On 02/11/2012 11:15 PM, David Gerard wrote:
On 10 February 2012 11:26, Yury
Tarasievich<yury.tarasievich(a)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