Remove 'visualeditor-enable' from $wgHiddenPrefs

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
101 messages Options
123456
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Remove 'visualeditor-enable' from $wgHiddenPrefs

Andre Klapper-2
Hi Risker,

On Mon, 2013-07-22 at 14:22 -0400, Risker wrote:
> A note about the bugzilla:  there's a reason why people are commenting
> there. They're being ignored in every other venue, and WP:CONEXCEPT
> (exceptions to project consensus)[1] has been invoked in regard to this.
>  Therefore the correct place to appeal the decision is with the community
> of Wikimedia developers and (maybe) WMF staff, and one of the most
> effective ways of getting the eyes of both groups is to launch and comment
> on Bugzillas.

I'm not sure if that's a compliment or not. :)

Bugzilla is for technical discussions of a well-defined request, and
comments that help investigating and finding a fix for a bug are very
welcome!

However, "I want this too!" comments or high level / meta discussions,
for example what the Wikimedia Foundation as a whole should do or should
not do, are not welcome as it's simply the wrong place.
I am interested in keeping the amount of bugmail low which does not deal
directly with the topic of a bug report - I've worked in free and open
source projects where developers ignored bugmail because "user comments
are too noisy and often off-topic". That would help nobody.

I consider mailing lists and wikiforums more adequate for high level /
meta discussions on strategy or direction, and I'm pretty sad to hear
that you feel ignored in those places.

andre
--
Andre Klapper | Wikimedia Bugwrangler
http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper/


_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Remove 'visualeditor-enable' from $wgHiddenPrefs

Tyler Romeo
In reply to this post by Terry Chay
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 2:16 AM, Terry Chay <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Whoa. Them's fighting words! :-D


Yeah I'm sorry if that came off as aggressive, but this entire conversation
has had the air of "the VE team has decided this, but maybe they'll be
gracious enough to compromise with you". Hell, even when James "changed his
mind", the email was more of a "well that's what we thought as well, so
we'll allow you to have this, but only under our conditions".

I assume good faith, but after the "and that would be a lie" email, it was
kind of hard to maintain that assumption. Just once I'd like to see a
discussion that doesn't dismiss other people's arguments and opinions.

Also, I found the VE statistics pretty interesting. :)

Erik has given a long discussion why, from an engineering perspective, a
> no-op right now would add technical debt in the future and complicate the
> product roadmap today. [...] All of that is nearly identical to the FAQ
> reposted by Scott.
>

The only discussion of this nature was when Erik was discussing possible
future features for VE. If any of those features come to fruition, then I
would understand removing the user option, but right now those features do
not exist.

No. I may be wrong, but I think he said what he meant to say exactly as he
> said it.
>
> It's a valid interpretation of good faith complaints about the VE rollout.
> E3 has a opt-out preference against experimental features. To the extent
> that VE is a beta product, which nobody denies, then it would behoove us to
> make a similar option available to VE for when VE is in "beta." That
> reasoning is very sound.


I'm aware that was what he meant. I was being sarcastic. Like I said
before, this was along the same lines of "the VE team decides all and
nobody else has a say", which is the wrong way to approach this. If we're
supposed to be a community, why wouldn't the first option be to ask the
community before making such changes?

*-- *
*Tyler Romeo*
Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2016
Major in Computer Science
www.whizkidztech.com | [hidden email]
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Remove 'visualeditor-enable' from $wgHiddenPrefs

Martijn Hoekstra
On Jul 25, 2013 6:18 PM, "Tyler Romeo" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 2:16 AM, Terry Chay <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Whoa. Them's fighting words! :-D
>
>
> Yeah I'm sorry if that came off as aggressive, but this entire
conversation
> has had the air of "the VE team has decided this, but maybe they'll be
> gracious enough to compromise with you". Hell, even when James "changed
his

> mind", the email was more of a "well that's what we thought as well, so
> we'll allow you to have this, but only under our conditions".
>
> I assume good faith, but after the "and that would be a lie" email, it was
> kind of hard to maintain that assumption. Just once I'd like to see a
> discussion that doesn't dismiss other people's arguments and opinions.
>
> Also, I found the VE statistics pretty interesting. :)
>
> Erik has given a long discussion why, from an engineering perspective, a
> > no-op right now would add technical debt in the future and complicate
the

> > product roadmap today. [...] All of that is nearly identical to the FAQ
> > reposted by Scott.
> >
>
> The only discussion of this nature was when Erik was discussing possible
> future features for VE. If any of those features come to fruition, then I
> would understand removing the user option, but right now those features do
> not exist.
>
> No. I may be wrong, but I think he said what he meant to say exactly as he
> > said it.
> >
> > It's a valid interpretation of good faith complaints about the VE
rollout.
> > E3 has a opt-out preference against experimental features. To the extent
> > that VE is a beta product, which nobody denies, then it would behoove
us to
> > make a similar option available to VE for when VE is in "beta." That
> > reasoning is very sound.
>
>
> I'm aware that was what he meant. I was being sarcastic. Like I said
> before, this was along the same lines of "the VE team decides all and
> nobody else has a say", which is the wrong way to approach this. If we're
> supposed to be a community, why wouldn't the first option be to ask the
> community before making such changes?

I'm still wondering, when the call was made to disable this option, was it
expected this would cause massive resistance? If not, what is the WMF
planning to do to better judge that in the future (because imo this was a
predictable reaction)? And if so, why was this done silently?

>
> *-- *
> *Tyler Romeo*
> Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2016
> Major in Computer Science
> www.whizkidztech.com | [hidden email]
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Remove 'visualeditor-enable' from $wgHiddenPrefs

Tyler Romeo
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 1:11 PM, Martijn Hoekstra <[hidden email]
> wrote:

> I'm still wondering, when the call was made to disable this option, was it
> expected this would cause massive resistance? If not, what is the WMF
> planning to do to better judge that in the future (because imo this was a
> predictable reaction)? And if so, why was this done silently?
>

It wasn't decided. There was a bug with the user preference where the label
on the preference was incorrect. In order to fix this, the option was
disabled.

*-- *
*Tyler Romeo*
Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2016
Major in Computer Science
www.whizkidztech.com | [hidden email]
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Remove 'visualeditor-enable' from $wgHiddenPrefs

Martijn Hoekstra
On Jul 25, 2013 8:02 PM, "Tyler Romeo" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 1:11 PM, Martijn Hoekstra <
[hidden email]
> > wrote:
>
> > I'm still wondering, when the call was made to disable this option, was
it
> > expected this would cause massive resistance? If not, what is the WMF
> > planning to do to better judge that in the future (because imo this was
a
> > predictable reaction)? And if so, why was this done silently?
> >
>
> It wasn't decided. There was a bug with the user preference where the
label
> on the preference was incorrect. In order to fix this, the option was
> disabled.
>

That's a de facto decision isn't it? Somebody figured flipping that switch
without discussing it with the wikis first was a good idea. The question
still stands: if they didn't expect this fall out, why not, and if they
did, why keep quiet?

> *-- *
> *Tyler Romeo*
> Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2016
> Major in Computer Science
> www.whizkidztech.com | [hidden email]
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Remove 'visualeditor-enable' from $wgHiddenPrefs

Tyler Romeo
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Martijn Hoekstra <[hidden email]
> wrote:

> That's a de facto decision isn't it? Somebody figured flipping that switch
> without discussing it with the wikis first was a good idea. The question
> still stands: if they didn't expect this fall out, why not, and if they
> did, why keep quiet?
>

Well the thing is it wasn't turned off because they wanted to turn it off.
It was turned off because the message was incorrect, and the development
required to fix it would have taken a significant amount of time. It does
sort of count as a de facto decision, but I don't imagine community fallout
would have been taken into account since it was an engineering decision and
not a product decision.

*-- *
*Tyler Romeo*
Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2016
Major in Computer Science
www.whizkidztech.com | [hidden email]
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Remove 'visualeditor-enable' from $wgHiddenPrefs

David Gerard-2
In reply to this post by Tyler Romeo
On 25 July 2013 17:17, Tyler Romeo <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I assume good faith, but after the "and that would be a lie" email, it was
> kind of hard to maintain that assumption. Just once I'd like to see a
> discussion that doesn't dismiss other people's arguments and opinions.


It would also be nice to see WMF staff not using the term "power
users" as a snarl word. Perhaps this will happen.


- d.

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Remove 'visualeditor-enable' from $wgHiddenPrefs

Martijn Hoekstra
In reply to this post by Tyler Romeo
On Jul 25, 2013 8:09 PM, "Tyler Romeo" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Martijn Hoekstra <
[hidden email]
> > wrote:
>
> > That's a de facto decision isn't it? Somebody figured flipping that
switch
> > without discussing it with the wikis first was a good idea. The question
> > still stands: if they didn't expect this fall out, why not, and if they
> > did, why keep quiet?
> >
>
> Well the thing is it wasn't turned off because they wanted to turn it off.
> It was turned off because the message was incorrect, and the development
> required to fix it would have taken a significant amount of time. It does
> sort of count as a de facto decision, but I don't imagine community
fallout
> would have been taken into account since it was an engineering decision
and
> not a product decision.

I find that somewhat hard to believe, but if it is true, should that worry
us? I'm not sure that we should be comfortable with changes like these not
giving pause to our engineers.

>
> *-- *
> *Tyler Romeo*
> Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2016
> Major in Computer Science
> www.whizkidztech.com | [hidden email]
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Remove 'visualeditor-enable' from $wgHiddenPrefs

Tyler Romeo
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 2:15 PM, Martijn Hoekstra <[hidden email]
> wrote:

> I find that somewhat hard to believe, but if it is true, should that worry
> us? I'm not sure that we should be comfortable with changes like these not
> giving pause to our engineers.
>

Well to be quite honest it was a pretty reasonable decision. I mean, if
enabling an option all of a sudden broke Wikipedia, it makes sense to
disable that option until it is fixed. Maybe the issue wasn't so big a deal
such that it needed to be immediately disabled, but nonetheless it's a
decision I trust the operations team to make.

*-- *
*Tyler Romeo*
Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2016
Major in Computer Science
www.whizkidztech.com | [hidden email]
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Remove 'visualeditor-enable' from $wgHiddenPrefs

Risker
On 25 July 2013 14:20, Tyler Romeo <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 2:15 PM, Martijn Hoekstra <
> [hidden email]
> > wrote:
>
> > I find that somewhat hard to believe, but if it is true, should that
> worry
> > us? I'm not sure that we should be comfortable with changes like these
> not
> > giving pause to our engineers.
> >
>
> Well to be quite honest it was a pretty reasonable decision. I mean, if
> enabling an option all of a sudden broke Wikipedia, it makes sense to
> disable that option until it is fixed. Maybe the issue wasn't so big a deal
> such that it needed to be immediately disabled, but nonetheless it's a
> decision I trust the operations team to make.
>
>
The preference didn't break anything. It had been active for months during
the alpha testing.  It was a conscious decision not to permit its continued
use after the deployment on July 1, and the way that it was "disabled" was
by hiding it.

Those of you who know more about the system than do I pointed out that
hiding the preference wasn't the appropriate step and if the VE team wanted
to remove the option, it should be written out on their end.  But the
preference had been active for months before the July 1 deployment.

Risker
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Remove 'visualeditor-enable' from $wgHiddenPrefs

James Forrester-4
In reply to this post by Tyler Romeo
On 25 July 2013 11:00, Tyler Romeo <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 1:11 PM, Martijn Hoekstra <
> [hidden email]
> > wrote:
>
> > I'm still wondering, when the call was made to disable this option, was
> it
> > expected this would cause massive resistance? If not, what is the WMF
> > planning to do to better judge that in the future (because imo this was a
> > predictable reaction)? And if so, why was this done silently?
> >
>
> It wasn't decided. There was a bug with the user preference where the label
> on the preference was incorrect. In order to fix this, the option was
> disabled.
>

​That's just flatly wrong. Removing the preference was always the intention
and had been mentioned several times​. The reminder that we needed to fix
the issue immediately because it was affecting MediaWiki.org in a number of
ways including the preference wrongly showing up caused me into fixing the
issue.

The problem about the alpha opt-in preference label needing to be manually
updated to cover what namespaces the alpha is enabled in has not been fixed
yet (and probably won't be by the team, given that this preference is not
long for this world).

J.
--
James D. Forrester
Product Manager, VisualEditor
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

[hidden email] | @jdforrester
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Remove 'visualeditor-enable' from $wgHiddenPrefs

James Forrester-4
In reply to this post by Martijn Hoekstra
On 25 July 2013 10:11, Martijn Hoekstra <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I'm still wondering, when the call was made to disable this option, was it
> expected this would cause massive resistance? If not, what is the WMF
> planning to do to better judge that in the future (because imo this was a
> predictable reaction)? And if so, why was this done silently?
>

​I made the call about a year ago, and mentioned it in several of the
dozens of mailing list and on-wiki posts made about the development of
VisualEditor since then. Clearly my communication about it wasn't read, or
wasn't understood, by the people who subsequently complained, but I
wouldn't describe it as being "done silently".

