Charles Matthews wrote:
I'm not yet convinced that the absence of WYSIWYG is a barrier to WP doing anything specific, and I don't believe that the usability studies I have seen prove that it is. But then I tend to believe that the issue with expository problems lies in the underestimation of expository writing.
The question is whether WYSIWYG would make editing Wikipedia articles easier for most users. I think the answer to that question is fairly self-evident.
Twenty years ago there were similar debates about WYSIWYG with regard to word processors, just as there were debates about whether command- line DOS was better or worse than the GUI that Apple introduced with Macintosh computers. Some people back then argued that word processors like WordPerfect were better than WYSIWYG because you could go into edit mode and "see" the markup codes -- [b] for bold, [i] for italic, etc. Similarly, people argued that command-line DOS was better than dragging-and-clicking windows in a GUI because you could "see" the commands and their parameters. In the end, WYSIWYG and the GUI won. Most people don't WANT to see [b] for bold. They just want to be able to make the text bold. As a result, some once-dominant word processors died off, and Microsoft was forced to adapt by replacing DOS with Windows.
Wikipedia has enough earned reputation that path dependency will keep it on top of the heap for the foreseeable future, even without WYSIWYG editing, but sooner or later someone will develop a better alternative -- either within Wikipedia, or outside it.
-------------------------------------------
SHELDON RAMPTON Research director, Center for Media & Democracy Center for Media & Democracy 520 University Avenue, Suite 227 Madison, WI 53703 phone: 608-260-9713
Subscribe to our free Weekly Spin email: http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html
Subscribe to our Weekly Radio Spin podcasts: http://www.prwatch.org/audio/feed
Read and add to articles on people, issues and groups shaping the public agenda: http://www.sourcewatch.org
Support independent, public interest reporting: http://www.prwatch.org/donate
Sheldon Rampton wrote:
Twenty years ago there were similar debates about WYSIWYG with regard to word processors, just as there were debates about whether command- line DOS was better or worse than the GUI that Apple introduced with Macintosh computers.
Interesting to think what one couldn't prove with some argument from the history of technology. Automatic transmission didn't replace the gear lever. As far as I can see (which may be household dependent) remote controls proliferate and get harder to use (sometimes there seem to be five to choose from), and the same might be true of phones. I think arguments from the period when the PC was moving onto every desk in the workplace are a little special. I imagine MediaWiki will get WYSIWYG simply because the project sounds like a good idea and will get funded.
Charles