Mailing List Archive: Wikipedia: Foundation

[Wikimedia-l] Visual Editor "temporary" opt-out

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

toddmallen at gmail

Aug 4, 2013, 4:07 PM

Post #1 of 25 (110 views)
Permalink

[Wikimedia-l] Visual Editor "temporary" opt-out

I realize this was brought up a couple of weeks ago and I apologize for the
late response on this, but it was just recently brought to my attention
that the VE opt-out was intended to be only temporary.

Firstly: Currently, as per the overwhelming consensus on en.wikipedia at
least, VE needs to be opt-in, not opt-out. It's not even stable or usable
to the beta stage, but it might be ready for some early user tests. Even
beta testing, however, should only be opt-in. Opt-out should only occur
once the product is feature-complete and has no (yes, zero) known major
flaws or incomplete features. That means it should be capable of making
-any- edit to -any- page, and in the manner that its user would want it to,
including parsing, not no-wiki'ing, of wikimarkup, as the community has
clearly stated.

That aside, it's now come to my attention that the "opt-out" is meant to
last only until the project is out of "beta". There are some problems with
this.

First, your (and by "your", I specifically mean the project managers)
judgment on project readiness is obviously way off. VE isn't even -in-
beta. It's not feature-complete, it's not ready, and it's got massive
numbers of known bugs. It could be barely described as ready for alpha. Yet
it's being treated as release-ready, such as being released as the default
for most users. That calls into serious question the judgment of the
project managers on this project. I, and many others, do not trust you to
properly determine when this project should be released, as you've already
made a hugely premature release of software that wasn't even near ready.

Secondly, even if VE worked perfectly, some editors will never be
interested in using it. An opt-out clarifies that the development team
recognizes a significant group of those editors exists, and will ensure
their wishes are respected. Some editors will just want raw-text editing,
some will be running bots or scripts that depend on it, some just won't
want to change, some will be doing tasks VE has been explicitly noted not
to support. All must be respected, and raw editing must remain supported,
not be squashed by yet another heavy-handed gesture from the same team
that's already made far too many of those. I don't want to hear, in a year
or two "It works great! Source editing is deprecated and we'll be removing
it soon!". And believe me, many of us, me included, expect just that,
absent a firm commitment.

Thirdly, a confirmation that VE will always include opt-out will clearly
notify editors not interested in using it that it will always remain
optional, and that source editing will remain supported. Currently, given
the "ram it through" approach by WMF and its technical staff, such trust is
severely eroded. A clear statement that "You may always opt out of VE"
would go a long way toward rebuilding it, while "You may only opt out while
we say you can" further erodes that already damaged trust.

Please make a clear statement that VE will always have an officially
supported opt-out for editors who would like to use it, not only during
"beta".

Regards,

Todd Allen
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request [at] lists?subject=unsubscribe>

nawrich at gmail

Aug 5, 2013, 7:49 AM

Post #2 of 25 (99 views)
Permalink

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Visual Editor "temporary" opt-out [In reply to]

On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 7:07 PM, Todd Allen <toddmallen [at] gmail> wrote:
> I realize this was brought up a couple of weeks ago and I apologize for the
> late response on this, but it was just recently brought to my attention
> that the VE opt-out was intended to be only temporary.
>
> Firstly: Currently, as per the overwhelming consensus on en.wikipedia at
> least, VE needs to be opt-in, not opt-out. It's not even stable or usable
> to the beta stage, but it might be ready for some early user tests. Even
> beta testing, however, should only be opt-in. Opt-out should only occur
> once the product is feature-complete and has no (yes, zero) known major
> flaws or incomplete features. That means it should be capable of making
> -any- edit to -any- page, and in the manner that its user would want it to,
> including parsing, not no-wiki'ing, of wikimarkup, as the community has
> clearly stated.
>
> That aside, it's now come to my attention that the "opt-out" is meant to
> last only until the project is out of "beta". There are some problems with
> this.
>
> First, your (and by "your", I specifically mean the project managers)
> judgment on project readiness is obviously way off. VE isn't even -in-
> beta. It's not feature-complete, it's not ready, and it's got massive
> numbers of known bugs. It could be barely described as ready for alpha. Yet
> it's being treated as release-ready, such as being released as the default
> for most users. That calls into serious question the judgment of the
> project managers on this project. I, and many others, do not trust you to
> properly determine when this project should be released, as you've already
> made a hugely premature release of software that wasn't even near ready.
>
> Secondly, even if VE worked perfectly, some editors will never be
> interested in using it. An opt-out clarifies that the development team
> recognizes a significant group of those editors exists, and will ensure
> their wishes are respected. Some editors will just want raw-text editing,
> some will be running bots or scripts that depend on it, some just won't
> want to change, some will be doing tasks VE has been explicitly noted not
> to support. All must be respected, and raw editing must remain supported,
> not be squashed by yet another heavy-handed gesture from the same team
> that's already made far too many of those. I don't want to hear, in a year
> or two "It works great! Source editing is deprecated and we'll be removing
> it soon!". And believe me, many of us, me included, expect just that,
> absent a firm commitment.
>
> Thirdly, a confirmation that VE will always include opt-out will clearly
> notify editors not interested in using it that it will always remain
> optional, and that source editing will remain supported. Currently, given
> the "ram it through" approach by WMF and its technical staff, such trust is
> severely eroded. A clear statement that "You may always opt out of VE"
> would go a long way toward rebuilding it, while "You may only opt out while
> we say you can" further erodes that already damaged trust.
>
> Please make a clear statement that VE will always have an officially
> supported opt-out for editors who would like to use it, not only during
> "beta".
>
> Regards,
>
> Todd Allen

This went into my spam-folder, along with other posts to
Wikimedia-related lists lately.

One quick comment on the content of Todd's e-mail - making VE opt-out
is not synonymous with preserving the option to edit in raw text. If I
understand correctly, the "Edit source" button (which is not the opt
out) is going to remain. That means any editor, independent of VE
status, retains the option to edit in the traditional manner.

~Nathan

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request [at] lists?subject=unsubscribe>

z at mzmcbride

Aug 5, 2013, 7:35 PM

Post #3 of 25 (99 views)
Permalink

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Visual Editor "temporary" opt-out [In reply to]

Todd Allen wrote:
>[comments about VisualEditor]

Hi Todd.

Thank you for writing this e-mail. Unfortunately I don't have a
particularly unified reply to write here, but I can offer five thoughts.

Regarding the specific issue you mention (the labeling of the user
preference), I think there should be at least a little recognition that
much more than half of the battle was getting this user preference
re-added, supported for future VisualEditor releases, and appropriately
positioned under the "Editing" user preferences tab rather than the
"Gadgets" user preferences tab. Now that we've made forward progress on
those fronts, re-labeling the user preference is a simple matter of
editing the page "MediaWiki:Visualeditor-preference-betatempdisable".

Broadly, looking at your e-mail, I wonder what your thoughts are on the
extent to which one wiki, even the golden goose, can dictate Wikimedia
Foundation product engineering and development. While the English
Wikipedia is certainly a formidable force, do you think it should be
capable, through an on-wiki discussion, of setting or changing high-level
priorities and their implementation strategies? If so, why and how?

I started
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Improvements> to
discuss actionable improvements that can be made right now related to
VisualEditor and its deployment. Please participate. :-)

And I started <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/VisualEditor/Complaints> to
examine the pattern of complaints related to VisualEditor.

Finally, and somewhat related to the complaints page, I've been thinking
lately about the British and the Irish and the nature of insurgencies. I
believe the VisualEditor team is now viewed by many on the English
Wikipedia (and other wikis) as an occupying force. Consequently, this has
created an insurgency composed of long-time editors. This isn't meant to
be hyperbolic: nobody is rioting in the streets or planning warfare (yet).
However, the anger felt by many in the editing community toward the
VisualEditor team is very real and very worrying, as is the seemingly
heavy-handed way in which VisualEditor has been deployed. Just a few weeks
ago, VisualEditor was receiving accolades for the way in which it had been
slowly and thoughtfully developed and deployed. However, seemingly
arbitrary deadlines and a few key bad decisions have greatly hurt it. The
wounds are deep, but it remains to be seen whether they will be fatal.

MZMcBride

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request [at] lists?subject=unsubscribe>

kwwilliams at kwwilliams

Aug 5, 2013, 10:50 PM

Post #4 of 25 (97 views)
Permalink

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Visual Editor "temporary" opt-out [In reply to]

Op 2013/08/05 19:35, MZMcBride schreef:
> Finally, and somewhat related to the complaints page, I've been
> thinking lately about the British and the Irish and the nature of
> insurgencies. I believe the VisualEditor team is now viewed by many on
> the English Wikipedia (and other wikis) as an occupying force.
> Consequently, this has created an insurgency composed of long-time
> editors. This isn't meant to be hyperbolic: nobody is rioting in the
> streets or planning warfare (yet). However, the anger felt by many in
> the editing community toward the VisualEditor team is very real and
> very worrying, as is the seemingly heavy-handed way in which
> VisualEditor has been deployed. Just a few weeks ago, VisualEditor was
> receiving accolades for the way in which it had been slowly and
> thoughtfully developed and deployed. However, seemingly arbitrary
> deadlines and a few key bad decisions have greatly hurt it. The wounds
> are deep, but it remains to be seen whether they will be fatal.

I notice you used the phrase "seemingly heavy-handed" above. Do you
truly believe that this was not *actually* heavy-handed?

KWW

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request [at] lists?subject=unsubscribe>

z at mzmcbride

Aug 5, 2013, 11:44 PM

Post #5 of 25 (97 views)
Permalink

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Visual Editor "temporary" opt-out [In reply to]

Kevin Wayne Williams wrote:
>Op 2013/08/05 19:35, MZMcBride schreef:
>> Finally, and somewhat related to the complaints page, I've been
>> thinking lately about the British and the Irish and the nature of
>> insurgencies. I believe the VisualEditor team is now viewed by many on
>> the English Wikipedia (and other wikis) as an occupying force.
>> Consequently, this has created an insurgency composed of long-time
>> editors. This isn't meant to be hyperbolic: nobody is rioting in the
>> streets or planning warfare (yet). However, the anger felt by many in
>> the editing community toward the VisualEditor team is very real and
>> very worrying, as is the seemingly heavy-handed way in which
>> VisualEditor has been deployed. Just a few weeks ago, VisualEditor was
>> receiving accolades for the way in which it had been slowly and
>> thoughtfully developed and deployed. However, seemingly arbitrary
>> deadlines and a few key bad decisions have greatly hurt it. The wounds
>> are deep, but it remains to be seen whether they will be fatal.
>
>I notice you used the phrase "seemingly heavy-handed" above. Do you
>truly believe that this was not *actually* heavy-handed?

Using "seemingly" twice so close together was certainly sloppy writing.
:-) I'll try to explain where I am currently.

As with many things in life, I think whether the deployment of
VisualEditor was heavy-handed depends on your perspective; mine is still
forming. At <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/VisualEditor/Complaints>, a
few key issues/developments are discussed.

There was a decision to deploy without an opt-out user preference,
followed by a reversal of this decision and a re-instatement of the user
preference.

There was a decision to deploy with that awful section-edit animation,
followed by its removal.

At no point was the wikitext editor ever made unavailable to editors. And
rhetoric and hyperbole aside, nobody was ever forced to use VisualEditor.

The fact that the software is experimental ("beta") is now much more
prominent throughout the user interface, the user interface now
consistently uses "edit source," and the order of the tabs has been
changed to make wikitext editing more prominent.

With the points above, it's a mixed bag as to whether the deployment of
VisualEditor was heavy-handed.

This leaves us to consider the biggest question: opt-in vs. opt-out. Erik
and James are both quite smart, they are true Wikimedians, and they make
reasonable points about choosing opt-out over opt-in. However, a very
large number of my colleagues and your colleagues have strongly disagreed
with this decision, which leaves doubt in any reasonable person's mind.

That said, this doubt is tempered by the _enormous_ selection bias we see
in the on-wiki discussion. Namely that (a) the discussion has only been
advertised to logged-in users, and (b) that nearly everyone participating
in the on-wiki discussion is someone who has figured out wikitext. That
is, the people who would most benefit from a visual editor right now are
the silent majority who are unaware of, and in many cases incapable of,
participating in the discussion about whether VisualEditor should be
opt-in or opt-out. And in the on-wiki discussions, we've seen a lot of
comments that are quite simply out-of-touch with the level to which people
are capable of interacting with Wikipedia via wikitext editing alone.

I used "seemingly" to indicate nuance. Any editor could easily look at the
deployment fiasco and claim that it was heavy-handed and be right. But I
think there's also a legitimate case to be made that, whether or not we
agree with the decision, it was considered and backed by reasonable views.

As I said on my talk page, I believe that we need a visual editor and an
active group of people are trying to develop one (however haphazardly).
Rather than simply attack and banish them, I think we should instead focus
on ways to make it better or make it easier to get it out of the way of
those who don't want to use it or can't use it.

MZMcBride

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request [at] lists?subject=unsubscribe>

dgerard at gmail

Aug 5, 2013, 11:52 PM

Post #6 of 25 (97 views)
Permalink

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Visual Editor "temporary" opt-out [In reply to]

On 6 August 2013 07:44, MZMcBride <z [at] mzmcbride> wrote:

> That said, this doubt is tempered by the _enormous_ selection bias we see
> in the on-wiki discussion. Namely that (a) the discussion has only been
> advertised to logged-in users, and (b) that nearly everyone participating
> in the on-wiki discussion is someone who has figured out wikitext. That
> is, the people who would most benefit from a visual editor right now are
> the silent majority who are unaware of, and in many cases incapable of,
> participating in the discussion about whether VisualEditor should be
> opt-in or opt-out.

This becomes the "supporters of the gaps" argument - in which it goes:

1. "This is for the silent majority, the data will show they love it!
You'll see!"
2. Data comes out, seems to show they don't, and it's pushed anonymous
editors down.
3. "That data is bad, there could be supporters there!"

That is, the arguments tend towards saying "you can't philosophically
prove there aren't supporters!" This is unconvincing for a number of
reasons.

- d.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request [at] lists?subject=unsubscribe>

z at mzmcbride

Aug 6, 2013, 12:04 AM

Post #7 of 25 (97 views)
Permalink

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Visual Editor "temporary" opt-out [In reply to]

David Gerard wrote:
>That is, the arguments tend towards saying "you can't philosophically
>prove there aren't supporters!" This is unconvincing for a number of
>reasons.

This is lazy, but I'm going to quote myself.

---
VisualEditor is a big project that didn't simply happen in a vacuum. The
Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees (your Trustees) made it a top
priority, which is part of the reason that the Wikimedia Foundation made
it a top priority. Faced with a growing concern about editor retention and
the ability of anyone to be able to participate in the creation of the sum
of all human knowledge, a new endeavor was undertaken to make editing
easier for most users.

The _inability_ of many users to be able to contribute to the encyclopedia
(or the dictionary or the quote book or the ...) made this project a
necessity. While wikimarkup built Wikipedia and its sister projects,
there's a pretty prevalent view that wikimarkup alone cannot sustain it.
In 2013, there's an expectation on the part of users that there will be
some kind of visual editor (e.g., similar to that of WordPress), and so
the VisualEditor project was started in order to bring in such an editor,
side-by-side with the source editor.
---

I cannot and will not blame the Wikimedia Foundation for working on this
project. It's an important project and I believe this is a view that you
strongly agree with.

But it's similarly important that we recognize the current limitations to
on-wiki discussions and what we can glean from them.

MZMcBride

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request [at] lists?subject=unsubscribe>

andrew.gray at dunelm

Aug 6, 2013, 1:46 AM

Post #8 of 25 (97 views)
Permalink

[Wikimedia-l] Visual Editor "temporary" opt-out [In reply to]

I very rarely want to follow up a post to say "yes, this", but I think Max
has hit the nail on the head here.

One other issue around 'heavy-handed' is that this is in part perception. I
didn't feel the deployment heavy-handed, but then it did not cause me more
than minor technical annoyance, I had tried to keep abreast of the
discussions and schedules leading up to the day, and I didn't object to it.
I know this is not a universally held feeling, of course!

A.

On Tuesday, August 6, 2013, MZMcBride wrote:

