Am 30.07.2013 20:14 schrieb "David Gerard" <dger...@gmail.com>: > > On 30 July 2013 17:03, Erik Moeller <e...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > > >If the overwhelming community sentiment > > is that the cost of continuous improvement with a large scale user > > base is larger than the benefit (as it was on dewiki), we'll switch > > back (or to a compromise), and use a more rigid set of acceptance > > criteria and a less rigid deadline for getting back into large scale > > usage later in the year. > > > de:wp convinced you. What would it take to convince you on en:wp? (I'm > asking for a clear objective criterion here. If you can only offer a > subjective one, please explain how de:wp convinced you when en:wp > hasn't.)
Hi David, i am editing on dewp and enwp. I consider myself an experienced editor, but not an expert. I did not participate voting in dewp, but i like to try ve from time to time. Beeing a software developper I fully support eriks arguments before. Imo pragmatic and flexible decisions help such development a lot, just like Erik explained. What i would have hoped though is that the wiki syntax gets changed where it is difficult to implement. And what i would have expected are more ideas to just edit parts of a page, like e.g. hotcat does it, to avoid such a mammoth dealing with everything which feels slow then. To give three examples: 1. why not define a metadata section for every page, where categories, and access rights are stored? Then these parts already can be split out of the "page ve". 2. Why not having a read and edit mode? Edit mode just adds "edit" links to all applicable parts of a page. 3. Why not decide references can only be after paragraphs, and edited via edit links showing up in Edit mode? so this part can be split out of "page ve". Rupert _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
