I am forwarding below a response from Oliver Keyes,
who isn't on this list.
Hey guys
Sumana asked me to chip in; most of the arguments that can be made have
already been typed up by people like Trevor, but I thought I'd go into a
bit more detail and provide some links for those of you who want to do
slightly deeper reading.
I'm not commenting on the pros or cons of redoing the underlying
wikimarkup; that's a technical issue, and I'm not a technical person.
What I *am* is a community engagement person - and Pavel's line that
intelligent people can parse markup languages is pretty well within my
bailiwick .
The problem with this line is that it has the potential to turn into a
"true scotsman" argument. Pavel, you're clearly both an intelligent and
a technical man - but not all intelligence is of the same,
technically-minded type, and it's not always backed up by pertinent and
complex knowledge. I'm sure that you, were you a new editor, would be
able to quickly parse our syntax inside your head. However, you're
someone who is technically proficient and knows a lot of the background
to markup languages, and most people - indeed, most *intelligent* people
- simply aren't.
It wasn't always the case. Early and mid-term adopters of the internet
(I count myself as the latter, having first got online circa 1999) were
technically proficient, could probably code, and would certainly be able
to deal with not only our markup languages but markup languages generally.
This isn't necessarily because they were more intelligent than anyone
else, though; this is because the structure of the internet at that time
penalised anyone who *wasn't* technical; websites and communications
methods expected a degree of technical proficiency.
Today that isn't the case. Site after site after site have realised that
instituting technical barriers to participation artificially limits your
audience and volunteers, and have introduced WYSIWYG editors in some
way, shape or form. The result is that the generation of intelligent
people we're dealing with now is not the generation of early and
mid-level adopters we all know, love and are members of; it's the
Facebook generation: people who have come to expect that the barriers to
participating will be low, easy to comprehend, and simple to bypass. And
because they've come to expect this, and the internet has indulged this,
they don't necessarily have the technical knowledge or background to
parse markup languages in the same way that members of this list might.
Of course, it's a mistake to think that just because someone is young
they won't be technical - we have a lot of great, technically minded
volunteers. Similarly, it's a mistake to think that just because someone
is older they will be. For some cases-in-point, I recommend the
usability studies the Foundation ran a couple of years ago - there are
some great examples at
http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/Usability,_Experience,_and_Evaluation_S…
http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/Usability_and_Experience_Study#Wiki_Syn…
The simple fact of the matter is this: editing is complex and technical
and we are not, as experienced people, necessarily qualified to say what
the general population can or cannot do, because *we are not the general
population*. The people qualified to tell us what gen pop feels
comfortable doing and what gen pop expects of websites are, well, gen
pop. And they've spoken, through the usability initiative and just about
every conversation I've had with a reader, and, I'm sure, a heck-load of
conversations other contractors and staffers have had too. The
complexity of our existing markup language is a barrier, but not as much
as the presence of any markup language whatsoever as a default.
I appreciate this is a bit TL:DR, and as I'm not really subscribed to
this list I'm unlikely to see responses unless Sumana is kind enough to
act as my gopher . If you want to chat more about the philosophical
and cultural underpinnings of usability rather than the technical, I'm
always up for a natter; okeyes(a)wikimedia.org
Oliver Keyes: I do not believe anyone is disputing your general
arguments, above.
The concern I see being expressed, fundamentally, is "I have developed
skills, practices, and efficiencies with current Wiki syntax. Is your
new parser going to destroy my investments in learning? am I going to
have to start over with this new system?"
As I understand it, for the foreseeable future there will be a raw wiki
syntax interface available. I hope contributors can be reassured on this
point.
Amgine