On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 20:37:12 -0800, Stanton McCandlish
<[email protected]> wrote:
The obvious solution to me is to build this and alpha test it internally,
then beta test it on Wikia, not Wikipedia. You'll get more diverse
feedback, and when things inevitably break, they'll just mess up stuff
like
the Battlestar Wiki, not the world's largest, most-used encyclopedia.
--
Stanton McCandlish
McCandlish Consulting
9505 Tanoan Dr NE
Albuquerque NM 87111-5836
505 715-7650
http://www.facebook.com/Stanton.McCandlish
Wikia already has it's own Visual Editor.
Wikia's Visual Editor already breaks content and has some communities
complaining about it and ensuring Wikia has it disabled on their wiki.
Wikia has already screwed with their edit page implementation enough that
any Visual Editor built to work in vanilla MediaWiki or WikiEditor won't
even function on Wikia, so it's a worthless place to test anyways.
Wikia is going to take ages to shed 1.16, doesn't make a very good test
bed for something that should end up running on WikiMedia which uses the
newest stable code it can, especially when all that code is supposed to be
based on ResourceLoader improvements and JavaScript code that comes with
RL that won't be on Wikia.
Wikia also has a different audience than Wikipedia. Unlike Wikipedia which
has a balance of technical and non-technical users, Wikia has a large
number of wikis which are tilted heavily to the non-technical of users. To
the point where Wikia can release a Visual Editor, have it break piles of
source text, and have no-one care because a number of wikis don't have any
users that even look at the source.
It's not a very good place to test a visual editor when there are wikis
with users that won't even complain when something is broken.
--
~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [http://daniel.friesen.name]
_______________________________________________
Wikitext-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitext-l
