Wikipediocracy

orangepi wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 21, 2023 4:13 pm

...even the current "60% in favor of reverting" would be no consensus, leaning towards "consensus to not try to override the WMF".

Surely not?? The proposal to deploy vector 2022 "passed" with 48% support, yet over 60% isn't enough to undo it?

Mojito wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 21, 2023 11:17 pm

orangepi wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 21, 2023 4:13 pm

...even the current "60% in favor of reverting" would be no consensus, leaning towards "consensus to not try to override the WMF".

Surely not?? The proposal to deploy vector 2022 "passed" with 48% support, yet over 60% isn't enough to undo it?

Considering how many votes are useless, like "Support. At this point, I got only one thing to say, RIP Wikipedia. You had a good run. 148.252.35.10 (talk)" or "Support vector 2022 is a huge blow to the community. It is blatantly evident that most users(especially the IPs whose contributions are indispensible) are going to stop editing from here onwards if rollback is not carried out asap; in any case, vector 2022 already created so much damages that are irreparable.149.36.19.74 (talk)", yes.

It wouldn't matter if there were 500 IP editor complaints that are poorly argued. (and 100 from registered editors that are "I don't like it" or bang-on-the-table "process" complaints).

Vigilant wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 23, 2023 5:33 am

A naked appeal to authority fallacy

Well, no. Leaving aside the fact that some don’t consider an appeal to authority a fallacy at all per se, this is hardly a “naked appeal”; most of the quotes advanced arguments, didn’t they?

The Blue Newt wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 23, 2023 7:17 am

Vigilant wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 23, 2023 5:33 am

A naked appeal to authority fallacy

Well, no. Leaving aside the fact that some don’t consider an appeal to authority a fallacy at all per se, this is hardly a “naked appeal”; most of the quotes advanced arguments, didn’t they?

What relevancy does news reporting about this update, regurgitating WMF lines, have to do with usability by editors?

If this change is so bad, where are the negative reviews in the media?

HTH, https://www.grammarly.com/blog/appeal-t ... y-fallacy/

Individual, who is an expert in Y field, says X is true. 

Therefore, X is true. 

orangepi wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 22, 2023 4:13 pm

Considering how many votes are useless

The votes you quoted boil down to "The new skin is making my user experience noticeably worse compared to the old one." which is the opposite of "useless" in the context of deciding whether V22 should stay or not.

The only useless votes in the RfC are schizophrenic opposes by people who clearly prefer the old skin but have chosen to advocate for the new one; my favorite one is "21. Oppose I have chosen to return to legacy Vector [...] but I recognize that the new skin has substantial improvements." Yeah, brilliant, it's so good you can't stand it. Sounds like those unspecified "substantial improvements" should've perhaps been made incrementally to the old layout.

There's barely anyone there who genuinely likes the new skin; the general sentiment of the oppose section seems to be "yeah, well, what's done is done, whatchu gonna do. Let's just move on, stop living in the past, boomer." I'd be surprised if any of these comments were added using V22.

I'm sorry, guys, you can pretend all you want, but the Emperor is butt naked.

jf1970 wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 23, 2023 2:31 pm

Those disingenuous bastards, separating their personal opinion from data!

"Data" so far: 171 supports; 102 opposes.

boom wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 23, 2023 2:25 pm

orangepi wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 22, 2023 4:13 pm

Considering how many votes are useless

The votes you quoted boil down to "The new skin is making my user experience noticeably worse compared to the old one." which is the opposite of "useless" in the context of deciding whether V22 should stay or not.

The only useless votes in the RfC are schizophrenic opposes by people who clearly prefer the old skin but have chosen to advocate for the new one; my favorite one is "21. Oppose I have chosen to return to legacy Vector [...] but I recognize that the new skin has substantial improvements." Yeah, brilliant, it's so good you can't stand it. Sounds like those unspecified "substantial improvements" should've perhaps been made incrementally to the old layout.

There's barely anyone there who genuinely likes the new skin; the general sentiment of the oppose section seems to be "yeah, well, what's done is done, whatchu gonna do. Let's just move on, stop living in the past, boomer." I'd be surprised if any of these comments were added using V22.

I'm sorry, guys, you can pretend all you want, but the Emperor is butt-naked.

