['==Watchlist notice?==\n', "Any reason why there isn't one?  WP:CENT isn't enough.  [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 18:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)\n"]
[': This is now moot given the (much more prominent) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sitenotice&diff=566640843&oldid=534920727 site notice]. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 03:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
['== How do I answer this "until the current major bugs are fixed"? ==\n', '\n', 'I want to say that it should be opt-in for everyone, but only until the current set of major bugs are fixed. Then I want the developers to try again with opt-out. Should I add third options to the binary answers or what? [[User:EllenCT|EllenCT]] ([[User talk:EllenCT|talk]]) 19:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)\n']
[':I\'d say that, if opt-in passes, we should follow this up with a poll as to what would be necessary before an opt-out. I, for one, would want support of basic wikitext and an end to the stupid on-hover-based selection of which tool to use for section editing, in addition to fixing major bugs, myself, largely because the VE team has made it clear they \'\'categorically refuse\'\' to fix those, despite them causing the &lt;nowiki&gt; bug and making section editing impossible on screen readers, respectively. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">\'\'\'[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]\'\'\' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup></span> 10:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)\n']
['::Are they refusing to fix table editing and cross-browser support? [[User:EllenCT|EllenCT]] ([[User talk:EllenCT|talk]]) 17:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)\n']
[':::No, table editing is on the list, and apparently always has been on the list for this quarter.  Some old browsers will never be supported.  I believe this is largely because those browsers are either quite rare or because they are simply incapable of handling the necessary actions (or both).  [[User:Whatamidoing (WMF)|Whatamidoing (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Whatamidoing (WMF)|talk]]) 22:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)\n']
['==What is the VisualEditor?==\n', '\n', 'in my opinion, this Request for Comment illustrates why some users, myself included, find the Wikipedia a technically challenging place.\n', '\n', "How can I comment on something when it isn't even explained what the  Visual Editor is, or what it does?  The wiki techies just assume that everyone has the same level of knowledge that they do.  This simply isn't the case.\n", '\n', 'The very first bullet in this RFC should be an explanation of what the Visual Editor is.\n', '[[User:Mr Serjeant Buzfuz|Mr Serjeant Buzfuz]] ([[User talk:Mr Serjeant Buzfuz|talk]]) 14:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)\n']
[':[[Wikipedia:VisualEditor]].  It is the editing interface that you get right now when you click "edit" on an article.  [[User:Mr Serjeant Buzfuz|Mr Serjeant Buzfuz]], it is possible that you edit using one of the blacklisted browsers (Internet Explorer is blacklisted, for example) so have not encountered this editing interface.  [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 15:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)\n']
['\n', 'I sorta know what VE is from a previous notification, and actually tried it a little, but it didn\'t work on templates.  I am an Internet Explorer user, and thus blacklisted for who knows how long, which I also learned back when VE was supposedly (my pov) activated.  So why am I getting this notification?  Can\'t it be turned off for IE users?  I just wasted 15 minutes or so trying to figure out if it was actually working for IE users yet.  Please don\'t bother me till it\'s actually working for IE users, or at least include "IE users need not apply" or equivalent in a prominent place.  Thanks. [[User:Cpfan776|Cpfan776]] ([[User talk:Cpfan776|talk]]) 02:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
['== Focusing on improvements ==\n', '\n', "While this [[WP:RFC|RFC]] somewhat heads in this direction, I think we should recognize that VisualEditor is the future and instead spend time and energy focusing on possible real, actionable  '''[[Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Improvements|improvements]]''' to VisualEditor. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 17:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)\n"]
[':Why not support the [[Wikipedia_talk:VisualEditor#WikiProject_VisualEditor|wikiproject proposal]] instead of making more new buried pages?  There seems to be good support, so why not just start that page? [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 17:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)\n']
[':: A full response to these questions is available [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:VisualEditor&oldid=566664245#Focusing_on_improvements here]. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 03:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
["''[Edit conflict]''\n", ':VE is \'\'potentially\'\' the future, for \'\'some\'\' editors. However, it probably will never be suitable for low-bandwidth users on old computers, for example. Also,t he VE teasm\'s decisions have repeatedly crippled it, such their decision not to support Wikitext, instead causing buggy nowiki behaviour - the bug for that one has recently been marked "WONTFIX". Or the screenreader-breaking and generally poor functionality of the on-hover selection of which editor to use to edit sections. \n', ':VE is only the future should the VE team have some sense knocked into them. \n', ":If it's turned off, I'd say the next step is an RFC about VE itself. Something like:\n", ":'''Feature/bugfix'''\n", ":''Description''\n", ":'''Option 1: VE should not be turned on until after this is in place'''\n", ":'''Option 2: This must be included eventually, but is fine waiting until a while after relaunch'''\n", ":'''Option 3: Not important to me'''\n", ':\n', ':Run that with enough options, and VE might become the ffuture after all. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">\'\'\'[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]\'\'\' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup></span> 17:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)\n']
['== Different responses between English and German wikipedias==\n', "I've noted several people pointing to the results of a poll on the German Wikipedia.  Please note some very major differences between what we are doing on the page here, and what they did there.  None of this multiple questions, they were straightforward and just voted on whether or not it should be opt-in.  ONE question, publicised everywhere on their project. That is how they get over 400 people to voice an opinion.  [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 17:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)\n"]
[":I hope this doesn't fail because I'm not good at organizing this kind of thing. Most people seem to be only answering question 1, anyway. Would I cause trouble by just adding a site notice that publicizes the RFC? Where would I go to get consensus to do so?&mdash;[[User:Kww|Kww]]([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 17:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)\n"]
['::[[WP:AN]], I think. Or, in theory, you could [[WP:BOLD]] edit [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] and [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice id]]; the only real rule seems to be it has to be something that affects all users. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">\'\'\'[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]\'\'\' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup></span> 17:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)\n']
["::KWW, I give you a lot of credit for starting this, especially after efforts by others were firmly rebuffed earlier in the process, and how much work and how much pressure from people even outside our usual editing community it took just to get the opt-out button on this project.  There is some hope for change, based on [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-July/127354.html Erik's recent post to Wikimedia-L mailing list]. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 20:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)<small> Updated with link now that Quiddity has passed it to me</small>\n"]
["== Where's Question 5? ==\n", '\n', "I can't find question 5. Whether it is a typo or a dropped question can anyone please check in regards to its fate? --'''[[User:Marianian|Marianian]]'''<sup>([[User_talk:Marianian|talk]])</sup> 23:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)\n"]
[': http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Default_State_RFC&diff=566435922&oldid=566434802 shows that for some reason, the numbering went from 1,2,3,4 to 1,2,2.5,3,4 to 1,2,2.5,3,4,6. No idea why.&mdash;[[User:Kww|Kww]]([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 23:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)\n']
['::I went ahead and renumbered it. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">\'\'\'[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]\'\'\' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup></span> 01:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
['== Special credit ==\n', '\n', 'While I specified in the top paragraph that this RFC was not a place to vent, I have to give special credit to [[User:Starblind|Starblind]]:\n', '\n', "{{quote box\n|quote=This seems downright cruel given WP's supposed focus on editor retention/recruitment. Would anyone go to Disneyland if all they could ride was ''It's A Small World'', which was broken and on fire?\n|source=[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Default_State_RFC&diff=566641247&oldid=566641204|Starblind]\n|align=center\n}}\n", "<br>That said, ''stop that''.&mdash;[[User:Kww|Kww]]([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 23:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)\n"]
['== Way too many edit conflicts ==\n', '\n', 'Yeah. —[[User:ITAC|<math>\\mathrm{ITAC}</math>]] [[User talk:ITAC|<math>\\mathrm{talk}</math>]] 23:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)\n']
['== A modest question ==\n', "So are any of the WMF staff testing with Visual Editor? If no, why not? After all the bad feelings the average contributor has for VE, I'd think doing that would be an important sign of support for it. And considering this project will serve as Sue Gardner's legacy at Wikipedia, I would hope she is making edits with it & using her experience to help make this the best piece of software possible. (Unless she wants to be known for being responsible for a buggy WYSIWYG editor that veteran editors refuse to use, & newbie editors find as difficult to use as editing Wikicode directly.) -- [[User:Llywrch|llywrch]] ([[User talk:Llywrch|talk]]) 01:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
[":I would certainly oppose adding that to this RFC. It's not a direct actionable question that we need to get a sense of the community's feeling on.&mdash;[[User:Kww|Kww]]([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 01:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
["::Sue's contributions are [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20140101000000&limit=50&tagfilter=&contribs=user&target=Sue+Gardner&namespace=0 just as visible] as anyone else's, so you can check if you'd like to know.  \n", "::In general, staff isn't supposed to change content in their role as staff members, so you won't usually find many edits to articles in staff accounts.  (For example, my article-edit count on the English Wikipedia is currently zero.)  [[User:Whatamidoing (WMF)|Whatamidoing (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Whatamidoing (WMF)|talk]]) 17:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
['== Why just new users and anonymous editors? ==\n', '\n', "NVM. They don't care. They spent time developing something and it's going to be pushed forward no matter what we say. --[[User:Onorem|Onorem]] ([[User talk:Onorem|talk]]) 01:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
[':Thank you for responding. --[[User:Onorem|Onorem]] ([[User talk:Onorem|talk]]) 02:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
['::Not sure what you were asking here? Everyone got VisualEditor, not just the groups you mentioned. Thanks. --[[User:Elitre (WMF)|Elitre (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Elitre (WMF)|talk]]) 07:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC) PS: if you were talking about questions at the RfC, there is at least one which demands plain switch-off.\n']
[":::The site notice, or watchlist thing, or whatever it was inviting new users and anonymous editors to this page. NVM. I really don't remember where I saw it, and I really don't care now. --[[User:Onorem|Onorem]] ([[User talk:Onorem|talk]]) 22:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
['I bought twitter for dummies(like me), but I haven\'t yet had time to read it. I am looking forward to being more wiki fluent.  <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Susiedarling|Susiedarling]] ([[User talk:Susiedarling|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Susiedarling|contribs]]) 01:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->\n']
[":Twitter for dummies. The name is perfect. Is there a facebook version? I think Wikipedia wants to review both because it sure seems like they're trying their hardest to make us more like both. --[[User:Onorem|Onorem]] ([[User talk:Onorem|talk]]) 13:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
[":Erik's message on the mailing list didn't address one important issue. You are months away from getting table editing implemented. You are months away from getting cut-and-paste to work. You are months away from acceptable performance. You have a list of several hundred bugs that have been found during this period of forced testing. Why do you need so much more feedback on this version? Why not focus on getting those elements corrected and then trying again when you have a product that there's a good chance that people will like?\n", ":You've seriously strained our good will. Most of us are still quite willing to give you a second chance, though. I don't think many of us would give you a third, though, so it's important to make good use of your opportunities.&mdash;[[User:Kww|Kww]]([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 01:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
['*Why must we mince words here?  The thing sucks.  It doesn\'t work, it isn\'t likely to work anytime soon, and the satisfaction rate with it is near zero.  If it were a commercial product it would have been recalled by now and it\'s only developer pride and the fact that plenty of time has been wasted on it already that keeps it out of the wikidustbin completely.  So why not make it a purely optional opt-in feature for the masochists who like to beta test stuff and let everyone else move on?  It\'s painfully clear to everyone without a (WMF) behind their name that this \'feature\' is nowhere remotely ready for prime time on one of the world\'s largest websites. [[User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan]] - <b><span style="color:#FF0000;">St</span><span style="color:#FF5500;">ar</span><span style="color:#FF8000;">bli</span><span style="color:#FFC000;">nd</span></b> 02:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
['** Of course it works. Several hundred (if not several thousand) of good edits are being made with it every day. :-)<p>Does it have bugs? Of course. It\'s beta software. (And, by the way, there are thousands of bugs in [[MediaWiki]] as well.)<p>Nobody is asking you to mince words, but I will ask you to assume a little good faith. I don\'t have a "(WMF)" in my username and likely never will, but I believe that VisualEditor is the future. I also advocated \'\'quite strongly\'\' for there to be an opt-out feature (that was successfully re-added) and I continue to advocate for making opt-out even easier (namely by removing the need to even visit [[Special:Preferences]] to opt out). I think we should focus on making [[Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Improvements|improvements]] to VisualEditor rather than simply re-stating how much it currently sucks. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 03:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
['***Part of the problem with the \'let\'s just fix it\' option is that it\'s totally open-ended.  How long are we expected to tolerate during its supposed tweaking period it before it\'s considered a failed experiment?  6 more months?  A year?  Keeping in mind this is taking our donation money every second it exists.  I say the numbers speak for themselves.  If you worked at a soda company, you couldn\'t keep telling the boss, "I swear Turd Cola will be ready to market any day now!  I just have to get the ratio of urea and bile just right!  The last taste test only 94% hated it!"  Sooner or later you just have to realise that you\'ve cooked up a turd. [[User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan]] - <b><span style="color:#FF0000;">St</span><span style="color:#FF5500;">ar</span><span style="color:#FF8000;">bli</span><span style="color:#FFC000;">nd</span></b> 03:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
["**** Hi [[User:Starblind|Starblind]]. As you may or may not be aware, each edit made with [[Wikipedia:VisualEditor|VisualEditor]] (VE) is tagged. For example, {{VE edits|MZMcBride|here}} is one of my edits made with VisualEditor. According to this same search, you currently have 0 {{VE edits|Starblind}}. So what, exactly, are you complaining about? Or more pointedly, who, exactly, are you complaining for? You may think VisualEditor is a complete piece of shit and you're certainly entitled to that opinion. But you seem to have no issue editing the wiki with the source editor and you seem to have no issue avoiding the use of VisualEditor. Can you please elaborate? --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 07:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
["***** Hi, you have to acknowledge that the reason that a lot of users who want to have VE going back to opt-in mode is not that they don't want to use VE (they can choose to disable it since we now have this option), but is because they are tired of seeing articles being damaged by edits made with VE (nowiki added, problems with tables, ...), damages that will have to be fixed mostly by other people than the one that are creating them with VE. About the number of bugs: you don't run easily on the thousands of MediaWiki bugs and they don't seem to damage articles, but with VE it's a different story. --[[User:NicoV|NicoV]] <sup>([[:fr:Discussion Utilisateur:NicoV|Talk on frwiki]])</sup> 09:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
[": It's difficult to disagree with the changes you're proposing, particularly as they echo [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MZMcBride&diff=prev&oldid=566623737&diffonly=1 similar thoughts] that I posted earlier today. ;-)  I have some minor quibbles (e.g., I think the beta notice should be dismissable, rather than only loaded for the first time based on a cookie), but otherwise these are all sound suggestions that I hope can be implemented as soon as possible.\n", ": While I think everyone leading this [[WP:RFC|RFC]] (and participating in it) is acting in good faith, I think it's important to recognize (as both you, James, and Erik do) that a few vocal power-users on the English Wikipedia cannot speak for everyone. Some good ideas have been brought forward in this RFC and I'm hoping [[Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Improvements|further good ideas]] are on the way from the very bright and dedicated group of power-users who contribute so much to Wikimedia wikis. However, VisualEditor is a shared endeavor that I hope we all want to see done right.\n", ": Again, I think your proposed changes should be of the highest priority, as I think they will be a sign of good faith and good will toward the community and will assuage a lot of the concerns we've been seeing with VisualEditor's deployment. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 02:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
[":I agree with [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester]]'s suggestions, and think they are the best solution to this issue. I'd also like to note that the visual editor isn't as bad as people make it seem and that it is very useful. A part of the aversion to the visual editor is because it has many bugs and is slow, but a big part is just general change aversion. I like the visual editor: it makes many tasks, such as inserting references, easier (if we exclude the few bugs that prevent some actions). It's great how I can simply click on a reference button and then transclude a template and just fill the parameters without having to keep constantly switching from the editing tab to the tab with the template documentation of the citation template, and have all the parameters and their descriptions right in the editor. There are many things that are good about the visual editor. I don't think it'd be a good idea to remove the visual editor from anywhere, whatever the reason. Nobody is forced to use the visual editor, and if it was made less prominent, then there would be no problem anymore. It doesn't need to be removed, hidden or made opt-in only. -- [[User:Rastus Vernon|Rastus Vernon]] ([[User talk:Rastus Vernon|talk]]) 02:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
['::While you\'re entitled to your opinions, consensus is very much against that view, with the current tally being 191 opt-in to 15 opt-out, much worse than 10 to 1.  And the response from the German wikipedia was even more decisive.  The community has spoken, will the developers choose to listen this time? [[User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan]] - <b><span style="color:#FF0000;">St</span><span style="color:#FF5500;">ar</span><span style="color:#FF8000;">bli</span><span style="color:#FFC000;">nd</span></b> 03:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
[':As long as the visualeditor tab is labelled as "Visual Editor - BETA" I will be more than willing to accept these changes. [[User:PantherLeapord|PantherLeapord]]&#124;[[User talk:PantherLeapord|My talk page]]&#124;[[User:PantherLeapord/CSD log|My CSD log]] 04:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
[":Should we move Jdforrester's suggestions to the main page to look for acceptance of the community? -- [[User:Sameboat|Sameboat - 同舟]] ([[User talk:Sameboat|talk]]) 04:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
['\n', ":''We cannot develop VisualEditor in isolation from real users'': well, for the moment, it seems quite the contrary.\n", ":1) Every major features of VE seems to have been developed in isolation from real users: why didn't you start focused discussions with users for major features rather than deploying features that were totally useless at first (reference editing, ...) ? You could still start those focused discussions but you don't\n", ":2) You don't take into account the more important issues for many users: hundreds of articles are currently being damaged every day when edited with VE. And your answer to the main problem is WONT FIX. Usually on every wiki, a tool that is causing damages is simply blocked until fixed, but you're WMF so you consider yourself are above this.\n", ":Erik's mail is also based on the assumption that the opt-in alpha period wasn't sufficient, but he conveniently forget to say that you couldn't do anything useful with VE during the alpha (no template editing, no reference editing, ...) so users ended up either not being able to make their edit. There's never been a true opt-in alpha period.\n", ':--[[User:NicoV|NicoV]] <sup>([[:fr:Discussion Utilisateur:NicoV|Talk on frwiki]])</sup> 04:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
['::Otherwise, concerning your proposals: ok for 1, 2 (rather "Edit" to have the same on every namespace and something like "Visual Editor (experimental)" experimental being easier to understand than beta), 3. For proposal 4, I think its\' not enough: it should be dismissed by choice, not only displayed the first time; and the message should be explicit on how to disable it, that edits should be checked by the editor because bugs are expected and that the editor has many limitations. Otherwise, I still believe that VE should go back to opt-in to decrease the number of damages to articles until these problems are fixed. --[[User:NicoV|NicoV]] <sup>([[:fr:Discussion Utilisateur:NicoV|Talk on frwiki]])</sup> 09:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
["*{{ec}}I agree with James' suggestions. As someone who is spending a lot of time working with VE and the bugs it is causing, I see that VE has a great future. What it needs though is for people to realise that it isn't ready yet, but that the only way for it to ever be ready is by lots of real world testing. There are some bugs that require very specific combinations of elements in order to happen, for example {{phab|53893}} and {{phab|54341}}, that they just wont be found by testing in a controlled environment. That doesn't mean it has to be the default editor, and I've stated elsewhere that it shouldn't be, but it needs to be easily accessible for people who want to test it. If you just want to make a simple spelling correction, then VE is already up to the task so we shouldn't force someone uncomfortable with wikitext into the source editor. Equally, there should be a way for people who don't want anything to do with VE to be able to opt out completely - but the vocal minority of such users should not prevent those who want to use VE from doing so. Clearly marking VE as beta and making the source editor default should reduce the volume of the problems. Going forward there should always (even after the end of beta) be an equal choice between editors - neutrality is a founding principle and we should reflect that. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 09:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
['\n', '* Yes, James\'s proposals seem a useful way forward. I\'ll probably continue to try to use VE for my editing, hoping to have a decreasing need for "VE cleanup" Edit Source edits as time progresses. But my motivation for editing is to enjoy myself, to contribute generally to the encyclopedia and improve it, to be useful: I can tolerate some misbehaviour from VE and quite enjoy making careful bug reports on [[WP:VEF|the feedback page]]. I can see it\'s all very different for someone with a mission to improve the coverage of Field XXX in Wikipedia, or to get a Featured Article on Topic YYY, especially if they\'re time-poor, or for someone coming new to editing who doesn\'t know what the hell is going on when "edit" leads them to totally different interfaces according to whether they\'re in article space or on a talk page etc. [[User:PamD|<span style="color:green;">\'\'\'\'\'Pam\'\'\'\'\'</span>]][[User talk:PamD|<span style="color:brown;">\'\'\'\'\'D\'\'\'\'\'</span>]] 11:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
["* Without specifically commenting on James's proposal, I would add to PamD's comments above: I am an example of someone working on a topic I'd like to get to featured article status; I'm using VE as much as I can, and am fine with the current level of functionality.  Of course I'd like to see it improve, and I'm sure it will.  I'd like to thank the development team for getting this far, and encourage them to keep the visibility and usage of VE high, along with the ability to opt out, of course. We need this tool for the future and we need high-volume usage now to help us get there.  If the budget for the dev team were as large as you might get with a Google or Apple team, then sure, I'd expect VE to be a bit cleaner and more comprehensive by now, but we don't have those resources and should not expect outcomes that require those resources.  I have no complaints about the rollout so far. [[User:Mike Christie|Mike Christie]] ([[User_talk:Mike Christie|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Mike_Christie|contribs]] -  [[User:Mike Christie/Reference library|library]]) 11:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
['* Support all four changes suggested by jdforrester. In addition I hope referencing improvements (mainly citation templates & autofill) can be prioritized, as that is the main thing for me personally right now keeping me from doing basically all simple text edits with the VE.--[[User:Wouterstomp|WS]] ([[User talk:Wouterstomp|talk]]) 14:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
["* Support for this. It makes sense, and also provides an example to use for other changes in the interface. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 18:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
['* Yes, really good suggestions. (I liked the animation. I think moving the [edit] links to the right and keeping the animations will be better than having non animated edit links along with the section headings. The animation draws the eyes, making them more prominent but with less disturbance/distraction. What do you think?<!---Thanks to OKeyes for the notification---><span style="text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.3em 0.2em">···[[User:Vanischenu|\'\'\'V<span style="color:green;">ani</span>s<span style="color:green;">che</span>nu\'\'\']][[Special:Contributions/Vanischenu|<sup>「m</sup>]]/[[User_talk:Vanischenu|<sub>Talk」</sub>]]</span> 19:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
['*A little discussion on the talk page of an RFC cannot be used to subvert the RFC itself. These are all fine suggestions so long as the obvious result of the RFC (that VE is disabled for all accounts, old and new, until the editor specifically enables it) is done first.&mdash;[[User:Kww|Kww]]([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 19:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
['*First off, I expect the WMF to abide by the results of this RFC, just as they did the one on the German Wikipedia. Our reasons are just as good as theirs are, and we have already assumed a huge amount of good faith here. I think the proposal at the start of this section is appropriate for now, but we need to have some discussion separate to this RFC for the WMF and the English Wikipedia community to jointly determine appropriate methods for introducing software, and the discussion should include how to ramp up the visibility of VisualEditor. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 19:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
['*I think that we should adopt the four proposals as laid out by jdforrester, and see what happens. If those don\'t suffice, then we should push for opt-in only. The advantage of doing it as he suggests is that this \'\'\'gives new editors a choice\'\'\'. Even if they decide that VE isn\'t for them, they\'ll see its possibilities, and the "beta" label on it will tell them that it \'\'\'will\'\'\' get better. If we go to opt-in only, virtually no new editors are going to be aware of the \'\'promise\'\' of VE, let alone try it out - because new editors don\'t go systematically though their preferences (lots of preferences) to decide what to turn on and off. -- <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">[[User:John Broughton|John Broughton]] </span>  [[User talk:John Broughton |(♫♫)]] 23:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
[":*How often do you think a small group of editors should try to override an RFC on the RFC's talk page, [[User:John Broughton|John]]? Is this some kind of new RFC procedure that I've never heard of before?&mdash;[[User:Kww|Kww]]([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 00:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
['::*{{Replyto|Kww}} I\'m unaware of any Wikipedia rule that says that when a topic is being discussed at an RfC, \'\'it cannot be discussed anywhere else but the main RfC page\'\'. If there is such a rule, I\'d appreciate your pointing it out, and then I\'ll certainly not violate it again.  -- <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">[[User:John Broughton|John Broughton]] </span>  [[User talk:John Broughton |(♫♫)]] 01:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
[":::*It's a matter of intent, [[User:John Broughton|John]]. I read your comment as indicating that if the RFC closes with a recommendation to opt-in, you believe we should ignore the result and continue with opt-out. That's not a matter of discussion in multiple places, that's a matter of advocating that we disregard community consensus. Did I misread you?&mdash;[[User:Kww|Kww]]([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 01:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
['*Strongly agree with all 4 suggestions. For labels, I\'d suggest "Edit wikitext" and "VisualEditor <sup>beta</sup>".  I agree that making it opt-in at this point would be problematic, as at least some (IP/New/Old) editors do prefer using it, and might not understand how to find it again. Also, per Wouterstomp, please prioritize improving the referencing tools - [[WP:Reftoolbar]] should be the guide. –[[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]] ([[User talk:Quiddity|talk]]) 00:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
['\n', "{{Done}} {{ping|Kww|MZMcBride|Starblind|NicoV|Rastus Vernon}}, {{ping|PantherLeapord|Sameboat|Thryduulf|PamD|Mike Christie}}, {{ping|Wouterstomp|Vanischenu|Risker|John Broughton|Quiddity}} As an update, this is now - I've posted an explanation for the decisions I've made and the reasons we've done it like this at [[Wikipedia:VisualEditor/August 2013 update]].  [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 05:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
[':\'tis appreciated. (Note, I\'ve changed your link from "here" to the actual pagename, per [[click here]] being [[considered harmful]] ;) –[[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]] ([[User talk:Quiddity|talk]]) 05:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
[':I find that using "Edit source" and "Edit beta" is a bad idea: "source" or "beta" don\'t mean much for a basic user. At least as long as VE is alpha/beta, we should keep the default "Edit" for the classic wikitext editor. For VE, I think "experimental" (or other true english word) is more obvious than "beta" for non tech people. On Preferences, we already have "(experimental)" used for Live preview. --[[User:NicoV|NicoV]] <sup>([[:fr:Discussion Utilisateur:NicoV|Talk on frwiki]])</sup> 06:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
['\n', ':: We need to keep in mind what the interface will look like at the end of the beta, so we don\'t heighten the confusion at that point. With the current setup, it\'s simply a matter of taking off the "beta" label (short of a drastic refactoring of the edit UI altogether), without additional confusion. It\'ll take some time to adjust to this change for sure (as it does to any change), but at least we can keep it in place and let folks develop muscle memory with the new system which they get to retain.\n', '\n', ':: As for "edit source", I think the devs chose "Edit source" in the first place because "View source" already appears on semi-protected pages.  So introducing the notion of source-editing into the vernacular does not seem unreasonable to me. It \'\'may\'\' be worth revisiting that at some point -- personally I prefer "wikitext" to "source" because it sounds more friendly and less programm-y.\n', '\n', ':: As for "beta" vs. "experimental", it\'s partially a matter of finding something \'\'short\'\' (string length) that has widely understood meaning - keep in mind these strings have to appear both on section edit links and tabs. The meaning of "beta" in this context is explained in the message that comes up when you first invoke VE.--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]][[User:Eloquence/CP|*]] 07:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
['\n', ':::I think the changes suggested are a big step in the right direction. I also like "wikitext" better than "source" as it is likely to be more meaningful to the general public, takes very little extra space, and will not confuse the experienced editors. Experimental is clearer than beta. If space is an issue then beta is OK, \'\'\'\'\'Much\'\'\'\'\' better than nothing. Nothing is \'\'\'\'\'Really Bad™\'\'\'\'\'. Cheers, &bull; &bull; &bull; [[User:Pbsouthwood|Peter (Southwood)]] [[User talk:Pbsouthwood|<sup>(talk)</sup>]]: 09:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
[":::Opening up the whole article for editing in VE is also an unpleasant surprise ('''''Really Bad™''''') which should be eliminated urgently. When you click on a section edit link you expect to edit a section, not the whole article. Finding the place you wanted to edit is sometimes a non-trivial exercise. If this can't be done for technical reasons, take away the VE link at the section headers and have it only at the top tab. &bull; &bull; &bull; [[User:Pbsouthwood|Peter (Southwood)]] [[User talk:Pbsouthwood|<sup>(talk)</sup>]]: 09:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
['==Restore site notice?==\n', '[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sitenotice&diff=prev&oldid=566636834 For a few hours last night], a site notice pointing to this RfC was up. It resulted in about 100 editors expressing an opinion here, in the space of a few hours. The site notice was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki%3ASitenotice&diff=566665925&oldid=566640843 removed] in the small hours. Could we restore it? No one notices watchlist notices: the site notice was very clearly more effective in bringing eyes to this page. [[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] <small>[[User_Talk:Jayen466|<span style="color:#FFBF00;">JN</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Jayen466|466]]</small> 14:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
[':Discussion here: [[MediaWiki_talk:Sitenotice#Remove_VisualEditor_default_state_RFC_notice]] [[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] <small>[[User_Talk:Jayen466|<span style="color:#FFBF00;">JN</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Jayen466|466]]</small> 14:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
['::I agree it should be put back. [[User:KumiokoCleanStart|Kumioko]] ([[User talk:KumiokoCleanStart|talk]]) 14:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
[':::Could you please say that over at [[MediaWiki_talk:Sitenotice#Remove_VisualEditor_default_state_RFC_notice]] as well? Thanks. [[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] <small>[[User_Talk:Jayen466|<span style="color:#FFBF00;">JN</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Jayen466|466]]</small> 14:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
[': Well, err, yes: a site-wide notice results in more visitors (and thus editors) to a page. Film at 11. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 15:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
['::MZM, [[WP:CIVIL]] please.  —[[User:Sladen|Sladen]] ([[User talk:Sladen|talk]]) 02:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
["::: I'm trying my best. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 03:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
['== Thank you ==\n', '\n', 'Thank you for even more great info. as I have just heard of the Visual Editor.  <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Mikeg0513|Mikeg0513]] ([[User talk:Mikeg0513|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mikeg0513|contribs]]) 17:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->\n']
['== Anonymous editors? ==\n', '\n', 'If I create a username such as "Mr. Mysteroso123" or "anonymousguy111", or some such, and edit under that, I\'m an "anonymous editor" in the sense that no one knows who I am, but is this what is meant? \n', '\n', 'If I edit under my IP address, I\'m anonymous in the sence that I have "no name", "a -nonym -ous", but then everyone can easily find out where I am and therefore potentially even who I am, so it\'s not really as "anonymous" as editing under an assumed name, in the commonly understaood meaning of the word "anonymous".  \n', '\n', 'So the term "anonymous editor" is ambigous.\n', '\n', 'If you mean "IP address editors", why not just say that?  It would be more precise, less ambiguous, and not propagate the myth that editing under your IP address means that no one can know who you are. [[User:Chrisrus|Chrisrus]] ([[User talk:Chrisrus|talk]]) 19:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
[':I agree that "anonymous" is too ambiguous. But "IP address editor" is ambiguous to non-technical people too. It would be best to have a term that non-technical users would understand without further explanation. Even "log in" and "log out" can be problematic, because they overlap with the idea of "logs" and "logging". What we mean is "not-signed-in" editors. If you have not \'\'\'signed in\'\'\' your edits will be \'\'\'logged\'\'\' against your current IP address, which may allow people to identify your location, etc. When you haven\'t signed in, you should see something like the lower UI:\n', ':[[File:Sign-in status UI suggestion.png|Mock-up of top-right-hand corner of suggested enwiki screen when a user has not signed in]]<br>\n', ':We also need a vocabulary that distinguishes users who do not have accounts from those who \'\'do\'\' have accounts but are not currently signed in. "Anon" vs "registered" doesn\'t do this. But perhaps that\'s a discussion for another day.... - [[User:Pointillist|Pointillist]] ([[User talk:Pointillist|talk]]) 22:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
['== This could be a bad idea ==\n', '\n', "This could be a bad idea in which it will change MediaWiki to a visual editor only mode in the future like some other organizations/companies/whatever does. For example, many people new to MediaWiki could mass demand visual editor only in which all wikis could be forced to visual editor. Source mode is the best to use even for new, anonymous, etc users for they can actually learn something without it being handed to them like hey all I have to do is click this and that, an example of not learning could be Wikia(No offense wikia)--[[User:Micronationalist1999|Micronationalist1999]] ([[User talk:Micronationalist1999|talk]]) '''YOUR PROUD BANANA''' 22:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
[':Thanks for your input! Please make sure you give your thoughts on the actual RFC page rather than this talk page where it could be overlooked. [[User:Killiondude|Killiondude]] ([[User talk:Killiondude|talk]]) 06:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
['::The purpose of Wikipedia is not to learn wikitext markup. It is to create and use an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. Wikitext is a barrier to a large number of people who could provide a lot of valuable content. &bull; &bull; &bull; [[User:Pbsouthwood|Peter (Southwood)]] [[User talk:Pbsouthwood|<sup>(talk)</sup>]]: 09:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
["::::I believe that you will find links to the evidence that you seek at [[Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Why]].  If you'd prefer anecdotal evidence to systematically gathered quantitative data, I've personally had people tell me that they do not edit Wikipedia because the markup is too confusing.  Most recently, I spoke with someone in June who said that he had tried to fix an error in a page, and that he simply closed the window after seeing how complicated the code was. \n", '::::The complexity varies a lot by page.  There are some that I think most people could figure out in a minute or so.  There are others, like the huge template-constructed tables of television episodes or election results, that [http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/pcount/index.php?name=WhatamIdoing&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia even I] find complicated.  [[User:Whatamidoing (WMF)|Whatamidoing (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Whatamidoing (WMF)|talk]]) 22:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
['::::::Again:  I believe that you will find \'\'\'links to\'\'\' the evidence that you seek at [[Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Why]].  Not "directly on the page", but "links to".  Please read the subpage [[Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Why/User Test Data]].  You will also want to look for information on the 2010 Usability Initiative, which interviewed former editors about why they quit editing.  A substantial minority said that they quit because wikicode was getting too complicated.  Another substantial minority said unpleasant encounters with community members was the primary reason they quit.  Another large fraction gave changing life circumstances (like acquiring full-time work) as their reason for quitting.  But the fact remains that some actual, real former editors said that wikicode was too complicated for them.  \n', "::::::It would be interesting, of course, to correlate those complaints about excessive complexity with the rise of infoboxes and citation templates (the two things people most frequently identify as being frighteningly complicated to look at in wikicode), but I don't believe that anyone has attempted that.  [[User:Whatamidoing (WMF)|Whatamidoing (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Whatamidoing (WMF)|talk]]) 21:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
['== Super simple intro ==\n', '\n', 'I just now put in a few extremely simple sentences as a brief intro explaining what VE is for people who have no technical understanding and very little experience with editing the encyclopedia. [[User:Invertzoo|Invertzoo]] ([[User talk:Invertzoo|talk]]) 22:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
['\n', "::In which they need to L.E.A.R.N the technical understaning and get experience with the help page and some tutorials by using their brains instead of having something handed to them.--[[User:Micronationalist1999|Micronationalist1999]] ([[User talk:Micronationalist1999|talk]]) '''YOUR PROUD BANANA''' 23:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
['== Confusing Source Code ==\n', '\n', 'This should be enabled because to most new users, as I once was, the source coding can be very confusing.  Now, it is for this reason VE should be enabled for new/anonymous users because a user may want to fix what seems like a simple typo, and he or she goes to fix it, and unknowingly contributes to a larger problem.<br>[[User:Benhen1997|Ben]] ([[User talk:Benhen1997|talk]]) 23:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
[":Thanks for your opinion! If you haven't already, please make sure you add your thoughts to the actual RFC rather than this talk page. [[User:Killiondude|Killiondude]] ([[User talk:Killiondude|talk]]) 06:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
['== PLEASE CLARIFY WHERE DISCUSSION SHOULD BE TAKING PLACE ==\n', '\n', "Many people are contributing to this discussion yet it is currently being 'discussed' on the Project page AND the Talk page. Which page should this discussion be taking place on & should all comments be moved across to the correct page? --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 06:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
[':I think it depends what you want to discuss. This page has many subsections discussing different things. The project page ([[WT:VE]]) is more of a meta-page that is about a variety of things including text on the actual project page, a corresponding wikiproject, and some bugs that should probably have been reported on [[WP:VE/F]]. Things like this that have site-wide and long-lasting implications tend to have discussions that spill over everywhere. Just find where your 2 cents fit best. :-) [[User:Killiondude|Killiondude]] ([[User talk:Killiondude|talk]]) 06:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
["::Fair enough. I've already inserted nearly a buck's worth on the project page. No doubt, someone will start up an offshoot talk page on some point of order & I'll be able to continue my squawking there. Cheers for the response! --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 07:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
['== Category D issues ==\n', '\n', 'Jdforrester gave an interesting categorisation of "issues" and the need for extensive user testing in the various categories.  The fourth and last was \'\'Category D: missing functionality, e.g. "I can\'t insert or edit maths equations"\'\' and it seems implausible that any sort of testing can help with a functionality that isn\'t even there.  Where users could perhaps help is in the \'\'design\'\' stage.  In the area of mathematics, which is explicitly an example of a missing functionality, and which happens to be the area I edit in, there is a considerable amount of expertise and experience in the community about user interfaces for editing mathematics.  Perhaps WMF developers should be engaging specialised communities such as this at an early stage?  A notice at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics]] asking for contributions to the design of the user interface would be much appreciated and probably quite helpful.  There\'s a [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Latex-to-HTML and HTML-to-Latex users|discussion]] there right now illustrating the degree of experience and range of opinions in that community on the subject of displaying mathematics.  I do hope developers have not underestimated the extreme difficulty of designing a viable point-and-click interface for mathematics — in fact I would go so far as to say that in my opinion \'\'nobody\'\' has ever succeeded in producing any kind of interface which can match the productivity of [[TeX]]-based markup.  [[User:Spectral sequence|Spectral sequence]] ([[User talk:Spectral sequence|talk]]) 18:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
[':I believe that several people have already provided their opinions about TeX and related options, but more are always welcome.  \n', ':There are several obvious missing functionalities, but some are far from obvious, usually because they are only used on a tiny number of pages.  [[User:Whatamidoing (WMF)|Whatamidoing (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Whatamidoing (WMF)|talk]]) 20:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
["::Thanks for that — glad to hear you have already started to engage.  Could I ask how and where you wish to engage with the existing community of mathematics editors?  Will you post on [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics\u200e]] with the contact details, please?  It would be interesting to know what the developers plans are for the VE mathematics interface, and I'm sure you'll find there's a lot of useful experience and expertise in the mathematics community available for you to tap into if you would share your thinking with us as early as possible.  [[User:Spectral sequence|Spectral sequence]] ([[User talk:Spectral sequence|talk]]) 21:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
["==I've given up testing V/E==\n", "I was one of the testers early in the year and I thought it might be helpful to explain why it was such a frustrating exercise and why I wouldn't recommend it to others. Firstly there were too many testers for the size of the development team, we kept finding that we'd not discovered a new bug, rather we were the nth editor to report a particular known bug (Taking it out of Beta testing early has presumably only made that worse). Sometimes bug reports just went off into the archive without comment or action. Secondly it quickly became clear that v/e is not aimed to be a logical editor for people like myself who make large numbers of minor typo fixes. For me the lack of prefill in the edit summary field is a big deal, much bigger than for the editor who spends half an hour over each edit and for whom the edit summary is a small part of their editing. Once I heard that they weren't going to fix the prefill issue then I knew I'd personally be sticking with the classic editor.\n", 'Then there\'s the whole problem with bugzilla. it isn\'t a wiki, it isn\'t even in SUL. Bugzilla looks almost like a tool the developers use to insulate themselves from the community. Lastly but most seriously I\'ve done software testing in previous careers, I\'ve been on the testing side and also the development side. In my experience it works best when you go back to the tester and tell them that you\'ve now fixed the bug they spotted. \'\'[[User:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkGreen">Ϣere</span>]][[User talk:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkRed">Spiel</span>]]<span style="color:#CC5500">Chequers</span>\'\' 18:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
[":I completely agree and had the same reaction. When I found out about VE it was May and as I was testing I found that the developers weren't particularly interested in fixing the bugs, they seemed to be more interested in documenting them so that when they released VE they could say the problem was identified. When we told them months ago that the program wasn't ready and they should delay it, they didn't listen and released it anyway wiping away any good will that the community had. Even given the huge push back they received from the community. They have even made comments in various places that the response from the community was better than they expected. Really? This is better than expected? I would hate to see what they did expect. [[User:KumiokoCleanStart|Kumioko]] ([[User talk:KumiokoCleanStart|talk]]) 18:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
['\n', '::Thank. That just confirms my suspicions about this. It is nice to have some confirmation. However, I am a little dismayed some criticism of me making the same points on the main page for making the same points, along with positive suggestions of how things might be improved (which impact on improved project management to test properly before releasing beta software, and proper survey design to avoid loaded questions), which allege that I have only made denigratory comments and that I have been entirely negative. I hope it doesn\'t mean that not only do the team not want to do anytjing about bugs, but they do not want people to specifically criticize what has emerged and make positive suggestions of how they might work better. [[User:ddstretch|<span style="border:1px solid DarkGreen; padding:1px;"><span style="color:White; background:DarkGreen; font-size:x-small;">&nbsp;DDStretch&nbsp;</span></span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:ddstretch|<span style="color:DarkGreen; font-size:x-small;">(talk)</span>]] 20:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
[":::I wouldn't take it personally. The same types of comments have been made to many of us. It seems unless you are there to pat the WMF on the back and tell the what great job they did and how wonderful VE is they don't want to hear it and just dismiss comments as meaningless. [[User:KumiokoCleanStart|Kumioko]] ([[User talk:KumiokoCleanStart|talk]]) 20:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
['::::Kumioko, if you [https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/reports.cgi?product=VisualEditor&datasets=RESOLVED look at the chart here], I think you will find that the devs resolved almost a hundred bug reports during May.  That doesn\'t sound to me like evidence that they "weren\'t particularly interested in fixing the bugs".  Since the software developers seem to prefer actually fixing the bugs to merely talking about the need to fix them, though, I can easily see how the situation might result in an inaccurate appearance that they didn\'t care.  I\'m sorry that their decision to fix more bugs instead of fixing fewer bugs but documenting their work on this particular wiki left you with such an inaccurate idea about whether the bug reports were read or being used.  [[User:Whatamidoing (WMF)|Whatamidoing (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Whatamidoing (WMF)|talk]]) 21:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
[":::::Whatamidoing, that was a good attempt at deflecting my comments but ineffectual I'm afraid. It has nothing to do with that at all. None of what you say is accurate of what occurred or what has been conveyed by the developers repeatedly in multiple conversations. My criticism at the developers and other members of the WMF isn't based on their lack of comments but what they actually did and said when they said it. Your also right they fixed a lot of bugs in May but fixing 100 problems of hundreds is hardly sufficient. [[User:KumiokoCleanStart|Kumioko]] ([[User talk:KumiokoCleanStart|talk]]) 22:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
['\n', ":Agree totally.  This seems like a development team that had a good idea, and plunged ahead with it, but brought it out to a large pool of user-testers before they realized that they bit off more than they could chew.  Philosophically and practically, I can see a lot of value in making an easy-to-use interface available for the casual editor.  As a semi-active editor, I found it disconcerting to have the vast majority of edits I made become less-convenient.  There were 2 major impediments: the VE interface became the default in many contexts, requiring me to learn new habits to do the same old thing and the VE was, and continues to be, unreasonably slow.  The bugs and lack of clarity in scope compounded this by making me do everything twice: once in VE to discover it wouldn't work, then again in source to get it done.  It would have been better to hold off launch (both Beta and production) until the dev team had a more mature product.  It would also be good to slow the increase in scope of VE until there's enough hardware bandwidth available to support it.  I hope neither has gotten to the stage that it's too late to do anything. --[[User:Wcoole|Wcoole]] ([[User talk:Wcoole|talk]]) 21:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
[':[[User:WereSpielChequers|WereSpielChequers]], the edit summary "prefill" (or drop-down with previously used summaries) is currently involved in [[bugzilla:52133]] and it seems like there is a chance that this *could* be fixed. [[User:Killiondude|Killiondude]] ([[User talk:Killiondude|talk]]) 23:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
['::But it was also raised as {{phab|50274}} and the devs don\'t seem interested in fixing it ("low enhancement" and some pretty negative comments). [[User:PamD|<span style="color:green;">\'\'\'\'\'Pam\'\'\'\'\'</span>]][[User talk:PamD|<span style="color:brown;">\'\'\'\'\'D\'\'\'\'\'</span>]] 09:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
['::Hi Killiondude, it is good to hear that they are now considering how to fix this, though I\'m not keen on the drop down box solution, we already have that as an option and it doesn\'t work well for me. But it is a sign of there being too many testers even at the Beta phase in May problem that I didn\'t hear that news from the developers or the community liaison. \'\'[[User:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkGreen">Ϣere</span>]][[User talk:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkRed">Spiel</span>]]<span style="color:#CC5500">Chequers</span>\'\' 17:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
[":::I would like to thank everybody here who has kept testing VE since May. I have actually read several comments of people, not just on en.wp, who noticed many improvements in these months (personally, I don't think you really need charts to ''see'' that), but I guess their stories are not so interesting ;) Anyway, I am not aware of people being personally notified about bugs, simply because Bugzilla has exactly this feature (you get an email each time someone updates that bug, so I really suggest that you give it a try!) I'd also notice that Bugzilla has been around like, forever, so that's at least one thing I would not blame VE for :) --[[User:Elitre (WMF)|Elitre (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Elitre (WMF)|talk]]) 19:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
['::::Thanks Elitre, I\'m aware that bugzilla precedes this saga, but this has highlighted its deficiencies, especially because of the way the number of testers was increased far beyond the ability of the developers to cope.  I believe that most of the bugs that I found in May were ones that had already been identified, and I doubt that has changed. It is now August, major problems like v/e\'s unacceptable slowness for older CPUs have been known for literally months. So the typical experience of someone reporting a v/e bug is going to be that after a while someone will mark it as a dupe of an existing bug, they will then discover how long the bug was known about before they suffered from it, and then they won\'t hear anything more. Bugzilla might have worked with a smaller group of testers or if the developers were so on top of things that most reported bugs were new bugs. But it isn\'t a suitable system for this situation. It is especially problematic for using IP editors as guinea pigs since Bugzilla does not allow reporting by unregistered IP editors. \'\'[[User:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkGreen">Ϣere</span>]][[User talk:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkRed">Spiel</span>]]<span style="color:#CC5500">Chequers</span>\'\' 23:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
['\n', '\n', ": I'm pleased to see that there is some sort of serious discussion regarding the state of VE being raised here. The fact is that there are more than a few bugs left to be ironed out, yet accusations as to wikimarkup elitism is being thrown around on the project page. Why has been accepted that VE must be rolled out right here, right now? Has some sort of belated Y2K bug been detected making the rolling out of a seriously flawed beta version not only inevitable but urgent? There seems to be a mentality surrounding VE that, now that it's gone live it's reached some invisible 'point of no return'. Please, take a serious look at some of the comments regarding where it's failing. The issues do not revolve around elitism or some imagined dinosaur mentality. --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 10:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
[":::I've come to the point of believing that main reason for the schedule can be found in [https://wikimania2013.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions/VisualEditor:_The_present_and_future_of_editing_our_wikis here]. Every time the question was asked about why maintaining the insane schedule was asked, no answer. --[[User:NicoV|NicoV]] <sup>([[:fr:Discussion Utilisateur:NicoV|Talk on frwiki]])</sup> 12:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
['::::It\'s pretty much impossible to explain why they\'ve "maintained the insane schedule", because they haven\'t actually stuck to the original schedule.  I believe that the only event on the schedule published earlier this year that happened on the originally projected date was the 01 July rollout to registered editors at the English Wikipedia.  Everything since then has been delayed by weeks to months.  \n', '::::At this point, more than 90% of wikis will get VisualEditor after Wikimania.  Nobody at the WMF seems to be even slightly unhappy about that, and I\'ve never seen a single staffer suggest that it would even be desirable.  (In fact, the only thing they have said is that it would be extremely undesirable to deploy anything or make any changes at all during Wikimania.)  The "must be done by Wikimania" rumor seems to just be another unfounded rumor with no basis in fact.  [[User:Whatamidoing (WMF)|Whatamidoing (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Whatamidoing (WMF)|talk]]) 22:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
[":::::Granted, Wikimania may or may not be the reason. But if its not then why on earth would the WMF insist on keeping pushing VE after so many have said it isn't working, isn't wanted or isn't compatible. I have been on Wiki for years and I have seen the community push back on a lot of things. VE is the most reviled feature that the WMF has ever pushed out and largely because they refuse to except the fact that the app isn't ready for rollout. If they would just see reason and slow the F down and fix the problems then I think most folks would be ok with it or get behind it. But when we have an application that still causes massive errors and doesn't even work on most major browsers then its time to accept they F'ed up pull it back into an opt in state and keep working on it until its worthy of our time. But right now its a waste of our time to even use it given all the problems and its making people stop editing. [[User:KumiokoCleanStart|Kumioko]] ([[User talk:KumiokoCleanStart|talk]]) 22:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
[':::::::I gave up trying to deal with developers after they kept insulting me for asking that the ridiculously-bad handling of large PNGs be fixed, or the several fixes made and abandoned actually be finished. Did you know complaining is grounds for block on bugzilla? It\'s off-topic, see. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">\'\'\'[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]\'\'\' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup></span> 00:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
['::::::::: Incidentally, [[User:Whatamidoing (WMF)|Whatamidoing]], responses such as, "At this point, more than 90% of wikis will get VisualEditor after Wikimania. Nobody at the WMF seems to be even slightly unhappy about that, and I\'ve never seen a single staffer suggest that it would even be desirable." do not actually qualify as being valid responses to valid questions being posed by contributors who have serious & legitimate concerns about VE both in general & on specific matters. You\'re merely relaying a point that has been understood by those who are not part of the WMF. Could you please provide some information on the number of individuals who constitute WMF as opposed to the number of Wikipedians who are regular contributors (usually working on their own & in their own spare time)? WMF = what percentage of the overall content of Wikipedia? An approximation would suffice. --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 05:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
['::::::::::The question asked was whether the WMF staff cared about having VE rolled out before Wikimania.  The answer, as far as I can tell, is "no".  This seems to me to be a relevant answer to a valid question.  \n', "::::::::::I don't think that I understand your question about the percentage of content.  The WMF staff [[DMCA|does not create encyclopedia content as part of their jobs]].  Staff members are permitted to volunteer just like anyone else.  For example, you have made [[Special:CentralAuth/Iryna_Harpy|456 edits to all WMF projects combined]] so far, and I think that [[User:WhatamIdoing|my volunteer account]] is approaching 75,000 these days.  But that's strictly volunteer work and has nothing at all to do with my current role as a staff member.  [[User:Whatamidoing (WMF)|Whatamidoing (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Whatamidoing (WMF)|talk]]) 21:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
[":::::It's just not the truth to say that the only part of the schedule that was kept was July 1st, because many steps were kept or delayed for 1 week at the last moment (but still compatible with showing that VE ''is the default editor'' at wikimania)... A/B test was kept, rollout to registered users was kept (July 1st), rollout to anonymous users was kept (July 15th), rollout to registered users on major wikis was kept (July 24th), rollout to anonymous users on majour wikis was kept (July 29th). There has been no explanation about why keeping this [[Wikipedia:VisualEditor#Timetable|timetable]], even when asked so many times, when VE is clearly showing that it's not ready. The only step that has been really postponed is the rollout to all other projects. --[[User:NicoV|NicoV]] <sup>([[:fr:Discussion Utilisateur:NicoV|Talk on frwiki]])</sup> 06:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
["::::::Not true. Please check the ''history'' of any page including the schedule to find out how many things (not just dates) changed. --[[User:Elitre (WMF)|Elitre (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Elitre (WMF)|talk]]) 07:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
[':::::::Yes, I have [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:VisualEditor&oldid=562292970 checked]: July 15th (anonymous on enwiki) instead of July 8th, July 24th (registered on major wikis) and 29th (anonymous) instead of July 15th. For me, this is still a schedule that was kept without any explanation on why it was so urgent (still no answer to that question). --[[User:NicoV|NicoV]] <sup>([[:fr:Discussion Utilisateur:NicoV|Talk on frwiki]])</sup> 07:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
["::::::::That's still a major point no one from WMF seems to want to answer... and we're still asking and waiting on an answer as to WHY this roll out has been treated as if it were an absolute priority over even being able to decide on what to name the tabs! The names have been changed but, for any new users, there's absolutely nothing intuitive about the nomenclature. You hadn't even thought that out properly. Is this some sort of rollercoaster ride with unstoppable momentum or are you simply not prepared to listen to contributors asking you to slow down due to valid concerns? WHY IS THE VISUAL EDITOR BEING ROLLED OUT WHILE HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AS BEING FUNDAMENTALLY SERIOUSLY FLAWED? Is that really such a difficult question to answer? --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 10:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
[':::::::::NicoV, the A/B test was also delayed.\n', ':::::::::Iryna, perhaps you could explain what\'s left to "slow down" here at the English Wikipedia.  Nothing else (except many bug fixes) was planned for the English Wikipedia after the IP rollout.  The only thing that could be "slowed down" (rather than "reversed" or "hidden" or "removed") is availability at other projects, which naturally would have no effect here.  [[User:Whatamidoing (WMF)|Whatamidoing (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Whatamidoing (WMF)|talk]]) 21:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
["::::::::::Not only do we need to delay the rollout to other project until VE is fixed we need to de-roll it here. They can't even get it to work with some of the major browsers and can't get it to stop adding or removing stuff it shouldn't be doing. '''At this point the WMF is responsible for every error that VisualEditor makes.''' But in this case we can't block them as we would anyone who fails to follow the rules of use for AWB, twinkle or the other tools.[[User:KumiokoCleanStart|Kumioko]] ([[User talk:KumiokoCleanStart|talk]]) 21:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
['::::::::::The A/B test was delayed only a few days, and instead of delaying the rest, it got reduced to 3 days, and the roll out kept going on immediately (registered, anonymous) without even waiting for the analysis... And you keep dodging the question about why it was urgent to roll out VE to every one, as it has been done each time the question was asked. --[[User:NicoV|NicoV]] <sup>([[:fr:Discussion Utilisateur:NicoV|Talk on frwiki]])</sup> 21:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
[":::::::::::In my opinion the reason he and others are dodging the question is because there is no reason or justification for it. He doesn't answer because he doesn't know any more than the rest of us. [[User:KumiokoCleanStart|Kumioko]] ([[User talk:KumiokoCleanStart|talk]]) 22:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
[":::::::::::: For a programmer, you're doing an excellent impression of a politician, [[User:Whatamidoing (WMF)|Whatamidoing]]. No matter how I parse your response to me it reads as game of semantics rather than anything remotely resembling an answer. If the implementation of V/E is a foregone conclusion, why is the RFC even bothering to ask questions such as whether unregistered users & anonymous IP's should be given the option of opting in, etc.? Surely, the whole kit & caboodle was planned to be in place ASAP regardless of whether it actually worked or not. I'll play at semantics with you: why isn't V/E being rolled back in order to discuss and analyse fundamental issues plaguing the system when there is such an overwhelming negative response to V/E in its current state? Personally, I'm not calling for it to be scrapped as it may well develop into a reasonable supplementary tool (if not as a viable alternative to source coding) at some point in the future. The future, however, is not here and now. V/E is beyond problematic in its current state and the attitude to the naughty naysayers smacks of blatant disregard for those who have to clean up the messes it leaves in its wake. You're dodging the real questions and you know it. Delays on rolling out flawed software and quickly rolling back while bugs are fully identified & addressed are counted by weeks and months, not by hours. --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 01:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
[':"\'\'...it was rolled out because it was normal to do so at that point in development\'\' isn\'t true, Whatiamidoing. Most developers wait until they have basic functionality. Additionally, if they do A/B testing, they wait until they have analysed the results before they proceed. It\'s extremely implausible that the release wasn\'t done in order to be able to claim that a date goal was met.\n', ":I've said it before and I will say it again: when one has made an extremely public mistake, the best route forward is usually a heartfelt apology and a pledge not to repeat the mistake again. It's unfortunate that the WMF still fails to acknowledge that it even ''made'' a mistake, much less showing any inclination to apologize for it and learn from it.&mdash;[[User:Kww|Kww]]([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 20:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
["::I do agree with Kww, because it wasn't 1 roll out, but 5 roll outs. I've been in the software development community for quite a while, and when you start to roll out a software and see many bugs piling up fast, as a developer you never want to roll out to even more users, but that's what you're telling happened on the last several rolls out ?\n", "::And, when I read that ''staff is mostly out of town for the first half of August'', I understand that the initial planning was to have a full roll out to every wiki just before every staff was unavailable ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:VisualEditor&oldid=562292970 29 July: Launch to all logged-in and anonymous users on all other projects]) and let every wiki then deal on their own with the problems ? What a great planning... --[[User:NicoV|NicoV]] <sup>([[:fr:Discussion Utilisateur:NicoV|Talk on frwiki]])</sup> 20:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
[':::As I said, your idea of basic functionality and the devs\' idea apparently differ.  The devs seem to subscribe to the [[agile programming]] notion of many small "incomplete" deployments rather than one big "finished" one.  What you\'ve seen is consistent with that philosophy.  Notice that I\'m not claiming that this philosophy is popular with end users, only that what you are seeing is normal for developers that subscribe to this approach.  As a person who is not afflicted with early adopter syndrome myself, I personally have more sympathy for your definition than for the devs\', but this is entirely normal for this style. [[User:Whatamidoing (WMF)|Whatamidoing (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Whatamidoing (WMF)|talk]]) 18:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
['::Otherwise, to answer your points:\n', '::# Advertisement has been made now that VE has been rolled out to everyone on enwiki, so even going back to opt-in, you would probably get many users opting in, but at least they would be warned that VE is alpha/beta and they need to check their edits. That\'s the main reason I\'m among the users asking for "opt-in": so that people using VE are aware of it being alpha/beta, and so that we can reduce the number of articles being damaged daily.\n', "::# The problem is that the staff already has hundreds of bug reports/enhancements to work on, and they can't keep up with the flow. So, what many are asking is that the staff takes care of that backlog before letting it be used by everybody, because the only way to make users aware of the current problems is to make them act themselves to activate VE before using it.\n", "::# For 3, I've already answered above, and I'm baffled by this. --[[User:NicoV|NicoV]] <sup>([[:fr:Discussion Utilisateur:NicoV|Talk on frwiki]])</sup> 21:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
[":::# Every VisualEditor user has received (or will receive, if they've never opened it) a warning about this.  Until you acknowledge the warning, you are not permitted to do anything else in VisualEditor.  If your actual goal is to warn the users, then it has already been met.\n", ":::# The devs have already resolved 70% of the bugs already reported, which suggests that they are keeping up with the flow.  Also, if you're familiar with the agile programming philosophy, continuing to receive reports is important.  Then you can discover unintended side effects.  For example, VE users originally were massively, wildly more likely to use edit summaries than users of the classic wikitext editor, and now they're only significantly more likely.  Something changed, but what?  If you dump two hundred bug fixes on the system at once, you'll have no hope of figuring out which ones had that effect.\n", ':::# The original rollout would have given them a bit more than a week to deal with any truly major problems (e.g., VisualEditor simply does not work on the Chinese Wikipedia; by the way, there have been none in the projects that have enabled VisualEditor so far).  Since major problems are usually obvious within minutes, if not hours, of general use, then a week is probably enough.  [[User:Whatamidoing (WMF)|Whatamidoing (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Whatamidoing (WMF)|talk]]) 18:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
['{{unindent}}\n', "Well, in [[agile programming]], there are several concepts: '''customer satisfaction''' (not achieved), '''welcome changing requirements''' (not achieved), '''working software''' (not achieved), '''close, daily cooperation between business people and developers''' (not achieved), '''minimal bugs''' (not achieved), ...\n", '\n', "There are currently more than [https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/buglist.cgi?list_id=223852&resolution=---&resolution=LATER&query_format=advanced&product=VisualEditor 700 open bugs for VE] and [https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/buglist.cgi?list_id=223852&resolution=---&resolution=LATER&query_format=advanced&product=Parsoid 140 for Parsoid]: how do you come to ''resolved 70% of the bugs'' and ''keeping up with the flow'' ?\n", '\n', "If users have been warned, then it's not enough, because damaged articles are piling up.\n", 'The problem is that the goal of Wikipedia is producing an encyclopedia, not becoming a testing platform as you seem to believe... --[[User:NicoV|NicoV]] <sup>([[:fr:Discussion Utilisateur:NicoV|Talk on frwiki]])</sup> 19:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
['== Where is the most simplistic option for this discussion? ==\n', '\n', 'All I see is section after section of loaded questions. Where is the area to simply state that \'\'\'"Yes/No, Visual editor should be/not be enabled for new users and anonymous editors?"\'\'\' or simple Yes/No answers? The fact that the entire commenting thing is split into specific section only makes me wonder if the whole process is making it more difficult for honest answers and voting? --[[User:293.xx.xxx.xx|293.xx.xxx.xx]] ([[User talk:293.xx.xxx.xx|talk]]) 21:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
[':Well, it \'\'\'\'\'is\'\'\'\'\' a [[WP:RFC|request for comment]] and not a "request for vote". That having been said, you can answer yes or no in the specific/corresponding section(s). I think this was a rather well organized RFC. Nothing is perfect, especially with the massive amount of people commenting and discussing. I don\'t really like that people have turned the main RFC page into a general discussion forum at the bottom, though. [[User:Killiondude|Killiondude]] ([[User talk:Killiondude|talk]]) 23:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
['::Well, they do ask for comment, and my comment is a simple Yes/No format, so at least some arrangement should be added in.--[[User:293.xx.xxx.xx|293.xx.xxx.xx]] ([[User talk:293.xx.xxx.xx|talk]]) 00:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
[":::I suspect you meant the 'simplest' option, not the most [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/simplistic 'simplistic'] - well, I certainly hope that's what you meant! Yes/No formats are, by nature, far more loaded as they assume right and wrong answers. The objective here is to initiate dialogue. As it stands, many are already of the opinion that the questions posed are not only loaded but the wrong questions. Without the opportunity to engage in a discussion, the broader Wikipedia community would be entirely disempowered... which is not what RFC's are about. As it stands, if you don't want to comment, you are free to simply add an 'agree', 'disagree', 'support', etc. without explaining yourself. Cheers! --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 04:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
['== About 2.1 Question syntax ==\n', '\n', '\'\'2.1 Question 1: When a new account is created, should the preference be set to disable VE ("opt-in") or to enable VE ("opt-out")?\'\'\n', '\n', 'Should that read,\n', '\n', '\'\'2.1 Question 1: When a new account is created, should the preference be set to disable VE ("opt-out") or to enable VE ("opt-in")?\'\'\n', '\n', 'As in opting out of the VisualEditor?\n', '[[User:Davidf2|Df2]] ([[User talk:Davidf2|talk]]) 08:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
[':No, "opt-out" means you must choose if you wish to turn it off, e.g default is on. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">\'\'\'[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]\'\'\' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup></span> 10:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
['::I understand the confusion:  You can read it as {{xt|should the preference be set to disable VE ("the user must manually opt-in")}} or as {{xt|should the preference be set to disable VE ("the user is already opted-in by default")}}.  [[User:Whatamidoing (WMF)|Whatamidoing (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Whatamidoing (WMF)|talk]]) 22:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
['== Opt-in for experienced users ==\n', '\n', 'I propose adding the following question to the RFC: "Should users with technical flags (e.g. Autopatrolled, Rollbacker, Administrator) be able to opt-in rather than have to opt-out)? --[[User:Синкретик|Синкретик]] ([[User talk:Синкретик|talk]]) 09:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
['== This RFC is irrelevant ==\n', '\n', "You are hopelessly naive if you don't think the Wikimedia Foundation won't ram the VisualEditor through against any editor objections.\n", '\n', "That said, personally, I think it's a good thing. Wikipedia as has long needed stronger leadership to cut through its dysfunctional editor bureaucracy and make life better for ordinary users.\n", '\n', 'Yes, the VisualEditor is far far too slow, it has a few bugs and its UI has issues (e.g. its clunky UI for templates, especially references) but it\'s clearly a step forward. Well, as long as they don\'t reintroduce that ridiculous "edit" rollover. -[[User:Halo|Halo]] ([[User talk:Halo|talk]]) 06:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
[':Past experience is that if the community outrage goes beyond a certain point then the WMF will backtrack. So no people are not naive if they think that it is worth objecting. In the case of the visual editor a few months ago almost everyone wanted this and the criticism of the WMF was almost entirely over them being too slow to deliver a working visual editor. Things have changed, and there is now quite a bit of distrust of any sort of visual editor, but I suspect that the majority are still with me in wanting this providing the bugs can be fixed. Most of the current disagreement is over how many editors are needed to test something which still has bugs that were spotted three months ago.  I\'m in the zero camp as I see no point in testing until some major bugs are fixed, others argue for some level of ongoing testing and a number are very strongly asserting that they don\'t want to be forced into using V/E in the future. So the area of disagreement may not be where you think, as for the project needing strong leadership; Well that isn\'t any way to run a volunteer community, people have tried that model and it just doesn\'t work. Even if the Foundation had the money to offer a thousand or so editors jobs writing an encyclopaedia it wouldn\'t want to be legally responsible for what they write, and some of the best editors are volunteers who have no interest in turning their hobby into a paid job. \'\'[[User:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkGreen">Ϣere</span>]][[User talk:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkRed">Spiel</span>]]<span style="color:#CC5500">Chequers</span>\'\' 13:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
["*This RFC is not irrelevant. As with any and all RFCs, not everyone will be happy about the direction that emerges; and there may be questions of disregarded consensus, but the RFC itself is the vehicle to have your collaborative input published if for posterity alone; and to me the damn fool is the one who decides to forgo his own right to be heard to spite his forgone conclusion that his voice is of no consequence.&nbsp;'':)''&nbsp;[[User:John Cline|John Cline]] ([[User talk:John Cline|talk]]) 13:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
["*I also agree that the RFC is a good thing. Rarely do more than 500 editors show up to vote to do anything so to see more than 300 vote to oppose VE it shows that the community doesn't like it and the WMF needs to take that seriously. The WMF doesn't edit, so if they want to keep this a volunteer site then they need to listen to the community, not ignore us and expect us to clean up their mess. I agree with WereSpielChequers that the WMF couldn't make this project work without the volunteers and I agree that they need to stop ramming it down peoples throats with the argument its for testing purposes. I think the app has a lot of potential, but its far from being ready and all the WMF has done by forcing it out half finished and with major bugs is make it less likely the community will ever accept it. We are going to need to cut this RFC off at some point and submit a formal proposal to the WMF letting the know the result. What they choose to do will tell us a lot about what they think about the community.[[User:KumiokoCleanStart|Kumioko]] ([[User talk:KumiokoCleanStart|talk]]) 16:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
['**It isn\'t clear whether this RFC is asking about the current "beta" situation or all future "beta" versions, or the eventual model once Visual Editor is Fit for Purpose™? Who decides what would make it fit for purpose anyway: can we have an RFC on that? - [[User:Pointillist|Pointillist]] ([[User talk:Pointillist|talk]]) 16:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
["***I didn't want to muddle the RFC with questions about the future. There's a lot of things that ''may'' happen and a lot of people will have different opinions about what we should do depending on what happens. I focused the questions on what we should do ''now''. If things change in the future, we can have another RFC about what to do at that time.&mdash;[[User:Kww|Kww]]([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 16:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
['****Thanks - [[User:Pointillist|Pointillist]] ([[User talk:Pointillist|talk]]) 16:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
['== IE users ==\n', '\n', "Before you put this up for discussion, you should at least make it clear that IE users cannot participate. As we represent the majority of editors, I think it would have been in order to make it clear that the new editor was only available to those using certain browsers. I have been pressing for a WYSIWYG approach to Wiki editing for years but have always been bulldozed down by the hierarchy. Now it's here, I would have liked to have clearer instructions on how to access the beta version and explanations on why it is not available to IE users. Is this yet another Google venture?--[[User:Ipigott|Ipigott]] ([[User talk:Ipigott|talk]]) 21:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
[':No, it\'s nothing to do with Google - I use Firefox and up until I disabled the blighter, VE was functional for me. I do know that the structure of Internet Explorer is vastly different from the other common Web browsers (Chrome, Safari, Firefox) that\'re available, which may be why IE users can\'t use VE (i.e. it relies on something the other browsers have that IE does not). IANAP, however, so you\'d have to ask clarification from the devs. —[[User:Jéské Couriano|<span style="color:#228B22;">\'\'Jeremy\'\'</span>]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|<span style="color:#228B22;">v^_^v</span>]] <sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano|Bori!]]</small></sup> 22:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
["::They still can't get it to work right with IE. So they turned it off and it likely nothing below 8 will ever be usable. So that gives a couple of notes. First, all the problems so far identified are with browsers not used by the majority and once IE is supported, we are likely to see another large spike in bugs. [[User:KumiokoCleanStart|Kumioko]] ([[User talk:KumiokoCleanStart|talk]]) 00:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
['\n', ':According to Wikimedia, IE accounts for about 20% of non-mobile reader traffic [http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/squids/SquidReportClients.htm].  That\'s still a significant amount, but your claim that IE accounts for anything like "the majority of editors" is likely wrong.  [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] ([[User talk:Dragons flight|talk]]) 00:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
["::Maybe but I don't think the 20% number is accurate either. [[User:KumiokoCleanStart|Kumioko]] ([[User talk:KumiokoCleanStart|talk]]) 00:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
[":::So, basically, we've returned to a serious fundamental problem being that, aside from being browser dependent, V/E is platform and OS dependent. I've already brought up the issue of backwards compliance after the [[Wikipedia:2013_main_page_redesign_proposal/RFC|2013 Main Page Redesign Proposal RFC]] made it abundantly clear that many contributors don't have access to broadband, much less new computers. What versions of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Opera, etc. are the minimum for being able to use V/E? It's fine to say that they'll still be able to edit at source level but the more elitist Wikipedia becomes, the less new contributors will feel welcome to be proactive. --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 01:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
['::::It\'s worse than just broadband. VE is pretty slow on anything but fairly high-end machines. Albeit getting \'\'somewhat\'\' better over time, as in, "unusable" changing to "theoretically usable, but still not a good idea" <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">\'\'\'[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]\'\'\' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup></span> 11:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
['\n', 'The blacklist includes:\n', '* all Internet Explorer; eventually, this will be only IE 8 and earlier.  IE is notorious for having "creative" interpretations of web standards, and supporting it is a problem for everyone, not just the WMF.  A bit less than 10% of editors use a semi-modern IE and will have access eventually.  A bit less than that use old versions and will not have access ever.\n', '* old Firefox, versions 14 and older\n', '* old versions of Safari and Chrome\n', '* old versions of Opera.  Recent Opera (12 and newer?) are semi-supported:  it is not blacklisted but not whitelisted, either, so users get a warning.\n', '\n', "Old browsers are simply incapable of doing some of the things that need to be done.  A 20-year-old web browser or OS is simply not capable of doing this.  I don't know if there is an organized list of browsers, but if there are other browsers or specific versions of interest, I can ask.  [[User:Whatamidoing (WMF)|Whatamidoing (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Whatamidoing (WMF)|talk]]) 19:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
[':Where exactly has anyone spoken about hugely old web browsers? XP and IE 7 still take up a significant enough chunk of the market for there to be a justification for running VE on slightly older stuff. VE shouldn\'t require super-powerful computers anyway, and yet it appears to at present. I\'ve not seen any reason for the lack of Opera support given anywhere. The fact IE has "creative" interpretations of web standards is irrelevant; as a major web browser, the VE should \'\'\'not\'\'\' have been released until it supported it. People running IE are generally the sort of people the VE is supposed to attract, anyway; they\'re non-power users. That, and IE is the only browser with a stable, official 64-bit build, so some may use it for that reason. [[User:Lukeno94|<span style="color:navy;">Luke</span><span style="color:FireBrick;">no</span><span style="color:green;">94</span>]] [[User talk:Lukeno94#top|<i>(tell Luke off here)</i>]] 20:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
['::\'\'IE is the only browser with a stable, official 64-bit build\'\'? You surprise me. I don\'t understand what is either unstable (in the everyday sense of the word) or "unofficial" about, say, [https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/22.0/linux-x86_64/ Firefox 22 for Linux 64]. (Actually I don\'t use this; I instead use the "[[Mozilla Corporation software rebranded by the Debian project|Iceweasel]]" flavor, which is arguably even more "official", coming as it does directly from a Debian repository.) &para; I presume that the lack of support for Opera is caused by this or that Opera-specific problem; have the developers of VE spurned offers of help to fix this? -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] ([[User talk:Hoary|talk]]) 00:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
['::::No.  Volunteer developers are welcome.  In fact, I understand that the reason that Opera is now off the blacklist is because of a volunteer.  [[User:Whatamidoing (WMF)|Whatamidoing (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Whatamidoing (WMF)|talk]]) 18:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
[":::[[User:Whatamidoing (WMF)|Whatamidoing (WMF)]], I'd suggest that none of us are asking about specific browsers for our own benefit but that of the entire Wikipedia demographic. I have no doubt that there are many, many valuable contributors who don't have the money for constant upgrades but do have invaluable knowledge. Knowledge is Wikipedia's greatest resource. The more Wikipedia does to exclude contributors based on their economic status, the more it will lose it's most valuable resource. Just looking at the comments by utter illiterates carrying on about how cool VE is is absolutely nauseating. There, I've said it: I'm an intellectual snob. Pandering to the dolts & further disempowering anyone who isn't privileged enough to be middle-American is not going to nurture this knowledge-base. I still feel that, in order to work on Wikipedia, it is essential to know some basic coding. If the name of the game is to attract quality over quantity contributors then developing methods of making people feel like second class citizens is a mistake. In an ideal world, a visual editor that really works for everyone would be a delight. This isn't an ideal world, nor is VE even close to being an ideal visual editor. I apologise if this sounds mean-spirited as I don't want to be mean about it. I know you and your colleagues have worked hard and are continuing to work hard on an ambitious project... but it's really not functioning well enough to have rolled out. If it's still Alpha, don't pretend it's Beta. --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 01:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
['::::Hisorically, Wikipedia has had a remarkably low penetration of IE users, and that is WMF\'s main argument for not rolling it out on IE at first. I actually suspect that works against them: I suspect the overlap of the "I use IE because I don\'t know how to install software on my PC" population and the "oooh, wikitext is too scary for me" population is quite large.&mdash;[[User:Kww|Kww]]([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 02:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
[':::::This is all very puzzling. I "have the money for constant upgrades", but I choose to spend it elsewhere, not least because my infrequent upgrades cost no money whatever. I\'ve no idea what being American or not, let alone being middle-American or not, has to do with any of this. I thought that I should give VE a whirl, and read that \'\'To edit a page using VisualEditor, click on the "Edit<sup>beta</sup> " tab at the top of the page\'\' (of an article or user page); but there\'s no such tab at the top or anywhere else, and the string "beta" appears nowhere in the page of an article (unless of course the article itself includes it). (Maybe I\'ve failed some intelligence shibboleth.) I\'ve never encountered anyone who\'s said "I use IE because I don\'t know how to install software on my PC"; I have encountered plenty of people who say variations on (a) "Yes I have an internet. What do you mean, \'Internet Explorer\'?" or (b) "I have to use Internet Explorer because the batshit \'security\' obsession of the IT people in my company prevents me from installing any alternative." -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] ([[User talk:Hoary|talk]]) 02:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC) PS the IQ test I failed was related to RTFM. My "skin" was Cologne Blue; when I changed it to Vector, I successfully used VE with both Iceweasel (not the latest version) and Chromium (thereby incidentally disproving the assertion in [[WP:VisualEditor]] that \'\'VisualEditor currently works only in the most modern versions of Firefox, Chrome and Safari\'\'). -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] ([[User talk:Hoary|talk]]) 09:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
["::::::Your rant has been directed at... whom, precisely, [[User:Hoary|Hoary]]? You've taken snippets out of a couple of comments and made [[Kielbasa|kovbasa]] out of them. Perhaps you could start again & make a little effort at actually making coherent a point. Is your point that you edit on IE at work (you're a bad person) and that you can't use VE because IE is the only browser you have access to. Maybe you should start actually doing your 'work' at 'work', or do they pay you for 'attendance' & the pleasure of your using their equipment & broadband for your personal development? --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 06:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
[':::::::(i) What "rant"? (ii) I do not edit on IE at work or anywhere else. (iii) When I edit at work (which is rare), I normally do so on Iceweasel. (iv) Thank you for your concern for my employer\'s return on its investment in me. (v) \'\'My point\'\' is that a number of the assertions and assumptions above are bizarre. Among these: Wikipedia excludes contributors by economic status; a significant number of the browsers still in use are 20 years old; "IE is the only browser with a stable, official 64-bit build"; the reason why people don\'t add an alternative to IE is that doing so seems/is too difficult; some of the comments on this matter have been by "utter illiterates"; upgrading software costs money. -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] ([[User talk:Hoary|talk]]) 07:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
[':::::::*I was referring to Windows builds with my 64-bit comment, as Windows is the predominant OS. There are surely more people using IE on Windows XP than those using Firefox on Linux. I run Chrome on Windows 7, so this doesn\'t affect me; nevertheless, it potentially would have affected me at my old school, which still ran XP, and some of the machines were stuck on IE7. [[User:Lukeno94|<span style="color:navy;">Luke</span><span style="color:FireBrick;">no</span><span style="color:green;">94</span>]] [[User talk:Lukeno94#top|<i>(tell Luke off here)</i>]] 08:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
["::::::::*Yes, what you say is true. Incidentally, I'm very willing to believe that I move in very atypical circles, but I do move in more than one of them, and in these circles OS X is about as widely used as Windows. So although Linux isn't ''a'' predominant OS, I start to wonder if OS X might be. -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] ([[User talk:Hoary|talk]]) 09:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
[':::::::::*Mac OS X is definitely widespread enough, and stable enough, for it to be a factor. Linux is a bit more tricky; there are so many different versions of it, and it\'s not at the same level as Mac OS X or Windows. Also an interesting question; I wonder how VE would run on a Chromebook? [[User:Lukeno94|<span style="color:navy;">Luke</span><span style="color:FireBrick;">no</span><span style="color:green;">94</span>]] [[User talk:Lukeno94#top|<i>(tell Luke off here)</i>]] 18:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
["* Relatively few of our users have IE8 or older.  Given the fact that support is going away for IE8 soon, this number will be falling even further.  Nobody ever promised that this JavaScript-based editor would work for every single user.  For example, if your web browser is 20 years old, then I guarantee that it won't work, because your web browser is older than JavaScript.\n", "* Given the uptake at the Spanish Wikipedia, which draws a lot of users from South and Central America, I don't believe that the evidence supports the belief that only wealthy users get VisualEditor. \n", '* I\'m a little mystified by the solution favored by some people here.  VisualEditor is \'\'\'temporarily\'\'\' not available to IE9 and IE10 users.  IE has gone on and off the blacklist over the last year; it was most recently re-added to the blacklist when user testing in June proved that it wasn\'t working (e.g., {{phab|51187}}, in which IE users can\'t save a page because of one of IE\'s non-standard quirks).  So it\'s currently not available for about 10% of our users because the users have IE9 or IE10, and they are working on changing VisualEditor to work around IE\'s quirks.  But the proposed "solution" to this gap—this temporary unavailability to a small group of editors—seems to be to take the product away from the 80% of users who \'\'don\'t\'\' use any version of IE, until the IE fixes are in place again (in a few weeks).  This idea that taking it away from everybody will make it available for more people does not seem logical to me.  [[User:Whatamidoing (WMF)|Whatamidoing (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Whatamidoing (WMF)|talk]]) 19:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
[':*Stop making the absurd comments about 20-year-old web browsers. We\'re talking about IE 7/IE 8 and Windows XP here, which are still being used by enough people for them to be taken into consideration. Also, people on IE are rarely "power users", and isn\'t the whole point of VE to enable "non-power users" to edit? It\'s nothing to do with wealth whatsoever; anyone can pirate an OS. VE should not have been released without support for the latest version of IE, and blaming the quirks of IE doesn\'t change that fact. Besides, if you\'d waited until it worked with IE, then you\'d have had a much more stable, feature complete version of the editor, and it would\'ve been more of a success... [[User:Lukeno94|<span style="color:navy;">Luke</span><span style="color:FireBrick;">no</span><span style="color:green;">94</span>]] [[User talk:Lukeno94#top|<i>(tell Luke off here)</i>]] 19:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
["::Why exactly should IE's problems hold back everyone else?  Is it truly important to you that every user have exactly the same access at the same time?  I believe that IE7 represents less than 2% of Wikipedia users, which is not IMO a really sizable group.  Would you block everyone else over one or two percent?  If so, then why aren't mobile users, which represent a dramatically larger group, on your list of groups to worry about?  [[User:Whatamidoing (WMF)|Whatamidoing (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Whatamidoing (WMF)|talk]]) 19:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
["*:I believe that a brief inquiry at your favorite web search engine will remove any lingering concerns you might have about IE being more secure than other web browsers, especially if you specifically ask it about IE7, which Luke specifically called out as important in his opinion.  Major websites like Gmail and Google Docs [http://googledocs.blogspot.com/2011/06/our-plans-to-support-modern-browsers.html stopped supporting IE7 two years ago].  In fact, anyone who wants to use [[HTML5]] has stopped supporting IE7, because IE7 can't do HTML5.  A lack of support for IE7 is normal and increasingly expected.  The two typical policies are to drop support for any browser (assuming it requires special efforts) either when it is the third-oldest browser from the company (so support IE9 and 10, but not IE8, and support Firefox 22 and 21, but not 20) or when it reaches a tiny fraction of your traffic.  IE7, at latest count, is responsible for only ~1.5% of desktop/laptop traffic at ''all'' WMF websites (it is probably slightly less here), and dropping steadily.  In contrast, mobile editing (tablets and smartphones) is rising rapidly.  [[User:Whatamidoing (WMF)|Whatamidoing (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Whatamidoing (WMF)|talk]]) 18:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
["*::I'm perfectly comfortable with the principle that major new functionality requires an up-to-date browser (sorry, [[User:Lukeno94 |Lukeno94]]!). IE6+7+8 use on wikimedia is [http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/squids/SquidReportClients.htm now] down to 6.66% so I can't see any problem excluding them from Visual Editor. I wouldn't even mind excluding IE9 (4.04% used) on the basis that IE11 will be out soon. So we agree almost completely. I'm just questioning whether there's really a W3C standard that applies to {{phab|51187}}. I suspect it's more like Chrome/FF do it one way, and IE does it another way, there's no right or wrong. I didn't mean to imply that ''in general'' IE gives users more security than other browsers, just that perhaps on this occasion IE is enforcing more/different security, because of their focus on corporate use. - [[User:Pointillist|Pointillist]] ([[User talk:Pointillist|talk]]) 11:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
[':::*6.66% is still a HUGE amount of people. Add in IE9, and that\'s 10%. Considering that VE is aimed at the non power-users, and those are more likely to be using older browsers (or any version of IE)... [[User:Lukeno94|<span style="color:navy;">Luke</span><span style="color:FireBrick;">no</span><span style="color:green;">94</span>]] [[User talk:Lukeno94#top|<i>(tell Luke off here)</i>]] 11:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
["::::*I do understand your point. I can see the challenge, and I appreciate that non power-users are less likely to upgrade their machines, and some people won't feel comfortable switching browsers from IE to FF or Chrome. But it's also an opportunity to persuade people that the effort is worthwhile and pretty much inevitable if they want to get the most out of the web in future. - [[User:Pointillist|Pointillist]] ([[User talk:Pointillist|talk]]) 12:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
[':::::*That\'s an absurd suggestion! Wikipedia shouldn\'t be cherry-picking browsers or users, and it certainly shouldn\'t be promoting any. We\'re talking about 10% of the viewers of Wikipedia here - even 1% is a big enough amount of people for their browsers to need accommodating. At the moment, it must be nearer 20-30% of all users who can\'t use VE, when you take into account Opera, the other versions of IE, and some other, smaller browsers. [[User:Lukeno94|<span style="color:navy;">Luke</span><span style="color:FireBrick;">no</span><span style="color:green;">94</span>]] [[User talk:Lukeno94#top|<i>(tell Luke off here)</i>]] 12:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
['::::::*Well, I respect your position. All the best - [[User:Pointillist|Pointillist]] ([[User talk:Pointillist|talk]]) 13:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
['== Moving misc. discussion ==\n', '\n', 'Hi. Can most of the stuff at [[WP:VE/RFC#Related discussions]] be moved to this talk page? The page is cumbersome to load and follow without every person thinking they need a whole new subsection dedicated to their comments. [[User:Killiondude|Killiondude]] ([[User talk:Killiondude|talk]]) 22:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
[": I'd second that but am not familiar enough with the RFC process and the rules, if any, involved with maintenance tasks such as moving those discussions to this page. As there are quite a few would that all get appended to the bottom of this page? Should they be replaced with links to the discussion on this page? --[[User:Marc Kupper|Marc Kupper]]&#124;[[User talk:Marc Kupper|talk]] 20:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
['== problem with numbered votes in opt-out for question 1 ==\n', '\n', 'I added my vote to the opt-out section of the first question, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Default_State_RFC#Opt-out at the very end of this], but it restarted the numbering at 1.  I think it has something to do with the comment of the humble editor above me, but I don\'t know exactly what the problem is or how to fix it.  Any ideas?  Thanks!  [[User:Agnosticaphid|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">AgnosticAphid</span>]] [[User talk:agnosticaphid|talk]] 06:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
[':Fixed. --[[User:NicoV|NicoV]] <sup>([[:fr:Discussion Utilisateur:NicoV|Talk on frwiki]])</sup> 06:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
['::Hey, thanks. Those are some strange nowiki tags on that page you posted! But I think the problem is that whoever that was accidentally didn\'t select the whole name when they made the intra-wiki link, and then the VE added a nowiki tag because if you add a single letter to the end of a link, like <nowiki>"[[thi]]s"</nowiki> it would ordinarily show up as part of the link, like [[thi]]s.  So VE was just trying to preserve the mistaken edit!  I mean, they probably meant to link <nowiki>[[Dostoievski]] rather than [[Dostoievsk]]i.</nowiki>  So it seems like more of a typo than a bug to me, personally. I do know there are actual problems with tables, though! [[User:Agnosticaphid|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">AgnosticAphid</span>]] [[User talk:agnosticaphid|talk]] 07:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
[":::Yes, it was accidental but VE behaviour is surely not what the editor intended to do. An other possibility for this is that the user tried a spelling, and when he added the link he saw that the spelling was wrong so he fixed the spelling just after adding the link. There are a lot of other situations where VE add nowiki tags (see abuse filter 550 which is still triggered several hundred times a day) which are not intended by the user, or that VE trashes an article (tables, ...). There's also the possibility to delete a template without intending to and being aware that you did it. It's all these problems that make me vote for opt-in because a novice won't know that garbage has been added to the article. --[[User:NicoV|NicoV]] <sup>([[:fr:Discussion Utilisateur:NicoV|Talk on frwiki]])</sup> 09:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
['== Changing the user preference label ==\n', '\n', "Hi. I've begun a discussion at [[MediaWiki talk:Visualeditor-preference-betatempdisable#Changing this message]] to discuss whether we should change the user preference label that completely disables VisualEditor. Please participate there. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 06:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
['== Comment on the process ==\n', '\n', 'Generally when a topic is under discussion people are discouraged from making significant changes to the topic until the discussion is concluded. In this case, the RFC was started July 30 01:24<sup>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Default_State_RFC&dir=prev&action=history]</sup> and at 2 August 2013 05:22 the developers rolled out [[Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Updates/August 1, 2013]] to this site. It appears many of the changes in this rollout were in response to early feedback on the RFC. \n', '\n', "While it's great that there was a near immediate response from the software developers it also means that some of the questions in the RFC are no longer valid as they are about VE's behavior in July. \n", '\n', 'Should the RFC be kept open? \n', '\n', "There's a secondary issue which is I found the July version of VE to be so disruptive that I had disabled it. I see from the RFC comments that many others had also disabled VE for the same reason I had. I learned about the August update when reading the RFC comments, re-enabled VE, and have left it enabled. Should a site-notice go out to editors that still have VE disabled about the August update? --[[User:Marc Kupper|Marc Kupper]]&#124;[[User talk:Marc Kupper|talk]] 20:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
[": I think the whole process is correct. By enabling the VE to a wider audience, there is A, more feedback and B, more motivation of others to provide input/help with development (it is, after all, open source, and its more interesting for many developers to work on a popular application than on some test program which might never even be used). So the wider deployment of the VE in fact accelerates its development, and I therefore guess that soon all 'major' issues will be solved. I'd say its a ''post modern'' kind of process :) -- [[User:Stratoprutser|Stratoprutser]] ([[User talk:Stratoprutser|talk]]) 21:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
['::Some of the more important problems are difficult to solve and will take a while, but I am looking forward to the next update, which might happen as early as 15 August.  Among other things, it is supposed to halve the "nowiki" problem (which has already declined substantially during the last month).  [[User:Whatamidoing (WMF)|Whatamidoing (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Whatamidoing (WMF)|talk]]) 18:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
['== Further reading ==\n', '\n', 'There\'s a raucous but very informative (and very long) thread about the VE introduction and the problems with it [http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2616 on Wikipediocracy] (a site dedicated to critiquing (or perhaps destroying) all things Wikipedian). A few of the folks posting to the thread are in the software development industry, and their views on this release might help put this in context a bit. It\'s a very long forum thread, but probably not quite as long as the RfC. --[[User talk:SB_Johnny|<span style="color:green;">\'\'\'SB_Johnny\'\'\'</span>]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;<sup>[[User_talk:SB_Johnny|<span style="color:green;">talk</span>]]</sup>✌ 23:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
[': Cheers for the link. Distinctly illuminating! --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 22:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
['== Page length ==\n', '\n', 'At time of writing, the RFC page stands at nearly 850,000 bytes (850kB) and growing. Would this make it the longest page ever on Wikipedia?\n', '\n', 'On a serious note though, the RFC should be closed soon, or the page size will grow towards an unacceptable level. [[User:Insulam Simia|Insulam Simia]] ([[User talk:Insulam Simia|talk]]) 12:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
[':The page is already beyond critical mass (about 500K for some browsers). I do also agree its time for this RFC to close and the WMF to act on consensus. [[User:KumiokoCleanStart|Kumioko]] ([[User talk:KumiokoCleanStart|talk]]) 20:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
['\n', ': This RFC was opened 30 July. After 7 days, one would expect everyone with an opinion on this matter has spoken. I doubt any further light or insight will come into this discussion. -- [[User:Llywrch|llywrch]] ([[User talk:Llywrch|talk]]) 21:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
['== Its time to present this to the WMF for action ==\n', '\n', 'Now that we have an RFC which shows the WMF clerly what the consenus for how to deal with Visual Editor its time someone presents it to them for action. Hundreds of people voted in this RFC which is, in and of itself, a sign that Visual Editor has caught people attention. The community clearly feels that VE needs to be disabled to opt in only and a variety of other changes until it is fixed and working. Excuse my rather blunt tone here, because it should have never came to this in the first place but its time for the WMF to step up and do as consensus reflects. [[User:KumiokoCleanStart|Kumioko]] ([[User talk:KumiokoCleanStart|talk]]) 20:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
[':I seriously doubt that anything can be done before the developers have returned from Wikimania.  There is a code freeze in effect until August 15th.  \n', ":I have no opinion on whether this should be closed, or left open for other people, or split into subpages, or anything else.  However, if you wanted to help speed the process along, then you might help find a team of experienced, uninvolved admins to formally close it.  If the decision makers have to find time to read through 850K of comments and figure out which ones pre-date James F's proposal and might be addressed by those changes, then the decision will necessarily be delayed by however many hours that takes them.  [[User:Whatamidoing (WMF)|Whatamidoing (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Whatamidoing (WMF)|talk]]) 22:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
['::I agree we may as well keep it going until after Wikimania and that it might take a while to read through. [[User:KumiokoCleanStart|Kumioko]] ([[User talk:KumiokoCleanStart|talk]]) 23:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
['::Certainly you aren\'t suggesting that all votes from before the edit buttons were swapped out should be discarded, are you, [[User:Whatamidoing (WMF)|Whatamidoing (WMF)]]? Everything James has done was relevant only to question 4, and they pretty unambiguously satisfied the demand to "Explicitly warn that it is beta software".  It was irrelevant to the other questions. Ratios like 465/110, 254/57, and 179/46 are pretty unambiguous. Only questions 2.5 and 5 have any judgment calls. &mdash;[[User:Kww|Kww]]([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 03:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
[':::I don\'t think that anything should be discarded wholesale.  However, a thoughtful close will consider the comments that a person made and not just the "vote", and it will consider which people\'s suggestions or comments have been addressed on individual questions.  [[User:Whatamidoing (WMF)|Whatamidoing (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Whatamidoing (WMF)|talk]]) 17:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
[":*'''Agreed''', present to the WMF for action.  [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 13:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
['\n', '* RFCs typically last thirty days. This would mean that this discussion (or vote) would end on August 29 or August 30, I believe.<br>RFCs also typically have a formal closing. This requires an established user (admin or otherwise) reading through the discussion and writing a closing statement. As WhatamIdoing suggests, a group of users closing this RFC may make sense here. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 21:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
["::*You don't think [[WP:SNOW]] applies to this one, [[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]]? The problem with your approach is that if we wait another two weeks to start some formal multi-admin close, by the time we are done, Erik is going to claim that he's done so much since the RFC started that he no longer views the RFC results as valid, meaning we would need to do this over again, and every time we came to the close, the results would be rejected due to age. There's such an intensely lopsided result here that there's no benefit in waiting, and every day we wait is another day that the software is misconfigured to enable VE by default to new editor and IPs.&mdash;[[User:Kww|Kww]]([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 01:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
["::** My only thought at this point is that I'm too involved to have an objective opinion on this RFC or any discussion or decision related to it. :-)  --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 03:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
["*I think this RfC has run its main course. I haven't noticed any new sections or what not popping up lately. [[User:Cncmaster|Command and Conquer Expert!]] <sup>[[User talk:Cncmaster|speak to me...]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Cncmaster|review me...]]</sub> 22:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
[':*I completely agree and I think we need someone to lose this out and submit it to the WMF. I believe its probable they will tell us that we cannot tell them what to do, which has been the basic argument from day one. But I think we at least need to show the that the community has come to a consensus about some issues pertaining to Visual editor. They can choose to follow the consensus of the community or continue to spit in the communities face. [[User:KumiokoCleanStart|Kumioko]] ([[User talk:KumiokoCleanStart|talk]]) 03:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
[":* Agree also. I don't know how to close a RFC on enwiki, so I will let other people do it. The result of the RFC is pretty clear, at least for questions 1, 2 and 3. To me it doesn't seem that anything that has happened since the beginning of this RFC should change much in the votes (a lot of votes are explained by the beta status). We'll see if WMF will keep disregarding the community or if they finally decide to work more closely with contributors. --[[User:NicoV|NicoV]] <sup>([[:fr:Discussion Utilisateur:NicoV|Talk on frwiki]])</sup> 17:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
[':*I know how to close it but I think an argument could reasonably be made, based on my comments and activity, that I am too involved. I am going to request an uninvolved admin to stop by and see if anyone is willing. If no one is willing I will try and find time later in the week. [[User:KumiokoCleanStart|Kumioko]] ([[User talk:KumiokoCleanStart|talk]]) 01:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
[":*:A request was made at AN [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive252#Wikipedia:VisualEditor.2FDefault_State_RFC|here]] but does not seem to have attracted much attention.  My guess is that with so many people on vacation this time of year, there just weren't many people willing to do the entire thing by themselves.  One way to reduce the workload is to find a team, rather than dumping everything on one person.  Three is typical for an RFC of this size, although one per 'question' and someone else for the additional proposals is another option that might work here.  [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 01:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
[":**Thank you I hadn't noticed that. I just left a note for Arbcom to consider drafting the results for submission to the WMF. The request can be seen [[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Closing statement for RFC on Visual Editor|here]]. I admit its a little outside the scope of the Arbcom but as the defacto legal body for Wikipedia and the intermediary between the WMF and the community, it seemed reasonable that they should do it since it pertains to a WMF decision. We'll see what they say. Otherwise I don't mind helping on it but as I said above I believe it would open the door for debate because I have been so vocally opposed to several aspects of VE. [[User:KumiokoCleanStart|Kumioko]] ([[User talk:KumiokoCleanStart|talk]]) 01:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
[":***As expected the Arbcom has declined to get involved so I guess we need a couple folks to close this out and submit the results. Any takers? It doesn't require an admin but someone with some experience with RFC's would be good. [[User:KumiokoCleanStart|Kumioko]] ([[User talk:KumiokoCleanStart|talk]]) 15:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
[":***I submited for the RFC to be closed [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Default State RFC|here]]. If no one bites in the next few days I'll probably draft something up and then post something here for review. [[User:KumiokoCleanStart|Kumioko]] ([[User talk:KumiokoCleanStart|talk]]) 15:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
['== Comparing the RfC results to the WMF reply ==\n', '\n', "Let's discuss this step by step (WMF, please elaborate or correct what I present here as your replies), to get a better idea of where the perceived breakdown between the RfC (the community wishes) and the WMF (the fiat from above) is real and what can be done to minimize this gap. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 07:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)\n"]
['== Motion to close ==\n', "This is a done deal. I don't think anyone should bother with more input on this page. En:wp has far too much editing time needed in other places.--[[User:Canoe1967|Canoe1967]] ([[User talk:Canoe1967|talk]]) 18:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)\n"]
[':The RFC was closed on the 8th. &mdash;[[User_talk:Rybec|<span style="color:black;"><span style="background:#ccccff">rybec</span></span>]] 18:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)\n']
["::Precisely, Rybec: ''this'' RfC is closed. What it has revealed is that a much larger core issue has arisen revolving around the question of the RfC being presented for community input ''before'' even putting the question of the desirability of using agile programming as a reasonable method by which to develop VE. Additional comments on the RfC made it abundantly clear that the 'wrong questions' were being posed. The fact remains that VE is still buggy, yet the determination by the WMF to make executive decisions about what is desirable and what is undesirable ''despite'' community concerns should not be considered done and dusted. Getting on with editing has been compromised and complicated by the rolling out of a flawed system still in the process of being developed in an undesirable way, [[User:Canoe1967|Canoe1967]]. --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 01:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)\n"]
["== James Forrester's remarks  ==\n", '\n', "The response to this RFC should be posted to every person's talk page who voted in this RFC.\n", 'He should stand by his words. [[User:ChrisOBucket|ChrisOBucket]] ([[User talk:ChrisOBucket|talk]]) 03:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)\n']
['== Discussion of proposal to implement outcome of RFC via admin action ==\n', '\n', "Participants of this RFC may be interested in the ongoing Admin Noticeboard thread [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive253#Comments_requested_before_I_implement_consensus_at_WP:VisualEditor.2FDefault_State_RFC]]. The thread centers around a proposal to implement VE opt-in for new users via a local, administrative action (changing a global Javascript file.) [[User:OSborn|OSborn]] <sup>[[User_talk:OSborn|arf]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/OSborn|contribs.]]</sub> 04:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)\n"]
['\n', '[[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|alt=Stop icon]] <big>Please stop and \'\'\'think\'\'\' before entering that discussion. If your contribution is going to be something on the line of "Please do this because WMF Employee so-and-so is a jerk/dickwad/whatever", then \'\'please don\'t contribute at all\'\'. If this goes forward, the responsibility is going to lie heavily upon my shoulders. I don\'t want people to be pointing and saying that the consensus was flawed because it included input from angry hateful people. If you contribute, contribute calmly.</big>&mdash;[[User:Kww|Kww]]([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 05:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)\n']
[":Point well made, {{U|Kww}}. In the first instance, it would be incorrect to present you as having encouraged ill-advised mutiny. Your point has been clear from the outset: to ask the WMF to account to users/editors/contributors who have expressed serious and valid reservations surrounding the method of and rolling out of VE. To use another forum in order to resort to bitching would be counterproductive (surely the ongoing debates are an attempt to open a reasonable dialogue with them). To put you in a precarious position which doesn't reflect your true concerns would be downright irresponsible of the 'disgruntled' elements of the community. --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 06:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)\n"]
["<includeonly>\n:''This section is transcluded from [[Wikipedia:VisualEditor/RFC]]</includeonly>\n", 'This is an RFC regarding the issues surrounding the deployment of VisualEditor. [[User:Gigs|Gigs]] ([[User talk:Gigs|talk]]) 17:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)\n']
['==Great work==\n', "*Great work MediaWiki/Wikipedia team on the new editor.  This will allow Wikipedia to remain relevant in the current 'state of the web' where editing experiences like this are expected.  I was very impressed to see the implementation of the Reference editor and 'Transclusion' editor.  Features like those would have been easy to set aside for a Version 2.0, but a more comprehensive release really may start a positive trend.  No doubt technical issues like browser compatibility or differences of opinion on exact layout will arise and be resolved as part of the development as they have always been.  Please keep up the great work![[User:Cander0000|Cander0000]] ([[User talk:Cander0000|talk]]) 08:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)\n"]
['*Given the scope of the problem (and just how horribly messed-up wikitext really is), it is actually very good, and easier for quick copyedits on complicated articles. And I know how damn hard everyone involved is working on it - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 16:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)\n']
['\n', "*Despite the fact that I'm not entirely happy with the way this has been deployed (frankly, it went far too early, before it was ready), I think we also need to acknowledge that putting together a Visual Editor is both the single most important technical thing that can be done to attract and retain new editors, and also one of the most difficult software engineering challenges possible.  Building something as functional as what we have on top of the years of adhoccery and legacy code that makes up Mediawiki and the English Wikipedia is an extremely impressive feat.  [[User:Lankiveil|Lankiveil]] <sup>([[User talk:Lankiveil|speak to me]])</sup> 11:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC).\n"]
['**+1 --[[User:3family6|<span style="color:navy;">&iquest;3fam</span>]]\'\'\'\'\'[[User talk:3family6|<span style="color:black;">ily6</span>]]\'\'\'\'\' <sub>[[Special:Contributions/3family6|<span style="color:purple;">contribs</span>]]</sub> 13:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)\n']
["** I completely agree. I'm glad this new editor has been rolled out. [[User:Chogg|Chogg]] ([[User talk:Chogg|talk]]) 20:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)\n"]
['* I agree. It\'s a very good alpha, but it should never have been launched outside of a test deployment. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">\'\'\'[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]\'\'\' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup></span> 12:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)\n']
["*:I don't think it's up to alpha yet, as some of the critical enhancements have been marked WONTFIX. — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]]  [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 19:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
["* This is something Wikipedia has needed for a long time, and I'm happy it's already available on every article.  I'm amazed at how complete it is. — [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Omegatron|talk]]) 03:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]
['==Comment about this RfC==\n', 'This RfC was designed with many weasel words, false choices, and questionable assumptions. This needs to be redone in a proper way to claim any sort of true consensus. -- [[User:Ypnypn|Ypnypn]] ([[User talk:Ypnypn|talk]]) 19:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)\n']
["*'''Disagree''' I don't believe it comes across that way. I suppose it could be re-written to have a better effect, but there is no harm in it now.  But unlike the Visual Editor, this RFC can be improved as we go along just like any article or essay.  If you have better wording, mention them.  I believe this RFC was brought forward in good faith.--[[User:Paulmcdonald|Paul McDonald]] ([[User talk:Paulmcdonald|talk]]) 19:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)\n"]
['* So add a section more to your liking - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 19:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)\n']
['::So I have. -- [[User:Ypnypn|Ypnypn]] ([[User talk:Ypnypn|talk]]) 20:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)\n']
['*I think Ypnypn has a point, it looks seriously biased to me, (not necessarily in bad faith though) but I think it is in any case a storm in a teacup, so to mix my metaphors, I will not fan the flames. &bull; &bull; &bull; [[User:Pbsouthwood|Peter (Southwood)]] [[User talk:Pbsouthwood|<sup>(talk)</sup>]]: 20:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)\n']
["*Must say I didn't like the language used, which has detracted from its intended purpose.--[[User:Salix alba|Salix]] ([[User talk:Salix alba|talk]]): 21:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)\n"]
["*'''Agree''' but also support this RfC.  VE is not a bad idea, but it is not a sufficiently good implementation of that idea.  The RfC is another poor implementation of a good idea (re-evaluating the implementation of VE). --[[User:R.S. Peale|R.S. Peale]] ([[User talk:R.S. Peale|talk]]) 05:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)\n"]
['*I have not commented in the RFC although I have already added several comments in the main discussion. As one of the MANY editors who are currently unable to use VE because our browsers (Opera in my case) are unsupported I do not feel I am in a position to do so. I can see the point in VE for new editors if it is done properly, but at the moment it clearly has not been. That all versions of IE are currently unsupported really means it is not fit for release in its current state, are they really serious about it..? [[User:Dsergeant|Dsergeant]] ([[User talk:Dsergeant|talk]]) 06:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)\n']
['*:Browser support is somewhat irrelevant in relation to breakage simply because "unsupported" means "blacklisted". An IE user is not given the VE, just as you\'re not given the VE; pushing a version out makes absolutely no impact on them, positive or negative. [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 14:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)\n']
['*::"Many" is less than 20%, and that will be less than 10% soon, when IE 9, 10, and 11 are working properly.  [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 00:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)\n']
['*::: 80% of visitors to wikimedia sites use a browser other than IE, I think that editors are somewhere around 90% using something other than IE. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers] also, many other features online do not initially support IE, and some never do, possibly due to the difference in programming and function. -- [[user:aunva6|Aunva6]]<sup>[[user talk:aunva6|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Aunva6|contribs]]</sup>  21:11, 13 July 2013 (UTC)\n']
['*::::I use IE primarily because of [[WP:AWB|AWB]].  — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]]  [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 22:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)\n']
['*::: When I do training, we often rely on the participants bringing their own equipment.  I\'m a big fan of Firefox, but "you\'ll have to install Firefox in order to participate in this workshop" is unprofessional, and "you\'ll have to upgrade to a newer version of IE" is even worse because it will likely cause all sorts of unexpected changes to their computer.  In many cases, their laptop is their work machine, and is locked down so they cant f&^k it up.  VE should work on most normal configurations, and IE users are slow upgraders.  20% is a very high risk factor.  And I can assure you that even when it is 10%, it will cause problems often, especially with outreach to GLAMs and government and even universities in first world countries, and will be very frequently a problem in developing countries that cant afford to regularly upgrade.  <span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] <sup>\'\'\'([[User talk:John Vandenberg|chat]])\'\'\'</sup></span> 08:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)\n']
['*The opening statement is terrible, and Philippe is absolutely right. The rest of the RFC is OK because we can at least oppose the statements we disagree with, but the opening statement really needs to be made more neutral and level-headed. — <span style="border:dashed #666;border-width:1px 0 0 1px">[[User:This, that and the other|This, that]]</span> and <span style="border:dashed #666;border-width:0 1px 1px 0">[[User talk:This, that and the other|the other<small> (talk)</small>]]</span> 07:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)\n']
['*I don\'t think this RFC really needs to come to any kind of definitive consensus.  The feedback here is not conducive to coming to some sort of "grand conclusion", or closure.   It\'s clear that the general consensus of the community is that the rollout could have been handled a little better, but that\'s done and over with, so kind of moot. As I like to say, RFC is not a code word for polling, and the RFC still has value in the individual comments, even if there can be no "result". [[User:Gigs|Gigs]] ([[User talk:Gigs|talk]]) 14:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)\n']
['**I think that is only one of the points.  There are editors in favor of rolling back the project, making VE not be the "default" editor at this time, and pulling VE completely from Wikipedia.  It\'s more than just "the rollout could have been handled a little better" as you say, it\'s a whole lot more.  "Sweep it under the rug" is not an option.--[[User:Paulmcdonald|Paul McDonald]] ([[User talk:Paulmcdonald|talk]]) 18:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)\n']
["*But it's still better planned/designed than the Visual Editor rollout was. [[User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|Hullaballoo Wolfowitz]] ([[User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|talk]]) 13:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)\n"]
['** +1 - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 14:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)\n']
['** +2 - [[User:Double sharp|Double sharp]] ([[User talk:Double sharp|talk]]) 11:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)\n']
['*\'\'\'Agree\'\'\': The RFC summary was not at all neutral, and Adam certainly seems to have tried to steer the discussion in a particular direction.--[[User:3family6|<span style="color:navy;">&iquest;3fam</span>]]\'\'\'\'\'[[User talk:3family6|<span style="color:black;">ily6</span>]]\'\'\'\'\' <sub>[[Special:Contributions/3family6|<span style="color:purple;">contribs</span>]]</sub> 13:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)\n']
['**I changed it, not that it matters much at this point. [[User:Gigs|Gigs]] ([[User talk:Gigs|talk]]) 17:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)\n']
["*Indeed it may come across as biased. But how many would have voted differently if it had been more neutral? How many seem to have been influenced by the tone of the initial statements (i.e. they had no reasons of their own)? I'm guessing very few. [[User:Double sharp|Double sharp]] ([[User talk:Double sharp|talk]]) 11:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)\n"]
[":::Exactly. The questions just format and divide up the discussion. He hardly had to steer.  Everyone here knows what we are talking about by experience, without relying on them to tell us what's going on. I can think no way of asking the question that would give a significantly different response. The great majority except those connected with the WMF dislike it and think it unready, the only variation being the degree of dislike; everyone from  the WMF thinks it's useful, though some also think it wasn't ready.  For example, I'm more willing to tolerate editing systems I don't like than Adam is,  perhaps because I've managed to work with most of what's come out in the last 40 years or so (even earlier--I think I remember having to work with text in FortranIV). If I had to edit everything twice to make sure it worked, I would edit it twice, but that doesn't mean I want to.  '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 03:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)\n"]
[":::RfCs have become the way the enWP decides things. What I think we need to think about is how long to give the developers until we  have one on the simple question of having it permanently removed until we say otherwise. My goodwill was exhausted at the previous interface change: I was assured the foundation had learned something, and I see that is not the case. And to supplement it, I see below they're intent on a similar change without approval. It's like a returning sockpuppet, who posts that after we throw him out he's going to come back again.'''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 03:19, 20 July 2013 (UTC)\n"]
['* \'\'\'Agree\'\'\'. Adam Cuerden\'s original summary is not the only problem. With bullet points like "it\'s a good idea \'\'in theory\'\'" and "Buggy software should not become the default until it reaches a certain level of development", Adam is basically asking us all whether we\'ve stopped beating our wives. Points like "VisualEditor should have a way to be turned off fully, easily, and without continuing to leech resources" are based on presumptions (that VE imposes a burden even when turned off) that are simply not backed up by the facts. Where do those of us who think that the VE is at an acceptable level of quality, and should be deployed to all editors, put their opinions in this mess? [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] 02:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
['** \'\'\'Agree\'\'\' I\'m only posting beneath Dcoetzee because they said it better than I ever could. The whole thing seems designed as a politicking power-play by a vocal minority of long term users. --[[User:Monk of the highest order|<span style="color:green;">Monk of the highest order</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Monk of the highest order|(t)]]</sup> 04:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
['*Disagree. The RFC looks properly presented to me. [[User:Gryllida|Gryllida]] 09:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)\n']
['== Visual Editor and Flow ==\n', '\n', "It's official - [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Flow_Portal/Interactive_Prototype#Markup-mode_.2Aneeded.2A_in_editor_30315] - you won't be able to use talk pages without it. This appears to put the lie to claims it will remain optional - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 22:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)\n"]
[':Someone at the WMF needs to seriously take on board all the complaints they\'re getting and stop everything related with VE until they can fix the most egregious bugs it has. As it is, the way this is going on is a joke, and I won\'t be surprised if we see a few people getting fired over this fiasco. —[[User:Jéské Couriano|<span style="color:#228B22;">\'\'Jeremy\'\'</span>]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|<span style="color:#228B22;">v^_^v</span>]] <sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano|Bori!]]</small></sup> 23:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC)\n']
[':Agreed.--[[User:Paulmcdonald|Paul McDonald]] ([[User talk:Paulmcdonald|talk]]) 00:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)\n']
["::That thread does not say that VE will be the only way to use talk pages.  In fact, if you read [[:mw:Thread:Talk:Flow Portal/Interactive Prototype/Markup-mode *needed* in editor/reply (12)]], it specifically says that there will be a fallback, i.e., for users who ''cannot'' use VE due to not supporting Javascript.  [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 01:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)\n"]
["::: Does not help. If equations are not rendered properly we'll be left with talking weather. --[[Special:Contributions/93.75.134.116|93.75.134.116]] ([[User talk:93.75.134.116|talk]]) 01:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)\n"]
["::::Why wouldn't you be able to render equations properly?  We '''are''' going to support math.  See [[:mw:Thread:Talk:Flow Portal/Maths/reply (2)]] for the latest word on math equations in VisualEditor.  [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 04:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)\n"]
[':::::Looks like there is some basic support for maths coming. [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Flow_Portal#Maths_30340], demo at [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/VisualEditor:TestMath].--[[User:Salix alba|Salix]] ([[User talk:Salix alba|talk]]): 04:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)\n']
['::::::Appears to me, that VE will be the least of our problems, when [[WP:Flow]] is ultimately implemented upon us all.--[[User:R.S. Peale|R.S. Peale]] ([[User talk:R.S. Peale|talk]]) 07:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)\n']
[":::::::I ''was'' concerned about VE, but unaware of Flow. I'll be needing to recalibrate the paranoia filters, now.--[[User:R.S. Peale|R.S. Peale]] ([[User talk:R.S. Peale|talk]]) 07:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)\n"]
["::::::::Yech. I don't have the time right now to rebut every single point listed on its main page in its favour (which I could do though). If the WMF persists in not listening, I may just create [[User:Double sharp/talk]] to get away from this madness. (And learn how to hack the OBOD script for that – don't get me started on that.) Assuming I won't have to use VE on that, too. [[User:Double sharp|Double sharp]] ([[User talk:Double sharp|talk]]) 11:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)\n"]
[':::::::::That\'s a genius idea, Double Sharp, assuming that is not made impossible as well. \'\'\'[[User:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color:green;font-family:Mistral;">Toa</i>]] [[User talk:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color:green;font-family:Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i>]]\'\'\' 18:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)\n']
["::::::::::I have a feeling this sort of thing might have been used for a time in WP's early days... [[User:Double sharp|Double sharp]] ([[User talk:Double sharp|talk]]) 10:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)\n"]
['[[Category:VisualEditor]]\n', '\n', ":[https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Flow_Portal/FAQ#Is_this_replacing_talk_pages.3F Flow is replacing talk pages], and [https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Thread:Talk:Flow_Portal/Interactive_Prototype/Markup-mode_*needed*_in_editor&lqt_oldid=39555 the only editor for talk pages will be Flow], so ''anyone saying that talk pages won't become VE-only is either [[WP:AGF|ignorant]] or [[WP:ACLUE|lying]].''  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Flow&diff=prev&oldid=564299414 Jorm (WMF) can't be arsed to find out if VE will support wiki mark up], but [https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Thread:Talk:Flow_Portal/Interactive_Prototype/Markup-mode_*needed*_in_editor&lqt_oldid=39555 will force it on editors who will never have use for Visual editor].\n", ':If the people behind Flow aren\'t going to be the least bit helpful to the people who are actually helping the encyclopedia (instead of just trying to make things easier for vandals and POV pushers), then the VE folks need to grow a pair (of ears), actually listen to the complaints instead of advertising other features as red herrings, and implement an "edit source" button in VE to let users who aren\'t senile or delinquent demi-literates actually get something done around here. [[User:Ian.thomson|Ian.thomson]] ([[User talk:Ian.thomson|talk]]) 19:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)\n']
['\n', "I pointed out at [[WP:VisualEditor]] that Flow will force all editors to use VE on talk pages, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:VisualEditor&curid=37835429&diff=564415059&oldid=564409196 I was reverted and accused of making bad-faith false edits].  WMF has no idea what they're doing, and we need to make it known to them.  [[User:Ian.thomson|Ian.thomson]] ([[User talk:Ian.thomson|talk]]) 21:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)\n"]
[":You've already made it clear you hold that opinion, Ian. I'm happy to engage with you more if you cease assuming bad faith of fellow contributors and staffers. [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 03:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)\n"]
["::As a developer and admin (off-wiki) I've learned that assuming good faith in users and devs is nearly always warranted, and far more efficacious than assumption of bad.  However, I most emphatically decline to extend AGF toward code or parsers, until/unless it has proven itself non-faulty.  VE hasn't done this for me, yet, and I'm skeptical that it ever will.  WMF on the other hand, is not a script or a bot, but [[Soylent Green|made of people]].  And I'm '''sure''' you're trying harder than I to build an encyclopedia.  Even if I sometimes can't see it.--[[User:R.S. Peale|R.S. Peale]] ([[User talk:R.S. Peale|talk]]) 07:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)\n"]
[":::I resent the assertion that we're made of people - we employ lawyers! I mean, they are made of people, but only in the same way that a hamburger is made of cows.\n", ':::So, yeah, I appreciate the VE proper still needs a heck of a lot of work. It\'s not got the full featureset, and it\'s got a lot of bugs - but those are issues that can and will be fixed in time, hopefully (I can\'t say "certainly", because I don\'t make that decision, but "almost certainly") before any kind of Flow rollout. At the same time, as has been said by Erik and a few others (and he \'\'does\'\' make that decision) there will be an editor as part of flow that is an alternative to the VE. I don\'t personally know what that looks like yet, but I\'m in the office from Thursday and hope to chase it up in meatspace, where people can\'t run away ;). [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 08:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)\n']
['::::That is good news! Please make sure to also chase up that we actually need two things: A fall-back for VE for people without JavaScript for whatever reasons (Brandon stated that this will be available) but we also need a real Wikitext alternative to VE, or at least a Wikitext editor inside Flow (and Brandon didn\'t make any commitments regarding this one). Not that we end up with a very limited fall-back solution that stands far beyond the full featured Flow implementation of VE but "supports Wikitext". --[[User:Patrick87|Patrick87]] ([[User talk:Patrick87|talk]]) 09:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)\n']
["*Pointing to the new [[Wikipedia:VisualEditor/FAQ#VEFlow|FAQ question]] about this. There is, still, no plan to remove wiki text editing. Obviously, like all new tools, not all features will be available if you don't adopt it but we still plan to have it as a fall back (as certainly users will likely need it for years to come). [[User:Jalexander|Jalexander]]--[[Wikimedia Foundation|WMF]] 03:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)\n"]
['\n', '"[https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Flow_Portal/FAQ#Is_this_replacing_talk_pages.3F Eventually, we\'ll probably get more aggressive about asking people to upgrade, and finally (at some nebulous time in the future), we\'ll auto-upgrade everyone."] ...LOL. "Unduly aggressive", indeed! [[User:Double sharp|Double sharp]] ([[User talk:Double sharp|talk]]) 11:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)\n']
[':Interesting that nobody has replied to this...interesting... [[User:Double sharp|Double sharp]] ([[User talk:Double sharp|talk]]) 10:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)\n']
['::Check out [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AFlow&diff=565563209&oldid=565552556 these comments], which you might find reassuring. See also the FAQ link that Jalexander added, directly before your comment. HTH. –[[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]] ([[User talk:Quiddity|talk]]) 17:17, 28 July 2013 (UTC)\n']
['\n', '::: And [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Flow&diff=prev&oldid=565564684] (a couple of edits further) does show that Flow is meant to become incompatible with "normal" editing. So do [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Flow&diff=next&oldid=565570506], [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Flow&diff=next&oldid=565573181]... Sorry, but trying to deflect well-deserved criticism from WMF like [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:VisualEditor/RFC&diff=566171408&oldid=566134704] does not look well. I would recommend you to self-revert. --[[User:Martynas Patasius|Martynas Patasius]] ([[User talk:Martynas Patasius|talk]]) 18:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)\n']
["::::The visualeditor will not be mandatory for flow. It can't be, because some editors don't have javascript, and VE requires javascript. See [[WP:VisualEditor/FAQ#VEFlow]]. I completely agree that feedback (criticism/suggestions/bugreports/requests/etc) for VE and Flow is good/needed, but the wording in the header was factually incorrect and misleading, hence the change. –[[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]] ([[User talk:Quiddity|talk]]) 19:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)\n"]
['\n', '::::: The point is that the "wikitext editor" will only be allowed to do what the "VisualEditor" does. And that will only be a subset of things that the "wikitext editor" can do now. In effect it means that we lose the "old" editor and get a "VisualEditor" with the graphical interface and a "VisualEditor" with the text interface. That is not a current "wikitext editor", although it might look like that from afar. It loses the main advantage of the normal "wikitext editor": flexibility.\n', '::::: Now it doesn\'t have to be this way, if WMF and the developers will act reasonably. It is relatively easy to show some box (or something) with words "This part is not supported by this interface. You can edit its source directly." (or something like that). Or at least ignore the unsupported part. Good editors do that. However, we are told that if something is supported by "wikitext editor" and unsupported by "VisualEditor", it will be simply rejected by the server... That\'s what we are furious about.\n', '::::: So, I still think that your change is wrong. --[[User:Martynas Patasius|Martynas Patasius]] ([[User talk:Martynas Patasius|talk]]) 20:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)\n']
["::::::There are some technical details at the top of [[Wikipedia_talk:Flow#Supported_Wikitext]], and I've added an attemped summary of the issue from an editor's perspective (without the technical-aspects, and with examples of what we ''need'') at the bottom of that thread. There are also some helpful discussions around this topic in the thread directly above that. (Note: I'm a wikitext lover, too. I've handcoded webpages in notepad/homesite/notepad++/gedit since '97! I want what you want - power and flexibility without changing my typing habits too much. I'm just trying to help the conversation remain a conversation, rather than letting it turn into an argument over the as-yet-uncreated fallback editor and its hypothetical features, which will supposedly all be based around Parsoid (and will include whatever features Parsoid has available in ''x'' months time). HTH.) –[[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]] ([[User talk:Quiddity|talk]]) 21:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)\n"]
['\n', '::::::: I guess it means we do not really disagree that much. You are saying that there are some things that must be achieved and we have to tell WMF what they are - I am saying that if we will do nothing, those things will not be achieved.\n', '::::::: In effect the difference is that by now I do not trust WMF that much: after all, it wasn\'t hard to make "VisualEditor" just slightly annoying without provoking "everyone" to hate it with great passion. And "Flow" (or "Parsoid") is a much harder project. So I suspect that "Flow" is not actually going to be implemented reasonably. However, it might be that the project won\'t get finished - and that might be the best we can hope for... Thus I would prefer to make WMF adopt the slogan "There is no deadline!" and just waste money without causing much harm... --[[User:Martynas Patasius|Martynas Patasius]] ([[User talk:Martynas Patasius|talk]]) 22:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)\n']
['== VE is annoying and disgusting ==\n', "* I am feeling both annoyed and disgusted from the unwill and the unability of the foundation and their programmers to finally improve referencing content. With atm rank 17 on DE:WP's alltime editcount I am considering myself of one of the most active editors in that language's WP but never from the first day of my activity there (2006-07-12) was made any significant improvement on referencing articles. Actually referencing in MS Word 5.0 in 1989 was more easy than in WP 2013. You get it? It' just thouroghly failure. --[[User:Matthiasb|Matthiasb]] ([[User talk:Matthiasb|talk]]) 20:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)\n"]
['**I am nevertheless certain that a strictly time-based release of VE to German Wikipedia will be an unmitigated success - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 21:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)\n']
["*** Everyone can believe what he wants. Please be asured: there is no Easter bunny. I cannot help myself: for a couple of years or three the foundation does the maximum for making Wikipedia unattractive for new users and is doing nothing repeat nothing to motivate old users contributing also in future. Well, frankly spoken, the only improvement introduced to Mediawiki was the useless Wikilove feature a.k.a. give away a cat picture. Sorry but I really do not believe that Wikipedia will surve 2020 if WMF is ruled like at this moment for some more time. As a long time user and as a man who has [[dual education system|learned trading from the scratch]] I am sure, that the WMF is on a dangerous trip to nowhere. Unless they won't start to listen what editors are ''really'' needing WP is on a downwards loop. WMF lost way too much time with features not needed and even not helping at all. Throw away the VE as it is, nobody needs this. And finally listen to the communities. Well even if You never asked so far. --[[User:Matthiasb|Matthiasb]] ([[User talk:Matthiasb|talk]]) 21:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)\n"]
['****(Pretty sure David was being sarcastic, Matthias.) <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">\'\'\'[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]\'\'\' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup></span> 21:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)\n']
['\n', 'What really surprises me is the stubbornness the WMF is showing here in introducing the visual editor. Increasingly I find myself thinking that Wikipedia is being made harder and even impossible to edit step by step introducing an AFT nobody has ever needed or requested, an unusable Wikidata which has failed by design from the very start, now by doing away with the MediaWiki editor (after all, that\'s the tool that we use to bring in \'\'all\'\' content), and finally by replacing discussion pages with "Flow". The WMF, it appears, is not the least interested in the needs of its most faithful contributors, taking away the tools we need for our work, cf. the dying-away of the Toolserver, or the doing-away of the tick box to switch off visual editor for some hours on enwiki some weeks ago. I gather that it will not be possible to switch off "Flow". So, if we cannot even continue to discuss the way we used to what will be left for us to stay here? Even assuming lots of good faith, despite the WMF\'s best intentions, we will probably lose our core community pretty soon, and WMF does not seem to be interested in us any more. Been there, seen that. Paid editors are about to take over, I assume, while Wikimedia organisations are looking for a new community who likes these Facebook and Google kind of gadgets that are taking a lot of time and money to develop. Reminds me very much of Bertolt Brecht\'s poem \'\'[[Die Lösung]]\'\' ("The solution") on the relationship between the East-German state and its people after the resurrection of 1953: \'\'Wäre es da/ Nicht doch einfacher, die Regierung/ Löste das Volk auf und/ Wählte ein anderes?\'\' ("Would it not be easier/ In that case for the government/ To dissolve the people/ And elect another?").--[[User:Aschmidt|Aschmidt]] ([[User talk:Aschmidt|talk]]) 20:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)\n']
['*Even Microsoft have shown more interest in their clients than the WMF have... [[User:Lukeno94|<span style="color:navy;">Luke</span><span style="color:FireBrick;">no</span><span style="color:green;">94</span>]] [[User talk:Lukeno94#top|<i>(tell Luke off here)</i>]] 21:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)\n']
["* '''Now ''WikiFahrenheit-451'' as they burn our old tools:''' I can expect how many users will want to quit, but the trampling of our community should strengthen our resolve, as in ''[[Fahrenheit 451]]'', we should form our own plans to improve tools, plus find [[sympathizer]]s within WMF Platform Engineering who will help us to preserve the contents of the books before everything is burned in the Firestorm. -[[User:Wikid77|Wikid77]] ([[User talk:Wikid77|talk]]) 16:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)\n"]
['\n', '*I find these comments annoying and disgusting. This is a serious forum, not a lavatory for wild, emotive venting. [[User:Tony1|<span style="color:darkgreen;">\'\'\'Tony\'\'\'</span>]] [[User talk:Tony1|<span style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) </span>]] 02:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)\n']
['::Seconded.[[User:OrangesRyellow|OrangesRyellow]] ([[User talk:OrangesRyellow|talk]]) 10:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)\n']
[':::Yet the fact that such venting does take place and that people have felt the need to create a dedicated section of it shows pretty clearly the most common reaction... [[User:Double sharp|Double sharp]] ([[User talk:Double sharp|talk]]) 15:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)\n']
['== "Centralized discussion"? ==\n', '\n', 'Since at the moment this page seems to be the main for discussion of "VisualEditor", perhaps it should be mentioned in [[Template:Centralized discussion]]? A couple of "less main" discussions have been mentioned ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Centralized_discussion&oldid=565935250])... --[[User:Martynas Patasius|Martynas Patasius]] ([[User talk:Martynas Patasius|talk]]) 18:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC)\n']
['== The Germans state their stand ==\n', '[[:de:Wikipedia:Umfragen/VisualEditor Opt-in|FWIW]]. [[User:Double sharp|Double sharp]] ([[User talk:Double sharp|talk]]) 00:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)\n']