Media Viewer - A new hope

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Tue Jul 22, 2014 2:43 pm

I asked a couple of simple questions:

who asked for the Media Viewer – and in what venue did they ask? please link to where discussion was initiated, if possible.

at what level was the decision to undertake the project approved? Board of Directors? Executive Director? Head of Product Management? A product manager under him? Please link to where approval was given if possible

Anyone have answers? Wbm1058 (talk) 13:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I don't have answers to all of these questions but I could try to find out if I can understand the purpose of the questions. Why does it matter "who asked" and "in what venue"? Is it your view that it is always improper for the community to propose new features? Always improper for staff to propose new features? I just don't see how it could be of interest at this point to know who asked for it.

In terms of "what level was the decision to undertake the project approved" I can only say that it quite properly was not at the board level. If you want my opinion as to where the right level of management for that sort of approval should be it should be with the relevant head of product. (I.E. a relatively straightforward product improvement doesn't need ED signoff, but individual developers shouldn't allocate resources without management review at the appropriate level). There can be reasonable deviations in specific cases (where the feature is very minor, or where it is very major, then a higher or lower level of approval would be fine). Given that general discussion, can you understand why I'm not sure why you are even asking this.

Isn't this a better question: "What are the specific problems that people have with the Media Viewer and how can they best be communicate to the appropriate level of the WMF organization so that fixes and improvements can be implemented in a timely fashion?" That's the question that I'm asking you: what's the problem, written up unemotionally, so that I can make sure that the right people hear about it and respond appropriately.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Tue Jul 22, 2014 3:23 pm

I would like to give Jimbo some "constructive and loving feedback". Where may I do that, without him calling the police?

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Tue Jul 22, 2014 4:07 pm

thekohser wrote:I would like to give Jimbo some "constructive and loving feedback". Where may I do that, without him calling the police?

There you go with your menacing bolding of text again!!!

I'm gonna write an essay about you and this clear threat of violence!!! What are you planning on constructing?!?! What do you mean by loving feedback?!?!

RfB

Yo, irony-challenged Wikipedians. This is known as sarcasm.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Wed Jul 23, 2014 5:47 am

Oh SNAP!

Also very true.

just to shit in the punchbowl, I recently turned down a google job. Not a drone.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Wed Jul 23, 2014 3:14 pm

I don't know coding from a mathematical proof of an eccentric orbit of an asteroid, but I just thought I'd post this here -- it's an example of what a WMFer is working on at headquarters. Feel free to comment if you know about this stuff. Otherwise, no worries to just disregard this.

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Wed Jul 23, 2014 5:28 pm

thekohser wrote:I don't know coding from a mathematical proof of an eccentric orbit of an asteroid, but I just thought I'd post this here -- it's an example of what a WMFer is working on at headquarters. Feel free to comment if you know about this stuff.

Impossible to say exactly based on just one screen's worth of code, but the AJAX calls suggest the programmer might be working on one of those popup/tooltip thingies you see when you "hover" the mouse pointer over a link or an image (or whatever). Whatever it is, there are a decent number of comments in there (about one comment every ten lines is pretty good actually), and while I personally avoid first-person plural references in code comments ("If we're here, we must have timed out on our service request!"), most people don't care about that sort of thing.

I suppose it could be one of those emergency "Boss is coming!" screens they put in first-person-shooter games so that the player can quickly switch to something that makes it look like he's working when someone from management walks by the cubicle, but the reference to Mediawiki in line 152 does tend to suggest otherwise.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Wed Jul 23, 2014 5:53 pm

The evidence and workshop pages of the arbitration case are beginning to fill up.

plix tixiplik · Unread post by **plix tixiplik** » Wed Jul 23, 2014 6:08 pm

The code in the screen shot above appears to be mediawiki.api.js, it's more or less the same, just missing a few debugging statements. I can't imagine what changes they'd be making to such a core file to improve a modular extension though...

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Wed Jul 23, 2014 9:25 pm

HRIP7 wrote:The evidence and workshop pages of the arbitration case are beginning to fill up.

And we all know damn well it will lead to nothing.

