4 ms·

> The goal of Wikipedia should be to spread the content as far & wide as possible >> The requires a) creating the content and b) presenting the content in the

> The goal of Wikipedia should be to spread the content as far & wide as possible >> The requires a) creating the content and b) presenting the content in the form consumable by the users. Creating tools for this is far from trivial, especially if you want it to be consumable and not just unpalatable infodump accessible only to the most determined. Yes, and as emphasized in the article, WMF has done a terrible job at building better tools. For crying out loud, we are still typing in by hand the complete bibliographic information for each cited reference. Your other comments are similar. The fact that "WMF is trying", or have a named task force whose formal mission includes a complaint, is not enough justify years of high spending.

smsm42 10y ago
> Yes, and as emphasized in the article, WMF has done a terrible job at building better tools. I respectfully disagree. I think WMF has done pretty good job. Could it be better? Of course, everything could. Is it "terrible"? not even close. > For crying out loud, we are still typing in by hand the complete bibliographic information for each cited reference. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Citoid https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Citoid ? In any case "it misses my pet feature" and "the whole multi-year effort is terrible" are not exactly the same thing. > is not enough justify years of high spending. I think the work that has been done and is being done justifies it. All this work is publicly documented. You think it's too much and you have the ideas how to do it better - you're welcome to comment. I can not comment on your value judgements - you may seem some projects are more valuable and not done, you are entitled to it. There's a process which gets some things done and some things left out, and by nature not everybody will be satisfied. I only want to correct completely factually false claims in the Op-ed, and I believe I have done so. If I can help with more information, you are welcome to ask. As for value judgements, I think we'd have to agree to disagree here.
- jessriedel 10y ago
  > In any case "it misses my pet feature" and "the whole multi-year effort is terrible" are not exactly the same thing. It's clear from context that this is just an example. The issues with the Wikipedia editing UI are legion and described in many other places. > You think it's too much and you have the ideas how to do it better - you're welcome to comment Clean house. Put the people who built Zotero in charge.
  - smsm42 10y ago
    > The issues with the Wikipedia editing UI are legion Any existing UI can be analyzed to find a legion issues, no UI is ever perfect, especially over time and changing requirements. Wikipedia UI is certainly not perfect, and much work is to be done (and being done), but I would stop very far from calling the work that was already done "terrible". > Clean house. Put the people who built Zotero in charge. Err, I am having hard time making sense of this advice - why exactly people who built a reference management software must be running Wikimedia Foundation?
    - jessriedel 10y ago
      > I would stop very far from calling the work that was already done "terrible". You already declared you weren't going to debate me on this point, so I don't know why you're bringing it up again, especially since you're not saying anything substantive. > why exactly people who built a reference management software must be running Wikimedia Foundation? Because they are philanthropically funded non-profit who build great academic/research software on a small budget while responding rapidly to user feedback. If your objections center around the fact that WMF does a lot more than develop Wikipedia software, then you are missing the whole point of this thread: that WMF's primary contribution is Wikipedia, and almost everything else is secondary. So long as it's being funded by private citizens because of the value they get from Wikipedia, then this should be the focus. Yes, that means the people running Wikipedia conferences and local meetups will have less power.
      - smsm42 10y ago
        > If your objections center around the fact that WMF does a lot more than develop Wikipedia software WMF does a lot more than develops one piece of software to manage citations, yes. Nothing wrong with the software, I'm sure people who made it are awesome. But it's like discovering US federal government didn't solve a problem with a faulty light on your street and proposing that an electrician that did should thus be the President of the USA. Nothing wrong with the electrician or fixing the light, and maybe he'd even be a great President, but that in no way follows from his ability to fix the light. That's just completely unrelated things. > that WMF's primary contribution is Wikipedia, and almost everything else is secondary Not so for some time. Also, Wikipedia as a project is way bigger than just software. > So long as it's being funded by private citizens because of the value they get from Wikipedia, then this should be the focus. It is. I mean the value and improving it (again, if we correct from Wikipedia to "Wiki sites to gather and disseminate knowledge", which are more that just Wikipedia). But opinion on how to improve that value may not only be "improve this one particular feature". > Yes, that means the people running Wikipedia conferences and local meetups will have less power. Than who? And why? There are processes that decide which directions are prioritized and which are not. Right now two of them are happening as we speak - board elections and strategy consultation. Any decision that happens leaves somebody unsatisfied, because it's not possible to satisfy everyone. That doesn't mean everything is terrible, sorry.

