Community Wishlist Survey 2023/Larger suggestions/Make it simple and usable again

This proposal is a larger suggestion that is out of scope for the Community Tech team. Participants are welcome to vote on it, but please note that regardless of popularity, there is no guarantee this proposal will be implemented. Supporting the idea helps communicate its urgency to the broader movement.

Random proposal ►◄ Larger suggestions The survey has concluded. Here are the results!

Make it simple and usable again

Problem: The thing is too bloated, complex, slow, and buggy, hard to use, and impossible to maintain (evidence).
Proposed solution: Restrict adding of new features, instead optimize. Remove the VisualEditor (or at least make it non-default), reduce number of open Phabricator tasks, dare to question existing features.
Who would benefit: All users, particularly the older ones, as well as those unable or refusing to buy a new computer every 3 months, those with slow or unreliable internet connections, and those who prefer to see the truth (ie wikitext) instead of illusions. Developers having more time to fix real bugs. Our environment because of reduced consumption of material and energy.
More comments:
- Remove features that are blatantly obsolete.
- I question the assumption that the VisualEditor attracts new good contributors. In order to contribute to a wiki (wiktionary, wikipedia, wikidata, ...), skills are required. Language skills, science skills, knowledge of policies (no plagiarism, notability, verifiability, ...), skills to write good definitions (for wiktionary), ... . People with zero skills unfortunately cannot contribute, without or with the VisualEditor. In fact the VisualEditor attracts mostly vandals, and wastes time of those not using it, as well as various other resources.
- The simple namespace list with checkboxes on the screen ca 10 years ago worked well. The current list flashing down runs out of the screen and is unusable.
- The old design of wikis was usable. The new one with an empty column on the left eating away ca 1/3 of the width of the screen is nonsense.
- The old design of interlanguage links in the lower part of the left column was simple and usable irrespective of the number of links. The new layout with the links hidden, access button that can be anywhere (top right on some wikis), and the links finally placed over page content with a eurocentristic grouping, not fitting on the screen, and vanishing when one tries to scroll, is nonsense.
- The "new" upload form on Commons is a nightmare. The old one was much better.
- Are explicit interwiki links still useful given that WikiData is used?
- Remove text encodings other than UTF8.
- Encourage more the switch to HTML5, then remove support for "cellpadding=" and similar stuff.
- Search preferably for stuff that the user asks for. Do not search for "Simmering" if the user asked for "simmer". Do not aggressively replace user's text by "suggestions" unrelated to the search intent.
- Keep LUA (2013) and WikiData (2013), they are the 2 real and good innovations, as well as Cognate (2017). Most other changes probably could be reverted to year 2010 or 2005. Less is sometimes more.
Phabricator tickets: all that have been open for an unreasonably long time, all about subsequent trouble of the VisualEditor
Proposer: Taylor 49 (talk) 12:10, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Oh my goodness, I am ready to subscribe under every single word of yours! —2dk (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the Visual Editor should be treated as an instance of w:The_Mythical_Man-Month#The pilot system, "a team will design a throw-away system (whether it intends to or not)". The basic idea is sound & putting a small team to work on a better version would be fine idea. The current system can be made available in the meanwhile but should not be the default for anyone & should not get large maintenance effort. Pashley (talk) 14:24, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Voting

Strong support —2dk (talk) 19:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support TheAmerikaner (talk) 20:21, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support that would be better Boehm (talk) 20:40, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very important to think the easiest way. Sicarov (talk) 21:03, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I hate to be a Luddite but find myself nodding in agreement at most of the points above. Please change things only when absolutely necessary. As a side-effect, this should free up some resource for bug-fixing. Certes (talk) 21:53, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Significa liberdade (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose as these are all trivial. Give Wikimedia Foundation time to sort things out; it's like trying to revert Twitter to its old design or messing with things that just shouldn't be messed with (as has been seen lately over there). TheLionHasSeen (talk) 23:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose That would effectively shut down general audience participation, IMHO. Magnoliasouth (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose per the above. NMaia (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am an experienced editor and the Visual Editor has considerably improved my edits on Wikipedia, it's quicker, more straightforward, more visually appealing and comfortable. It is also very valuable for scholars and people with expertise on a topic, but not familiar with the wikicode. Skimel (talk) 00:29, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose seems like you're in the minority here. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 01:26, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I acknowledge that this clearly doesn't have consensus, and don't necessarily agree with every one of the proposed changes, but I do think that MediaWiki's complexity has often been creeping up past what is warranted. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 04:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose This is a completely absurd proposal. Kill the Visual Editor? What complete nonsense. The Visual Editor was the best thing that Wikipedia and its project derivations implemented. User:Goliv04053 User talk:Goliv04053 06:36, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not. It is merely a beta version if at all. Matthiasb (talk) 14:52, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Throw VE to trash bin. Arado Ar 196 (talk) 08:29, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Absurd. Many of us mainly use the Visual Editor because it is more accessible to our needs, eyes, reading, thinking. etc. User:St. Andrews Drive —Preceding undated comment added 09:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Support This thing doesn't work, it is not understandable that it is the default choice while it is a buggy hardly usable stuff. It is actually an experimental alpha feature. CaféBuzz (talk) 11:16, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose VE makes it easier to edit, there is no reason to make it difficult for many editors. We need more editors, not less. SunDawn (talk) 12:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Those of us who use wikitext are a minority, a wysiwyg editor is clearly advantageous to encouraging readers to become editors. The Foundation employs UX professionals, rather than asking the opinions of amateurs who happen to edit a lot for good reason. As Goliv04053 and St. Andrews Drive put it, this is absurd. The Internet is not what it was when we each started editing; that is not something we can (or should!) change. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 14:57, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Visual Editor has made my work in Wikipedia, a large part of which is introducing small edits, twice easier. Especially useful for inline linking to other articles. Keep the thing. --Ivario (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Well-intentioned but vague and unimplementable. Yes, UIs should be good and not bad. NillaGoon (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose VE has a lot of good inside (e.g. it makes editing references and text with refs a much more straight forward process). A lot of users use it with success. Throwing that away would just be wrong. Improve it? Sure. It does already happen though. Nux (talk) 09:28, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support as the proposer. Taylor 49 (talk) 04:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This proposal is about too many things, and in places is too vague. Split it up, clarify, and resubmit next year. Libcub (talk) 07:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose I disagree on the opinions expressed about the VisualEditor, the new website design (including text width), the interlanguage links, the Commons uploader, and about not taking search queries verbatim. All these tools and designs may be perfected, but are definitely steps forward in my opinion. --Lion-hearted85 (talk) 12:53, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Vincent Vega ^msg? 20:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree 100% with the problem statement; not necessarily with the solutions given. Doktor Züm (talk) 15:08, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support KISS. Kays (talk) 01:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Fuchs B (talk) 20:17, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support —‍(ping on reply)—‍CX Zoom (A/अ/অ) (let's talk|contribs) 08:38, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lightoil (talk) 10:13, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Visual Editor is very helpful, ridiculous idea to throw that away. ABPMAB (talk) 14:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose We are a wiki. Wikis work because they are constantly being changed and improved. That should apply to software, too. Furthermore, wikitext is not "the truth". It is converted into proper HTML, just like VisualEdits are converted into wikitext. Just because you don't use something doesn't make it worthless. HouseBlaster (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose This is an unactionable laundry list of vague personal grievances. Especially ditching the VE would be very detrimental to public participation. Stockmausen (talk) 13:17, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you for that suggestion, one of the few valuable ones here! DerMaxdorfer (talk) 00:16, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose An interesting opinion, but I think it is a step back when an open platform can't develop just because there are those people who can't adapt. Hans5958 (talk) 02:39, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support And keep magic words (PMID, RFC and mainly ISBN) and remove obsolete templates like the en:Template:ISBN-nonsense. --Matthiasb (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is very subjective, optimizing is good but preventing new features will keep Wikipedia behind. "Slow" is invalid because there could be a variety of problems for a slow website, but modern technology has also made a lot of progress. Perhaps the problem of slowness is not due to the features but to outdated technology (on the part of the cmplaining user or on the part of Wikipedia itself)? --Lukas Raich (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dajasj (talk) 13:22, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Morten Haan (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Fcastillo (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose VE is still a great thing, although it needs improvement. Thingofme (talk) 01:58, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose just because you like something, doesn't make it better to everyone. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 19:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Community members should not have right to decide what any other member have on their private screen. --Wargo (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]