The Adversary · Unread post by **The Adversary** » Wed Jul 23, 2014 11:36 pm

HRIP7 wrote:Wriggling:
I asked a couple of simple questions:

who asked for the Media Viewer – and in what venue did they ask? please link to where discussion was initiated, if possible.

at what level was the decision to undertake the project approved? Board of Directors? Executive Director? Head of Product Management? A product manager under him? Please link to where approval was given if possible

Anyone have answers? Wbm1058 (talk) 13:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I don't have answers to all of these questions but I could try to find out if I can understand the purpose of the questions. Why does it matter "who asked" and "in what venue"? Is it your view that it is always improper for the community to propose new features? Always improper for staff to propose new features? I just don't see how it could be of interest at this point to know who asked for it.
<snip: bla bla>
Isn't this a better question: "What are the specific problems that people have with the Media Viewer and how can they best be communicate to the appropriate level of the WMF organization so that fixes and improvements can be implemented in a timely fashion?" That's the question that I'm asking you: what's the problem, written up unemotionally, so that I can make sure that the right people hear about it and respond appropriately.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, rrrrigh: it should interest no-one how the WMF uses its time.....they can decide themselves, they have of course no other pressing issues......

In the meantime, editors have been begging WMF for years to implement security features ....but they never did.

Two small examples:
Every 2nd rate board I am a member of have a security feature installed, so that new members cannot PM/email other members spam. Normally it is that you have to have posted a certain number of legitimate posts, before you can PM users.
Not so with Wikipedia.
With the predictable result that this guy gets a script and sends of hundreds of emails in a few minutes (about the ways he is going to kill you). Results: none of the people he is "interested" in can have their email-accounts enabled on Wikipedia.

Another example: user-names.... It should be pretty easy to install a filter which prevents abusive user-names, yes? Especially names which abuse famous names, or well-known Wikipedians?
Not so, apparently.
So users have registered as:
Putinchildkiller (T-C-L) (still not blocked) Putinisabitch (T-C-L), Putinisawhore (T-C-L)
Obama Bin Lying (T-C-L) (still not blocked) Obama fucks America (T-C-L), Obama is a muslim (T-C-L)

But that is nothing compared to what those who fights vandals goes through, look at
Gogo Dodo is juden scum (T-C-L) Gogo Dodo suucking c0ck (T-C-L) Gogo Dodo the Mindless Idiot (T-C-L), Acroterion gutted, vomiting blood (T-C-L), Acroterion passes away (T-C-L), Acroterion's mutilated corpse (T-C-L) Please kill bongwarrior (T-C-L) Zero0000's bloated corpse (T-C-L), Zero0000's severed, rotting head (T-C-L), to name just a few. (Most of these are from these last few days)

....but we get it: WMF don´t give a shit about editors, noooooo, they work for the....readers (who, oh so conveniently, never give them any negative technical feed-back)

(Funny isn´t it, that Wikipedia is losing ....editors, not readers.)

Anthonyhcole · Unread post by **Anthonyhcole** » Thu Jul 24, 2014 5:10 am

The Adversary wrote:(Funny isn´t it, that Wikipedia is losing ....editors, not readers.)

Oh, I think they're losing readers, too. At least, that's the case on the medical topics I watch. WMF should survey en.Wikipedia's readers - not just on the media viewer, on lots of things.

The Adversary · Unread post by **The Adversary** » Thu Jul 24, 2014 8:19 am

Anthonyhcole wrote:
The Adversary wrote:(Funny isn´t it, that Wikipedia is losing ....editors, not readers.)
Oh, I think they're losing readers, too. At least, that's the case on the medical topics I watch. WMF should survey en.Wikipedia's readers - not just on the media viewer, on lots of things.

That is interesting. I must confess that I based my above assessment on watching articles on places in the Israel/Palestine area: they are virtually all much more read today than 2-3 years ago.

But you are right: I have never seen a general reader survey: I suspect we will not ever get any.
That way certain WMF people can continue to say they work for "the reader"....

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Thu Jul 24, 2014 8:45 am

The Adversary wrote:That is interesting. I must confess that I based my above assessment on watching articles on places in the Israel/Palestine area: they are virtually all much more read today than 2-3 years ago.

Things are always changing in the Middle East...

Y'know, this is actually one of the most fundamental "existential" problems Wikipedia has, and maybe the most fundamental. In order to be taken seriously as an encyclopedia, the content has to remain fairly stable, only changing or expanding as new facts are published elsewhere. With the vast majority of subjects, that doesn't happen very often - sometimes not at all. Meanwhile, most people are really only interested in a handful of subjects, which is to say that very few people are deeply interested in anything and everything.

So what happens is, people read the WP articles on their favorite subjects (most of which are probably prone to stability to begin with) and then they don't feel any particular need to go back and re-read them again later. Once they've read everything they're interested in, they'll go to Wikipedia to look things up sporadically, but they won't spend much time there once they've answered their immediate question - especially if they're using a smartphone. Over time, more and more people reach this point, until a kind of "saturation level" is reached.

