Thanks Ed. The point I am trying to make is that the community can't make
a good decision on this unless they understand the VisualEditor product as
it exists today. I think pretty much everyone agrees it wasn't ready for
default editing on 1 July 2013, but absent recent data most people would
naturally base their opinions on their personal experiences from that very
early period.
Risker/Anne
On 3 June 2014 12:15, Edward Saperia <ed(a)wikimanialondon.org> wrote:
Sounds like your suggestion would be a perfect
contribution to some kind of
community discussion to try and decide a framework to decide if or when we
might want to re-deploy visual editor, much like Pine was suggesting in the
first place :-)
*Edward Saperia*
Chief Coordinator Wikimania London <http://www.wikimanialondon.org>
On 3 June 2014 16:37, Risker <risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 3 June 2014 09:05, Risker
<risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 3 June 2014 03:02, ENWP Pine
<deyntestiss(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Because VE has repeatedly been mentioned in this list as something
that
> is
improving and may help us with acquisition of editors and their
> knowledge, I have started to draft an RfC about re-enabling VE on
English
>> Wikipedia.
>>
>> I am not proposing any specific outcome in the RfC. My goal is to set
up
> a
framework which the community can use to decide which of several
paths we
> would like to take.
Okay, further to what I've said above....I think that before having an
RFC,
we should seek community assistance to carry out
a small-scale study so
that there is some evidence on which people can base their decisions.
This
is what I would suggest.
- Create a "sample article" that includes an infobox, an image or two,
some references, a template or two, and at least three editable
sections.
Editors will be asked to copy/paste this page into a personal sandbox
to
carry out the experiment, so that their
individual results can be
observed
through the page history, and problems can be more easily identified.
- Identify about 15-20 *basic* editing tasks that an inexperienced
editor would be likely to try. Some that come to mind:
- Remove a word
- Add a word
- change spelling of a word
- add a link to another article
- remove a link to another article
- move a sentence within a section
- move a sentence across sections
- add a [new] reference (multiple tests for website, newspaper,
book
references)
- edit an existing reference
- re-use an existing reference
- edit existing information in the infobox
- add a reference to the infobox
- add a new parameter to the infobox
- add an image
- remove an image
- add an image description
- modify an image description
- add a commonly used template (such as {{fact}})
- remove a template
- add several symbols and accented characters that are not
available
on their standard keyboard (e.g., Euro and
GBP symbols for US
keyboards,
accented characters commonly used in German or French)
- Ask the "testers" to complete a chart outlining their results for
each
of the editing tasks being tested, and any
comments they have about
each of
these editing features.
If we can persuade even 25 people to work through these basic tasks, and
the results are aggregated well, the community will have some useful data
on which to base next-steps decisions. It will also provide the
VisualEditor team with comparatively unbiased information about their
progress. The key emphasis in the experiment is that it should focus on
straightforward, elementary editing activities rather than complex tasks,
and the purpose is to see whether or not these features work in an
expected
way or not.
Thoughts?
Risker/Anne
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>