I've made no claim about "most" long-term editors, but any perusal of
the two RFCs and the Feedback page would demonstrate that there's a
fairly large group.
Or are you arguing that deploying bug-ridden software that corrupts
articles, hangs browsers, crashes unexpectedly, and doesn't have
sufficient features to edit basic articles is somehow OK as long the
site survives the disruption? Even if it can be shown that development
knew that was the case prior to deployment, and chose to deploy it anyway?
KWW
Op 2013/08/06 10:54, Peter Southwood schreef:
Evidence that most long term editors are frothing at the mouth would
be a good start, evidence that the rollout of VE has had a significant
impact on long term editor retention, either way, even evidence that
WP is in rapid decline that is in any way related to VE, positively or
negatively,
Cheers,
Peter
----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin Wayne Williams"
<[email protected]>
To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 6:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Visual Editor "temporary" opt-out
Op 2013/08/06 9:07, Peter Southwood schreef:
Do you have data to back up your claims?
Peter
What do you need? Evidence that Wikipedia has survived for years?
Evidence that its decline is not so rapid as to indicate an emergency
situation? Quotes from Erik where he states that he disrupted English
Wikipedia in order to create a test bed? The first two are judgement
calls, for the third there's an embarrassment of riches. Let me know
what you need.
KWW
----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin Wayne Williams"
<[email protected]>
To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 4:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Visual Editor "temporary" opt-out
Op 2013/08/05 23:44, MZMcBride schreef:
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.
This is the point on which we fundamentally disagree. Their
argument for 'opt-out' is based solely upon the quality and
quantity of testing that it affords to VE. VE is not a
mission-critical feature: while we have concerns about Wikipedia's
sustainability, there's no question that it has survived for years
and will survive for years more. The stability of the site is much
more important than testing this code, and the testing strategy of
presenting it as if it was functioning software and seeing what
people did with it wasn't a reasonable decision: it was completely
and absolutely irresponsible.
KWW
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[email protected]
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[email protected]
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[email protected]
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