> Kevin Wayne Williams wrote:
> >Op 2013/08/05 19:35, MZMcBride schreef:
> >> Finally, and somewhat related to the complaints page, I've been
> >> thinking lately about the British and the Irish and the nature of
> >> insurgencies. I believe the VisualEditor team is now viewed by many on
> >> the English Wikipedia (and other wikis) as an occupying force.
> >> Consequently, this has created an insurgency composed of long-time
> >> editors. This isn't meant to be hyperbolic: nobody is rioting in the
> >> streets or planning warfare (yet). However, the anger felt by many in
> >> the editing community toward the VisualEditor team is very real and
> >> very worrying, as is the seemingly heavy-handed way in which
> >> VisualEditor has been deployed. Just a few weeks ago, VisualEditor was
> >> receiving accolades for the way in which it had been slowly and
> >> thoughtfully developed and deployed. However, seemingly arbitrary
> >> deadlines and a few key bad decisions have greatly hurt it. The wounds
> >> are deep, but it remains to be seen whether they will be fatal.
> >
> >I notice you used the phrase "seemingly heavy-handed" above. Do you
> >truly believe that this was not *actually* heavy-handed?
>
> Using "seemingly" twice so close together was certainly sloppy writing.
> :-) I'll try to explain where I am currently.
>
> As with many things in life, I think whether the deployment of
> VisualEditor was heavy-handed depends on your perspective; mine is still
> forming. At <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/VisualEditor/Complaints>, a
> few key issues/developments are discussed.
>
> There was a decision to deploy without an opt-out user preference,
> followed by a reversal of this decision and a re-instatement of the user
> preference.
>
> There was a decision to deploy with that awful section-edit animation,
> followed by its removal.
>
> At no point was the wikitext editor ever made unavailable to editors. And
> rhetoric and hyperbole aside, nobody was ever forced to use VisualEditor.
>
> The fact that the software is experimental ("beta") is now much more
> prominent throughout the user interface, the user interface now
> consistently uses "edit source," and the order of the tabs has been
> changed to make wikitext editing more prominent.
>
> With the points above, it's a mixed bag as to whether the deployment of
> VisualEditor was heavy-handed.
>
> This leaves us to consider the biggest question: opt-in vs. opt-out. Erik
> and James are both quite smart, they are true Wikimedians, and they make
> reasonable points about choosing opt-out over opt-in. However, a very
> large number of my colleagues and your colleagues have strongly disagreed
> with this decision, which leaves doubt in any reasonable person's mind.
>
> That said, this doubt is tempered by the _enormous_ selection bias we see
> in the on-wiki discussion. Namely that (a) the discussion has only been
> advertised to logged-in users, and (b) that nearly everyone participating
> in the on-wiki discussion is someone who has figured out wikitext. That
> is, the people who would most benefit from a visual editor right now are
> the silent majority who are unaware of, and in many cases incapable of,
> participating in the discussion about whether VisualEditor should be
> opt-in or opt-out. And in the on-wiki discussions, we've seen a lot of
> comments that are quite simply out-of-touch with the level to which people
> are capable of interacting with Wikipedia via wikitext editing alone.
>
> I used "seemingly" to indicate nuance. Any editor could easily look at the
> deployment fiasco and claim that it was heavy-handed and be right. But I
> think there's also a legitimate case to be made that, whether or not we
> agree with the decision, it was considered and backed by reasonable views.
>
> As I said on my talk page, I believe that we need a visual editor and an
> active group of people are trying to develop one (however haphazardly).
> Rather than simply attack and banish them, I think we should instead focus
> on ways to make it better or make it easier to get it out of the way of
> those who don't want to use it or can't use it.
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request [at] lists?subject=unsubscribe>

--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray [at] dunelm
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request [at] lists?subject=unsubscribe>

richard at farmbrough

Aug 6, 2013, 6:10 AM

Post #9 of 25 (97 views)
Permalink

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Visual Editor "temporary" opt-out [In reply to]

Apparently important. I am aware, as probably everyone is, that this is
the first most obvious step to make article editing more accessible, and
address certain inclusiveness goals. I am also aware that there is no
data to support the theory that a visual editor means more inclusive
editing, let alone that it will result in better content.

I will simply add a couple of observations.

The learning curve for wikitext is one of the shallowest of any
application. Press edit, type in the box and press save. If you can
type and press edit and save (the latter two of which /are/ HMI issues
IMHO) you can edit Wikimedia projects.

Secondly, and anecdotally, most full functioned word-processors have a
plethora of functions that are usually only known about by the same
"tech-savvy" group that we currently believe are at home with wiki-text.

Thirdly I vividly remember my first editing experiences - I did not
think I would /ever /be touching stuff like infoboxes and categories,
but they made no real obstacle to editing. (The keyboard only method of
formatting text took seconds to understand, and saves a huge amount of
time.)

I would not be surprised if the /choice/ of editor turns out to be the
reason that editing has fallen off more rather than the VE itself.

On 06/08/2013 08:04, MZMcBride wrote:
> I cannot and will not blame the Wikimedia Foundation for working on
> this project. It's an important project
...
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request [at] lists?subject=unsubscribe>

toddmallen at gmail

Aug 6, 2013, 7:26 AM

Post #10 of 25 (97 views)
Permalink

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Visual Editor "temporary" opt-out [In reply to]

On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 8:35 PM, MZMcBride <z [at] mzmcbride> wrote:

> Todd Allen wrote:
> >[comments about VisualEditor]
>
> Hi Todd.
>
> Thank you for writing this e-mail. Unfortunately I don't have a
> particularly unified reply to write here, but I can offer five thoughts.
>
> Regarding the specific issue you mention (the labeling of the user
> preference), I think there should be at least a little recognition that
> much more than half of the battle was getting this user preference
> re-added, supported for future VisualEditor releases, and appropriately
> positioned under the "Editing" user preferences tab rather than the
> "Gadgets" user preferences tab. Now that we've made forward progress on
> those fronts, re-labeling the user preference is a simple matter of
> editing the page "MediaWiki:Visualeditor-preference-betatempdisable".
>
> Broadly, looking at your e-mail, I wonder what your thoughts are on the
> extent to which one wiki, even the golden goose, can dictate Wikimedia
> Foundation product engineering and development. While the English
> Wikipedia is certainly a formidable force, do you think it should be
> capable, through an on-wiki discussion, of setting or changing high-level
> priorities and their implementation strategies? If so, why and how?
>
> I started
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Improvements> to
> discuss actionable improvements that can be made right now related to
> VisualEditor and its deployment. Please participate. :-)
>
> And I started <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/VisualEditor/Complaints> to
> examine the pattern of complaints related to VisualEditor.
>
> Finally, and somewhat related to the complaints page, I've been thinking
> lately about the British and the Irish and the nature of insurgencies. I
> believe the VisualEditor team is now viewed by many on the English
> Wikipedia (and other wikis) as an occupying force. Consequently, this has
> created an insurgency composed of long-time editors. This isn't meant to
> be hyperbolic: nobody is rioting in the streets or planning warfare (yet).
> However, the anger felt by many in the editing community toward the
> VisualEditor team is very real and very worrying, as is the seemingly
> heavy-handed way in which VisualEditor has been deployed. Just a few weeks
> ago, VisualEditor was receiving accolades for the way in which it had been
> slowly and thoughtfully developed and deployed. However, seemingly
> arbitrary deadlines and a few key bad decisions have greatly hurt it. The
> wounds are deep, but it remains to be seen whether they will be fatal.
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request [at] lists?subject=unsubscribe>
>

MzMcBride,

Thanks for the response, and the thoughtful questions. Since they're rather
different, I'll answer them in turn.

My concern on the user preference is not what we call it. Rather, it's on
what we intend to do with it; namely, remove it after the VE beta is "done"
(and for many of us, WMF's project managers have shown remarkably poor
judgment in properly determining what's "done" or "ready"). Even if VE
worked well, I'm the type of person who uses a bash command shell in
preference to a GUI most of the time (and go nuts when I'm required to use
Windows for work), and I'm just not interested in the visual editor. For me
personally, it's nothing I'll ever use. By all means, offer the GUI to
whoever will find it useful, but I want a way to make sure it's not sucking
up resources every time I edit. But despite this, once they say it's
"ready", we're getting it crammed down our throats, like it or not. Even
the name of the page, "betatempdisable", indicates that once again, the
ability to disable this thing will be taken out of where it belongs, and
once again volunteers will have to use their time to develop and maintain a
gadget because WMF just can't resist saying "We say it's READY, and you
will have it there whether or not you ever plan to use it!"

As to "dictat(ing)" to WMF, well, in the most technical sense, no one has
any say at all. WMF pays the bills and the devs, so WMF can, whenever it
wants, override what en.wikipedia or any other project tells it.

So we know WMF -can- override en.wikipedia, or any other project. The
question, then, is whether they should. This is a volunteer project, where
comparable to the user base, a relatively small group of volunteer users
does the bulk of the work on creating and maintaining the site's content.
Anonymous and drive-by editors are allowed to help, they often do, and
that's appreciated. We should do what we can to make it easier for them to,
but not at the expense of our long-term volunteers. What happens now is
that those dedicated volunteers are called "power users", treated
dismissively and sometimes flat rudely, and told they don't really know
anything about how to run the project many of them have volunteered
thousands of hours and in many cases their own money to. When even one of
those volunteers reacts by packing up and leaving in response to such
treatment, the project suffers a tremendous loss.

Also keep in mind we're not just talking about en.wikipedia here. The
second-largest project, de.wikipedia, also overwhelmingly chose to reject
VE in its current state. So this isn't "en.wikipedia vs. all others", it's
"WMF vs. all others". When your existing user base is telling you in large
numbers "There's a problem here", you take them seriously, you presume you
really do have a problem, and you genuinely listen to how they want to go
forward on fixing it. And right now, anonymous and new editors are
overwhelmingly rejecting VE, too, even when it was deceptively labeled.

So, nutshell on that one: en.wikipedia shouldn't always "dictate"
priorities or strategies, but if en.wikipedia and several other projects
are saying "You screwed up" or "We badly need this", you don't just dismiss
it as "power users" asking and handwave them away. Those "power users" are
the core of your project. Overruling a genuine consensus of existing users,
especially cross-project, should be vanishingly rare, yet I can recall
three times just in the past year. WMF can do that, but it doesn't mean
they should.

Let me ask you a question in turn, then. If WMF decides to do something, or
not to do something, that heavily impacts en (or de, or any other
reasonably sized project), and the community overwhelmingly, through an
on-wiki discussion, tells WMF "No, we don't want to go that way, we'd
rather do this", what should WMF's reaction to that be?

Thanks for the pointers to those additional pages, I didn't know about
them. I think it would be a good idea for us to create a central page with
links to all the VE-related stuff (unless such exists and I don't know of
that one either :) ), because they seem to be spreading all over the place.
That also might help prevent duplication of purpose.

As far as your last paragraph, I don't see rioting in the streets (even on
the metaphorical level) yet, but these overrides do cause a great degree of
ill will. I actually saw people after the refusal of ACTRIAL suggest we use
the edit filter to go ahead and implement it over WMF's objection, and they
meant it. They were talked down from it, but they were every bit ready to
get desysopped. At least a couple of them left over it anyway, making the
point rather moot in their cases, and I'm kind of surprised one of them
didn't "flip the finger on the way out".

That would've been an awfully ugly showdown, and I'm glad it didn't happen
that way, but it should show how seriously most people feel that no one at
WMF is listening to what existing users want. Everything is "New users, new
users, new users!", but then data doesn't even materialize to show these
things -are- attracting new users. Yet we keep hearing about "silent
majorities" that only the WMF knows the will of, and that the existing
community is too dumb to comprehend. Yet when we ask "How do YOU know?", we
either get data that's been heavily extrapolated, or anecdotes, or just
told "Oh hush, you'll see". Was this tested in prototype with a group of
non-editors, AND a group of editors? Were alternatives provided? Where are
these tests' methodologies and their results? If the answer is "nowhere",
how on earth does WMF claim to speak for this "silent majority" any more
than the community can, many of whom deal with new editors day in and day
out?

The reason editors see this as invasive is because, well, every time WMF
gets involved, they're doing whatever they already intended to do anyway,
and not listening to existing editors at all. It's not just because new
software or features were introduced--many Wikipedians, including myself,
work in software or technology, and are quite used to and comfortable with
new version releases. It's because WMF just plows ahead, and doesn't really
make any effort to consult the community before developing its roadmap, nor
are they willing to change course upon strong objection. On a project based
on the ideals of collaboration and consensus, the biggest decisions are
being made in a very dictatorial style. If you're asking why that doesn't
go over well, I really don't know what to tell you other than "Well, of
course it doesn't".

Todd Allen

--
Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request [at] lists?subject=unsubscribe>

martijnhoekstra at gmail

Aug 6, 2013, 7:34 AM

Post #11 of 25 (97 views)
Permalink

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Visual Editor "temporary" opt-out [In reply to]

On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Richard Farmbrough <richard [at] farmbrough
> wrote:

> Apparently important. I am aware, as probably everyone is, that this is
> the first most obvious step to make article editing more accessible, and
> address certain inclusiveness goals. I am also aware that there is no data
> to support the theory that a visual editor means more inclusive editing,
> let alone that it will result in better content.
>
> I will simply add a couple of observations.
>
> The learning curve for wikitext is one of the shallowest of any
> application. Press edit, type in the box and press save. If you can type
> and press edit and save (the latter two of which /are/ HMI issues IMHO) you
> can edit Wikimedia projects.
>
> Secondly, and anecdotally, most full functioned word-processors have a
> plethora of functions that are usually only known about by the same
> "tech-savvy" group that we currently believe are at home with wiki-text.
>
> Thirdly I vividly remember my first editing experiences - I did not think
> I would /ever /be touching stuff like infoboxes and categories, but they
> made no real obstacle to editing. (The keyboard only method of formatting
> text took seconds to understand, and saves a huge amount of time.)
>
> I would not be surprised if the /choice/ of editor turns out to be the
> reason that editing has fallen off more rather than the VE itself.

Not discrediting the rest of your email, your note about that a new editor
now has to choose which editor he would like to use is indeed a very smart
one (the paradox of choice and all that). Has any research been done or
planned on the subject?

>
>
> On 06/08/2013 08:04, MZMcBride wrote:
>
>> I cannot and will not blame the Wikimedia Foundation for working on this
>> project. It's an important project
>>
> ...
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l [at] lists**org <Wikimedia-l [at] lists>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@**lists.wikimedia.org<wikimedia-l-request [at] lists>
> ?subject=**unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request [at] lists?subject=unsubscribe>

kwwilliams at kwwilliams

Aug 6, 2013, 7:51 AM

Post #12 of 25 (97 views)
Permalink

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Visual Editor "temporary" opt-out [In reply to]

Op 2013/08/05 23:44, MZMcBride schreef:
> This leaves us to consider the biggest question: opt-in vs. opt-out.
> Erik and James are both quite smart, they are true Wikimedians, and
> they make reasonable points about choosing opt-out over opt-in.
This is the point on which we fundamentally disagree. Their argument for
'opt-out' is based solely upon the quality and quantity of testing that
it affords to VE. VE is not a mission-critical feature: while we have
concerns about Wikipedia's sustainability, there's no question that it
has survived for years and will survive for years more. The stability of
the site is much more important than testing this code, and the testing
strategy of presenting it as if it was functioning software and seeing
what people did with it wasn't a reasonable decision: it was completely
and absolutely irresponsible.

KWW

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request [at] lists?subject=unsubscribe>

martijnhoekstra at gmail

Aug 6, 2013, 7:55 AM

Post #13 of 25 (97 views)
Permalink

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Visual Editor "temporary" opt-out [In reply to]

On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Kevin Wayne Williams <
kwwilliams [at] kwwilliams> wrote:

> Op 2013/08/05 23:44, MZMcBride schreef:
>
> This leaves us to consider the biggest question: opt-in vs. opt-out. Erik
>> and James are both quite smart, they are true Wikimedians, and they make
>> reasonable points about choosing opt-out over opt-in.
>>
> This is the point on which we fundamentally disagree. Their argument for
> 'opt-out' is based solely upon the quality and quantity of testing that it
> affords to VE. VE is not a mission-critical feature: while we have concerns
> about Wikipedia's sustainability, there's no question that it has survived
> for years and will survive for years more. The stability of the site is
> much more important than testing this code, and the testing strategy of
> presenting it as if it was functioning software and seeing what people did
> with it wasn't a reasonable decision: it was completely and absolutely
> irresponsible.
>
> KWW
>
>
Opt-out with a beta or experimental notice (as it is now when enabled on
en.wiki) doesn't seem to have the problem of presenting it if it were
mature software you present as the pivotal problem in this post.

> ______________________________**_________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l [at] lists**org <Wikimedia-l [at] lists>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@**lists.wikimedia.org<wikimedia-l-request [at] lists>
> ?subject=**unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request [at] lists?subject=unsubscribe>

kwwilliams at kwwilliams

Aug 6, 2013, 8:06 AM

Post #14 of 25 (97 views)
Permalink

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Visual Editor "temporary" opt-out [In reply to]

Op 2013/08/06 7:55, Martijn Hoekstra schreef:
> On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Kevin Wayne Williams <
> kwwilliams [at] kwwilliams> wrote:
>
>> Their argument for
>> 'opt-out' is based solely upon the quality and quantity of testing that it
>> affords to VE. VE is not a mission-critical feature: while we have concerns
>> about Wikipedia's sustainability, there's no question that it has survived
>> for years and will survive for years more. The stability of the site is
>> much more important than testing this code, and the testing strategy of
>> presenting it as if it was functioning software and seeing what people did
>> with it wasn't a reasonable decision: it was completely and absolutely
>> irresponsible.
>>
>>
> Opt-out with a beta or experimental notice (as it is now when enabled on
> en.wiki) doesn't seem to have the problem of presenting it if it were
> mature software you present as the pivotal problem in this post.
Their deployment strategy (not labeling the software as beta on the user
interface, changing the function of the existing buttons, no warning
when the software was entered, deploying it to new editors that had no
chance of having seen notices about it) hinged on getting the unwary and
uninformed to press the "edit" button without realizing what they were
getting into. Saying that it is reasonable *now* doesn't excuse the five
weeks that preceded it.

KWW

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request [at] lists?subject=unsubscribe>

martijnhoekstra at gmail

Aug 6, 2013, 8:20 AM

Post #15 of 25 (97 views)
Permalink

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Visual Editor "temporary" opt-out [In reply to]

On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Kevin Wayne Williams <
kwwilliams [at] kwwilliams> wrote:

> Op 2013/08/06 7:55, Martijn Hoekstra schreef:
>
>> On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Kevin Wayne Williams <
>> kwwilliams [at] kwwilliams> wrote:
>>
>> Their argument for
>>> 'opt-out' is based solely upon the quality and quantity of testing that
>>> it
>>> affords to VE. VE is not a mission-critical feature: while we have
>>> concerns
>>> about Wikipedia's sustainability, there's no question that it has
>>> survived
>>> for years and will survive for years more. The stability of the site is
>>> much more important than testing this code, and the testing strategy of
>>> presenting it as if it was functioning software and seeing what people
>>> did
>>> with it wasn't a reasonable decision: it was completely and absolutely
>>> irresponsible.
>>>
>>>
>>> Opt-out with a beta or experimental notice (as it is now when enabled on
>> en.wiki) doesn't seem to have the problem of presenting it if it were
>> mature software you present as the pivotal problem in this post.
>>
> Their deployment strategy (not labeling the software as beta on the user
> interface, changing the function of the existing buttons, no warning when
> the software was entered, deploying it to new editors that had no chance of
> having seen notices about it) hinged on getting the unwary and uninformed
> to press the "edit" button without realizing what they were getting into.
> Saying that it is reasonable *now* doesn't excuse the five weeks that
> preceded it.
>
> KWW

No, and I'm very concerned about the deployment as it happened, as well as
its immediate aftermath. I believe those are incredibly important and hard
discussions we as a movement (and that includes you, WMF employees!) have
to have, lest things go this wrong in the future again. I find the
discussion on having opt-in or opt-out in the current situation where the
button is clearly marked as beta to be unimportant or even trivial in
comparison, and think that if we keep talking about the last implementation
disagreements, we are taking attention away from the issue that should be
discussed, which is how we can avoid a fiasco like this the next time.

--Martijn

>
> ______________________________**_________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l [at] lists**org <Wikimedia-l [at] lists>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@**lists.wikimedia.org<wikimedia-l-request [at] lists>
> ?subject=**unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request [at] lists?subject=unsubscribe>

peter.southwood at telkomsa

Aug 6, 2013, 9:07 AM

Post #16 of 25 (96 views)
Permalink

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Visual Editor "temporary" opt-out [In reply to]

Do you have data to back up your claims?
Peter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Wayne Williams" <kwwilliams [at] kwwilliams>
To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" <wikimedia-l [at] lists>
Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 4:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Visual Editor "temporary" opt-out

> Op 2013/08/05 23:44, MZMcBride schreef:
>> This leaves us to consider the biggest question: opt-in vs. opt-out. Erik
>> and James are both quite smart, they are true Wikimedians, and they make
>> reasonable points about choosing opt-out over opt-in.
> This is the point on which we fundamentally disagree. Their argument for
> 'opt-out' is based solely upon the quality and quantity of testing that it
> affords to VE. VE is not a mission-critical feature: while we have
> concerns about Wikipedia's sustainability, there's no question that it has
> survived for years and will survive for years more. The stability of the
> site is much more important than testing this code, and the testing
> strategy of presenting it as if it was functioning software and seeing
> what people did with it wasn't a reasonable decision: it was completely
> and absolutely irresponsible.
>
> KWW
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request [at] lists?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request [at] lists?subject=unsubscribe>

kwwilliams at kwwilliams

Aug 6, 2013, 9:14 AM

Post #17 of 25 (96 views)
Permalink

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Visual Editor "temporary" opt-out [In reply to]

Op 2013/08/06 9:07, Peter Southwood schreef:
> Do you have data to back up your claims?
> Peter
What do you need? Evidence that Wikipedia has survived for years?
Evidence that its decline is not so rapid as to indicate an emergency
situation? Quotes from Erik where he states that he disrupted English
Wikipedia in order to create a test bed? The first two are judgement
calls, for the third there's an embarrassment of riches. Let me know
what you need.

KWW

> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin Wayne Williams"
> <kwwilliams [at] kwwilliams>
> To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" <wikimedia-l [at] lists>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 4:51 PM
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Visual Editor "temporary" opt-out
>
>
>> Op 2013/08/05 23:44, MZMcBride schreef:
>>> This leaves us to consider the biggest question: opt-in vs. opt-out.
>>> Erik and James are both quite smart, they are true Wikimedians, and
>>> they make reasonable points about choosing opt-out over opt-in.
>> This is the point on which we fundamentally disagree. Their argument
>> for 'opt-out' is based solely upon the quality and quantity of
>> testing that it affords to VE. VE is not a mission-critical feature:
>> while we have concerns about Wikipedia's sustainability, there's no
>> question that it has survived for years and will survive for years
>> more. The stability of the site is much more important than testing
>> this code, and the testing strategy of presenting it as if it was
>> functioning software and seeing what people did with it wasn't a
>> reasonable decision: it was completely and absolutely irresponsible.
>>
>> KWW
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
>> Unsubscribe:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request [at] lists?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request [at] lists?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request [at] lists?subject=unsubscribe>

peter.southwood at telkomsa

Aug 6, 2013, 10:54 AM

Post #18 of 25 (93 views)
Permalink

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Visual Editor "temporary" opt-out [In reply to]

Evidence that most long term editors are frothing at the mouth would be a
good start, evidence that the rollout of VE has had a significant impact on
long term editor retention, either way, even evidence that WP is in rapid
decline that is in any way related to VE, positively or negatively,
Cheers,
Peter

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Wayne Williams" <kwwilliams [at] kwwilliams>
To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" <wikimedia-l [at] lists>
Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 6:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Visual Editor "temporary" opt-out

> Op 2013/08/06 9:07, Peter Southwood schreef:
>> Do you have data to back up your claims?
>> Peter
> What do you need? Evidence that Wikipedia has survived for years? Evidence
> that its decline is not so rapid as to indicate an emergency situation?
> Quotes from Erik where he states that he disrupted English Wikipedia in
> order to create a test bed? The first two are judgement calls, for the
> third there's an embarrassment of riches. Let me know what you need.
>
> KWW
>
>
>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin Wayne Williams"
>> <kwwilliams [at] kwwilliams>
>> To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" <wikimedia-l [at] lists>
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 4:51 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Visual Editor "temporary" opt-out
>>
>>
>>> Op 2013/08/05 23:44, MZMcBride schreef:
>>>> This leaves us to consider the biggest question: opt-in vs. opt-out.
>>>> Erik and James are both quite smart, they are true Wikimedians, and
>>>> they make reasonable points about choosing opt-out over opt-in.
>>> This is the point on which we fundamentally disagree. Their argument for
>>> 'opt-out' is based solely upon the quality and quantity of testing that
>>> it affords to VE. VE is not a mission-critical feature: while we have
>>> concerns about Wikipedia's sustainability, there's no question that it
>>> has survived for years and will survive for years more. The stability of
>>> the site is much more important than testing this code, and the testing
>>> strategy of presenting it as if it was functioning software and seeing
>>> what people did with it wasn't a reasonable decision: it was completely
>>> and absolutely irresponsible.
>>>
>>> KWW
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>>> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request [at] lists?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request [at] lists?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request [at] lists?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request [at] lists?subject=unsubscribe>

kwwilliams at kwwilliams

Aug 6, 2013, 12:02 PM

Post #19 of 25 (93 views)
Permalink

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Visual Editor "temporary" opt-out [In reply to]

I've made no claim about "most" long-term editors, but any perusal of
the two RFCs and the Feedback page would demonstrate that there's a
fairly large group.

Or are you arguing that deploying bug-ridden software that corrupts
articles, hangs browsers, crashes unexpectedly, and doesn't have
sufficient features to edit basic articles is somehow OK as long the
site survives the disruption? Even if it can be shown that development
knew that was the case prior to deployment, and chose to deploy it anyway?

KWW

Op 2013/08/06 10:54, Peter Southwood schreef:
> Evidence that most long term editors are frothing at the mouth would
> be a good start, evidence that the rollout of VE has had a significant
> impact on long term editor retention, either way, even evidence that
> WP is in rapid decline that is in any way related to VE, positively or
> negatively,
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin Wayne Williams"
> <kwwilliams [at] kwwilliams>
> To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" <wikimedia-l [at] lists>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 6:14 PM
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Visual Editor "temporary" opt-out
>
>
>> Op 2013/08/06 9:07, Peter Southwood schreef:
>>> Do you have data to back up your claims?
>>> Peter
>> What do you need? Evidence that Wikipedia has survived for years?
>> Evidence that its decline is not so rapid as to indicate an emergency
>> situation? Quotes from Erik where he states that he disrupted English
>> Wikipedia in order to create a test bed? The first two are judgement
>> calls, for the third there's an embarrassment of riches. Let me know
>> what you need.
>>
>> KWW
>>
>>
>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin Wayne Williams"
>>> <kwwilliams [at] kwwilliams>
>>> To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" <wikimedia-l [at] lists>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 4:51 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Visual Editor "temporary" opt-out
>>>
>>>
>>>> Op 2013/08/05 23:44, MZMcBride schreef:
>>>>> This leaves us to consider the biggest question: opt-in vs.
>>>>> opt-out. Erik and James are both quite smart, they are true
>>>>> Wikimedians, and they make reasonable points about choosing
>>>>> opt-out over opt-in.
>>>> This is the point on which we fundamentally disagree. Their
>>>> argument for 'opt-out' is based solely upon the quality and
>>>> quantity of testing that it affords to VE. VE is not a
>>>> mission-critical feature: while we have concerns about Wikipedia's
>>>> sustainability, there's no question that it has survived for years
>>>> and will survive for years more. The stability of the site is much
>>>> more important than testing this code, and the testing strategy of
>>>> presenting it as if it was functioning software and seeing what
>>>> people did with it wasn't a reasonable decision: it was completely
>>>> and absolutely irresponsible.
>>>>
>>>> KWW
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>>>> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
>>>> Unsubscribe:
>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request [at] lists?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>>> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
>>> Unsubscribe:
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request [at] lists?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
>> Unsubscribe:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request [at] lists?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request [at] lists?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request [at] lists?subject=unsubscribe>

peter.southwood at telkomsa

Aug 6, 2013, 1:05 PM

Post #20 of 25 (93 views)
Permalink

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Visual Editor "temporary" opt-out [In reply to]

To me it looks like a fairly small number of editors are making a fairly
large amount of noise, A very small number making a disproportionately large
amount, and a much larger number, probably the majority, have not even
bothered to comment at all. I also have not analysed the numbers, but to me
it looks like the numbers who have made one liner comments that they approve
is probably the same order of magnitude as the number who protest
incessantly. This is Wikipedia, there are always a small number who make a
lot of noise. After a while fewer people take them seriously. I start to get
the impression that there are now some people who have invested so much
effort into making a big deal of this that they now feel obliged to make an
even bigger deal so they can feel justified in doing so. Maybe I'm wrong,
maybe the numbers do indicate a wdespread and deep seated sense of
alienation. Maybe not. Time will probably tell, and hey, someone who is
prepared to approach the analysis scientifcally may get a dissertation out
of it. Stranger things have happened.. I also think the approach was flawed,
but I appreciate the reasons and I am prepared to assume good faith.
Cheers,
Peter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Wayne Williams" <kwwilliams [at] kwwilliams>
To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" <wikimedia-l [at] lists>
Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 9:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Visual Editor "temporary" opt-out

> I've made no claim about "most" long-term editors, but any perusal of the
> two RFCs and the Feedback page would demonstrate that there's a fairly
> large group.
>
> Or are you arguing that deploying bug-ridden software that corrupts
> articles, hangs browsers, crashes unexpectedly, and doesn't have
> sufficient features to edit basic articles is somehow OK as long the site
> survives the disruption? Even if it can be shown that development knew
> that was the case prior to deployment, and chose to deploy it anyway?
>
> KWW
>
> Op 2013/08/06 10:54, Peter Southwood schreef:
>> Evidence that most long term editors are frothing at the mouth would be a
>> good start, evidence that the rollout of VE has had a significant impact
>> on long term editor retention, either way, even evidence that WP is in
>> rapid decline that is in any way related to VE, positively or negatively,
>> Cheers,
>> Peter
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin Wayne Williams"
>> <kwwilliams [at] kwwilliams>
>> To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" <wikimedia-l [at] lists>
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 6:14 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Visual Editor "temporary" opt-out
>>
>>
>>> Op 2013/08/06 9:07, Peter Southwood schreef:
>>>> Do you have data to back up your claims?
>>>> Peter
>>> What do you need? Evidence that Wikipedia has survived for years?
>>> Evidence that its decline is not so rapid as to indicate an emergency
>>> situation? Quotes from Erik where he states that he disrupted English
>>> Wikipedia in order to create a test bed? The first two are judgement
>>> calls, for the third there's an embarrassment of riches. Let me know
>>> what you need.
>>>
>>> KWW
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin Wayne Williams"
>>>> <kwwilliams [at] kwwilliams>
>>>> To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" <wikimedia-l [at] lists>
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 4:51 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Visual Editor "temporary" opt-out
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Op 2013/08/05 23:44, MZMcBride schreef:
>>>>>> This leaves us to consider the biggest question: opt-in vs. opt-out.
>>>>>> Erik and James are both quite smart, they are true Wikimedians, and
>>>>>> they make reasonable points about choosing opt-out over opt-in.
>>>>> This is the point on which we fundamentally disagree. Their argument
>>>>> for 'opt-out' is based solely upon the quality and quantity of testing
>>>>> that it affords to VE. VE is not a mission-critical feature: while we
>>>>> have concerns about Wikipedia's sustainability, there's no question
>>>>> that it has survived for years and will survive for years more. The
>>>>> stability of the site is much more important than testing this code,
>>>>> and the testing strategy of presenting it as if it was functioning
>>>>> software and seeing what people did with it wasn't a reasonable
>>>>> decision: it was completely and absolutely irresponsible.
>>>>>
>>>>> KWW
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>>>>> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
>>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request [at] lists?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>>>> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request [at] lists?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>>> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request [at] lists?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request [at] lists?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request [at] lists?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request [at] lists?subject=unsubscribe>

kwwilliams at kwwilliams

Aug 6, 2013, 2:10 PM

Post #21 of 25 (93 views)
Permalink

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Visual Editor "temporary" opt-out [In reply to]

Op 2013/08/06 13:05, Peter Southwood schreef:
> This is Wikipedia, there are always a small number who make a lot of
> noise.

I think that's part of the problem: any change hits a nerve *somewhere*,
so even when it's a real problem, observers are likely to dismiss it as
being just more of the same.

KWW

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request [at] lists?subject=unsubscribe>

peter.southwood at telkomsa

Aug 6, 2013, 11:42 PM

Post #22 of 25 (92 views)
Permalink

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Visual Editor "temporary" opt-out [In reply to]

Yes, the signal tends to be lost in the noise.
Cheers,
Peter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Wayne Williams" <kwwilliams [at] kwwilliams>
To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" <wikimedia-l [at] lists>
Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 11:10 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Visual Editor "temporary" opt-out

> Op 2013/08/06 13:05, Peter Southwood schreef:
>> This is Wikipedia, there are always a small number who make a lot of
>> noise.
>
> I think that's part of the problem: any change hits a nerve *somewhere*,
> so even when it's a real problem, observers are likely to dismiss it as
> being just more of the same.
>
> KWW
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request [at] lists?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request [at] lists?subject=unsubscribe>

cunctator at gmail

Aug 7, 2013, 9:48 AM

Post #23 of 25 (85 views)
Permalink

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Visual Editor "temporary" opt-out [In reply to]

Yes, it should be made clear that opt out will always be an acceptable user
preference.
On Aug 6, 2013 7:26 AM, "Todd Allen" <toddmallen [at] gmail> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 8:35 PM, MZMcBride <z [at] mzmcbride> wrote:
>
> > Todd Allen wrote:
> > >[comments about VisualEditor]
> >
> > Hi Todd.
> >
> > Thank you for writing this e-mail. Unfortunately I don't have a
> > particularly unified reply to write here, but I can offer five thoughts.
> >
> > Regarding the specific issue you mention (the labeling of the user
> > preference), I think there should be at least a little recognition that
> > much more than half of the battle was getting this user preference
> > re-added, supported for future VisualEditor releases, and appropriately
> > positioned under the "Editing" user preferences tab rather than the
> > "Gadgets" user preferences tab. Now that we've made forward progress on
> > those fronts, re-labeling the user preference is a simple matter of
> > editing the page "MediaWiki:Visualeditor-preference-betatempdisable".
> >
> > Broadly, looking at your e-mail, I wonder what your thoughts are on the
> > extent to which one wiki, even the golden goose, can dictate Wikimedia
> > Foundation product engineering and development. While the English
> > Wikipedia is certainly a formidable force, do you think it should be
> > capable, through an on-wiki discussion, of setting or changing high-level
> > priorities and their implementation strategies? If so, why and how?
> >
> > I started
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Improvements> to
> > discuss actionable improvements that can be made right now related to
> > VisualEditor and its deployment. Please participate. :-)
> >
> > And I started <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/VisualEditor/Complaints>
> to
> > examine the pattern of complaints related to VisualEditor.
> >
> > Finally, and somewhat related to the complaints page, I've been thinking
> > lately about the British and the Irish and the nature of insurgencies. I
> > believe the VisualEditor team is now viewed by many on the English
> > Wikipedia (and other wikis) as an occupying force. Consequently, this has
> > created an insurgency composed of long-time editors. This isn't meant to
> > be hyperbolic: nobody is rioting in the streets or planning warfare
> (yet).
> > However, the anger felt by many in the editing community toward the
> > VisualEditor team is very real and very worrying, as is the seemingly
> > heavy-handed way in which VisualEditor has been deployed. Just a few
> weeks
> > ago, VisualEditor was receiving accolades for the way in which it had
> been
> > slowly and thoughtfully developed and deployed. However, seemingly
> > arbitrary deadlines and a few key bad decisions have greatly hurt it. The
> > wounds are deep, but it remains to be seen whether they will be fatal.
> >
> > MZMcBride
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request [at] lists?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
>
> MzMcBride,
>
> Thanks for the response, and the thoughtful questions. Since they're rather
> different, I'll answer them in turn.
>
> My concern on the user preference is not what we call it. Rather, it's on
> what we intend to do with it; namely, remove it after the VE beta is "done"
> (and for many of us, WMF's project managers have shown remarkably poor
> judgment in properly determining what's "done" or "ready"). Even if VE
> worked well, I'm the type of person who uses a bash command shell in
> preference to a GUI most of the time (and go nuts when I'm required to use
> Windows for work), and I'm just not interested in the visual editor. For me
> personally, it's nothing I'll ever use. By all means, offer the GUI to
> whoever will find it useful, but I want a way to make sure it's not sucking
> up resources every time I edit. But despite this, once they say it's
> "ready", we're getting it crammed down our throats, like it or not. Even
> the name of the page, "betatempdisable", indicates that once again, the
> ability to disable this thing will be taken out of where it belongs, and
> once again volunteers will have to use their time to develop and maintain a
> gadget because WMF just can't resist saying "We say it's READY, and you
> will have it there whether or not you ever plan to use it!"
>
> As to "dictat(ing)" to WMF, well, in the most technical sense, no one has
> any say at all. WMF pays the bills and the devs, so WMF can, whenever it
> wants, override what en.wikipedia or any other project tells it.
>
> So we know WMF -can- override en.wikipedia, or any other project. The
> question, then, is whether they should. This is a volunteer project, where
> comparable to the user base, a relatively small group of volunteer users
> does the bulk of the work on creating and maintaining the site's content.
> Anonymous and drive-by editors are allowed to help, they often do, and
> that's appreciated. We should do what we can to make it easier for them to,
> but not at the expense of our long-term volunteers. What happens now is
> that those dedicated volunteers are called "power users", treated
> dismissively and sometimes flat rudely, and told they don't really know
> anything about how to run the project many of them have volunteered
> thousands of hours and in many cases their own money to. When even one of
> those volunteers reacts by packing up and leaving in response to such
> treatment, the project suffers a tremendous loss.
>
> Also keep in mind we're not just talking about en.wikipedia here. The
> second-largest project, de.wikipedia, also overwhelmingly chose to reject
> VE in its current state. So this isn't "en.wikipedia vs. all others", it's
> "WMF vs. all others". When your existing user base is telling you in large
> numbers "There's a problem here", you take them seriously, you presume you
> really do have a problem, and you genuinely listen to how they want to go
> forward on fixing it. And right now, anonymous and new editors are
> overwhelmingly rejecting VE, too, even when it was deceptively labeled.
>
> So, nutshell on that one: en.wikipedia shouldn't always "dictate"
> priorities or strategies, but if en.wikipedia and several other projects
> are saying "You screwed up" or "We badly need this", you don't just dismiss
> it as "power users" asking and handwave them away. Those "power users" are
> the core of your project. Overruling a genuine consensus of existing users,
> especially cross-project, should be vanishingly rare, yet I can recall
> three times just in the past year. WMF can do that, but it doesn't mean
> they should.
>
> Let me ask you a question in turn, then. If WMF decides to do something, or
> not to do something, that heavily impacts en (or de, or any other
> reasonably sized project), and the community overwhelmingly, through an
> on-wiki discussion, tells WMF "No, we don't want to go that way, we'd
> rather do this", what should WMF's reaction to that be?
>
> Thanks for the pointers to those additional pages, I didn't know about
> them. I think it would be a good idea for us to create a central page with
> links to all the VE-related stuff (unless such exists and I don't know of
> that one either :) ), because they seem to be spreading all over the place.
> That also might help prevent duplication of purpose.
>
> As far as your last paragraph, I don't see rioting in the streets (even on
> the metaphorical level) yet, but these overrides do cause a great degree of
> ill will. I actually saw people after the refusal of ACTRIAL suggest we use
> the edit filter to go ahead and implement it over WMF's objection, and they
> meant it. They were talked down from it, but they were every bit ready to
> get desysopped. At least a couple of them left over it anyway, making the
> point rather moot in their cases, and I'm kind of surprised one of them
> didn't "flip the finger on the way out".
>
> That would've been an awfully ugly showdown, and I'm glad it didn't happen
> that way, but it should show how seriously most people feel that no one at
> WMF is listening to what existing users want. Everything is "New users, new
> users, new users!", but then data doesn't even materialize to show these
> things -are- attracting new users. Yet we keep hearing about "silent
> majorities" that only the WMF knows the will of, and that the existing
> community is too dumb to comprehend. Yet when we ask "How do YOU know?", we
> either get data that's been heavily extrapolated, or anecdotes, or just
> told "Oh hush, you'll see". Was this tested in prototype with a group of
> non-editors, AND a group of editors? Were alternatives provided? Where are
> these tests' methodologies and their results? If the answer is "nowhere",
> how on earth does WMF claim to speak for this "silent majority" any more
> than the community can, many of whom deal with new editors day in and day
> out?
>
> The reason editors see this as invasive is because, well, every time WMF
> gets involved, they're doing whatever they already intended to do anyway,
> and not listening to existing editors at all. It's not just because new
> software or features were introduced--many Wikipedians, including myself,
> work in software or technology, and are quite used to and comfortable with
> new version releases. It's because WMF just plows ahead, and doesn't really
> make any effort to consult the community before developing its roadmap, nor
> are they willing to change course upon strong objection. On a project based
> on the ideals of collaboration and consensus, the biggest decisions are
> being made in a very dictatorial style. If you're asking why that doesn't
> go over well, I really don't know what to tell you other than "Well, of
> course it doesn't".
>
> Todd Allen
>
> --
> Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request [at] lists?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request [at] lists?subject=unsubscribe>

cunctator at gmail

Aug 7, 2013, 9:54 AM

Post #24 of 25 (85 views)
Permalink

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Visual Editor "temporary" opt-out [In reply to]

This perspective is not a productive one for building and maintaining a
community. You need to have a better way of granting legitimacy to people's
concerns while being able to discern histrionics.

Generally the optimal easy is to have there be a pathway by which the
complainants have to fix the problem to the satisfaction of their strongest
opposition.
On Aug 6, 2013 1:04 PM, "Peter Southwood" <peter.southwood [at] telkomsa>
wrote:

> To me it looks like a fairly small number of editors are making a fairly
> large amount of noise, A very small number making a disproportionately
> large amount, and a much larger number, probably the majority, have not
> even bothered to comment at all. I also have not analysed the numbers, but
> to me it looks like the numbers who have made one liner comments that they
> approve is probably the same order of magnitude as the number who protest
> incessantly. This is Wikipedia, there are always a small number who make a
> lot of noise. After a while fewer people take them seriously. I start to
> get the impression that there are now some people who have invested so much
> effort into making a big deal of this that they now feel obliged to make an
> even bigger deal so they can feel justified in doing so. Maybe I'm wrong,
> maybe the numbers do indicate a wdespread and deep seated sense of
> alienation. Maybe not. Time will probably tell, and hey, someone who is
> prepared to approach the analysis scientifcally may get a dissertation out
> of it. Stranger things have happened.. I also think the approach was
> flawed, but I appreciate the reasons and I am prepared to assume good faith.
> Cheers,
> Peter
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin Wayne Williams" <
> kwwilliams [at] kwwilliams>
> To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" <wikimedia-l [at] lists**org<wikimedia-l [at] lists>
> >
> Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 9:02 PM
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Visual Editor "temporary" opt-out
>
>
> I've made no claim about "most" long-term editors, but any perusal of the
>> two RFCs and the Feedback page would demonstrate that there's a fairly
>> large group.
>>
>> Or are you arguing that deploying bug-ridden software that corrupts
>> articles, hangs browsers, crashes unexpectedly, and doesn't have sufficient
>> features to edit basic articles is somehow OK as long the site survives the
>> disruption? Even if it can be shown that development knew that was the case
>> prior to deployment, and chose to deploy it anyway?
>>
>> KWW
>>
>> Op 2013/08/06 10:54, Peter Southwood schreef:
>>
>>> Evidence that most long term editors are frothing at the mouth would be
>>> a good start, evidence that the rollout of VE has had a significant impact
>>> on long term editor retention, either way, even evidence that WP is in
>>> rapid decline that is in any way related to VE, positively or negatively,
>>> Cheers,
>>> Peter
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin Wayne Williams" <
>>> kwwilliams [at] kwwilliams>
>>> To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" <wikimedia-l [at] lists**org<wikimedia-l [at] lists>
>>> >
>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 6:14 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Visual Editor "temporary" opt-out
>>>
>>>
>>> Op 2013/08/06 9:07, Peter Southwood schreef:
>>>>
>>>>> Do you have data to back up your claims?
>>>>> Peter
>>>>>
>>>> What do you need? Evidence that Wikipedia has survived for years?
>>>> Evidence that its decline is not so rapid as to indicate an emergency
>>>> situation? Quotes from Erik where he states that he disrupted English
>>>> Wikipedia in order to create a test bed? The first two are judgement calls,
>>>> for the third there's an embarrassment of riches. Let me know what you need.
>>>>
>>>> KWW
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin Wayne Williams" <
>>>>> kwwilliams [at] kwwilliams>
>>>>> To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" <wikimedia-l [at] lists**org<wikimedia-l [at] lists>
>>>>> >
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 4:51 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Visual Editor "temporary" opt-out
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Op 2013/08/05 23:44, MZMcBride schreef:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This leaves us to consider the biggest question: opt-in vs. opt-out.
>>>>>>> Erik and James are both quite smart, they are true Wikimedians, and they
>>>>>>> make reasonable points about choosing opt-out over opt-in.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is the point on which we fundamentally disagree. Their argument
>>>>>> for 'opt-out' is based solely upon the quality and quantity of testing that
>>>>>> it affords to VE. VE is not a mission-critical feature: while we have
>>>>>> concerns about Wikipedia's sustainability, there's no question that it has
>>>>>> survived for years and will survive for years more. The stability of the
>>>>>> site is much more important than testing this code, and the testing
>>>>>> strategy of presenting it as if it was functioning software and seeing what
>>>>>> people did with it wasn't a reasonable decision: it was completely and
>>>>>> absolutely irresponsible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> KWW
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>>>>>> Wikimedia-l [at] lists**org <Wikimedia-l [at] lists>
>>>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**
>>>>>> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>,
>>>>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@**lists.wikimedia.org<wikimedia-l-request [at] lists>
>>>>>> ?subject=**unsubscribe>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>>>>> Wikimedia-l [at] lists**org <Wikimedia-l [at] lists>
>>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**
>>>>> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>,
>>>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@**lists.wikimedia.org<wikimedia-l-request [at] lists>
>>>>> ?subject=**unsubscribe>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>>>> Wikimedia-l [at] lists**org <Wikimedia-l [at] lists>
>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>,
>>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@**lists.wikimedia.org<wikimedia-l-request [at] lists>
>>>> ?subject=**unsubscribe>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>>> Wikimedia-l [at] lists**org <Wikimedia-l [at] lists>
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>,
>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@**lists.wikimedia.org<wikimedia-l-request [at] lists>
>>> ?subject=**unsubscribe>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> Wikimedia-l [at] lists**org <Wikimedia-l [at] lists>
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@**lists.wikimedia.org<wikimedia-l-request [at] lists>
>> ?subject=**unsubscribe>
>>
>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l [at] lists**org <Wikimedia-l [at] lists>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@**lists.wikimedia.org<wikimedia-l-request [at] lists>
> ?subject=**unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request [at] lists?subject=unsubscribe>

peter.southwood at telkomsa

Aug 7, 2013, 10:31 AM

Post #25 of 25 (85 views)
Permalink

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Visual Editor "temporary" opt-out [In reply to]

Histrionics is generally not a productive policy either.
It gets tedious after a while.
Cheers
Peter

----- Original Message -----
From: "The Cunctator" <cunctator [at] gmail>
To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" <wikimedia-l [at] lists>
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 6:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Visual Editor "temporary" opt-out

> This perspective is not a productive one for building and maintaining a
> community. You need to have a better way of granting legitimacy to
> people's
> concerns while being able to discern histrionics.
>
> Generally the optimal easy is to have there be a pathway by which the
> complainants have to fix the problem to the satisfaction of their
> strongest
> opposition.
> On Aug 6, 2013 1:04 PM, "Peter Southwood" <peter.southwood [at] telkomsa>
> wrote:
>
>> To me it looks like a fairly small number of editors are making a fairly
>> large amount of noise, A very small number making a disproportionately
>> large amount, and a much larger number, probably the majority, have not
>> even bothered to comment at all. I also have not analysed the numbers,
>> but
>> to me it looks like the numbers who have made one liner comments that
>> they
>> approve is probably the same order of magnitude as the number who protest
>> incessantly. This is Wikipedia, there are always a small number who make
>> a
>> lot of noise. After a while fewer people take them seriously. I start to
>> get the impression that there are now some people who have invested so
>> much
>> effort into making a big deal of this that they now feel obliged to make
>> an
>> even bigger deal so they can feel justified in doing so. Maybe I'm
>> wrong,
>> maybe the numbers do indicate a wdespread and deep seated sense of
>> alienation. Maybe not. Time will probably tell, and hey, someone who is
>> prepared to approach the analysis scientifcally may get a dissertation
>> out
>> of it. Stranger things have happened.. I also think the approach was
>> flawed, but I appreciate the reasons and I am prepared to assume good
>> faith.
>> Cheers,
>> Peter
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin Wayne Williams" <
>> kwwilliams [at] kwwilliams>
>> To: "Wikimedia Mailing List"
>> <wikimedia-l [at] lists**org<wikimedia-l [at] lists>
>> >
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 9:02 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Visual Editor "temporary" opt-out
>>
>>
>> I've made no claim about "most" long-term editors, but any perusal of
>> the
>>> two RFCs and the Feedback page would demonstrate that there's a fairly
>>> large group.
>>>
>>> Or are you arguing that deploying bug-ridden software that corrupts
>>> articles, hangs browsers, crashes unexpectedly, and doesn't have
>>> sufficient
>>> features to edit basic articles is somehow OK as long the site survives
>>> the
>>> disruption? Even if it can be shown that development knew that was the
>>> case
>>> prior to deployment, and chose to deploy it anyway?
>>>
>>> KWW
>>>
>>> Op 2013/08/06 10:54, Peter Southwood schreef:
>>>
>>>> Evidence that most long term editors are frothing at the mouth would be
>>>> a good start, evidence that the rollout of VE has had a significant
>>>> impact
>>>> on long term editor retention, either way, even evidence that WP is in
>>>> rapid decline that is in any way related to VE, positively or
>>>> negatively,
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Peter
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin Wayne Williams" <
>>>> kwwilliams [at] kwwilliams>
>>>> To: "Wikimedia Mailing List"
>>>> <wikimedia-l [at] lists**org<wikimedia-l [at] lists>
>>>> >
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 6:14 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Visual Editor "temporary" opt-out
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Op 2013/08/06 9:07, Peter Southwood schreef:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you have data to back up your claims?
>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>
>>>>> What do you need? Evidence that Wikipedia has survived for years?
>>>>> Evidence that its decline is not so rapid as to indicate an emergency
>>>>> situation? Quotes from Erik where he states that he disrupted English
>>>>> Wikipedia in order to create a test bed? The first two are judgement
>>>>> calls,
>>>>> for the third there's an embarrassment of riches. Let me know what you
>>>>> need.
>>>>>
>>>>> KWW
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin Wayne Williams" <
>>>>>> kwwilliams [at] kwwilliams>
>>>>>> To: "Wikimedia Mailing List"
>>>>>> <wikimedia-l [at] lists**org<wikimedia-l [at] lists>
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 4:51 PM
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Visual Editor "temporary" opt-out
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Op 2013/08/05 23:44, MZMcBride schreef:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This leaves us to consider the biggest question: opt-in vs.
>>>>>>>> opt-out.
>>>>>>>> Erik and James are both quite smart, they are true Wikimedians, and
>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>> make reasonable points about choosing opt-out over opt-in.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is the point on which we fundamentally disagree. Their argument
>>>>>>> for 'opt-out' is based solely upon the quality and quantity of
>>>>>>> testing that
>>>>>>> it affords to VE. VE is not a mission-critical feature: while we
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>> concerns about Wikipedia's sustainability, there's no question that
>>>>>>> it has
>>>>>>> survived for years and will survive for years more. The stability of
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> site is much more important than testing this code, and the testing
>>>>>>> strategy of presenting it as if it was functioning software and
>>>>>>> seeing what
>>>>>>> people did with it wasn't a reasonable decision: it was completely
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> absolutely irresponsible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> KWW
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>>>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>>>>>>> Wikimedia-l [at] lists**org <Wikimedia-l [at] lists>
>>>>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**
>>>>>>> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>,
>>>>>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@**lists.wikimedia.org<wikimedia-l-request [at] lists>
>>>>>>> ?subject=**unsubscribe>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>>>>>> Wikimedia-l [at] lists**org <Wikimedia-l [at] lists>
>>>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**
>>>>>> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>,
>>>>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@**lists.wikimedia.org<wikimedia-l-request [at] lists>
>>>>>> ?subject=**unsubscribe>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>>>>> Wikimedia-l [at] lists**org <Wikimedia-l [at] lists>
>>>>> Unsubscribe:
>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>,
>>>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@**lists.wikimedia.org<wikimedia-l-request [at] lists>
>>>>> ?subject=**unsubscribe>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>>>> Wikimedia-l [at] lists**org <Wikimedia-l [at] lists>
>>>> Unsubscribe:
>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>,
>>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@**lists.wikimedia.org<wikimedia-l-request [at] lists>
>>>> ?subject=**unsubscribe>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>>> Wikimedia-l [at] lists**org <Wikimedia-l [at] lists>
>>> Unsubscribe:
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>,
>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@**lists.wikimedia.org<wikimedia-l-request [at] lists>
>>> ?subject=**unsubscribe>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> Wikimedia-l [at] lists**org <Wikimedia-l [at] lists>
>> Unsubscribe:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@**lists.wikimedia.org<wikimedia-l-request [at] lists>
>> ?subject=**unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request [at] lists?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request [at] lists?subject=unsubscribe>

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads