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