Commons talk:Requests for comment/Media Viewer software feature

Vocals

The following discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.

---

@Gwillhickers: , you are already the most vocal commenter on the English Wikipedia RFC -- you have left five times as many comments there as any other individual user. (see here). As explained below, this line of discussion is beyond the scope of this RfC. Please take a step back and let others discuss for a while. You are not the sole voice of reason in this discussion. -Pete F (talk) 23:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

@Peteforsyth: -- My participation is not preventing anyone from making comments and if indeed the decision was made to make MV the default viewer regardless of the outcome of this and the other RfC on English Wikipedia, I guess we'll never know now, as you just endorsed their continued silence on the matter. I didn't set out to be the most persistent voice of disapproval, but it seemed many things were being ignored by the WMF project team. Regarding the money involved in the software development -- that issue could have been ended if they simply had come forward and answered honestly when I first submitted this question almost two weeks ago. In all fairness, you should have let this section stand for more than one day to see if the WMF project team finally had anything definitive to say. Okay, I'm bowing out. Now we'll just have to wait and see if all our efforts and the consensus have amounted to anything, or if all will be brushed off. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

- @Peteforsyth: , I for one agree with nearly everything @Gwillhickers: has said on this subject here and elsewhere, and I thank him for his effort in campaigning against this infuriating piece of shite. It certainly saves me from repeating much of what he has said. Why are you suggesting that he should censor himself? He will shut up when he wants to, not when it happens to strike your fancy.

- Incidentally, I'm surprised this story has not been picked up by The Register and some of the others in the technical press.

- I wish I could be fighting as hard as @Gwillhickers: does on this thing, but I find it extremely exhausting and demotivating. Be aware there are a lot of people who hold @Gwillhickers: 's opinions on the matter, but just aren't being vocal about it. Evan-Amos (talk) 21:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Are Wikipedia contributions paying for Media Viewer software development?

This comment pertains to 'logged in' also. Since Wikipedia runs on donations mostly, if not entirely, from registered editors, we need to know if these contributions are being used to pay for the software development of media viewer. If that is the case, then comments from Wikipedia editors should be considered in this light also. It would be sort of a slap in the face to consensus and good faith to have MV forced on editors, who clearly disapprove overall, while their donations are being used to pay for this slide show. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Wait, you think that registered users are a big part of our monetary donations ? I'd be very surprised if more than 1% of our donations income is from registered users.... That is still a big chunk of money, but in the grand scheme of things... TheDJ (talk) 09:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• (Edit conflict) It would seem those who have contributed months and years of their time and effort building Wikipedia and have a heart felt interest in this institution would be among the largest, if not the largest, group of supporters. In that likely event it would seem that editors, the life blood of Wikipedia, should have more than just a passing say about any major changes that are introduced to Wikipedia overall -- even if they haven't donated 'money'. And the question, submitted several times at the other RfC, still remains unanswered: Is there money being spent on the software development such that it involved some sort of agreement to make the slide show a default for everyone on all Wiki's, and that not making it a default everywhere will have consequences? At this late date, given all the overwhelming negative feedback, and their own statistics(1, 2} none of the WMF team has even suggested they'll do the right thing, respect consensus, show good faith and make the slide show an option, and offer it as a default viewer after all the bugs are ironed out and only where there is overwhelming approval for it. Do the individuals in the WMF project team answer to anybody? Given their continued silence on this particular issue it doesn't seem so. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• I know nothing about the financial support of WMF. But we all know that without the volunteer work of so many editors, and the media donations of so many creators, this project wouldn't be possible. Precisely these same editors whose opinion (and overwhelming opposition) is being ignored by the WMF. Sad and disturbing, making us re-evaluate our commitement for the future. Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Even raising the question of "who pays for" and "who makes money from" this feature (which you've done in other posts) gets us into a nasty Good Faith discussion. It implies nefarious, selfish and profiteering motives, something that deeply offends me (no fan of this feature!) and should outrage the people who put their time and sweat into this project. It also fails the simplest of AGF tests: Can the result observed be explained by people making bad decisions with good intentions? Everything, and I mean everything I can find on this project (yes, I've read the TP archives and even taken a swim in page histories) seems to show that the team thought they were doing this right. They made some choices that, to me, seem inexplicable -- specifically, the blindness to anons, the lack of reversion features and the stubborn refusal to accept the abysmal post-implementation feedback -- but nothing, anywhere, ever suggests that they had any motive other than improving the media viewing experience. @Gwillhickers: , unless you can provide some tangible reason that you think this team acted for personal gain (or any other flavour of bad faith), I respectfully ask that you stop insinuating the same. I dislike this feature and think it is hurting the WikiWorld for a wide array of reasons. However, the team that built it, Wikimedia Foundation and others involved in the project deserve the respect and assumption of good faith that we would demand for ourselves. 159.53.174.141 16:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)…aka Kevin, w:User:Kevin.159.53

• Sorry, I disagree entirely. These are fair 'questions', not accusations, so you're twisting things, asserting some wrong accusations of your own and are not practicing the good faith you think I am not offering, all in the same breath apparently. Good Faith was badly damaged when they 'introduced' media viewer with all its bugs and faults as a default viewer for everyone -- even in the face of overwhelming disapproval, and with less than sincere claims of "approval". Asking if a money commitment is partly if not entirely behind the reluctance to do the right thing is called for at this point. I am not accusing the WMF team of acting "for personal gain", and I'm sure they set out with good intentions, however I am asking if the software developers are, and if they are, has Wikipedia been locked into an agreement. Instead of side tracking this inquiry about what is and isn't good faith, we need to have some answers to some fair questions, regardless of what you feel they may imply. If you want to raise some sort of moral issue, perhaps you should start another thread and not attempt to sidetrack efforts being made here. Thanks for your thoughts. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

this is an "unhelpful" framing of the finances of wikimedia: free as in free test subject. (better than free as in loader). how many times will you re-enact the outrage at software changes by the foundation? they are moving the touch and feel to incorporate features; it's update or die. the community needs to grow up: wikimedia does not exist for you. the foundation does not exist to answer to you. it's more Kirk less Spock. no wonder a developer would not want to "interact" with the community, if this is the level of discourse. you need to work in a productive manner with the foundation, or they will pass you by on the way to the future. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 17:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• What does downgrading and walking backwards have to do with the future? This is self flattering rant. I submit that editors are the biggest group of contributors and that when someone takes this money, squanders it on a slideshow full of faults and bugs, forcing it on us with no consensus and a story about "approval" that we have a right to bring the issue to the table. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

This is just plain silly. Conspiracy theory level silly. I have no special knowledge about WMF finances, but conditional donations dependent on specific solutions would be a poor way to make software, and there is no evidence to suggest that WMF is doing that. Bawolff (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• What conspiracy? All that was done here was the asking of a couple fair questions. This could all be put to rest with an answer from one or more of the indivudals on the WMF project team. Have we been wasting our time with feed back, two different RfC's just to have it all swept under the rug because the decision was made when they signed on the dotted line for the software development? Don't know about you, but I'd like to know if we are wasting our time here while they sit back and watch people like you snipe at other editors for asking some tough questions. Thanks for all your help.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• You do realize that I am a contractor who works for the multimedia team? (I am not however involved with the multimedia viewer project, except for a few things from the early stages of development). As a contractor, I do not know how the foundation's finances work, or where the money comes from (Beyond what is public information, like foundation:Benefactors/2013-2014, and that most of the foundations budget comes from small donations in the $20 range). All I know for certain is that I do work, and eventually money gets to my bank account. I would be shocked and appalled if Wikimedia had some sort of funding agreement that required the resulting piece of software to be used come hell or high water. Given that the foundation generally (according to rumor) found things like the Ford foundaiton grant to be more restrictive than they wanted, it seems absurd to suggest that the foundation has pre-agreed to deploy media viewer software, sight unseen, regardless of all other factors. I think its more likely that senior foundation management were replaced by the lizard people. [This comment, like all my comments on wiki - are my own personal opinion as a volunteer, yadda yadda]. Bawolff (talk) 23:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

While I agree there is some cause for concern around money being spent on something like this, I agree more strongly with @Bawolff: . This is not a productive discussion, as currently framed. This RfC was intended as a venue for commentary on whether or not the feature should be enabled by default. What's going on here is a meta topic, which if it's worthy of pursuit, should go into its own RfC or some other venue. Let's please keep this discussion more focused. -Pete F (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Bawolff and Pete F. My point in the other RfC is that THIS is a distraction from the issue which is and must be, "Where do we go from here?" After that, "How did we get here?" may be important, but only as a way to avoid the same mistakes. In addition to being a distraction, repeatedly making statements like "can't help but wonder if there is big money involved with a software developer here" and "I'm inclined to think someone is making a lot of money on the development of MV" is the monetary equivalent of asking, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Adding a wink-wink-nudge-nudge fig-leaf like "inclined to think" or "can't help but wonder" does not magic that into a good faith argument. Even if it could, how would that information in any way help us pick the best path forward? Lastly, if we make the right decision (which I think is to roll this feature back and make it opt-in) for the wrong reason (like dark hints of financial impropriety), we do irreparable harm to the WIkiWorld. 159.53.110.141 19:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC) aka Kevin

