I very rarely want to follow up a post to say "yes, this", but I think Max has hit the nail on the head here.
One other issue around 'heavy-handed' is that this is in part perception. I didn't feel the deployment heavy-handed, but then it did not cause me more than minor technical annoyance, I had tried to keep abreast of the discussions and schedules leading up to the day, and I didn't object to it. I know this is not a universally held feeling, of course! A. On Tuesday, August 6, 2013, MZMcBride wrote: > Kevin Wayne Williams wrote: > >Op 2013/08/05 19:35, MZMcBride schreef: > >> Finally, and somewhat related to the complaints page, I've been > >> thinking lately about the British and the Irish and the nature of > >> insurgencies. I believe the VisualEditor team is now viewed by many on > >> the English Wikipedia (and other wikis) as an occupying force. > >> Consequently, this has created an insurgency composed of long-time > >> editors. This isn't meant to be hyperbolic: nobody is rioting in the > >> streets or planning warfare (yet). However, the anger felt by many in > >> the editing community toward the VisualEditor team is very real and > >> very worrying, as is the seemingly heavy-handed way in which > >> VisualEditor has been deployed. Just a few weeks ago, VisualEditor was > >> receiving accolades for the way in which it had been slowly and > >> thoughtfully developed and deployed. However, seemingly arbitrary > >> deadlines and a few key bad decisions have greatly hurt it. The wounds > >> are deep, but it remains to be seen whether they will be fatal. > > > >I notice you used the phrase "seemingly heavy-handed" above. Do you > >truly believe that this was not *actually* heavy-handed? > > Using "seemingly" twice so close together was certainly sloppy writing. > :-) I'll try to explain where I am currently. > > As with many things in life, I think whether the deployment of > VisualEditor was heavy-handed depends on your perspective; mine is still > forming. At <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/VisualEditor/Complaints>, a > few key issues/developments are discussed. > > There was a decision to deploy without an opt-out user preference, > followed by a reversal of this decision and a re-instatement of the user > preference. > > There was a decision to deploy with that awful section-edit animation, > followed by its removal. > > At no point was the wikitext editor ever made unavailable to editors. And > rhetoric and hyperbole aside, nobody was ever forced to use VisualEditor. > > The fact that the software is experimental ("beta") is now much more > prominent throughout the user interface, the user interface now > consistently uses "edit source," and the order of the tabs has been > changed to make wikitext editing more prominent. > > With the points above, it's a mixed bag as to whether the deployment of > VisualEditor was heavy-handed. > > This leaves us to consider the biggest question: opt-in vs. opt-out. Erik > and James are both quite smart, they are true Wikimedians, and they make > reasonable points about choosing opt-out over opt-in. However, a very > large number of my colleagues and your colleagues have strongly disagreed > with this decision, which leaves doubt in any reasonable person's mind. > > That said, this doubt is tempered by the _enormous_ selection bias we see > in the on-wiki discussion. Namely that (a) the discussion has only been > advertised to logged-in users, and (b) that nearly everyone participating > in the on-wiki discussion is someone who has figured out wikitext. That > is, the people who would most benefit from a visual editor right now are > the silent majority who are unaware of, and in many cases incapable of, > participating in the discussion about whether VisualEditor should be > opt-in or opt-out. And in the on-wiki discussions, we've seen a lot of > comments that are quite simply out-of-touch with the level to which people > are capable of interacting with Wikipedia via wikitext editing alone. > > I used "seemingly" to indicate nuance. Any editor could easily look at the > deployment fiasco and claim that it was heavy-handed and be right. But I > think there's also a legitimate case to be made that, whether or not we > agree with the decision, it was considered and backed by reasonable views. > > As I said on my talk page, I believe that we need a visual editor and an > active group of people are trying to develop one (however haphazardly). > Rather than simply attack and banish them, I think we should instead focus > on ways to make it better or make it easier to get it out of the way of > those who don't want to use it or can't use it. > > MZMcBride > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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> -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk _______________________________________________ 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>