smsm42 10y ago

> Yes, and as emphasized in the article, WMF has done a terrible job at building better tools. I respectfully disagree. I think WMF has done pretty good job. Could it be better? Of course, everything could. Is it "terrible"? not even close. > For crying out loud, we are still typing in by hand the complete bibliographic information for each cited reference. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Citoid https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Citoid ? In any case "it misses my pet feature" and "the whole multi-year effort is terrible" are not exactly the same thing. > is not enough justify years of high spending. I think the work that has been done and is being done justifies it. All this work is publicly documented. You think it's too much and you have the ideas how to do it better - you're welcome to comment. I can not comment on your value judgements - you may seem some projects are more valuable and not done, you are entitled to it. There's a process which gets some things done and some things left out, and by nature not everybody will be satisfied. I only want to correct completely factually false claims in the Op-ed, and I believe I have done so. If I can help with more information, you are welcome to ask. As for value judgements, I think we'd have to agree to disagree here.

jessriedel 10y ago
> In any case "it misses my pet feature" and "the whole multi-year effort is terrible" are not exactly the same thing. It's clear from context that this is just an example. The issues with the Wikipedia editing UI are legion and described in many other places. > You think it's too much and you have the ideas how to do it better - you're welcome to comment Clean house. Put the people who built Zotero in charge.
- smsm42 10y ago
  > The issues with the Wikipedia editing UI are legion Any existing UI can be analyzed to find a legion issues, no UI is ever perfect, especially over time and changing requirements. Wikipedia UI is certainly not perfect, and much work is to be done (and being done), but I would stop very far from calling the work that was already done "terrible". > Clean house. Put the people who built Zotero in charge. Err, I am having hard time making sense of this advice - why exactly people who built a reference management software must be running Wikimedia Foundation?
  - jessriedel 10y ago
    > I would stop very far from calling the work that was already done "terrible". You already declared you weren't going to debate me on this point, so I don't know why you're bringing it up again, especially since you're not saying anything substantive. > why exactly people who built a reference management software must be running Wikimedia Foundation? Because they are philanthropically funded non-profit who build great academic/research software on a small budget while responding rapidly to user feedback. If your objections center around the fact that WMF does a lot more than develop Wikipedia software, then you are missing the whole point of this thread: that WMF's primary contribution is Wikipedia, and almost everything else is secondary. So long as it's being funded by private citizens because of the value they get from Wikipedia, then this should be the focus. Yes, that means the people running Wikipedia conferences and local meetups will have less power.
    - smsm42 10y ago
      > If your objections center around the fact that WMF does a lot more than develop Wikipedia software WMF does a lot more than develops one piece of software to manage citations, yes. Nothing wrong with the software, I'm sure people who made it are awesome. But it's like discovering US federal government didn't solve a problem with a faulty light on your street and proposing that an electrician that did should thus be the President of the USA. Nothing wrong with the electrician or fixing the light, and maybe he'd even be a great President, but that in no way follows from his ability to fix the light. That's just completely unrelated things. > that WMF's primary contribution is Wikipedia, and almost everything else is secondary Not so for some time. Also, Wikipedia as a project is way bigger than just software. > So long as it's being funded by private citizens because of the value they get from Wikipedia, then this should be the focus. It is. I mean the value and improving it (again, if we correct from Wikipedia to "Wiki sites to gather and disseminate knowledge", which are more that just Wikipedia). But opinion on how to improve that value may not only be "improve this one particular feature". > Yes, that means the people running Wikipedia conferences and local meetups will have less power. Than who? And why? There are processes that decide which directions are prioritized and which are not. Right now two of them are happening as we speak - board elections and strategy consultation. Any decision that happens leaves somebody unsatisfied, because it's not possible to satisfy everyone. That doesn't mean everything is terrible, sorry.