Talk:VisualEditor/Complaints

Default editor

Making VisualEditor the primary/default editor really pissed off users and further destroyed any level of trust. The project manager gave assurances that VisualEditor would not be made the default editor without asking the community first. In an unannounced move, VisualEditor was made the default editor for new users. The default was structured to be invisible the existing community, which was viewed as an attempt to set VisualEditor as default by stealth. For almost two weeks the WMF did not reply to multiple objections, until several users escalated the issue to the Executive Director. The manager then gave assurances he would change the default. However after two weeks of inaction, the manager stated he would not do so. This resulted in outrage and accusations of "lying". The community responded by drafting a sitewide javascript hack that would override the default. The wikitext editor was then made the primary editor.

Elitre (WMF), regarding the above content which you reverted: Could you either explain where you think it's incorrect, or explain how it's not a noteworthy complaint when the community has to escalate the issue to the Executive Director, when Administrator's Noticeboard endorses calling staff a "liar", and when the community is so pissed that we were going to deploy javascript hack?

Do you believe the WMF handled the situation well, and future projects should be handled similarly? Or does this belong in a post-mortem as an example of things to avoid in the future? Alsee (talk) 06:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

This is your narrative of the story, told from your perspective, of something that happened on a single wiki. I mean, if it was on the page, with your signature and with a prominent link to yor contributions (for context sake), that'd probably help people to understand. A nice attempt at a "post-mortem" kind-of-thing recently happened, with Cirdan presenting at Wikimania about the history of the visual editor at the German Wikipedia and how the product made its comeback there last year. Certainly not perfect as admitted by the same author (but he promised that next time he will acknowledge that the product being good was the actual precondition to the comeback... so we're good), but an appreciable, and appreciated, effort. --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 07:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the info about VE on German wiki, sure, include it wherever it's appropriate. I'm not anti-VisualEditor. I'm not trying to get rid of VisualEditor. In fact I was recently criticizing the WMF for deliberately denying access to VisualEditor. If I need to edit a table in project space or on a talk page, you actively prohibit me from using VisualEditor. That's exactly the sort of edit where where VE best shines. That should be a noteworthy indication that there's something wrong with the strategy.

Many WMF pages, especially on VisualEditor, read like advertizing copy. (This page is a notable exception.) I'm also concerned that the WMF has difficulty accepting feedback from the community, and even accepting the results of your own research. VE is a useful tool, it just didn't live up to the grand hope. It didn't open a magic doorway for hordes of excluded contributors. It shouldn't placed on a pedestal, above all else.

Regarding the page edit: First, I'd like to make clear that language such as "pissed off users" was literally copy-pasted from other entries here. I was trying as best I could to replicate how other entries were added here. Regarding it being "my narrative", do you think it could be acceptably re-written? I think the backlash in this case is exactly the kind of thing this page was designed to record. The community happily accepts VE as a secondary or parallel editor. However the community will passionately defend the wiki against threats, even if the perceived threat is the WMF. It is viewed as a threat when the WMF makes a "trade off" which actively undermines wikitext. It put people on the warpath when the WMF made VE the default editor and hid the wikitext editor behind an obscure button inside VE. The community wrote and would have deployed a javascript hack to override it. People were ready to march directly into another Superprotect incident, and they didn't do so planning to lose.

If you think VE is a good thing, if you want the community to embrace it, this is exactly the kind of misstep you want to avoid. This is the sort of misstep that should be documented. This is the sort of incident that breeds hostility against VE itself, not to mention distrust and hostility against the WMF. Alsee (talk) 11:42, 10 September 2017 (UTC)