4 ms·

I do think there is such a thing as "the community's willingness to deal with it", and that rather than my statement being meaningless/confused, your objection

I do think there is such a thing as "the community's willingness to deal with it", and that rather than my statement being meaningless/confused, your objection is really a normative claim about who should be able to complain. But if it helps you understand, you can reinterpret my comment as: (1) All the effort people put into collecting copyright-free sound files is drastically undermined by the lack of nice plug-ins; and (2) The Wikimedia foundation, which collects huge amounts of money from unsophisticated donors, is negligent in spending that money on ridiculous projects that help only a small number of particular types of nerds while leaving things like this that could actually help the typical donor broken. In other words, when I donate money to the Wikimedia foundation and they don't fix easy stuff like this, I am justified in complaining.

svnpenn 7y ago
No, you certainly are not. You're donating money, not employing them. They get to choose what to do with the money, not you. If you don't like it, stop donating. Or better yet, write a patch, or email them suggestion for a better player. I agree with your original point, but you lost me with this second post.
- jessriedel 7y ago
  Non-profits absolutely have duties to their donors when they accept money. They don't get to spend it on whatever they want. And those duties are especially strong when they take money for a technical job from non-technically-sophisticated donors. Finally, those duties are even stronger when the non-profit is the steward of a non-replaceable community commons; there is no way to donate to a Wikimedia Foundation competitor to improve Wikipedia. > If you don't like it, stop donating Think about what you're saying. People can't complain unless they donate, but if they don't like what's happening they should not donate. That sort of reasoning is how you get non-accountable dysfunctional non-profits. > Or better yet, write a patch, or email them suggestion for a better player. I can't write a patch. It's not in my abilities. Write them an email? That isn't a serious suggestion, because you know it would accomplish nothing. That's not where these conversations take place.
  - svnpenn 7y ago
    > I can't write a patch. It's not in my abilities. > Write them an email? That isn't a serious suggestion, because you know it would accomplish nothing. That's not where these conversations take place. It sounds like you arent really interested in seeing this fixed. Sometimes, when you want something fixed, merely complaining or commenting to the right person will get it resolved. Sometimes more effort is required. You are right, an email might not get you the result you want. But have you tried? If you havent even tried an email I dont think you have the right to complain. You havent made even the smallest effort to constructively advocate or try to resolve the issue. Once youve done that, you have a better case.
    - jessriedel 7y ago
      I don't know why my technical inability to submit patches for audio plugins is evidence I don't really want to see this fixed. I am not a software developer. There is zero chance that they are unaware of this issue. So the question is, first, what is the best way to communicate dissatisfaction? And I don't think emails directly to the Wikimedia foundation are effective (and I don't think you think that either). More importantly, I'm claiming that the Wikimedia foundation, and the Wikipedia community, are negligent regardless of what I personally do. It's beyond obvious to anyone who has thought a wink about UX that this stuff is crap. "We haven't gotten enough emails about it to divert resources from Wiki-con-for-Slovokian-teenagers" is not a plausible defense.
  - Bjartr 7y ago
    > Write them an email? That isn't a serious suggestion, because you know it would accomplish nothing. If no-one ever complains about it, it will be difficult to prioritize over things people do complain about.
    - jessriedel 7y ago
      I'm not saying we shouldn't complain about, I'm saying this particular method (an email directly to the Wikimedia foundation) is not the correct method. More importantly, the email suggestion was not a serious one by the commenter who made it; it was just an attempt to undermine my complaint.
Ohn0 7y ago
Good point on the budget. But even if you submitted a "fix" to the foundation, somehow I imagine that it wouldn't be adopted, for reasons.

svnpenn 7y ago

No, you certainly are not. You're donating money, not employing them. They get to choose what to do with the money, not you. If you don't like it, stop donating. Or better yet, write a patch, or email them suggestion for a better player. I agree with your original point, but you lost me with this second post.

jessriedel 7y ago
Non-profits absolutely have duties to their donors when they accept money. They don't get to spend it on whatever they want. And those duties are especially strong when they take money for a technical job from non-technically-sophisticated donors. Finally, those duties are even stronger when the non-profit is the steward of a non-replaceable community commons; there is no way to donate to a Wikimedia Foundation competitor to improve Wikipedia. > If you don't like it, stop donating Think about what you're saying. People can't complain unless they donate, but if they don't like what's happening they should not donate. That sort of reasoning is how you get non-accountable dysfunctional non-profits. > Or better yet, write a patch, or email them suggestion for a better player. I can't write a patch. It's not in my abilities. Write them an email? That isn't a serious suggestion, because you know it would accomplish nothing. That's not where these conversations take place.
- svnpenn 7y ago
  > I can't write a patch. It's not in my abilities. > Write them an email? That isn't a serious suggestion, because you know it would accomplish nothing. That's not where these conversations take place. It sounds like you arent really interested in seeing this fixed. Sometimes, when you want something fixed, merely complaining or commenting to the right person will get it resolved. Sometimes more effort is required. You are right, an email might not get you the result you want. But have you tried? If you havent even tried an email I dont think you have the right to complain. You havent made even the smallest effort to constructively advocate or try to resolve the issue. Once youve done that, you have a better case.
  - jessriedel 7y ago
    I don't know why my technical inability to submit patches for audio plugins is evidence I don't really want to see this fixed. I am not a software developer. There is zero chance that they are unaware of this issue. So the question is, first, what is the best way to communicate dissatisfaction? And I don't think emails directly to the Wikimedia foundation are effective (and I don't think you think that either). More importantly, I'm claiming that the Wikimedia foundation, and the Wikipedia community, are negligent regardless of what I personally do. It's beyond obvious to anyone who has thought a wink about UX that this stuff is crap. "We haven't gotten enough emails about it to divert resources from Wiki-con-for-Slovokian-teenagers" is not a plausible defense.
- Bjartr 7y ago
  > Write them an email? That isn't a serious suggestion, because you know it would accomplish nothing. If no-one ever complains about it, it will be difficult to prioritize over things people do complain about.
  - jessriedel 7y ago
    I'm not saying we shouldn't complain about, I'm saying this particular method (an email directly to the Wikimedia foundation) is not the correct method. More importantly, the email suggestion was not a serious one by the commenter who made it; it was just an attempt to undermine my complaint.

Ohn0 7y ago

Good point on the budget. But even if you submitted a "fix" to the foundation, somehow I imagine that it wouldn't be adopted, for reasons.