• The harm was already done when they forced a viewer full of bugs and faults on a community that overall doesn't want it -- and the only "distraction" here is your antagonism of another editor about questions asked while you ignore the issue involving media viewer and whether or not it will be remain the default viewer, and why it has remained the default viewer in the face of overwhelming disapproval, all the while it still has bugs and faults. Why hasn't it been withdrawn? This is not a forum about what questions you like and don't like, or whether an other editor has a right to ask them. If you don't like a comment or questions submitted by someone, please ignore them. "Where do we go from here"? This can be answered in great part by finding out 'how' we got to where we are with this media viewer. "The future"? In 'the future' will editors/contributors have any say about how donations are spent when they involve major changes that go against the wishes of these same editors and contributors? I maintain that this is a fair question and it remains unanswered. Seems to me if this was all nonsense they'd jump at the chance to tell me so. Notice they haven't, still. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, as a now former donor I would quite like to see more transparency as to 1. where the money goes, and 2. who decides on what to spend. In particular as regards the second point, I note that aside from operations stuff, any projects receiving financing (whether from the general donor pool or via those "sponsorships" that appear to have popped up) should be approved by the community itself, not some sort of Mandarin in the WMF. The question has been asked before, and the fact that a clear, unequivocal answer has not been forthcoming is rather worrying (mismanagement sort of worrying, not profiteering, but worrying nonetheless). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.81.211.26 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 8 July 2014‎ (UTC)

See foundation:File:2014-15 Wikimedia Foundation Plan.pdf By law, the ultimate decision about spending money has to be made by the Board of Directors. Community members exercise only indirect control (they elect Board members rather than voting directly on the budget). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• wmf:Gift policy#Restricted Gifts and following section. --Nemo 09:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.

Editors

Gwillhickers, your assertion that "Wikipedia runs on donations mostly, if not entirely, from registered editors" is wrong. There were about two million (2,000,000) donors last year (excluding major donors/grants). Last month, there weren't even 25,000 people (all Wikipedias together) who made 25+ edits during the month. So even if you assume that absolutely every one of those was a donor—which is extremely unlikely—then active editors could not make up more than a few percentage points of the donors, because there simply aren't two million active editors. Even if you count people who only made one edit last month, there weren't enough editors: fewer than a quarter million accounts make any edit, anywhere, in a given month.

Furthermore, most editors aren't donors. In the 2011 editor survey (which was biased towards more active editors, like you and me), just less than 20% of registered editors said that they had ever made a donation to the WMF. Most of them had made exactly one donation ever. A majority of registered editors said, "I donate my time instead of money".

Even if we were to assume that the 20% of editors who do make any donation are giving twice as much money as the typical non-editor donor, active editors (editors like you and me) are still likely to give only half a percent of the WMF's total income—and if they were to all stop donating money, the WMF would probably need to run their reader-focused donation campaign for an extra day or two to make up the difference.

So instead of worrying about how "your" money is being spent, I think you should look at it from a different and more realistic perspective: the WMF's income comes almost entirely from readers, and the readers' purpose in making those donations is to improve the readers' experience, through better reader-facing software (readers are happier about this software than editors), through better website performance (faster page loading = happier readers), and through providing whatever tools you and I need to generate more and better content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• @WhatamIdoing: , thanks for the information and explaining how my assumption here was indeed wrong. Obviously, now, there is not much standing for editors to be making any demands on the basis of their monetary contributions alone. However, if it were not for the work of these editors, there would be no donations forthcoming at all, and Wikipedia would be an empty shell. We have the hard work and sacrifices of editors to thank for Wikipeida's success and the donations it receives. On that basis I would maintain that the feedback from editors should be given more consideration than the average reader who overall and obviously was/is unaware of all media viewers bugs and faults. While we all want to build a good encyclopedia for all the readers out there, they are not the best group to basing decisions involving Wikipedia and its inner workings. It would be like asking NASA tourists whether they should install a 'new' device in the space shuttle. Of course, if you were marketing or trying to promote this new device, and it had faults, and you wanted to circumvent professional opinion, then of course you would carry on about the "approval" that came from this group of tourists. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

  I agree: experienced editors deserve some respect and consideration because of our work and knowledge, which is more valuable than any donation.

