pm

thekohser wrote:
mac wrote:With all due respect to Zoloft and to Lilburne, I nominate Vigilant.
I'll see your Vigilant nomination, and raise you one Wil Sinclair, who has been running Mediawiki for some time now on his site.

Good idea. He's a checkuser wizard now, so he must be trustworthy.

Mancunium · Unread post by **Mancunium** » Sun Jul 13, 2014 6:40 pm

thekohser wrote:
mac wrote:With all due respect to Zoloft and to Lilburne, I nominate Vigilant.
I'll see your Vigilant nomination, and raise you one Wil Sinclair, who has been running Mediawiki for some time now on his site.

I second the nomination. Jimmy Wales has for far too long been the Public Face of Wikipedia.

This is the face which should come to mind immediately when one thinks of the free encyclopedia:

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Sun Jul 13, 2014 8:46 pm

The Adversary wrote:So who do WMF want to cater most for? "Super- frequent editors", or casual readers? Apparently casual readers.

That might make sense. They need to keep up their viewing figures to be in the top ten most visited websites; it would be a disaster to lose that status. And they may imagine that if they have enough readers, some will become editors and replace the drop-outs.

The Adversary · Unread post by **The Adversary** » Mon Jul 14, 2014 12:35 am

Poetlister wrote:
The Adversary wrote:So who do WMF want to cater most for? "Super- frequent editors", or casual readers? Apparently casual readers.
That might make sense. They need to keep up their viewing figures to be in the top ten most visited websites; it would be a disaster to lose that status. And they may imagine that if they have enough readers, some will become editors and replace the drop-outs.

Hmm, you might be right, but in that case, I think they are "dumbing down" the casual reader.

I find it hard to believe that the casual reader wouldn´t prefer more accurate and complete information any day, rather than the smoothest of designs (which it isn´t at present, anyway.)

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Mon Jul 14, 2014 5:03 pm

EricBarbour wrote:
I generally agree with Seraphimblade's discussion in his statement. I think we always have jurisdiction to determine our own jurisdiction, including whether Eloquence's actions fall within one of the exceptions to our jurisdiction, and whether we may nonetheless take notice of it in light of the third paragraph of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Jurisdiction. Thinking about this some more. T. Canens (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Can anyone else parse that?

"Is there any more acid?"

Best I could do.

Mason · Unread post by **Mason** » Mon Jul 14, 2014 5:07 pm

Oh, SNAP

Newyorkbrad wrote:I don't enjoy wiki-legalism for its own sake (I am unlikely to discuss "jurisdiction to determine jurisdiction" in any document I'm not being paid to write, and bizarre overemphasis on process belongs Offwiki)