​Yours,
--
James D. Forrester
Product Manager, VisualEditor
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

[hidden email] | @jdforrester
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Remove 'visualeditor-enable' from $wgHiddenPrefs

James Forrester-4
In reply to this post by Risker
On 25 July 2013 11:32, Risker <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The preference didn't break anything. It had been active for months during
>  the alpha testing.  It was a conscious decision not to permit its
> continued
> use after the deployment on July 1, and the way that it was "disabled" was
> by hiding it.
>

​This is correct, yes.​


> Those of you who know more about the system than do I pointed out that
> hiding the preference wasn't the appropriate step and if the VE team wanted
> to remove the option, it should be written out on their end.  But the
> preference had been active for months before the July 1 deployment.
>

​To be clear here, ​removing the preference we're talking about would
disable the alpha opt-in on all wikis that aren't in the beta (all users by
default) phase. That's 284 of the 293 Wikipedias right now (and would also
remove the ability for us to deploy the opt-in alpha to Wiktionaries,
Commons, Meta, *etc. *before we are ready to support them in beta); I think
hiding rather than removing the preference was the only real choice here.

​J.​
--
James D. Forrester
Product Manager, VisualEditor
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

[hidden email] | @jdforrester
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Remove 'visualeditor-enable' from $wgHiddenPrefs

Derric Atzrott
In reply to this post by James Forrester-4
>I made the call about a year ago, and mentioned it in several of the
>dozens of mailing list and on-wiki posts made about the development of
>VisualEditor since then. Clearly my communication about it wasn't read, or
>wasn't understood, by the people who subsequently complained, but I
>wouldn't describe it as being "done silently".

I guess the next question is what can we do to ensure that something like this
doesn't happen again?  I think everyone would have been a lot more calm if they
had read and understood your communication in the months leading up to this.

Thank you,
Derric Atzrott


_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Remove 'visualeditor-enable' from $wgHiddenPrefs

Tyler Romeo
In reply to this post by James Forrester-4
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 3:23 PM, James Forrester
<[hidden email]>wrote:

> ​That's just flatly wrong. Removing the preference was always the intention
> and had been mentioned several times​.
>

See here it is again. Was is absolutely necessary to say I was "flatly
wrong"? This thread began with mentions of the original patchset in which
the $wgHiddenPrefs was enabled *because of the messages error* so I don't
see how it was such a terrible conclusion to come to.

​I made the call about a year ago, and mentioned it in several of the
> dozens of mailing list and on-wiki posts made about the development of
> VisualEditor since then. Clearly my communication about it wasn't read, or
> wasn't understood, by the people who subsequently complained, but I
> wouldn't describe it as being "done silently".


Could you maybe link to where you emailed wikitech about this, because I
just searched my Gmail and found no such email.

*-- *
*Tyler Romeo*
Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2016
Major in Computer Science
www.whizkidztech.com | [hidden email]
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Remove 'visualeditor-enable' from $wgHiddenPrefs

Trevor Parscal-2
I have avoided getting involved so I could stay focused on fixing bugs and
making improvements to VisualEditor.

This thread has served it's purpose; to surface various arguments about
whether the preference to disable VisualEditor should be hidden or not. The
conclusion has been reached. The preference is now available to opt out
while VisualEditor is in beta. The patch as been deployed, and we all need
to get back to work.

I would like to politely ask us to put this thread to rest so we can all
get back to our respective tasks at hand.

Thank you all for your participation, I am glad we were able to resolve
this.

- Trevor

On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 12:45 PM, Tyler Romeo <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 3:23 PM, James Forrester
> <[hidden email]>wrote:
>
> > That's just flatly wrong. Removing the preference was always the
> intention
> > and had been mentioned several times.
> >
>
> See here it is again. Was is absolutely necessary to say I was "flatly
> wrong"? This thread began with mentions of the original patchset in which
> the $wgHiddenPrefs was enabled *because of the messages error* so I don't
> see how it was such a terrible conclusion to come to.
>
> I made the call about a year ago, and mentioned it in several of the
> > dozens of mailing list and on-wiki posts made about the development of
> > VisualEditor since then. Clearly my communication about it wasn't read,
> or
> > wasn't understood, by the people who subsequently complained, but I
> > wouldn't describe it as being "done silently".
>
>
> Could you maybe link to where you emailed wikitech about this, because I
> just searched my Gmail and found no such email.
>
> *-- *
> *Tyler Romeo*
> Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2016
> Major in Computer Science
> www.whizkidztech.com | [hidden email]
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Remove 'visualeditor-enable' from $wgHiddenPrefs

Martijn Hoekstra
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 9:54 PM, Trevor Parscal <[hidden email]>wrote:

> I have avoided getting involved so I could stay focused on fixing bugs and
> making improvements to VisualEditor.
>
> This thread has served it's purpose; to surface various arguments about
> whether the preference to disable VisualEditor should be hidden or not.


