On 02/11/2012 11:15 PM, David Gerard wrote:
On 10 February 2012 11:26, Yury Tarasievichyury.tarasievich@gmail.com wrote:
So, you are going to "break things" for the distant and rather doubtful gain. But do you indeed want "broad and diverse population of editors", so the social problems will, in fact, flare?
Yes, because the editor numbers are dropping horribly.
You're again positing a horrible technical editing environment as a social filter to keep out people you don't like. This is, as I noted, contemptible.
Civil as always. Still, you might want to take that back, as I'm not positing any such thing.
"Many times now" I pointed out that: 1) the visual solution, or lack of it, is not relevant for the problem of dropping numbers, and 2) the solution will affect numbers only *in*directly, if at all, while militant dilettantism, meta-wikyism and wiki-cliques, to say nothing of the "anybody can edit" taken to extremes, will, and directly, at that.
I don't think anybody can map out any significant number of would-be- or already-editors who quit "just because there were no visual tool". While concerns about matters I mentioned seem to be voiced quite regularly last years. I myself pulled out from English WP years ago, as the ratio of return to effort dropped to unreasonable numbers.
Back to topic, if smart people in visual editor team can put in a visual editor without breaking things, I'm all for it. I won't use it, like I don't use visual in MoinMoin, but it's no concern for me. However, realistically, things WILL break, and with small return or none, as sketched above, at that.
And not, for starters, some kind of organisational "mechanism" targeting the content quality?
Experience suggests that in general, more eyes makes higher quality.
You are misusing the quoted proposition.
In its classical context, in an environment with a clearly defined meterstick for objective and expertise, yes. And even so, "in general" -- right now, Uwe Ohse's rant comes to mind.
Yury