  Whether editors like us or non-editor readers matter more depends on the software's audience. The decisions about admin tools should usually consider the views of admins more than non-admins; decisions about reader tools should consider readers more than the most active editors. Or, to use your analogy: don't ask tourists to help decide about space shuttle engineering, but do ask them to help decide about features for the tourist center or the name of the next space vehicle. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

  Where do you get the impression that readers are happier about this software than editors? Speaking for myself, I was rather frustrated that the English Wikipedia gave me no way to opt out of this completely unwanted mess for two weeks when they gave the option to opt-out of it to editors on launch. I've been watching these discussions out of morbid curiosity and I've never seen a reader give a positive opinion about Media Viewer. Every single comment I've seen about Media Viewer from a non-editor has been very negative. Anecdotally, Media Viewer had been the topic of conversation with some friends who don't edit Wikipedia. They don't like it, either. The polls, which are much more accessible to non-editors, also show that the majority of responding users do not find Media Viewer useful. I have seen repeated assertions with no evidence to back them up that readers prefer Media Viewer. Nobody to date has presented even a scintilla of evidence to that effect. I think people are just assuming that since the target audience for Media Viewer is your average reader, they must favor it and editors just don't understand. --98.207.91.246 07:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

  From the survey results: non-editors were more likely to give positive feedback than editors. Of course, any individual within those two groups may not hold the same view: some readers will hate it, and some editors will love it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

•  Errata corrige Well. Active editors (5+/m) are about 70k, but for Wikipedia alone we had around 1.9 millions registered contributors (10+ edits; it's over 7 millions on en.wiki alone with 1+). So we can't immediately establish, from such numbers alone, that only a minority of donors are also editors of some kind, even though that's probably true and even though I agree all this matters little. --Nemo 09:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• All aside from the point. The bottom line hasn't changed. If it were not for the work of editor's (even a non-logged in writer is an editor for all practical purposes, so don't go there) there would be no donations, and of course nothing for the readers. All we can hope for is that editor input will be considered in this light and not dismissed as no more important than the "approval" of occasional and mostly uninformed readers who were largely clueless when they approved of a slideshow feature. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

RfC on English Wikipeida has been closed

The RfC at 'English was closed the other day with a clear consensus for 'disable' for both logged in and non logged in viewers. The question still remains, (which is why it and other points have been asked more than once, btw) will it, and eventually this RfC, be respected by the individuals who ultimately have the final say as to whether MV will remain a default here at English Wikipedia? All the ta'do about, the future, conditions for disable, etc won't matter much if they're not even going to listen to us and respect these RfC's in the first place. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Decision of WMF was announced. This Rfc is no longer necessary

Enwiki is a bit offtopic here - collapsing this AND it is important to keep a cool head. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; Please try to remain civil an COM:MELLOW with your comments. Thanks! --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

After this recent decision of WMF, this Rfc serves no useful purpose and should be closed. There is nothing more we can do except express our indignation. After all, the decision was already made when those cosmetic surveys were launched on various wikis - and quickly removed when their output didn’t show the expected approval. Maybe the WMF has the power to do whatever they consider to be best for the project. But PLEASE do not insult our intelligence by stating that such change has a wide support among the users. After this regrettable episode, it is no longer possible to assume good faith from the team lead by Fabrice Floren. Trust was broken between WMF and the community of editors and I very much doubt that things will ever come back to what they were before. A shame indeed. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC) I asked some high up people. The decision the WMF made at enwikipedia does not automatically apply to other projects. The results of this RFC will be evaluated independently. Whether or not the WMF will follow the will of the people voting here, I have no idea (Something that is nowhere even remotely near being my decision), but this rfc is not a foregone conclusion yet. I recommend people continue commenting here with their thoughts and feelings. Bawolff (talk) 00:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC) You may say this, but if WMF did not agree with the methodology of the RfC or the MV survey from the MV development team (which now has English Wikipedia usefulness at 28%, and even among the readers-only it was meant to serve, only 37% usefulness) then forgive the skepticism on the part of those of us vocally opposed to the MediaViewer project. - S201676 (talk) 02:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC) @Bawolff: Thanks for helping us to maintain hope and our faith in the Wikipedia process. I am sure I speak for many editors and frequent readers when I say it is rather distressing to see certain individuals in important places have no more regard for the people who have built Wikipedia than pawns, useful on the one hand and on the other, something that can be brushed aside as insignificant when it suits their purposes. It was equally distressing to see the "we believe..." statement while they ignore their own statistics, keeping this buggy slide show as a default for a community that largely doesn't need it or want it, with still more claims that it is "useful" in the face of a litany of well articulated complaints on their own feedback page and in two separate RfC's. Wikipedia is supposed to be a transparent entity, yet a number of questions still remain unanswered, as if some individuals feel they are above it all. Again, this has shaken the foundation of good faith down to its very core. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC) the only unanswered question is why you're not blocked yet. Il n’y a qu’un problème philosophique vraiment sérieux: c’est pourquoi vous n'êtes pas bloqué. you do not speak for me. if you feel like a pawn, don't let the door hit you on the way out. making unsupported "questions" about finance is a breach of AGF and profoundly wrongheaded. this is an open foundation; you can read all their financials, and view all their metrics meetings. since the community can't make feedback during beta, but insists on whining on rollout, and in "owning the ball"; it should expect to be ignored. it does not help the developers, it is a hindrance; it is a restriction to be routed around. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 17:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC) I'm very unhappy with the above statement by User:Slowking4 - citation: "the only unanswered question is why you're not blocked yet". Such a style of behaviour is not what we need here! The ad hominem attacked User:Gwillhickers did not at least deserve such a foulplay. I did not know him before but read his comments at this page and found it neuter in tone and okay. Slowking4, I hope you apologize for your abuse of discussion. -- Justus Nussbaum (talk) 13:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC) I endorse the protest of Justus Nussbaum above and further suggest Slowking4 to use a more clear English and proper punctuation. This is Commons, where most editors are not English speakers. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC) i am very unhappy with the conduct of the editor. he stirred it up on english, and now is forum shopping on commons. my dismay at the tantrums of this community is well established. (i.e. not a personal attack) this editor is merely the latest troll to tilt at the foundation. if you go to the arbcom case, others are suggesting looking into this editor's conduct in this matter. but, it's not really a serious question, since some of those trolls are unblockable admins. the community should expect to get stuffed by the foundation if it continues down this road. there is nothing neutral in tone in: "this has shaken the foundation of good faith down to its very core": those without good faith assumptions behind questions, have no core to be shaken. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 17:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC) (Edit conflict) @Slowking4: -- Speaking of ad'hom, and personal attacks, this is all you've accomplished here. My comments about good faith were warranted and echoed by others. Media viewer was introduced while it was (and remains) beset with many bugs and faults and without an informed consensus. Their "approval", did not exist on English Wikipedia. When all of the bugs and faults were brought to their attention, MV continued to be a default regardless, so I began to wonder if there were other compelling forces at work and asked if their was a monetary commitment involved. I didn't accuse them of such. Since WP is supposed to be a transparent entity there should not have been any reason not to be forthcoming with an answer, but instead the inquiry was ignored, three times. Further, as the other RfC of June 2014, which several WFM members participated in, was ultimately ignored when matters didn't turn out as they had hoped, and when they ignored the consensus on their own feedback page, and statistics, on top of that, one could only assume they had lost faith in editors overall, and saying so is not a personal attack, like your repeated use of the word "troll". Last, this RfC is about why Media Viewer should be a default on English Wikipedia. I had made several different inquiries as to 'why'. This RfC is not a forum to vent petty frustrations or for making peckish comments and personal attacks towards other editors that don't go along with your particular views. Kindly use this forum for its intended purpose and please refrain from personal and ad'hom attacks in the future. Thank you. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC) @Slowking4: , do you realize how rude you have been with your comments? Avec des amis comme ça, WMF n'a pas besoin d’ennemis !. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC) Comment from "Disable" sections Please be advised, as of 10 July your vote in this section may not be meaningful. A similar RfC on the English Wikipedia was recently closed, with a clear consensus to disable the Media Viewer. The Wikimedia Foundation chose to override that consensus. The final outcome is not yet known, but it appears likely the Wikimedia Foundation will actively oppose even a strong consensus to oppose this feature being enabled by default. -Pete F (talk) 22:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC) I asked some high up people. The decision the WMF made at enwikipedia does not automatically apply to other projects. The results of this RFC will be evaluated independently. Whether or not the WMF will follow the will of the people voting here, I have no idea (Something that is nowhere even remotely near being my decision), but this rfc is not a foregone conclusion yet. I recommend people continue commenting here with their thoughts and feelings. Bawolff (talk) 00:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Clarification

• @Fabrice Florin (WMF): -- Could you clarify a few comments you just made on the RfC June 2014 talk page for us?

1. "We believe that an RfC of this type is not representative of our much wider user base."
Please bear in mind that the greater bulk of casual users could care less about matters like this, so it would be best if you could make statements about those who do care, readers and editors alike. To say that the RfC doesn't represent this group is rather moot, and only looks good in print. In the process you are ignoring the wisdom of experienced editors who built Wikipedia and instead are embracing the opinion, such that it is, of casual users, most of whom are uninformed and again simply don't care about these matters.

This RfC is indeed representative of Editors on English Wikipedia, mostly, so we would be interested in your explanation why you will continue to make MV a default for those of us logged in editors. Also, why did you not reveal your opinion about the RfC process when the RfC of June 2014 was first initiated?

2. "Readers in particular are not represented at all in this kind of discussion, and they are a key user group for this feature."

A fair number of non logged in readers left comments here, and your own feedback page is filled with negative comments from non logged in users, and users with redlinks who signed up just to comment.

Re: the readers which you say are not represented: according to your own statistics for ENGLISH Wikipedia:

Usefulness by role
% Readers who find it useful: -- 37% (63% did not find it useful)
% Editors who find it useful: -- 21% (79% did not find it useful)
% Frequent Editors who find it useful: -- 16% (84% did not find it useful)

Readers and editors alike on English Wikipedia did not find MV useful, according to your own statistics. This is not at all in line with the statement you just made. So again, why would you go ahead and make MV a default for everyone here at English Wikipedia? At this point I can only tell you that you will do irrepetible damage to good faith among your fellow editors if you continue to ignore consensus and your own feedback and statistics. Not recognizing two different RfC's doesn't say much for your faith in the Wikipedia process either. I am just an editor, not an administrator or steward, but if you and the WMF project team can not make 'any' concessions for English Wikipeida, given your own statistics, feedback and two different RfC's then I would recommend that this matter be taken to the next level and a full review of this whole affair be initiated. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

We believe that an RfC of this type is not representative of our much wider user base. - With all due respect, just laughable... No comment... --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

We are not aware of how mighty the WMF has become, they no longer needs us. This tool is absolutely geared to consumption, WMF do not need anymore users (they need only donate). It is time to change something? "This is normal software evolution." Evolution is selection, survival of the fittest, WMF plays god. → User: Perhelion 12:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

• Hello Gwillhickers and Steinsplitter, thanks for your request for clarifications. I am sorry for not responding sooner, but we have been busy exploring possible solutions to your concerns, which we would like to discuss in coming days. In the meantime, here are some quick responses to your questions and comments above.

1. "Casual users ... are uninformed and ... simply don't care about these matters"

Your statement that casual users are 'uninformed' and 'don't care about these matters' is contradicted by the 15,000 survey responses collected here: our readers are a lot smarter than you imply, and they do care deeply about their experience. In fact, they contributed a lot more actionable suggestions for improving Media Viewer than we've found on RfCs, which tend to be more political. We think it is important that all user groups be included in the decision-making process for major features that impact them, not just small groups of power users on RfCs like this one. We serve over 500 million users, most of whom are 'casual users', and we believe their voice should be heard loud and clear when considering decisions that affect their experience as much as this tool does.

2. "Why will (you) continue to make MV a default for logged-in editors?"

We've observed that offering different user experiences for editors and readers can be confusing. For example, if an editor is trying to help a reader, they might give them the wrong instructions, not realizing that the reader is not seeing the same thing as they are. Bawolff has also made a reasonable case against this idea in this thread. That said, we are considering all options to find a practical solution to this issue. Some have recommended disabling Media Viewer by default for auto-confirmed editors on Commons, and we are reviewing this idea as one possible option, among others.

3. "Why did you not reveal your opinion about the RfC process?"

It's good practice to avoid forming an opinion on important matters like these until we have all the facts: so we could not reach a conclusion on the merits of the English RfC until we heard the arguments and the closing 'administrator' recommendations -- as well as counted the number of votes. Note that the decision to keep Media Viewer enabled was reached by our entire team, in consultation with our colleagues from other teams, so I am representing them when I write up our recommendations. This is why I avoid participating actively as an individual in RfCs like these, to avoid confusing people, who may not be sure if I am speaking for myself or for the team which I represent.

4. "A fair number of non-logged-in readers left comments here"

You are correct that some anonymous users left comments on RfC pages, and we appreciate their contributions. However, usability studies have shown repeatedly that typical readers are uncomfortable posting on talk pages like this one, because the editing tools are hard to use and they fear hostile confrontations, which seem common here. So we don't believe that RfCs like these are the appropriate channel for collecting representative reader feedback.

5. "Readers and editors alike on English Wikipedia did not find MV useful, according to your own statistics"

You are referring to June 20 statistics, which were taken a couple weeks after launch. In the last two weeks from June 20 to July 8, more English users found Media Viewer useful (49%) than not (40%), based on 1,779 responses for that period, as shown in this dashboard. These findings suggest that users found Media Viewer more useful over time, as they became more familiar with the tool, and as new features were developed based on user feedback.

6. "If you cannot make 'any' concessions for English Wikipedia ... a full review of this whole affair (should) be initiated."

We are prepared to engage in good faith, civil discussions to find a mutually acceptable resolution to this issue. For example, we are considering providing a more prominent viewing options panel that would make it very easy to switch quickly to your preferred viewing mode. Right after launch of this feature, all users would be shown this prominent panel and asked to select their favorite viewing option. This would generate more accurate data about user preferences than either this RfC or our optional surveys. Once we have that data, we can all make more informed decisions about our next steps, based on actual responses from all users, rather than speculation. Would you be open to discussing this idea with us?

I hope this is helpful. Going forward, I would encourage you to assume good faith on our part -- and resist the temptation to demonize everyone at WMF. We are not evil, we are regular folks like you, who are just as committed to the success of our movement as you are. We are working hard to find practical solutions to address community concerns, diligently and honestly. We have already reached out to thousands of users and made substantial improvements based on their feedback. You can count on us to keep working with users to modernize our software, so we can all attract more contributors to our cause. Thanks for your understanding. Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 08:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@Fabrice Florin (WMF): It seems if the readers you originally surveyed were as informed as you suggest, they would have had plenty to say about all the bugs and faults and would not have given you the "approval" which you've alluded to in the past. And if they had indeed pointed out the bugs and faults, more so than we have, then why did you still go ahead and make MV a default? (!) -- Your comments about the readers being smart, which I tend to agree with, is contradicted when you say there will be "confusion" if you don't make MV a default on English Wikipedia. Seems there is already plenty of confusion where none existed before. Also, I don't quite appreciate you writing off all the well articulated complaints as "political", even though there are indeed political elements involved, the likes of which are coming to light at Arb'Com. Let me just close by saying, regardless of any politics, or if any money commitment is involved, I believe your intentions were good. Unfortunately this tends to get overshadowed when you ignore the consensus, years of experience and the collected wisdom of your fellow editors. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Requests for Arbitration

Statements regarding the fate of Media Viewer and the role assumed by various individuals on the WFM project team have been and continue to be presented to the Arbitration Committee. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Note, that is the English Wikipedia's ArbCom. -Pete F (talk) 04:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• Thus we should think ahead about what to do when this RfC is over and an overwhelming majority of users have rejected the thing as a default. I'm no programmer but there should be a way to make MV opt-in instead of disabling it conpletly. A scene of the movie Ghandi comes to my mind where a large group of people form a queue in front of a gate to do something they shouldn't and are spanked for it... Thoughts? Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • My note was only meant to be informative -- many Commons users would tend to look at something like this and think, "what the heck is an Arbitration Committee?" I think as phrased, it might have come across as something specifically relevant to Commons. -Pete F (talk) 15:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Update: Quick access to enable/disable, opt-in/opt-out metrics

Design mockup for a new "Viewing Options Panel” in Media Viewer.

Design mockup for a new "Viewing Options Panel” on a file page.

Hi everyone. We appreciate the ongoing conversation about Media Viewer, and we’ve been discussing practical ways to address concerns and improve metrics used to establish the default configuration for this tool.

With that in mind, we would like to propose a new feature which we think can address many of the issues you reported here: the Viewing Options Panel would make it very easy to disable (or enable) Media Viewer. This feature would prominently display a ‘cog’ icon at the top right corner of the screen, as shown in the thumbnails to the right — and in this rough prototype. Clicking on that icon would display a settings panel with two viewing options:

• 'View quickly’ — enable Media Viewer (or keep it enabled)
• 'View all the details’ — disable Media Viewer and show the file page instead

The Viewing Options Panel would let users quickly select the mode that works best for them, switching back and forth to compare them. (Note that Media Viewer already includes a “Disable/Enable’ link, but it is located below the fold and can be hard to find; this new feature would bring it above the fold, where everyone can see it.)

This would make it much easier for users to decide for themselves if they want Media Viewer enabled or not. It would also allow us to collect better user data on whether or not this tool is useful -- which can inform our discussions about default state for different user groups. To that end, we plan to track the number of enable and disable events by user group on this existing opt-in/out dashboard (this dashboard now tracks clicks on the “Disable/Enable’ links, which would be replaced by the Viewing Options Panel).

What do you think of this new feature? Does it seem worth developing at this time? Any suggestions for improvement? We would greatly appreciate your feedback on this Media Viewer discussion page.

We are also considering a controlled experiment on the English Wikipedia. In coming days, we will invite you to comment on that separate proposal.

Thanks again for taking the time to share your thoughts and feedback on Media Viewer. Your comments are really helpful to us, and we look forward to working with you in coming days to find a resolution to your concerns. To be continued, Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 16:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• I will be happy to discuss this proposal after the MV is disabled as the default viewer. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • +1 to what @Alvesgaspar: said. -Pete F (talk) 17:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • +1 --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • +1 --Smial (talk) 22:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • +1 --Хрюша ^?? 23:29, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Sames—Love, Kelvinsong talk 22:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support The wording of the two choices is so biased it is laughable. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The data has already been presented. i.e.Two RFC's, the MV Feedback page and WMF's own statistics, all consistent with one another. All of it was dismissed, and now this. A call for even more discussion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

FYI

Those who previously discussed the topic may be interested in knowing, before it's closed, that this RfC awaits their comment. --Nemo 16:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

bug 69080

In order to keep everything linked together, just writing down here for reference that Steinsplitter has filed bugzilla:69080 requesting MMV be disabled. Bawolff (talk) 21:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Response to the Media Viewer RfC on Wikimedia Commons

Thanks to all users who contributed to this Request for Comments about Media Viewer on Commons.