As Mr. HRIP7 mentioned in another thread, Wikipedia's average time-on-site per session is now only 1.2 minutes. I suspect that's down considerably from where it was during the 2006-2009 period.

I also believe the Wikimedia folks are well aware of this, reader survey or no - and they're concerned that they'll drop out of the Alexa Top 10 because of it, which is why many (if not all) of the "software improvements" we're seeing also (rather conveniently) increase their pageview-count-per-article figures. Essentially, they're trying to artificially boost their stats to keep themselves highly-ranked as long as they can get away with it, and we should expect more of the same in months and years to come.

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Thu Jul 24, 2014 7:36 pm

Midsize Jake wrote: As Mr. HRIP7 mentioned in another thread, Wikipedia's average time-on-site per session is now only 1.2 minutes. I suspect that's down considerably from where it was during the 2006-2009 period.

How is that figure calculated? I mean, how do they know when people've stopped looking? Is it time elapsed between loads of articles A->(N-1) in a visit where pages A->N are visited?

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Thu Jul 24, 2014 8:13 pm

Hex wrote:
Midsize Jake wrote: As Mr. HRIP7 mentioned in another thread, Wikipedia's average time-on-site per session is now only 1.2 minutes. I suspect that's down considerably from where it was during the 2006-2009 period.
How is that figure calculated? I mean, how do they know when people've stopped looking? Is it time elapsed between loads of articles A->(N-1) in a visit where pages A->N are visited?

That wouldn't work. I frequently have two or three pages open and flick between them.

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Thu Jul 24, 2014 8:55 pm

Hex wrote:How is that figure calculated? I mean, how do they know when people've stopped looking? Is it time elapsed between loads of articles A->(N-1) in a visit where pages A->N are visited?

Well... I don't work for Alexa or any similar company, but I'm pretty sure it's just the amount of time between URL submission on WP (or whatever the site it) and the next URL submission on a different site. So if your next question is "what about tabbed browsing," the answer is "good question," because tabbed browsing is a problem for anyone trying to determine this statistic. If I'm not mistaken, as soon as you click on a link to another site it assumes your visit is over - even if the tab is still open, and presumably Alexa doesn't know which tab you're actually reading. Obviously more and more people are keeping lots of tabs open, so it's a dicey measurement at best.

I should add that if you look at the Alexa.com profile for Wikipedia right now it says the daily time-on-site is 4:31, which isn't bad (LinkedIn is 7:27 and Amazon is 8:41, for example, and both of those are much more interactive for most people). Still, IMO it does still suggest that the average visitor isn't hanging around and just reading stuff (via internal links) for the sheer joy of it.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Thu Jul 24, 2014 9:19 pm

Midsize Jake wrote:
Hex wrote:How is that figure calculated? I mean, how do they know when people've stopped looking? Is it time elapsed between loads of articles A->(N-1) in a visit where pages A->N are visited?
Well... I don't work for Alexa or any similar company, but I'm pretty sure it's just the amount of time between URL submission on WP (or whatever the site it) and the next URL submission on a different site. So if your next question is "what about tabbed browsing," the answer is "good question," because tabbed browsing is a problem for anyone trying to determine this statistic. If I'm not mistaken, as soon as you click on a link to another site it assumes your visit is over - even if the tab is still open, and presumably Alexa doesn't know which tab you're actually reading. Obviously more and more people are keeping lots of tabs open, so it's a dicey measurement at best.

I should add that if you look at the Alexa.com profile for Wikipedia right now it says the daily time-on-site is 4:31, which isn't bad (LinkedIn is 7:27 and Amazon is 8:41, for example, and both of those are much more interactive for most people). Still, IMO it does still suggest that the average visitor isn't hanging around and just reading stuff (via internal links) for the sheer joy of it.

Nah, that's not how WP is used.

A person has a quick question, they want a quick answer. Or if they have a detailed question, they want a detailed answer.

A quick and readily available reference that seems to the reader to be very probably right...

RfB

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Thu Jul 24, 2014 9:29 pm

Anthonyhcole wrote:
The Adversary wrote:(Funny isn´t it, that Wikipedia is losing ....editors, not readers.)
Oh, I think they're losing readers, too. At least, that's the case on the medical topics I watch. WMF should survey en.Wikipedia's readers - not just on the media viewer, on lots of things.

Yeah IMO Wikipedia is losing everything, writers, readers, credibility and the patience of those who try to use it.

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Thu Jul 24, 2014 11:46 pm

Randy from Boise wrote: A person has a quick question, they want a quick answer. Or if they have a detailed question, they want a detailed answer.

I've seen people reading printed out WP articles on the subway more than once. Maybe people save longer reading for a format that's easier on the eyes.

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Thu Jul 24, 2014 11:50 pm

I'm loving this 2006 email by Moeller to wikien-l that Dennis Brown just dug out on the arbitration evidence page.

Erik Moeller wrote:I have just been indefinitely blocked from the English Wikipedia, and desysopped, by user Danny.... To my knowledge, this is the first time office authority has been used to indefinitely block and desysop a user. ... I apologize if [my unprotecting a page protected by OFFICE but not labeled as such] was perceived as "reckless", but I must emphasize that I was acting in good faith... I think that the indefinite block and desysopping is very much an overreaction....

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Fri Jul 25, 2014 12:05 am

Hex wrote:I'm loving this 2006 email by Moeller to wikien-l that Dennis Brown just dug out on the arbitration evidence page.
Erik Moeller wrote:I have just been indefinitely blocked from the English Wikipedia, and desysopped, by user Danny.... To my knowledge, this is the first time office authority has been used to indefinitely block and desysop a user. ... I apologize if [my unprotecting a page protected by OFFICE but not labeled as such] was perceived as "reckless", but I must emphasize that I was acting in good faith... I think that the indefinite block and desysopping is very much an overreaction....

...And he's probably been itching to do that very same thing to someone else for all of the last 8 years, just biding his time, waiting for the perfect moment... Or even more likely, for the moment when he could do it to someone else, only not actually doing it, just to show how much better person a he is than the guy who did it to him.

TungstenCarbide · Unread post by **TungstenCarbide** » Fri Jul 25, 2014 12:21 am

Hex wrote:I'm loving this 2006 email by Moeller to wikien-l that Dennis Brown just dug out on the arbitration evidence page.
Erik Moeller wrote:I have just been indefinitely blocked from the English Wikipedia, and desysopped, by user Danny.... To my knowledge, this is the first time office authority has been used to indefinitely block and desysop a user. ... I apologize if [my unprotecting a page protected by OFFICE but not labeled as such] was perceived as "reckless", but I must emphasize that I was acting in good faith... I think that the indefinite block and desysopping is very much an overreaction....

I remember that one vividly.

Kelly Martin · Unread post by **Kelly Martin** » Fri Jul 25, 2014 6:53 am

TungstenCarbide wrote:
Hex wrote:I'm loving this 2006 email by Moeller to wikien-l that Dennis Brown just dug out on the arbitration evidence page.
Erik Moeller wrote:I have just been indefinitely blocked from the English Wikipedia, and desysopped, by user Danny.... To my knowledge, this is the first time office authority has been used to indefinitely block and desysop a user. ... I apologize if [my unprotecting a page protected by OFFICE but not labeled as such] was perceived as "reckless", but I must emphasize that I was acting in good faith... I think that the indefinite block and desysopping is very much an overreaction....
I remember that one vividly.

So do I, considering that I was involved in the matter. The matter involved a legal threat that we explicitly decided not to use "WP:OFFICE" on because we knew that WP:OFFICE was waving the red flag at the bull and we didn't want attention drawn to the matter at hand. Moeller, however, has always put his personal power machinations way ahead of the best interests of anything other than himself; that was true in 2006 and it is just as true today.

TungstenCarbide · Unread post by **TungstenCarbide** » Fri Jul 25, 2014 7:27 am

Kelly Martin wrote:So do I, considering that I was involved in the matter. The matter involved a legal threat that we explicitly decided not to use "WP:OFFICE" on because we knew that WP:OFFICE was waving the red flag at the bull and we didn't want attention drawn to the matter at hand. Moeller, however, has always put his personal power machinations way ahead of the best interests of anything other than himself; that was true in 2006 and it is just as true today.

Eric and Danny each had their own shortcomings. That episode was archetypal, exposing the lack of leadership-- where was the GodKing? It never should have become a public clusterfuck.

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Fri Jul 25, 2014 8:23 am

TungstenCarbide wrote:That episode was archetypal, exposing the lack of leadership-- where was the GodKing? It never should have become a public clusterfuck.

As I recall, at the time they had no way of locking down an article so that ordinary admins and "bureaucrats" couldn't undo the protection (I believe Mr. Möller was a bureaucrat at the time). The only way to determine if an article was protected under "WP:OFFICE" was to look at the edit summaries in the page history and/or the protection log, but in the case of the two articles in question, both Danny Wool and Kelly Martin had used the phrase "pov qualms" instead so as to not to draw so much attention to what they were doing (due to a legal threat, as she mentions above). One of the articles in question was a BLP on a right-wing website operator, and the other was the article about the website he operated, so presumably the legal threats were coming from the BLP subject and/or his attorneys.

