Last modified: 2014-10-02 10:37:25 UTC
[[Wikipedia:Media Viewer/June 2014 RfC]] The consensus on the English Wikipedia is to disable Media Viewer by default.
Just need to set the default user option to 'false' really.
Changing default user preferences means overriding the choices of registered editors who actually want the feature (including thousands of editors who voluntarily opted-in before MediaViewer was made avaialble by default). It's too bad that MediaWiki doesn't have a good one-click system for changing prefs, like a "Click here to enable X" button or pop-up. It'd be so much easier than telling hundreds of users "Go to Special:Preferences, click to this tab, scroll halfway down, find this item, tick the box, scroll all the way down, save the page."
I see no reason in honoring this request. MediaViewer only displays media in a different way, *and* it can be disabled in your preferences. This is normal software evolution. It is nothing like VisualEditor, which was disruptive for all editors. This is not, and editor consensus cannot dicatate how all *readers* should experience the use of media.
Closing WONTFIX per previously provided explanation: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Media_Viewer/June_2014_RfC&diff=prev&oldid=616407785
(In reply to WhatamIdoing from comment #2) > It's too bad that MediaWiki doesn't have a good one-click system for > changing prefs, like a "Click here to enable X" button or pop-up. It'd be > so much easier than telling hundreds of users "Go to Special:Preferences, > click to this tab, scroll halfway down, find this item, tick the box, scroll > all the way down, save the page." MediaViewer does provide that functionality, actually (it's at the bottom of the metadata panel).
@Erik Moeller: Why the Wikimedia Fondation as content provider overwrites community consensus? Is this only a "i don't like to follow communety consensus" WONTFIX or a Office Action? Per shellpolicy there is enough consensus to merge this change.
Steinsplitter: It's longstanding WMF policy and practice to apply judgment to community RFCs and requests regarding software and configuration changes on a case-by-case basis, depending on the nature of the requested change, the level of participation, the impact on readers/editors, etc. See: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Limits_to_configuration_changes In this case, we will keep the feature enabled by default (it's easy to turn off, both for readers and editors), but we'll continue to improve it based on community feedback (as has already happened in the last few weeks).
(In reply to Erik Moeller from comment #7) Erik, the RfC is full of critiques of the methodology that led the WMF team responsible for this feature to the conclusion that it serves the reader better. Through this action you seem to be saying that the WMF team is correct by virtue of its being the WMF team, and the English Wikipedia community is wrong by virtue of its being the English Wikipedia community.
Pete: Not at all. We've paid close attention to the requests by readers and editors throughout the development process. In fact, there are aspects of Media Viewer (like the prominent Commons links) which I believe can be directly traced to your own early feedback, even if you are still unhappy with the result. Recent significant changes include an off switch for readers, and an easy click-through link to the full resolution version. I think you will also appreciate the attribution hints recently added to the download tab (see here: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Lightbox_demo#mediaviewer/File:Swallow_flying_drinking.jpg ). Some of these changes were made _while_ the RFC took place. We'll continue to improve Media Viewer, but we'll also focus more attention in coming weeks on the upload process and on structured data support in partnership with Wikidata (the latter should help ensure that we can more consistently pull useful metadata into applications like Media Viewer, and potentially add some basic edit functionality to the overlay as well).
I have to admit that I didn't like MediaViewer at first, but I read Erik's comments, and decided to give it another try. And it's definitely improving. It's now at the quality level of an early beta release, rather than the alpha release level it was at when it was first implemented. The fullscreen button was surprising at first, but I can see the use of it. But after that, it only took me 2 minutes to find two bugs. MV tells users that they have to attribute CC0 and PD images (they don't). I wanted to see the message that was in the public domain attribution message, so I clicked in the message field, and pressed the right arrow to see the end of the selection -- oops! Next image. I'm not a person with highly established workflows -- my contributions to English Wikipedia are around one edit per month, and I use other wiki software. Media Viewer is just confusing, and feels incomplete. It's not my workflow breaking, it's a new feature's interface being confusing. I'm really disappointed that the WMF seems to want to force this on the community, when it's so clearly a product still in need of development. And I'm more disappointed that the only response to the community has been based on Silent Majority arguments and a disdain for experienced members of the community. If this bug is marked WONTFIX, where can I file a bug about the WMF?
(In reply to Erik Moeller from comment #9) > even if you are still unhappy with the result. Erik, my level of satisfaction is irrelevant. As I expressed in the Commons RfC, "I Don't Like It"-style votes are not valuable, and should not be counted in evaluating consensus. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Requests_for_comment/Media_Viewer_software_feature&diff=128325247&oldid=128324966 It seems that you and the Multimedia Team, though, don't take the same view on the other side. You seem to attach great importance to the fact that you reached out to some Wikipedians, and they responded "I Like It." The "NOTCONSENT" policy cited makes it clear that WMF must act on its own discretion on legal matters, and I have no quarrel with that. Certainly there are cases where consensus has no place. But this is not one of them. On matters that involve sophisticated judgment -- is it your position that WMF is capable of evaluating what constitutes good judgment, and local communities are not? It seems that you are quick to cite your community engagement practices when doing so serves your objective of deploying the software, but quick to dismiss community input that do not support that objective.
(In reply to Brent Laabs from comment #10) > MV tells users that they have to attribute CC0 and PD images (they don't). This is https://wikimedia.mingle.thoughtworks.com/projects/multimedia/cards/736 > I wanted to see the message that was in the public domain attribution message, > so I clicked in the message field, and pressed the right arrow to see the end > of the selection -- oops! Next image. We try to make copying the message very easy, which means the text gets focused and preselected automatically from time to time (e.g. when switching tabs). If it would capture keystrokes on top of that, that would result in a very confusing behavior (prev/next would basically stop working when you open the panel). Opened bug 67835 about the underlying issue though, which is that it should be possible to just read these texts without copying them.
(In reply to WhatamIdoing from comment #2) > Changing default user preferences means overriding the choices of registered > editors who actually want the feature (including thousands of editors who > voluntarily opted-in before MediaViewer was made avaialble by default). > > It's too bad that MediaWiki doesn't have a good one-click system for > changing prefs, like a "Click here to enable X" button or pop-up. It'd be > so much easier than telling hundreds of users "Go to Special:Preferences, > click to this tab, scroll halfway down, find this item, tick the box, scroll > all the way down, save the page." That's an interesting idea and I've filed it as bug 67846.
