Hey Jane,

as  the  desktop  is  sometimes  characterised only as a legacy  input
device  for  old power editors, while the reading is done from  mobile
devices,  often  in  the  form  of  mash-ups  and  geo-apps,  why is a
compromise  so  hard  to achieve?

One  solution  that  pops  up  would  be to cache the content (as most
useful  wikipedia  apps do anyway) in a light mobile version, while
allowing an existing group of useful contributors their little island.
This  feeling  of  belonging makes those editors do all the dirty jobs
noone  wants  to do on a regular basis - most of it fact and copyright
checks that make the content so good it is useful to readers and keeps
them coming back.

You   could  create  a  newbie-friendly version with rich text editing
optimised  for different devices, more customisation in an easy way...
if  we  are  realistic  that would be the way to go anyway, as you can
start  out  much  easier  and with less baggage - and would be able to
target  groups  on  an individual basis in the process, too. When they
evolve  in the ("bitter-vet") power users and editors, they can switch
to  the  still  more  useful but less pretty interfaces for large data
manipulation, that the desktop offers.

Shouldn't  the focus  be  on the readers that  read  the  content  AND
the   editors   that  produce interesting content to make readers come
back?  Gerard  in this regard seems to have a somehow bi-polar view of
this     process  with   his   us   -   them  characterisation   ("the
community   that   remains   with   the  WMF  will  lose  all  of  the
separatists").  They  will  just  no longer do the hard stuff, if they
feel  that  they  are  not  welcome - and finding such people is hard,
really hard (speaking as a long-term gutenberg proof-reader). 



Thursday, August 28, 2014, 1:56:38 PM, you wrote:

> I agree with Gerard, and would add that a good portion of the new
> readers and "missing female editors" do not own or operate a desktop
> and are only available on mobile and tablet, so this is not only
> where the new readers are, but also where the "first edit"
> experience is for most women (and sadly, a corollary to that is that
> they don't try again after their first edit failure). 

> Sent from my iPad

> On Aug 28, 2014, at 4:30 AM, Gerard Meijssen
> <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Hoi,
>> Such separate hostings and ownership would not be that much of a risk to
>> the WMF. The challenges will be first and foremost with the separatists;
>> then again it is firmly their choice. There will be benefits on both sides
>> as well. The community that remains with the WMF will lose all of the
>> separatists and they will sadly see some of them go. It will allow for the
>> influx of new people and new ideas. The people that go will get a reality
>> check; they will find out to what extend the things they fought battles
>> over are actually worth it. I am sure that both communities will benefit.
>> When the people who talk about going their own way rethink their stance and
>> start considering the other side of the coin it may lead to an equilibrium.
>> However, the Visual Editor is not the only thing that will change the look
>> and feel there is so much more happening and at that, a single community
>> only considering its own is in effect a cul de sac.
>> When numbers of readers are to be our main worry, it should be obvious by
>> now that both for editing and reading they are happening on the mobile, the
>> tablet. This is were our new readers are happening. Maybe not necessarily
>> in Europe but certainly in the global south. They have by definition a
>> different mode of operandi and consequently much of our current bickering
>> is only distracting from putting our efforts in welcoming our newbies and
>> building a full fledged environment for them.
>> Thanks,
>>     GerardM

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to