The real question was actually whether or not Mr. Möller was supposed to have assumed that WP:OFFICE applied there since Danny Wool had personally protected the articles. Most people would have at least asked, and maybe even politely given Mr. Wool a few hours to wake up and explain the situation (given that he probably would have been asleep when and if the question was asked). Not Mr. Möller, however. Information must be free, he was probably thinking, and also editable, and what's more it must be free and editable immediately! There's no time to lose! At which point he unprotected both articles.

Ultimately, it was just a misunderstanding exacerbated by both parties being constitutionally unable to restrain themselves from using their excitingly wonderful admin powers. Of course, the drama that followed was priceless, and obviously inevitable.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz · Unread post by **Kiefer.Wolfowitz** » Fri Jul 25, 2014 9:20 am

Moderators, etc.!

Perhaps "WMF Engineering" deserves its own subforum, discussing Visual Editor, Flow, Media Viewer, etc.

Kelly Martin · Unread post by **Kelly Martin** » Fri Jul 25, 2014 10:02 am

TungstenCarbide wrote:
Kelly Martin wrote:So do I, considering that I was involved in the matter. The matter involved a legal threat that we explicitly decided not to use "WP:OFFICE" on because we knew that WP:OFFICE was waving the red flag at the bull and we didn't want attention drawn to the matter at hand. Moeller, however, has always put his personal power machinations way ahead of the best interests of anything other than himself; that was true in 2006 and it is just as true today.
Eric and Danny each had their own shortcomings. That episode was archetypal, exposing the lack of leadership-- where was the GodKing? It never should have become a public clusterfuck.

We tried to get Jimmy on the phone (he was off somewhere traveling, of course), but could never get his attention on the issue. While Brad had the nominal authority to invoke WP:OFFICE we all knew that without Jimmy's gravitas it would be demonstratively overridden, by someone like Eric, which is what ended up happening in the end.

In retrospect we should have had Brad invoke WP:OFFICE on his own authority. Eric would have pulled the same stunt, quite likely, but the brazenness of his arrogance would have been more overt and Jimmy might not have caved. Probably not, though. It would also not have driven such a deep wedge into the Danny-Eric feud, although that too was inevitable.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz · Unread post by **Kiefer.Wolfowitz** » Fri Jul 25, 2014 12:49 pm

EricBarbour wrote:
HRIP7 wrote:The evidence and workshop pages of the arbitration case are beginning to fill up.
And we all know damn well it will lead to nothing.

The lead drafting arbitrator, Carcharoth, is smart and regarded as honorable by Charles Matthews and Newyorkbrad, which is good enough for me. His prose lacks the high-voltage of NYB's aphorisms.

The 2nd drafting arbitrator, Molly White / GorillaWarfare (T-C-L) / Gorilla Warfare (T-C-L), has already worked for the WMF (under the sponsorship of Google) and regularly catches flack for the WMF & its employees, as in her

vouching for her "friend" Ironholds (T-C-L) / Okeyes (WMF) (T-C-L) / Oliver Keyes (T-H-L) after his behavior was publicized here
- (wishes to shoot Jennifer Aniston, Sharon Osborne, etc.;
  discussions of slapping and bruising a prominent female administrator;
  offering advice on prolonging the murder of a woman through suffocation, etc.)
and whinging that Will S had denied her and other women the formerly "safe space" of the Wikimedia mailing-list, mainly by being active here (Wikipediocracy).

Curiously, a third arb is listed among the drafters, Luke / LFaraone (T-C-L), who has also worked for organizations having interlocking directorates (T-H-L) with the WMF, e.g. Google and One Laptop Per Child.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Fri Jul 25, 2014 9:38 pm

As mentioned here, Alvesgaspar (T-C-L) has created a hyperbole-free, NPOV report on the problems with the Media Viewer here, at Jimmy Wales' suggestion. It presently reads as follows:

@Jimbo Wales: Hi Jimbo, here is what I consider to be a neutral interpretation of the recent conflict:

1. MV seems to have been implemented prematurely as a default viewer for everybody (numerous bugs, some violent protests);

2. MV is not appropriate for editing work; many editors have considered the tool as a "nuisance" ;

3. A vast majority of the editor’s community does not consider MV useful. That is demonstrated by the poll made by WMF in June;

4. A vast majority of the editor’s community considers that MV should not be implemented by default. That was demonstrated in a recent RfC, whose results are in line with the WMF poll;

5. No effective dialogue has occurred between the editor's community and the MV team. The two main arguments from each side seem to be: no RfC can produce a significant consensus of the user's community, which goes well beyond the universe of regular editors (WMF); according to Wikipedia's culture the outcome of a RfC is to be respected. Thus no dialogue seems possible while MV is kept as the default viewer for everybody (editors)

I hope this start is useful. Please note that English is not my mother language and that my knowledge of Wikimedia's world is quite narrow. Hopefully other people will come here and say what I intended to say much better than me. :-) Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Alvesgaspar has done quite well, though I suspect that this is not how Jimmy Wales would like to see the issue framed. It is nevertheless accurate.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Sat Jul 26, 2014 8:53 am

Here is some advice for Alvesgaspar:

1. By moving the discussion to a subpage, Wales has already achieved 50% of his objective: it is now out of sight, out of mind, and with any luck the long and inconvenient discussion on his talk page will soon be archived.

2. If you and others don't keep prodding him about this on his talk page, he will soon conveniently forget you ever spoke to him, and get on with more pleasant things in life than listening to pesky volunteers.

See also this post for how this sort of thing has gone down in the past.

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Sun Jul 27, 2014 1:02 pm

Not content with the ArbCom proceedings, Fae has started his own sideshow on Commons with regards to making WMF staff have " (WMF)" in their user name.

Anroth · Unread post by **Anroth** » Sun Jul 27, 2014 9:14 pm

Meh, it would be quicker and easier just to have it so any paid staff (employee/contractor) of WMF cannot have advanced permissions on Wikipedia due to their conflict of interest. Then it doesnt matter what their username is, if it has WMF in it or not, any advanced permission-action is by default an office action.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Mon Jul 28, 2014 2:49 am

HRIP7 wrote:Here is some advice for Alvesgaspar:

1. By moving the discussion to a subpage, Wales has already achieved 50% of his objective: it is now out of sight, out of mind, and with any luck the long and inconvenient discussion on his talk page will soon be archived.

2. If you and others don't keep prodding him about this on his talk page, he will soon conveniently forget you ever spoke to him, and get on with more pleasant things in life than listening to pesky volunteers.

See also this post for how this sort of thing has gone down in the past.

It's now a little over two days since Alvesgaspar created the subpage Wales asked for. Needless to say, Wales is (so far! there's always hope, isn't there?) notable for his absence from that page.

Shall we take bets on how this will end?

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Mon Jul 28, 2014 3:52 am

Hex wrote:Not content with the ArbCom proceedings, Fae has started his own sideshow on Commons with regards to making WMF staff have " (WMF)" in their user name.

(redacted) (Jesus, Kohs, now you've got me running paranoid.....)

Stodgy rephrasing of accidental comment: Hey, Fae initiated correct action for once!

This will be a "strong recommendation" coming out of the current ArbCom case at En-WP, I am guessing...

That will be about all they do, sadly.

RfB

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Mon Jul 28, 2014 6:49 am

HRIP7 wrote: Shall we take bets on how this will end?

Not with a bang, but a whimper.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Mon Jul 28, 2014 11:28 am

Anroth wrote:Meh, it would be quicker and easier just to have it so any paid staff (employee/contractor) of WMF cannot have advanced permissions on Wikipedia due to their conflict of interest. Then it doesnt matter what their username is, if it has WMF in it or not, any advanced permission-action is by default an office action.

Not to mention the trustees and any co-founders who are still around. But then who would take essential office actions?

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Mon Jul 28, 2014 12:00 pm

Hex wrote:...Fae has...

Something like that has you running scared, Randy? Don't blame me -- blame Wllm.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Mon Jul 28, 2014 3:31 pm

Someone has been coaching Erik Mo:eller on his "evidence".

Evidence presented by Erik Moeller (WMF)
Development/deployment policy is in need of clarification

I want to acknowledge that the policy governing software development and deployments on our projects needs to be clarfied. WMF has, at different times, rejected configuration requests (in some cases, very contentiously, e.g. WP:ACTRIAL) or intervened on code in the MediaWiki: namespace (the latter usually for performance, security or policy reasons). While we've stated the organization's view for the record several times (as noted in the original statement), clearly documented policies for deployments (including code in the MediaWiki: namespace) are needed to reduce the risk of escalation in future. We will work towards that.
Our original response to the RFC was insufficiently clear

I want to acknowledge that our original response to the RFC, posted 10 July by Fabrice Florin on behalf of WMF, was not clear enough in that it stated a preliminary decision but used the word "recommendation". This was a good faith intent to engage in a conversation, but had the effect of muddying the waters. In retrospect, and after speaking more with Pete Forsyth about it, I recognize that an escalation like the one that occurred could have perhaps been avoided if we had stated principles more clearly upfront (such as the idea that administrators disabling site features is not acceptable). We will work together to develop internal guidelines on how we respond to such RFCs, specifically with an eye to clear rules of engagement.
WMF has significantly improved development/deployment processes in the last year, and will continue to do so

When this kind of conflict occurs, we always consider what we could have done differently to avoid it. After the conflict related to the (admittedly premature) deployment of VisualEditor last year, we introduced a new system, Beta Features, to pilot new features with early adopters. Media Viewer was first introduced as a beta feature in November 2013 [31] and very carefully and gradually improved and rolled out over a period of months. The project also was supported throughout by a dedicated community liaison, Keegan Peterzell. Many technical issues e.g. regarding integration of metadata have been addressed during that time in close partnership with the community. Key metrics were tracked and measurement methods improved throughout the development.

Going forward, we'll continue to assess how we can reduce friction and perceived disruption as part of development and deployment processes, including but not limited to:

more clearly stating success/failure criteria for major features and using these to determine deployment status
%-based rollouts to a segment of the total user population
stronger iterative validation of user experience changes through rapid user testing cycles
standardized micro-surveys to measure user satisfaction

We welcome suggestions along these and similar lines.
The RFC process contributes to an us vs. them relationship

The RFC process and similar polls contribute to an us vs. them relationship on software development issues that makes constructive partnership to resolve issues harder. For example, during the time of the English Wikipedia RFC, many changes to the MultimediaViewer extension were made that addressed issues, including some referenced in the RFC. The RFC process tends to present an inflexible final outcome, which puts WMF in an awkward position of either having to roll back a major software feature or being seen to oppose "the community", as illustrated by this case.

We would welcome suggestions from the community for processes that could lead to a more constructive working relationship between both groups. One possibility would be to refer a conflict related to software features to a smaller elected body, or to have a smaller group of community members nominated on an as-needed basis to negotiate an issue of concern. In any event, we are open to piloting new processes.
WMF continues to engage meaningfully with the community regarding Media Viewer

We recognize that the software feature which triggered the RFC continues to be contentious, and that there are valid reasons why community members have expressed criticism and concern related to the tool. We are continuing to explore constructive paths forward, including easier access to viewing preferences for all users, additional research to validate whether the tool serves its intended purpose, and exploration of compromise options regarding its eventual integration and configuration. This process continues to be led by Fabrice Florin, Product Manager for the feature. See his edits on English Wikipedia and Meta, for example.

The main action that triggered this RFA was an intervention to prevent an admin attempt to disable the tool. Indeed, the main principle on which we cannot compromise is that WMF maintains final authority over software deployment and configuration. In spite of stating this principle, we will absolutely continue to work rationally and constructively with the community as the most important stakeholder towards a reasonable outcome.

This is NOT the way things used to work.
This is baldly stating that the WMF, engineering in particular, can force whatever half-baked garbage they want down your throats and you can't even change your own javascript configuration files.

Hostage, not partner. Baldly stated.

Wow.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Wed Jul 30, 2014 5:52 pm

Kww strikes back!

Unofficial WMF administrative accounts forbidden

1) All administrative accounts owned by WMF members that are not designated as WMF accounts are hereby desysopped, with all advanced permissions removed.

Remaining WMF administrative accounts restricted

2) Remaining administrative accounts, those explicitly designated as WMF accounts, are restricted to using their permissions only for OFFICE actions. Any administrator, upon observing an action taken by one of these accounts that is not accompanied by an explanation of precisely how the action is mandated by WP:OFFICE, is free to reverse said action at any time. If the action is justified by WP:OFFICE but exceeds the minimum action necessary action to accomplish the legal requirements upon the WMF, any admin is free to modify the action to bring it to the minimal compliant state.

Seems straightforward and to the point.

He'll be mercilessly executed at some point in the near future.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Wed Jul 30, 2014 6:28 pm

1) All administrative accounts owned by WMF members that are not designated as WMF accounts are hereby desysopped, with all advanced permissions removed.

What is a WMF member? Presumably this doesn't (just) mean employees. Does it include Jimbo?

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Wed Jul 30, 2014 10:43 pm

Poetlister wrote:
1) All administrative accounts owned by WMF members that are not designated as WMF accounts are hereby desysopped, with all advanced permissions removed.
What is a WMF member? Presumably this doesn't (just) mean employees. Does it include Jimbo?

I think Jimbo is a huge member.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Thu Jul 31, 2014 2:14 pm

HRIP7 wrote:
HRIP7 wrote:Here is some advice for Alvesgaspar:

1. By moving the discussion to a subpage, Wales has already achieved 50% of his objective: it is now out of sight, out of mind, and with any luck the long and inconvenient discussion on his talk page will soon be archived.

2. If you and others don't keep prodding him about this on his talk page, he will soon conveniently forget you ever spoke to him, and get on with more pleasant things in life than listening to pesky volunteers.

See also this post for how this sort of thing has gone down in the past.
It's now a little over two days since Alvesgaspar created the subpage Wales asked for. Needless to say, Wales is (so far! there's always hope, isn't there?) notable for his absence from that page.

Shall we take bets on how this will end?

Right.

1. The discussion on Wales' talk page has now been archived.

2. Wales has not shown up on the subpage Alvesgaspar has created.

3. Wales is currently busy tweeting about the Impact Challenge.

Let no one say we didn't call it.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Fri Aug 01, 2014 12:09 pm

Here's Jimbo gushing about how much he loves Media Viewer. What I find amusing is that the graph he tweeted out to his followers is not reliably sourced. It is "own work" by "Leopoldo Martin R", and Leo was critiqued that his plots don't match the data in the Wikipedia article's table. Even when Jimbo's giving a thumbs-up to his project, he unwittingly exposes why it is a danger to knowledge.

Oh, and Jimbo obviously reads here, trying to make a liar out of HRIP7.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Fri Aug 01, 2014 12:33 pm

thekohser wrote:trying

Heh. Better late than never.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Fri Aug 01, 2014 4:59 pm

Jimbo misses the point in his verbiage: It's not the job of the customers reporting the problems to also have fixes for them.

People don't like it.
They don't have to make it easier to let the developers shove it up their collective asses.

Why is, "Let's pull this back and start the process over" NEVER AN OPTION?
It's what happens with real engineering companies when they screw up a rollout.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Fri Aug 01, 2014 5:31 pm

Vigilant wrote:Jimbo misses the point in his verbiage: It's not the job of the customers reporting the problems to also have fixes for them.

People don't like it.
They don't have to make it easier to let the developers shove it up their collective asses.

Why is, "Let's pull this back and start the process over" NEVER AN OPTION?
It's what happens with real engineering companies when they screw up a rollout.

Since when is WMF a real engineering company?

RfB

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Fri Aug 01, 2014 5:35 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:
Vigilant wrote:Jimbo misses the point in his verbiage: It's not the job of the customers reporting the problems to also have fixes for them.

People don't like it.
They don't have to make it easier to let the developers shove it up their collective asses.

Why is, "Let's pull this back and start the process over" NEVER AN OPTION?
It's what happens with real engineering companies when they screw up a rollout.
Since when is WMF a real engineering company?

RfB

I am pointing out the differences.
Thank you for your help.
Here's a lollipop.

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Fri Aug 01, 2014 5:51 pm

There's a fair amount of question-begging going on there, too. This bit in particular struck me as a fairly obvious one:

Jimbo wrote:...there is at least the suggestion that no possible version of MV could ever be appropriate for editing work, leading people to a path which involves having a separate user experience for readers and editors which I think we can all agree is not ideal.

I don't see why "all" would agree on that - why wouldn't that be ideal? And even if it isn't "ideal," wouldn't it be better than what the WMF is insisting on?

Personally I would think that this (aka "opt-in") is by far the most logical solution, and since it's what the WPers want, the only reason not do it is the fact that the WMF developers will get less "user feedback" because non-users aren't as likely to report bugs. Which is another way of saying the WMF wants to use Wikipedians as beta-testers, right? They should just admit that's what their whole plan is based on.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Fri Aug 01, 2014 5:57 pm

Midsize Jake wrote:Which is another way of saying the WMF wants to abuse Wikipedians as beta-testers, right? They should just admit that's what their whole plan is based on.

Let me FTFY.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Fri Aug 01, 2014 6:22 pm

thekohser wrote:
Midsize Jake wrote:Which is another way of saying the WMF wants to abuse Wikipedians as beta-testers, right? They should just admit that's what their whole plan is based on.
Let me FTFY.

It clearly points to the fact that the product managers of the WMF have no clue what the various classes of users actually want or need.

Media Viewer is a "make work" project.
Nothing about it will increase readers or editors.

Period.