Although "Tech innovations which try to replace quality human editing are not a good idea." Tech innovations which can adequately replace the need for quality human editing when that editing is not sufficiently available can be a very good idea, So can tech innovations which try can assist low quality human editing to become of higher quality. So can tech innovations which merely replicate what some people can do at a high quality, but most people cannot. I saw little need to replace the wikitext editor because I have worked enough in html for that to be as natural as using a keyboard, but it is easy to forget the needs of those who have only worked through WSIWYG interfaces. I find the talk page system quite intuitive, but I'm aware that many others don't share this feeling.
The difficulty is in differentiating these situations, and I haver seen here as in many situation elsewhere that the people who develop technology are willing to use it even when imperfect and badly documented, and even pride in their ability to do so. This was certainly true in my own profession, where we librarians never understood why most of the public found navigating our manual and early automated system so difficult. I share in detail Risker's feeling about the visual editor in particular: I use it now, and the key factor which improved it for me was the recent addition of the ability to go back and forth between the two editing modes without losing work, so I can use the strengths of each of the as needed. (But I am aware of the pressure to release *something* to the public after the very slow development; that original slow development was perhaps the root problem.) On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thank you for flagging this for us, Andrew. I have been unsuccessful in > accessing this page and have been told by others who tried to do so that > they were also getting various error messages. I will try again later > using different technology - the problem may be that the blog doesn't come > up well certain types of phones. Personally, I have always been a bit > heartbroken that I missed out on the chance for a "Magnus Manske has a > Posse" t-shirt a while back; his work has genuinely changed the course of > our project on more than one occasion, and his reputation is solidly > earned. > > With that in mind - that I've not yet got the full context of Magnus's > comments, but that I believe anything Magnus says is worth listening to and > considering - I'm a bit concerned about any suggestion that "the community" > rejected Visual Editor because it was "new". > > The English Wikipedia community rejected it because it was really bad > software that was causing so much damage to the project that even editors > whose focus was on content writing and improvement wound up wasting their > time fixing the errors inserted into the text by VisualEditor. We went > from a somewhat-difficult-to-use text editor (wikitext) as the default to a > not-even-beta-level default editor that could not carry out even basic > editing functions and was actively damaging existing content - without even > a way for editors to select a "no VE" preference, which had to be written > after implementation. While it was available to IP editors, the community > wound up reverting almost 100% of their edits because the VE-generated > problems were so severe. This was not a failure of the community to accept > change. This was the failure of the WMF to understand what a minimal > viable product should be. The poorly thought out implementation of > VisualEditor has caused a huge amount of damage to the reputation of the > software - remember, the community had been asking for something along this > line as far back as 2003, so it wasn't that we didn't want this type of > editing interface - and it also caused an entirely predictable backlash > from the community of 2013. Remember, this was not the community of 2003 > that understood almost everyone involved in software creation was a > volunteer too, and thus would tolerate less refined software releases. The > community of 2013 (quite correctly, I think) expected much higher quality > work from paid staff. Bluntly put, not even when almost all of the > software was being written by volunteers did we see such a problematic > "upgrade". > > The Visual Editor of January 2016 bears little relationship to that which > was released on July 1, 2013 - it is dramatically better, easier to use, > and has some really great features that even experienced editors will find > useful. I hope more experienced users will give it another try. > > I often find it ironic that the great concern about attracting new editors > and thus creating VisualEditor is then immediately dumped to the bottom of > the drawer when it comes to Wikidata. First we'll make it easy for them to > edit. Then we'll include a whole pile of data that they can't edit -or at > least can't edit on the website they logged into. They're pretty opposite > ideas, but of course that's considered luddite thinking. > > Risker/Anne > > > On 18 January 2016 at 08:34, Andrew Lih <andrew....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > There’s an excellent profile of Magnus Manske in the Wikimedia blog > today. > > It’s hard to think of people more important to the movement than Magnus > has > > been since 2001. > > > > Selected quotes: "...we have gone from slowdown to standstill; the > > interface has changed little in the last ten years or so, and all the > > recent changes have been fought teeth-and-claw by the communities, > > especially the larger language editions. From the Media Viewer, the > Visual > > Editor, to Wikidata transclusion, all have been resisted by vocal groups > of > > editors, not because they are a problem, but because they represent > > change... all websites, including Wikipedia must obey the Red Queen > > hypothesis: you have to run just to stand still. This does not only > affect > > Wikipedia itself, but the entire Wikimedia ecosystem... if we wall our > > garden against change, against new users, new technologies our work of 15 > > years is in danger of fading away... we are in an ideal position to try > new > > things. We have nothing to lose, except a little time.” > > > > Link: > > > > > https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/01/18/fifteen-years-wikipedia-magnus-manske/ > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > New messages to: 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 > New messages to: 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 New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
