Flow - the next Visual Editor debacle

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Fri Nov 04, 2016 12:48 pm

This is how the Flow ends: not with a bang, but a whimper.

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/319761/

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Fri Nov 04, 2016 2:22 pm

Hex wrote:This is how the Flow ends: not with a bang, but a whimper.

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/319761/

I don't get it.

Kelly Martin · Unread post by **Kelly Martin** » Fri Nov 04, 2016 2:44 pm

thekohser wrote:
Hex wrote:This is how the Flow ends: not with a bang, but a whimper.

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/319761/
I don't get it.

"Disable Flow on enwiki"

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Fri Nov 04, 2016 3:22 pm

Kelly Martin wrote:
thekohser wrote:
Hex wrote:This is how the Flow ends: not with a bang, but a whimper.

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/319761/
I don't get it.
"Disable Flow on enwiki"

Would have been something I'd have done on my first day as CTO.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Fri Nov 04, 2016 4:24 pm

Ah, thank you for explaining to me!

So, is there the requisite "gnashing of teeth" Talk page somewhere, where Wikipediots are whining about this discontinuation? I'd love to glance at that for a few minutes, to see emotional reaction to a failed multi-million-dollar project that nobody asked for.

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Fri Nov 04, 2016 5:10 pm

thekohser wrote:So, is there the requisite "gnashing of teeth" Talk page somewhere, where Wikipediots are whining about this discontinuation? I'd love to glance at that for a few minutes, to see emotional reaction to a failed multi-million-dollar project that nobody asked for.

After the most recent round of stomping that Flow got, I think its few remaining cheerleaders on EnWP have pretty much given up. The last of them that I saw were at User talk:BethNaught/Draft Flow RfC (T-H-L), which preceded the official decision to uninstall it. Today one person felt the need to drop a thumbs down icon on the plan for removing Flow from the system - that seems to be it.

The Garbage Scow · Unread post by **The Garbage Scow** » Fri Nov 04, 2016 8:12 pm

Bye Felecia

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Tue Jan 03, 2017 9:24 pm

[Copied from Technical Collaboration Guideline thread]

Over on Meta, there's a proposal to remove the installation of Flow. It's succeeding overwhelmingly. However, Qgil-WMF (T-C-L) has popped up to tell everyone that actually, before trying to get it removed they should be using the TCG to tell them what the problems are with Flow first. As if droves of people haven't been explaining it in painful, copious detail for literally years now; and as if there wasn't already a survey about Flow that took place back in September (the results of which the WMF have still not published).

Rogol Domedonfors · Unread post by **Rogol Domedonfors** » Wed Jan 04, 2017 8:23 pm

It's just over seven months ago that I asked Katherine at her Meta talk page to "give a clear concise and measurable set of obectives around the areas of Visual Editor, Wikitext, Parsoid, Flow, Workflow and Discovery". She has chosen not to respond. I cannot tell whether this is because there is in actual fact no plan, or because there is but she cannot find out what the plan is, or because she knows but is unwilling for some reason to publish it.

Kingsindian · Unread post by **Kingsindian** » Thu Jan 05, 2017 1:28 am

to WO, "Rogol Domedonfors".

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Sat Jan 07, 2017 1:34 am

Hex wrote:as if there wasn't already a survey about Flow that took place back in September (the results of which the WMF have still not published).

From Phabricator:

Quim Gil wrote: Benoît is on vacation this week, so let me share a quick update. We could not complete this task in the past quarter but it is one of the top priorities of the Technical Collaboration team. Our aim is to complete it as soon as possible, so it can inform the Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan FY2017-18.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Sat Jan 07, 2017 5:23 pm

How much work is involved in analysing this survey? If it's such a high priority, how could they shove it onto the back burner for three months?

Anroth · Unread post by **Anroth** » Sun Jan 08, 2017 12:45 am

Poetlister wrote:How much work is involved in analysing this survey? If it's such a high priority, how could they shove it onto the back burner for three months?

Because over a period of years they have employed lackwitted cretins while driving out anyone who actually has talent.

Rogol Domedonfors · Unread post by **Rogol Domedonfors** » Wed Feb 08, 2017 8:15 am

Just published.

Executive summary: we tried our hardest to only ask supporters but even so the resuts were mainly against Flow, but we now know some reasons people don't like it and we could pretend to fix them, so that's a Yes! to Flow.

More seriously, Flow was described as suitable for chat between newcomers to the boards and unsuitable for serious discussions between people who think they're writing an ecyclopaedia. It's clear that WMF want to move in the direction of attracting more new faces, who use mobile phones to chat not laptops to write, and WMF are perfectly well aware that the old let's-pretend-to-write-an-encyclopaedia game is getting stale. So Flow will go ahead, not because it's what the users want, but because it's what the WMF wants. It's not mission-critical, so it doesn't really matter whether it's very good, or takes longer to deliver than planned, and it provides plenty of sinecures to reward community members who want to play at being software engineers in Silicon Valley, and get paid for it, and it shows the big grant-awarding bodies that WMF is doing stuff.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sun Feb 24, 2019 6:01 am

Never trust the WMF.

Flow lurches back to life

Motherfucking snakes on a plane

AKA "We have more money than we have sense."

The project is led by Trevor Bolliger (Product Manager), Benoît Evellin (Community Relations Specialist), Sherry Snyder (Community Relations Specialist) and Danny Horn (Director of Product Management).

Sherry Snyder is the worst possible choice for this.
Bravo!!

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Sun Feb 24, 2019 6:07 am

Vigilant wrote:Never trust the WMF.

Flow lurches back to life

Motherfucking snakes on a plane

AKA "We have more money than we have sense."

Yes, I got the invitation on my talk page.

Amusingly:

...
Non-goals
While we are interested in all good ideas, and might take some up in future, some things are out of scope for the current project:

...

...

The status quo – Leaving talk pages exactly as they are.

So no predetermined outcomes except that they are "confident they must do something" and confident that whatever something they come up with will be better than nothing.

History disagrees.

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Sun Feb 24, 2019 2:03 pm

Vigilant wrote:Sherry Snyder is the worst possible choice for this.
Bravo!!

On her behalf, as part of my commitment to Customer Service, I'd just like to tell you that your opinion is wrong, unhelpful, wrong, and will be ignored. By the way, Bravo is not a verb. And you're wrong. Thank you.

(It's worth re-reading a page or two of posts from here on for anyone who's forgotten, or didn't know, how spectacularly unsuitable and risible a choice that one is for any kind of public/customer facing role...)

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Sun Feb 24, 2019 9:28 pm

Jim wrote:
Vigilant wrote:Sherry Snyder is the worst possible choice for this.
Bravo!!
On her behalf, as part of my commitment to Customer Service, I'd just like to tell you that your opinion is wrong, unhelpful, wrong, and will be ignored. By the way, Bravo is not a verb. And you're wrong. Thank you.

(It's worth re-reading a page or two of posts from here on for anyone who's forgotten, or didn't know, how spectacularly unsuitable and risible a choice that one is for any kind of public/customer facing role...)

She sounds eminently appropriate for a WMF spokesperson.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:50 pm

Even Risker gets it, that's how obviously deranged this discussion is.

"Features" that people really *don't* want on discussion pages
Infinite scrolling.
Inflexibility. "Discussion" pages are used for an enormous variety of discussion types, many of which are ad hoc and fairly undefined. Any redesign must be equally flexible.
Any discussion page that restricts the use of specialized text software (e.g., math notation) as well as wikitext is a complete non-starter, as it defeats the purpose of the page.
Seems to me we had this conversation a few years ago, and instead of paying attention to what editors said they wanted or needed, we got Flow. Don't do that again, please. Risker (talk) 08:03, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Adding:

No upvote/downvote functions. They're antithetical to the "equity" that is one of the objectives.
Any system where it is not possible to provide a direct and permanent link to a specific revision of the discussion page (i.e., every single element of the page is exactly as it was at the time of that revision). Ability to accurately and easily reconstruct the progress of complex discussions is required on a regular basis.
Mandatory javascript.
I'm sure I will think of more. Risker (talk)

And I did:

Having different kinds of software for different kinds of discussions increases complexity and is antithetical to the equity this project seems to feel is a major objective; it creates ghettos of discussions, with only the most "advanced" users being able to participate effectively across multiple types of discussion platforms. I cannot emphasize this enough.
Software should never be used as a tool of social control. That means no shadow banning, no ability to "hide" the posts of another user, and so on. Frankly, I don't trust the WMF to understand enough about the culture of any of the projects well enough to develop social behaviour modification software - and I say that as someone who generally gets along pretty well with most WMF staff. Risker (talk) 08:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Auggie · Unread post by **Auggie** » Mon Feb 25, 2019 1:55 pm

haha "the status quo" is a "non-goal".

The info page looks like someone's half-understood glimpse of a government bid or a grant proposal. Bureaucratic legalize garbage. Overly wordy, with a hostile tone. Not a way to engage a community.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Mon Feb 25, 2019 9:52 pm

Why can't they just copy the excellent facilities already incorporated into Encyc?

Auggie · Unread post by **Auggie** » Mon Feb 25, 2019 10:35 pm

Poetlister wrote:Why can't they just copy the excellent facilities already incorporated into Encyc?

Extension:VisualEditor sucks, or so I've heard.

Encyc is built on the rock solid MediaWiki markup that was deployed in 2003 and propelled MediaWiki sites to being in the top ten of all websites.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Mon Mar 04, 2019 12:36 am

Two dipshits in a tree.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 839370#Hey

That's good, because I am well past giving a fuck. Sometimes I wonder what I accomplished there at all, if anything, and I get a little bitter.--Jorm (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

We all know the answer to that unpalatable question.

P.S. Please set a time for our much delayed scuffle as I have repeatedly called you an unreconstructed racist.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Mon Mar 04, 2019 12:43 am

So much evidence of idiocy in one post.

I can say that I put a lot of effort into determining how shallow or not the nesting should be. I remember a long conversation with Jimmy Himself about it on a whiteboard where I explained my reasoning and why. I felt that there should be a maximum nest level, but that it needed to be between 5 and 10 points deep, with more research being required for the final number. I even wrote a corrollary to Godwin's Law about it: "As the number of nesting levels a conversation has grows, the likelihood of one participant saying 'fuck you' approaches 1."
I was present for the decision to remove deep nesting and the "amount of effort" the decision took was about 10 minutes of debate (mostly with me) and no research. The justification was literally this:
Deep nesting confuses people (untrue, and no evidence was provided to support this claim)
Everyone uses Facebook and is used to it (also above)
It will be more attractive to new users (possible, but I don't buy the argument)
It was overall a blatant disregard for the actual problems that were attempting to be solved, which is like "design 101". But then, most of the design team at the time was only interested in either making toys or arguing about fonts, and not actually doing real design.
Note also that decision was made by people who did not edit or use Wikipedia except as readers. The kind of designers who though that the watchlist was an overly complicated bookmarking system (this is why the watchlist on the mobile site is absolutely useless).
Regarding Workflows: It was both AFD and ArbCom that brought me to the idea that we needed workflows (Flow) over conversation (LQT). The crux of it was a realization that a "conversation" is also a "workflow". There are defined rules to conversations, even if we don't think of them that way. To this end, I started looking at what a "post" actually was, and modifying the definition.
The intent was that a "post" could have a variable "type", those types being things like:
Wikitext blob - a "normal" post of undefined length
Enumerated Value and Wikitext Blob - a typical AFD type discussion post, where there's a value selection (support/oppose/comment/whatever) and then a possible text clip of a defined (or undefined length) that may or may not be required. So, a community could say "for these kinds of discussions, we only want these possible values (support/oppose/comment) AND the post cannot be made if the selection is "oppose" without also including a comment, of a maximum length 200 characters"
Permission specific posting - "only admins can respond in this section", etc.
Support for post filtering was also a thing (so that ArbCOM could view the discussion without comments by uninvolved jabronis, etc.) or you could hide people who were trolls, etc. It had designed support for marking comments as helpful or unhelpful and then the ability to auto-hide comments to unregistered users if the ratio between the two was too low, as an attempt to help protect unsuspecting users from long-time trolls who liked to throw around the c-word.
Flow also had designed support for filtering on "what I haven't read" and there was a whole system for "subscribing." You could subscribe to pages (like watching a talk page) or users (if you wanted to watch their posts, like with a newbie or a vandal), or you could subscribe to processes (like, "users asking for help" or "users requesting unblock").
Closing discussions wouldn't require you to know what {{atop}} was. Dropping DS notices would have been trivial. Marking users as ignored. etc.
Is this discussion happening on Meta and thus may be multilingual? Let's attach translations to posts in various languages, so if you don't speak English well you can view a German version provided by a volunteer.
It's a pity that people got wrapped up in "but mah signuhture!". So it goes.--Jorm (talk) 18:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

The Adversary · Unread post by **The Adversary** » Mon Mar 04, 2019 5:00 am

When I see that Jorm reply, I'm reminded of this old:

https://imgur.com/NXHbZ

....except for the "What the customer described" bit.
The customer haven't been allowed to describe anything.

Dysklyver · Unread post by **Dysklyver** » Sun Mar 10, 2019 1:47 pm

Flow 2.0.

Coming soon.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sat Mar 30, 2019 11:17 pm

This thing is metastasizing.

https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk_pag ... ation_2019

Extended content
Pages with the prefix 'Talk pages consultation 2019' in the and 'Talk' namespaces:

Talk pages consultation 2019
Talk pages consultation 2019/Action items
Talk pages consultation 2019/Communication
Talk pages consultation 2019/Communication/Advice about Phase 1
Talk pages consultation 2019/Communication/Announce
Talk pages consultation 2019/Communication/Announce/ar
Talk pages consultation 2019/Communication/Announce/bg
Talk pages consultation 2019/Communication/Announce/bn
Talk pages consultation 2019/Communication/Announce/ca
Talk pages consultation 2019/Communication/Announce/cs
Talk pages consultation 2019/Communication/Announce/da
Talk pages consultation 2019/Communication/Announce/de
Talk pages consultation 2019/Communication/Announce/el
Talk pages consultation 2019/Communication/Announce/en
Talk pages consultation 2019/Communication/Announce/es
Talk pages consultation 2019/Communication/Announce/fa
Talk pages consultation 2019/Communication/Announce/fi
Talk pages consultation 2019/Communication/Announce/fr
Talk pages consultation 2019/Communication/Announce/he
Talk pages consultation 2019/Communication/Announce/hi
Talk pages consultation 2019/Communication/Announce/hu
Talk pages consultation 2019/Communication/Announce/it
Talk pages consultation 2019/Communication/Announce/ja
Talk pages consultation 2019/Communication/Announce/ko
Talk pages consultation 2019/Communication/Announce/ms
Talk pages consultation 2019/Communication/Announce/nl
Talk pages consultation 2019/Communication/Announce/pl
Talk pages consultation 2019/Communication/Announce/pt
Talk pages consultation 2019/Communication/Announce/ru
Talk pages consultation 2019/Communication/Announce/sd
Talk pages consultation 2019/Communication/Announce/ta
Talk pages consultation 2019/Communication/Announce/th
Talk pages consultation 2019/Communication/Announce/tr
Talk pages consultation 2019/Communication/Announce/uk
Talk pages consultation 2019/Communication/Announce/zh
Talk pages consultation 2019/Communication/Banner
Talk pages consultation 2019/Communication/Email
Talk pages consultation 2019/Communication/Questionnaire for newcomers at events
Talk pages consultation 2019/Communication/Reaching at newcomers
Talk pages consultation 2019/Communication/Reaching at newcomers/ar
Talk pages consultation 2019/Communication/Reaching at newcomers/de
Talk pages consultation 2019/Communication/Reaching at newcomers/en
Talk pages consultation 2019/Communication/Reaching at newcomers/es
Talk pages consultation 2019/Communication/Reaching at newcomers/fr
Talk pages consultation 2019/Communication/Reaching at newcomers/ja
Talk pages consultation 2019/Communication/Reaching at newcomers/nb
Talk pages consultation 2019/Communication/Reaching at newcomers/nl
Talk pages consultation 2019/Communication/Reaching at newcomers/nn
Talk pages consultation 2019/Communication/Reaching at newcomers/pl
Talk pages consultation 2019/Communication/Reaching at newcomers/ru
Talk pages consultation 2019/Communication/Reaching at newcomers/th
Talk pages consultation 2019/Communication/Social media
Talk pages consultation 2019/Communication/Teahouse hosts
Talk pages consultation 2019/Current feedback
Talk pages consultation 2019/Discussion tools in the past
Talk pages consultation 2019/Individual feedback
Talk pages consultation 2019/Individual feedback/en
Talk pages consultation 2019/Individual feedback/pl
Talk pages consultation 2019/Participant group sign-up
Talk pages consultation 2019/Participant group sign-up/da
Talk pages consultation 2019/Participant group sign-up/en
Talk pages consultation 2019/Participant group sign-up/es
Talk pages consultation 2019/Participant group sign-up/fa
Talk pages consultation 2019/Participant group sign-up/fi
Talk pages consultation 2019/Participant group sign-up/fr
Talk pages consultation 2019/Participant group sign-up/ja
Talk pages consultation 2019/Participant group sign-up/ko
Talk pages consultation 2019/Participant group sign-up/pl
Talk pages consultation 2019/Participant group sign-up/pt-br
Talk pages consultation 2019/Participant group sign-up/sd
Talk pages consultation 2019/Participant group sign-up/th
Talk pages consultation 2019/Participant group sign-up/tr
Talk pages consultation 2019/Participant group sign-up/zh
Talk pages consultation 2019/Program and event organizers
Talk pages consultation 2019/Recommendations
Talk pages consultation 2019/Staff working group notes
Talk pages consultation 2019/Status updates
Talk pages consultation 2019/Structure and updates
Talk pages consultation 2019/Tools in use
Talk pages consultation 2019/Trade-offs survey
Talk pages consultation 2019/Tradeoffs phase notes
Talk pages consultation 2019/ar
Talk pages consultation 2019/arz
Talk pages consultation 2019/en
Talk pages consultation 2019/es
Talk pages consultation 2019/fr
Talk pages consultation 2019/hi
Talk pages consultation 2019/hu
Talk pages consultation 2019/it
Talk pages consultation 2019/ja
Talk pages consultation 2019/mr
Talk pages consultation 2019/nl
Talk pages consultation 2019/pl
Talk pages consultation 2019/pt-br
Talk pages consultation 2019/sd
Talk pages consultation 2019/te
Talk pages consultation 2019/th
Talk pages consultation 2019/tr
Talk pages consultation 2019/zh
Talk:
Talk pages consultation 2019
Talk pages consultation 2019/Communication/Announce
Talk pages consultation 2019/Communication/Announce/de
Talk pages consultation 2019/Communication/Announce/fr
Talk pages consultation 2019/Communication/Announce/hi
Talk pages consultation 2019/Communication/Announce/ru
Talk pages consultation 2019/Communication/Questionnaire for newcomers at events
Talk pages consultation 2019/Communication/Reaching at newcomers
Talk pages consultation 2019/Communication/Reaching at newcomers/pl
Talk pages consultation 2019/Discussion tools in the past
Talk pages consultation 2019/Participant group sign-up
Talk pages consultation 2019/Participant group sign-up/sd
Talk pages consultation 2019/Program and event organizers
Talk pages consultation 2019/Staff working group notes
Talk pages consultation 2019/Tools in use

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Wed Feb 19, 2020 12:06 am

ARISE!!!!

Wasn't this supposed to be what Flow was?

Makes you wonder if every time they spin off these zombie efforts, it's just Flow being reanimated with a new skin.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Wed Feb 19, 2020 4:16 pm

The decision to abandon Space shows that every so often the people in charge of the technical staff can and do come to their senses.

No Ledge · Unread post by **No Ledge** » Tue Oct 25, 2022 4:27 pm

On MZMcBride talk, after he was recently banned from Wikimedia technical spaces:

Another Technical Committee case (citations removed; follow link to find them on MZMcBride's talk)
(typos corrected in quoted text below)

Alsee wrote:I can confirm that the secret Technical conduct committee is outrageous by any community standard. I'll try to make this short, but it's a 6-year saga with citations. If you want to skip to the frivolous Technical-space-warnings and Technical-committee action, you can jump to the last three bullet points.

I was not present in the initial discussions about Flow, but even before the prototype was built the lead designer said we should seek "Zen acceptance" that he was going to ignore the community and build whatever HE wanted to build. He effectively terminated any WMF-Community discussion or collaboration on the project. This irreversibly doomed the project before construction even began.

I got involved after the initial release. I saw clear implicit community consensus that the project was NEVER going to be deployed. I successfully AFD'd the Flow pages on EnWiki, then successfully negotiated the uninstall of Flow from EnWiki. I insisted on uninstall, not merely hiding it.

Eventually Flow was deployed on Meta. Someone else opened an RFC on Meta to get rid of it. I opened a subsection establishing that it was explicitly a request to uninstall. I oversaw the Phab task, and as I expected they wanted to hide it - I had to cite that it was explicitly consensus for uninstall.

Eventually the Flow team ran a comically biased Flow survey, desperately trying (again) to justify resuming work on it. They individually canvassed every single person who had ever opted-in for Flow on their User Talk, and the outcome was still overwhelmingly anti-Flow. Nonetheless they wrote a delusionally-glowing report around the abysmal survey results. I responded with an RFC to uninstall Flow from Commons, and I was determined to keep going with additional wikis until the WMF got the message. This was in fact the point where upper management realized that our three most central wikis all demanding uninstall was incompatible with the Flow team's promises of a Glorious Future. This is also the point where members of the Church of Flow realized that Judgement Day was upon them, and that I was the Antichrist come to drive a stake through the heart of their undead baby.

I opened the Phab task to Uninstall Flow from Commons. Within FOUR MINUTES a volunteer dev began working on it. An unexplained -2 code-review was imposed on his work, imposing a technical block on the dev's ability to continue his work. At this point I and several others began asking what was going on. It would not be until much later that I learned the following points:
A manager would later admit to me that staff were pursuing a strategy of eventually making Flow inevitable on wikis that didn't want it. (I don't find the link, but it exists.)

An effectively covert second Phab task was opened, not linked with the original task, to design a new feature to leave Flow installed and ready-only.

I would later learn that that same manager issued an order for staff not to say anything on about what was happening on the main Phab task, until the manager himself was ready to announce the covert project.

So... several of us are asking for any sort of progress update, all staff replies were deliberately void of any meaningful response, and I was getting to the point of posting a progress-update to Commons, even if that update contained nothing more than a statement of WMF-nonresponsiveness. The manager then posted that he'd respond "by the end of this week". I responded @DannyH thanks for replying. I can hang on for a response "by the end of this week". However I do have to pointedly note that you were also non-responsive on why the task was halted and what is being discussed. The clearly deliberate decision not to communicate comes across very badly on multiple levels. Note that it had been TWENTY THREE DAYS, and my comment quoted the manager's own "week" timeline, and I was slapped with a conduct warning for unrealistic expectation that questions asked by individuals will have to receive a [quick] response.

Around three months later I posted a report about severe wikitext content corruption in the new reply-tool. I identified it as duplicating the same flaw from Flow, and I noted an apparent failure to test anything other than basic text-comments. I was given a second conduct warning.

The Technical committee later banned me from engaging Flow in technical spaces (a rather irrelevant ban, given that I had just effectively terminated the project). I asked why. The only response I got was you have been explicitly warned before by other people in phabricator and you can use these as concrete violations of CoC. Those warnings were both frivolous, I can see no explanation for than other than as retaliation as the messenger who delivered unfavorable community consensus killing a pet project.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Tue Oct 25, 2022 7:33 pm

The WeMakeFailures team is institutionally incapable of learning.

Wikipediocracy

Flow - the next Visual Editor debacle

Re: Flow - the next Visual Editor debacle

Re: Flow - the next Visual Editor debacle

Re: Flow - the next Visual Editor debacle

Re: Flow - the next Visual Editor debacle

Re: Flow - the next Visual Editor debacle

Re: Flow - the next Visual Editor debacle

Re: Flow - the next Visual Editor debacle

Re: Flow - the next Visual Editor debacle

Re: Flow - the next Visual Editor debacle

Re: Flow - the next Visual Editor debacle

Re: Flow - the next Visual Editor debacle

Re: Flow - the next Visual Editor debacle

Re: Flow - the next Visual Editor debacle

Re: Flow - the next Visual Editor debacle

Re: Flow - the next Visual Editor debacle

Re: Flow - the next Visual Editor debacle

Re: Flow - the next Visual Editor debacle

Re: Flow - the next Visual Editor debacle

Re: Flow - the next Visual Editor debacle

Re: Flow - the next Visual Editor debacle

Re: Flow - the next Visual Editor debacle

Re: Flow - the next Visual Editor debacle

Re: Flow - the next Visual Editor debacle

Re: Flow - the next Visual Editor debacle

Re: Flow - the next Visual Editor debacle

Re: Flow - the next Visual Editor debacle

Re: Flow - the next Visual Editor debacle

Re: Flow - the next Visual Editor debacle

Re: Flow - the next Visual Editor debacle

Re: Flow - the next Visual Editor debacle

Re: Flow - the next Visual Editor debacle