Tim Starling <tstarling <at> wikimedia.org> writes:
Years ago, we talked dismissively about WYSIWYG. We discussed the features that a WYSIWYG editor would have to have, pointing out how difficult they would be to implement and how we didn't have the manpower to pull off such a thing. Now that Wikia has gone ahead and implemented those exact features, what is the problem?
In addition to the whole "unecessary changes" issue, I always thought part of it was that, due to parser quirks that Wikipedia editors have long relied upon, the editor handles a non-negligible number of pages incorrectly.
(This was less of an issue for Wikia, with the much newer nature of most of their wikis.)
The conclusion, then, would be that "no WYSIWYG" is better than "WYSIWYG (normally)". Not sure where I got this idea from; correct me if I'm wrong.
-- Harry (User:Jarry1250)