Those disingenuous bastards, separating their personal opinion from data!

boom wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 23, 2023 2:25 pm

jf1970 wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 23, 2023 2:31 pm

Those disingenuous bastards, separating their personal opinion from data!

"Data" so far: 171 supports; 102 opposes.

Correct use of scare quotes.

Eh, Ming pondered changing back and then discovered Ming was still set on Monobook.

The first page I tried it on was ITN/C, where as an admin you scan down the TOC to see if anything can be posted (i.e. "(Ready) Dead Person)". Except you can't in Vector 2022, as the TOC is now in the left hand pane and is collapsed. Shite, basically.

Vigilant wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 23, 2023 8:05 am

The Blue Newt wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 23, 2023 7:17 am

Vigilant wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 23, 2023 5:33 am

A naked appeal to authority fallacy

Well, no. Leaving aside the fact that some don’t consider an appeal to authority a fallacy at all per se, this is hardly a “naked appeal”; most of the quotes advanced arguments, didn’t they?

What relevancy does news reporting about this update, regurgitating WMF lines, have to do with usability by editors?

Hmm. You don’t have to convince me it’s bad: my summary of it being a slightly circumspect version of “blows dead goats” and all, you might even think I’d already drawn that conclusion. But their defense of it isn’t a simple logical fallacy, except maybe at one remove. (That may be what some of the newsies are doing, assuming that because some Wiki articles are factual, that that authority, such as it is, carries over to the WMF’s press releases.)

Mind your tags.

They're saying that BECAUSE the news stories aren't negative means that the new skin MUST be good.

If you can't see the fallacy there, I don't know what to say.

Vigilant wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 24, 2023 5:34 am

Mind your tags.

They're saying that BECAUSE the news stories aren't negative means that the new skin MUST be good.

If you can't see the fallacy there, I don't know what to say.

What do you think explains it?

Smultronstället wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 24, 2023 6:07 am

Vigilant wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 24, 2023 5:34 am

Mind your tags.

They're saying that BECAUSE the news stories aren't negative means that the new skin MUST be good.

If you can't see the fallacy there, I don't know what to say.

What do you think explains it?

Lazy reporting regurgitating WMF press releases.

Vigilant wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 24, 2023 5:34 am

Mind your tags.

They're saying that BECAUSE the news stories aren't negative means that the new skin MUST be good.

If you can't see the fallacy there, I don't know what to say.

No.

They wrote “If this change is so bad, where are the negative reviews in the media?”, which is a slightly different thing.

Vigilant wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 24, 2023 6:12 am

Smultronstället wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 24, 2023 6:07 am

What do you think explains it?

Lazy reporting regurgitating WMF press releases.

That's almost certainly part of it, to varying degrees depending on the reporter(s). But I'd say some of it is just natural reaction based on what people do all day — Wikipedians spend large amounts of time on Wikipedia, so loss of familiarity/comfort-level, along with natural change resistance, will probably lead many of them to have negative reactions to a redesign.

Reporters spend all day on all sorts of different websites, including many they've only just encountered, so they're probably less likely to be bothered by a change in UI design, especially if a new UI design makes a site more standards-compliant.

(As for me, I still feel the same way about it as I did when this thread started — basically "meh," but I've seen nothing to counter my suspicions of an ulterior motive.)

The Blue Newt wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 24, 2023 6:37 am

They wrote “If this change is so bad, where are the negative reviews in the media?”, which is a slightly different thing.

Hrm.. Are we somewhere between Vig's Appeal to authority & Affirming the consequent (T-H-L)?

Black Kite wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 24, 2023 12:55 am

The first page I tried it on was ITN/C, where as an admin you scan down the TOC to see if anything can be posted (i.e. "(Ready) Dead Person)". Except you can't in Vector 2022, as the TOC is now in the left hand pane and is collapsed. Shite, basically.

It's almost as if they designed the default logged-out skin without ITN admins in mind. Complete shite.

The Blue Newt wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 24, 2023 6:37 am

Vigilant wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 24, 2023 5:34 am

Mind your tags.

They're saying that BECAUSE the news stories aren't negative means that the new skin MUST be good.

If you can't see the fallacy there, I don't know what to say.

No.

They wrote “If this change is so bad, where are the negative reviews in the media?”, which is a slightly different thing.

You must be FUN at parties.

They provided the reviews from the news media as links in their argument.
There was no "where are the negative reviews?"

Vigilant wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 24, 2023 10:57 am

The Blue Newt wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 24, 2023 6:37 am

Vigilant wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 24, 2023 5:34 am

Mind your tags.

They're saying that BECAUSE the news stories aren't negative means that the new skin MUST be good.

If you can't see the fallacy there, I don't know what to say.

No.

They wrote “If this change is so bad, where are the negative reviews in the media?”, which is a slightly different thing.

You must be FUN at parties.

They provided the reviews from the news media as links in their argument.
There was no "where are the negative reviews?"

Check again.

Black Kite wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 24, 2023 12:55 am

The first page I tried it on was ITN/C, where as an admin you scan down the TOC to see if anything can be posted (i.e. "(Ready) Dead Person)". Except you can't in Vector 2022, as the TOC is now in the left hand pane and is collapsed. Shite, basically.

Would adding a TOCLIMIT template for level 4 automatically expand the subheadings?

(I legitimately don't know; edit previews don't show a Table of Contents at all, and the template documentation hasn't been updated. Two more strikes, though it's not entirely clear the WMF is responsible for the second one.)

jf1970 wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 24, 2023 7:22 am

Black Kite wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 24, 2023 12:55 am

The first page I tried it on was ITN/C, where as an admin you scan down the TOC to see if anything can be posted (i.e. "(Ready) Dead Person)". Except you can't in Vector 2022, as the TOC is now in the left hand pane and is collapsed. Shite, basically.

It's almost as if they designed the default logged-out skin without ITN admins in mind. Complete shite.

It's almost as if they "designed" it without thinking at all, frankly.

Black Kite wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 24, 2023 6:40 pm

jf1970 wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 24, 2023 7:22 am

Black Kite wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 24, 2023 12:55 am

The first page I tried it on was ITN/C, where as an admin you scan down the TOC to see if anything can be posted (i.e. "(Ready) Dead Person)". Except you can't in Vector 2022, as the TOC is now in the left hand pane and is collapsed. Shite, basically.

It's almost as if they designed the default logged-out skin without ITN admins in mind. Complete shite.

It's almost as if they "designed" it without thinking at all, frankly.

I suspect a lot of WMF echelons-above-reality behavior is governed by the need to be seen doing something other than leaning on their brooms.

The Blue Newt wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 24, 2023 6:46 pm

Black Kite wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 24, 2023 6:40 pm

jf1970 wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 24, 2023 7:22 am

Black Kite wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 24, 2023 12:55 am

The first page I tried it on was ITN/C, where as an admin you scan down the TOC to see if anything can be posted (i.e. "(Ready) Dead Person)". Except you can't in Vector 2022, as the TOC is now in the left hand pane and is collapsed. Shite, basically.

It's almost as if they designed the default logged-out skin without ITN admins in mind. Complete shite.

It's almost as if they "designed" it without thinking at all, frankly.

I suspect a lot of WMF echelons-above-reality behavior is governed by the need to be seen doing something other than leaning on their brooms.

Well, Ming notices that in the AN discussion of the RFC, several people are trying to brush it off with recourse to WP:CONEXEMPT. Ming has to wonder what business WMF has of even expressing an opinion on the matter.

WMF canvassing at an en.wp RfC

pdf of the email sent urging canvassing at the RfC

Should be fired.

Vigilant wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 29, 2023 7:50 pm

WMF canvassing at an en.wp RfC

pdf of the email sent urging canvassing at the RfC

Should be fired.

What part is canvassing?

Smultronstället wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 29, 2023 8:47 pm

Vigilant wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 29, 2023 7:50 pm

WMF canvassing at an en.wp RfC

pdf of the email sent urging canvassing at the RfC

Should be fired.

What part is canvassing?

It is hardly a neutral notification, is it? "Before giving the new interface a chance and allowing for continued improvements to occur, some veteran editors have started a vote to roll it back to the 2010 design" etc, etc, etc...