I would argue that avoiding this kind of painful back and forth in the
future is actually more important than the issue of the hidden preference.
I assume that nobody wants to see this again. Well, maybe WR. But nobody
who cares for the projects, engineering nor others at the foundation, nor
anyone in the community. Which is sort of why I waited on commenting on the
thread until the worst was over, and things had quieted down a little, so
we could have this discussion without all the emotion that was around
earlier. I didn't formulate my post in a form of what can we do in the
future to avoid this by accident.



> The
> conclusion has been reached. The preference is now available to opt out
> while VisualEditor is in beta. The patch as been deployed, and we all need
> to get back to work.
>
> I would like to politely ask us to put this thread to rest so we can all
> get back to our respective tasks at hand.
>
> Thank you all for your participation, I am glad we were able to resolve
> this.
>
> - Trevor
>
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 12:45 PM, Tyler Romeo <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 3:23 PM, James Forrester
> > <[hidden email]>wrote:
> >
> > > That's just flatly wrong. Removing the preference was always the
> > intention
> > > and had been mentioned several times.
> > >
> >
> > See here it is again. Was is absolutely necessary to say I was "flatly
> > wrong"? This thread began with mentions of the original patchset in which
> > the $wgHiddenPrefs was enabled *because of the messages error* so I don't
> > see how it was such a terrible conclusion to come to.
> >
> > I made the call about a year ago, and mentioned it in several of the
> > > dozens of mailing list and on-wiki posts made about the development of
> > > VisualEditor since then. Clearly my communication about it wasn't read,
> > or
> > > wasn't understood, by the people who subsequently complained, but I
> > > wouldn't describe it as being "done silently".
> >
> >
> > Could you maybe link to where you emailed wikitech about this, because I
> > just searched my Gmail and found no such email.
> >
> > *-- *
> > *Tyler Romeo*
> > Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2016
> > Major in Computer Science
> > www.whizkidztech.com | [hidden email]
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Remove 'visualeditor-enable' from $wgHiddenPrefs

Brian Wolff
> I made the call about a year ago, and mentioned it in several of the
> dozens of mailing list and on-wiki posts made about the development of
> VisualEditor since then. Clearly my communication about it wasn't read, or
> wasn't understood, by the people who subsequently complained, but I
> wouldn't describe it as being "done silently".

Users respond to things that happen to them and especially at the
point in time when they are negatively affected by something. Its
unrealistic to expect users to respond to comments about a piece of
software before they have to deal with it.


>This thread has served it's purpose; to surface various arguments about
>whether the preference to disable VisualEditor should be hidden or not.

It's debatable if this thread was ever really about that.

-bawolff

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Remove 'visualeditor-enable' from $wgHiddenPrefs

Risker
In reply to this post by Tyler Romeo
On 25 July 2013 15:45, Tyler Romeo <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 3:23 PM, James Forrester
> <[hidden email]>wrote:
>
> > That's just flatly wrong. Removing the preference was always the
> intention
> > and had been mentioned several times.
> >
>
> See here it is again. Was is absolutely necessary to say I was "flatly
> wrong"? This thread began with mentions of the original patchset in which
> the $wgHiddenPrefs was enabled *because of the messages error* so I don't
> see how it was such a terrible conclusion to come to.
>
> I made the call about a year ago, and mentioned it in several of the
> > dozens of mailing list and on-wiki posts made about the development of
> > VisualEditor since then. Clearly my communication about it wasn't read,
> or
> > wasn't understood, by the people who subsequently complained, but I
> > wouldn't describe it as being "done silently".
>
>
> Could you maybe link to where you emailed wikitech about this, because I
> just searched my Gmail and found no such email.
>
>
It's in the Engineering goals for 2012-13[1] in "big picture" and VE Q4
activities and periodically in the VisualEditor/status reports starting in
January 2013[2] that VisualEditor will be the default editor.  There is
nothing that I could find that said that the existing preference would be
disabled.


Risker

[1] http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Engineering/2012-13_Goals
[2] http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/VisualEditor/status
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Remove 'visualeditor-enable' from $wgHiddenPrefs

Erik Moeller-4
In reply to this post by Tim Starling-2
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 8:44 PM, Tim Starling <[hidden email]> wrote:

> "Newcomers with the VisualEditor were ~43% less likely to save a
> single edit than editors with the wikitext editor (x^2=279.4,
> p<0.001), meaning that Visual Editor presented nearly a 2:1 increase
> in editing difficulty."

For the record, this datapoint included in the draft (!) analysis was
due to faulty instrumentation. The correct numbers show only a
marginally significant difference between VisualEditor and wikitext
for an edit within 72 hours [1], with the caveats already given in my
earlier response.

Erik

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:VisualEditor%27s_effect_on_newly_registered_editors/Results#Editing_ease



--
Erik Möller
VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
123456