arnomane@gmx.de wrote:
>Am Freitag, 19. Mai 2006 04:25 schrieb Elisabeth Bauer:
>
>
>>If you're a good designer, creating a
>>good layout for wikipedia - do you really want any design ignorant admin
>>later fiddling with it and maybe destroying it?
>>
>>
>Well there is a problem: What is destruction? I am very sure that some people
>consider some of our CSS hacks in MediaWiki:Monobook.css destruction of the
>given Monobook design.
>
If a professional develops a main page design he or she needs to accept
that that contribution may be edited mercilessly from the moment it is
in place. There is no basis for presuming that all alterations will be
destruction.
>Destruction is what a broad majority considers destruction and this can differ
>from community to community (For example I really dislike most of the
>namespace colors used in various Wikipedias but that's probably my personal
>taste only...).
>
I don't dispute that some people have very poor fashion sense in their
choice of colours. Some are so lacking in contrast as to be impossible
to read, but ultimately it's up to the people involved there to make
their own decisions.
>But as you have pointed it out usability is important and so I think we can
>find a good commons sense for some kind of "corporate design" with only minor
>local tweaks if we favour usability over fancy design.
>
Again each project should be completely free to adopt your "corporate
design" or not. Having this multiplicity of designs maintains the
dynamism of the the Wikimedia projects. Some will suck. Others will
introduce new design ideas that can be adopted by the other projects.
Most will follow a sensible middle ground. When you mandate a single
professional design for all projects the results become static and stale.
>>If we want to have a professional designer creating a layout for us, we
>>need to guarantee them that their work remains intact. My idea was,
>>though, to use free licenses but have some kind of social contract that
>>they will be consulted if any changes to the layout have to be done.
>>
>>
>Well there is the requirement that you have to credit the author(s). In case
>someone else did modify a design you can force people by license (let us say
>GFDL) to say that this is a modified design so that the original author does
>not get blamed because some local ignorant admin did enforce his personal
>taste (although my own experience says that only in small communities you can
>act as dictator, in larger communities you need very good points so that
>other admins don't revert you).
>
Most of our GFDL pages are already modified, so this would be no
different. Credit for the professional designer's modifications will be
there in the page's history just like anyone else's modifications before
and after.
>So if a majority of a community is dumb and likes a stupid change, well I'd
>say they don't deserve anything better... And even in that case the original
>author has nothing to do with it.
>
It's premature to suggest that the changes supported by the community
will be stupid. The professionals have not yet submitted their
proposals, so we have not yet had the opportunity to determine the
extent they will be stupid.
>So I am sure there will be projects that will destroy any given design that
>makes sense but these projects have to live with the problem that they are
>very probably not professional and thus probably not relevant. And a project
>that is irrelevant won't be noticed or just ignored over time (and if people
>from that project notice this loose of interest they will hopefully consider
>it and change their current style)...
>
This last paragraph perfectly exemplifies the kind of professional
arrogance that I have railed about since at least the year 40 BWP. It
perfectly represents the head-up-one's ass attitude maintained by
professionals overwhelmed with their own sense of importance. As
someone has already affirmed Wikipedia did not get where it is by
allowing itself to be guided by professionals. Perhaps this universe
where things that are "not professional and thus probably not relevant"
would better be described as one where being professional is
irrelevant. Except for an unusually easy ride that has been given to
lawyers, all professionals who have participated in building Wikipedia
have had to accept that they must work with non-professionals. I see no
reason to make an exception for webpage designers.
What keeps me involved is the acceptance of a series of underlying
principles, not the least of which were outlined in Jimbo's "Free the
... " speech. I am very pleased to speak out when anyone would attempt
to subvert those principles in the name of order and consistency.
I recently had the pleasure of hearing a presentation by Dean Fink based
on his recent book, "Leadership for Mortals". The emphasis was on
leadership in education in the 21st century, but the principles involved
can apply as easily in other fields of practice. Professionals are
characterized by having an agenda, or at least a vested interest in the
ways of the past. Real learning brings more than that into play, and
perhaps some day I can rant about that at greater length. The memorable
point that he made about Noah's Ark was "Remember the Ark was built by
amateurs, the Titanic by professionals."
Ec
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l