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

[Peter Southwood]

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.com>
To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" <wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
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.com>
>> To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" <wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
>> 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.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>