The primary purpose of Media Viewer is to give readers access to larger images in a more intuitive way, without leaving the context of the page they are in. On Wikimedia Commons, readers often discover images linked from other Wikimedia projects, where Media Viewer is already enabled by default. To avoid confusion, we want to make sure that when readers access these images on Commons, they are displayed in the same way as on their source projects.

For this reason, the Wikimedia Foundation is not prepared to disable Media Viewer for logged-out users on Commons at this time.

We also recognize that for logged-in users on Wikimedia Commons, showing Media Viewer by default can get in the way of performing normal day-to-day curation tasks that are core to the project’s unique purpose. While it’s easy to disable Media Viewer, we understand the desire for a default setting that’s more aligned with that purpose, since image curation happens at such a large scale on Commons. We also recognize that for users who have disabled Media Viewer on another project like Wikipedia, having to disable it again on Wikimedia Commons can be frustrating.

For these reasons, we are prepared to disable Media Viewer for logged-in users on Commons at this time -- because of its special function as a shared multimedia file repository.

This is not an ideal solution. The overlap between logged-in and logged-out users is imperfect, and there is potential for confusion as users transition between logged-in and logged-out states. We may want to revisit this approach as the Media Viewer itself develops, or if we find that these new default settings are too confusing.

For now, we hope that this solution can address the unique requirements of editors on Wikimedia Commons, while continuing to provide readers with a tool that improves their viewing experience. We will implement this configuration change in coming days. Please note that users who had previously enabled Media Viewer as a beta feature will need to re-enable it as a user preference.

Going forward, we will continue improve the Media Viewer experience, with a focus on readers as the primary users. We will spend the month of August doing design and research work, and we are planning to make a set of improvements once we have validated them in design prototypes. This will likely include a much more visible link to the File: page from the Media Viewer, and an even easier method to disable the tool. You can see some of our early thinking in the improvements section of a presentation we just shared with community members at Wikimania in London. Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 15:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC) (on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation).

Thanks a lot for ignoring the interests of people who don't want to create accounts yet again. Stop pretending you know what's best for everyone. You're still pushing an alpha implementation of a flawed idea on people who don't want it. Please heed the results of this RfC and disable this by default for EVERYONE. Do the same for the English Wikipedia as well. --98.207.91.246 17:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

"Stop pretending you know what's best for everyone." - Aren't you doing the same? --Atlasowa (talk) 18:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Bye the way, it is a much larger concession than in EN.WP. so I see this much positively. → User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 19:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I will note since Fabrice has posted this; a commons administrator has rejected Fabrice's compromise so Media Viewer will remain as it is until a time the bug so reopened. John F. Lewis (talk) 20:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you got that interpretation. Bug marked WONTFIX, because the solution being chosen doesn't exactly match what was asked by comment 0. MediaViewer will stay as it is for now, because all non-emergency configuration changes are stopped until after wikimania. Bawolff (talk) 21:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm also now not sure that this decision from the WMF was a concession to Commons. Because me has now become clear that this concession has no real effects, since the MV itself does not start when activated, if you come from another project. Maybe this is an technical weakness of the MV. (After switching off a gadget, for automatically routing to Commons I thought.) → User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 11:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

It should be enough to add a line like the famous one, but this time in a gadget, enabled by default. Then people can opt in for the set of MediaViewer features controlled by that line, by changing their preferences. --Nemo 13:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

@Nemo: This has now been implemented. If you want to continue using Media Viewer (like me), you can disable the appropriate gadget in your preferences. Thanks! odder (talk) 11:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

HTH, Nemo 12:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC) P.s.: But I'm very confused by [1].

Seems the same as if (mw.config.get( 'wgUserName' )) to exclude IP's → User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 14:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

@Natuur12: can you state whose request you were honoring here when you reverted your own change, and why you chose to do so? If I am following the evolution correctly (a big "if"), it seems that your previous edit -- which you then reverted -- had correctly implemented the consensus decision. There have been several edits to the gadget, and I'm trying to understand what happened there. -Pete F (talk) 15:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• See here. Natuur12 (talk) 07:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Follow up

See my mail to wikimedia-l mailinglist: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/083355.html --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Also see Commons:Village_pump#2014_RfC_for_the_Media_Viewer (diff). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)