The Wikipedia Critics' Forum
https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/
I hadn't realised that. If it can only edit articles, then the percentage of article edits using it must be quite a bit higher than the proportion of all edits, which is what is usually quoted on here.
Now I understand the backstory of Seth Rogen (T-H-L)'s This is the End (T-H-L) character having been victimized.
Visual Edsel has been underdevelopment for about a decade now.The Visual Editor is a huge failure
Post by Vigilant » Wed Jul 10, 2013 3:44 pm
The Swami Vigilant will do a reading now.Vigilant wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2013 5:57 pmAnd here we are again in the morning with 30 more reported problems.
It's somewhat staggering that for such a smallish, straight forward project like VE that their bugzilla database has passed 50K reported issues.
They were issuing bugzilla entries at around 30K during the December pre-pre-alpha shitfest.
It would be interesting to see how many projects are included in that database, how many bugs are for VE and when they were reported.
I'd bet that the "dev team" and "test team" found and fixed almost no bugs outside of these editor based gulag tests in December and July.
Everything I see points to no formal test and/or regression infrastructure.
I'd go look, but I'm a lazy bastard.
Absolutely the case.The WMF seems to be an organization that is immune to learning.This might sound a bit snarky (and isn't meant as criticism of the devs who worked on this), but careful testing is only necessary when one actually expects to have a decision to make. As best I can tell, all the major decisions have already been made (VE is the way of the future!). I don't think there is any scenario that would lead to disabling this, hence deciding whether it is a success isn't actually very important. That said, I'm sure the WMF would like to be able to tell donors that they have accomplished X, Y, and Z during 2013. Those accomplishments could be phrased in terms of performance benchmarks (especially if they do get good numbers), but they could just as well be explained in terms of products created. Personally, I do hope that the WMF follows-up and studies the impact of this change, but I doubt there are any specific goals that they feel must be met. Dragons flight (talk) 05:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
It's not that they couldn't; it's that they prefer to be ignorant so as to avoid offending the people who are fucking up the hardest.
At some point, they're going to alienate enough of the more productive editors that this abortion of an editor will never, ever get full acceptance even if it eventually gets to be workable.
Given their disdain for automated regression testing, I'll bet VE is a thorn in the side of the WMF for many, many years to come as new features are coded in by even newer programmers which break other features.
Editors on wikipedia, get ready to become permanent, unwilling regression testers every time you log in.
