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
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
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.