On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 12:38, Demian <aronmanning5(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I'm assuming this points to the namespace of the
edits, although it's not
clear. It's unfortunate that Visual Editor can only be used in mainspace, I
wish that wasn't the case, but to be exact, I was looking to understand why
only 2.8% (47 out of 1668
<https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/meta.wikimedia.org/Seddon_(WMF)#year-counts>)
of your mainspace edits since 2016 are made with Visual Editor. To answer
Dan: I was unaware of the personal account with 189
<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Seddon&offset=&limit=600&target=Seddon>
/399 <https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Seddon#year-counts>
mainspace visual edits since 2016, which makes the grand total 11.41% (236
out of 2067) of mainspace edits.
At this point, I think looking at the editing environment Seddon used
across his staff and personal edit history has dubious value to furthering
this discussion about fundraising.
While Visual Editor has its benefits and I also use it
on meta with
similar success rate, for me the dream would be an editor that I can use at
least 80% of the time, and the ultimate would be 100% like the service
provided by Dropbox Paper, Google Docs, Coda and Nuclino for example.
I think we'd all love that. I certainly would. Making that happen would
probably be a large organisational pivot; I can't find any statistics about
how big the team is that made, say, Google Docs, but I suspect it's larger
than the entire Wikimedia Foundation. This topic would probably have been
better discussed in the movement strategy conversations, as a thread on a
mailing list won't make it happen.
Therefore my concern is if Visual Editor met your
expectations well, what
was the reason not to use it for 1800+ edits, which includes most major
edits on meta?
I'm sure the Editing team would appreciate your help with conducting
systematic user research. Have you reached out to them?
Dan