Gerald, are you saying that you personally find the effort involved in editing wikitext or adding media disproportionate , or that there are people who would like to contribute content who find it excessive, but would find it effective with a more intuitive interface? The first I doubt; the second will be true of any interface.
DGG On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Gerard Meijssen <[email protected]> wrote: > Hoi, > The lack of usability that is inherent in the current tools is enough to > drive me away from editing Wikipedia. At to this the atmosphere that is all > too often just not interested in anything but vested interests and you have > a cocktail that is powerful enough to have me respond to your challenge. > Our environment is long overdue on an update and, this is really hard to > do. I welcome the much anticipated editor and media viewer. Sure, it is not > the finished product yet but it has way more finesse then what we had > before. > > What distracts me most is the constant bickering that suggests that we are > not moving forward or that fails to appreciate the extend that we need > change in order to remain relevant with our content. We find that new > editors are mainly from a mobile environment (i include tablets here) and > they are NOT attached to the old ways some aim to have us stick to at all > costs. > > We need to change and our aim should be to remain relevant for the next > decennia. > Thanks, > GerardM > > > On 6 September 2014 10:54, James Salsman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Where does the idea that user interface changes to the system which > > has already produced the most monumental reference work in the history > > of humanity are going to help with its only actual problem, that > > people aren't sufficiently inclined to stick around and maintain it? > > > > If there was any evidence that VE or Media Viewer or Flow will make > > the projects more attractive to volunteers, I'm sure we would have > > heard it by now. But there isn't. Nor is there any evidence that any > > of the several Editor Engagement projects have made a dent in > > volunteer attrition rates, despite their success in encouraging tiny > > subsets of very new editors to contribute a few minutes more work. > > > > The present set of dramatic distractions from attention to the > > vanishing volunteer corps only highlights that Foundation leadership > > has no ability to focus on the only strategic goal they haven't > > achieved: retaining volunteers. Because it is so much easier to > > pretend that readers need WYSIWYG or a lightbox or can't figure out > > how to indent replies; since readership numbers aren't an actual > > problem (when mobile users are added to desktop pageviews) this > > guarantees the false appearance of success in the eyes of everyone who > > doesn't see through the transparent cop-out. Where is the evidence > > that the status quo user interface from 2005 would not have done just > > as well in every measurable aspect of movement success? > > > > Steven Walling wrote: > > >... > > > We practically can't and don't take on initiatives that directly > > > try to provide more free time or money to editors.... > > > > That is absolutely false. Individual Engagement Grants have recently > > been proven to be substantially more cost-effective in achieving the > > Foundation's stated goals than any other form of grant spending, on a > > per-dollar basis. Is there any evidence that any Foundation > > engineering effort of the past five years has done as well? I haven't > > seen any. > > > > When the Foundation spends on copyright advocacy, those initiatives > > directly try to provide more economic empowerment to the small > > fraction of contributors who stand to benefit from whatever additional > > government documents or panorama images they hope to free up. But > > volunteers who want to update information on the side effects of > > commonly prescribed drugs get nothing. > > > > When the Foundation spends on attempts to oppose the Trans Pacific > > Partnership, those initiatives directly try to provide more free time > > and money to the small subset of editors threatened by lengthening of > > copyright terms. But editors who want to help translate introductory > > material foundational to engineering skills literacy get nothing. > > > > Who at the Foundation bears the responsibility for deciding which of > > initiatives that might benefit the real needs of vanishing volunteers > > are funded, and why aren't they held accountable for their record > > since 2007? > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > [email protected] > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > -- David Goodman DGG at the enWP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
