I liked the way you said it the first time,
> Readers in turn do not need all the tools of editors but we do want to
convert them to editors. It does not follow that they will be enticed to
become one by all the clutter.
> The objective is therefore to invite them in a less cluttered way and
give them the option to enable the "clutter" an editor needs.

That's a much stronger statement without the hyperbole and invective.

Anyway, I appreciated your original statement, and also Keegan's point that
part of our mission should be to highlight the fact that our content is
written by individuals and not sponsored hacks like so much of the rest of
the world's media.

Keegan, what do you think about a feature flag which would control which
use cases the interface is optimized for?  We could, for example, make the
editor interface much richer if it wasn't also supporting pure reading.\


On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Gerard Meijssen <>

> Hoi,
> I think you have missed the point badly.
> Wikiwand is not about the communities and their pride. It is about what the
> Wikimedia Foundation stands for. It is sharing the sum of all knowledge.
> When we do a piss poor job and let Wikiwand steal the cake we have our
> priorities fatally wrong.
> The notion that "people just want the content no matter how great of awful
> the skin is" is awful. Really,
> The notion that the only thing we are there for is to disseminate it is
> plain awful because it reads as if we should give up and hand it all over
> to Wikiwand. If that is your opinion why have people concentrate on our
> User Interface? You must be kidding.
> Thanks,
>       GerardM
> On 31 March 2016 at 20:39, Keegan Peterzell <> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 12:56 PM, Adam Wight <>
> wrote:
> >
> > > To second what others have said, I personally love the idea that a
> > reading
> > > interface should include less editor clutter, until it is requested.
> > > There's a task for this, if anyone would like to help push that
> > > investigation forward:
> > >
> >
> >
> > ​Perhaps that would be better flipped: if you want a cleaner interface,
> one
> > is available, but we intentionally want/need/must keep "editor clutter"
> out
> > front. Communities are quite proud of that so-called clutter and actively
> > want to put it in front of people. The clutter got people in and built
> our
> > projects, removing it undoubtedly means less editors. Generally speaking,
> > everyone is a reader and an editor is a reader that clicks edit. They're
> > not, and should not be, distinct classes of users.
> >
> > The fact of the matter is that people just want the content, no matter
> how
> > great or awful the skin is, and they will go where ever makes it easiest
> to
> > get it. This doesn't mean that we have to be the destination to read the
> > content, that's not in our mission statement. We're to disseminate it.
> >
> > --
> > ~Keegan
> >
> >
> >
> > This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email
> address
> > is in a personal capacity.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >
> > New messages to:
> > Unsubscribe:,
> > <>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> New messages to:
> Unsubscribe:,
> <>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to:

Reply via email to