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

[Kevin Wayne Williams]

I've made no claim about "most" long-term editors, but any perusal of 
the two RFCs and the Feedback page would demonstrate that there's a 
fairly large group.

Or are you arguing that deploying bug-ridden software that corrupts 
articles, hangs browsers, crashes unexpectedly, and doesn't have 
sufficient features to edit basic articles is somehow OK as long the 
site survives the disruption? Even if it can be shown that development 
knew that was the case prior to deployment, and chose to deploy it anyway?

KWW

Op 2013/08/06 10:54, Peter Southwood schreef:
> Evidence that most long term editors are frothing at the mouth would 
> be a good start, evidence that the rollout of VE has had a significant 
> impact on long term editor retention, either way, even evidence that 
> WP is in rapid decline that is in any way related to VE, positively or 
> negatively,
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin Wayne Williams" 
> <kwwilliams op kwwilliams.com>
> To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" <wikimedia-l op lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 6:14 PM
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Visual Editor "temporary" opt-out
>
>
>> Op 2013/08/06 9:07, Peter Southwood schreef:
>>> Do you have data to back up your claims?
>>> Peter
>> What do you need? Evidence that Wikipedia has survived for years? 
>> Evidence that its decline is not so rapid as to indicate an emergency 
>> situation? Quotes from Erik where he states that he disrupted English 
>> Wikipedia in order to create a test bed? The first two are judgement 
>> calls, for the third there's an embarrassment of riches. Let me know 
>> what you need.
>>
>> KWW
>>
>>
>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin Wayne Williams" 
>>> <kwwilliams op kwwilliams.com>
>>> To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" <wikimedia-l op lists.wikimedia.org>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 4:51 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Visual Editor "temporary" opt-out
>>>
>>>
>>>> Op 2013/08/05 23:44, MZMcBride schreef:
>>>>> 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.
>>>> This is the point on which we fundamentally disagree. Their 
>>>> argument for 'opt-out' is based solely upon the quality and 
>>>> quantity of testing that it affords to VE. VE is not a 
>>>> mission-critical feature: while we have concerns about Wikipedia's 
>>>> sustainability, there's no question that it has survived for years 
>>>> and will survive for years more. The stability of the site is much 
>>>> more important than testing this code, and the testing strategy of 
>>>> presenting it as if it was functioning software and seeing what 
>>>> people did with it wasn't a reasonable decision: it was completely 
>>>> and absolutely irresponsible.
>>>>
>>>> KWW
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>>>> Wikimedia-l op lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> Unsubscribe: 
>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
>>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request op lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>>> Wikimedia-l op lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: 
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request op lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> Wikimedia-l op lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: 
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request op lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> 
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l op lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request op lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>