AndyTheGrump wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 29, 2023 9:03 pm

Smultronstället wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 29, 2023 8:47 pm

Vigilant wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 29, 2023 7:50 pm

WMF canvassing at an en.wp RfC

pdf of the email sent urging canvassing at the RfC

Should be fired.

What part is canvassing?

It is hardly a neutral notification, is it? "Before giving the new interface a chance and allowing for continued improvements to occur, some veteran editors have started a vote to roll it back to the 2010 design" etc, etc, etc...

Selena Deckelmann, the CTO, calls it canvassing in her notice, as well.

The WMF employee has financial and professional interests in preventing the RfC from being closed as successful.

Shades of Laura Hale and her Google Groups.

Smultronstället wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 29, 2023 8:47 pm

What part is canvassing?

The canvassing part. You know, the whole act of sending this email.

Just when I thought the quality of discussion couldn't get lower, it has.

The RFC isn't even an RFC, it's just the complaints department. The vote-count means just as little as a moveon.org petition would mean: that is, nothing.

And now the hysterics about "canvassing" have started. You people are so predictably wrong.

orangepi wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 30, 2023 12:58 am

Just when I thought the quality of discussion couldn't get lower, it has.

The RFC isn't even an RFC, it's just the complaints department. The vote-count means just as little as a moveon.org petition would mean: that is, nothing.

And now the hysterics about "canvassing" have started. You people are so predictably wrong.

Well, from an outside perspective, that certainly looks like Wikipedia likes to call “canvassing.” I

Canvassing (n) - anything that encourages somebody I might disagree with to participate in Wikipedia.

orangepi wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 30, 2023 1:14 am

Canvassing (n) - anything that encourages somebody I might disagree with to participate in Wikipedia.

Sure, it’s used that way by POV pushers and idiots, who make up an unfortunately large slice of wikipedians. But it also has an actual meaning in Wiki’s peculiar Newspeak, and that really does seem to fit here. Announcements about a discussion are supposed to be couched as neutrally as possible. Do you think that occurred?

orangepi wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 30, 2023 12:58 am

You people are so predictably wrong.

I wish to point out that you are a member here in good standing.

typically the people who vote (very experienced editors) are not representative of all the people who use Wikipedia.

The very experienced editors who vote are the heaviest users of Wikipedia. While the WMF employees who claim to be representative of Wikipedia users hardly ever are seen using (editing) it.

Before giving the new interface a chance and allowing for continued improvements to occur,

The very experienced editors who vote have been begging for improvements (wishlist) and see only a fraction of what they ask for.

The best way for you developers to give your new interface a chance is to address and fix all the issues that are found during beta testing before you release it. We know that once your product is out the door many issues will be tagged "won't fix" as you've moved on to developing some other new thing.

it would be great if you as a designer, developer, tech professional and/or reader participate in the vote!

As a tech who hasn't been "professional" for over two decades I may yet make time to !vote on Wikipedia, if I can pry myself away from the pile of tech work I continue working on, which I know you don't notice or care about.

If I don't make it over to the official "vote" hopefully at least a few of you are reading this thread. See my earlier comments here.

No Ledge wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 30, 2023 4:02 am

typically the people who vote (very experienced editors) are not representative of all the people who use Wikipedia.

The very experienced editors who vote are the heaviest users of Wikipedia.

That's why they're not representative of the typical Wikipedia user. The typical user is not a heavy user.

While the WMF employees who claim to be representative of Wikipedia users hardly ever are seen using (editing) it.

"Using" Wikipedia is reading it, not editing it. The typical Wikipedia user has never edited Wikipedia.

This skin is for logged out users, aka readers, aka most users. It is not for you. The WMF prioritized readers' needs over editors' needs. Predictably, many editors are very upset about this.

The new chief of the newly combined product & technology dept handled the canvassing issue like a boss.

orangepi wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 30, 2023 12:58 am

Just when I thought the quality of discussion couldn't get lower, it has.

The RFC isn't even an RFC, it's just the complaints department. The vote-count means just as little as a moveon.org petition would mean: that is, nothing.

And now the hysterics about "canvassing" have started. You people are so predictably wrong.

Why don't we find out? You should write an email instructing recipients on how to voice their opinion on an AfD, send it to thirty people who work in the same field that the article's written about, urge them to take action now to prevent something bad from happening, then post about it on a public noticeboard and see what happens.

jf1970 wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 30, 2023 7:51 am

No Ledge wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 30, 2023 4:02 am

typically the people who vote (very experienced editors) are not representative of all the people who use Wikipedia.

The very experienced editors who vote are the heaviest users of Wikipedia.

That's why they're not representative of the typical Wikipedia user. The typical user is not a heavy user.

While the WMF employees who claim to be representative of Wikipedia users hardly ever are seen using (editing) it.

"Using" Wikipedia is reading it, not editing it. The typical Wikipedia user has never edited Wikipedia.

This skin is for logged out users, aka readers, aka most users. It is not for you. The WMF prioritized readers' needs over editors' needs. Predictably, many editors are very upset about this.

The new chief of the newly combined product & technology dept handled the canvassing issue like a boss.

Which WMF employee are you?

orangepi wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:43 pm

Black Kite wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 24, 2023 12:55 am

The first page I tried it on was ITN/C, where as an admin you scan down the TOC to see if anything can be posted (i.e. "(Ready) Dead Person)". Except you can't in Vector 2022, as the TOC is now in the left hand pane and is collapsed. Shite, basically.

Would adding a TOCLIMIT template for level 4 automatically expand the subheadings?

(I legitimately don't know; edit previews don't show a Table of Contents at all, and the template documentation hasn't been updated. Two more strikes, though it's not entirely clear the WMF is responsible for the second one.)

I think I recall earlier discussions about issues with the new skin's compatibility with the existing templates and functions for modifying the table of contents. They should have thoroughly investigated and resolved these issues before the highly-publicized switchover to the new skin. If any breaking changes to TOC functionality were to be made the "very experienced editors" who maintain these templates should have been notified in advance and given sufficient time to deprecate their usage.

I've noticed that after I use the new Vector skin and then switch back to the old Vector skin the TOC on Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates was collapsed by default and I had to click on [show] to see it. After much time passed without switching back to the new Vector again, the TOC was expanded by default as it should be.

Appears to me there may be some sort of delayed caching issue when switching between skins.

jf1970 wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 30, 2023 7:51 am

No Ledge wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 30, 2023 4:02 am

typically the people who vote (very experienced editors) are not representative of all the people who use Wikipedia.

The very experienced editors who vote are the heaviest users of Wikipedia.

That's why they're not representative of the typical Wikipedia user. The typical user is not a heavy user.

While the WMF employees who claim to be representative of Wikipedia users hardly ever are seen using (editing) it.

"Using" Wikipedia is reading it, not editing it. The typical Wikipedia user has never edited Wikipedia.

This skin is for logged out users, aka readers, aka most users. It is not for you. The WMF prioritized readers' needs over editors' needs. Predictably, many editors are very upset about this.

The new chief of the newly combined product & technology dept handled the canvassing issue like a boss.

So, two points to consider here.

Who is more valuable to the WMF - heavy users (very experienced editors) or readers? Both are important, but one is much harder to attract and retain. It's not enough for the WMF to make changes that they think will benefit readers - they also have to make sure that power users are happy with it.

If "predictably, many users are upset" then this hasn't been handled properly by the WMF. If I'm an editor, happily editing away, then it isn't a good idea to surprise me with something that you already know will make a lot of people complain. Especially if it's really easy for me to stick with whichever skin I'm used to. Every single active editor should have been told that this was coming and how to switch back if they didn't like it. Not by a site notice that is easy to ignore, but by a message on their talk page.

If the WMF had handled the introduction of the new skin better, there would have been far less acrimony. I don't actually understand why they made it the default skin for existing users. Tell people why you think they should switch and see if they do. If they don't, that's their problem, not yours. Making editors switch back to what they had been used to was just asking for complaints. It was a dumb move.

Giraffe Stapler wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 30, 2023 6:13 pm

Who is more valuable to the WMF - heavy users (very experienced editors) or readers?

Obviously readers are more valuable to the WMF – readers are the dupes who donate money to the WMF and money is of paramount importance to them. Very experienced editors don't give them much money; rather they pester them to tone down their begging which they fear decreases their revenue.

As maximizing donations is top priority, how can the WMF do that with the default skin? Make it appear that the WMF, and the WMF alone is responsible for creating Wikipedia. After all the donations are made to support the people who write the encyclopedia, not the platform those writers choose to host their content.

Make that sidebar, with pesky links to things like "Learn to edit" and "Community portal" just disappear, hidden behind a "hamburger button" (I called that an "equivalence sign" – a math symbol – earlier in this thread as I just learned the proper name for it the other day, despite the fact it apparently originated in the 1980s).

Don't show them all the "insider stuff" unless they choose to create an account and log in, while making sure that there is no reason to bother to create an account. This is likely to exacerbate the problem of the slow(ing) rate new administrators of the content come online, but as long as the revenue stream is increasing, who cares about that?

No Ledge wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 30, 2023 8:32 pm

As maximizing donations is top priority, how can the WMF do that with the default skin? Make it appear that the WMF, and the WMF alone is responsible for creating Wikipedia.
<snip>
Don't show them all the "insider stuff" unless they choose to create an account and log in, while making sure that there is no reason to bother to create an account. This is likely to exacerbate the problem of the slow(ing) rate new administrators of the content come online, but as long as the revenue stream is increasing, who cares about that?

That's sort of what I've been saying all along, but your suggestion as to their motive may be even more cynical than mine was!

Ultimately though, this almost has to be the explanation. Practically all major websites seem to get to the point eventually where they're using "aesthetics" and "user experience" to justify design decisions that are really based on cost-reduction, risk-minimization, or some theory about how to avoid bad PR. Wiki(m/p)edia, probably because it's ostensibly a nonprofit, just took a bit longer than most (or all, really) to get there.

Giraffe Stapler wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 30, 2023 6:13 pm

If the WMF had handled the introduction of the new skin better, there would have been far less acrimony. I don't actually understand why they made it the default skin for existing users. Tell people why you think they should switch and see if they do. If they don't, that's their problem, not yours. Making editors switch back to what they had been used to was just asking for complaints. It was a dumb move.

What really does not help is the WMF's long and ongoing history of handing feedback from the community that they're unhappy about in one or more of the following ways:

1. WMF/employee(s) utterly ignoring it la-la-la-can't-hear-you style
2. WMF/employee(s) using the good ol' "let me give you this lengthy reply that circles 'round and round and looks like it might be addressing the points made, but never actually does" fallback. Aka "answering a different question than was asked". Then referring back to said answer every time the issue is raised again.
3. WMF/employee(s) using the good ol' "let me give you a bunch of numbers we'll pretend mean exactly what we happen to want them to mean".

If one's lucky, one might eventually get to
4. WMF/employee(s) acknowledging an issue might exist, and that it's certainly something to revisit later (read: after the WMF has pushed through whatever thing's being objected to)

but trying to get the subject revisited afterwards tends to fall right back into 1-3.

What generally doesn't happen (outside "this very specific thing is broken in x situation, and it's actually a thing the WMF wants to be working" or "community kicks up so much drama that it more-or-less forces the WMF to back down") is
5. WMF/employee actually satisfactorily answering the questions asked/taking on board the feedback given/countering the feedback given by using data and statistics in a way that actually supports their point/fixing the damn issue.

So the community is never going to be particularly happy when it gets any change forced upon it by the WMF (far too many bad memories), or even just actions that look like they intend to do so in the nearish future; and when you combine that with history showing that the only way to get WMF to actually listen to the community's wishes is kicking up a right storm and increasing tensions until the WMF backs off, well...

It doesn't make for people particularly interested in calmly and patiently waiting to see if this new thing gets better, to say the least. So yeah, a better introduction might have helped some, but at this point, the core base of editors isn't likely to forget that the WMF has always been much more interested in trying to talk over the community than listening to it. Making the skin available but not default for registered users would as likely as not simply have been seen as a step towards the WMF eventually forcing it on everyone.

Great post.

Another thing the WMF does is force the broken thing out all at once and then fix things that are the most broken hoping to get Teh Communitah to sigh with relief that the worst issues are fixed.

'Run them out of gas' tactics.

jf1970 wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 30, 2023 7:51 am

"Using" Wikipedia is reading it, not editing it. The typical Wikipedia user has never edited Wikipedia.

This skin is for logged out users, aka readers, aka most users. It is not for you. The WMF prioritized readers' needs over editors' needs. Predictably, many editors are very upset about this.

The new chief of the newly combined product & technology dept handled the canvassing issue like a boss.

As Ming said earlier, Ming has stuck with Monobook and thus hasn't much skin in this. That said, this is a bunch of corporate speak. The heaviest user of WP is Google, hands down; as long as they can grab their blurb for the search, they don't care.

And who knows what reader's "needs" are, anyway? One thing that Ming sees is that it has the common interface issue of being designed for novice idiots. Yet people who aren't idiots also do not remain novices. In particular they've gone and hidden away anything that might be used in reading the text critically, except for the history tab. What it looks like is that they've favored people who want to read just the lead on a phone, but in that case we should just not bother to write the rest of the text.

Things don't change. September of this year will mark the day I overrode the default editor selection, turning off VE. Haven't looked, but I bet editing the site Javascript can't be done by admins anymore.

The RFC is now, what, 270 support rolling back and 200 oppose. That's not going to be enough to 'make' WMF do anything but also there are clearly some very unhappy bunnies. Is the WMF going to respond to it in any meaningful way?

unwanted wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 31, 2023 6:23 am

Things don't change. September of this year will mark the day I overrode the default editor selection, turning off VE. Haven't looked, but I bet editing the site Javascript can't be done by admins anymore.

Your September 2013 edit to MediaWiki:Common.js is one that, as of August 2018 (after a request for comment) can only be made by a select group of Wikipedia:Interface administrators (T-H-L). The interface administrator right may be granted only to existing administrators. The administrator makes a request, with a rationale, at the bureaucrats’ noticeboard.

Interface administrators are required to use two-factor authentication (2FA).

So, yes, they tightened up the security around this privilege after some admin accounts were hacked because some admins were too sloppy with their password selection or their machine's security.

There are currently 11 interface administrators (including one bot).

After a glance at that list, I think your best bet if you want to blow up the 2022 Vector skin is to call for some TNT

But if there's a consensus to change sitewide JavaScript you can file a request at Wikipedia:Interface administrators' noticeboard (T-H-L).

No Ledge wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 31, 2023 12:12 pm

There are currently 11 interface administrators (including one bot).

After a glance at that list, I think your best bet if you want to blow up the 2022 Vector skin is to call for some TNT

I should ask for the bit. After all, I'm one of the few editors with a demonstrated competence in the area.

boom wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 18, 2023 11:35 pm

apparently, the only way to use the old skin as an unregistered user right now is to add

Code: Select all

?useskin=vector

to the address bar every time you go to a new page

Is there really no other way to go back to the old skin when logged out?? What a pain.

Also, check out the WMF CTO's attempt to ignore the community's opinion when they disagree with it (bolding by said CTO)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1139816907:

SDeckelmann-WMF wrote:<patronising corporate double-speak>
...
For that reason, if consensus in this RfC calls for rolling back the software, I recommend that we do that only for existing logged-in editors on the English Wikipedia, while we work to address the key issues. We want the software that you use to work well for you. We know that rolling back for existing logged-in editors may cause confusion for those who have been editing with Vector 2022 since January 18 (or earlier), so I want to hear any ideas people have for how to do this as smoothly as we can.
...
In considering the data we have, however, I don’t see a basis for rolling back the skin for logged-out readers, or changing the default width for them (especially now that the fixed width toggle is persistent). I believe this is aligned with the policy at WP:CONEXCEPT on behalf of readers, in the sense that the perspectives of the editor community can only be one of the important inputs to making decisions about readers. I don't think the evidence we have supports rollback for readers, and, on the contrary, the evidence suggests they are receiving the benefits we hoped they would.

I also want us to think together about how we can move forward, how I and the teams I manage can tackle the software development needs of many different communities with the resources we have, through established decision-making processes. I worry that RfCs are not an effective way to plan for and execute software development projects, and I would like to create more effective spaces across communities to hear your needs and plan together. One reason I feel this way is that RfCs like these may not fully represent the perspectives of the users that they affect. I would like your recommendations on a process that might bring us together to successfully implement important changes, and I look forward to collaborating with you to bring that about.
[[User:SDeckelmann-WMF]] ([[User talk:SDeckelmann-WMF]]) 01:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC)