Wikipedia talk:VisualEditor/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Usability test - Small report

Discovered the WYSIWYG editor today. My first impression: Wow! A huge technical barrier flatted, usability taking a big leap forward! This will encourage loads of users, who previously did not dare to edit a site.

Yet I don't know how the editor will work with more complicated scenarios, but my first interaction with it turned out very satisfying!

Usability protocol:

1. When I tried to insert a link, I first pressed the reference icon (which btw gave a wonderfully comprehensible reference list!), then at a second glance the link icon ("chain-part", the generically established icon for a link). It even autosuggested the link, as the selected term existed as a wiki article! Great feature.
2. The layout of the editing toolbar is perfectly comprehensible (from left to right), I expected the "Save" button at the very right, and there it was. I hesitated shortly, as I wanted to add a editing note. I did not see one or not a checkbox or link for expanding a textfield, so I assumed, it will very likely ask me for it after submitting. And it did exactly that, in place as an overlay to keep the mental context. Perfect! In the old editing mode, due to the server request response inbetween, and the need to scroll to a certain position, it was a lot of mental effort to catch up again (took 5-10secs, what should take <1sec).

So far, very good! --PutzfetzenORG (talk) 11:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much! I'm glad that you like it :). Let us know if you run into things we can do better. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Help me! - Election box template

If an expert on the VisualEditor could help me out over on Ynys Môn by-election, 2013 I'd be grateful. I've tried to fathom out how to build a new election box with the new system but it's beyond me =/ doktorb _words^deeds 14:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Oy veh! Looking at the existing elements, that's a particularly complex example of templates :(. I think until the template itself is modified, to add some kind of wrapper, you may be better off with the markup editor for that task, frankly. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm worried by just how complicated this could get. But unlike most of the people on here, it seems, I want to be constructive and help out :) What I noticed was the ability to copy/paste everything, then by using 2 windows, copy and paste again from the existing template to the new one. But outside of an election year, that's fine. In an election setting, that's going to get complicated. If I can offer any help for developers, I will do! doktorb _words^deeds 14:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

You've been wonderfully helpful already! How familiar are you with the writing of template syntax? *looks evil* :P. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 06:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

What a mess...

As other users had pointed, it seems that this change had been made to push WP editors to abandon it. My case: I had added deleted relevant sourced content to the Ahmed al-Assir article, and now the sources appeared after the text, instead of in the References section. Anyone could help or I could start think in retiring? Thanks, --HCPUNXKID (talk) 15:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you mean by "added deleted relevant sourced content". As has been said many times, you do not have to use the visual editor; the old way of editing is still accessible. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

For some reason the editors edits added a bunch of nowiki tags. [1] I have little experience with the visualeditor so have no idea if this is a known problem and/or the editor did something wrong perhaps confused by the interface. The editor removed some themselves altho I suspect inadvertedly [2] I removed the rest of the tags manually.Edit: There's another report above suggseting it relates to templates. Nil Einne (talk) 15:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, any use of wikimarkup in the VE :/. We need to get a lot better at handling this, if only by actively warning the user. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

(EC) Reading more carefully, I wonder if the problem is editors are still adding templates manually in the visualeditor which isn't support (will never be supported?) and the visualeditor detects it's wikicode and will be intepreted by the engine so adds the nowiki tags to stop this under the assumption whoever added it wants it to be displayed not interpreted since it's a visual editor aiming for some degree of WYSIWYG. This behaviour is perhaps desirable but even if so maybe some more warning is needed for experienced editors? The alternative would be more sophisticated handling where the editor is somehow informed and given the option of whether to intepret or display the wikicode as is. Nil Einne (talk) 15:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, I could finally resolve the problem using the old editor, a reason for not using that abominable new method, wich, and that must be said, no one had notified users that its gonna be implemented. I only assure that if in some moment WP decide to delete the old editing method, several experienced editors will leave it, as its totally logic...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The new editor has been live in an opt-in form since December 2012. There has been a watchlist notice since 7 June, and several before that, coverage in the signpost many times, weekly announcements on the village pump (tech) going back a year, and a centralnotice for the last week. We put a heck of a lot of effort into notifying users about it. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

That effort did not include (and still does not include) telling people that "edit source" means a way to edit under the original format. As I noted above, most of us are finding that out by trial and error. --MelanieN (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

@MelanieN: that's a fantastic point *headdesks*. Can you think of the best place to put it? I'm going to WP:BOLDly throw it in the FAQ now. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 06:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Ahh, looks like it got thrown up here. Great :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 06:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

bad link syntax?

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T52428

I don't know if this was actually caused by VE, but a short while ago I noticed about 20 bad links on Hunting. I've corrected them, but they had a bad syntax form of [[./display|link]] (note the ./). I'd been to this page a few weeks back and the links were fine - I'm suspecting someone accidentally got VE to mangle some of the links while they were editing (but I can't find the specific edit to blame). I'd rather drop a note here and be proven wrong then ignore it and potentially let a nasty bug slip by. draeath (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe add this to WP:VisualEditor/Feedback, which is for more specific bugs? And, yes, it seems to have something to do with VE (it was tagged with "VisualEditor: Check"). It's very strange that it occurred to all links on the page. Is this happening with other VisualEditor edits? πr² (t • c) 19:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

When VE thinks it has gone wrong it tags the edit in "Recent changes".[3] When I looked I saw Hunting at the top of the list and, going there, saw you had corrected things already. See WP:VPT#Checking up on VisualEditor edits Thincat (talk) 20:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Holy crap! This page has gotten LONG

The File/page size right now is over 289KB, so I am setting up automatic archiving. The present size of this page will probably cause issues for anyone accessing WP on a mobile device or an older browser. Shearonink (talk) 21:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

If you're talking about the Feedback page, we have automatic archiving at every 2 days. It's just really active right now. :/ --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 21:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm talking about THIS page. Regardless of where Feedback is supposed to go, this is where a lot of it has ended up. The automatic archiving that was already in place didn't have an actual Archive Page yet so I fixed that and tweaked some of the code. The archiving should kick in sometime within the next day or two. If there's something funky about the way I set it up, then please, someone fix it! (For instance, the talkpage header isn't quite "right"...) Shearonink (talk) 21:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, it's a good idea to set up archiving here; I think I was confused, because it only looks like 189KB to me (plenty long, but not as bad as the feedback page. :)) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 21:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Hotcat, what happened to it?

ok, what happened to hotcat? --Sm8900 (talk) 21:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

See #HotCat :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 21:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

What was done by WP was very annoying. First HotCat is deactivated for me(Something I use lots) and then that piece of junk VE is turned on. All without telling this editor....William 00:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

@WilliamJE:; I'm very sorry the notifications about the VE didn't reach you. As you've probably seen from further up the page, we sent out (amongst other things) a watchlist notice and a centralnotice, and have had an opt-in version of the software on enwiki since December 2012. Do you have any suggestions for other mechanisms we can use to inform editors about upcoming changes? Are there any specific things about the VisualEditor that frustrate you that we can improve upon? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 06:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation template

It appears to be the case that editing with VisualEditor strips the {{disambiguation}} template from DAB pages. Either that or I'm an idiot (which I allow is a possibility). That was, I believe, my first and only edit with VisualEditor and I certainly did not intend to remove the template. If it was user error, I have no idea what I did to remove the template. Cnilep (talk) 02:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

@Cnilep: thanks for reporting this; I'll look into it :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 05:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

My meta-edit didn't seem to remove it; very odd :/. Let me know if it happens again? The one problem I see with your edit above - the VisualEditor doesn't accept markup for things like links, so they end up wrapped in nowiki tags and treated as text. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 06:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Need to separate this long, long article !

This article needs to be separated now that VisualEditor is in place. I wanted to give some positive feedback on the simplicity of the interface — it works for me, an old-timer with over 3,700 edits. I'll be sticking with < Edit Source > and leave it to younger or more experience editors to test and improve VisualEditor. Meanwhile, Can a different article be used for usage questions and feedback? I had to search on the homepage (which clearly identifies 1. how to learn, and 2. where to go to give some feedback) and when I get here, it is all about bug reports and complaints about VisualEditor, which I am not yet using.

So many of the comments are complaints about VisualEditor and replies about fixes or why the complainers are not understanding. This is why I would suggest having a new article or archive much of what was discussed in June. Instead, end up with two areas (two articles):

• Usage questions and feedback
• Software bug report and fixes

I want to give some feedback on the user interface and the new editor training, but such feedback is totally 'lost in the weeds.' — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey Charles. Ideally, this page would be a general discussion page for VE-related topics, like your "Usage questions and feedback" page. The feedback page is better suited for detailed descriptions of issues or improvements. We're trying to make sure that nothing gets lost in the weeds, but these are busy pages. PEarley (WMF) (talk) 05:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

We would love to hear your feedback on UI and the new editor training, btw! PEarley (WMF) (talk) 05:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank God I'm not a Wikipedia user anymore

Forcing these features is a good way to alienate users, especially new ones. Good job, fools. --200.8.219.76 (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not a forced feature because the original method is still there. Also, you're still technically a user of Wikipedia just by commenting here. SL93 (talk) 02:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

How long will the original method be there? Are they phasing it out, or will it always be an option? -- Jodon | Talk 23:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

No plans to phase out source editing. "Always" is hard to guarantee, but as long as we've got editors who prefer the original, I believe they'll be supported. PEarley (WMF) (talk) 23:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Hidden comments cannot be seen or edited with VE

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T51603

Hidden comments are very useful in preventing many unnecessary edits. Unfortunately, it is not possible to view or edit them using Visual Editor, especially given how many users are using it by default. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 00:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Yep, we're working on that as a high-priority enhancement :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 01:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I ran into that problem myself at Color. A new user changed the spelling to colour but had no way of knowing that there was a hidden message in the Wikitext telling them not to do that. Howicus (talk) 16:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Just had the same trouble at Druid. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, guys :). Hopefully this fix will be in the next deploy. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Why can't I turn this off anymore?

There's no box in Special:Preferences I can uncheck now that lets me entirely turn off the visual editor (i.e. make it go back to normal so there's no edit source tab). Why not? I don't mind it being the default but I'd like to just turn it off. I don't need this. It was fine with the checkbox in preferences. Cathfolant (talk) 00:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion to include this is happening in many places related to VisualEditor; I encourage you to check out the link to a new straw poll mentioned above this section. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree, users should be allowed to disable Visual Editor. It's a bit annoying to have to always be careful in order to skip "edit this page" in order to get to "edit source". Especially at sections. —  Ark25  (talk) 00:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

You can disable it; if you go to the "gadgets" tab in your preference, there's a checkbox at the top of the 'editing' section. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Why was it moved from "Editing"? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It's a different implementation, basically. This hides the VE via userscript, rather than via MediaWiki. I suspect we'll have discussions about what we do in relation to prefs as we go, but I can't promise it. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 01:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I am having problems. When I disable this on preference. My internet explorer windows don't show the edit tab at the top at all after Ii disable it. It appears for a brief second than hides behind the view history tab. Everything is normal on google chrome but I want to use internet explorer and have it disable. Any help?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Which version of IE are you using? It does not appear in the list of supported browser though, you should not be seeing VE at all with it, and I read that someone has already filed a bug for this. Thanks for your feedback, --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 07:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

No really sure. It's Internet Explorer with the blue "e" if that helps. The edit tab just hides itself each time I go to an article page. It doesn't do this on the sections, which I can still click edit next to the section headings, and it is also fine on talk pages and other non-article pages.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

VE is only deployed on a few namespaces at the moment, Article and User. I will add your report to a Bugzilla one about IE, thanks. --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 07:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Would it be impossible to have a preference to disable VE? I ask as I don't know terribly much about it but I can't see why there couldn't be. I just tried it on a new laptop, Windows 7 and Chrome, and it wouldn't let me click through to the edit source page or alter a link and then crashed the window.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 18:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

If you don't use Javascript for anything else on Wikipedia, you could disable it in your browser when you're here. Then clicking Edit does what it always did. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

@Gilderien: oh dear :/. What do you mean by "wouldn't let me click through to the edit source page"? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 06:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately InedibleHulk, I use javascript for practically everything here. @Okeyes (WMF): I mean that clicking on the link didn't seem to do anything, although when I tried editing sometime later it seems to have worked ok.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 07:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

That's strange. Let me know if it reoccurs? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 07:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Visual Editor: site-wide roll out? - angry thread

I was of the impression that the visual editor was planned to tested on:

(a) a sample of new users

(b) for a limited period

(c) to gather usage/test data

(d) on the understanding that it contained bugs.

That seemed sensible to me - although I did think wider community notice than was proposed was needed to handle possible issues.

Yet, low-and-behold, it appears that:

(a) a buggy piece of software

(b) affecting core functionality

(c) has been rolled out across all users

(d) with an unadvertised opt-out buried in user preferences

(e) without the community being notified properly.

WTF!?

Editing is the core of what we do around here. Irrespective of whether individually we like or dislike the visual editor, changing the production UI for all editors to a buggy WYSIWYG editor without proper notification and education is not on. This is not merely a matter of whether an individual editor chooses to use the new UI or not — we also have to deal with problems, bugs and issues arising from other editors decision to use it.

Believe it or not some folk here want to produce an encyclopaedia. The live environment is not a suitable place for this kind of experiment. And that's before I say anything about how disrespectful the lack of communication and involvement with editors ahead of deploying this change to the live environment is. --RA (talk) 12:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you misunderstood what was being done here. :( We did try to make sure that everyone was aware. To quote from another discussion on the topic (currently at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback), "This has been discussed publicly for more than a year and scheduled for June/July since at least March. Announcements appeared in the WP:Signpost, WP:VPT, the mailing lists, on the Watchlist, and other places. Whether or not it is a disruptive change, there was definitely a lot of notice that it was coming. Dragons flight (talk) 05:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)" and "Not to mention the banners at the top of every page. :-) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 05:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)"

You can see links to some of those conversations at this older version of the FAQ. You can see the original watchlist notice which included specific mention that it would be enabled for all users in early July - 10 days later, it was modified as follows. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd also note that it has been in opt-in form since December 2012. As well as the things Maggie mentioned, we also have a centralnotice up. If you can think of other ways we can notify users, please let us know - we appreciate this hasn't been the smoothest software deployment and do want to improve. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Watch list

I qualified my criticism of notification and community involvement with "properly". For example, discussion on this page don't count. The community would first need to be notified properly of this page.

A watchlist notification is be nice start - though easily missable. I didn't see one. All I've seen for the past few weeks is notification of a wiki meet-up in the UK. In any event, a change of to core functionality like this requires a little more effort. See for example the donation banner which (by change) has just popped up. That's how to get someone's attention.

Donations - big yellow banner

In any case, notification aside, the wisdom of rolling out software like this in a live environment is something I would question. And it's a pretty poort that more community involvement – and efforts to attract community involvement - did not take place. --RA (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, allow me to answer to your points, although other people have done it before and better than me. At first, I'd like to second your thoughts about the respect for editors: if the VisualEditor initiative did not come out of that, I (a Community Liaison, just a volunteer till a few weeks ago) would have not been hired to work on it. Then:

(a) a buggy piece of software

We know, it's beta, and beta means some bugs. Still, there are users creating perfect new pages, fully referenced an everything, only using VisualEditor;

(b) has been rolled out across all users

No. Not logged-in users still can't see it;

(c) with an unadvertised opt-out buried in user preferences

It's day 1. I am presonally grateful that there is already that gadget along with the perfectly usable, in-built feature that one can just ignore the Edit label and click Edit source instead;

(d) without the community being notified properly.

Please see this thread, and all the others which link to the huge list of pages/notices where all of this was announced. Thank you. --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 13:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree with the originator of this thread and I have been saying the same things. VE is not ready for release. There are still far too many problems with it. Unless the WMF is going to help us lowly editors clean up the messes that VE is leaving behind, it does not need to be released yet. It is coming together nicely and a lot of improvements are actively being made, so I don't want to sound like its never going to happen. But its still entirely too soon. Kumioko (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Which is precisely why, Kumioko, you can still edit with the old editor and will be able to for probably years, and also why people from WMF are taking care of checking messed-up edits - and in case, revert those actions. --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 13:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree that this will be a good tool and I completely agree that we need it. What I do not agree with is the WMF's seemingly cavalier attitude that releasing an unfinished, moderately working tool with a long list of known problems, is sensible. A beta test is not appropriate for a wide scale release. A beta test is supposed to be a group of people who know what to look for and can identify the problems. The vast majority of those using the tool, will not even know if they made a mistake. I understand you folks are watching the changes, but you/we shouldn't have to do a bunch of reversions of bad edits just because the WMF couldn't wait a little longer and wanted to rush the release. That is not a good way to build the support of the projects active members and doesn't present the WMF in a positive light. I do not have any problem with you, or the other folks at WMF, several of which I have met and have a lot of respect for and like. But this rushed release is not the right way to go. Kumioko (talk) 13:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you point me to one of the "users creating perfect new pages, fully referenced an everything, only using VisualEditor" Interested in trying further and wish to ask advice. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Goodbye Blue Sky (Defiance); @TeamGale: is doing some darn good work with it, and can probably help with the specificities of wholesale creation more than I :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you @Okeyes (WMF): I am just trying to "explore" VE and try to find out how things work. Sure needs work to be done yet but if we all help, this can be an amazing new editing tool.

@Jmh649:If there is something that I can help, I'll be glad to do it. I sure don't know everything but, on the things that I've worked on I am willing to help. TeamGale (talk) 01:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

KumiokoElitre, with respect, and I don't want to put you off on your efforts, but your reply reads like a press officier not a community liaison officer.

• (a) Betas in a live environment are to be expected. And betas will contain bugs. As a software engineer, I'm very comfortable with that idea. However, creating and editing pages is a core functionality of MediaWiki and a core requirement of software supporting this project. As an editor, user (and software engineer) I am not confortable with rolling out flaky software affecting core functionality across all users on the live environment. Being pleased that " Still, there are users creating perfect new pages ... only using VisualEditor" doesn't cut it. We are not here to test software, we are here to write an encyclopaedia.
• (b) [face palm] Great. Another bug affecting all users in the live environment. Because you should be able to see it.
• (c) It is Day 1. Editors and users of this site should have been informed and knowledgable about this change ahead of Day 1.
• (d) Clearly the message of those thread is not getting though to you. Your reply to this point is why I say your reply reads more of all like a press officier than a community liaison officer. If people are telling you they were not informed, guess what ... they're not informed. It doesn't matter what efforts you (or anyone else) took to inform them, they were not informed. And everyone should have been informed - and made feel involved - in advance of this change.

--RA (talk) 13:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Lol Beat me to it. Just to clarify I am not a community liaison or a press, I don't work for the WMF (I just know a bunch of them), I'm not even an admin, just an editor. I completely agree with your point on A and I have been telling them for weeks it wasn't ready. I also agree that it hasn't been discussed enough in the community. But that is a recurring theme with WMF implementations and this rollout is not an isolated incident. A lot of us users have been telling the WMF that its not ready but they are hell bent on releasing it ready or not. There are a lot of problems with VE that should have been addressed prior to its release not the least of which should have been to properly notify people. Kumioko (talk) 14:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Kumioko is not a community liaison. :)

User:Rannpháirtí anaithnid, I am unsure why you did not see the watchlist notice or the many other avenues that were used to reach out to editors (some of which are linked above), but I'm happy to say many others did. Without their assistance, we would not have been able to get VE to the state it is in now. No one is forced to help test the software. You are welcome to continue using the old interface, just as everyone is. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Not Kumioko, alas.

a) just keep ignoring VE, as Maggie says. If doing it was not allowed or foreseen, you would right now be forced to use only VE despite what it can or cannot do. ;)

b) it's not a bug, my bad: they can't see it meant they still can not use it - they'll be able to in a week or so. It's written everywhere.

c) They were. Again, too bad we did not manage to reach you in any of the multiple ways we used. But saying we did not try, is just false.

d) We have already apologized fully and largely for not being able to reach every single user of this site, but it does not depend on our will, believe me or not. We now know (thanks to users who reported about this) that Centralnotices, watchlist notices and other systems simply failed, presumably for reasons related to cookies. I would like to add that this specific point damages VE more than anything else, since some people might just refuse to use it because they feel they were not adequately notified and not because they really don't want to help with it. Thanks. Elitre (WMF) (talk) 14:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

"No one is forced to help test the software." / "just keep ignoring VE, as Maggie says."

Guys, you're not getting it. Should I ignore it when the new UI deletes content ([https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50481 bug 50481) unbeknownst to the user? If I see an edit like that, is it vandalism, a bug, intentional?

Bottom line: buggy software affecting the core functionality was pushed as the default configuration in the live environment. It is affecting the project. I don't know why you are so intent on pushing it before it is ready.

And, Elitre, please, do not misrepresent me. I never said you did not try ("...saying we did not try, is just false."). --RA (talk) 15:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

There needs to be a site notics NOW saying - not just that Visual Editor has been rolled out - but stating - exactly and clearly, with a clickable link to the page to do it on how to turn it off. I can't believe Wikipedia has handled this so badly that they didn't think of doing that. That's how every other live beta I've ever seen has worked. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

When Philippe wakes up I'm going to ask him about making the opt-out more prominent; unfortunately several of the senior staff are on PDT, so are currently in the land of nod. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Expectations also needs to be set amongst all users (both editors who opt-in and opt-out and readers) to expect issues, such as unexpectedly added or deleted content.

All editors need to be informed about how to identify edits made using the visual editor. They need to know to be observant for errors it will introduce to edits. They need to know this both to correct those errors and so as to not falsely identify editors using the Visual Editor as vandals (or otherwise disruptive) or as making unexplained edits.

Readers need to be informed about the change so as to be forgiving about unexpected formatting or missing or truncated content as a result of the introduction of new software.

Both editors and readers need to be informed about how and where to log issues they identify with the Visual Editor.

These notices need to be big and clear and obvious. --RA (talk) 15:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

a clickable link to the page to do it on how to turn it off.

Amen to that! But this is the WMF. Shafting the most established editors is just par for the course. 8-(

(Please, does anyone have that "just make the damned thing go away" link?) Andy Dingley (talk) 15:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

In User Preferences, Andy: here Gadgets - Editing - check Remove VisualEditor from the user interface (then "save"). Begoon ^talk 16:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

About whether we were notified or not, which seems to be a recurring theme in this thread: Yes, there were notices at the tops of pages saying that a Visual Editor was going to be rolled out one of these days, and that we could test it now if we want. That's quite a different matter from coming to Wikipedia to do some editing, clicking "edit", and being surprised by a very unfamiliar window. There was also no advance information, and still no labeling or information, to let us know that "edit source", whatever that might mean, provides a way to use the familiar format; I suspect most of us found that out by trial and error. --MelanieN (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Sadly, WP has previous on this - when the new style search box was rolled out a few years ago, it was just sprung upon us without a lot of notice and in a buggy state (it was basically unusable for about two days until bugs were resolved). Ah well, guess we just have to work through these things!  — Amakuru (talk) 17:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Call me old-fashioned, but I'm used to classic wiki markup by now. I guess it's become second nature at this point, and a WYSIWYG editor is throwing me off. Haha I can see the potential usefulness of it, though. It's good to see new editors adhering to our MOS more frequently, with the tools in place. Signalizing (talk) 04:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• The reason I turned it off is that it was extremely slow. Even for something trivial like deleting an external link, it takes the visual editor something like 25 seconds to complete (!!) whereas with the source editor saving is done in one second. Someone not using his real name (talk) 07:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for a User Council

Out of this discussion, I have made a proposal for a formal User Council to represent the needs of Wikipedia users to the Foundation. --RA (talk) 20:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

What about people in developing nations or who don't have new computers?

Per bugzilla:49685#c0, is the team mostly focused on "industrialised, Western nation[s]"? I'm aware that the vast majority of edits, at least on the English Wikipedia, come from "Western nations", but I hope you will make it possible for people who might not have access to the newest technology to contribute. πr² (t • c) 18:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

In terms of VE's functionality, certainly it's a goal to get this editor working well for everyone everywhere. It's moving along in stages and expanding as they go. I think the point there was simply that, while some lag is more common in some technology (even with the existing system, larger pages are difficult for people on dial-up as Wikipedia:Article size has long explained), lag experienced on "state of the art" technology is likely to constitute a significant problem for everyone. VisualEditor is an option alongside traditional editing, so access should not decrease for anyone. :) The goal is to make it better for all. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 18:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick explanation, and I hope my comment didn't sound rude! I support the idea of the VisualEditor in general, to make it easier to contribute. πr² (t • c) 18:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, not at all. :) It's an important goal to make sure that we support everyone, and I appreciate your interesting in making sure we don't lose sight of that! --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• People could install Firefox browser to use VE: Even in areas with mostly slow dial-up access, with Internet Explorer 7 or IE 8, people could download a version of the Firefox browser, and then be able to use the VisualEditor, although likely to be somewhat slow. In fact in some hotels, with older Microsoft systems, there are already copies of Firefox installed for customer use. So, perhaps in third-world schools or other groups, some people could download the Firefox browser to allow people to try different options. In general, IE8 has remained the world's most-popular browser for over a year, as found in many public libraries, hotels, and even hospital rooms with computers installed since 2009. So that indicates a base computer system which could run Firefox, with perhaps only slightly slow performance to then run VE using Firefox. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

  Well, in terms of our readers, IE8 is only responsible for <6 percent of GET requests, actually. I think everyone should upgrade, be they on the IE suite or FireFox 3.5 (ahem), but part of the onus is quite rightly on us; we need to make the VisualEditor faster. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 06:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Firefox crashing on a new machine with fast connection – not even 'using' VE, just invoking its shiny new code in dozens of different tabs, as we are wont to open. As with the practice of using ref templates instead of "simple" references, this (VE as default) would seem to be a policy developed by people who all use fast computers on fast internet connections. Maybe we should mandate the WMF all use 5yo computers. ;-) groupuscule (talk) 12:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey, ref templates aren't our fault! But we definitely need to speed this up, and I know there are efforts being made to do so. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

We appreciate all the hard work you do, and we believe that the Visual Editor will be a useful tool in making Wikipedia more accessible. It's not about blame—it's about Africa. love, groupuscule (talk) 13:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Can't find preference

Hi, I have gone into the editing section of preferences, and I can't find the option to enable VisualEditor. Can anyone help? Cadillac000 (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. You shouldn't need to enable VisualEditor - if your browser is supported, it should be automatic. Wikipedia:VisualEditor/FAQ has information about which browsers are and are not currently supported. More are being added as we go, so if yours is not on the list, I hope it will be soon! --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 23:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

the option to disable it is under the tab for "Gadgets."--Sm8900 (talk) 15:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Please go back to the old method!

(moved from main page)
You have no idea how unnecessarily complicated you've made it for old users. An intelligent user could simply examine the way the page was edited and eventually get the hang of it. I have been on Wikipedia for more than a year, and now I can't do anything on it because nothing works the way it used to, except simply posting a message. How long will it be before you complicate even that??? AlbertSM (talk) 18:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, AlbertSM. You can simply use "Edit source" to use the same method you're used to. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk)

I tried that. But when I want to put in "citation needed" it doesn't appear the way it used to. Instead, all it says, for example, is fact|date in brackets, as if I hadn't done anything. The words "citation needed" don't appear at all. (This happens only on Wikipedia article pages. I tried it on this page and it works normally here.) AlbertSM (talk) 20:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

@AlbertSM:, if you're using "edit source", that should not happen. I see you did have an issue with that here, when you were using VisualEditor. I don't see any other issues like that in your contributions (although I do see your tests on your userpage). Some people have accidentally hit "edit" when they meant to hit "Edit source". I wonder if perhaps that's what happened here? VisualEditor does accept templates, but it doesn't use them the way you're used to. You can see WP:VE/UG for how they work there. While I hope you won't give up on VisualEditor, though, you can hide it from your interface altogether by going into your "preferences". The option is under gadgets. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 20:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

There were some stray nowiki tags, I've removed them now. –Quiddity (talk) 21:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

five years from now

I see that a lot of people say they want a WYSIWYG interface to wiki.

And maybe they are right. Maybe adding a WYSIWYG interface now will lead to a much better Wikipedia in 5 years, vs. the Wikipedia we would have if we stick with primitive HTML textarea editing and cryptic nonstandard markup syntax for a few more years.

On the other hand, a lot of people say that dropping the barriers to entry will "open the floodgates" to bad edits and outright vandalism. Those people were wrong before -- Nupedia, Wiki#Trustworthiness, etc. -- but perhaps this time they are right. If so, adding a WYSIWYG interface now will lead to a much worse Wikipedia in 5 years vs. the Wikipedia we could have had.

That sounds like chronological snobbery and appeal to novelty on the one hand, with appeal to tradition and Wikipedia:If it ain't broke, don't fix it on the other.

Is there maybe some way to do A/B testing to see who is right? Is there some more-or-less objective critera we could use to get an approximate count of "good edits" vs "vandalism", or some other way of determining which is better? --DavidCary (talk) 19:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

We're doing that right now. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Attracting the wrong type of editors

It's a little dissapointing to see that first priority isn't being given to all the experienced editors who have made the greater bulk of contributions to wikipedia all these many years, as our standard editor will soon be replaced by Visual Editor as the default editor. This will invariably invite a whole slew of 'editors' at the grade school level who wanna-be an editor too.... I predict the number of edits will sky rocket, and the age, education and intelligence of the average editor will drop, along with the quality of edits. Isn't our first priority also building a quality encyclopedia?
We should use VE on a trial basis, and if all the 'easy editing' results in a flood of low quality edits that have to be cleaned up by experienced editors, no doubt increasing the edit wars, then we should 'can' this please-everyone-all-of-the-time idea and get realistic again. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, exactly one of my thoughts. By forcing users to learn wiki markup we are ensuring that they are serious, or at least dedicated. Forcing them to create accounts would have the same effect but that is a failed proposal. In my opinion we should have as many obstacles as possible that would generally be overcome only by those who would want to become serious, constructive editors. The visual editor will not necessarily solve the retention problem anyway as I pointed out below. Cathfolant 20:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I think more editors have left because they were frustrated by the community, rather than technicalities. Too much time and bandwidth is spent on discussions whether to capitalise a four-letter preposition, or discourses on superiority of em-dashes over hyphens, or whether this or that editor has been uncivil/assumed bad faith/made a personal attack/etc., or whether search-and-replace functionality is an automation tool or not, or whether some discussion between three editors counts as consensus, or on bickering by spam-only accounts that "this citation is obviously notable", or on creating thousands of useless userboxes and fancy signatures. In short, too much meta-matters. Too little time goes to searching for sources and actually writing articles. Keφr 22:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I can't speak for Wikipedia users in general, but I for one am far more likely to start making meaningful contributions to Wikipedia because of the new editor. I've been on Wikipedia for several years now but have only made minor correction type edits. I have a PhD in biology and feel that I could make quality contributions to relevant articles. I haven't to date because I got frustrated trying to deal with all the HTML necessary to create a good article. It wasn't that I couldn't learn it. Instead I simply have too many other things to do in my life besides spending my time on this. If this new editor reduces the obstacles standing between my desire to contribute and my ability to actually do so then I am all for it. Mantisia (talk) 00:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Good point, @Mantisia: :). @Gwillhickers:, @Cathfolant:, most editors do not start out as "serious" editors. I can only speak for myself here, but when I started in 2005 all I wanted to do was add categories to uncategorised articles. That's it. The featured and good articles came a lot later; in my early days I wanted to make individual, trivial fixes. Having to learn an entire markup language just to be able to parse the page and get to what I wanted to change was a substantial barrier to this. As Mantisia says above, it's nothing to do with intelligence and everything to do with the priority people put on editing Wikipedia. I don't think this will attract "less intelligent" editors or "less educated" users - I think this will attract the users who don't want, in 2013, to learn an entire markup language to be able to fix a typo. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 08:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I concur. I had not heard about the VisualEditor thing until it started popping up on my watchlist and I have to say I'm not impressed. If it's more or less automated, why are there no edit summaries? It's always a nuisance to see a great deal of editing done without a summary and this is often a mistake made by new editors. That should be automated somehow. And the edits that I have seen so far by new editors using VisualEditor have been vandalism. Not a good start. freshacconci talktalk 14:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried using it? It's nothing to do with automation. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, I didn't know it existed until today and had no idea how to enable it (made a comment at the bottom of the page). I was completely in the dark about this and I'm guessing I'm not the only one. I edit daily and had not heard about this until today and could not find how to enable it. I just tried it out and it doesn't prompt the editor to provide a summary and this is going to be a big problem. freshacconci talktalk 15:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes it does. When you hit save page, the flyout pops up asking you to "describe what you have changed". Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I concur with Gwillhickers' point. I, for one, am more comfortable using Wiki markup and source code; it's what keeps the community of professional editors linked together. I would rather stay with source code my whole life than be forced to use VE and learn a whole new type of editing. HandIsNotNookls (talk) 00:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

We're professionals? We're volunteers. And nobody is forcing you to use the VE; as said, source editing will still be available. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I trust the option to use wiki-markup will be a visible button, won't it? — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:06, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Most definitely; instead of "edit" as you have now, you'll get "edit" (takes you to the VE) and "edit source" (wikimarkup) next to it. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:07, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

In the FAQ for this it has this as a question answer: "No. It is the official policy of the English Wikipedia that the editors are not in charge of the website or its software." This is against the spirit of a wiki. Wikis don't exist for executives to force bad decisions on the wiki against the consent of the wiki's editing base. They're about consensus. I can promise you right now, the majority of the experienced wiki editors here are going to be against this. And you'll justify doing it anyway because you're of a higher authority. That's not how things ought to work. That's just begging for disaster. This absolutely is going to attracted the wrong kind of editors and is going to degrade not only Wikipedia, but every wiki it influences, which is all of them. Everywhere. Trying to force your way in this issue is going to accomplish nothing but driving away many of your most valuable editors. And you'll be stuck with inexperienced ones who have no idea what they're doing. See, that's why it's consensus-based whether you like it or not. You force bad decisions on it, you lose valuable editors.Matt (talk) 00:23, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry; the consensus policy is one written by editors. We didn't write it, although we don't disagree with it. What you're actually stating is not "you're forcing it on us!" but instead "we're allowing it to be forced upon us! This is your fault" when it isn't. Lots of things Wikipedia does is against the spirit of a wiki. Page protection, the existence of arbcom - the utopian spirit of a wiki ultimately has to compete with the practicalities of reality. I'd argue that the VisualEditor is much closer to the spirit of a wiki, an environment in which anyone with the enthusiasm to edit can do so, than the alternative you'd leave us with, which is that wikipedians are people who have (a) enthusiasm and (b) the willingness to learn wikimarkup in exchange for being able to read an article, in exchange for being able to fix the typo in it. Because that's what we're talking about here - not making editing easier because "meh, why not", but making editing easier because most people don't come here ready-made as Wikimedians, or wiki editors. They come here as someone who wants to fix something small, and then get sucked into fixing big things. The existing markup editor, in 2013, is a hindrance to this, providing substantial cognitive overhead to contributions.

You won't be forced to use it; it'll just be an option open to you. There is nothing we're doing here that directly harms your work. If it works, however, it means that a lot more work will be done, and I think that's something we'd all appreciate. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 01:00, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The editors never agreed to have their ability to form a consensus removed. That was an executive decision made by "editors" who are WMF staff, similar to yourself. And it doesn't justify forcing a bad idea that the community doesn't agree with simply because you want it. Many times here already several people have asked you source your claims, and you ignored them. You are making baseless claims about what is happening to the retention rate without backing any of them with credible facts. You are forcing a feature down the throats of everyone that they don't agree with that you can't even prove the necessity for. And don't say it's optional. That doesn't mean anything. It'll still create problem edits that the people not using it will have to fix. It'll screw things up and make things more difficult for everyone whether they opt to use it or not. You claim this is about raising retention rates. Are you seriously willing to force your way in this issue, knowing full well that the community is against you? Can't you see how that is going to push people away and make them want to leave? You're antagonizing the very problem you claim you want to fix. There's no way you can get out of this without making your argument look hypocritical.Matt (talk) 02:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Really? Who? I know WhatamIdoing was involved in the conversation, but that was long before she was hired. If you can point me to staffers at the time who were involved, I'm happy to scold them, and if you can point to the particular claims you'd like supported by a citation I'm happy to address those, too. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

AFAIK, the idea that the developers' decisions about how to run the website are not subject to "consensus" by the editorial community first appeared in that policy in January 2007, and I wasn't involved in that discussion in any capacity. WP:Consensus can change, of course, and Matt's welcome to start a discussion at WT:CONSENSUS about his idea that the community should get to control the website, but I doubt that Matt will find support for it. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 11:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I unexpectedly met an editor face-to-face last week. He's a professional journalist, and he said that he often reads Wikipedia, and donates to the WMF to keep the lights on, but he has given up on editing. It has gotten so much more complicated in recent years that he just closes the edit window in dismay. His main interests seem to be film or books, and he'd like to correct errors and provide sources.

I don't think that someone should have to spend hours and hours learning wikicode to prove that he's "serious" or "dedicated" to be able to say "Hey, this guy's published eight books now, not just six". Why shouldn't we encourage people who just want to help out casually? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 11:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

First off, I think it's better to be honest about this and not hold back. I'm sorry if this comes off as rough, but I think it has to be said. The potential consequences of holding back and letting things happen are too severe to be too cautious. You both ignored what I said and went off on the consensus thing. A small handful of people that are either WMF staff, WMF hopefuls, or close to WMF staff are hardly represent a significant, unbiased part of a community the size of Wikipedia. Even if they had absolutely no conflict of interest, do they represent the community? How can you claim the community agreed to give up consensus when it's essentially the same as a small town in the US voting on, and deciding on the US president, single-highhandedly, and calling that the "nation" choosing them? Anyway to the actual point. Okeyes, I told you exactly what you haven't sourced. All the claims on retention rates. No one has backed up those claims. They just claimed it was happening, and gave a very ambiguous graph that shows retention rates falling. That doesn't prove your claim. All that shows is that retention rates are falling, which is a problem every wiki on the internet is having, and it does not prove your hypothesis as to why it is happening. Don't just cite them here, where only a few people will see it and it'd be lost in an archive, actually cite them where you have the claims. And you ignored that the the consensus problem is largely irrelevant because if you use WMF authority to force this despite that, you will lose valuable experienced editors in exchange for inexperienced casual editors who will have next to no incentive to ever improve beyond a very basic level. So it doesn't matter if you force your way despite the majority being against you. Things will not go your way either you invoke the WMF right to overrule consensus or not. You cannot honestly keep insisting that this is about improving the retention rates when you have shown absolutely zero interest in keeping anyone who happens to disagree with you. Your own studiesshow that as far as you know, issues with the community are about a forth of the reasons for leaving. And the complexity is also about a forth. And the other half is issues completely beyond your reach. Of two the key problems you were able to determine with retention rates, you chose to address one in a way that would exacerbate the other. I don't think those findings are entirely accurate. I personally think that disagreements in policy make up the overwhelming majority of the non-personal reasons. But for the purposes of this discussion, we'd assume your findings are valid. And in that case, your argument here is completely illogical. Your loses would at least cancel out your gains, and more likely exceed them in value. I do have a prediction for your response. You are going to ignore all of this (as you did before), say your right to overrule consensus is all that matters (as you also have done a few times), or are going to go off on an tangent to dismiss what you don't want to hear (as you just did now). If you choose to ignore this all and just insist on your way, you will make a very bad impression on everyone reading this. There were people who disagreed with you before I spoke up. Maybe I'm a bit more assertive than them. It's who I am. You need to realize the position you're in when you have that kind of responsibility. You can't just causally make huge decisions without actually listening to the people that it is going to directly affect on a daily basis. You can't just say "I don't care what you think, we're doing this my way" when you're more in a management position and it's not exclusively you who's going to have to deal with that actual mechanics of what you want to do on a day-to-day basis. By just insisting on your way when everyone's telling you it'll be a disaster, you decay community faith in you. That can cause all sorts of problems, most relevant to this discussion, it'll make the falling retention rate even worse. So what's it going to be? Are you just going to keep telling us that it's going to be what you want no matter what, or are you actually going to respond to our concerns without repeating the same meaningless, hollow replies over and over that don't answer anything at all?Matt (talk) 12:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Matt, I know that change can be painful, and if you're already wondering whether Wikipedia is worth your time, then any little thing could seem catastrophic. But I don't think that you're thinking about this clearly. You've basically asserted, for example, that WP:CONSENSUS, a major policy here watched by hundreds of users, was re-written by WMF stooges six years ago, well before you and I ever created our accounts, and that nobody at the English Wikipedia happened to notice or object ever since. I don't think this is true. I think it far more likely that experienced editors here believe that the content (including the policies) belongs to them, and the website belongs to the devs.

I'm also interested in understanding how you know that the existence of an alternative editing system will actually drive away experienced editors. Most people in that study who said that they left "because of the community" left because of unpleasant personal interactions with the community, such as being blocked or being told to stop their POV pushing or having someone yell at them. Do you think that the existence of VisualEditor is going to make people behave worse to each other?

Separately, you're asserting that "it will be a disaster". How do you know this? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 09:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree with the first post, the changes are very, very, dissapointing, and probably will made more WP experienced editors to leave. Please reconsider it unless its too late. Wikipedia's accurancy and credibility is dropping at high speed every day...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 14:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you point to any specific problems, and evidence of accuracy and credibility problems increasing? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

See the bottom of the page for more about it. Or just wait a month and you'll see... Evidence of accuracy and credibility problems increasing? For example, the increasing use of Facebook or You Tube as sources by some "editors", totally contradicting WP policy.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Speaking in my capacity as a volunteer editor: Which policy would that be? The one that specifically allows us to cite self-published sources like social networking sites and YouTube for some (limited) purposes?

I know these sites are abused, but there is no complete prohibition against citing them, and the official channels from television news shows on YouTube are considered as reliable as equivalent newspaper sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

So it doesn't matter if the majority of editors are against it just because of WP:CONSENSUS? That is nonsense. That is bad for any website even ones without a consensus policy. SL93 (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

No notice

It is annoying that the first time I ever hear of this thing is when I click on "edit" and there it is. I wanted to change a hyphen to an en-dash and I didn't see any way to do that with this new "visual editor". I've disabled it. When and where was this ever discussed?

(And is there any way to edit Wikipedia articles by using vi (the thing that's been called the "visual editor" for decades)? I've seen the possibility of using external editors, but only if you're using Windows or Macintosh, not Linux. Point-and-click editors are slow and cumbersome compared to vi.) Michael Hardy (talk) 03:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

One thing that's user-hostile about this new editor is that it doesn't instantly invite you to click on something to disable it. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Michael, I'm sorry your first experience wasn't satisfying. The ability to add special characters like en-dashes is being tracked here: Bug 50296. PEarley (WMF) (talk) 03:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

That bug has "Importance: Lowest enhancement", and that doesn't give me much confidence that the people who have rushed VisualEditor into production have any concept that lack of en dash capability is really going to crap up WP. We already have our hands full changing hyphens to en dashes because a lot of editors don't know the difference, but now even those who do know can't easily produce an en dash, and many will simply stop trying to do it right. How do we get this fixed quickly? Chris the speller ^yack 14:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: Where was it announced? See this older version of the FAQ for a sample list of some of the prominent locations it was officially announced, which is how testers and feedback have been requested for many months.

Re: Can we edit with vi? I saw a mention of Vim on Kim Bruning's userpage, so, maybe? Ah, over at Wikipedia:Text editor support might be what you want. –Quiddity (talk) 03:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

How do I turn this editor off? I asked for no change to my editor, but got it anyway.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Wish you'd give it a chance, but if you're not a fan - go "Preferences --> Gadgets ---> Editing" to find a preference to not display VE. PEarley (WMF) (talk) 03:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Tell whoever was in charge of it to next time give us some warning and a choice. Maybe I'll ease into it later but such a forced change without warning is very disruptive to Wikipedia.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

As Quiddity says above, we've been doing quite a bit of announcing, using watchlist notices, banners, and posts, but clearly we didn't reach everyone. PEarley (WMF) (talk) 03:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Didn't work.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

No, definitely didn't work. Which makes the change seem exceptionally high-handed. If you want to alienate experienced editors then this is the right way to go about it. Oh wait, you're only interested in the new editors. Or at least that certainly seems to be the case. The hostility to the changes here seems to point to the fact that (a) this wasn't properly discussed or announced and (b) it's not popular with the people who've actually spent years building this encyclopaedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Necrothesp, can you suggest a better place/way to inform people which is not among those linked above? You see, I'm really interested in how the arrival of VE could surprise some users, since I will use more or less the same pages for it.wp. Thanks. --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 07:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed; I'd be interested in hearing too. There is certainly unhappiness, which I think is unfortunate, but I would like to note it's unhappiness from a relatively small number of users given the total number of contributors we have - we haven't reached everyone (and we need to work out some way of doing so, in future) but we've clearly reached quite a lot of people (or, alternately, they're fine with the VE). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 09:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Banners at the top of the screen. If there was one I certainly didn't spot it and I edit pretty much every day. Even consider posting messages on the talkpages of regular editors (I can't imagine it would be that hard to design a bot to do this). As for the old "only a few people have complained" argument, that's always the excuse used by companies with poor customer service on consumer watchdog TV programmes. Most people don't complain, fact. The fact that anybody has complained should be taken seriously. The fact that as many as this have complained should be taken very seriously. You should also have initially introduced this as an option, not as the default. By introducing it as the default it makes it appear that you are trying to railroad editors into using the new system. I'm sure that was not your intention, but that's the way it seems. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

We had those banners; I'm not sure why they didn't work, but suffice to say we'll look into a better way of handling them in future (I think it may be a problem around how CentralNotice's cookies work. bleh). To flip that around, yes, the fact that so many people are complaining is something we should take seriously and are taking seriously. We've got 8 staffers assigned to handle this launch period (although most of them hand off to Maggie and myself in a few hours). But just as most people don't complain if something is wrong, most people don't feel the need to turn up and say "good job!" if something is going well - it's probably not something we can use as a reliable estimator. I would point out we've had it as an option since December 2012; advertising that, too, is something we need to do better at next time, I think. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I was told that the CentralNotice banners weren't always visible to everyone because of cookies. If you dismissed any CentralNotice, then all of them (including new ones) were dismissed for two weeks. (I believe it used to be one week, except that editors here complained that it wasn't long enough.) They used CentralNotice to announce Board elections (or was it the results?), and the result was that some people missed at least one of the multiple CentralNotices about VE because some of the announcements were within the two-week window for some users. There were also watchlist notices, but that doesn't help people who don't use a watchlist. Necrothesp might have seen this announcement at MILHIST if he watches the page, rather than just participating occasionally.

Someone else suggested having really large, colorful sitenotices, on the grounds that just large, bold-faced text in a box that appears on every page until you manually remove is too easy to overlook. Of course, whenever the WMF has done that in the past, people have complained about the fact that the banners are are ugly and distracting. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 10:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I use a watchlist. Every day. Didn't notice anything. And I didn't dismiss notices. And still I didn't notice. That might just be me, but it does point to the fact that they really weren't terribly noticeable. And you still haven't answered my biggest concern. Which is why was this just introduced out of the blue as the default as opposed to just an option? Editors who edit by double clicking are generally going to be experienced editors - why did this just override the default we've been using for years? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

About the watchlist problem: See the history here for all of the recent watchlist notices. If you're not actually seeing these (for reasons other than 'notice blindness'), then please drop a note on my user talk page. These should appear at the top of everyone's watchlists until removed or dismissed.

I don't know why double-clicking results in VisualEditor rather than the old editor. It might not have been a conscious choice. At the moment, I'm curious how many people actually use that feature. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 03:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• I saw various announcements and so was not surprised by this. But to ease the introduction of new features, I suggest that you emulate Google and other providers, who provide a dialogue which explains the new feature when it is first used. You can then turn off the introduction when you have "got it". Warden (talk) 09:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Warden, we actually just added the "?" icon linking to User Guide and Feedback for users' convenience. --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 09:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• @Warden: I really like that idea; the Guided Tours project Steven's team has been working on sounds like it would lend itself to the task. Something to look into for future releases, I think. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 09:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

A category and a userbox

• Category: Category:Wikipedians who have turned off VisualEditor
• Userbox: User:Technical 13/Userboxes/Anti-VE

Tito☸Dutta 14:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Another userbox for those on the other side of the spectrum - User:TheOriginalSoni/Userboxes/Pro-VE

P.S. I love VE, but am still waiting for the References to work properly and the speed to increase. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Improving speed is one of the main priorities for the coming months. Unfortunately, to do the job completely, it sounds like it's going to take months. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 04:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Very buggy

Every time I try to use VE, Firefox becomes extremely slow and/or crashes. yonnie (talk) 15:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

What version? I agree speed is a problem; we're actively working on it. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Why is the foundation beta testing via a site-wide rollout on the English Wikipedia? That is a very good question... Carrite (talk) 02:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

@Carrite: well, we've had the VE deployed on enwiki in an opt-in form since December 2012. It's been very helpful; all of the feedback we got tackled a lot of bugs and got a plethora of weird problems fixed (my favourite was the infinite loop of chess pieces). But there's only so far that can scale, because even a large group of opt-in testers is only going to find themselves in so many different situations. There are going to be a lot of use cases that don't get tested, but appear in reality, and to get bugs with that kind of thing winkled out you need a wider deployment. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 06:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• Slow, yes. Don't know when that bug report was made and if and when it solved anything; I turned VE off yesterday or so, mostly because it was (as the Dutch say) as slow as thick s**t going through a funnel. I might try it again; Oliver, you know where to send my beta testing fee. Drmies (talk) 22:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
• When I'm on FF.21/XP, just about any article over 80K is timing out (at 30 seconds) rather than loading, even ones that have already been edited using VE (so they should be cached). Risker (talk) 22:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

  Hmn. Cacheing issue after the update? @Risker: is this still happening? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Will check later if I have a chance. Risker (talk) 15:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Turn it Off

How do I turn this off? The whole VisualEditor is really annoying, and is stopping me from doing what I normally do.--Mjs1991 (talk) 04:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Mjs, which of your normal tasks is VE negatively effecting? If you have time, you could leave a description at the feedback page. To disable the VE tab, go Preferences --> Gadgets ---> Editing section: "Remove VisualEditor from the user interface". PEarley (WMF) (talk) 05:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd personally like to as well, but I can't even find that option. All of the articles I edit have features VisualEditor doesn't understand (infoboxes), so it's not an option for me so much as a necessity. Orderinchaos 06:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

If you disable Javascript in your browser, it may help. Did for me. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

@Orderinchaos: the VE isn't getting infoboxes? Can you give me an example? (also: browser, OS, name, rank, ID number... ;p) Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Need to warn returning users

Power users who edit every day are (mostly) aware of VE by now. New users don't need warning, they come straight in to it. But there is a very large class of occasional users whose editing has gaps of days or weeks. Over the next few weeks they will return, and they need to be told what's going on. To see what their experience will be, I have just logged on to my alternate account and started to edit an article, and there was no warning at all - as a returning user I would have known nothing until I clicked "Edit" and the screen went hazy and everything was unfamiliar.

There needs to be a dismissable notice at log-in to say:

• The beta version of VE has been enabled, and that is what you will get when you click "Edit" on an article page
• The old editor is still available by clicking "Edit source", and there are no plans to withdraw it
• The VisualEditor FAQ is here, user guide is here, problems should be reported here
• Major known problems and issues are listed here (to avoid hundreds of duplicate reports)
• If you don't want this notice shown again, click here.

If you don't do this, you will get a "What the *** is this and why wasn't I warned?" reaction, which will start returning users' experience of VE off on the wrong footing. People don't like surprises, and are much more likely to give VE a fair try if they have been told about it. JohnCD (talk) 11:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense; I'm trying to think of the best way of structuring it. In theory we could just add a note to the "you have logged in" page, but I'm not sure if people would read it. Thoughts? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I think a brightly-coloured notice on the "Login successful" page would get read, and that's where it needs to be, unless it is at the top of every page until dismissed. If used successfully here, I think this could be a continuing useful technique to tell returning users of other changes they should know about. I could imagine a "recent changes you might like to know about" section on the "Login successful" page, a list of items each with a link to explanation and a check-box to prevent it being shown again. My on-line bank account does something like that, and I do not find it a nuisance. But the important thing is to get something up NOW for VE - I already see the WTF??? messages starting to appear on the feedback page. 21:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)JohnCD (talk)

Makes sense. Do you want to write something up/post it there (it could even be a more brightly-coloured version of the form at the top of the VisualEditor portal). My staff account doesn't have admin bits, and I'd rather not cross the streams :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Sitenotice question

As is noted at the top of the page, VisualEditor doesn't yet work in IE. Could we add something to the sitenotice saying this? Perhaps "VisualEditor does not yet support Internet Explorer, but we hope to make it available as soon as possible". I apologise that I can't suggest a specific place to put it; I closed the sitenotice before I thought of coming here, and I can't figure out how to get it back. Nyttend (talk) 21:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

It's in the VisualEditor page, which the sitenotice links to - hopefully that'll help :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me...

The VE setting to hide the VE is on but yet the 'Edit' now takes me to the VE. I do not want this. Do. Not. Want. This is ridiculous. I have it hidden in my Gadgets. Why is it now there all of the sudden? Jguy _Talk^Done 00:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Hang on; I'll test it now. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

This is happening to me, too. I'm speaking to people about it. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• So apparently this is the result of changes to make the loading of VE smaller; on page load, it's gone down from 110kb-ish to 4kb ish, but this has resulted in some changes not reflected in MatMaRex's gadget. I understand he was aware of these changes, so hopefully they can be fixed. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

@Okeyes (WMF): thanks. There's a few more places where people have noticed that it's back. I hope you don't mind me cross-posting your reply to me here, there? Jguy _Talk^Done 00:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

@Jguy: Quite the opposite; very grateful :). Can you drop me a note of where so I can follow the conversation? I've hit the feedback page, but I'm not sure where else it's happening. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure! Ping'ed ya! It's over at WP:VPT. Jguy _Talk^Done 00:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

As of now it works fine for me and I'm very grateful for inclustion of the quick opt-out instructions into beginning of the announcement. I switched the VE via gadgets at c. 09:30 UTC and there is again the "old" interface under "edit" and VE (at least visually :)) gone. --Miaow Miaow (talk) 10:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Template parameters

It would be good if a template with a lot of parameters (e.g. WP:IAP) would specify using some metadata or something a list of the parameters, along with friendly names and/or help text. We already have a list in the help docs, I guess you would need some special markup on a special page to make it work properly. Then you could properly offer field names for template adding/editing, resulting in a much better user experience. Just my 2c --TheJosh (talk) 02:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

@TheJosh: I agree! Actually we're working on that right now using TemplateData, which everyone is welcome to help out with. Try adding something like the cite web template to an article, and watch what happens :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

New features

Sorry if this isn't the place to make enquiries but how does this new facility become operational? I haven't seen any automatic difference since clicking "edit" on any page since VE is supposed to have come into effect. Is it because my account is relatively new or is this something for which I need to adjust preferences or something similar? Thanks. The Big Hoof! (talk) 10:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

@Hooooooof: what browser are you using? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I use Explorer. I gather from your question it is not the correct choice! :) The Big Hoof! (talk) 12:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. :/ IE is on the list, but it is not yet enabled. In the meantime, you might join the dark side and download Firefox or Chrome. :D --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Excellent thanks. I've got Chrome locked away in the cupboard, I prefer Explorer for its tools. Chrome is ok but I hardly use it. I am about to open shop. BRB. The Big Hoof! (talk) 13:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Redirects to old version

After I make an edit in Visual Editor, why oh why does it redirect to the historic version of the page as I originally found it, rather than the current version?

The result is that I do this, then I do this, then I give up on Visual Editor and do this. That's a total of 1 edit and a little confusion more than is needed. Formerip (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

That bug is bugzilla:50716 and bugzilla:50441. I agree it is quite confusing, and quite a few people are experiencing this bug. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Formerip (talk) 20:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Default

I've installed the appropriate text in my common.js file. Worked for a few days, but I now seem to be defaulting to the bloody visual editor again. What's going on? -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Disable the junk in your Preferences tab, by going into Widgets. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Communication pointers

I'm sick of editors posting that "I'm sorry you misunderstood us" or "I'm sorry you didn't get the message" or "I'm sorry it wasn't clear to you" -- it is never the listener's responsibility to understand the speaker. It is the speaker's responsibility to be understood by the listener.

Never say, "I'm sorry that you were confused" -- say instead "I'm sorry that I was confusing to you" -- that's a start.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it's somewhat more nuanced than that. We have many thousands of editors from completely different backgrounds, who bring completely different attitudes to the table; I think it's the responsibility of people to try to make themselves understood as best they can, but that doesn't mean an inability to communicate is always going to be the fault of the person speaking. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes it does.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Okeyes, I don't mean to beat up on you because you are obviously very committed, but as a product/software developer making a deployment to a live environment, it is absolutely your responsibility to be understood by your user base. No excuses. --RA (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Strong agreement. As a former commercial software developer, I recognize this principle as bedrock. It is your job to make sure your users have received the message, period. As a long-time but deliberately infrequent editor, and very frequent reader, I absolutely agree with others that the roll-out notices for this have been far too limited and easily overlooked (unlike, as many have pointed out, various fundraising, meet-up, and anti-regulation notices) and that information about the visual editor and instructions on how to edit in the traditional style need to be front and center. Wichitalineman (talk) 23:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

We used precisely the same format and method as fundraising and meet-up notices. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 06:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Fundraising drives are advertised in big yellow banners on the main space. Additionally, I currently (finally?) have notice of the VisualEditor roll out in my watchlist. I also have notice of a Wikimeidia UK meet up. The roll out is in small font. The meet up is in a big font. Do you see the difference? --RA (talk) 09:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Nothing short of a sitenotice, as discussed below, is suitable for a change of this magnitude. — Scott • talk 11:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I agre with Scott. This was a big deal and everyone affected should have been directly notified well in advance. Failure to do so has been extremely disruptive to Wikipedia and clearly not in Wikipedia's best interest. Measures should be taken immediately to back down Wikipedia to its previous state, a real software rollout plan should be developed, the multitutde of bugs should be removed, and users who moved ahead with this project should be blocked for a minimum of 30 days on any editing other than development of this tool. Instead, all we get are excuses. If this were a real for-profit venture, the people who rolled this out would have all been fired by now. It has been handled very badly.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Paul McDonald and Scott,

The WMF projects have two ways of displaying banners at the top of every page. One is the WP:Sitenotice and the other is the meta:CentralNotice. When you're talking about a message for all registered users at single wiki, the main difference between them are the physical location of the banner and whether it can be programmed to turn on automatically at a set time. The appearance to the user is the same: both put a large banner at the top of every screen until manually dismissed by the user.

Is it really important to you that the banner be delivered by the Sitenotice software, or in your opinion would it be good enough to have the same banner get delivered (to the same users) by the CentralNotice software? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I was ignorant of the technical difference between the two, sorry if that caused confusion; I was talking about the general case of a whacking big banner across the top of the page. — Scott • talk 16:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Frankly ridiculous behaviour.

I suggested the following Sitenotice. I was careful not to say anything negative about Visual editor, but simply say how to opt out, and where to report bugs:

Wikipedia is happy to announce the live Beta of VisualEditor, a tool that offers a way to edit pages without needing to learn wikimarkup. This has been automatically activated on all accounts. If you need to edit without VisualEditor, you can choose "Edit source" instead of "Edit". For bug reporting, go to Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback.

To opt out of VisualEditor, simply go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets, scroll down to "Editing", tick the box labelled "Remove VisualEditor from the user interface", then scroll to the bottom and click "Save". You can reactivate it at any time by unticking the box.

Here's Okeyes's [response]:

“ I this move would be highly damaging, and to be blunt while I'm not in a position to speak for the Foundation I strongly suspect that making such a prominent notice will not be appreciated. If you want to talk through interim steps to see if it helps - listing the gadget in the FAQ, for example, comes to mind - I'm happy to do so, but I'd ask that we wait for a couple of hours at least until more people have woken up (particularly those in the office). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC) ”

I find this ridiculous. Everyone else agreed? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not quite understanding why you find it ridiculous; I'm talking about trying to find a middle ground, here. I've tried to set out my thoughts in more detail on AN, where people can go for a more comprehensive version of the discussion, and I'm happy, as I say in the message you've quoted, to talk about ways to increase the prominence of the opt-out that don't rise to the scale of a sitenotice. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Can we condense this text to over two or three lines? I would then support it running for a week. While I support the VE in theory people need to know how to get around it at least. Some of our long term editors have become frustrated. This would reach out to them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

What is ridiculous is to add a totally different new editor when people who really want to add (and had been adding) reliable relevant sourced content know to do it. As other users had pointed, by not making editors to register and made themshelves an account and by not making them to learn a bit how to edit, we are encouraging everyone to edit, including vandals, wich will rise more & more, no doubt. I think that everyone would agree that: more easiness to edit = less WP accurancy, its logic. With this type of things, WP is less reliable every day...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 15:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Open editing is one of our core values. It's why we exist. The editors of Nupedia were also quite concerned with opening editing to everyone, but so far it's working okay. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 15:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Like it I like this as a site notice. It would have helped me and would have been far less disruptive. As it stands now, I fear that we will lose many editors due to the sudden change without notice and lack of understanding of the new tool. I cannot imagine why anyone would be against it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I understand that there can be a lot of frustration when people disagree, but "frankly ridiculous behaviour" isn't language that's likely to lead to good collaboration and it's not exactly encouraged communication technique. :/ Making sure people are fully informed of options is important, however we decide that's done, but surely we can remain civil while we do it.

I see the text has been added to the top of this page, and the centralnotice that sends people to find out more will put that front and center for everyone who cares to click the link. I think that gives us time to work out if additional steps should be taken. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 15:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

But what if it is ridiculous behavior? This "editor" has been rolled out in a highly disruptive way and is clearly bad for Wikipedia. The few that are "in charge of it" are truly behaving in a "ridiculous way" but if you want policy instead, their actions are clearly opposite of WP:CONSENSUS. When editors oppose consensus on Wikipedia to the extent that they have here, they get blocked. That hasn't happened here, and it looks like it won't. And that is ridiculous behavior. But if you want to propose another word, please do so. I'm emotionally charged at how people are being treated here and I'm not the best person to choose words right now.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

If you read the consensus policy you'll see it explicitly excludes technical changes. I agree we could have done better with the rollout; I don't agree that my statement - which is that we need to handle notifications in a way that balances making the option available to the community and making sure the VisualEditor isn't completely undermined - is ridiculous. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The Wikimedia Foundation has developed this tool for use on all language Wikipedias (that's over 290 different communities, although some will have to wait until language specification issues are addressed) - after years of requests from the community, mind, and at the direction of the Board of Trustees - and has taken great steps to notify the communities and especially this one that this was coming, including using all the media outlets we have at our disposal (both in Wikipedia, as the Signpost, and out, as the blog) as well as at in-person events and through banners on the site itself. Even external media was aware of and reported on this. (For instance, [4]) I understand that you did not notice these; I'm sure it was a shock, and I'm sure you're not alone. It is extremely difficult to reach everyone, in spite of efforts. The WMF has no desire to force VisualEditor use on anyone - this is why it remains and will remain optional. If you are emotionally charged, you may want to consider some of the approaches in the many essays written about Wikipedia:Civility - I have myself long been partial to Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot. :) The basic point here is that labeling people's behavior (individually or in aggregate) as "ridiculous" is not going to help advance the discussion. VE is finally here, after years in development, and there is certainly no current plan at WMF to take it away. I suspect the best thing to do now is to make sure that it is as helpful as possible for those who use it while continuing to support those who would prefer not to use it themselves. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 15:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Maggie, with respect, VE is not here. It isn't ready. There are too many problems and bugs that need to be resolved before it can be declared here. What we have is nothing more than a prototype. A lot of effort has gone into it and will continue too. But releasing an unfinished product full of bugs cannot be declared as anything but a disaster. I feel bad for you and Oliver and many of the others that are essentially getting thrown to the wolves on this. I'm certain you discussed the communities concerns and I am pretty sure at least some of you encouraged them to wait to release it until some of the bugs wer worked out and you are the ones that have to take the heat. I know that you are basically required to get behind this app and try and sooth our souls. But the release is poor, the priduct is unsatisfactory as it is and many of the problems need to be addressed before its released. With that said, many many users including me have levied their complaints. Whether the you all at the WMF listen and do something is up to you. I'm not going to continue to harp on it and I don't really feel that our comments are being taken seriously. Just disregarded as a few editors who aren't happy with the change. So with that, I am going to stop commenting here and disable VE. There is no need to continue to comment and test something if the probelms aren't going to be addressed or taken seriously. Kumioko (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I realize that you and I are using the term differently, Kumioko, but from where I'm sitting, VE is very much here. :) Some people are finding it easier to adapt to than others, which is understandable. I don't find the transition from the familiar system all that easy myself. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 18:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the tool being in use, I have a problem with a tool with more than 350+ current bugs, being released to all users knowing that there are still major problems with it. Kumioko (talk) 18:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed. The entire VE thing feels pretty WP:POINTy to me—as I said in a below discussion, the WMF has been repeatedly refusing to accept input from us, the editors, those who will actually be affected by their massive and practically-unannounced changes to the entire wiki. Sure, the WMF owns the wikis, but seriously... WP:OWN much?  — TORTOISEWRATH 01:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

  @TortoiseWrath: can you give an example on refusing to accept input? I'd like to think we've been doing a pretty good job on reporting and fixing actual bugs; bigger philosophical questions are always going to be thornier, and it's worth noting that accepting the input is not the same as coming to agree with it. The movement as a whole - heck, the community as a whole - is always going to have a range of views on any one subject. The political party I'm a member of in the UK has a joke "three Liberal Democrats means seven opinions", which strikes me as pretty applicable here as well. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 06:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

  • I can give an example, hold off on releasing VE, its broken. Times that by at least 100, editors. I think you also need to do a database query to find out how many have disabled it. I think that will give you a pretty good indication. Kumioko (talk) 11:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

    • I did, as it happens. 412 editors. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• I fully agree with Adam Cuerden's and Paul McDonald's comments here. — Scott • talk 11:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• How about this, just a minor change to the wording:

Bend over peons, the WMF says it's editin' time

You didn't really think that the WMF either gave a damn what editors thought, or that they had any effective mechanism to find out first, or to trial a flakey piece of software before compulsory release. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

That would be funny... except it's just too darned accurate of a description of what is happening. How can this be in alignment with policy? I've seen users banned for a lot less.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC)