Where does the idea that user interface changes to the system which has already produced the most monumental reference work in the history of humanity are going to help with its only actual problem, that people aren't sufficiently inclined to stick around and maintain it?
If there was any evidence that VE or Media Viewer or Flow will make the projects more attractive to volunteers, I'm sure we would have heard it by now. But there isn't. Nor is there any evidence that any of the several Editor Engagement projects have made a dent in volunteer attrition rates, despite their success in encouraging tiny subsets of very new editors to contribute a few minutes more work.
The present set of dramatic distractions from attention to the vanishing volunteer corps only highlights that Foundation leadership has no ability to focus on the only strategic goal they haven't achieved: retaining volunteers. Because it is so much easier to pretend that readers need WYSIWYG or a lightbox or can't figure out how to indent replies; since readership numbers aren't an actual problem (when mobile users are added to desktop pageviews) this guarantees the false appearance of success in the eyes of everyone who doesn't see through the transparent cop-out. Where is the evidence that the status quo user interface from 2005 would not have done just as well in every measurable aspect of movement success?
Steven Walling wrote:
... We practically can't and don't take on initiatives that directly try to provide more free time or money to editors....
That is absolutely false. Individual Engagement Grants have recently been proven to be substantially more cost-effective in achieving the Foundation's stated goals than any other form of grant spending, on a per-dollar basis. Is there any evidence that any Foundation engineering effort of the past five years has done as well? I haven't seen any.
When the Foundation spends on copyright advocacy, those initiatives directly try to provide more economic empowerment to the small fraction of contributors who stand to benefit from whatever additional government documents or panorama images they hope to free up. But volunteers who want to update information on the side effects of commonly prescribed drugs get nothing.
When the Foundation spends on attempts to oppose the Trans Pacific Partnership, those initiatives directly try to provide more free time and money to the small subset of editors threatened by lengthening of copyright terms. But editors who want to help translate introductory material foundational to engineering skills literacy get nothing.
Who at the Foundation bears the responsibility for deciding which of initiatives that might benefit the real needs of vanishing volunteers are funded, and why aren't they held accountable for their record since 2007?