User:Jukeboksi/Blog/September2004: Difference between revisions
squash the user requirements pipeline, and you'll stop hearing about real requirements; drive off the experienced editors, and you won't hear about expert requirements; and no one "asked you"
Tim Starling (talk | contribs) (answer the question) |
(squash the user requirements pipeline, and you'll stop hearing about real requirements; drive off the experienced editors, and you won't hear about expert requirements; and no one "asked you") |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
::If it's so obvious why link transit data is valuable, then why haven't any of the users requested it? Just answer my question on [[Talk:Link transit]]. If you're so arrogant that you refuse to my question on the grounds that I am "too stupid", why should you expect me to do this work for you? -- [[User:Tim Starling|Tim Starling]] 08:49, 8 Sep 2004 (EEST) | ::If it's so obvious why link transit data is valuable, then why haven't any of the users requested it? Just answer my question on [[Talk:Link transit]]. If you're so arrogant that you refuse to my question on the grounds that I am "too stupid", why should you expect me to do this work for you? -- [[User:Tim Starling|Tim Starling]] 08:49, 8 Sep 2004 (EEST) | ||
:::What's obvious to people with actual experience managing a [[corpus]] is not the same as what's obvious to the gibbering drooling hordes that consider [[Wikipedia]] to be more credible than the [[w:National Enquirer]]. Why didn't "the users" demand retaining the number of page views, too? How is anyone supposed to answer that? You told them that server load was the problem, that you couldn't do anything "because of server load", there were dozens of such requests turned down for this reason. Perhaps you're all such bollocks as programmers that you can't figure out how to do it effeciently? But you certainly did your job squashing the user requirements pipeline flat: don't blame the [[trolls]] if you don't get accurate information from it now. | |||
:::And, no one ever said they expected anyone, least of all ''you'' "to do this work for" anyone. It's important to editors to have some idea of how often their work is read, so they know where to focus editorial effort. It's not surprising that Wikipedia didn't think of this since it values volunteer time at zero, generally, and doesn't care how much volunteer time gets wasted dealing with say [[sysop vandalism]] and the like. | |||
He also expressed his view that we should start with a limited group of users, but I countered that with the fact that we have for a long time been planning for a system that is accessible to everyone without any limitations of scope as to users. | He also expressed his view that we should start with a limited group of users, but I countered that with the fact that we have for a long time been planning for a system that is accessible to everyone without any limitations of scope as to users. | ||
:It is obviously better to have wide-open editorial policy that is [[troll-friendly]] and immune to [[propaganda]] or takeover by any one [[faction]] - else who would trust the data? This is just typical academic belief on his part, that somehow cliques can be made trustworthy. It's fairly obvious that without the wide-open policy, none of the design work would have gotten done. | :It is obviously better to have wide-open editorial policy that is [[troll-friendly]] and immune to [[propaganda]] or takeover by any one [[faction]] - else who would trust the data? This is just typical academic belief on his part, that somehow cliques can be made trustworthy. It's fairly obvious that without the wide-open policy, none of the design work would have gotten done. | ||
:So far even the [[Sysop Vandal point of view]] expressed strongly by some sysops pretending to be trolls has not had any significant effect. Anyone coming to the front page and clicking around would probably never see any of the nonsense they've been writing, so, [[troll-friendly]] policy proves itself once again. Eventually they'll tire and realize they are harassing people who do serious work, interrupting us with their trivial concerns and bogus claims. | |||
I understand that having one single group (ie. the members of some association with interest in these things we are to be dealing with) would make for better research material for his doctorate if he decides to include Consumerium in some way in his post-graduate studies. The discussion we had was intense and I found it very pleasing to actually get to talk about these things face-to-face and not via [[wiki]]. | I understand that having one single group (ie. the members of some association with interest in these things we are to be dealing with) would make for better research material for his doctorate if he decides to include Consumerium in some way in his post-graduate studies. The discussion we had was intense and I found it very pleasing to actually get to talk about these things face-to-face and not via [[wiki]]. | ||