On 02/10/2012 08:26 AM, Erik Moeller wrote:
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 10:17 PM, Yury Tarasievich
<[email protected]> wrote:
The Wikipedia participation problem, especially at this stage of the
project's lifecycle, is a social problem, not technical.
It's both. The development of a Visual Editor is a necessary but not a
sufficient change to broaden and diversify the editor population.
Okay, okay, so it's both, but in what
proportion? The social kind still beats the
technical.
Now, Helder tells us "not all Wikipedias are at
the same stage of its lifecycle, and not every
wiki is Wikipedia". Well, that's valid, but not
quite relevant to the issue. E.g., there would
be no MediaWiki development as we know it, if
not for the English WP.
So, you are going to "break things" for the
distant and rather doubtful gain. But do you
indeed want "broad and diverse population of
editors", so the social problems will, in fact,
flare? And not, for starters, some kind of
organisational "mechanism" targeting the content
quality?
Like I said, I wouldn't say no to something
visual, representing the content structure as as
tree with collapsible sections. I don't know,
something Texmacs-like? But not some sort of
not-quite-Word.
Don't let that stop you. :)
Yury
_______________________________________________
Wikitext-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitext-l
