[Wikimedia-l] Visual Editor "temporary" opt-out

[Andrew Gray]

I very rarely want to follow up a post to say "yes, this", but I think Max
has hit the nail on the head here.

One other issue around 'heavy-handed' is that this is in part perception. I
didn't feel the deployment heavy-handed, but then it did not cause me more
than minor technical annoyance, I had tried to keep abreast of the
discussions and schedules leading up to the day, and I didn't object to it.
I know this is not a universally held feeling, of course!

A.



On Tuesday, August 6, 2013, MZMcBride wrote:

> Kevin Wayne Williams wrote:
> >Op 2013/08/05 19:35, MZMcBride schreef:
> >> Finally, and somewhat related to the complaints page, I've been
> >> thinking lately about the British and the Irish and the nature of
> >> insurgencies. I believe the VisualEditor team is now viewed by many on
> >> the English Wikipedia (and other wikis) as an occupying force.
> >> Consequently, this has created an insurgency composed of long-time
> >> editors. This isn't meant to be hyperbolic: nobody is rioting in the
> >> streets or planning warfare (yet). However, the anger felt by many in
> >> the editing community toward the VisualEditor team is very real and
> >> very worrying, as is the seemingly heavy-handed way in which
> >> VisualEditor has been deployed. Just a few weeks ago, VisualEditor was
> >> receiving accolades for the way in which it had been slowly and
> >> thoughtfully developed and deployed. However, seemingly arbitrary
> >> deadlines and a few key bad decisions have greatly hurt it. The wounds
> >> are deep, but it remains to be seen whether they will be fatal.
> >
> >I notice you used the phrase "seemingly heavy-handed" above. Do you
> >truly believe that this was not *actually* heavy-handed?
>
> Using "seemingly" twice so close together was certainly sloppy writing.
> :-)  I'll try to explain where I am currently.
>
> As with many things in life, I think whether the deployment of
> VisualEditor was heavy-handed depends on your perspective; mine is still
> forming. At <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/VisualEditor/Complaints>, a
> few key issues/developments are discussed.
>
> There was a decision to deploy without an opt-out user preference,
> followed by a reversal of this decision and a re-instatement of the user
> preference.
>
> There was a decision to deploy with that awful section-edit animation,
> followed by its removal.
>
> At no point was the wikitext editor ever made unavailable to editors. And
> rhetoric and hyperbole aside, nobody was ever forced to use VisualEditor.
>
> The fact that the software is experimental ("beta") is now much more
> prominent throughout the user interface, the user interface now
> consistently uses "edit source," and the order of the tabs has been
> changed to make wikitext editing more prominent.
>
> With the points above, it's a mixed bag as to whether the deployment of
> VisualEditor was heavy-handed.
>
> This leaves us to consider the biggest question: opt-in vs. opt-out. Erik
> and James are both quite smart, they are true Wikimedians, and they make
> reasonable points about choosing opt-out over opt-in. However, a very
> large number of my colleagues and your colleagues have strongly disagreed
> with this decision, which leaves doubt in any reasonable person's mind.
>
> That said, this doubt is tempered by the _enormous_ selection bias we see
> in the on-wiki discussion. Namely that (a) the discussion has only been
> advertised to logged-in users, and (b) that nearly everyone participating
> in the on-wiki discussion is someone who has figured out wikitext. That
> is, the people who would most benefit from a visual editor right now are
> the silent majority who are unaware of, and in many cases incapable of,
> participating in the discussion about whether VisualEditor should be
> opt-in or opt-out. And in the on-wiki discussions, we've seen a lot of
> comments that are quite simply out-of-touch with the level to which people
> are capable of interacting with Wikipedia via wikitext editing alone.
>
> I used "seemingly" to indicate nuance. Any editor could easily look at the
> deployment fiasco and claim that it was heavy-handed and be right. But I
> think there's also a legitimate case to be made that, whether or not we
> agree with the decision, it was considered and backed by reasonable views.
>
> As I said on my talk page, I believe that we need a visual editor and an
> active group of people are trying to develop one (however haphazardly).
> Rather than simply attack and banish them, I think we should instead focus
> on ways to make it better or make it easier to get it out of the way of
> those who don't want to use it or can't use it.
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>



-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk