As I cannot use it consistently myself without making errors, I'm not going
to teach people the visual editor.  I've done quite nicely teaching
beginners to use the wiki syntax, by imitating what they see.

As I have spent most of my time for the last year and a half dealing with
the gross deficiencies in AfC, I continue to feel that the best thing to do
with it is to discontinue it altogether: it's an excellent example of
technical solutions made without considering the inadequate number of
skilled people to operate it, and the attraction it would have for the
incompetent. (It also   showed the lack of   willingness of those devising
it to make even the most obvious of changes (there is *still* no easy way
to list multiple reasons for rejection without a manual over-ride) I cannot
judge  competence at the technical level except by the results.

Draft space was initiated by those like myself trying to find a replacement
for it. We hoped it would replace, not just add on as it has done.

What I primarily want from the tech staff at WMF is to improve performance
by fixing obsolete internal elements of the system. They finally seem to be
doing that.  What is equally needed but of less relevance to my own work is
to do whatever depth of reprogramming is needed to accommodate mobile
devices. They're doing that--how well I leave it to others to say.



On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 3:40 AM, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Pete,
>
> James A. might be able to answer that, or know which project manager to
> ping.
>
> AFC and related processes are within my scope of concern regarding editor
> retention, but they're not my expertise. I wish I could help more.
> Currently, when I'm not dealing with Cascadia Wikimedians budgets and
> events, my other item of great interest is VisualEditor, which I feel has
> come a long way. In Cascadia we intend to start to introduce new users to
> VisualEditor, using some presentation materials that I'm putting together,
> hopefully for eventual integration into a couple of videos.
>
> Regarding broader editor engagement plans going forward, I would like to
> see those fleshed out by WMF, and I have that on my list of items to ask
> Rachel and/or Lila about if no one else does in the next few weeks.
>
> Pine
>
>
> Pine
>
> *This is an Encyclopedia* <https://www.wikipedia.org/>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *One gateway to the wide garden of knowledge, where lies The deep rock of
> our past, in which we must delve The well of our future,The clear water we
> must leave untainted for those who come after us,The fertile earth, in
> which truth may grow in bright places, tended by many hands,And the broad
> fall of sunshine, warming our first steps toward knowing how much we do not
> know.*
>
> *—Catherine Munro*
>
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 12:21 AM, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:03 AM, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Philippe is on vacation, so I'm forwarding this to Rachel.
> > >
> >
> > Thanks Pine. That's unfortunate, but maybe there is somebody (maybe
> > Fabrice?) who can shed some light on the general thinking in the software
> > development in this area. There have been several closely related things
> --
> > Article Creation Wizard, Draft: namespace, New Page Patrol software... --
> > and I see many references to an overall plan, but I've had difficulty
> > finding a summary of that plan.
> >
> > In the meantime, I've been trying to put the pieces together myself, and
> > have gotten some good assistance from Nemo Bis and Aaron Halfaker -- see
> > here:
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Wikipedia_article_creation#Cutoff_date_for_comparison.3F
> >
> > At this point, in addition to clarification from Philippe about which
> part
> > he was referring to, the main thing I'm hoping to accomplish is
> basically a
> > timeline of milestones, more or less like this (I have somewhat made up
> the
> > data below for the sake of illustrating the format):
> >
> > * January 1, 2004: AFC process created. [[Wikilink to tool]] [diff or
> > mailing list for decision-making process]
> > * February 1, 2011: RfC on English Wikipedia calls for new procedure
> > [[wikilink to RfC]] [Bugzilla link for request]
> > * June 1, 2011: Articles for Creation wizard launched [[Wikilink]]
> > [discussion link] with these impacts on user experience:
> > ** Impact 1
> > ** Impact 2
> > ** Impact 3...
> > ...and so on.
> >
> > Who at WMF would be best able to fill in the gaps in such a list? Or does
> > the list already exist in a strategy document somewhere? I haven't been
> > able to find it yet, but I'm still looking.
> >
> > Pete
> > [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to