Magnus, in the interview you said "From the Media Viewer, the Visual Editor, to Wikidata transclusion, all have been resisted by vocal groups of editors, not because they are a problem, but because they represent change. For these editors, the site has worked fine for years; why change anything?"
Well, yes. No one here, I'm sure, will argue there aren't such groups.
But the problem with the blog post is you only mention them. You don't take into account the very much larger crowd, including myself, who were hanging out for the visual editor and were contemptuously flicked off by the developers when we brought up fatal flaws, as just some more superconservative no-vision Ludites - haters of change.
The first version of VE was so bad it was harming our mission. It was far worse than "didn't do everything 100% right." It would have been bounced back from the community to the developers even if that first group of bitter, change-hating autistic ranters hadn't said a word.
I notice VE isn't even an option when I log out and edit en.Wikipedia, yet above others are saying it is much improved and ready for release. What are we waiting for?
Anthony Cole
On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 10:56 PM, Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Anthony Cole ahcoleecu@gmail.com wrote:
Magnus, you've missed the point of the visual editor revolt. A couple of people here have tried to explain that to you, politely. And you're persisting with your idée fixe.
To be fair, Magnus was addressing more than just the initial complaints from 2013. He said, “condemning an entire product forever because the first version didn’t do everything 100% right is just plain stupid.” _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe