Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-07-31/Op-ed
Discuss this story
- I participated in the call to test VE before rolling it out to a wider group of editors. I do want to commend the developers for an outstanding degree of responsiveness to a wide range of concerns compiled in the utmost of haste. Bugs were corrected and suggestions implemented in a manner that exemplifies collaboration. I would not be satisfied intrinsically if I did not proffer these public kudos—well deserved. :) John Cline (talk) 04:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)]
- As alluded to in the op-ed, we've now changed the configuration of the beta in the following ways: 1) "Edit source" is the primary option for both page-level and section-level editing. The animation for section edit links has been removed. 2) The VisualEditor "Edit" tab has a beta indicator on the tab, as do the section edit links. 3) When clicking the "Editbeta" link for the first time, users get a clear ]
- Being a Signpost editor I should probably shut up. However, as someone who has occasionally been very critical of WMF engineering and product development, this time I want to congratulate the personnel who have worked hard to develop this major improvement. Already I'm hearing anecdotal evidence that editor-training sessions have been able to engage new editors and make bigger strides with them because the complexities of wikisyntax are no longer getting in the way at the initial stage.
The storm of negativity from established editors is hard to believe, and makes me suspect that there's an attitude abroad that "if I had to do it the hard way, so should you". Established editors have two buttons to push: one for the status quo edit-box, and one for VE. Apparently this is disorienting and offensive, so it's simple ... please just don't push the VE button by mistake. And while you're at it, your continued helpful feedback to the engineers would be appreciated.
A big thank-you to WMF engineers and any supporting volunteers; please keep up your very good work on this critical project. Tony (talk) 07:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- To be fair, it was really easy to hit the wrong button by mistake, so long as it appeared in the same relative location as the Edit button on talk pages &c. Powers T 19:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- With the edit buttons switched in position and the usual edit button not needing me to scroll over it before it pops up I am much happier. ]
- Readers of this op-ed should be aware that there is an ongoing RfC regarding VE. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Erik, congratulations on getting the VisualEditor™ out on schedule. Just out of curiosity, do you or anyone else have bonuses dependent on VisualEditor™'s roll-out? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- No, WMF doesn't offer bonuses. There's only a historical exception I can think of: Sue received two bonuses early in her time with WMF; see ]
- This is a useful insight into the VE development philosophy and challenges. Thanks for publishing it. - Pointillist (talk) 11:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- I think that the visual editor is far from complete. So I don't use it. If other editors like it, good for them, we are all happy. --NaBUru38 (talk) 13:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- Mediawiki is designed from the ground up with serialized text manipulation in mind. It's a very simple model and has pros and cons for that reason. Wikipedia has flourished in part because of that simplicity, a fact too often ignored. The problem is that we are now starting to demand features that do not easily fit into this serialized, text-based model; hence comments about the difficulties with the VisualEditor and "about how and whether certain features can even be supported with markup (e.g. annotations, real-time collaboration)". I have no doubt that if a new Mediawiki-like project were designed today from the ground up with a WYSIWYG-editor and real-time collaboration in mind, it would be an efficient, well-designed beautiful project. But we need to respect the design limitations of Mediawiki and be careful not to flex it too far. There's a chance if we keep bolting on "modern" features we are going to end-up with a Frankenstein-like beast that's sub-optimal from a design perspective for both text-based manipulation and real-time manipulation. Already I would say that new fundamental dichotomy in editing has made the project somewhat more complex to understand for both new and old users. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- I find this op-ed and comments quite depressing, as they reflect a very technical culture and view of the world. Surely these changes should be communicated in plain English to a non-technical userbase who won't understand the technical terminology used here, but love to write and know how how to use a word processor and simple blogging websites. I've been registered on Wikipedia for 5 years now and would have loved to be a regular contributor to many articles over the years, but in fact have a very low edit count because I can't cope with the technical complexity of using Wikipedia. That a Director of the Wikipedia Foundation chose to write a high level communication that seems to have been written for an IT development project audience instead of people who are passionate about editing an encyclopedia reflects that there is a long way to go in changing the culture of Wikipedia. Savlonn (talk) 09:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- A WYSIWYG editor was one of the first things I thought the project needed when I joined. Thanks for sharing the challenges involved so we can appreciate the 'monumentousness' of the release. I do think VE wouldn't have received such bad press had it been clearly labelled "beta" on the edit button to start with. But nevertheless, thanks to the project team for daring to break eggs to make this "omelette". The op-ed exposes one of the greatest banes to my editing experiences – the perpetual nested templates. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 06:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)