위키백과:VisualEditor/기본 상태 RFC

Wikipedia:
다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.후속 코멘트는 새로운 섹션으로 작성되어야 한다. 도달한 결론의 요약은 다음과 같다.
위키피디아에 대한 탄원의 답변으로 이 RFC를 닫았다.비참여자에 대한 관리자 공지사항 게시판.아래는 질문에 대한 요약과 컨센서스에 대한 나의 읽기 입니다. 경우에 따라 개별 하위 섹션이 더 상세하게 설명되어 있다.전체적으로, 커뮤니티 참여자들은 현재 Visual Editor 구현이 좋지 않지만 직접적인 위키소스 편집을 배제하지 않는 한, 개념에 대한 지지가 있다는 강한 감정을 나타낸다.나는 새로운 사람들이 편집하는 것을 더 어렵게 해야 한다는 근거에서 시각적 편집자에 대한 반대를 보는 것에 실망했다. 그것은 물론, 핵심 재단 원칙에 반한다.

3.1 질문 1: 새로운 계정이 생성될 때 VE를 비활성화("opt-in")하거나 VE를 활성화("opt-out")하도록 기본 설정을 지정해야 하는가?

옵트인

3.2 질문 2: 편집자가 익명으로 편집할 때 VE를 기본적으로 제시해야 하는가?

아니요.

3.3 질문 2.5: VE를 익명 사용자에게 제공할 경우, 얼마나 가시적이어야 하는가?

링크가 wikitxt 편집기를 열고 Visual Editor에 대한 링크를 제공해야 함

3.4 질문 3: 모든 기존 계정에 대해 VE를 사용하지 않도록 설정하여 VE를 테스트하기로 선택한 편집자가 VE를 구체적으로 사용하도록 해야 하는가?

결론적으로 편집자는 베타 테스터가 되기 위해 명시적인 선택을 해야 한다. 따라서 기존 계정에 대한 선호 상태를 변경해야 한다.

3.5 질문 4: 사용자 인터페이스가 편집자에게 "편집" 버튼을 누르는 것이 베타 소프트웨어를 사용하고 있음을 명시적으로 경고해야 하는가?

3.6 질문 5: VisualEditor가 굵게, 기울임꼴링크와 같은 기본 위키백업 바로 가기를 지원해야 하는가?

4.1 1. 그 시각적 편집자는 현재 형태로는 등록되지 않은 사용자가 이용할 수 없도록 해야 하며, 향후 익명 IP 사용자가 커뮤니티 차원의 토론과 투표 없이 이용할 수 없도록 해야 한다.

이 제안은 실패했다.

4.2 2. 그 시각적 편집자는 완전히 보류되어야 하며, 상황은 이전의 상태로 되돌아간다.

대다수의 편집자들은 현재 상태에서 비주얼 편집기를 폐기해야 한다고 생각했지만, 많은 편집자들은 구현이 잘 되면 위키피디아에 도움이 될 것이라고 생각했다.

4.3 3. 비주얼 편집기는 소스 코드 편집을 위해 기본적으로 두 개의 편집 창, 하나의 WYSIWYG 창 및 더 작은 창을 표시해야 한다.

두 개의 창 옵션을 지원하지만 반드시 기본적으로 지원되지는 않는다.

4.4 4. 시각적 편집기의 섹션 편집 탭을 제거해야 함

의견 일치가 없음

4.5 5. Visual Editor는 항상 선택 사항이어야 함

4.6 6. 토크 페이지의 섹션 제목 뒤에 나오는 "출처 편집"을 다시 "편집"으로 변경해야 한다.

의견 일치가 없음

4.7 7. 섹션 편집 링크를 클릭할 때 기본 동작은 VE를 열지 않고 "원본을 편집"해야 한다.

아니오(이 옵션은 모바일 장치에 좋지 않음)

4.8 8. wikitxt와 VE를 전환할 수 있는 링크를 편집 페이지에 추가해야 할까?

의견 일치가 없음

NE Ent 14:42, 2013년 9월 8일 (UTC)[응답]


참고 RfC 형식

이 페이지는 위키백과 논평 요청서(RfC)이다.상위 2페이지 섹션의 편집을 피하고, 대신 아래 다양한 질문이나 주제에 대해 아래 섹션에 회신하십시오.

개요

VisualEditor는 기사의 상단에 있는 "편집 베타" 버튼을 클릭하면 현재 얻을 수 있는 새로운 인터페이스다."베타"라는 단어는 아직 버그가 있는 새로운 소프트웨어라는 것을 의미한다.VisualEditor(VE)는 마크업 언어에 대한 지식이 전혀 필요하지 않은 정말 쉬운 "본 것이 얻는 것" 인터페이스를 제공하려는 시도다.마크업 언어는 위키백과 편집자들이 2001년부터 편집하기 위해 사용해 온 간단한 종류의 컴퓨터 코드다.비주얼 편집기를 사용하지 않고 마크업 언어를 사용하는 작업을 선호하는 편집자는 대신 "원본 편집" 버튼을 사용한다.

WMF는 이제 개별 편집자가 VisualEditor를 비활성화할 수 있는 기본 설정을 제공했다.이 기본 설정은 편집자가 베타 테스트 중이고 기사를 손상시키거나 예기치 않은 방식으로 행동할 수 있다는 경고를 사전에 받지 않지만 VisualEditor에 새로운 편집자가 노출된다는 의미인 소프트웨어 활성화로 기본 설정된다.마찬가지로, VE를 사용하는 선택사항은 로그인하지 않은 편집자에게 제공되지만, 편집자가 베타 테스트 중이고 기사를 손상시키거나 예기치 않은 방식으로 행동할 수 있다는 사전 경고는 받지 않는다.

이 RFC(Request For Comment)는 이것이 이 선호에 대한 올바른 행동인지에 대한 영어 위키백과의 합의를 모색하기 위한 것이다.WMF가 이러한 합의에 얽매이지 않는 것은 사실이지만, 네덜란드어 및 독일어 위키피디아 모두 이 결정을 존중하겠다는 의지를 보였는데, 이 두 가지 모두 WMF를 설득하여 편집자의 선호도가 바뀔 때까지 VE 불능화로 디폴트하도록 함으로써, WMF를 "옵트인" 선호로 만들었다.

이 RFC는 몇 가지 간단한 질문을 중심으로 구성된다.그것은 WMF를 모욕하기 위한 차량이 아니며 VisualEditor에 대한 어떤 좌절감을 발산하기 위한 차량도 아니다.이 옵션은 의도적으로 상호 배타적이지 않다. 예를 들어, 스위치를 기존 편집자에 대해 변경하지 않고 새 계정에 대해 "사용 안 함"으로 기본 설정할 수 있다.마찬가지로, 익명 편집자를 위해 VE를 활성화한 상태로 두는 것이 합법적이라고 믿을 수 있으며, VE가 베타 상태에 있다는 것을 명확하게 나타내기 위해 사용자 인터페이스를 변경하는 것을 선호할 수도 있다.

질문

다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

질문 1: 새 계정이 생성될 때 VE를 비활성화("opt-in")하거나 VE를 활성화("opt-out")하도록 기본 설정을 설정해야 하는가?

옵트인

  1. 베타 버전이 나올 때까지 선택한다.나의 경험은 어떤 것도 사람들을 버기 소프트 웨어만큼 빨리 프로그램/웹사이트에서 몰아낸다는 것이다.하지만 위키 마크업 역시 완벽하지 않고, 아마도 VE 폭탄이 있는 이유는 우리가 너무 많은 스타일과 변형된 템플릿을 가지고 있기 때문일 것이다.이 토론은 또한 "바!사진! 펜과 종이가 왜 그래?)"자버워치 (대화)20:18, 2013년 8월 4일 (UTC)[응답하라]
  2. 옵트인. 응우옌 쿡트렁(토크)
  3. 베타 소프트웨어는 항상 옵트인해야 하기 때문에 옵트인. --Robertiki (토크) 11:05, 2013년 8월 3일 (UTC)[응답]
  4. 소프트웨어 자체를 수정해야 하고, 소스를 편집하는 것이 서투른 편집에 유용한 장벽으로 작용한다고 생각하기 때문에 옵트인.편집을 더 쉽고 시각적으로 만드는 것은 공공 기물 파손을 조장할 가능성이 있다 - 우리는 전과 정확히 같은 수의 생산적인 편집자를 가질 것이다. 우리는 단지 그 위에 약간의 잡음을 더할 것이다.반다메르찬트 (대화) 09:45, 2013년 8월 3일 (UTC)[응답]
  5. Visual Editor가 아직 프라임 타임에 준비되지 않았기 때문에 선택.
    옐로데스크(토크) 02:50, 2013년 8월 3일 (UTC)[응답]
  6. 선택형 Wikicode는 이해하기 위한 노력을 필요로 한다.그게 사실이야
  7. 새로운 제품을 사용하는 경우 모든 사람이 선택하는 방법을 알지 못할 수 있기 때문에 누가 지원하는지에 대한 정확한 여론조사를 받을 수 없기 때문에 매우 눈에 띄어야 하지만 선택해서는 안 된다. 0alx0 (대화) 16:42, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  8. 현재 내 브라우저(Opera)에서 작동하지 않기 때문에 선택하십시오. 이 브라우저는 항상 로딩되어 있을 뿐이지요.베타 테스트가 끝나기 전에 디폴트로 만드는 것은 좋은 관행처럼 보이지 않는데, 정의상으로는 아직 완전히 테스트되지 않았다는 것을 의미해야 한다.그래야 시험해 볼 수 있지만 아직 준비가 안 됐다는 사실이 덜 된 사용자들을 미룰 수는 없을 것이다. --Tremolo (대화) 11:31, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
    당신은 이것을 버그로 보고해야 한다. VE는 그것을 지원하지 않는 브라우저에서 완전히 비활성화되어야 한다.SAnanian (WMF) (토크) 15:06, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  9. 베타 소프트웨어는 항상 선택되어야 한다.모든 편집자가 새로운 코드를 테스트하기를 원하는 것은 아니다.Kww(대화) 01:25, 2013년 7월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
  10. 더 많은 버그가 고쳐질 때까지 선택하라.내 경험상 VE는 아직 디폴트가 될 준비가 되지 않았다.(분명히 말하자면, VE는 언젠가 대단한 일이 될 것이고, 미래의 길이라고 생각한다. 하지만 지금은 준비가 되어 있지 않다.~Adjwilley (대화) 01:35, 2013년 7월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
  11. 소프트웨어도 아직 없어애덤 쿠어든 01:41, 2013년 7월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
  12. Opt-in이어야 한다.VE는 새로운 편집자들에게는 재앙이다.너무 느려.프로젝트에 대한 흥미를 잃게 만들도록 보장된다.위키피디아 토크에서 이에 대한 논의가 진행 중이다.위키프로젝트 편집자 Retention#Visual 편집자의 게으름뱅이는 편집자 보존 문제다.HiLo48 (대화) 02:36, 2013년 7월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
    느림?난 하나도 모르겠네.심지어 내 싸구려 노트북에도 말이야10년 된 시스템을 실행하고 있는 경우(그리고 업그레이드할 시간이 훨씬 지난 경우), 비효율적으로 코딩되지 않는 한, 현저하게 느려져서는 안 된다 -- Aunva6talk - contribs 04:34, 2013년 7월 30일(UTC)[답글]
    Aunva6 - 내가 제공한 링크를 굳이 보셨나요?아니면 단지 당신의 경험이 모든 사람들에게 공통적이라고 생각하는가?내가 8살이었을 때, 나는 그것이 인생에 대한 나쁜 접근법이라는 것을 배웠다.HiLo48 (대화) 07:13, 2013년 7월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
    미안해, 오해하고 있어.사용하지 않아도 사이트 속도가 느려진다는 뜻인 줄 알았는데. 내 잘못이야.내 i7-920에도 로딩이 정말 느리다. 어떻게 그렇게 느리게 만들었는지 확실하지 않지만, 그것만으로도 알파 상태에 이것을 넣어야 한다. 베타 버전도 준비되지 않았다! -- Aunva6talk - contribs 00:52, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답하라]
    HiLo48 - 그것은 꽤 불쾌하고 불필요한 불쏘시개였다. 하지만 당신의 역사와 일반적인 족제비 냄새를 보면 나는 예상할 수 있을 것 같다.Pingby (대화) 2013년 8월 1일 18:42, (UTC)[응답]
    아무 조건 없이 업그레이드 제품을 사러 가고 싶을 때 바로 가십시오. -- Joe (토크) 19:05, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  13. 눈, 더 안정될 때까지.---카노에1967 (대화) 02:40, 2013년 7월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
    안녕 카누1967.나는 여기서 너의 의견을 이해하는 데 어려움을 겪고 있어."눈"이라니 무슨 뜻이야? --MZMcBride (대화) 09:07, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답하라]
    현재 투표는 212/20이기 때문에 '설공' 변화여야 한다.아직 해결해야 할 문제들이 남아 있는 것은 분명하다고 생각한다.그때까지 편집자들은 하방 문제에 대한 경고를 받은 후 옵트인 옵션을 주어야 한다.--Canoe1967 (대화) 15:44, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  14. 위의 코멘트에 따라 선택.나는 지난 몇 주 동안 VE를 세 페이지씩 나눠서 사용하려고 노력했다.그때마다 제대로 작동하지 않았고, 문제를 보고하러 갔을 때 이미 (고정이 안 된) 문제가 보고된 것을 보았다.나는 버그를 기대했지만 0%의 성공률은 예상하지 못했다.베타 테스트를 돕고자 하는 사람은 누구나 할 수 있어야 한다고 생각하지만, 아직 소프트웨어가 널리 사용될 준비가 되어 있지 않다는 것을 말해준다. 28바이트 (대화) 02:45, 2013년 7월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
    안녕 28바이트.당신이 알거나 모를 수 있는 것처럼 VisualEditor(VE)로 만든 각 편집에는 태그가 붙는다.예를 들어 VisualEditor를 사용하여 편집한 내용을 참조하십시오.동일한 검색에 따르면 현재 0개의 VisualEditor 편집이 있으며,VisualEditor와 관련된 이슈에 대해 자세히 설명해 주시겠습니까? --MZMcBride (대화) 07:36, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
    물론이지, 기꺼이 그럴게.첫째, 큰 페이지의 한 부분을 편집하려고 했는데, 반복해서 이것을 받았다.분명히 섹션을 편집할 수 없다(원래 5월: T50429에서 문제를 보고한 사람이 너인 것 같다) 그래서 VisualEditor는 전체 페이지로 작업을 시도하지만, 큰 페이지에서는 신뢰할 수 없다.나는 한 달 전에 이것을 처음 시도했고, 이것이 여전히 이슈인지 확인하기 위해 어제 다시 확인했다: 그것은 그렇다.둘째로, 나는 약간의 파손된 마크업을 고치려고 노력했는데, 비주얼에디터는 내가 부숴진 마크업을 유지하고 싶으면서도 <노위키> 태그로 포장하고 싶다는 뜻으로 해석했다.이로 인해 나는 T51686으로 가게 되었는데, 짐보조차도 이 문제를 해결해야 한다고 인정했다.그러나, 심지어 비편집자에 의해서도, 대괄호가 연결고리를 만든다는 것은 매우 잘 알려져 있으며, 누군가가 실제로 문자 그대로 대괄호를 원하는 확률은 매우 작다. 시각적 편집기를 기본 설정에서 대괄호를 연결로 해석하는 것은 내게 딱 맞는 것 같다.Visual Editor가 입력하는 대괄호가 문자 그대로 대괄호를 사용한다고 가정하는 이유는?그것은 매우 이상한 가정인 것 같다.오늘 앞서 지적한 바와 같이, Visual Editor는 모두 편집자가 한 위치(예를 들어 infobox의 링크된 요소를 편집할 때)에서 괄호 구문을 숙지하도록 요구하지만 다른 위치에서는 받아들이지 않는다.[[링크 삽입 대화 상자를 끄집어내기 위한 트리거로] 또는 편집자가 의도한 대로 적절하게 포맷된 링크를 변환하는 것이 단순히 VisualEditor - wikitext를 사용하는 엄중한 경고를 그들에게 주는 보다 훨씬 더 나을 것이다. wikitxt 모드에서 페이지를 편집하려면 "원본 편집"을 클릭하십시오. 저장되지 않은 변경 내용은 손실됩니다.말이 나와서 말인데, 왜 저장되지 않은 변경사항이 손실되는가?다른 웹 사이트에서 WYSIWYG 편집기를 사용할 때 WYSIWYG 모드와 마크업 모드를 빠르게 전환할 수 있다.그것은 꽤 기본적인 기능이다.왜 "베타" 발매에 포함되지 않았을까?그래 맞아, 난 VE 편집 내용을 저장하지 않았어. 왜냐하면 VE는 내가 하고 싶은 일을 내가 쉽게 하게 하지 않거나, 페이지를 전혀 로드하지도 않을 테니까.오해하지 마십시오. 나는 VisualEditor의 이면에 있는 아이디어가 마음에 드는데, 위키피디아는 이것을 절실히 필요로 한다.그러나 자바스크립트 경고와 두 모드 간 전환의 부족은 내게는 딜브레이커다. (측면 참고: Endash를 삽입하는 표준 편집기에 편리한 "–" 링크가 있다; 그것과 동등한 VE가 있는가?) 28바이트 (대화) 15:39, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
    PC에 Alt-0150을 입력하는 것이 가장 빠르다고 생각한다(Mac에서는 물론 더 쉽다.안드레아스JN466 16:02, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
    고마워 비주얼에디터가 좀 더...비주얼...방법. 28바이트 (대화) 20:17, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  15. opt-in, 베타 소프트웨어는, 정의에 따르면, 정식 출시하기에는 너무 버거워.경계선 알파일 수도 있지만 그래도 밀려났어베타 버전이 전형적으로 옵트인 테스트 단계인 이유가 있다.VE의 잘못은 무엇이고, 그렇지 않은 것은 무엇인지를 알게 될 사람들로부터 더 집중적인 피드백을 받게 된다. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 04:34, 2013년 7월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
    안녕 아우바6.VisualEditor에 대한 너의 고민을 이해하려고 노력하는 중이야.당신이 알거나 모를 수 있는 것처럼 VisualEditor(VE)로 만든 각 편집에는 태그가 붙는다.당신이 편집한 내용을 검색해 보니, 당신은 현재 VisualEditor로 편집을 가지고 있는 것 같은데, 나에게는 완전히 괜찮아 보인다.자세히 설명해 주시겠습니까? --MZMcBride (대화) 07:40, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
    내 문제는 "유용한" 소프트웨어가 위키의 모든 사용자들에게 강요되었다는 것이다. 베타는 이유가 있다.모든 버그로 인해 프로젝트가 나쁘게 보이지 않게 될 뿐만 아니라, 소프트웨어로 인해 어떤 문제가 발생할 가능성이 높은지, 위키 마크업의 뉘앙스로 인해 어떤 문제가 발생하는지 선택하는 사용자들이 더 잘 알 수 있다. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 15:14, 2013년 8월 2일(UTC)[응답]
  16. opt-in. The Television의 진행자로서, 나는 그것에 대해 질문을 하기 위해 스윙을 하는 새로운 편집자들로부터 VE 사용에 대한 혼란과 사용을 중심으로 한 토론들을 지켜보았다([1], [2], [3] 참조).그 경험은 일반적으로 새로운 편집자들에게 혼란을 주었고, 호스트로서 나나 다른 사람들은 새로운 편집자에게 좌절감을 주는 인터페이스를 사용하는 방법에 대해 조언할 의욕을 느끼기가 어려웠다.그러므로 그것은 확실히 옵트인 기능이 되어야 한다.나, 제스로봇(주:아니다!) 05:12, 2013년 7월 30일 (UTC)[응답하라]
    • 공평하게 말하면, 이제 선호의 편집 부분(질문한 링크 중 두 개)에 완전한 옵트아웃 옵션이 있으며, 당신이 올린 코멘트 이후 참조가 개선되었다(기존 인용문을 선택하기 위한 혼란스러운 첫 단계를 없애기 위해).아직 개선의 여지는 많이 남아 있다.---Elocence* 06:29, 2013년 7월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
  17. 새로운 편집자들은 백과사전을 개선하는데 서명하고, 비자발적인 베타 테스터의 역할을 하지 않는다. m:연구:VisualEditor가 새로 등록된 편집자/결과에 미치는 영향은 VisualEditor의 버그가 새로운 편집자의 생산성과 열정을 파괴하고 있음을 보여준다.MER-C 05:42, 2013년 7월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
    안녕 MER-C.당신이 제공한 링크를 살펴보았다(m:리서치:VisualEditor가 새로 등록된 편집자/결과에 미치는 영향) 그리고 VisualEditor의 버그가 "새로운 편집자의 생산성과 열정을 파괴하고 있다는 것을 보여주는 사실이나 수치가 무엇인지 잘 모르겠다.좀 더 구체적으로 말해주시겠습니까? --MZMcBride (대화) 07:41, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  18. 한 단계 더 나아가서, 새로운 편집자들은 선택할 기회를 주기 전에 상당한 수의 편집이 뒤에 있어야 한다.가장 인기 있는 페이지들 중 많은 페이지에는 새로운 편집자가 자신을 당황하게 하는 것을 돕기 위한 실질적인 의견 메시지가 있다. 편집하기 시작할 때 그들은 이것을 볼 필요가 있다.새로운 편집자들은 안정적이지 않은 소프트웨어에 노출되어서는 안 된다.그 의미를 이해하기 전에 그 누구도 공개적인 선택을 해서는 안 되며, 선택이 의미 있게 되기 전에 기본에 대한 경험이 있어야 한다. -- 클렘 러터 (토크) 05:57, 2013년 7월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
  19. Opt-in. 나는 여전히 전통적인 위키텍스트 편집이 다른 위키피디아 사람들이 타이핑한 위키텍스트로부터 빠르게 배울 수 있기 때문에 새로운 사람들에게 더 쉽다고 생각한다.참고 항목: 사용자별 설명:I Jetrobot. --AFBorchert (대화) 06:05, 2013년 7월 30일 (UTC)[응답하라]
  20. 베타 기간 동안 선택.일이 해결되면 다시 얘기하자...카라이트 (대화) 06:07, 2013년 7월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
  21. 선택하라. 심각한 버그와 제한이 고정되고 소프트웨어가 더 이상 알파나 베타 상태가 아니라는 공감대가 형성될 때까지.베이군 06:17, 2013년 7월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
  22. 당분간은 참가를 선택해라.버그가 고정되고 VE 기능이 더 차면 논의 후 변경할 수 있다. --NicoV(Talk on frwiki) 06:24, 2013년 7월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
    T52527(매일 수백 개의 기사에 가짜 노위키 태그를 추가하는 주요 문제)에 대한 대답이 '원트 픽스(WON'T FISCH)'인 상황에서, 나는 지금 VE를 완전히 무력화시키려 한다. --니코V 20:45, 2013년 7월 30일(UTC)[응답]
  23. 옵트인. 실패한 실험이야.우리가 새로운 편집자들을 어떻게 대하느냐(특히)는 언젠가 어떤 것이 효과가 있을 것이라는 수정구조에 의존해서는 안 된다.Yngvadottir (대화) 06:38, 2013년 7월 30일 (UTC)[응답하라]
    안녕 Yngvadottir.난 VisualEditor에 대한 당신의 우려, 특히 왜 그것이 실패한 실험이라고 생각하는지 이해하려고 노력하고 있다.당신이 알거나 모를 수 있는 것처럼 VisualEditor(VE)로 만든 각 편집에는 태그가 붙는다.예를 들어 VisualEditor를 사용하여 편집한 내용을 참조하십시오.동일한 검색에 따르면 현재 0개의 VisualEditor 편집이 있으며,VisualEditor와 관련된 이슈에 대해 자세히 설명해 주시겠습니까? --MZMcBride (대화) 07:47, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
    그것은 그것을 시도하는 모든 사람들을 기사를 깨게 하고 있고, 그것은 참조서, 템플릿, 알트 카에 대한 적절한 지원 없이 시작되었고, 로딩하고 얼리거나 충돌하는 데 오랜 시간이 걸린다.나는 진정한 베타 테스트에 자원하지 않았고, 그 테스트가 디폴트되기 전에 그 테스트의 모든 버그 리포트를 보았다.그건 내 문제야 네가 물어봤으니깐!Yngvadottir (대화) 12:28, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답하라]
    글쎄, 다 그렇지는 않아. :-) 우리가 스페셜을 필터링하면:최근 &quot;visualeditor&quot;로 태그가 지정된 편집만 변경하면, 우리는 많은 편집이 완벽하게 괜찮다는 을 알 수 있다.하지만 많은 사람들은 그렇지 않다.

    나는 VisualEditor가 사용자가 전혀 눈치채지 못한 채 종종 특정 편집 내용을 계속해서 망치고 있다는 것을 이해하고 감사한다.이거 고쳐야 돼.VisualEditor가 정지하거나 충돌하는 방법(어느 브라우저, 어떤 운영 체제 등)에 대해 더 구체적인 정보를 가지고 있는 경우, 위키백과에서 귀하의 피드백:VisualEditor/Feedback 또는 Bugzilla에서 직접 VisualEditor를 덜 빨아들이는 데 매우 유용할 것이다.시간을 내어 나에게 응답해 주었고 VisualEditor가 아직 표준에 미치지 못하는 이유에 대해 자세히 설명해 주셔서 대단히 감사드린다.정말 고마워. --MZMcBride (대화) 14:09, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

  24. 넌 아직 도착하지 않았어, 시골에서 1마일 정도.VE 베타 버전도 초기 요구사항 단계로 되돌아가서 다시 작성해야 할 수 있다.스타니스타니 07:57, 2013년 7월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
    안녕 스타니스타니VisualEditor에 대한 너의 고민을 이해하려고 노력하는 중이야.당신이 알거나 모를 수 있는 것처럼 VisualEditor(VE)로 만든 각 편집에는 태그가 붙는다.당신이 편집한 내용을 검색해 보니, 현재 VisualEditor로 편집한 것이 두 개 있는 것 같은데, 둘 다 나한테는 완전히 괜찮아 보인다.자세히 설명해 주시겠습니까? --MZMcBride (대화) 07:45, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
    안녕 MZMcBride.외 수많은 저장되지 않은 시도를 하고 인터넷 Explorer(!)의 non-support, 나는(소프트웨어 엔지니어 모든)과 함께 즐겁게, 이 인터페이스가"CKEditor의feature-deficient 포트와 같이 같더군요."<>결론을 내렸다 새로운 편집자들로 stress-testing의 범죄를 저질러 앉은 것은 세 사람입니다.--에서 멋진 논평(쉼표)이 두 링크 I've 있다.t고려 대상:VisualEditor 피드백VisualEditor 할당 버그 목록 - 추가 질문 있으십니까?스타니스타니 02:33, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  25. 옵트인. 비주얼 에디터의 현재 상태를 고려해 볼 때, 우리는 새 편집자들이 분명히 현재 망가진 이 시스템을 이해하도록 하는 것만으로 그들에게 해를 끼치고 있다.그들을 위한 옵트인 옵션이 된다는 것은 그들이 원한다면 많은 새로운 편집자들(그리고 다른 누구라도)이 그것을 시도할 수 있다는 것을 의미하지만, 그것은 기본적으로 그들에게 강요되지 않는다.실버스렌C 09:01, 2013년 7월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
    안녕 실버스렌.VisualEditor에 대한 너의 고민을 이해하려고 노력하는 중이야.당신이 알거나 모를 수 있는 것처럼 VisualEditor(VE)로 만든 각 편집에는 태그가 붙는다.편집 내용을 검색한 결과 현재 VisualEditor 편집기가 한 개 있는 것 같음.이 편집은 내가 보기엔 괜찮은 것 같고, 위키텍스트(또는 소스) 편집기를 계속 사용하거나 VisualEditor 사용을 피하는 데 문제가 없는 것 같아.VisualEditor가 사용자들에게 강요되고 있는 두려움, 특히 VisualEditor에 대해 자세히 설명해 주시겠습니까? --MZMcBride (대화) 08:20, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  26. 그것을 선택하거나 없애라.그것은 의도된 목적을 이루지 못하고 실제로 해를 끼친다.북8000 (대화) 11:06, 2013년 7월 30일 (UTC)[응답하라]
  27. 현재 공공 소비에 적합하지 않다. 샌드스타인 10:52, 2013년 7월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
  28. 머리 안 세요.완벽하게 사용할 수 있는 대안이 이미 널리 사용되고 있을 때, 완료되지 않은 것은 디폴트로 출시해서는 안 된다.루케노94(루크에게 여기서 나가라고 말해) 11시 18분, 2013년 7월 30일 (UTC)[응답하라]
    안녕 루케노94.VisualEditor에 대한 너의 고민을 이해하려고 노력하는 중이야.당신이 알거나 모를 수 있는 것처럼 VisualEditor(VE)로 만든 각 편집에는 태그가 붙는다.편집 내용을 검색한 결과 현재 VisualEditor 편집이 0개 있는 것으로 보인다.고민에 대해 자세히 설명해 주시겠습니까? --MZMcBride (대화) 07:53, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
    난 0번 수정했어. 왜냐하면 내가 그걸 사용할 생각을 하기도 전에 내 감시목록에서 엉망으로 만든 VE를 봤거든.나는 VE 편집에 태그가 붙었다는 것을 잘 알고 있다; 노위키 오류는 분명히 흔한 것이지만, 내가 사용하는 다른 많은 이상한 것들이 있다.나는 어쨌든 내가 왜 위의 것에 대해 자세히 설명해야 하는지 모르겠다; 심지어 WMF조차도 VE가 아직 끝나지 않았다는 것을 인정하며, 나의 나머지 진술은 상식이다.루케노94(루크에게 여기서 나가라고 말함) 08:03, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답하라]
    안녕 루케노94.이렇게 빨리 답장해줘서 고마워. :-)

    비주얼에디터에 대해 직접 시도해보지도 않고 코멘트를 하는 거야?나는 네가 사용하는 "다른 이상한 것들"이 무슨 뜻인지 잘 모르겠어.

    VisualEditor는 아직 갈 길이 멀다는 데 우리 모두가 동의한다고 생각하지만, 소프트웨어가 "완료된" 것에 대해 말할 때, 나는 그렇게 생각하지 않는다.소프트웨어는 결코 완성되지 않는다.현실적인 기준이 있다는 이 희극이 생각난다.이에 동의하십니까? --MZMcBrid (대화) 09:29, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

    잠깐 해봤다.나 같은 파워 유저(또는 소스와 직접 일하기를 선호하는 사람)에게는 적합하지 않다.내가 소프트웨어가 완성되는 것에 대해 이야기 할 때, 이것은 안정적이고 거의 버그가 없는 버전, 즉 최종 사용자에게 릴리스된 버전, 그리고 약간의 사소한 버그 수정과 일반적인 유지보수 업데이트만 받는 것을 말한다.이것은 베타 버전으로서 제시되고 있는 사전 알파 프로그램인데, 그 자체로는 완전히 틀렸다(베타는 거의 특징 완성이 되어야 한다, 이것은 그것에 가깝지 않다). WMF가 이 반 완성, 반 기능, 반 배스의 편집자를 경험 많은 편집자와 신인 모두에게 강요하고 있다는 사실을 덧붙이자면, 여러분은 그 똥바람을 맞게 된다.현재 진행 중인루케노94(루크에게 여기서 나가라고 말해) 09:35, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답하라]
    안녕 루케노94.나는 라벨링에 어느 정도 동의하고 파워 유저에 대해서는 동의하지만, 왜 사용자들이 위키미디어 재단에 의해 강요당하고 있다고 말하는지는 잘 모르겠다.누가 어떻게 강요당하지?내가 알 수 있는 한, 현재 인터페이스는 인터페이스에서 VisualEditor를 완전히 비활성화하는 사용자 선호와 함께 나란히 위키텍스트(또는 소스) 편집과 시각적 편집을 제공한다.만약 시간이 있다면, 나는 당신이 왜 이것이 당신에게 강요되고 있다고 느끼는지에 대해 당신이 가지고 있는 피드백에 정말 감사할 것이다(이 페이지에 설명된 바와 같이, 당신은 이런 식으로 느끼는 것이 거의 혼자가 아니다).Wikimedia Foundation의 행동이 필요에 따라 적절하게 조정될 수 있도록 이러한 느낌을 보다 잘 이해하는 데 도움이 될 것이다. --MZMcBride (대화) 09:40, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
    나는 여기서 별로 믿지 않으려고 안간힘을 쓰고 있다.이 편집기는 모든 사람이 원하든 원하지 않든 기본적으로 사용 가능했다.WMF는 "편집" 버튼을 VE를 지칭하는 것으로 만들었다. 그래서 근육 기억력은 결국 사람들이 원하지 않고 VE를 사용하도록 만들 것이다.또한, 구 편집자가 "편집 소스" 버튼에서 작업하게 하는 것은 새로운 사용자, 불규칙한 사용자 또는 심지어 기술적으로 생각이 없는 사용자들을 혼란스럽게 할 것이다. 왜냐하면 그것은 그들에게 혼란스러운 용어를 도입하기 때문이다.VE가 완전히 준비되지 않았다는 것이 명백하게 증명된 후에도 새로운 사용자들과 IP들에게 롤아웃된 것은 WMF가 똥을 주지 않고 그저 아무 상관 없이 마구 지껄이는 분명한 예다."VE 끄기" 실패의 반쪽짜리 특성처럼; 우선 스위치를 주입하는 것을 거부한 다음, 사람들이 원하는 것이 아닌 "VisualEditor가 베타 상태인 동안 일시적으로 비활성화"를 가능하게 하는 것. 우리는 WMF가 VE가 "완료되었다"고 거짓으로 주장함으로써 그들의 마음대로 제거할 수 없는 적절한 on/off 스위치를 원한다.그리고 VE는 베타 버전이 아니기 때문에 버튼은 여전히 유효하지 않다.루케노94(루크에게 여기서 나가라고 말함) 09:48, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답하라]
    안녕 루케노94.만약 내 답변이 실망스럽거나 트롤링하거나 그런 성격이라면 사과할게.내가 장담하건대 그들은 그렇지 않다.

    나는 이것이 배치된 방법의 일부가 수준 이하였다는 것에 전적으로 동의한다.나는 VisualEditor를 완전히 비활성화하기 위한 사용자 선호도의 고의적인 제거에 대해 무엇보다도 더 크게(그리고 솔직히 더 심술궂게) 소리를 질렀고 그것이 복원되었을 때 나는 매우 기뻤다.반쪽짜리 절충안(즉, 사용자 선호도를 일시적이라고 표시)이 지속 가능한 해결책이 아니라는 데는 동의하지만, 임시방편으로서 올바른 방향으로 나아가는 조치다.

    는 또한 베타 소프트웨어를 읽은 후에 VisualEditor를 "베타"라고 부르는 것이 지금으로서는 좋은 생각이 아니라는 것이 전적으로 네 말이 전적으로 옳다고 생각한다.VisualEditor는 단순히 베타 소프트웨어가 아니다.는 위키피디아에서 이것을 주목했다.VisualEditor/Enhanceds with this edit. 이 편집으로 조만간 버그를 보고 소프트웨어를 가능한 한 빨리 여기에 다시 라벨을 붙이도록 할 겁니다.

    VisualEditor에 대한 불만과 배포에 대해 설명하는 데 시간을 내주셔서 대단히 감사드린다.VisualEditor를 덜 성가시게 하거나, 배부르게 하거나, 고통스럽게 하거나, 불쾌하게 하는 방법에 대한 다른 아이디어가 있다면, 위키백과에서 공유하십시오.VisualEditor/향상.커뮤니티는 VisualEditor의 개발 전반에 걸쳐 자신들과 그들의 일에 가장 중요한 것을 우선순위로 설정하고 평가 할 수 있어야 한다. --MZMcBride (대화) 14:16, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

    루크는 "또한 '편집 소스' 버튼에서 구 편집기를 작업하게 하는 것은 새로운 사용자, 불규칙한 사용자 또는 심지어 기술적으로 생각이 없는 사용자들을 혼란스럽게 할 것이다"라고 썼다.나는 이 의견을 전적으로 지지한다.내가 여기서 편집한 지 몇 년이 지났는데 아마 불규칙적이긴 하지만, 기술적으로 생각이 안 나.나에게 출처는 인용/참고문헌과 관련된 것을 의미한다.나(여전히) '편집 소스'가 헷갈린다. --Hordaland (대화) 23:01, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  29. 옵트인. 최소한 모든 버그가 고정되고 일반 편집자가 허용하는 모든 공통적인 기능을 지원할 수 있을 때까지.비록 그때라도 디폴트 편집자에 대한 그러한 중대한 변화는 옵트인이 되기 전에 지역사회의 공감대를 가져야 한다.사라지2107 (대화) 11시 48분, 2013년 7월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
    기본값 없음 옵션(토론 섹션 참조)은 기본적으로 선택 가능하지 않거나, 선택될 때까지 임시 상태로 선택할 수 없다. Thryduulf (대화) 12:02, 2013년 7월 30일 (UTC)철회. 2013년 8월 25일 (UTC) 13시 52분 [응답]
  30. 준비 안 됐어.안드레아스JN466 12:35, 2013년 7월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
    누가 묻기 전에: 나는 독일어 위키피디아에 대한 VE와 많은 편집을 했다.내가 여기서 아무것도 만들지 않은 이유는 영어 위키백과에서는 기사를 편집하게 하지 않고 영원히 계속 번쩍이는 파란 막대를 지나 비주얼에디터를 진행시킬 수 없었기 때문이다.:) "편집"을 마우스 오른쪽 버튼으로 클릭하고 VE를 새 창에서 열 때에만 얻을 수 있는 것.일반적인 방법으로 "편집"을 마우스 왼쪽 단추로 클릭하면 아무 일도 일어나지 않는다.조금도독일어 위키백과에도 같은 문제를 가진 사람들이 있다: 그들은 여기서 VE를 사용할 수 있지만, 그들의 집 위키에서 그것을 클릭할 때, 아무 일도 일어나지 않는다.안드레아스JN466 13:51, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
    안녕 안드레아스.정말 다행이다. :-) 시간/발견 시간이 있다면 버그질라에서 버그 리포트를 제출하는 것이 현재 가지고 있는 문제를 진단하는 데 큰 도움이 될 수 있을 것이다.

    즉석에서(그리고 정보가 거의 없는 상황에서) 어떤 종류의 자바스크립트 분쟁처럼 들린다.당신의 웹브라우저 어딘가에 JavaScript 오류 콘솔이 있다.VisualEditor를 사용하여 브라우저 JavaScript 오류 로그(오류 콘솔이라고도 함)에서 비정상적인 출력을 동시에 확인할 수 있는 경우, 현재 발생한 문제(예: 충돌하는 로컬 사용자 스크립트 또는 로컬 JavaScript 가젯)를 진단하는 데 도움이 될 수 있다.VisualEditor를 적극적으로 연구하고 있는 개발자들이 고칠 수 있도록 파일화/보고가 필요한 것은 바로 이와 같은 버그다.이전 의견을 확대해 주셔서 다시 한 번 감사드리며, 정말 감사드린다. --MZMcBride (대화) 14:01, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

    고마워 MZMcBride, 한번 볼게.나는 Bugzilla에 있지 않지만, de:에 대해 다시 보고했다.WP. 안드레아스JN466 15:58, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
    왼쪽 클릭 시 오류 메시지는 "Uncauted TypeError: Object function (E,F){return new o.fn.init(E,F)}에는 'Deferred' 메서드가 없음"이다.마우스 오른쪽 버튼을 클릭한 후 오류 콘솔을 열면 "Uncaught TypeError: Not cruments"가 표시된다.안드레아스 JN466 16:09, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  31. 선택. – Plarem 13:02, 2013년 7월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
  32. 선택. VE의 준비 상태에 대한 지역사회의 동의가 있을 때까지. -- 힐빌리홀리데이 13:33, 2013년 7월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
  33. 사용자당 옵트인(Opt-in) :Kw. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→13:42, 2013년 7월 30일(UTC)[응답]
  34. 갈증을 해소하지 않는 간음한 쿨아이드로 무고한 대중을 섬기는 것은 예의에 어긋난다.키퍼.울포위츠 14장 11절, 2013년 7월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
    안녕 키퍼.울포위츠.VisualEditor에 대한 너의 고민을 이해하려고 노력하는 중이야.당신이 알거나 모를 수 있는 것처럼 VisualEditor(VE)로 만든 각 편집에는 태그가 붙는다.편집 내용을 검색한 결과 현재 VisualEditor 편집이 0개 있는 것으로 보인다.고민에 대해 자세히 설명해 주시겠습니까? Kool-Aide? --MZMcBride (대화) 07:56, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
    @MZMcBride: 음악 편집(GNU 릴리폰드)과 수학은 비주얼 에디터범위를 벗어난다.당신은 VE에 대한 나의 의견이나 기고문을 봤을지도 모른다.제정신인 사람은 아무도 VE를 사용하지 않으며, 따라서 영리하고 지능적인 편집자는 VE를 사용하여 편집한 것이 없다.키퍼.울포위츠 08:51, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
    그것은 VE와 함께 편집한 모든 사용자를 갑자기 정신 이상이라고 선언하는 모욕적이고 편견을 가진 인신공격이다.인술람 시미아 (토크) 2013년 8월 4일 18:18 (UTC)[응답]
  35. 베타 -> 옵트인.---아슈미트 (토크) 14:45, 2013년 7월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
  36. 베타 -> Opt-in, 의문의 여지가 없다. -- 안드레아스 베르레 (토크) 16:14, 2013년 7월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
  37. Opt-in, 이상에 따라. --Florian Blaschke (토크) 16:49, 2013년 7월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
  38. 이 단계에서는 의심의 여지가 없어2013년 7월 30일(UTC) 16:56, 인토타트 다크니스[응답]
  39. 옵트인. 처음부터 선택했어야 했어.쿠미오코 (토크) 17:05, 2013년 7월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
  40. 새로운 편집자들은 기사를 편집하는 첫 경험이 *크래쉬*가 될 수 없다.그리고 그것이 내가 VE에서 적당한 길이의 어떤 기사에 대해 얻을 수 있는 유일한 행동이다.Courcelles 17:27, 2013년 7월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
  41. 적어도 벌레가 해결될 때까지 옵트인.알바코어 (대화) 17:33, 2013년 7월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
  42. 길데리채팅 목록 17:47, 2013년 7월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
  43. 내가 몇 주 전에 기사의 하위섹션 위에 "편집"과 "출처 편집"을 처음 보았을 때, 나는 실제로 그것이 그것에 어떤 실용적인 쓰임새가 있을지도 모른다고 생각했다. 열린 마음을 유지하는 데 아무런 문제가 없었지?하지만 새로운 기능을 사용한 후에, 나는 그것이 문제를 찾는 해결책의 교과서적인 예라고 말하는 것에 매우 자신감을 느낀다.2007년 처음 편집을 시작했을 때 기본적인 위키 마크업을 배우는데 아무런 문제가 없었다.내가 처음 다른 페이지에 링크를 추가하고 싶었을 때를 기억한다. 그래서 나는 어떻게 하는지에 대한 예시를 위해 편집 화면에서 주위를 둘러보았다.글에서 연결고리로 등장하는 다른 모든 텍스트 조각들은 양쪽에 두 개의 대괄호로 둘러싸여 있었다.여기에 표시된 대로 [제6의 감각]을 입력하면 인터위키 링크가 생성된다.식스 센스.그리고 글자가 제목과 다르게 되도록 만들면서 다른 글에 링크를 추가하는 방법을 알아내고 싶었다.단지 주위를 둘러보는 것만으로, 왼쪽의 기사 제목과 오른쪽의 피처링 텍스트 사이에 선으로 [제6 감각 이것]을 타이핑함으로써, 이것을 내게 줄 것이라는 것을 알게 되었다(몇 년 후에야 비로소 이 테크닉이 '피핑'이라고 불린다는 것을 알게 되었다.우리는 보통 사람들이 스스로 이 문제를 해결할 만큼 충분히 유능하지 않다고 가정해야 하는가?단지 문단에 '매각'이라는 단어를 추가하는 것처럼 사소한 편집만 하고 싶어도 기사 상단에 있는 '이 페이지 편집' 버튼(또는 관련 섹션의 오른쪽 상단 모서리에 있는 '편집' 버튼만 클릭)을 눌러 아래로 스크롤해 입력하면 된다.로켓 과학이 아니야!그리고 지금 생각해보면, 페이지 변경을 위한 두 개의 별도 선택권을 갖는 것은 실제로 새로운 사람들에게 더 위협적인 것으로 생각하는데, 왜냐하면 "편집 소스" 부분은 위키 마크업을 집어 들 수 있는 가파른 학습 곡선이 있다는 인상을 주기 때문이다. 그리고 그것은 전혀 그렇지 않다.그래서 나는 그것이 기껏해야 등록된 계정에 대한 옵트인 기능이 되어야 한다고 생각한다; 만약 그것이 MediaWiki 인터페이스에서 완전히 제거되었다면 나는 어떤 수면도 잃지 않을 것이다.쿠르티스 18:12, 2013년 7월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
  44. Opt-in: 기능이 너무 많이 누락됨.--ukexpat (대화) 18:30, 2013년 7월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
    안녕 ukexpat.VisualEditor에 대한 당신의 우려를 이해하려고 노력하고 있다.누락된 기능을 찾으십니까?좀 더 자세히 설명해 주시겠습니까?개발 노력에 도움이 될 것이다. :-) --MZMcBride (대화) 08:01, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  45. 아직 베타 버전이고, 알려진 이슈도 많아.만약 새로운 편집자가 편집이 항상 그렇게 될 것이라고 생각한다면, 그것은 그들을 연기할 가능성이 높으며, VE가 출시 준비가 된 성능과 기능에 도달한 후에도 그들은 돌아오지 않을 수도 있다.아래의 짐보의 우려를 해소하기 위해, 새로운 편집자에게 베타 편집기를 디폴트로 사용할 것인지에 대한 지침과 베타 소프트웨어에 문제가 있다는 경고와 함께 명시적으로 물어볼 수 있다.그것은 그들에게 선택권을 줄 것이다.세라핌블레이드Talk to me 19:12, 2013년 7월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
    안녕 세라핌블레이드.VisualEditor에 대한 너의 고민을 이해하려고 노력하는 중이야.당신이 알거나 모를 수 있는 것처럼 VisualEditor(VE)로 만든 각 편집에는 태그가 붙는다.편집 내용을 검색한 결과 현재 VisualEditor 편집이 0개 있는 것으로 보인다.당신의 우려에 대해 좀 더 자세히 설명해 주시겠습니까?특히 위키텍스트(또는 출처) 편집자가 논쟁의 여지가 있을 정도로 매우 위협적이기 때문에 수많은 잠재적 편집자들을 미룰 수 있다고 보는 것이 타당하다고 생각하십니까? --MZMcBrid (대화) 08:00, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
    MZMcBride:내가 VE로 편집을 완료하지 못한 것은 내가 할 수 없었기 때문이다.나도 해봤지만, 느린 연기로 인해 본질적으로 사용할 수 없게 됐어.나는 원칙적으로 어시스턴트 에디터를 두는 것에 동의하지 않으며, 사실 편집자들이 항상 소스를 직접 편집하는 선택권을 갖는 한, 그것은 훌륭한 생각이라고 생각한다.문제는 현재의 시행이다.세라핌블레이드 15:21, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
    미안, 내가 너의 질문에 완전히 대답하지 않았다는 걸 깨달았어.새로운 편집자가 할 것 같은 편집의 종류(일반적으로 수정, 문장 추가 등), 나는 위키텍스트 편집자가 전혀 지독하게 위협적이라고 생각하지 않는다.하지만, 어떤 종류의 코드처럼 보이는 마크업을 보고 비명을 지르며 도망치는 사람들도 있다.물론 베타 비주얼 편집기를 사용할 수 있는 옵션을 제공하되 베타 버전인지 확인하십시오.이 경우 두 가지 이점이 있다.그들은 그들이 무엇을 위해 있는지 알고, 다른 대안을 사용할 수 있다는 것을 알게 될 것이고, 버그와 문제를 예상할 수 있을 것이고, 그들을 보고하는 것이 장려되고 감사하다는 것을 알게 될 것이다.세라핌블레이드 15:28, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  46. 선택. 그렇게 하면 완전히 작동하지 않고 심각한 버그가 있을 수 있는 플러그인/소프트웨어에 의해 새로운 사용자가 꺼지지 않는다.제레미 v^_^vBori! 19:33, 2013년 7월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
    안녕 제스케 쿠리아노.VisualEditor에 대한 너의 고민을 이해하려고 노력하는 중이야.당신이 알거나 모를 수 있는 것처럼 VisualEditor(VE)로 만든 각 편집에는 태그가 붙는다.편집 내용을 검색한 결과 현재 VisualEditor 편집이 0개 있는 것으로 보인다.고민에 대해 자세히 설명해 주시겠습니까? --MZMcBride (대화) 08:10, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
    나의 우려는 위키소스 편집기를 사용했던 것만큼 VE, 버그 또는 아니요를 사용하는 데 많은 문제가 있었던 IRC의 #위키피디아-엔헬프(en-help)에 있는 새로운 사용자들과의 상호작용에서 비롯된다.지난 RfC에서 분명히 밝혔는데.당신이 선입견을 요구하는 모든 사람들의 무결성에 대한 선동적인 공격을 가지고 악마의 옹호자 역할을 하는 대신에, 당신은 실제로 이 버그 소프트웨어를 사용할 수 밖에 없었던 새로운 사용자들의 관점에서 이것을 보는 것은 어떨까?그때까지 너와 나는 의논할 일이 없다.알았어?제레미 v^_^v 21:59, 2013년 8월 12일 (UTC)[응답]
  47. JuliancoltonTalk 19:38, 2013년 7월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
    안녕 줄리안콜튼.VisualEditor에 대한 너의 고민을 이해하려고 노력하는 중이야.당신이 알거나 모를 수 있는 것처럼 VisualEditor(VE)로 만든 각 편집에는 태그가 붙는다.편집 내용을 검색한 결과 현재 VisualEditor 편집이 0개 있는 것으로 보인다.고민에 대해 자세히 설명해 주시겠습니까? --MZMcBride (대화) 08:09, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  48. 현재 상태에서의 선택(계정을 가진 모든 사용자가 베타 테스터라고 주장하지 않는 한, 물론 말도 안 되는 일이지만, 실제로 WMF가 믿고 있는 것 같다.) --Patrick87 (대화) 19:54, 2013년 7월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
  49. 베타를 새로운 기사에 강요하는 것은 단순히 파괴적이다. 그것은 분명히 편집자 주의 목표와 정반대되는 것이다.Anthonyhcole (대화 · 기여 · 이메일) 20:10, 2013년 7월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
  50. 안정적이고 빠른 버전이 나올 때까지 선택한다. 론존스 20:12, 2013년 7월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
  51. 우리한테 강요하면 안 돼Manxruler (talk) 21:10, 2013년 7월 30일 (UTC) 그리고 옵트인(opt-in)을 통해, 나는 항상 옵트인(opt-in)을 의미하며, 제한된 기간 동안 옵트인을 하지 않는다.Manxruler (대화)20:43, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
    안녕 맹스룰러.현재 약 33,000개(!)의 편집이 있는 것 같은데, 그 중 0개(또는 없음)는 VisualEditor 편집이다.Wikitext(또는 소스) 편집기를 계속 사용할 수 있고 지금까지 VisualEditor 사용을 모두 성공적으로 피했는데 VisualEditor가 어떤 사람에게 강요되고 있다고 느끼는 이유에 대해 자세히 설명해 주시겠습니까? --MZMcBrid (talk) 08:26, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
    안녕 MZMcBride.예, 33K 이상 수정.그리고 어느 시점에도, 심지어 8년 전에 처음 시작했을 때도, VE와 달리 위키텍스트의 사용이 어려웠었습니다.예, VE가 편집에 부정적인 영향을 끼쳤는데, 그 점: 1."편집"이라고 적힌 VE 버튼을 제거하는 데 꽤 오랜 시간이 걸렸는데, 그것은 지루했다.2. VE는 특히 처음부터 나를 위해 일을 늦추었다.나는 컴퓨터가 느리고 인터넷 연결이 잘 안 되는데, VE와 잘 안 돼, 숨어서 막 뛰어다녀도. 3.최근 꺼짐 옵션을 제안받았을 때도 "이 옵션은 비주얼에디터가 더 발전되고 완전히 기능하면 자동으로 다시 시도할 수 있는 기회를 주기 때문에 추천한다"는 기쁜 소식이 전해졌다.정말 사랑스럽다.고마워 4. 난 VE를 피하기 위해 규칙적인 노력을 해야 하는 것을 몹시 싫어한다. 5. 다양한 루프 후프를 뛰어 넘음으로써 위키텍스트로 편집하는 것을 "능력"/허용되는 것은 내가 원하는 것이 아니다. 나는 VE 사물을 끌 수 있고, 다시는 질문을 받지 않기를 원한다.마침표.그리고 VE와 함께 어떠한 수정도 하지 않은 것은 그것을 사용하지 않은 것과 같지 않다.Manxruler (대화) 16:02, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
    나아가 여기 있는 개개인의 편집 이력을 들여다보는 데 시간을 할애하기보다는 표현된 불만과 소망을 들여다보는 것이 옳다고 생각한다.Manxruler (대화) 16:54, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
    다시 안녕, MZMcBride.VE가 더 이상 베타 버전이 아니라고 선언되는 즉시 다시 한 번 VE를 비활성화해야 하기 때문에 편집 시간을 조금 더 잃었다.Manxruler (대화) 08:49, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  52. 선택. VE 관리자들이 시간별로 여러 기사를 손상시키는 버그는 수정되지 않을 것이며 혼란을 정리하기 위해 편집자들에게 맡겨야 한다고 말한 NOWIKI 문제를 고려할 때, 이것은 이제 필수적이다.블랙 카이트 (토크) 21:15, 2013년 7월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
    • "노우키 문제"는 정말 몇 가지 사안이다.nowiki 태그는 Wikitext 탈출에 사용된다.우리는 VisualEditor에 입력된 파스(parse), 위키텍스트(wikitxt)보다는 항상 탈출할 것이다.wikitext의 우발적인 삽입을 줄이기 위해 이 경우 이미 경고를 삽입했으며 다른 옵션에도 열려 있다.Wikitext가 가끔 탈출하는 다른 맥락도 있는데, 여기서 우리는 초과탈출을 줄이기 위해 더 많은 것을 할 수 있다.--Elocence* 22:09, 2013년 7월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
      • 에릭은 그게 중요한 게 아니야 너도 알고 있을 거야NOWIKI 문제가 얼마나 많은 기사를 깨트리고 있는지(그리고 정기적으로 기사를 깨트리고 있는데, 그 이후에 누군가에게 정리를 요구한다는 것)와 관계없이 주요 쟁점은 기능적이지 않은 코드가 여전히 사용되고 있다는 것이다.솔직히, Opt-In은 여기서 문제가 아니다; IMHO VE는 여러 가지 오류와 문제를 야기하지 않을 때까지 정말로 꺼져야 한다.블랙 카이트 (토크) 02:13, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  53. 이 소프트웨어는 단순히 준비가 되지 않았다.개발자들이 고치려고도 하지 않는다고 했던 이것 때문에 생긴 난장판을 정리하기 위해 봇과 대본을 쓰는 것에 대해 지금 진지한 논의를 하고 있다니 믿을 수가 없다.WMF의 자체 연구는 소프트웨어가 편집자 모집에 해를 끼치고 있으며 Kww는 새로운 편집자가 소프트웨어 테스터로 비자발적으로 사용되어서는 안 된다는 점을 지적하고 있다.Hut 8.5 21:33, 2013년 7월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
  54. 위의 모든 것에 대해. --Tryptofish (대화) 21:41, 2013년 7월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
    안녕 트립토피쉬.VisualEditor에 대한 너의 고민을 이해하려고 노력하는 중이야.당신이 알거나 모를 수 있는 것처럼 VisualEditor(VE)로 만든 각 편집에는 태그가 붙는다.편집 내용을 검색한 결과 현재 VisualEditor 편집이 0개 있는 것으로 보인다.당신의 우려에 대해 좀 더 자세히 설명해 주시겠습니까?불행히도, "위 모든 것에 대하여"는 VisualEditor와 어떤 문제를 가지고 있는지 나에게 설명해주지 않는다. :-) --MZMcBrid (대화) 09:09, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
    내 편집 이력에 관심을 가져줘서 고마워(아마 곧 눈에 띄게 될 거야).사실, 나는 VE를 수없이 시도했지만, 매번 내가 도움이 되지 않는 일을 하게 될지도 모른다는 우려 때문에 편집한 내용을 저장하지 않기로 결정했다.하지만, 나는 그것에 대한 합리적인 경험을 얻었고, 나는 특정한 이슈들의 목록을 염두에 두고 VE 피드백 페이지로 갔다.내가 그곳에 도착했을 때, 나는 다른 사용자들이 내가 알고 있는 모든 것을 이미 보고했고, 그들 각각에 이미 Bugzilla가 열려 있다는 것을 관찰했다.옵트인에 대해서는, 이것처럼 아직 덜렁거리는 것이, 사용하지 않는 것을 선택할 것이 아니라, 사용자가 선택할 수 있는 것이어야 한다고 생각한다.수비가 쉬다. --Tryptofish (대화) 14:27, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답하라]
    그거면 충분해.일단 트립토피쉬를 레드 링크로 남겨두자. ;;-)

    너의 의견을 확대해줘서 고마워.편집자 좌절을 더 명확하게 해주는 것은 너 같은 논평이다.보고된 문제에 대해 충분히 빠른 대응이 없는 것은 많은 불평의 핵심인 것 같다(어떤 면에서는 위키 원칙 「그런 말을 듣지 못했다」와 유사하다).특히 겉으로 보기에 경직되어 보이는 배치 연대표와 함께, 피드백이 충분히 들리지 않거나 충분히 신속하게 행동되지 않는 것처럼 느끼는 것은 갈등과 분노를 야기할 것이다.시간을 내서 네 생각을 살찌워줘서 다시 한번 고마워, 트립토피쉬.고마워. --MZMcBride (대화) 14:37, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

  55. 테스트할 수 있는 새로운 실험 VE가 있음을 알려주는 알림과 함께, 장단점 및 예상 문제를 나열하는 페이지에 관심이 있는 사용자에게 버그를 보고하는 방법 및 사용자 가이드에 연결하는 방법을 안내한다.(필터 550을 트립하는 새로운 편집자의 수에서 볼 때 그들 중 다수가 IP로 편집한 위키 마크업에 대한 이전의 경험을 가지고 있다는 것이 명백하다.)존CD (대화) 21:57, 2013년 7월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
  56. 물론 베타 소프트웨어는 옵트인이 되어야 한다.로버트 맥클레논 (대화) 22:57, 2013년 7월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
  57. Opt-In 신참들이 베타 버전이 없을 때 선택하게 하라.GenQuest 23:24, 2013년 7월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
  58. 지역사회가 그것이 안정적이라고 합의할 때까지 옵트인.TheOverflow (토크) 23:45, 2013년 7월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
  59. 옵트인(Opt-In)은 실패 프로젝트로 완전히 제거된 것으로 본다.시크릿account 23:57, 2013년 7월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
    안녕 시크릿.VisualEditor에 대한 너의 고민을 이해하려고 노력하는 중이야.당신이 알거나 모를 수 있는 것처럼 VisualEditor(VE)로 만든 각 편집에는 태그가 붙는다.편집 내용을 검색한 결과 현재 VisualEditor 편집이 0개 있는 것으로 보인다.특히 VisualEditor를 실패한 실험으로 보는 이유를 자세히 설명해 주시겠습니까? --MZMcBride (대화) 08:23, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  60. (충돌 편집)옵트인 - 우리가 이 버그 베타가 우리가 그것 없이 얻을 수 있는 것보다 더 많은 새로운 편집자들을 잃게 만들기를 원하지 않는다면!팬더리퍼드 (대화) 23:58, 2013년 7월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
  61. 재평가를 위해 최소 6개월 이상 옵트인(갈등 편집)19,500명의 새로운 사용자 이름을 조사한 결과, VE 사용 사용자 중 41%(5개 중 2개)가 편집 내용을 저장하지 않은 반면, VE가 아닌 사용자 대부분은 저장(편집 종료 선택사항)한 것으로 나타났다.VE는 새로운 인터페이스 형식인 WYSIWYG-WAST("편집하는 사람 없이")를 공개했다. 새로운 사용자는 변경사항을 저장하라는 경고를 받아야 하기 때문이다. 그리고 저장을 소홀히 한 41%는 페이지를 업데이트하기 위해 화면에 단어를 입력했다고 생각할 가능성이 높다(그래서, 저장이란 무엇인가?).7월 편집-활동 통계는 41%가 새로운 사용자 이름으로 저장되지 않았기 때문에 편집이 크게 감소했음을 보여야 한다.신규 사용자가 6개월 이상 Opt-in을 요구할 경우 VE를 해제하십시오. -Wikid77 (대화) 00:15, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  62. 기본적으로 모든 사람마다 선택한다.돛비스타 (토크) 00:42, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
    안녕, 돛비스타스.VisualEditor에 대한 너의 고민을 이해하려고 노력하는 중이야.당신이 알거나 모를 수 있는 것처럼 VisualEditor(VE)로 만든 각 편집에는 태그가 붙는다.편집 내용을 검색한 결과 현재 VisualEditor 편집이 0개 있는 것으로 보인다.당신의 우려에 대해 좀 더 자세히 설명해 주시겠습니까?불행히도 "기본적으로 모든 사람마다"는 VisualEditor와 어떤 문제를 가지고 있는지 내게 설명해주지 않는다. :-) --MZMcBrid (대화) 08:31, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
    HiMZMcBride, 나는 실제로 지난 1월에 테스트에 참여했는데 VE가 쓸모없지 않다는 것을 알게 되었다(그래서 나는 그 시점에서 Ref를 처리할 수 없었기 때문에 편집을 하지 않았다).나 역시 그 특정 시간에 내가 하고 싶은 일을 하지 않았기 때문에 변경 사항을 저장하지 않고 새 편집기를 어슬렁거렸다., 심지어 정중하게 피드백하는 항목까지 제출했어.새 버전은 내가 1월에 시도했던 것보다 훨씬 개선되었지만 여전히 디폴트로 사용되어야 할 수준은 아니다.돛비스타 (토크) 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC) 16:55 [응답]
  63. 새로운 사용자는 자신의 기본 편집 경험으로 불완전하고 비직관적이며 버기 인터페이스가 없어야 하기 때문에 선택한다.postdlf (talk) 01:05, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  64. 확실히 찬성한다: 첫 번째 코멘트는 거의 모든 것을 말했다.Jsayre64 (대화) 01:42, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  65. 이것은 너무 덜렁거려서 다른 것을 가질 수 없다.TCN7JM 02:23, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
    안녕 TCN7JM.VisualEditor에 대한 너의 고민을 이해하려고 노력하는 중이야.당신이 알거나 모를 수 있는 것처럼 VisualEditor(VE)로 만든 각 편집에는 태그가 붙는다.편집 내용을 검색한 결과 현재 VisualEditor 편집이 0개 있는 것으로 보인다.VisualEditor가 너무 빡빡한 것에 대한 우려에 대해 자세히 설명해 주시겠습니까? --MZMcBride (대화) 08:39, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
    출처와 섹션 편집을 할 수 없는 점 등을 고려해서 가지고 있는 오류들을 알기 위해 개인적으로 사용할 필요는 없다(공식적으로 출시되기 전에 잠시 시도했지만, 편집을 저장했는지 여부는 알 수 없다.TCN7JM 09:05, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
    안녕 TCN7JM.이렇게 빨리 답장을 보내줘서 고마워. :-) 이전 버전의 VisualEditor는 섹션 편집을 지원하지 않았지만, 현재 버전은 확실히 그래.VisualEditor로 섹션 편집해 보셨습니까?그때 괜찮으세요?"오류"가 무슨 뜻인지 자세히 설명해 주시겠습니까?출처 고려"는 VisualEditor 개발에도 도움이 된다. --MZMcBride (대화) 09:33, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
    음, 섹션 편집 버튼이 있긴 하지만, 클릭해서도 전체 페이지를 편집할 수 있어, 섹션 편집의 목적을 상쇄하는, 왜냐하면 전체 페이지를 편집하면 편집 충돌이 생길 수 있기 때문이다.예의상, 나는 지금이 새벽 4시 40분이라고 말할 것이고, 나는 아마도 잠을 좀 자야 할 것 같아, 몇 시간 동안 대답할 수 없을 거야.TCN7JM 09:41, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  66. 이 시간대에 오십시오. - 당크 (대화하기 위해 밀어넣기) 02:23, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  67. Opt-in. WYSIWYG 편집자에 대한 나의 개인적인 혐오감은 차치하고라도, 나는 새로운 것을 만들고, 기본 선택을 제대로 테스트하지 못한 것에 대해 완강히 반대한다.대부분의 새로운 편집자들은 이것을 어떻게 무력화시킬지, 혹은 대안이 존재하는지조차 알 수 없을 것이다.—/Mendaliv//Δ's 02:53, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  68. 강력한 옵트인.나는 무역에 의한 소프트웨어 개발자 및 품질 보증 분석가 입니다.만약 QA 분석가가 이 주(州)에서 이 같은 소프트웨어를 지나치도록 내버려둔다면, 고용주는 아니더라도 새로운 프로젝트를 찾고 있을 것이다.만일 프로젝트 매니저가 마일스톤 리뷰(수락 테스트는 고사하고)를 위해 그것을 고객 앞에 내놓으라고 제안한다면, 그는 웃음거리가 될 것이다.VE는 단순히 생산 준비가 되어 있지 않다. 짐 리드 (토크) 03:05, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  69. 베타 -> 옵트인.Mkdwtalk 03:36, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  70. 옵트인. 스펜서T♦C 04:12, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  71. 베타에는 어떤 것도 디폴트되어서는 안 된다.String Theory11 (tc) 04:52, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
    안녕 StringThory11.나는 여기서 너의 의견을 이해하는 데 어려움을 겪고 있어.현재 사용자 인터페이스는 페이지 상단의 탭과 섹션 편집 링크를 모두 VisualEditor와 함께 Wikitext(또는 소스) 편집기를 제공한다.사용자에게 두 옵션이 모두 제공되는 경우 기본값으로 간주되는 항목은?헷갈려. --MZMcBride (대화) 09:12, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  72. 릭스 모티스 (대화) 05:19, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
    안녕 릭스 모티스.VisualEditor에 대한 너의 고민을 이해하려고 노력하는 중이야.당신이 알거나 모를 수 있는 것처럼 VisualEditor(VE)로 만든 각 편집에는 태그가 붙는다.VisualEditor를 사용한 편집이 현재 한 개 있는 것 같군.나는 그 편집이 완벽하게 괜찮아 보인다.VisualEditor와의 고민에 대해 자세히 설명해 주시겠습니까? --MZMcBride (대화) 09:22, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  73. Kww 당 선택Bruce1eetalk 05:34, 2013년 7월 31일(UTC)[응답]
  74. 오페라 사용자로서 실제로 시도해보지 못했는데도 불구하고...(대화) 06:09, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  75. VE가 베타 버전이 아닐 때까지 선택.LT90001 (대화) 07:32, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  76. 옵트인. 물론이지.인슐람 시미아 (대화) 07:49, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  77. 옵트인. 소프트웨어가 안정적이고 잘 개발되면 우리는 다시 평가할 수 있다.그때까지 디폴트가 되어서는 안 된다.Modest Geniustalk 09:54, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
    안녕 Modest Genius.VisualEditor에 대한 너의 고민을 이해하려고 노력하는 중이야.당신이 알거나 모를 수 있는 것처럼 VisualEditor(VE)로 만든 각 편집에는 태그가 붙는다.편집 내용을 검색한 결과 현재 VisualEditor 편집이 0개 있는 것으로 보인다.VisualEditor가 안정적이고 잘 발달되어 있는지, --MZMcBride (대화) 08:46, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]에 대해 자세히 설명해 주시겠습니까?
    뭐야, 여기서 사람들을 잡으려는 거야?저장된 편집 횟수는 어떤 관련이 있는가?값어치있는 것은, 처음에 활성화되었을 때 사용하려고 했지만, 다음과 같은 문제가 있었다:a) 로딩하는 데 오래 걸리고 내가 시도했던 모든 것에 천천히 반응하는 것, b) '프리뷰' 버튼을 사용하여 나는 그것이 위키텍스트의 다른 부분(테이블, 노위키 태그 등)을 깨려고 한다는 것을 깨달았다. c) 나는 그것을 감각적으로 참조를 사용할 수 없었다. d) s'VE를 사용한 편집의 상당 부분을 되돌려야 하는 경우(대부분 내 감시 목록에 있음) e는 작동 중인 옵트 아웃이 없었으며, 이는 소프트웨어가 완전히 개발되지 않았음을 보여준다.일단 사용할 수 없게 되자 나는 손을 뗐다.소프트웨어가 지난 몇 주 동안 실질적으로 개선되지 않았다면(오랜 잉태로 볼 때, 그것은 믿을 수 없을 것 같다), 나의 우려는 여전히 유효하다.많은 사람들이 VE에 대해 많은 합법적인 우려를 제기했고, 이 제안에 찬성한 사람들을 우롱하는 것은 그들을 다루는데 아무런 도움이 되지 않는다.수수한 천재talk 10:33, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
    안녕 Modest Genius.나는 누구를 잡으려는 것이 아니라 단지 여기서 보고 있는 패턴을 이해하려는 것뿐입니다.많은 사람들이 VisualEditor를 좋아하지 않는다는 것은 꽤 분명하다.그것이 왜 그런지 거의 확실하지 않다.후자를 알면 전자를 해결하는 데 도움이 될 수 있다.당신의 확대된 논평은 왜 당신이 당신이 하는 방식을 느끼는지를 더 잘 이해하게 해주었고, 왜 다른 사람들이 당신과 같은 방식으로 느끼는지에 대해서도 더 잘 이해하게 해주었다.가 m을 따라가는지는 잘 모르겠다.기술/뉴스, 하지만 VisualEditor는 사실 급속한 발전을 겪고 있다.한 달 전이나 심지어 일주일 전이나 지금과 같은 소프트웨어가 아니다.변화는 매일 이루어지고 있고 매주(주일에 몇 번이 아니더라도) 추진되고 있다.어쨌든 시간을 내어 의견을 확대해 주셔서 대단히 감사하다. --MZMcBride (대화) 14:42, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
    그렇다면 그 작업은 검증되지 않은 소프트웨어의 조기 출시 이전에 이루어졌어야 했다.아마도 베타 테스트 선택 단계 중에 - 아이디어가 하나 있을 것이다.지역사회가 압도적으로 VE에 반대해왔기 때문에, 그것을 변화시키는 것은 단지 그것이 개선되고 있다고 말하는 것 이상의 많은 것을 필요로 할 것이다.손해가 났다.WMF의 최선의 대응은 VE를 완전히 무력화시키고, 작동/불능에 대한 적절한 조사를 하고, 버그를 수정하고, 몇 달 동안 옵트인 베타 버전을 실행한 다음, 더 잘 작동하면 다시 시도해 보는 것이다(3~6개월).모디드 지니어스 16장 55분, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  78. Opt-InArmbrustThe Homunculus 10:09, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
    안녕 Armbrust.VisualEditor에 대한 너의 고민을 이해하려고 노력하는 중이야.당신이 알거나 모를 수 있는 것처럼 VisualEditor(VE)로 만든 각 편집에는 태그가 붙는다.편집 내용을 검색한 결과 현재 VisualEditor 편집이 0개 있는 것으로 보인다.고민에 대해 자세히 설명해 주시겠습니까? --MZMcBride (대화) 08:48, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  79. 옵트인 --Meno25 (대화) 10:42, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  80. --Eingangskontrolle (대화) 10:50, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  81. 옵트인(Opt-in) 버그가 있는 것으로 알려졌으므로 디버깅을 돕고자 하는 사람들을 위해 "옵트인(Opt-in)"하도록 하십시오.현실적으로 새로운 사용자들은 위키백과 자체를 배울 뿐만 아니라 베타 소프트웨어에서 버그를 찾기를 기대해서는 안 된다. 코시볼론 우리모두 코쉬 ... 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC) 11시 12분 입니다 [응답]
  82. 옵트인 나는 그 아이디어를 지지하지만, 우리는 편집자를 잃지 않도록 조금 더 잘 작동하도록 하자.특히 위키피디아와 베타 테스트에 완전히 익숙하지 않은 사람들.나는 새로운 편집자가 베타(Beta)에 있다는 것을 알지 못하는 동료들이 있어서, 그들은 2013년 7월 31일(UTC) 12:15, 12:15, 12:15 (UTC) 편집하는 것을 포기했다.
  83. 옵트인. VisualEditor는 아직 기본 편집자가 될 수 있는 상태가 아니다. --Zundark (토크) 12:23, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  84. 위의 코멘트에 따르면 VE는 아직 기본 편집자가 될 준비가 전혀 되어 있지 않다. 2Flows (대화) 12:35, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  85. 옵트인. VE는 벌레로 가득 차 있고 프라임 타임에 준비되지 않아 다른 사람들(즉, 청소를 해야 하는 사람들)에게 많은 문제를 일으킨다.VE IMHO가 새로운 편집자들이 아직 준비되지 않은 큰 수정과 큰 변경을 너무 쉽게 하기 때문에 (아마 정치적으로 옳지 않을 것이다) 선택하게 된 또 다른 이유는 VE IMHO가 그것을 너무 쉽게 하기 때문이다.토마스W 12:40, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  86. 옵트인 VE는 많은 문제를 가지고 있고 그것들을 고치는데 많은 시간이 필요하다.현재 인터페이스는 조금 지루할 수도 있지만 VE보다 훨씬 낫다.♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♛13Email:34, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  87. 옵트인 - 난 계속 할 거야.덧붙이자면 최근 나는 내 감시목록에서 많은 것을 알아차린 것 같았기 때문에 반달리즘을 되돌리기 위해 STiki를 사용하기 시작했다는 것이다.많은 수의 반달족이 VE를 사용하고 있는 것으로 나는 알고 있다.대신 VV라고 불러야 할 것 같은데...비주얼 반달라이저.Jusdafax 13:49, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  88. 솔직히 말해서, 애초에 굴리기엔 너무 덜렁거려 아인탄 14:17, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
    안녕 윤탄.VisualEditor에 대한 너의 고민을 이해하려고 노력하는 중이야.당신이 알거나 모를 수 있는 것처럼 VisualEditor(VE)로 만든 각 편집에는 태그가 붙는다.편집 내용을 검색한 결과 현재 VisualEditor 편집이 0개 있는 것으로 보인다.특히 VisualEditor와 함께 있으면 어떤 점이 마음에 드는지 자세히 설명해 주시겠습니까?당신이 가지고 있는 모든 통찰력은 VisualEditor의 향후 발전에 가치가 있을 것이다. :-) --MZMcBride (토크) 08:51, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
    나는 VE를 IP로 사용하고, 경험하고, 수많은 버그 리포트를 읽었다.편집 카운트를 확인하지 않고 간단히 내 의견을 받아줄 수 있니?고마워요. 2013년 8월 1일 09:22 (UTC)[응답]
    안녕 윤탄.사람들이 VisualEditor를 싫어하는 이유를 이해하는 것은 이와 같은 토론에서 중요하다.실행 가능한 피드백은 소프트웨어 개선에 도움이 된다.단순히 소프트웨어가 "버기"라고 말하는 것만으로는 개발자나 다른 사람들이 무엇을 작업하거나 고칠지 알 수 없다.VisualEditor(IP 또는 다른 방법으로)로 인해 손상된 편집 내용을 제공할 수 있다면 매우 좋을 것이다.이렇게 빨리 답장을 보내줘서 고마워. --MZMcBride (대화) 09:35, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
    만약 당신이 "무엇을 작업하거나 고칠 것인가에 대한 아이디어"가 필요하다면, 나는 당신이 Bugzilla를 체크하는 것을 제안한다.하지만 나는 네가 이미 그곳의 단골이라 생각하는데, 그래서 나는 너의 질문의 요점을 모르겠다.예를 들어 여기 테이블과 관련된 VE의 모든 문제를 나열해 달라고?<노와키> 문제에 대해 자세히 설명하시겠습니까?아니면 어떻게 자르고 붙이는 것이 제대로 되지 않는가?아니면 언급이 어떻게 사라질 수 있을까?간단히 말해, 이미 알고 있는 모든 것을 말해주라고?사양하겠습니다 2013년 8월 1일(UTC) 10:00[응답]
    그런데, 나는 이 RFC가 "특별히 건설적인 것 같지 않다"[4].여기 피드백이 많으시죠?디테일도. 2013년 8월 1일 오전 10시 46분 (UTC)[응답하라]
    안녕 윤탄.나는 위키미디아의 Bugzilla 설치에서 가장 활동적인 사용자 중 한 명이다.나는 지금 몇 달째 VisualEditor의 개발을 적극적으로 따랐고 내가 개인적으로 친 버그 수가 많고 다른 사용자들이 친 버그(산, 정말)가 훨씬 많다는 것을 확실히 알고 있다.단기적으로나 장기적으로는 VisualEditor를 좀 더 견딜 수 있게 만들어 그 발전이 공동체 반란 없이 계속될 수 있도록 하는 방법을 강구하고 있다.(이 문제로 프로젝트를 추진하자는 진지한 제안이 있어 위키미디아를 엄청나게 해칠같다.)

    나는 VisualEditor가 미래라고 믿지만 진공상태에서는 그럴 수 없다.귀하 또는 다른 사용자가 VisualEditor를 사용하지 않기로 결정한 이유를 알고 있거나 VisualEditor를 더 잘 만들거나 숨기기 쉽게 만드는 방법(예: 훨씬 두드러진 켜기/끄기 스위치)을 찾는 데 매우 중요하다.

    여기서 내가 발견한 코멘트 중 일부는 실제로 도움이 되지 않는다는 것을 발견했다. 왜냐하면 소음의 바다를 통해 신호를 찾으려고 노력하는 VisualEditor 개발자들의 활발한 그룹이 있고 이 논의의 일부는 그것을 정말 어렵게 만든다."VisualEditor를 시도했을 때, 이런 식으로 편집이 깨졌다"와 같은 실행 가능한 항목은 단순히 "버기가 있으니 끄거나 다시 끼워 넣자"고 말하는 것보다 객관적으로 더 유용하다.우리 모두는 그것이 버거울 뿐 아니라 때로는 매우 좌절스럽다는 것을 알고 있지만, 개발자들이 특히 어떤 문제가 가장 빈번하게 부딪히고 있는지를 살펴봄으로써, 그것을 어떻게 더 잘 만들 것인가를 알아낼 수 있어야만 개선될 수 있다.시간을 내어 의견을 확장해 주셔서 감사드린다.그들은 내가 지금 여기서 보고 있는 근본적인 좌절감에 약간의 명확성을 더했고, 그것에 대해 감사하다. --MZMcBride (대화) 14:27, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

    열심히 일하는 VE 개발자들이 많다는 것에 의심의 여지가 없고 여기에 있는 코멘트들 중 일부는 실망스럽다고 확신하지만 기본적으로 많은 사람들이 "이미 엄청난 양의 할 일 목록을 가지고 있으니, 그것을 디폴트로 만들기 전에 먼저 고쳐라"고 말하는 것 같다.공정하고 매우 합리적인 지적이야, IMHO. VE는 아직 그 일에 맞지 않는 도구야.내 RC 순찰을 보니 고치는 것만큼 부서진 것 같아VE를 전담 사용자와 베타 테스터로 한정하는 것은 나에게 완벽한 말이 되지만, 완성되지 않은 제품을 위키 커뮤니티 전체에 출시하는 것은 그렇지 않다.2013년 8월 1일(UTC) 8월 1일, 아인탄 14시 47분 안녕하십니까[응답]
    편집 카운트 발언을 본 것은 이번이 두 번째다.글쎄, 내 편집 카운트는 제로일 가능성이 높지만 그렇다고 해서 내가 포기하기 전에 멍청한 것으로 편집하려고 몇 시간을 허비하지 않았다는 뜻은 아니야.VE 편집은 저장하지 않았지만 결과가 어떻게 나올지 모르기 때문이다.--Robert EA Harvey (토크) 05:57, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  89. Primetime(YET)을 위한 준비가 되지 않았기 때문에 선택.경험이 풍부한 편집자(적어도 나 자신)는 느릿느릿한 WYSIWYG 도구를 사용하는 것보다 단순히 소스를 편집하는 것을 매우 선호한다.케이시펜크 (대화) 15:02, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  90. 선택하라. 나는 이 지역사회가 아직 준비되지 않은 프라임타임 인터페이스를 가지고 있었던 경험을 감안할 때, 이런 질문을 받고 있다는 것에 완전히 놀랐다.나는 본계정과 새 계정으로 여러 번 VE를 시도해 보았지만, 그 어느 방법도 가치가 없었다. 사실, 나는 그것을 편집하면서 어떤 가치도 실제로 절약할 수 있었는지 확신할 수 없다. 그리고 만약 내가 상대적으로 경험이 많고 의욕이 있다면, 경험과 동기부여가 덜 된 새로운 편집자가 왜 굳이 시도하려고 하겠는가?건배, 린제이Hello 15:13, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  91. Opt-in - 그것은 베타 제품으로, 아직 일반 출시에는 적합하지 않다.베타 테스트를 돕고 싶지만 알 수 없는 편집자 Cabe6403 15:58, 2013년 7월 31일(UTC)[응답하라]
    안녕 케이브6403.현재 약 7500개의 편집이 있는 것 같은데, 그 중 0개(또는 없음)는 VisualEditor 편집기 편집기 입니다.Wikitext(또는 소스) 편집기를 계속 사용할 수 있고 지금까지 VisualEditor 사용을 모두 성공적으로 피했는데 VisualEditor가 어떤 사람에게 강요되고 있다고 느끼는 이유에 대해 자세히 설명해 주시겠습니까? --MZMcBrid (talk) 08:53, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  92. 옵트인. 베타에 문제가 너무 많아.--Bb23 (대화) 16:04, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
    안녕 Bb23.VisualEditor에 대한 너의 고민을 이해하려고 노력하는 중이야.당신이 알거나 모를 수 있는 것처럼 VisualEditor(VE)로 만든 각 편집에는 태그가 붙는다.편집 내용을 검색한 결과 현재 VisualEditor 편집이 0개 있는 것으로 보인다.당신의 우려, 특히 "베타에 너무 많은 문제가 있다"는 말의 의미를 자세히 설명해 주시겠습니까? --MZMcBride (대화) 09:24, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답하라]
  93. 옵트인. 내가 자원봉사를 하면서 소프트웨어 베타테스트를 할지 백과사전을 편집하는 데 시간을 쓸지에 대한 결정이 있다.내가 자원 봉사자니까 내가 그 결정을 내려야 해.초기 롤백의 "옵션 아웃" 모델은 건방졌다. 왜냐하면 그것은 WMF가 나의 자원 봉사 시간이 어떻게 쓰일지를 관리하려고 노력한 사례였기 때문이다.앞으로 좀 더 존중받으면 좋겠어.—S MarshallT/C 16:53, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
    안녕 S 마샬.현재 18,700개 이상의 편집본을 보유하고 있는 것으로 보이며, 그 중 0개(또는 없음)는 VisualEditor 편집기입니다.Wikitext(또는 소스) 편집기를 계속 사용할 수 있고 지금까지 VisualEditor(대화) 09:06, 2013년 8월 1일(UTC) 회신에서 VisualEditor(비주얼에디터)의 사용을 성공적으로 피했는데 VisualEditor 베타 테이터가 되어야 하는지에 대해 어떤 사람이 있는지 자세히 설명해 주시겠습니까?[응답].
    음, Mz, 난 시각적 편집기가 활성화될 거라는 알림을 어떻게든 놓친 사람들 중 한 명이야. 그래서 처음 켜졌을 때 나한테는 완전히 충격으로 다가왔지.비주얼 에디터의 타겟 인구 통계학자가 아니라 리눅스 사용자야.그러므로 나는 아무리 작은 개인 허가와 비밀번호를 요구해도 컴퓨터 관련 모든 변화에 익숙해져 있는 거대한 턱수염을 가진 속도감 있는 통제광이고, 나는 문자 단자에 분명히 편안하다...어쨌든, 내가 로그인했을 때 그들이 상황을 바꾸고 인터페이스 속도를 줄였을 때, 나는 편집을 시도하지 않았다.나는 즉시 그것을 끄는 방법을 알아내는 데 집중했다.이 시점에서 아무도 차단 가이드를 제작하지 않았고, 차단 가이드가 얼마나 두드러져야 하는지에 대한 논의가 있었기 때문에 이것은 쉽지 않았다.

    요컨대 내가 비주얼에디터 사용을 피한 이유는 피하려고 노력과 연구를 했기 때문이다.내가 말해도 상관없어, 내 등을 뒤로 젖히고 협동조합을 꺼리게 만들었어.—S Marshall T/C 10:48, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

    안녕 S 마샬.너의 의견을 확대해줘서 정말 고마워.VisualEditor 팀이 VisualEditor를 완전히 비활성화하는 사용자 기본 설정을 삭제한 것은 실수였다는 데 전적으로 동의하며, 그것이 복원되어 매우 기쁘다.비록 오늘날에도 그것은 임시 사용자 선호도로 표시되고 있지만, 이것은 정말 유감스러운 일이다.VisualEditor 팀의 이 실수가 치명적인 실수가 되지 않기를 바라지만, 당신과 많은 사람들이 표현하는 좌절감은 물론 나를 걱정하게 만든다.나는 특정 사용자들이 항상 wikitext/source 편집(솔직히 그들 중 내가 있을 것 같다)을 사용하기를 원할 것이라는 것을 알고 있다.VisualEditor를 완전히 비활성화하는 이 사용자 선호도가 협상 불가능한 것이라는 것을 명확하고 강력하게 입증할 수 있는 방법을 찾는 것은 VisualEditor 팀과 여기에서 활동하는 편집자 간의 신뢰를 구축하는 데 큰 도움이 될 것이라고 생각한다. --MZMcBrid (대화) 14:32, 2013년 8월 1일(UTC)[응답]
    치명적인 실수가 되도록 용납할 수 없을 것 같다.나는 우리가 위키 소프트웨어를 사용하기 쉽게 만들거나 편집자 수가 감소하는 결과를 직시해야 한다고 생각한다.시각적 편집자는, 고정되어 있을 때, 분명히 나쁜 대안의 집합 중 최고다.제 요점은 기존 사용자를 더 이상 소외시키지 않고 존중하는 방식으로 도입해야 한다는 것, 다시 말해 편집자가 이 사용자를 위해 켜기 전에 각 사용자에게 물어볼 필요가 있다는 것이다.—S Marshall T/C 16:22, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  94. 베타 테스트가 아닌 편집을 원하는 경우.손에 여유가 있는 사람들은 참가할 수 있다.아가토클레아 (대화) 16:55, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  95. 옵트인. 나는 여기저기서 몇 개의 버그를 보았는데, 지금은 새로운 편집자를 위한 준비가 되어 있지 않다.프라바시.Akmemana 18:20, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  96. Opt-in. 좌절하기 전에 VE를 시험해보는 데 오랜 시간을 할애할 필요도 없었고, 내가 뭘 하고 있는지 좀 알 것 같아.반면 몇 년 전 WP에 처음 왔을 때는 위키 마크업의 기본을 배우는 것이 놀라울 정도로 쉽다고 생각했다.나는 VE가 프라임 타임에 거의 준비가 되지 않았다고 믿는 위 사람들의 의견에 동의한다. 그것은 베타라고 여겨져서는 안 된다.희망컨대, 이것을 시험하기 위해 시간을 희생할 만큼 많은 사람들이 있지만, 실제로 효과가 있기 전까지는 새로운 사용자나 평범한 일상 편집자들 모두 이 문제를 다루지 말아야 한다. -와인 가이~토크 18:59, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  97. 옵트인: VE의 사용자 경험은 일반 대중이 아닌 프로그래머를 위한 프로그래머들에 의해 고안된 것으로 보인다.한 페이지의 여러 곳을 클릭하면 신비한 음영 변화와 작은 조각이 나타나고, "변환"과 "변수"에 대해 혼돈하는 대화를 꺼낸다; 이것은 정말로 새로운 사용자의 첫 경험에 적합한 것인가?Wikitext는 비교적으로 분명한데, 그것은 결국 원래의 덕목이었다.(비정상적으로, 자크 라칸을 VisualEditor(비주얼에디터)에 넣어 보십시오. 그 남자의 작품보다 더 불명확한 작품이지요.)앨리디 (대화) 2013년 7월 31일 19시 20분 (UTC)[응답]
  98. YE 태평양의 허리케인
  99. 옵트인: 새로운 편집자들에게 불쾌하고 불쾌한 경험을 주지 마라.Reify-tech (대화) 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC) 19:49 [응답]
  100. 도 비주얼 편집기가 너무 느려서 쓸모가 없다고 생각해.Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:24, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  101. 베타 버전으로 명확하게 설명/표시된 VE에 대한 가시 포인터가 있는 선택 가능--Kmhkmh(토크) 20:26, 2013년 7월 31일(UTC)[응답]
  102. 옵트인--제즈벨의 포뇨bons mots 21:05, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  103. 반덴버그(John Vandenberg, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  104. 미국 남성 선택 (토크) 21:39, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  105. Opt-in 소프트웨어는 생산 준비가 되어 있지 않으며 조기 출시를 뒷받침하는 주장은 경험적 정밀 조사에도 부합하지 않는다.확장 자체가 실험적인 것으로 표시되고 "자신의 위험으로 이것을 사용하라, 그것은 일반적으로 실제 응용을 위한 준비가 되어 있지 않다"는 경고와 함께 생방송 환경에서 사용자에게 강요되는 이유는 이해할 수 없다. --RA (iii) 22:14, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답].
  106. 옵트인: 지금은 더 잘 작동하고 있을지 모르지만, 위키피디아에서 가장 보편적인 편집 옵션이 될지는 확신할 수 없다.결함이 발생하거나, 초기 기록을 액면가로 가져가면 신규 사용자들이 꺼질 수 있다. --ProtoDrake (대화) 22:24, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  107. 편집자에게 바보 같은 일을 강요하지 말고 애초에 그렇게 했어야 하는 선택.이 편집기에 대해 VE가 영구적으로 해제됨...윌리엄 22:31, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답하라]
  108. 옵트인: 나는 VisualEditor가 망친 선의 편집들을 수정하는 것에 질렸어.긴술로프트 (대화) 22:28, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  109. 분명히 조프롬란드브 (대화) 22:30, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답하라]
  110. 검증이 잘 안 된 버기 편집기를 출시하는 것은 좋지 않은 생각이었다.새로운 편집자에게 그것을 강요하는 것은 더 나쁜 일일 것이다.2013년 7월 31일 레이크 22:30 (UTC)[응답]
  111. 나는 그것을 제거하고 베타 테스트를 위해 다시 가져왔으면 좋겠어.그러나 그렇다. 그것은 느리고 덜렁거린다는 경고와 함께 선택될 필요가 있다.eereSpielCequers 22:32, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  112. 옵트인(Opt-in). 새로운 소프트웨어로 망치는 것이 아니라 기사 편집을 위해 신규 사용자가 가입한다.--브리아넌 맥햄라이드(토크) 22:32, 2013년 7월 31일(UTC)[응답]
  113. 아무도 이걸 좋아하지 않아?난 참을 수가 없어.그것에 대한 증오 외에는 아무것도 읽지 않았다.실수로 잘못된 편집 탭을 계속 누르고 종료하지 않도록 기본 설정으로 이동.첫 번째 단계는 실제로 그것을 원하는 사람이 있는지 찾아내는 것이어야 하고, 만약 그렇다면, 당신이 그것을 제대로 작동시킨 후에, 당신은 사람들이 그것을 시도하고 싶은지 아닌지 결정하게 할 수 있다.모든 사람에게 가장/모든 사람이 원하지 않는 것을 사용하도록 강요해서는 안 된다. 드림 포커스 22:36, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  114. 이건 얼음을 빨아먹는다.나는 그것을 완전히 없애고 싶지만, WMF 개발자들은 그것에 대해 징징거리거나 뒷문으로 몰래 가져가려고 할 것이다.적어도 우리가 할 수 있는 곳이라면 어디든 뒤에서 밀치는 데 집중할 수 있어.위키피디아는 내 브라우저에서 실행되지 않는 wacko javascript 편집기를 사용하기 때문에 나는 오랫동안 위키피디아에 기여하지 않았다.나는 거기서 최소한의 기여를 했기 때문에 큰 문제가 되지 않았지만, 제대로 된 위키피디아를 놓칠 수도 있고, 내가 없으면 할 수 있을지 모르겠다.Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:43, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  115. 옵트인. 끔찍해.그것은 너무 익숙하지 않고 완전히 혼란스럽다.그것으로는 거의 편집이 불가능하다.잘못하면 웹사이트 로딩이 느려진다. --Rushton2010 (토크) 22:44, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  116. 채택. 컨텐츠 기고자를 위한 데이터베이스에 접근할 수 없을 때 VE 구덩이에 얼마나 많은 돈이 쏟아졌는지 생각하면 소름이 끼친다.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:48, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  117. 선택. 내 눈에는 아직 끝나지 않은 것 같아. --마리안(talk) 22:50, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  118. 옵트인. 아직 완전히 구워지지 않은. -- Mufka 22(t)(c):53, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  119. 현재로서는 선택. --Stryn (대화) 22:56, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  120. 참조를 더 잘 처리할 수 있을 때까지 선택 Doc James(토크 · 기여 · 이메일) (내 페이지에 회신할 경우) 22:58, 2013년 7월 31일(UTC)[응답]
  121. 주요 버그들이 정리되고 우리는 안정된 상태에 있을 때까지 선택하라.트윙클 조차도 참가한다.비록 나는 이것이 모든 사람들을 위한 위키피디아의 구성요소라는 것을 알고 있지만, 그것을 원하지 않는다면 그것은 공개되어서는 안 된다.이제 안정적 수준에 도달하면 입장을 바꾸겠지만, 현재로서는 편집자 유임에 해가 될 것 같다. --잭슨 피블스 (토크) 22:59, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  122. 베타 버전일 때와 더 길어질 때 선택한다.QED237 (대화) 23:01, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  123. 이미 수십 번 언급된 명백한 이유로 선택한다.닌자로봇피리테 (대화) 23:03, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  124. 옵트인 비주얼 에디터는 답답하고 사용하기 어렵다.-윌리엄 S. 토성 (토크) 23:04, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  125. 옵트인 나는 다른 사람이 이런 말을 했다고 생각하지만, 나는 개인적으로 경험이 풍부한 편집자만이 베타 소프트웨어를 테스트해야 한다고 생각한다.ALH (대화) 23:04, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  126. 옵트인, 소프트웨어가 아직 베타 버전이기.베타 소프트웨어는 아직 안정적이지 않기 때문에 항상 선택에 의해 활성화되어야 하며 편집자의 기본값이 되어서는 안 된다.루기아2453 (대화) 23:06, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  127. 베타 버전에서 나올 때도 무기한 옵트인. --Zcbeaton (토크) 23:07, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  128. 제대로 계획되지 않고 제대로 구현되지 않는 선택.이것은 특히 교통량이 가장 많은 위키에서 먼저 철저히 시험해 보았어야 했다.엘로키드 23:08, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  129. 가 위키피디아와 오랫동안 함께해 왔고, 내가 처음 새로운 편집자를 사용했을 때, 나는 그것의 느린 속도에 매우 좌절했다.신규 사용자들은 편집이 경미할 가능성이 높으며, 일반 텍스트 편집기가 훨씬 빠르고 사용도 그만큼 간편하다. --Bowlhover (talk) 23:08, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  130. 는 원래 VE를 사용하고 싶지 않았다. 왜냐하면 나는 그것이 얼마나 느린지 들었었기 때문이다.만약 그들이 느린 시간에 괜찮다면, 그들은 옵트인을 할 수 있다.그렇지 않으면 아무것도 할 필요가 없어. 버퍼빌7701 23:09, 2013년 7월 31일(UTC)\[응답]
  131. 모든 소프트웨어는 옵트인(opt-in)되어야 한다. A a yy {\ 23:10, 2013년 7월 31일(UTC)[응답]
    응? 사람들이 스팸 블랙리스트에서 제외할 수 있어야 할까?계정 생성 스로틀에서?남용 필터의?내 말은...VE 비활성화를 지원하는 것도 한 가지지만, 너무 방대한 일반화를 만들고 있다. PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 00:25, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  132. 옵트인, 나는 KWW가 거의 대부분의 중요한 것을 말했을 것이라고 생각한다.그것이 네가 베타 테스트를 하는 방법이다.베타 테스트가 새로운 사용자는 말할 것도 없고 누구에게나 디폴트인 것은 매우 이례적이다.매드사이언티스트X11 (대화) 23:11, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  133. 아주 좋은 생각이 아주 나쁘게 다뤄진 것 같다.옵트인(Opt-in)은 편집에 자신이 없는 편집자가 망가지거나 골절된 프로그래밍 독토브 23:14, 2013년 7월 31일(UTC)[응답]로부터 저장되도록 보장한다.
  134. Opt-in 이 편집기는 사용자 하위 집합에 대한 옵션일 뿐이므로 설계상 모든 사용자에게 공통적인 시작점으로 디폴트하는 것이 좋다.미완성 (대화) 23:16, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  135. 위에 언급했듯이, VE는 매우 바쁘고 프라임 타임에 준비되지 않았다.새로운 편집자들은 VE를 탈퇴하는 방법을 모르기 때문에 좌절하고 편집을 중단할 것이다.SMP0328. (대화) 23:19, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  136. 옵트인(Opt-in). 이것이 어떻게 이루어졌어야 하는지(그것이 훨씬 더 잘 테스트되었고 제한이 적었더라도), 그리고 내가 인터페이스에 옵트아웃으로 남아 있도록 지원하는 방법: VE는 위키텍스트 편집 후 두 번째 옵션으로 만들어진다(항상 미래에 그것을 디폴트로 만드는 옵션으로 항상 만들어짐).; 정기적인 편집은 기만적인 것에 의해 완전히 소외되지 않는다."편집 소스"라고 라벨을 붙여서 VW가 "편집"에 불과하다고 생각하도록 일부 오래된 손 사용자들도 VE가 유일한 옵션이라고 생각하고 Wikitext 편집은 사라졌으며, 두 사람 위에 새로운 2옵션 편집 시스템에 대해 말하는 어떤 종류의 노트가 떠서 설명 페이지로 연결되는 링크를 제공한다.---Fuhgetabout (대화) 23:23, 2013년 7월 31일.(UTC)[응답하라]
  137. Opt-in 그것을 가져가서.그것이 고쳐지면, 누가 그것을 원하는지 물어봐라.비엘(토크) 23:21, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  138. 선택하지만 VE는 어떻게든 신규/익명 사용자에게 광고되어야 한다.블루리더블 (토크) 23:24, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  139. 디폴트(채무불이행)가 가능하다는 수많은 증언에 따라 득보다 실이 많다. --ThaddeusB (대화) 23:25, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답하라]
  140. Opt-in - VisualEditor는 시작하기에 끔찍하다.나는 새로운 회원들이 단순히 Wikicode를 배우는 것을 피하고 따라서 모든 포맷과 메커니즘이 어떻게 작동하는지 제대로 이해하지 못하는 것을 생각하면 소름이 끼친다.사람들이 미디어위키의 모든 특징에 대해 점차적으로 배우지 않는다면, 특히 템플릿 등에 관해서는 차선책적인 방법을 생각해 낼 수밖에 없다.--뉴비피디언 (헤일링 주파수) 23:24, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  141. 좋은 생각이야, 하지만 아직 준비가 안 됐어— 제임스 에스테베즈 (대화) 23:28, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  142. Opt-in. RFP가 아닌 코드는 기본적으로 켜져 있지 않아야 한다.xaosflux 23:38, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  143. 물론 옵트인.에브리킹 (대화) 23:42, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  144. 옵트인 나는 Visual Editor가 보이지 않도록 기본 설정을 변경하기 위해 IP 계정에서 등록된 계정으로 이동하기로 결정했다.나는 계속해서 '출처 편집' 대신 '편집'을 실수로(수백 번) 때렸다.만약 당신이 위키피디아에서 ANY 편집을 하고 마크업 언어를 사용했다면, Visual Editor는 혼란스럽다.난 아직 텍스트 편집 말고 뭘 할 수 있는지 모르겠어.나는 위키와 링크를 만드는 방법을 생각해 본 적이 없다.VE가 사용자 인터페이스가 안 좋아서인지, 아니면 어느 날 갑자기 나타났는데 커뮤니티가 선택을 못 해서 VE의 반발이 그렇게 심한지는 잘 모르겠다.뉴저세일리즈 (토크) 23:43, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  145. VE가 개선될 때까지 선택한다.불행하게도, 현재의 옵트 아웃 구조는 새로운 익명의 사용자들이 경험 많은 사용자들이 피해야 할 것을 근본적으로 베타 테스트하고 있다는 것을 의미한다.옵트 아웃이 최종 목표가 되어야 하지만 VisualEditor는 아직 없다.VE가 페이스북에서 코멘트를 하는 것만큼 빠르고 직관적이기 전까지는 디폴트가 되어서는 안 된다.앤드루327 23:45, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  146. 현재 형태의 Per Andrew는 Wikicode만큼 사용하기 어렵지만 다른 이유로 인해 사용된다.만약 VE가 개선되었다면, I!bottle I!blote, 그러나 위의 Andre에 따르면 VE가 확실히 개선될 때까지 Opting In이 최선의 해결책이다--Cailil 23:48, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  147. 옵트인. 꽤 잘 먹히긴 하지만, 내 생각에 벌레들은 여전히 해결되어야 한다.마이클 바레라 (토크) 23:48, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  148. 가 VisualEditor를 두 번이나 제대로 작동시킨 것 같아?pbp 23:49, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  149. 옵트인. Visual Editor의 명시적인 목적은 편집자의 유지를 장려하는 것이다.그러나 편집자들이 프로젝트를 그만두는 이유는 편집이 너무 어렵다고 생각하기 때문이 아니다.규모에 따라, 그 문제는 위키피디아의 사회적 측면과 관련이 있다.Visual Editor는 잘못된 문제에 대한 기술적인 해결책이다.나는 WMF의 목적과는 달리, 그것이 더 많은 품질의 편집자들이 이 프로젝트에 계속 참여하도록 부추기지 않을 것이라고 예측한다.대신에 그것은 순전히 부정적인 결과를 초래할 것이다: 프로젝트에 대한 기여 중 더 많은 부분이 가난하고, 일관성이 없거나, 완전히 공공 기물 파손일 것이다.스워보미르 비아위 (대화) 23:51, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답하라]
  150. 2013년 7월 31일(UTC) 23:53[응답]
  151. 강한 선택.두 번째로는 90번 앨리디, 133번 뉴비피디언, 83번 린제이H.꾸중을 듣다
    1. 안정적으로 일하는
    2. 사용하기 쉬운
    3. 명료한 문서로.
    4. 신참자가 구시대 사람만큼 많이 알고 있다고는 생각되지 않는다.
    그렇다면, 그리고 그 때에만, 우리는 옵트 아웃에 대해 이야기할 수 있다.그때까지, 「가장 좋다」(나의 #4 참조)는 무엇을 의미하며, 불안정이 보장될 수 있는가포함하여, 베타테스트에 있다는 명확한 경고가 있는 옵션으로 제공하라. --Thnidu (대화) 23:55, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  152. Opt-in VE는 아직 베타 모드에 있으며, 경험이 있는 사용자가 테스트할 필요가 있다. - Presidentman talk · 기여 (Talkback) 23:56, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  153. 옵트인(Opt-in), 사전동의.자그노르 (대화) 23:58, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답하라]
  154. 베타 소프트웨어는 항상 선택된다.개봉하든 안하든 상관없이.Jguy 00:01, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  155. 비록 이것이 앞으로 크게 나아가고 환영받을 일이지만, 그것의 베타는 여전히 (약) 베타 버전이다.편집에 많은 시간을 할애하는 사람으로서, 나는 그것이 어떻게 더 발전해 나갈지 알 수 있다.나는 개발자들이 너무 이른 출시로 인해 너무 낙담하지 않기를 바란다; VE의 시간이 다가오고 그 일은 높이 평가될 것이다.Cheil (talk) 00:06, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  156. 옵트인(Opt-in)은 편집이 쉬워지지 않는다.Pelmeen10 (대화) 00:10, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  157. Opt-in: Visual Editor는 멋진 아이디어로, 몇 년 더 일찍 시작했어야 했다.하지만 분명히 그렇지 않았다.이 소프트웨어는 현재 베타 릴리스에도 적합하지 않다. 이것은 여전히 알파 소프트웨어다.너무 느려서 고치고 싶은 집요한 욕구를 가진 경험 많은 사용자들도 그것을 기다리며 좌절할 정도라면, 그것이 목표로 하는 바로 그 집단, 즉 새로운 편집자들이 떼지어 꺼지는 것이 아닌가 하는 추론인 것 같다.이글마법사 (토크) 00:14, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  158. Thnidu에 따라 최소한 완전히 개발될 때까지 선택. --ELEKHT 00:17, 2013년 8월 1일(UTC)[응답]
  159. 베타 프로그램은 절대 디폴트가 되어서는 안 된다. --Holdek (talk) 00:19, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  160. 옵트인 나는 지난 몇 주 동안 위키피디아와 내 개인 위키에 있는 시각적 편집기를 적극적으로 사용해 왔으며, 약속을 보여주고 가끔 유용하게 쓰이지만, 현재 그것은 경험이 없는 편집자들이 사용할 수 없을 정도로 무미건조하다.내가 직면한 주요 문제들로는 편집 모드에서 복잡한 기사를 제대로 렌더링하지 못하는 것, 중간 규모 편집 세션 후 편집 내용을 저장하도록 하는 반침묵적인 거부, 저장 시 위키텍스트의 다양한 부패(화장품 문제뿐만 아니라 기사에도 영향을 미치는 실제적 부패), 크고 복잡한 기사 편집 시 부진 등이 있다.매우 고급 하드웨어).나는 소프트웨어가 충분히 안정되면 이것을 옵트 아웃 기능으로 바꾸는 것에 반대하지 않는다.루드 00:23, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
    실제로 여러 사람이 더 큰 VE 편집을 시도했는데, 저장하지 못하고, 모든 키 스트로크를 잃고, 시간을 낭비했다. -Wikid77 16:14, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  161. 현재 소프트웨어는 충분히 발전되지 않았다.이것은 참조 템플릿을 사용하는 것을 어렵게 만드는 템플릿과는 잘 작동하지 않는다.또한 익숙해지려면 시간이 조금 걸리는 반면, 지난 12년 반 동안 위키피디아를 편집한 사람(많은 사람)이라면 누구나 출처 편집에 익숙할 것이다.-teb00007 00:25, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  162. 소형 모니터로는 작동이 안 되기 때문에 선택.그리고 나에게 해상도 변경에 대해 말하지 마.괴짜가 아닌 사람(또는 적어도 파워 유저)은 그렇게 하지 않을 것이고, 괴짜든 아니든, 위키피디아를 편집하기 위해서 그렇게 하지 않아도 된다.아이스독 (토크) 00:26, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  163. 베타 버전이 떨어질 때까지 선택한다.옥수수 치즈 (토크) 00:28, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
    베타 소프트웨어는 항상 선택되어야 한다.모든 편집자가 새로운 코드를 테스트하기를 원하는 것은 아니다.저처럼 117,000개의 편집본을 가진 매우 경험 많은 편집자들조차 베타 소프트웨어가 까다롭다고 생각할 수 있으며, 종종 현재의 소프트웨어 편집에 대부분 머무른다.서명되지 않은 중복된 투표 제출 커맨드 컨커 전문가! 2013년 8월 1일(UTC) 01:07 [응답]
  164. 베타 소프트웨어는 항상 선택되어야 한다.모든 편집자가 새로운 코드를 테스트하기를 원하는 것은 아니다.나처럼 11만7천 개의 편집본을 가진 매우 경험 많은 편집자들조차 베타 소프트웨어가 까다롭다고 생각할 수 있고, 현재의 소프트웨어 편집에 대부분 머물러 있는 경우가 많다. --DThomsen8 (토크) 00:31, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  165. 옵트인. 우리는 새로운 편집자들이 안정적인 플랫폼을 발밑에 두고 위키피디아를 편집하는 방법을 배우기를 원하며, 학습 정책과 공동체 규범 위에 인터페이스 비리를 다룰 필요가 없다.Visual Editor는 아직 프라임 타임에 대한 준비가 되지 않았으며, 기본적으로 VE와 함께 새로운 계정을 제시하는 것은 그들에게 나쁜 첫 인상을 준다.Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONL] 00:33, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  166. Opt-in --AmaryllisGardener (대화) 00:38, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  167. 완전히 서버측으로 다시 작성하지 않는 경우 선택.기존 버그를 고쳐서 VE를 충분히 빨리 만들 수 없다.Javascript의 거대한 괴물은 본질적으로 느리다.코너 베한 (대화) 00:45, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  168. 옵트인 부탁이야.사용자가 선택하도록 하십시오.Cwobel (대화) 00:46, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  169. 선택 틴틴
  170. Opt InElectroPro (talk) 00:53, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  171. 선택, VE를 시도했을 때 속도가 느리고 혼란스러웠으며 최신 운영 체제에서 실행 중인 최신 버전 브라우저가 손상됨.고맙지만, 나는 위키피디아를 편집할 수 있고 싶어. 편집이 불가능할 정도로 형편없는 베타 소프트웨어를 테스트하는 게 아니라.나는 얼마나 많은 새로운 사용자들이 이것을 사용하도록 강요함으로써 겁을 먹을지 상상할 수 없다.나는 몇 년 동안 표준 위키백과 편집 인터페이스를 사용해 왔고 그것이 내가 익숙한 것이다.커맨드 컨커 전문가! 2013년 8월 1일(UTC) 00:58[응답]
  172. Opt-in, 모든 사람에게 버기베타를 강요할 이유는 없다.다그코 (대화) 2013년 8월 1일 01:00 (UTC)[응답]
  173. 선택 - 너무 뻔하지 않은가?ViswaPrabhaവശശ്് 01 01 01talk 01 01:13, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  174. 이 시점에서 디폴트로 사용하기에는 너무 문제가 있다.라디오프샬롯 01:20, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  175. 옵트인 학습 곡선이 좋다.δεες (대화) 01:27, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  176. Opt-in – 아직 서두르지 말자 – 모든 딸꾹질이 다 풀릴 때까지 기다리자.멜본스타talk 01:35, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  177. Opt-in, 아무리 말해도 엉망진창이다. --Geniac (대화) 01:37, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  178. 의 모든 항목 선택.DecafGrub47393 (대화) 01:38, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  179. Opt-in - 베타야, 짜증나.또한 위의 모든 것에 따라.Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:40, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답하라]
  180. 압데바 (대화) 01:44, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  181. Opt-in 처음부터 버기 베타 소프트웨어로 이 일을 하지 않았다는 것은 우스꽝스러운 일이었지만, 현재처럼 그것을 고칠 시간이 없었다., (a) 사용자 선호도에서 "Gadgets"(구글에서 복사한 것으로 보이는 매우 사용자 친화적인 용어)가 아니라 "편집"(그리고 메인 페이지) 아래에 배치되어서는 안 되며, (b) 등록 중에 이 용어가 눈에 띄게 설명 및 제공되어야 한다."VE" 탭("편집" 탭을 대체하지 않음)까지 사용할 수 있지만, 코드가 덜 복잡하고 덜 복잡하고 덜 복잡한 에만 그렇게 하는 것이 좋다.

    내가 다른 곳에서 언급했듯이, 이 전체 프로젝트는 잘못된 것이었다: 당신은 새로운 편집자들을 격려하기 위해 이것을 추가했다. 그러나 문제는 위키코드에 대한 어려움이나 무관심이 아니라 공격적인 페이지 소유주, noooB-biters, 그리고 모호하지 않은 템플릿이다.VE는 그 어떤 것과도 무관하며 새로운 사용자들에게 다른 모든 것 위에 버그를 경험하게 하는 것은 당신의 주장에 도움이 되지 않을 것이다.LlywelinII 01:49, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답하라]
  182. 내가 2006년에 WP에 입사했을 때 VE가 사용되었더라면 나는 편집자가 될 수 없었을 것이다.나는 컴퓨터 경험이 거의 없는 노인이고 다른 사람들이 어떻게 그것을 할 수 있었는지 보면서 편집하는 법을 배웠다.사실 지금도 그렇게 하고 있다.간디댄서 (대화) 01:51, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  183. 안정적이고 빠른 소프트웨어를 교체하는 것을 목표로 하는 다른 버그처럼 느리고 느린 테스트 버전.그래도 좋은 생각이야.힐버트(토크) 01:56, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  184. betas Nickholbrook (talk) 01:52, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[reply]에 항상 선택한다.
  185. Opt-in은 베타 버전의 논리적 설정이다.--Mariordo(토크)
  186. 옵트인. 확실히 지로나7 (토크) 02:06, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  187. Opt-in - 나는 조금 혼란스럽다...만약 나를 위해 자동 실행이 되지 않았다면 나는 VE를 한동안 발견하지 못했을 것이다.대단하긴 한데, 기물 파손이나 우발적인 편집의 가능성이 높아져서 걱정이야.만약 그것이 옵트인이라면, 하지만 사용자가 페이지를 편집하려고 할 때, 베타 버전 안에 있는 멋진 새로운 VE에 대해 알려주는 큰 정보 상자가 있다.나한테는 괜찮은 타협인 것 같은데...자아던 (대화) 02:10, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  188. 아직 대중을 위한 준비가 되지 않았다. -- 번호매니아 c 02:15, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  189. 항상 새로운 코드를 선택한다.맬크 2010 (대화) 02:18, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  190. 베타 버전이 떨어질 때까지 선택한다.◆사우라브 P. ▷인터뷰토크 02:23, 2013년 8월 1일(UTC)
  191. 선택! 새로운 사용자가 학습할 때까지 학습하고 적응하도록 하십시오.라파엘PPascual (대화) 02:27, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답하라]
  192. 옵트인 나는 그것을 처음 보았을 때 그것이 무엇인지 궁금했고, 그것을 알아낼 수 없었다.난 그냥 소스 편집하러 가서 계속 일해.새로운 편집자는 먼저 어떤 튜토리얼이 없으면 그것을 이해하지 못할 것 같은데, 그것은 어떤 종류의 것이 목적을 망치는 것이다.오크트리 b (토크) 02:31, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  193. 옵트인. 옵트아웃 유권자가 비주얼 에디터만을 이용해 생활자의 단일 정책 준수 전기를 만든다면 처음으로 투표권을 전환한다. --j⚛ 데커talk 02:33, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
    재밌는 도전 냄새가 나는데...레고크tm (대화)20:21, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
    즐겨라! 피드백 페이지의 아카이브 어딘가에 단일 참조를 추가하는 78단계 프로세스가 포함되어 있다. --j⚛e 데커talk 15:43, 2013년 8월 2일(UTC) (추가:위키백과:VisualEditor/Feedback/Archive_2013_07#Reference_Issues:_옴니버스_에디션 여기 있어. --jjjetalk 데커 15:46, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답하라]
  194. 베타 코드를 항상 선택한다.새 편집자는 프라임 타임에 사용할 준비가 되어 있지 않다.시그널라이징 (토크) 02:42, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  195. Opt-in 이것은 널리 출시할 준비가 되지 않았다.나는 정기적으로 새로운 위키피디아 사람들을 훈련시키고 비주얼 편집기의 특징은 새로운 사용자가 사용하기에는 본능적이지 않다.사용하기 어려운 것 외에도, 비주얼 편집기는 느리게 실행되며 내가 기대했던 기준 기능이 없다.베타 버전으로 나온 것이 후회되고 왜 이런 일이 일어났는지 의문이다.나 또한 내가 경험 많은 편집자로 사용하는 것이 편하지 않다고 생각한다. 블루래스베리 (토크) 02:46, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  196. 베타 중에 선택.나는 블루라스베리가 위에서 말한 것에 동의한다.신경쇠약 (대화) 02:55, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  197. 선택하라. 베타 이후에도 누구도 이런 것을 꺼려서는 안 된다.개인적으로, 내가 본 바로는, VE는 엄청난 시간 낭비라고 생각한다.진짜로, 내 기부금이 이렇게 되는 거야?-콜로넬헨리 (토크) 02:57, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
    비주얼뿐만 아니라 'InstantEditor'도 '[xx]'를 입력해 화면에 'xx'를 바로 보길 원했지만, 그 단순성이 이해되지 않아 개발자들에게 '잘못된' 입력(오류! 오류!)으로 거부당했다는 의견이 많았던 것 같다.-위키드77 16:14, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  198. 완전히 개발될 때까지 선택하라.AutomaticStrikeout ?03:01, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  199. Opt-in - 베타 소프트웨어가 기본이 되어서는 안 된다.Rock4arolla (talk) 03:23, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  200. 옵트인(Opt-in). 신입 사원의 편집이 용이해지길 바라지만, IP 반달들은 여전히 소스를 수동으로 편집해야 하는 상황에 처하게 하여 용기를 잃어야 한다.롱바이트1 (대화) 03:26, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
    반달리즘(Bandalism)은 이전에는 위키텍스트 편집-버퍼의 첫 번째 텍스트로 상단 단락에 초점을 맞췄지만, 이제는 전체 페이지 레이아웃을 "개선"하는 것처럼 어디서나 이미지를 클릭-이동할 수 있게 되었다. -Wikid77 16:14, 2013년 8월 2일(UTC)[응답]
  201. Opt-in - 베타 소프트웨어가 기본이 되어서는 안 된다.Rock4arolla (talk) 03:27, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  202. 옵트인--마이클 매그스 (대화) 03:30, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  203. Opt-in – Visual Editor는 일부 브라우저에서만 작동하며, 심지어 이전 버전도 거의 지원되지 않는다.그것은 단지 그것이 작동하기를 기대하는 나이든 브로우들을 가진 사람들에게 불공평하다!게다가 비주얼 에디터의 핵심은 기술에 대한 지식이 거의 없는 사람들을 끌어들이는 것이다.그리고 아직도 윈도우 4를 사용하고 있는 이 작은 노인은 우리가 여전히 그 사이트에 끌어들여야 할 대상 인구 통계에 있지만, 그는 그것이 로드되지도 않을 때 좌절할 것이다.내 제안은 신규/확인되지 않은 사용자의 편집 상자 바로 위에 텍스트 상자를 추가하여 직접 관련 기본 설정 섹션을 가리켜 보지만 여전히 실험적이라는 것을 알리는 것이다('베타'라는 단어로 위협하지 않도록 하는 것이 중요하다).그 상자는 그들이 자동 확증될 때까지 나타날 것이고, 그때쯤이면 그들은 스스로 그것을 찾을 수 있을 것이다.고마워, 닉1372 (대화) 03:57, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  204. 사용자당 선택:아즈윌리.크리스 트라우트맨 (토크) 04:02, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  205. 나는 Kww의 말에 동의한다: 베타 소프트웨어항상 선택되어야 한다.가명 렉스 (대화) 05:01, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  206. Jclemens (대화) 05:59, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  207. Opt-in 사소한 오자와 같은 것을 수정하는 데 유용하지만, 원점에서부터, 표와 참고문헌 등으로 기사를 만드는 데 사용하기 어렵다.압울리치 (토크) 06:42, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  208. Opt-in 베타 소프트웨어는 항상 Opt-in이어야 한다.Leujon 07:07, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)+[응답]
  209. 옵트인이 시도했고, 비활성화했어.벌레가 없더라도 나는 그것이 공공 기물 파손자들과 부주의한 편집자들을 격려할 것이라고 생각한다.Dave.Dunford (대화) 09:50, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
    실제로 VE는 해킹 편집에 사용되었고, 또 다른 위험은 새로운 편집자들이 어떻게 기사가 특수 스타일을 따르는지 보지 못하는 템플릿 구조를 숨기거나 내부 경고 "<!--이 날짜를 변경하지 마십시오; 대화 페이지--> 참조"를 숨기는 것이다.내가 WP 페이지를 처음 편집했을 때, 나는 수천 페이지가 wp를 따라온다는 것을 깨닫기 전까지 그것들을 내 스타일에 맞게 다시 쓰고 싶었다.MOS 스타일.VE는 새로운 편집자들의 만연한 재작성을 장려하고 경고 없이 단지 문제를 일으키지만 우리는 그 엄청난 문제를 간과하지 않았다.VE 대신 스마트 텍스트 편집기, 비주얼 편집기가 아닌 wp:토킹 텍스트 편집기가 필요하다. -Wikid77 11:37, 8월 1일, 16:33, 2013년 8월 2일(UTC)[응답]
  210. 베타 소프트웨어이며 편집 내용을 왜곡할 수 있다는 크고 빨간 경고와 함께 선택. --cyclopiaspeak! 10:27, 2013년 8월 1일(UTC)[응답]
  211. 최소한 베타 기간 동안만이라도 옵트인.엑시리얼 (Contact me,Contribs) 11:47, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  212. 페이잔 13:57, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  213. 어쨌든 지금은 선택해라.벌레가 너무 많아, 평범하고 단순해.뮤지크애니멀 14:49, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  214. Opt-in Redalert2fan (토크) 14:51, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  215. 완전히 비활성화되고 소규모 사이트에서 테스트되지 않은 경우 옵트인.그것은 제대로 작동하지 않는다.맥테나이파우 (대화) 14:51, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  216. 선택. 이 소프트웨어를 기본적으로 활성화할 수 있는 방법은 없다.리차드 BB 14:55, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  217. 베타 버전이 나올 때까지 "Opt-in" -- Safety Cap (토크) 14:57, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  218. 영원히 옵트인.시각적 편집기는 기본 보기에 적합하지 않은 수많은 내재적 결함을 가지고 있다; 그것은 페이지의 기본 구조와 주석 모두를 숨긴다.더 작은 "쉬운" 편집을 다룰 때는 일반 텍스트 편집보다 이점이 없으며, 복잡한 포맷이 도입되자마자 시각 편집기는 절망적으로 복잡해진다. 버튼과 옵션은 코드보다 더 직관적이지 않다.또한 출처를 보면 어떤 일이 어떻게 이루어졌는지를 쉽게 알 수 없기 때문에 새로운 사용자가 어떤 일이 어떻게 이루어졌는지 훨씬 더 어렵게 된다(즉, 다른 곳에서 어떻게 이루어졌는지 보면 어떤 것을 생산하기 위해 어떤 버튼을 눌러야 하는지 알 수 없다!).시각 편집기를 통해 위키백과를 편집하는 방법을 배우는 사용자들은 궁극적으로 편집자 보유를 감소시킬 수 있는 장기적인 좌절감을 위해 자신을 설정하고 있기 때문에 절대 시각 편집자를 디폴트로 만들지 않는 것이 중요하다. --조금 (토크) 15:04, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  219. 베타 버전이 나올 때까지 선택한다.그리고 그것은 훨씬 더 사용할 수 있을 때까지 베타에 머물러야 한다.낸시 15:06, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답하라]
  220. 선택-이유: 베타 버전, 느림, 테이블 편집 어려움.
  221. 옵트인. --Jasca Ducato (대화) 15:08, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  222. 옵트인 비주얼 에디터는 공공 기물 파손을 너무 쉽게 만든다.나혼트 (대화) 15:10, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  223. Opt-in -beta 버전, 너무 느림, 테이블 R!j!n (대화) 15:17, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  224. Opt-in - 안정적 버전이 존재하는 경우 베타 버전을 사용하는 것을 기본 설정해서는 안 된다. Davidprior c/ 15:18, 2013년 8월 1일(UTC)[응답]
  225. 선택-그것은 여전히 꽤 "wunky"이다; 그것은 어떻게 사용하는지 모르는 사람들에게는 비참하게 끝날 수 있다.아마도 나중에 길을 따라 갈 것이다. 하지만 지금은 확실히 아니다.확증되는 것은 어렵지 않다.UncappingCone64 (대화) 15:27, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  226. 소프트웨어가 개발 중에 훨씬 안정적이고 사용할 수 있을 때까지 선택.엘케브보 (대화) 15:25, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  227. 소프트웨어가 개발 중에 훨씬 안정적이고 사용할 수 있을 때까지 선택.Jytdog (대화) 15:45, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  228. 고의적이거나 의도하지 않은 공공 기물 파손을 피하기 위해 선택한다.하지만, 특히 문법상의 오류와 같은 작은 편집에 사용하는 것은 매우 즐겁다.--Rochellimit (토크) 15:46, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  229. Opt-in - 현재 충분히 안정적이지 않음 --TheMostAmazingTechnik (토크) 16:17, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  230. 분명히 옵트인.사용자 세라핌블레이드, Manxruler, LlywelinII와 다른 많은 사람들은 그것을 매우 잘 말했다.블루엘프 (토크) 2013년 8월 1일 16시 20분 (UTC)[응답]
  231. 살비오 16:31, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  232. 옵트인, 일이 더 필요해.Locke Cole • t • c 16:37, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  233. 옵트인 위키피디아는 근본적으로 텍스트 문화다.그것이 콜라보 모델을 가능하게 하는 것이다.새로운 사용자들의 흥미를 끄는 것은 마크업 구문이라고 생각하지 않는다.나는 그것이 익숙하지 않은 상징들의 우박 속에서 방향성을 잃었다고 생각한다.시각적 편집자가 제공하는 것은 더 나은 방향이다.당신은 사진과 휴식 시간을 볼 수 있다.네가 어디 있는지 알잖아좋았어. 그렇게 해냈으니 기본 구문에서 직접 편집하는 게 가장 좋지만, 억지로 문제를 낼 필요는 없어.나는 이클립스에서 마이린의 작업 필터 방향으로 더 갔을 것이다.사용자는 시각적 편집기를 사용하여 편집하고자 하는 범위를 선택한 다음 원하지 않는 범위를 희미한 문자로 표시한 기본 텍스트 표현으로 전환하고 실수로 수정하지 않을 수 있다.나는 일반적으로 파생문화에 대한 디폴트 인에 반대한다.(분산/상쇄/충돌 해결이 동일하게 가시화될 때까지 파생적 해결이 중단되지 않을 것이다.)이를 위한 또 다른 방법은 수정과 편집이라는 두 가지 버튼이 있을 것이다.수정은 기본적으로 시각적 편집자에게 갈 수 있으며, 작은 변경에 대해 스스로 추천할 수 있다.편집은 항상 그대로 유지된다.또는 새로운 사용자가 "편집"을 처음 클릭할 때 대신 "수정"을 기본값으로 설정할지 여부를 묻는 메시지가 표시될 수 있다.이 고양이 가죽을 벗기는 데는 여러 가지 방법이 있다.나는 약 1.6년부터 모든 내 프로젝트에 개인적인 위키를 사용해왔고, 전체 편집 내용 중 만 개를 기록하였다.위키백과에 관한 기사에 인용문을 추가하러 갈 때, 나는 아직도 한 순간의 혼란에 시달린다.군데군데 마크업이 너무 빽빽하다.Mylin 트릭은 나에게 도움이 될 것이다(시각적 프레젠테이션에서 ROI를 미리 선택한 다음 편집 상자로 영역을 렌더링하여 반보호를 위해 굵게 편집하고 비볼드로 편집하고, 고집할 경우 재정의하도록 한다).내 생각에, 이것은 사람들을 파생 문화로 변화시키지 않고 새로운 사람들을 돕는 것 사이의 더 나은 타협이었을 것이다.MaxEnt 16:54, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  234. 옵트인(Opt-in)은 아직 베타 버전이며, 사람들은 다른 위키에서만 소스를 편집하는 것에 익숙해졌을 수 있으며, 두 가지 다른 "편집" 옵션을 보는 것은 혼란스럽다.JIP Talk 16:38, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  235. 옵트인. 아직 베타 버전이야, 우선.둘째, 사용자에 대한 직접적인 선택으로 제시해야 한다.그들은 마크업을 원하니 아니면 VE를 원하니?사용자는 WMF. RG루스터(토크) 17:06, 2013년 8월 1일(UTC)[응답]이 아닌 계정 생성 시 선택해야 한다.
  236. 옵트인. 위에서부터 이 논의는 소프트웨어 개발에 관한 전문지식을 가진 사람들의 입력이 절실히 필요한 것은 분명하지만, 나는 여전히 사용자들이 UX 변화를 휩쓸어가는 것을 선택할 수 있어야 한다고 생각한다.어떤 소프트웨어 기능도 "완료"되지 않는다; 그것은 단지 출시하기에 충분할 정도로 충분히 허용된다고 간주된다.이 기능은 그다지 훌륭하지 않다. 단순히 휴리스틱스 세트를 실행하면 많은 근본적인 UX 문제가 드러난다.우리는 이것이 사람들의 기본 경험이 되기를 원하지 않는다. --레이저 브레인 (대화) 17:13, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  237. 옵트인. VisualEditor는 여전히 개선의 여지가 많기 때문에 편집자는 적어도 현재로서는 긍정적인 선택을 해야 한다.두 17:14, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  238. 지원 Lfstevens (대화) 17:25, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  239. 베타 버전이 나올 때까지 선택.누가 벌써 닫아줄래?스노우볼!내 편집에는 거의 사용할 수 없다는 것을 알게 되었고, 새로운 사용자들에게도 같은 것이 적용된다고 믿는다.사람들이 가장 많이 언급하는 주요 버그가 고쳐지면 디폴트여야 한다. --Elvey (대화) 17:48, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  240. 옵트인. 편집자들은 소시지를 손질하기 전에 소시지가 어떻게 만들어지는지 이해해야 한다. bd2412 T 17:51, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  241. 당분간은 참견하다.버그가 다져지고 템플릿 구문의 가장 복잡한 측면이 VE로 신뢰성 있게 편집될 수 있는 6개월 후, 우리는 이야기 할 수 있다.태저다독 (대화) 17:56, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  242. 옵트인 - 서류상으로는 물론 VE의 개념은 건전하지만, 실제로는 절망에 빠진 우리가 알고 있듯이 당분간은 안 된다.위의 Rochellimit에 따르면 -- Visual Editor는 의도적이거나 의도하지 않은 성질의 파괴 행위를 방지하기 위해 선택되어야 한다.로난 맥구린 (대화) 2013년 8월 1일 18:00 (UTC)[응답]
  243. 선택. 나는 VE가 IP가 편집하는 데 사용하는 방식이라고 창의적으로 제안한다. VE는 분명히 IP를 파괴하기 위해 속도를 늦출 것이고, 그것은 우리에게 IP가 계정을 만들기 위한 혜택을 제안하는 새로운 접근방식을 제공한다.:) 클라인 (대화) 18:18, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  244. 옵트인. --Olsi (토크) 18:21, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  245. 항상 선택.VE가 어떻게든 "고정"되었다고 해도, VE가 디폴트로 사용될 이유는 전혀 없다.그누트로니움 18:27, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  246. 선택. 의심의 여지없이!--소울 트레인 (대화) 18:31, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  247. 소스 코드를 편집하는 것보다 더 혼란스럽고 위협적이라고 생각한다.Rejectwater (토크) 18:34, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  248. Optin 만약 그들이 참여한다면 그들이 겪을 수 있는 모든 문제에 대한 충분한 설명과 함께.아르제이(토크) 18:45, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  249. Opt-in: 좋은 생각이지만, 내가 그것을 사용하려고 할 때, 그것은 느리거나 단지 효과가 없다; 또한, 이미지 캡션의 편집은 매우 복잡해 보인다.아마도 나는 과거에 갇힌 늙은 허드렛일에 불과할지 모르지만, 나는 그 낡은 시스템이 더 좋다. 지아노 18:55, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  250. 현재로서는 선택하기 사실상 존재하지 않는 버그로 더욱 정교해지고 (인용 입력과 같은) 특징들이 Tom W (토크) 18:58, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]을 증가시키기 전까지는 확실히 선택하기 바란다.
  251. 옵트인 이 편집자는 경험이 부족한 편집자들에게 큰 도움이 될 수 있을 것 같지만, 현재로선 너무 느리고 덜렁거려 거의 사용이 불가능하다.일단 대부분의 버그와 오류가 해결되면, 나는 아마도 나의 선택을 재고할 것이다.조지 소비 19:28, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  252. 현재 상태와 아마도 몇 달 동안 옵트인 VisualEditor는 새로운 편집자들을 놀라게 하고 위키백과 기사를 손상시킬 것이다.어떤 중간급 매니저가 자신의 프로젝트를 제시간에 끝냈다고 주장할 수 있도록, 이것은 느리고 느린 상태로 굴러다니지 말았어야 했다.철자 크리스 2013년 8월 1일(UTC) 19:41, 응답하라
  253. Opt-in 이것은 새로운 사용자(어제 등록)와 정보 전문가로서 모두 믿을 수 없을 정도로 혼란스러웠다.케바비타 (대화) 19:48, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
    예, VisualEditor는 영어 위키백과에 발표되기 훨씬 전부터 VE의 알려진 모든 문제와 새로운 사용자를 혼동하거나 소외시킬 수 있는 많은 위험과 잠재력에 대한 경험 있는 사용자와 소프트웨어 전문가의 수많은 경고에도 불구하고 모든 사용자에게 강요되었다. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:30, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  254. opt-in. 난 심지어 좋아하지도 않지만 디폴트로 만드는 건 더 심해.니츠히프트36 (대화)20:17, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  255. 적어도 좀 더 안정될 때까지 선택하라.elmindreda (대화) 21:39, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  256. 옵트인. 내 핸드폰에 내 대체 계정을 가지고 그것을 시도했을 때는 절대 사용할 수 없었다.그러나 베타 버전에서 여전히 기능을 기본적으로 켜서는 안 된다.리버토치 (토크) 21:43, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  257. 모든 사람을 위해 - 선택.솔직히 제대로 될 때까지 우리는 이 토론회를 갖지 말아야 하고, 일단 그것이 실행되면 누구에게나 강요해서는 안 된다. --Robert EA Harvey (토크) 21:53, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  258. 옵트인. 내가 실수로 몇 번이나 클릭해서 신나게 느릿느릿하게 맞아들였는지는 말할 수 없다.레드카펫 준비는 아직 안 됐어.Fyunck(클릭) (토크) 21:56, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  259. 선택. 기본값은 VE가 아니어야 함.키토노 (토크) 22:08, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  260. 새로운 사용자나 애논뿐만 아니라 모든 사람에게 선택.또한, 0 또는 소수의 VE 편집자로부터 반 VE 코멘트를 비판해 온 기침 - MZMcBride - 기침은...나는 VE를 몇 번 시도해 보았지만 그 안에 저장한 적이 없다. 왜냐하면 그것은 나를 위해 로딩되지 않기 때문이다. 그래서 일반적으로는 텍스트 편집기로 되돌아가면서 작업을 할 수 없었다.이것은 내가 VE와 그것의 실패에 익숙하지 않다는 것을 의미하지 않는다.WMF는 VE가 속해 있는 곳에서 떠나야 한다 - wikia.com에서 FanNRed X talk 22:40, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  261. 아직 베타 버전이야 지금 당장은 쓸모가 없어 Facebook like thumb.png 디디마 00:24, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  262. 선택. 시각적 편집자는 철자 오류와 다른 오타를 더 쉽게 할 수 있지만, 나는 그것이 도움이 되기 보다는 새로운 편집자들에게 더 상처를 준다고 느낀다.그들은 결코 더 어려운 편집에 필요한 위키텍스트를 배우지 않는다.나는 정말로 새로운 편집자, 더 많은 편집 도움말 비디오, 그리고 간단한 지침 가이드가 만들어져야 한다고 느낀다.특히 테이블과 차트 작성에 관해서는. --Jamo58 (토크) 00:29, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
    다른 사용자들은 wp의 필요성에 주목하였다.Talking Text Editor, 사용자들에게 도움과 조언을 주기 위해. -Wikid77 03:22, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  263. 6개월 동안만 옵트인.두 가지 이점: (1) WP가 오늘날 안정적으로 작동한다는 것을 사용자에게 보여주며, (2) 개발자의 열을 제거하고 현재의 반복을 안정화 및 디버깅할 수 있는 기회를 제공한다.6개월 후, 1주일의 변경 및 개선 통지가 광고된 후, 신뢰성, 속도 및 적합성 향상이 유효하다면, Opt-inOpt-out에서 전환할 수 있는 사이트 알림 폴(이와 같은)을 여십시오.배치되었을 때 나는 VE가 미래일 가능성이 있다고 믿었다; 나는 부정적인 경험과 수신은 (a) VE가 로드/작업/저장하지 않기 때문이라고 믿는다(예, 버그질라에 대한 버그를 보고), (b) VE 배치는 (의도에도 불구하고) 배치 시점에 적절하게 광고되지 않았다(MZMcBride를 선점하기 위해, 이것은 보고되었다).d 및 MediaWiki talk에 대한 내 도움을 받아 문서화:Sitenotice#Visual Editor 및 당시; 동일한 대화 페이지에서 위에 언급된 배치 시트에 대한 시트에 대한 요청과 마찬가지로).슬래든 (대화) 00:36, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  264. 선택. 특히 큰 섹션/페이지에서, 특히 아이패드에서 매우 느리다는 것을 알게 된다.페이지의 조망이 혼란스럽게 두어 번 펄쩍펄쩍 뛴다.또 다른 문제는 이탤릭체로 표시된 구절 뒤에 쉼표를 붙이거나 인용문 등을 붙이는 등 까다로운 곳에서는 정밀 편집이 거의 불가능하다는 점이다.'정말 좋은 생각이야, 위키 마크업이 어렵거나 금지되어 있지만, 훨씬 더 정밀한 작업이 필요하거든.Ricklaman (대화) 00:49, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  265. 위에 제시된 이유 때문에 선택하라.브로즈닉 (대화) 01:12, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  266. Opt-in. VE는 여전히 너무 불안정해서 새로운 사용자들에게 떠밀릴 수 없다. 특히 기존 편집자들에게 필요한 정리 작업을 고려했을 때, 그리고 내가 그것을 마지막으로 사용했을 때 좋은 편집에 필수적이라고 생각하던 기능이 없었다.솔직히 말해서, 깨지고 불완전한 베타 릴리즈를 지역사회에 강요하는 이면의 논리는 아직도 나를 피해간다 - 뮬러 씨가 심각하고 널리 지원되는 이슈들을 원티픽스처럼 닫는 것을 멈추기 전에 원티픽스처럼 위키 전반에 걸쳐 밀어내기 전에 그것이 완성되고, 세련되고 완전히 기능할 때까지 기다려서는 안 된다.편집자들이 오랫동안 편집하지 않았을까?FLHerne (대화) 01:23, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  267. Opt-in: 현재 설정을 사용하여 en-wiki에서 VE를 사용할 수 없기 때문에 fr-wiki에서 VE를 테스트했고, 가장 단순한 편집 이외의 편집에 사용하는 것이 상당히 혼란스럽다는 것을 발견했다(예: VE를 사용하지 않은 편집 참조: 추가 공간을 제거하려고 했을 때, 추가 공간만 사용할 수 있다는 오류 메시지가 표시됨). so so source mode.)특히 필요한 캐릭터가 페이지에 이미 존재하지 않는 경우(따라서 단순히 복사하여 붙여넣을 수 없는 경우)에는 끝이나 악센트 문자와 같은 일반적인 특수 문자를 추가하는 것이 어려웠다.또한 템플릿/참조 관련 문제도 있다.VE-edit 모드에서는 없다고 하지만, 새로운 편집자가 될 있을까?니키마리아 (대화) 01:38, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
    Nikkimaria, 참조 목록은 종종 VE에서 잘린다; 나와 다른 사람들은 같은 것을 알아챘다.그런데, 자네와 비슷한 문제가 하나 더 생겼네.독일어 위키백과는 VE를 사용할 수 있지만 영어 위키백과는 사용할 수 없다.여기서 사용할 수 있는 독일어 위키피디아에 적어도 한 명의 사용자를 알고 있지만, 독일어 위키피디아에서는 그렇지 않다.우린 혼자가 아니야:) --안드레아스 JN466 02:45, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  268. 도움말을 사용하여 선택사항을 표시하지 마십시오. 사용자가 등록 프로세스 자체 중에 시각적 편집기를 선택할지 또는 텍스트 편집기를 선택할지 결정하도록 하십시오.또한, 옵트인은 이 설문지의 첫 번째 옵션으로 보여지기 때문에 최대 표를 얻을 가능성이 있고 따라서 편향된 견해를 가질 가능성이 있다.반면 일반 사용자로부터 한 달 후 위키에서 사용자가 두 가지를 모두 선택하고 설문지를 통해 의견을 취하도록 허용한다면, 위키는 둘 중 어느 쪽이 더 수용 가능한지 알 수 있을 것이다.이상적으로는 A/B_Testing을 실시하고 그 결과를 고려하여 적절한 결정을 내려야 한다.가네쉬 J. 아차리아 (대화) 02:18, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답하라]
  269. Opt-in: 와이시위그는 주의 깊게 유지된 마크업을 폐기하고 기사를 유지하기가 더 어렵게 만들 것이다.또한, 만약 잠재적 편집자가 단순한 구문을 배우는 데 5분을 할애할 수 없다면, 그들은 또한 좋은 기사를 만드는 데 필요한 출처를 제공하거나 다른 정직한 일을 하는 데 방해받지 않을 것이다.크레이그 펨버튼 (대화) 02:26, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답하라]
    VE 반문화 해킹 페이지:이미 많은 페이지들이 위키텍스트(unseen)를 모르는 새로운 VE 사용자들이 숨겨진 마크업에서 nowiki-speak의 반문화에 의해 목록을 모방하고 있다고 밝히고 있다. "<nowiki> </nowiki 3.항목" 아이러니컬하게도, 편집을 단순화하려는 VE는 목록을 어떻게 단순한 별표-bullet '*' 또는 '#'로 쉽게 정렬할 수 있는지, 각주를 리프태그로 쉽게 분류할 수 있는지 알지 못하는 신규 사용자들을 혼란스럽게 하고 있으며, 게다가 장기 사용자들은 위키텍스트의 단순성을 복잡하게 만들며, 목록을 흉내내는 기괴한 결합으로 VE nowiki-speak를 만나게 된다.VE는 객관적인 시각에서 볼 때 "설계 결함"의 대명사로, 역대 최대 소프트웨어 재해 중 하나로 보인다. -Wikid77 03:22, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  270. Opt-in: (Wikilink 없이) 큰 편집을 한 다음 저장 메커니즘이 실패한 버그를 만난 나 자신의 나쁜 경험 후에, VE는 새로운 사용자의 경험이 되어서는 안 된다고 생각한다.위키피디아는 오래된 인터페이스로 수년간 새로운 사용자들을 끌어모으고 있는데, 그것이 더 나은 형태를 갖추기 전까지는 VE를 서두를 이유가 없다.메기도1013 02:34, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  271. 베타 중에 옵트인하고 그 후에 옵트인:소스 에디터보다 훨씬 친근하지만, 페이지 등이 손상되면 좌절/충돌을 초래할 수 있다 - Peacock/ 03:04, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  272. 가 기술자는 아니지만, 내가 읽은 것을 토대로 하는 것이 가장 좋은 방법이었을 거야.나는 모든 사람들에게 VE가 구현되기 전에 VE를 다룰 편집자가 충분할 것이라고 생각한다.그것은 새로운 편집자들을 위한 것이어야 했지만 만약 전에 선택권이 있었다면, 심사숙고 후에 전문가가 될 훨씬 더 확립된 편집자들이 있을 것이고 장기적으로 보면 새로운 편집자들을 위한 훨씬 더 많은 도움이 있을 것이다.세상에서 가장 흥미로운 남자 (토크) 2013년 8월 2일 03:51 (UTC)[응답]
  273. 비주얼 편집기는 고정되고 실제 애플리케이션처럼 작동할 때까지 시스템에서 완전히 제거되지 않아야 한다.버그로 가득 차 있어 사용자 샌드박스에서만 사용할 수 있어야 한다.--폴 맥도날드(토크) 03:55, 2013년 8월 2일(UTC)[응답]
  274. 두 가지 옵션 중, 옵트인.그것은 위키코드 버전에 비해 느리고, 버그적이며, 사용자 친화적이지 못하다.선호되는 옵션은 버그가 제거될 때까지(또는 버그를 완전히 버리거나) Visual 편집기를 옵션으로 사용하는 것을 연기하는 것이다.그루티니스...뭐라고? 2013년 8월 2일 03시 58분 (UTC)[응답하라]
  275. 옵트인: 참가를 위한 숫자와 그 근거(절대 귀찮은 짓이다!)로 판단하건대, 페스트처럼 피하고 곧장 '출처'로 가는 것은 나뿐만이 아니다.나는 Firefox를 사용하지만 Chrome & IE Opera에 대한 시각적 편집기를 시도해 봤고 그것은 똑같이 결함이 있다.그것이 '저장된' 드문 경우, 나는 그 원천에 들어가서 그것이 만든 오류를 고쳐야 했다.기부를 두려워할 신참들을 풀어주기 전에 확실히 그리고 절대적으로 안정되어야 한다.IMHO, 새로운 기고자가 출처로부터 꽤 많은 시간을 일하기 전에는 이 기고문을 선택할 수 없어야 한다.애석하게도 괴물이다. --이리나 하피(토크) 03:59, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답하라]
  276. 옵트인: 그것은 만연한 편집을 초대하는 위키피디아에 새로 온 사람들에게 "<--이 날짜를 변경하지 마라; 대화 페이지를 보라->"와 같은 경고를 숨길 뿐만 아니라 위에서 언급된 많은 다른 문제들을 분명히 가지고 있다.또한 나는 #187에 동의한다.정말 VE만으로 정책적으로 완전히 준수하는 기사를 쓸 수 있는가?--lTopGunl (대화) 04:19, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  277. 옵트인: 나는 몇 번 새 편집장을 시험해 보았는데 그 편집장의 작전이 싫었고 그것이 내 의도를 어떻게 오해했는지도 싫었다.편집 링크가 자극적인 새 편집기로 기본 설정되고 소스 편집 옵션이 편집 링크(멍청한 상태)에서 마우스를 누른 후에만 표시되기 때문에 실수로 계속 클릭했기 때문에 준비되지 않고 내 기본 설정에서 선택 항목으로 제거해야 하는 문제가 발생했으며, 나는 다음보다 훨씬 빠르게 인터페이스를 구동한다.나는 하루 종일 그 빌어먹을 떠도는 사람이 인식되고 제정되기를 기다릴 수 없다.— 오데아 (대화) 04:21, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  278. 옵트인: 새로운 사용자들 중 일부는 위키백과(및 다른 위키미디어 가족)의 코딩에 익숙하지 않기 때문에 비주얼 편집기는 기본적으로 새로운 사용자들에게 사용 가능해야 한다.나는 대부분의 사용자들이 기사를 쓸 수 있다는 것을 이해하지만, 위키미디어 코딩의 생소함으로 인해 페이지가 글에 오류 메시지가 있다는 것을 보여줄 수 있다.글의 오류 메시지는 읽기 경험을 해칠 수 있다.Visual Editor는 WYSIWYG(What You See is What You Get) 개념을 바탕으로 편집 시 실시간으로 미리보기 뷰에서 편집해 대중 보기에 저장하기 전에 기사가 어떻게 보여야 하는지를 쉽게 파악할 수 있도록 했다.이 버전은 현재 베타 버전이기 때문에 편집 시 탭을 통해 Visual 뷰와 Coding 뷰를 전환할 수 있는 기능이 편집 시스템에 제공되어야 한다. -- WPSamson (talk) 04:29, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  279. 옵트인: 시각적 편집자는 짜증나, 사람들이 그것을 사용하도록 부추겨서는 안 돼.크립틱파이어플라이 (대화) 04:45, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  280. Opt-in: 그것은 좋은 기능이지만, 일이 필요하다.다른 미디어위키 위키에서 오는 유저들을 위해 문제가 해결될 때까지 사용이 편리하도록 비활성화해야 한다. --GeorgeBarnick - 토크/연락처 04:52, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  281. VE가 완전히 새롭게 디자인되고 목적에 맞게 만들어질 때까지의 선택. -- The Anome (대화) 05:32, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  282. 옵트인이 나의 첫 번째 선호다.내 두 번째 선호도는 새로운 편집자가 자신이 선택하는 옵션을 선곡해야 하는 것을 선호할 것이다. 또한 그들은 장애가 있는 VE와 활성화된 VE 사이에서 언제든지 왔다 갔다 할 수 있다는 것을 선곡할 것이다. 05:36, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  283. 안정감 있는 ver보다 먼저 선택한다.더 많은 기능이 정착되기 전에 시각적 편집기를 사용하도록 권장해서는 안 된다.쿠리수토크 05:44, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  284. 선택. 그리고 편집 탭을 복원하십시오!라스베이거스위키안 (토크) 06:19, 2013년 8월 2일
  285. 선택. 편집을 시작했을 때, 나는 기고하는 것을 단념하는 경향이 있는 많은 문제들이 있었다.그러나 소스 편집기를 사용하는 것은 그들 중 하나가 아니었다.나는 혼란스럽고 버거진 VE를 사용해야 하는 것이 나를 미치게 만들었을 것이라고 생각한다.지도방 (대화) 06:42, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC) (UTC)[응답]
  286. 옵트인. 시각적 편집자가 있어서 아주 좋다.정말 도움이 된다.사용자:아제야
  287. 옵트인. 우선 베타 버전이다. 불가피하게 덜렁거리고 미완성인 것을 디폴트 옵션으로 설정하는 것은 변명의 여지가 없다.둘째로, 나는 이것을 다른 사람이 경험하는지는 모르겠지만 VisualEditor를 사용하려고 할 때 로딩 시간이 터무니없이 느리게 걸리는 큰 문제가 있다.첫째로, 나는 VisualEditor의 현재 상태를 혐오한다; 나는 가까운 장래에 VisualEditor를 비활성화했으며, 그것이 '완료'되거나 '완료'될 때까지 다시 활성화하지 않을 것이다.오로라 (토크 기여) 07:02, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  288. 옵트인 부탁이야.선택권이 다수가 되면 질문을 다시 여십시오.~마이클 앨런 07:19, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  289. VE는 경고와 함께 모든 사람이 이용할 수 있어야 한다.사실 그것은 마크업보다 느리다.더구나 주의가 필요하다.에디터란지트크샤르마 (토크) 07:38, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  290. 진지하게 의논하는 거야?시각적 편집자는 느리고 느리며, 일반 텍스트 이외의 다른 것을 편집하는 경우에는 사실 위키코드보다 사용자 친화력이 떨어진다.물론 그것은 선택되어야 한다; 사실, 그것은 "어떤 사람들은 어떤 이유에서든, 어떤 사람들은 사용을 좋아한다"에 따라 제출되어야 한다. 불평자 (토크) 08:09, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  291. 대부분의 버그가 고정될 때까지 선택한다.토파닌 (토크) 08:15, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  292. 옵트인 Fox1942 (대화) 09:00, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  293. 옵트인 VE는 편집 횟수가 일정할 때까지 사용할 수 있도록 해야 한다.디딘슈크 (대화) 09:10, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  294. 옵트인. 나는 (편집자가 HTML 마크업을 배워야 하는) 전통적인 편집 과정이 아마도 새로운 편집자들에게 벅차다는 것에 동의한다. (위 주석 #176처럼, 다른 사람들의 예를 따라 배우면서 배운)나는 고대 그리스-페르시아 전쟁에 관한 기사를 편집할 때 VE를 사용해 보았다.나는 많은 사소한 수정(일반, 문법, 설명 등)을 했지만 VE는 그것을 저장하지 않았다.너무 답답하다.또한 속도가 느렸고, 내가 지정한 섹션에 열리지 않았으며, 특수 문자(그리스어 또는 키릴 문자, 특수 구두점 등)를 제공하지 않는다.나는 편집이 마이크로소프트의 워드 프로세서를 사용하는 것처럼 만드는 것이 기본적으로 좋은 생각이라고 생각한다.나는 종종 하나의 참조가 어디서 시작되고 다음에 끝나는지를 알기 어렵기 때문에 일련의 기존 참조에 참조를 삽입하는 것이 혼란스럽다는 것을 발견한다; 원본 텍스트는 매우 복잡하고 혼란스러울 수 있다. (BTW, 도대체 "변환"이란 무엇인가?소프트웨어 엔지니어의 전문 용어는 가급적 피해야 한다.)Cwkmail (대화) 09:13, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  295. 선택 - 버그가 너무 많음.&#0149;짐62sch&#0149;dissera! 10:15, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  296. 옵트인. 편집자가 완성되지 않아 편집이 매우 복잡하고 안절부절 못하게 하는데, 특히 새로운 편집자의 경우 더욱 그렇다.Acdx (대화) 10:25, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  297. 옵트인 --Roberto Segnali 모두인도노 10시 39분, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  298. Opt-in: 편집자는 불완전하고 공개적으로 베타 레벨에 있다고 선언한다.다양한 기술과 편집 스타일을 가진 소수의 사람들에 의해 광범위한 테스트를 거친 후에만 더 넓은 사용을 위해 고려되어야만 한다! DDStretch (대화) 11:36, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  299. Opt-in: 정말 아직 베타 버전도 되어서는 안 된다(Nowiki, 중첩된 하위/위첨자 마크업, 더 말할 필요가 있는가?)더블샵 (토크) 11:46, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
    2013년 8월 1일 현재 VE에 첨자 삽입이 없지만 용이성 비교: X{{sub:1}}Y{{{sub 2.}Z{{sub 간편 위키xt}}:"XYZ12easy wikitext". -Wikid77 16:14, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  300. 검토당 선택.키에르제크 (대화) 13:02, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  301. 지금 그리고 영원히 선택하라.#102, #211 등.Levdr1lp / talk 13:50, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  302. Opt-in --Kjetil_r 13:58, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  303. 옵트인. 밴키셔 (대화) 14:01, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  304. opt-in 그것은 잘못된 인상을 준다. --JetBlast (대화) 14:16, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  305. OriumX (대화) 14:23, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  306. 선택하기 내가 새로운 것을 싫어하는 것이 아니라, 나는 새로운 것을 좋아한다 - 그것들이 잘 작동한다면.이건 그렇지 않아.엘린 벨트즈 (대화) 14:35, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
    이에 비해 새로운 루아 대본은 2013년 3월 호평을 받았으며, 현재 "{{{substing one good example 4}"는 즉시 "good"를 보여준다. -Wikid777 16:14, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[reply]
  307. Opt-in 그것은 베타 소프트웨어다.~~에베123~고정중! 2013년 8월 2일 14시 42분(UTC)[응답]
  308. Opt-in, 왜냐하면 베타 버전이고 버그와 함께 있기 때문이다.베타 소프트웨어는 주로 숙련된 사용자가 테스트한다.-요피(토크) 16:14, 2013년 8월 2일(UTC)[응답]
  309. 지금 당장, 그리고 피할 수 없는 미래를 위해 선택하라.VE가 소스를 편집하는 것보다 사용하기 쉬운 경우, VE를 디폴트로 지정하는 결정을 고려한다.어떤 일에 얼마나 많은 돈과 시간을 투자했는지가 기준이 되어서는 안 된다. --베즈나르 (대화) 16:47, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  310. 그것을 선택하는 것은 너무 까다롭다.그것은 기사에 너무 많은 오류를 도입한다.내가 VE를 사용하는 것을 본 모든 편집은 기사에서 너무 많은 다른 것들을 망치기 때문에 되돌릴 수 밖에 없었다(내용 중복, 테이블 혼란 등굿즈드류 (토크) 17:23, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  311. 내 생각에 위키피디아의 가장 큰 특징 중 하나는 infobox이기 때문에 나는 아니라고 말하고 싶다.아직 모든 기사가 다 있는 것은 아니고, 서서히 추가되고 있다.코드를 먼저 제공하면 인포박스를 사용할 수 있다는 것을 보여줄 수 있는 기회가 주어지고, 알고 있는 것(새로운 시장이 선출된 것을 알고 아직 추가되지 않았다고 말한다)이 있는 빈 줄을 볼 수도 있다.그들은 할 수 있다는 것을 알아야 한다.또한 그것은 그들에게 위키코드를 배울 기회를 준다.나는 모든 사람들이 그것을 배우고 사용하는 것이 가장 좋은 시나리오라고 생각한다.Techdude3331 (대화) 17:45, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  312. Opt-in 시각적 편집기가 제대로 작동하지 않는다.그리고 그것은 어떤 내용에서는 웹사이트를 정상보다 조금 느리게 만든다.그리고 벌레도 많다.그래서, 나는 그것을 무력화시키는 것이 충분히 현명할 것이라고 생각한다.수로브0000 (대화) 17:46, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  313. 옵트인 나는 비주얼 에디터의 팬이 아니다; 그것은 내가 사용했던 다른 WISYWIG만큼 원활하게 작동하지 않는다.새로운 사용자에게는 이러한 잠재적으로 혼란스럽고 파괴적인 지름길이 제공되어서는 안 된다.Leftmealone NSA (talk) 17:50, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  314. opt-in Big, slow, loading slow, 모든 브라우저와 호환되지 않음, 단지 나쁜 생각뿐입니다.죄송합니다, 작업하시는 분들을 방해할 생각은 없지만, 앞으로 2보, 뒤로 12보.예를 들어 FTTP를 가진 사람들은 인터넷 연결을 잘하고, Core i5s나 불도저들을 좋아하지만, 별에 미치지 못하는 인터넷이나 오래된 컴퓨터를 가진 사람들에게는 더 나쁘다.또한 JavaScript가 전혀 활성화되지 않은 경우(NoScript라고 생각함) 기본적으로 활성화되면 완전히 실패할 수 있다.Wikimedia 마크업은 배우거나 사용하기가 그렇게 어렵지는 않다.페이지를 편집할 때 닫는 </ref>를 찾는 것이 가장 번거롭다.그렇지 않으면 마크는 꽤 간단하다. -- Joe (talk) 18:50, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답하라]
  315. VE는 새로운 사용자의 좌절감을 불러일으키기 때문에 매우 까다롭기 때문에 옵트인(새로운 사용자가 무작위로 할당되거나 할당되는 제한된 평가판 제외)~ J. Johnson (JJ) (토크) 19:57, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  316. 옵트인 사용자는 현재 회사에서 IE8을 사용하도록 강요받고 있고 비주얼 편집기가 이 버전에서 올바르게 로드되지 않아 로드하기 위해 타이링을 중단했을 뿐이며, 이는 내가 주로 편집하는 직장에서 위키백과 페이지를 편집할 수 없게 만들 수 있기 때문에 새로운 시각 편집기를 사용하도록 강요해서는 안 된다.Cmjdm (대화)20:25, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  317. Opt-in 그러나, 나는 사용자가 선택할 권리를 가져야 한다고 생각한다. 그래서 그들은 그들의 계정을 만들 때 선택을 해야 한다.가입할 때마다 사용자가 선택을 해야 한다는 뜻이다.그러나 기본적으로 선택되는 옵션은 없다.고마워, 조지 조지 109 (My Talk Page)20:31, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  318. 아직 너무 '베타'그리고 모든 주요 브라우저에서 이용할 수 없는 것은 새로운 사용자들이 다른 상황에서 다른 브라우저를 사용할 경우 혼란의 원인이 될 가능성이 높다.케리 (대화)20시 55분, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답하라]
  319. Opt-in 현재 버그가 너무 많으며, 합리적인 수준의 안정성에 도달할 때까지 새로운 사용자에게 제공되어서는 안 된다.나는 현재 그것을 껐지만, 베타 버전이 없을 때 다시 시도해보는 것을 꺼리지 않는다.Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 21:43, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답하라]
  320. 비주얼 에디터에 새로 들어온 사람들은 그들이 가능하게 하는 많은 기능들을 깨닫지 못한다.그들은 의도치 않게 붙여넣거나 잘못 클릭하는 것을 통해 불필요한 것들로 우리의 소스 코드를 혼란스럽게 할 수 있다.위키 코드는 믿을 수 없을 정도로 이해하기 쉬우며 가치 있는 사용자라면 누구나 그것을 마스터하는 도전에 달릴 것이다.만약 그렇지 않다면, 나는 그들이 내용 면에서 위키를 얼마나 많은 이익을 제공할 수 있을지 의문이다.우리의 소스 코드보다 어떻게 적절하게 참조해야 하는지와 같은 것들을 이해하는 것이 훨씬 어렵다.란제 (대화) 22:36, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  321. 옵트인 위성기(토크 - 기여) 23:31, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  322. Opt-in 이것의 가장 큰 문제는 그것이 편집자들이 위키마크를 배우지 않도록 격려할 것이라는 것이다.그대로 위키마크를 '다른 것' 또는 '힘든 것'으로 제시한다.그것이 없다면, 편집자들은 한 번에 아주 작은 부분을 배울 수도 있지만, 일단 시작되면, 그들은 템플릿과 더 복잡한 위키미크업을 상당히 간단하게 사용할 수 있게 될 것이다.철학자Let us reason together. 23:37, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
    실제로 Wikitext는 내포된 템플릿에 사용하기 훨씬 더 간단하다.인용문 템플릿을 삽입하기 위해 VE를 사용하지만 "로얄 로얄 로운은 2x3야드였다"에서처럼 인용된 측정값을 미터로 변환해야 한다고 상상해 보십시오.위키텍스트는 "{{convert 2 x 3 yd m 1 disp=sqbr}}"을 사용하여 "2×3야드[1.8×2.7m]"를 표시하고 템플릿에 "{cite_web 인용문=로얄 로얄 로운트...}}" 그러나 VE에서 편집하여 해당 인용문을 삽입한 다음 인용 매개 변수에 대해 {convert} 템플릿을 삽입하고 이미 cite_web 템플릿을 삽입하려고 한다고 상상해 보십시오.VE가 편집을 시도할 때 일부 복잡한 페이지를 포맷할 수 없는 것도 당연하다. -Wikid77 03:40, 2013년 8월 3일 (UTC)[응답]
  323. 만약 사람들이 프라임 타임에 준비되지 않은 알파와 베타 소프트웨어를 테스트하고 디버그하기를 원한다면, 그렇게 할 수 있어야 한다고 생각한다.Ched : ? 23:44, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  324. 선택-"Sarahj2107 11:48, 2013년 7월 30일 (UTC)" 삼촌 스크루지 (토크) 23:59, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  325. 분명히 옵트인.알파와 베타 소프트웨어는 항상 선택되어야 한다.모든 사람이 새로운 소프트웨어를 테스트하고 싶은 것은 아니다.닐크루코 (대화) 00:38, 2013년 8월 3일 (UTC)[응답]
  326. 많은 사람들이 앞서 설명했듯이, 나는 VE가 새로운 편집자들로부터 시작하는 것은 좋지 않다고 생각한다.모하메드 CJ (대화) 01:09, 2013년 8월 3일 (UTC)[응답]
  327. 선택 - 너무 문제되고 너무 많은 버그.IJZEren 2013년 1월 1일 01Uszkiełtu?:53 (UTC)[응답]
  328. 새로운 사용자로서 지금까지 Visual Editor와 함께한 경험은 부정적이었다.내가 읽은 버그리포트에 따르면, 내가 경험한 문제들은 새로운 것이 아니다. 따라서 나는 중복된 보고서를 제출하지 않을 것이다.나의 편집 이력을 조회하고 편집의 50%가 VE로 이루어졌다는 코멘트는 삼가 달라. 왜냐하면 나는 두 번의 편집에 성공했을 뿐이고 그 통계는 VE에 대한 나의 부정적인 경험을 나타내지 못하기 때문이다.전반적으로 원본 편집기가 더 빠르고(로드, 텍스트 편집 및 편집 저장), 학습이 용이하며 오류가 발생하기 쉽다.나는 더 단순하고 더 확립된 편집기가 디폴트가 되어야 하며, 사용자들은 여전히 대부분의 버그를 다림질하고 있는 더 새롭고 더 큰 편집기를 선택해야 한다고 믿는다(아직 RC 단계에도 해당되지 않는다는 것은 말할 것도 없다).Ehope.pandab34r (대화) 02:02, 2013년 8월 3일 (UTC)[응답하라]
  329. VE가 더 완전하고 더 이상 베타 버전이 아닐 때까지 선택한다.ADAVIDB 02:10, 2013년 8월 3일 (UTC)[응답]
  330. 아마도 앞으로 디폴트(채무불이행)가 되어야 할 텐데 아직 준비가 안 된 것 같아. -Thunderforge (대화) 05:49, 2013년 8월 3일 (UTC)[응답]
  331. 옵트인, 이용하기로 결정한 유저들이 남들보다 훨씬 많을 때까지. --FocalPoint (토크) 05:57, 2013년 8월 3일 (UTC)[응답]
  332. 최소한 VE가 완전히 개발될 때까지 선택한다.그리고 그것을 어떻게 작동시킬 수 있는지 쉽게 알아봐 줘.DPDH (대화) 07:36, 2013년 8월 3일 (UTC)[응답]
  333. 신규 사용자는 베타 프로그램으로 디폴트되어서는 안 된다.그것은 말이 안 된다새로운 사용자들은 편집 플랫폼에 상관없이 항상 어떤 종류의 학습 곡선에 서게 될 것이다.그들의 액세스는 잘 확립된 편집 플랫폼으로 디폴트되어야 한다.위키 마크업은 배우기가 그리 어렵지 않고, 시험도 잘 되고, 신규 사용자들은 지원 커뮤니티가 매우 좋다.신규 사용자는 자신이 선택하거나 할 수 있는 만큼 능숙해질 수 있으며, 어떤 오류도 비교적 쉽게 정리할 수 있다.나의 주장은 개인적인 경험과 관찰력 둘 다에서 나온다.나 자신도 학습 곡선 과정에서 여러 가지 오류를 범했다(더 이상의 학습 곡선이 오지 않는다는 것은 말할 것도 없다).많은 편집자들이 팁이든, 논평이든, 도움이든, 아니면 노골적인 비평이든, 그것은 모든 것이 중요하다.디버깅이 필요한 것으로 알려진 플랫폼에 기본적으로 초보자를 노출하는 것은 어불성설이다.디버깅을 위해서는 초보자 샘플에서 그런 프로그램을 테스트할 필요가 있는 것이 사실이다.그러나 그것이 바로 그것이어야 하는 것이다: 그들이 선택하는 것이 무엇인지를 알게 된 후, 의식적으로 참가를 한 초보자 샘플: 일부 독자들은 이것을 단지 난해한 인권 문제가 아니라 실용주의 중 하나인 "지식적인 동의"의 개념으로 인식할 것이다.Wotnow (대화) 08:25, 2013년 8월 3일 (UTC)[응답]
  334. Opt-in-- Dewritech (talk) 10:58, 2013년 8월 3일 (UTC)[응답하라]
  335. 일단 (베타가 떨어질 때까지) 선택.--그리거 K. (토크) 11:04, 2013년 8월 3일 (UTC)[응답]
  336. 끝날 때까지 강력한 선택.{class="wikable" - cjquines talk } 11:28, 2013년 8월 3일(UTC)[응답]
  337. 베타 소프트웨어는 항상 선택되어야 한다.파섹보이 (대화) 12시 35분, 2013년 8월 3일 (UTC)[응답]
  338. Opt-In은 항상 모든 기능에 대한 기본 동작이어야 한다.모든 사용자는 기본적으로 동일한 (일반적으로 제한된) 기능과 더 많은 기능을 사용할 수 있도록 선택(원하는 대로)을 받아야 한다.트루사나도(토크) 2013년 8월 3일(UTC) 12시 46분 [응답]
  339. Opt-in - 베타/완료되지 않은 소프트웨어는 생산 환경에서 사용해서는 안 되며, 경험이 가장 적은 사용자의 손에 절대 들어가지 않아야 한다.GraemeLegett (대화) 12:56, 2013년 8월 3일 (UTC)[응답]
  340. 옵트인—지금까지 식별된 수많은 버그들이 있었고, 나는 어딘가에서 개발자들이 가까운 미래에 다른 것들로 가득 찰 것이라는 것을 보았다.계속 사용하는 것을 선택하는 사용자들은 많을 것이다. 하지만 상황이 훨씬 나아질 때까지 우리는 사람들에게 기본적으로 베타 소프트웨어를 사용하도록 강요해서는 안 된다. (그래서 "베타" 소프트웨어라고 불리기 때문이다.)그들에게 선택권을 주되, 채무불이행으로 만들지 마라.이그나츠미체토크 13:41, 2013년 8월 3일 (UTC)[응답]
  341. Opt-in – VE는 새로운 사용자가 더 쉽게 편집할 수 있도록 하는 동시에 위에서 설명한 것처럼 알려진 많은 버그를 가지고 있다.사용자가 위쪽으로 스크롤하여 Wikilink를 만들거나, 굵게/이탈릭 텍스트를 만들거나, 섹션 제목을 만들지 않는 VE 버전이 나올 때까지 나는 선택한다.에픽게니우스(talk to mesee my contributions) 15:06, 2013년 8월 3일 (UTC)[응답]
  342. 옵트인 — VE는 기존의 위키백과 편집 도구 모음의 너무 많은 부분을 파괴하고, 확실히 옵트인이 되어야 하기 때문에, 사람들은 내가 했던 것처럼 이 끔찍한 것을 어떻게 끄는지 알아내는 데 시간을 들이지 않아도 된다.게다가, 시각적 편집자를 단순히 제2의 선택으로 만드는 것이 아니라 영구적으로 무력화하는 방법이 있어야 한다.N2e (대화) 15:15, 2013년 8월 3일 (UTC)[응답]
  343. 옵트인 – 아주 사소한 편집을 제외하고, VE가 <노위키> 태그나 그와 같은 이상한 것을 추가하지 않았는지 확인하기 위해 저장하기 전에 항상 변경 사항을 검토한다.새로운 사용자들은 그것을 찾지 않을 것이고, 만약 그들이 그것을 본다면 그들은 그것이 정상이라고 생각할 것이다.~HueSatLum 16:43, 2013년 8월 3일 (UTC)[응답]
  344. 옵트인 — VE는 익명 로그인에 거부되어야 한다.물론 내가 틀릴 수도 있지만, IMHO의 익명 사용자 대다수는 데이터 혼란을 막기 위해 애쓰는 문제아들이다.적어도 그들은 경험이 없을 가능성이 높아서 강력한 도구를 주어서는 안 된다.두 살짜리 공압 네일건을 손에 넣진 않겠지?!빠른 해결을 위해 뛰어드는 숙련된 사용자들은 어떤 편집기를 사용하든 상관하지 않는다.그리고 완전히 새로운 기사를 만들거나 중대한 변경/추가(VE의 힘이 실제로 유용한 곳)를 하는 것은 경험 많은 사용자들의 자리, 다시 IMHO에 남아야 하는데, (1) 그들은 경험이 많고 위키 기사가 어떻게 접근해야 하는지를 알고 있고, (2) 그들은 위키 딸꾹질을 하는데 익숙해 있고, VE가 남하할 때(베타 소프트웨어가 그렇듯이) 바이크를 하지 않기 때문이다.경우에 따라 LoL)을 하지 않는다.그리고, 마지막이지만 중요한 것은 VE는 여전히 베타랍니다!!솔직히 말하자면, 그것은 위키 편집자 AND 소프트웨어 디자이너를 경험하는 선택된 사용자 수로 제한되어야 할지도 모른다.짐스코트 (대화) 2013년 8월 3일 (UTC) 16:51 [응답]
  345. 선택 - VE는 익명 로그인에 거부되어서는 안 된다.이들 중 어느 것도 그들의 IP 주소가 명확하게 드러나기 때문에 실제로 익명의 것은 아니다.나는 IP주소를 사용하는 대신에 사람들이 이름을 붙이도록 하는 것에 아무런 이점이 없다고 본다.게다가 그 직책들은 그들 자신의 장점에 따라 고려되어야 한다.몇몇 사람들이 IP 주소만 사용했던 토론회를 보면서 익명 게시물을 방지하자는 주장은 다른 사람들이 동의하지 않는 정당한 댓글을 삭제하는 하나의 방법일 뿐이다.밥비스63 (대화) 11시 51분, 2013년 8월 6일 (UTC)[응답]
  346. 여전히 끔찍하고, 마차며, 한정되어 있다.누구에게도 바라지 않을 거야.숨막힘 (대화) 2013년 8월 3일 (UTC) 16:52 [응답]
  347. 선택 – 베타 또는 버그가 있기 때문만은 아니다.나는 비주얼 편집자를 좋아하지 않고, 와이시위그 편집자를 전반적으로 좋아하지 않는다.사용의 용이성, 신속성, 단순성, 사용자들의 위키백과 작동 원리를 보다 잘, 그리고 보다 철저하게 이해하도록 돕는다는 점에서 구 편집자에게 많은 이점이 있다고 생각하는데, 이러한 이유로 나는 항상 새로운 편집자가 선택만 해주었으면 한다.벌레들은 나를 더 강하고 다급하게 만들 뿐이지만, 여기에 언급된 벌레가 하나도 없어도 옵트인을 지지할 것이다.카조르 (대화) 16:56, 2013년 8월 3일 (UTC)[응답]
  348. 적어도 시각적 편집기가 완벽해질 때까지 선택한다.나는 VE가 마크업 언어를 배우도록 요구받기보다는 새로운 사용자들을 혼란스럽게 하고 짜증나게 할 가능성이 더 높다고 생각한다.나는 설정에서 빌어먹을 것을 완전히 끄기 위한 옵션을 넣는 것에 전적으로 찬성한다.나는 그것을 절대 사용하지 않을 것이다.나에게 있어, 그것은 내 일을 지원하거나 촉진하기보다는 방해하는 불필요한 장치다.여기서 본 댓글로 미루어 볼 때 나만 이렇게 느끼는 게 아니다. --블루제이 영(토크) 18:05, 2013년 8월 3일 (UTC)[응답]
  349. 선택적으로 나는 가끔 그것에 대해 짜증이 났을 뿐인데, 나는 그것에 대해 별로 진지한 내용을 다루려 하지 않았고 그것이 그러한 일에 적합할 것이라고 생각하지 않는다.그러나, 그것은 다양한 작은 시간 투약 작업을 위한 훌륭한 보충 도구다.하지만 모든 꼬인 부분이 해결될 때까지는 옵트인 기능을 하는 것이 최선이다.--악마의 옹호자 18:23, 2013년 8월 3일 (UTC)[응답]
  350. Olaf (대화) 19:06, 2013년 8월 3일 (UTC)[응답]
  351. 강력한 옵트인 베타 소프트웨어는 항상 Opt In이어야 한다. -- RWJP (대화) 19:17, 2013년 8월 3일 (UTC)[응답]
  352. 옵트인 - 아직 준비가 안 됐어. --조슈아 이삭 (토크) 19:25, 2013년 8월 3일 (UTC)[응답]
  353. 의 2센트는 이 VE사건이 모두 실패작이라는 것이다.익명의 반달리즘에 혹하는 결과를 초래하고 기성 편집자들만 좌절시키고 소외시킨 것 같다.VE의 명시적인 목표는 새로운 사용자를 더 많이 유치하는 것이었지만, 지금까지 VE는 기존 사용자를 간신히 물리친 것 같다.VE는 WMF에 의해 대부분 고용된 기술자들에 의해 내부 프로젝트로 개발되어진 것으로 보이며, 이미 2013년 3월 블로그에서 그들은 그들이 직면하고 있는 과제가 불가능하다는 것을 인정하는 듯 했다: VE는 단순히 그들이 선택한 접근법을 사용하여 현재의 위키 마크업으로 제대로 작동하도록 만들 수 없다.그 프로젝트는 아무렇게나 추진된 것 같다.팀이 마감일을 맞았을 때, WMF는 별로 생각 없이 모든 사용자들에게 선택 없이 여전히 버그가 있는 소프트웨어를 먹임으로써 전체 위키피디아 커뮤니티에 끔찍한 덤핑을 했다.나는 이런 일이 일어나는 것을 보고 놀랐다. 왜냐하면 블로그 게시물이 게재된 후 그것은 실현 불가능해 보였고, 설사 그렇더라도 수년 내에 발송되지 않을 것 같았기 때문이다.나는 VE로 2~3번 정도 편집하려고 했는데, 내가 예상했던 것만큼 부질없다는 것을 알게 되었고, 매년 크리스마스를 전후해 우리를 괴롭히기 시작하는 배너와 마찬가지로, 선호에서 그 배너를 껐다.모든 사용자에게 호의를 표하고 UI를 이전 상태로 되돌리십시오. VE는 엄격하게 선택하십시오.그리고 WMF는 이 프로젝트에 기부금 낭비를 그만둬야 연말에 그렇게 많은 현수막을 다시 달지 않아도 될 것 같다며. --hydrox (토크) 19:39, 2013년 8월 3일 (UTC)[응답]
    Wikitext 편집기 사용이 반등했다.Edit-counts는 사용자들이 wikitxt 편집기를 사용하여 다시 깨어났고 다시 wikitxt를 사용하는 것을 보여준다: 새/구 사용자명에 의한 편집은 96% wikitxt (지난주 91%에서 증가), IP 편집은 2013년 8월 3일 3,000건의 편집 샘플에서 Wikitxt 편집기에 의한 편집은 80%이다.전체 IP 편집은 지난달과 마찬가지로 여전히 전체의 27%(3000개 중 799개)에 달한다.확실히 하자: 백과사전의 글을 쓰는 사람들은 빨리 배우는 경향이 있고 유행에 의해 오래 산만하지 않다.전동공구, 원형 톱, 드릴을 선호하는 사람도 있고, 끌과 손톱을 가지고 터벅터벅 걸어가는 사람도 있지만 오래가지 못하는 사람도 있다. -위키드777 23:55, 2013년 8월 3일(UTC)[응답]
  354. 선택. 단일 섹션의 편집은 허용되지 않는가?따라서, 신입생은 페이지를 잘못 편집하여 추가 작업을 유발할 수 없다.덧붙여 베타. - (JustAnotherJoe (토크) 22:04, 2013년 8월 3일)
  355. 옵트인 (1) 비시각적 편집기는 페이지의 모양에 영향을 미치는 모든 것을 보여주기 때문에 여러 가지 면에서 사용하기 쉽고 선명하다.그것은 마치 원시 HTML과 드림위버의 차이와 같다: 후자는 많은 것들을 겹쳐놓아서 변화의 결과가 어떻게 될지 정확히 알기가 어려운 반면, 전자는 분명하고 명확하다. (2) 왜 고장나지 않은 것을 고치는가?지금까지 아무도 정규 편집기 사용법을 배우는데 어려움을 겪는 사람은 별로 없는 것 같다.Bookgrlholler/루키 여기 00:06, 2013년 8월 4일 (UTC)[응답]
    문제는 VE가 숨기는 다양한 각주:그 대신 본문을 어지럽혔던 많은 리프태그 각주를 {{Reflist ref=<ref name="x"</ref>}로 참조로 반자동으로 옮기고 상문을 "<ref name=x/>만으로 단순화할 수 있는 도구가 필요하다. -Wikid77 04:50, 2013년 8월 4일 (UTC)[응답]
  356. Opt-in. 편집에 좀 더 쉽게 접근하고 싶은 만큼, 아직 베타 버전이고, Eemoso (토크) 00:56, 2013년 8월 4일 (UTC)[응답]
  357. 베타 버전일 때 최소한 초저속 버전일 때 선택해서 보관하십시오 — NickK (토크) 01:30, 2013년 8월 4일 (UTC)[응답]
  358. 옵트인. (떨어지면 더 좋겠지만.기존의 머리 구조물을 망치는 것은 너무 쉽다.인핀데불라 (대화) 01:36, 2013년 8월 4일 (UTC)[응답]
    사람들은 추가적인 VE 백스페이스가 인포박스를 삭제하는지 알지 못한다.VE에서 백스페이스 하나를 더 입력하면 어떻게 전체 인포박스가 삭제되었는지(지, 무슨 일이 일어났지?) 알지 못하는 곤혹스러운 사용자들을 상상해 보십시오. 그래서 어떤 사람들은 새로운 사용자들이 그것을 가지고 편집하기를 원하는가?-위키드77 04:50, 2013년 8월 4일 (UTC)[응답]
  359. 옵트인. 딤스페이스(토크) 01:41, 2013년 8월 4일(UTC) 회신에서 모든 포맷을 볼 수 있는 기존 편집기보다 버그와 사용하기가 더 어렵다.
  360. 선택. 새로운 사용자들이 마크업 언어를 배우기 시작해야 한다고 생각해.네오139 (대화) 01:48, 2013년 8월 4일 (UTC)[응답]
    카이젠 따르면, 만약 어떤 것이 어려워 보인다면, 더 많이, 덜하지 말고, 쉽게 될 때까지 반복하라. -Wikid77 04:50, 2013년 8월 4일 (UTC)[응답하라]
  361. 선택. 마크업 언어로 작업하는 방법을 배우는 것은 효과적인 편집자가 되기 위한 중요한 단계다.이 단계를 건너뛰려면 적극적인 선택을 해야 한다. --SerkOfVulcan (대화) 02:18, 2013년 8월 4일 (UTC)[응답]
  362. Opt-in --카밀로 산체스톡 2013년 8월 4일 03:09, (UTC)[응답]
  363. 너무 빡빡해서 한 글자 또는 한 페이지를 바꾸고 싶었는데 인포박스 전체를 내가 눈치채지 못하고 청소해버렸어...하지만 나는 이 시점에서 내가 매우 조심하지 않았다는 것을 인정하지만, 대부분의 누브와 아논은 아마도 훨씬 더 부주의할 것이다.특히 루비와 같은 html 코드화된 것들은 VE에서 바뀔 수 없기 때문에 더욱 그렇다.
  364. Opt-in, 기존의 위키 마크업 편집기는 웹 전반에 걸쳐 더욱 신뢰할 수 있고, 더욱 능력 있고, 더 흔하다.잠재적 편집자의 한 부문이 와이시위그 편집기를 선호할 수 있고 그것을 사용해 볼 수 있다.Bcharles (대화) 06:20, 2013년 8월 4일 (UTC)[응답]
  365. 옵트인. 영구적으로.두 번 시도했다가 포기했어.다른 많은 사람들과 마찬가지로 나는 시행착오를 통해 여기서 편집하고 더 경험이 많은 기고자들의 토크 페이지를 핑핑하는 것을 배웠다.VE는 페이지의 오류를 훨씬 더 많이 발생시키는 것 같다.발렌시아노 (토크) 08:45, 2013년 8월 4일 (UTC)[응답]
  366. Opt-in: 적어도 Beta에 있는 한, Opt-in이 되어야 해.VE가 베타 버전이 아닌 경우에도 마크업 편집기가 기본값으로 유지되었으면 좋겠어.아흐메르 자밀 칸 (대화) 10:27, 2013년 8월 4일 (UTC)[응답]
  367. 옵트인. 나는 VE를 한 번 경험했는데, 그것은 극도로 좋지 않은 성과로 인해 가장 불쾌했다.스크롤을 하면 편집자를 사용할 수 없게 되어 많은 기능을 시도해 본 적이 없다.MiniCampos (대화) 13:28, 2013년 8월 4일 (UTC)[응답]
  368. 옵트인: 최소한 기능이 더 안정될 때까지, 이 옵트인을 잠시 더 유지하라.가우테후스 (대화) 13:31, 2013년 8월 4일 (UTC)[응답]
  369. 지금은 선택해라: 그것은 단지 준비되지 않았을 뿐이다.숨겨진 코멘트가 편집자에게 표시될 때까지 기다리십시오. 그리고 백스페이스로 템플릿을 삭제하는 것은 불가능하며, 참조를 추가하는 시스템은 훨씬 더 사용자 친화적이며, 그리고...(다른 VE 사용자는 다른 합격/불합격 기준을 갖는다.)그런 다음, 괴짜가 아닌 주제 전문가들이 이 백과사전을 훨씬 더 쉽게 개선하기 위해 그들의 전문 지식을 사용할 수 있도록 해주는, 훌륭하고 환영 받는 새로운 인터페이스를 발표하라.PamD 13:51, 2013년 8월 4일 (UTC)[응답]
  370. 선택. 사람은 내용에만 집중할 수 있어야 한다.훌텐 (대화) 13:54, 2013년 8월 4일 (UTC)[응답]
  371. 선택: 지식은 구조화되어 있다.위키백과 편집에 기여하고 싶은 사람은 누구나 위키백과 의미에서의 "지식"이 단지 막연한 생각의 흐름으로만 되어서는 안 된다는 것을 이해할 의무가 있다.위키피디아는 정의적으로 이런 의미에서 엘리트주의적이다.새로운 사용자는 미디어위키코드와 구조화된 편집을 사용하도록 권장해야 한다.Boud (토크) 2013년 8월 4일 14:06 (UTC)[응답]
  372. Opt-in - 새로운 WYSIWYG 편집기를 간략히 살펴봤는데, 아주 훌륭해!새로운 사용자들에게 정말 도움이 될 것 같아...3~6개월 후 남들이 찾아낸 버그가 해결되고, 지연이 조금 더 관리가 용이한 경우(FireFox를 사용해 취한 조치마다 30대 이상의 지연 시간 때문에 편집조차 할 수 없었다).나는 이 편집자의 아이디어가 정말 마음에 들고 기본적으로 활성화 되어야 한다고 생각한다...아직은 아니다.이 프로젝트에서 일하는 사람들에게 많은 노고에 감사한다.힘내!지금까지 멋져 보인다:).Gopher65talk 15:07, 2013년 8월 4일 (UTC)[응답]
  373. 선택. 위키피디아는 블로그도 아니고 무작정 편집될 것도 아니다.구조와 초점이 필요하다.VE는 위키피디아의 기본 표준과 정책을 배우기 위한 어떠한 조치도 취하지 않고 새로운 및 익명의 편집자들이 텍스트를 바꾸기 시작하는 것을 훨씬 더 쉽게 한다.나는 또한 VE가 추가적인 작업이 필요하다는 것에 동의한다.선택을 함으로써, 개별 편집자는 VE가 그들의 필요에 충분히 유용한지 여부를 개인적인 결정을 내릴 수 있다.팩트체커25 (대화) 15:11, 2013년 8월 4일 (UTC)[응답]
  374. 선택하라. 그것은 바나다리즘을 너무 쉽게 보이게 한다.메인라인421 (대화) 2013년 8월 4일 16:46, (UTC)[응답]
  375. 옵트인. 마음에 들지 않았고 매력으로 작용해도 평균 편집 품질을 낮출 것이라고 생각했다.무아드 (대화) 15:54, 2013년 8월 4일 (UTC)[응답]
  376. Opt-in. 이 버전이 새 계정은커녕 누구에게도 구현될 수 없었다니 믿을 수 없어!녹은 잠자는 법이 없다.트릴로바이탈리브 (대화) 16:22, 2013년 8월 4일 (UTC)[응답]
  377. 현재 선택 - 포인트리스트 (대화) 16:55, 2013년 8월 4일 (UTC)[응답]
  378. 사전 선택 없이 기존 시스템과 VE 시스템 간에 선택 또는 선택 제공.The Rev (talk) 2013년 8월 4일 (UTC) 17:11, 응답하라
  379. 확실히 선택한다.트라징 (대화) 2013년 8월 4일 17시 30분 (UTC)[응답]
  380. 옵트인. 시각적 편집자와 도처에 있는 그것에 대한 링크는 귀찮고 정말로 기사의 읽기 경험을 어지럽히고, 도구는 실제 기사 텍스트(출처, 시각적 표현이 아닌 출처)를 편집하지 않고 기사 텍스트(출처)를 책임감 있게 처리할 수 없다.그것을 사용하는 사람들은 근원을 뒤죽박죽으로 만들 위험에 처해 있다.본 문서)를 참조할 수 있으며, 자신의 위험에서 최적의 도구보다 적은 도구를 사용해야 한다.개인적으로, 나는 시각적 편집자가 쓸모없다고 생각한다. 그리고 새로운 편집자들이 지난 10년 동안 다른 모든 사람들이 관리해왔던 것처럼 적절한 방식으로 편집하는 법을 배우도록 격려 받는 것이 가장 좋을 것이다.시각적 편집기를 사용하는 것은 시력이 없는 차를 운전하는 것과 같다.타타르어 (대화) 17:39, 2013년 8월 4일 (UTC)[응답]
  381. 코드가 베타인 동안 확실히 선택. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:12, 2013년 8월 4일 (UTC)[응답]
  382. 선택. 베타 코드야!Jdp407 (대화) 18:34, 2013년 8월 4일 (UTC)[응답]
  383. 공공 기물 파손에 대한 초대장이야피터리빙턴 (대화) 2013년 8월 4일 (UTC) 19:14 (답변)
  384. 베타 버전이 나올 때까지 선택한다.나의 경험은 어떤 것도 사람들을 버기 소프트 웨어만큼 빨리 프로그램/웹사이트에서 몰아낸다는 것이다.하지만 위키 마크업 역시 완벽하지 않고, 아마도 VE 폭탄이 있는 이유는 우리가 너무 많은 스타일과 변형된 템플릿을 가지고 있기 때문일 것이다.이 토론은 또한 "바!사진! 펜과 종이가 왜 그래?"79.69.205.62 (대화) 19:19, 2013년 8월 4일 (UTC)[응답]
  385. 난 Numbskulls가 파괴하는 것을 *더 쉽게*하고 싶지 않아.나는 내가 좋은 의도를 가지고 있다는 것을 알지만, 변화를 만드는 데 약간의 시간이 필요하다는 사실이 여전히 마음에 든다.데모데이브 (대화)20:01, 2013년 8월 4일 (UTC)[응답]
  386. 내가 사용하는 일부 플랫폼에서는 옵트인이 작동하지 않는다.스튜어트예이츠 (대화)20:31, 2013년 8월 4일 (UTC)[응답]
  387. 선택. 왜냐하면 베타. --오랑구탄클라우스 (토크) 20:46, 2013년 8월 4일 (UTC)[응답]
  388. 옵트인, 확실히 베타인 이상.게다가, VE에 대한 나 자신의 경험은 고무적이지 않았다. --Craig418 (대화) 21:11, 2013년 8월 4일 (UTC)[응답]
  389. 항상 옵트인.Archolman 사용자 대화:Archolman 21:58, 2013년 8월 4일 (UTC)[응답]
  390. 옵트인(Opt-in). VE로 편집 내용을 저장하려다 버그에 부딪혔는데, 신규 사용자에게는 너무 불안정하다.드래곤로드talk/contribs 22:25, 2013년 8월 4일 (UTC)[응답]
  391. VE는 형편없기 때문에 선택한다.그리고 앞으로는 어느 때라도 다른 방법이 되어서는 안 된다. -카이445 (대화) 23:27, 2013년 8월 4일 (UTC)[응답하라]
  392. 주로 버기 기능과 반달리즘 때문에 옵트인. 7cc.19edv (토크) 00:08, 2013년 8월 5일 (UTC)[응답]
  393. 옵트인 VE는 너무 심해서 폐지되어야 한다.너무 흔들려서 신규 사용자에게 강요할 수 없다.PumpkinSky talk 00:27, 2013년 8월 5일 (UTC)[응답]
  394. Opt-in VE는 아직 베타 버전인데, 너무 느리고 불편하다.--Typing General (토크) 01:20, 2013년 8월 5일 (UTC)[응답]
  395. 옵트인. 신규 사용자는 베타 테스터를 자동으로 만들어서는 안 된다. --Stephen Gilbert (토크) 01:48, 2013년 8월 5일 (UTC)[응답]
  396. Fe Nite (대화) 02:02, 2013년 8월 5일 (UTC)[응답]
  397. Opt-in. 누군가 정말 원한다면 어떻게 켜야 할지 알아낼 거야.TiMike (대화) 03:04, 2013년 8월 5일 (UTC)[응답]
  398. "옵트인" 비주얼 에디터가 상당히 안정적이고 버그 없는 것으로 증명될 때까지, 나는 그것이 옵트인만이 되어야 한다고 믿는다.하지만 일단 안정성에 대한 기록이 꽤 좋으면, 모든 사용자에게 알릴 수 없는 이유가 없으므로, 그들이 이미 안정성에 대해 인지하게 된다.Wiki가 적어도 콘텐츠를 편집하고 만들 때 항상 가장 쉽게 익힐 수 있는 사이트는 아니다.말할 수 있는 페이지, 사용자 페이지, 메인 페이지 등 배울 것이 많다.새로운 사용자가 겪지 않았으면 하는 일은 버기 체험에 압도당하는 것이다.지금 모든 사용자가 그것에 대해 알아야 할 이유는 없어, 우리는 항상 이 문제에 대한 코멘트 요청과 같은 사이트 전체의 노트를 공유할 수 있어.나의 2.5인치 코리 에드워즈 (대화) 05:15, 2013년 8월 5일 (UTC)[응답]
  399. 옵트인 오류는 안정성에 있다.kschiesser (대화) 05:48, 2013년 8월 5일 (UTC)[응답하라]
  400. 사전 동의다. 비록 지금까지 해오고 있던 것은 극히 한정된 시험으로부터, 나는 이미 새로운 사용자나 익명의 IP에 기사를 묻으러 VE을 사용했다 전체적으로 너무 많은 사건을 씻어야 하잖아. nowiki>도 식별할 수 없기 때문에 태그 해요 안되, —이자 편집자 이미 마비된 목록에 번호를 추가하는 VE을 사용했던 다른 한 기사.ered,항목들을 "1.1", "2.2", "3.3" 등으로 표시하도록 한다.나는 그 도구에 유효하고 생산적인 용도가 있다는 것을 이해한다. 그리고 사람들이 그것을 가지고 하는 모든 것이 그 예들만큼 멍청하지는 않을 것이다. 비록 나는 내 생명을 구하기 위해 그 빌어먹을 것을 알아낼 수 없다는 것을 인정해야 하지만, 나는 위키피디아에서 가장 경험이 많은 편집자 중 한 명이다.위키피디아에 대한 충분한 지식을 입증한 사람들을 위한 옵션으로, 사물이 어떻게 작동하는지, 그리고 그것을 어떻게 적절하게 사용하는지를 알아낼 수 있다. 물론, 익명의 IP를 포함한 모든 사람들을 위한 기본 옵션이다.베어캣 (토크) 07:59, 2013년 8월 5일 (UTC)[응답]
  401. 자버워치 당 강하게 선택한다."베타에 들어 있다"는 이유만으로 충분하다.그리고 Wikid77에 따르면: "사람들은 추가적인 VE 백스페이스가 인포박스를 삭제한다는 것을 알지 못한다."아이고, 아이고맙다!이것은 초심자(혹은 누구라도, 정말로, VE가 아직 베타 상태에 있는 동안 문제가 해결되었으면 좋겠다.) --중간 8:41, 2013년 8월 5일 (UTC)[응답]
  402. 베타 버전인 경우, Ter-burg (토크) 09:08, 2013년 8월 5일 (UTC)[응답]
  403. 숙련된 편집자가 정기적으로 사용하는 가장 쉬운 인터페이스가 될 때까지 선택하십시오.옵트인을 숨기거나 옵트인을 어렵게 하지 말고, 최고의 편집자-피플이 그것을 사용하기 전까지는 그것이 최고의 편집자 인터페이스가 아니라는 것을 인식하라.폴 비어드셀 (대화) 10:44, 2013년 8월 5일 (UTC)[응답]
  404. 새로운 사용자가 사용하기 쉬우므로 선택.이노리로989번길
  405. 단, 다음과 같은 경우에만 선택한다. (1) 전통적 방식으로 전환하는 방법이 보다 명확하고, 대부분의 사용자는 지금까지의 사용 방식에 익숙하다 (2) "버그 보고" 버튼이 어디에나 추가될 것이다. 대부분의 경우 적절한 사용 방법이 명확하지 않고, VE (3)에 대한 공통 이해에 맞게 조정될 필요가 없으며, 포지션도 없다.사용자들의 피드백이 없는 개발 가능성, 심지어 그것이 호러웨어인 지금, 나는 VE (4)로 어떤 것들을 어떻게 해야 하는지를 모른다. 따라서 모든 화면에서 그 두 VE와 전통적인 (5) 사이에서 더 쉽게 전환할 수 있어야 한다. 현재 어떤 옵션이 탐욕스러운지 설명하는 것이 도움이 될 것이다. 지금 (마지막으로)(6) 전통적 방법은 제거되지 않으며, 필요하며, 전통적으로 하기 쉬운 것도 있다.
  406. 지금부터 끝까지 옵트인.Jhw57 (대화) 12:16, 2013년 8월 5일 (UTC)[응답]
  407. Opt-in. 아직 베타 버전이야.새로운 사용자들은 VE를 가장 필요로 하는 사람들이지만, VE의 불안정한 버전은 그들이 위키백과에 대해 나쁜 경험을 하게 만들 뿐이다.투투투디 (토크) 13:44, 2013년 8월 5일 (UTC)[응답]
  408. 주어진 현재 상태 - 단서 그러나 더 성숙할 때 차단을 목표로 한다.%의 신규 사용자에 대한 테스트와 같은 다른 미래 선택사항은 "단계별 옵트 아웃"이 가장 합리적이다.와이드폭스;토크 14:08, 2013년 8월 5일 (UTC)[응답]
  409. 가장 확실히 선택하며, "원본 편집/편집"에서 "시각적 모드에서 편집/편집"과 같은 문구로 변경하는 것을 고려하십시오.원본 편집은 항상 기본값이어야 한다.시각적 편집자는 항상 어느 정도 버거워 첫 번째 초안이나 그와 비슷한 것을 위한 거친 도구보다 더 나은 것으로 보여서는 안 된다.루이스 단타스 (토크) 2013년 8월 5일 (UTC) 14:57 [응답]
  410. 정식 출시 후에도 선택.나는 VE의 목표에 전적으로 동의하지만, 편집을 원하는 누군가는 그것의 프로토콜을 포함한 시스템을 배우는 책임을 져야 한다.클레이야르 (토크) 2013년 8월 5일 (UTC) 15:24 [응답]
  411. 옵트인 VE는 기본적으로 비활성화되어야 한다.편집하면서 태그를 조회해야 하는 것은 위키미디어에 대해 더 많이 배울 수 있게 도와준다.또 다른 화신에서는 워드프레스블로거도 사용하며, 나는 거의 항상 TinyMCE나 블로거가 내 게시물을 WYSIWYG 편집기로부터 고칠 수 없는 원치 않는 형식과 스타일 요소로 어지럽히는 것을 허락하지 않고 HTML 편집기를 사용한다.새로운 사용자가 포맷된 콘텐츠를 빠르게 추가할 수 있기를 원한다는 것을 이해한다.Visual Editor에서 만든 것으로 태그가 지정된 모든 콘텐츠를 수동으로 확인하고 편집하는 것이 오버헤드 가치가 있는가?VE를 이미 편집한 등록된 사용자만 사용할 수 있도록 합시다.무시무시한 (대화) 2013년 8월 5일 15시 56분 (UTC)[응답]
  412. 베타 버전이기 때문에 선택. -- UKoch (대화) 16:07, 2013년 8월 5일 (UTC)[응답]
  413. 옵트인. 이납(토크) 17:01, 2013년 8월 5일 (UTC)[응답]
  414. 옵트인. --Markscheider (대화) 17:23, 2013년 8월 5일 (UTC)[응답]
  415. 옵트인. 운미스무브제티보 (토크) 17:29, 2013년 8월 5일 (UTC)[응답]
  416. 선택하라. 위에서 이미 언급되지 않은 것은 내가 할 수 있는 것이 없다.Scott Talk 17:27, 2013년 8월 5일 (UTC)[응답]
  417. 옵트인. PeaceLoveHarmony (대화) 18:00, 2013년 8월 5일 (UTC)[응답]
  418. 선택: "최소한의 놀라움의 원칙" 그리고 나는 표준 편집기를 선호한다.Cgwaldman (talk) 18:28, 2013년 8월 5일 (UTC)[응답하라]
  419. 옵트인 – 이것은 프라임 타임에 대비하는 것 조차 되지 않는다; 테이블 편집과 같은 기본적인 기능성의 부족은 그것이 어떤 임의적인 마감일을 맞추기만 하는 것이 아니라 정말로 릴리스 품질이 되기 전까지는 결코 디폴트가 되어서는 안 된다는 것을 의미한다.*** 크로탈러스 *** 18:43, 2013년 8월 5일 (UTC)[응답]
  420. 옵트인. 지금 시각 편집기가 너무 불편해서.소스를 이용한 편집을 배우는 것은 언뜻 보면 좀 더 위압적이고 건조할 수 있지만, 결국 그렇게 하는 방법을 배우게 된다.그 시각 편집자는 엉뚱하고 불안정한 느낌을 받는다.내가 처음 위키피디아를 사용하기 시작할 때 접했던 것이 시각적 편집자라면, 나는 일찍부터 편집에 기여하는 것을 포기했을지도 모른다.나는 그것이 거꾸로 보이는 것을 알지만, 시각적 편집자는 사실 시각적 편집자보다 이해하기가 쉽지 않은 것 같다. 그리고 아마도 그것이 phpb 메시지 보드나 HTML 코드와 함께 자란 나의 일부분일 것이다. 하지만 여기 있다.T. H. 맥알리스터 (대화) 19:20, 2013년 8월 5일 (UTC)[응답]
  421. 옵트인. 왜냐하면 쉽고 새로운 사용자들이 글에 매료되기 때문이다. -폴리토페4d (대화) 19:39, 2013년 8월 5일 (UTC)[응답]
  422. 이용가능성도 중요하지만, 현재 VE는 답답할 정도로 느리고, 베타 코드의 한계도 시각적으로 명백하다(일례로 축구팀의 infobox를 점검한다).VE의 핵심은 테크노 혐오 독자들을 편집권에 끌어들이는 것인데, 이는 결국 우리에게 보다 다양한 편집 기반을 제공할 것이다.위의 많은 사람들과 달리, 나는 VE가 결국 이러한 목표를 달성할 것이라고 믿지만, 현재의 코드를 출시하는 것은 생산적인 어논을 쫓아내고 물속에서 새로운 것을 연기하는 정확한 반대 결과를 가져올 것이다.모든 IP와 새로운 계정에 대해 현재 코드를 배포하는 한 가지 이점은 공공 기물 파손을 늦추는 것이지만, 그것은 이것을 위해 가야 할 꽤 터무니없는 이유가 될 것이다.WFC—19:54, 2013년 8월 5일 (UTC)[응답]
  423. Opt-in; 나는 기능적이지 않은 베타 테스트(편집 방법의 일차적 표시)는 적어도 꼬인 부분이 해결될 때까지 새로운 편집자들을 만류할 뿐이라는 이전의 의견에 동의한다.베이지.리브라리안 (토크)20:11, 2013년 8월 5일 (UTC)[응답]
  424. 옵트인(Opt-in). 훨씬 더 강력한 위키백업 노아크11(토크) 20:17, 2013년 8월 5일(UTC)[응답]을 배우도록 새로운 사용자들을 격려할 것이다.
  425. 선택 - 부분적으로 베타 버전이기 때문에, 부분적으로는 심각한 공공 기물 파괴 행위를 더 쉽게 만들 수 있기 때문이다.헤난73 (대화) 21:40, 2013년 8월 5일 (UTC)[응답]
  426. 전에도 말했지만 옵트인.나는 VE가 파괴자들에게 추가적인 화력을 줄 것이라고 생각한다.둘째로, 구문은 더 견고하고, 실제로 배우기 어렵지 않으며, 사용법을 배웠을 때 강력하다.실제로 편집자라 부를 만큼 신경을 쓰는 사람들은 그 정도까지 갈 것이다.사빈 영양 22:37, 2013년 8월 5일 (UTC)[응답하라]
  427. 가 편집을 많이 하지 않기 때문에, 내 투표는 전체 집계표 값어치가 없을 수도 있다.나는 위키피디아를 읽는 동안 내가 잘못 본 명백한 것들을 주로 고친다.복잡한 하이퍼링크/ref/이미지 코드 라인의 임의적인 부분이 복사되어 그 안에 붙여진 것처럼 보이는 끔찍한 편집을 발견했을 때 시각적 편집기를 알게 되었다(Statin의 마지막 편집 참조).나는 그러한 편집이 어떻게 일어날 수 있었는지 알아내려고 하다가 VisualEditor로 태그가 되어 있는 것을 알아차렸다.나의 의견은 어떤 도구도 그것이 매우 성숙하고 다수에 의해 자발적으로 채택될 때까지 현존하고 기능적인 도구보다 우선되어서는 안 된다는 것이다.자일러(토크) 01:20, 2013년 8월 6일 (UTC)[응답]
  428. 베타에는 강한 선택, 안정에는 약한 중간 선택.적어도 베타 버전이 나올 때까지는 말이다.나는 우리가 옵트 아웃을 고려하기 전에 이 소프트웨어가 얼마나 잘 작동하는지 더 확신해야 한다고 생각한다.더 나아가, 나는 모든 편집자들이 적어도 출처 편집에 익숙해져야 한다고 믿는다.두 방법 모두 장점이 다를 수 있다.지금은 빠진 기능이 많은데 어느 것이 더 쉬울지 모르겠다.게다가, 나는 소스 편집이 내재된 디폴트, 그리고 더 오래 살 수 있고 더 많은 힘을 가질 가능성이 있다고 생각한다...특히 infobox의 섹션 편집 같은 것들을 위해.렙쿠 (토크) 01:52, 2013년 8월 6일 (UTC)[응답]
  429. 'Opt-in 난 임의의 계정에서 베타 아이디가 사용되는 것을 좋아하지 않는다.User_talk:hawraalmana 6:21, 2013년 8월 6일(UTC)
  430. 선택사항으로 "편집 표시" 또는 "시각적 편집"을 사용하여 베타 선택.빠른 편집을 위해 시각적 편집자는 작업하기가 더 무겁고, 한 가지 대신 두 가지 편집을 끝내기가 쉽다. --Betasam - Talk 05:36, 2013년 8월 6일 (UTC)[응답]
  431. 새로운 사용자에게는 너무 느릿느릿하다.중립성talk 05:38, 2013년 8월 6일 (UTC)[응답]
  432. 선택. 아직 덜 차.Wasell(T) 08:23, 2013년 8월 6일 (UTC)[응답]
  433. Opt-in. 15초 동안 로딩 지연은 최소 실행 가능 제품의 기준 미만이다.Thom2002 (토크) 11:17, 2013년 8월 6일 (UTC)[응답]
  434. 베타 버전이 나올 때까지 선택한다.처음에 그것을 너무 천천히 로딩했을 때 나는 그것이 충돌했다고 생각하면서 내 브라우저를 죽였다(이제 나는 페이지가 큰 테이블을 가지고 있었기 때문에 그것이 단지 매우 천천히 로딩되고 있다는 것을 깨달았다).만약 내가 새로운 편집자였다면 나는 겁을 먹고 다시는 편집하려고 하지 않았을 것이다.Liam3851 (대화) 12:08, 2013년 8월 6일 (UTC)[응답]
  435. 옵트인 - H -DOreply 13:21, 2013년 8월 6일 (UTC)[응답]
  436. Opt-in. "편집" 옵션이 전환되기 전에 Visual Editor를 "사용"했을 때(이제는 "편집 베타"가 두 번째 옵션이지만 원래 처음이었기 때문에), 로딩하는 데 시간이 너무 오래 걸렸다."출처 편집"에 가서 수정하는 데 걸리는 시간보다 훨씬 더 오래 걸렸다.나는 여기서 다른 사람들만큼 오래 기다리지 않았을지 모르지만, 당신이 웹에서 즉각적인 결과를 얻었을 때, 대기 시간은 아무도 견디고 싶어하지 않는 것이다.현재로서는 개발될 때까지 또는 개발 상태에 따른 경고가 포함된 대화 상자가 구현될 수 있을 때까지 옵트인이라고 말한다.세키레 고이(토크) 13:26, 2013년 8월 6일 (UTC)[응답하라]
  437. 버그가 충분히 제거될 때까지 모든 사람을 선택하라. 우리가 받아들일 수 있는 편집자가 있는 방식으로 말이다.지금까지 Klaas Z4␟V: 13:41, 2013년 8월 6일 (UTC)[응답],
  438. 선택, 기본값은 꺼짐입니다.믿을 수 없을 정도로 밉살스럽다. --B (토크) 14:31, 2013년 8월 6일 (UTC)[응답]
  439. 옵트인 - 사용자들을 끌어내기 위해 긴급하게 서두를 필요는 없지 않은가?그래서 사람들이 그것을 발견했을 때 그것을 찾도록 하는 것은 문제가 없다.코드가 확고하다면, 다른 결정을 내릴 때가 될 것이다.Sah65 (대화) 15:39, 2013년 8월 6일 (UTC)[응답]
  440. OPT-IN - 빌어먹을 내가 요즘 백과사전 전체인 템플릿과 참고문헌이 있는 어느 페이지에서나 이 빨판을 어떻게 사용할 수 있는지 알아낼 수 있다면 말이다.그리고 1976년 처음 소프트웨어를 코딩한 이후로 편집자들을 많이 봐왔지. 이걸 다시 도면으로 보내. // FrankB 17:28, 2013년 8월 6일 (UTC)[응답]
  441. 옵트인(Opt-in)은 계정을 만들 수 있을 정도로 일반 사용자에게는 그다지 유용한 도구가 아니다.게이트맨1997 (대화) 2013년 8월 6일 18:01, (UTC)[응답]
  442. Opt-in, 나의 기억은 대부분의 새로운 사용자들이 전통적인 위키 텍스트를 더 쉽게 찾을 수 있다는 것이다.나는 개인적으로 전통적인 위키 문자를 선호한다. 왜냐하면 나는 VE에 의해 좌절되고 그것을 사용하는 것을 소홀히 했기 때문이다.Qxukhgiels (대화) 19:04, 2013년 8월 6일 (UTC)[응답]
  443. 옵트인, 비주얼 에디터는 버그로 가득 차서 기사를 엉망으로 만들고, 프라임 타임에 대비할 준비가 전혀 되어 있지 않다.아마도 언젠가 모든 버그를 해결해서 베타 버전에서 빼낸다면 디폴트라는 것이 말이 될 수도 있겠지만, 그런 버그 편집자가 디폴트라는 것은 우스꽝스러운 일이다.모든 사람(익명 사용자뿐 아니라 로그인한 사용자)이 기본적으로 꺼져야 하며, 버그가 남아 있고 기사가 엉망이 될 수 있는 베타 제품이라는 강력한 경고 메시지가 함께 와야 한다.하지만 모든 사람들이 그것을 사용하길 원하기 때문에, 그것을 가능하게 하는 선호는 쉽게 찾을 수 있어야 한다. --Yetisy (talk) 19:38, 2013년 8월 6일 (UTC)[응답]
  444. Visual Editor(시각적 편집기)는 훌륭하지만, 불안감을 유발할 수 있는 보기 모드와 동일하게 보인다.이 문제가 해결되기 전까지 모든 nomous 사용자가 대화 상자를 읽지 않고 저장하려면 "예"를 클릭할 수 있다(Hey it can be addit mode)"그리고 나서 그것은 기부자들을 위한 추가적인 일을 만들어낸다.바보, 멀티태스커, 또는 주의가 산만한 사람들이 그들이 그렇게 하고 있다는 것을 깨닫지 못한 채 본의 아니게 기사를 손상시키는 것을 너무 쉽게 만들지 말라!SirBrainChild (대화) 2013년 8월 6일 (UTC) 21:06 [응답]
  445. 이거. 카프지엘 22:00, 2013년 8월 6일 (UTC)[응답]
  446. 선택하라, 이것이 구현되는 다른 위키에서는 (Wikia와 같이) 처음부터 코드 작업을 할 수 없게 된다. --Asmetr (talk) 00:04, 2013년 8월 7일 (UTC)[응답]
  447. 선택하라, 사람들은 우선 코드를 가지고 일해야 한다. - 알 레모스 (대화) 01:13, 2013년 8월 7일 (UTC)[응답하라]
  448. 선택. 즉, (개발자와 알파 테스트에 자원한 사람들 이외에는) 그것이 가능해야 하는 경우.그리고 나는 그것이 참조를 어렵게 만든다는 것을 다소 신뢰할 수 있다-- 비록 언급의 비제공적인 것이 (i) 지저분한 경고 깃발을 끌거나, 심지어 빠른 반전을 일으킬 가능성이 높더라도, 그래서 (ii) VE가 권장하고자 하는 바로 새로운 것을 만류할 것이다(내 생각에.그리고 만약 "변경사항 표시" 옵션이 있다면, 나는 이것을 알아차리지 못했다.전후 비교하는 방법이 없는 편집자?역행. -- 후렴 (토크) 01:22, 2013년 8월 7일 (UTC)[응답]
  449. Wikipedia가 iOS 기능을 가진 기본적인 사용자 경험을 제공할 수 있을 때까지, VE는 단순히 iOS에서 작동하지 않기 때문에 도착하자마자 죽는다.겨울잠자리 (대화) 03:06, 2013년 8월 7일 (UTC)[응답]
    또한: 카테고리:Visual Editor Pre-GA에 반대하는 사용자.겨울잠자리 (대화) 03:17, 2013년 8월 7일 (UTC)[응답]
  450. 새로운 사용자는 신뢰할 수 없는 소프트웨어에 밀어넣어서는 안 된다.일단 디버깅이 끝나면, 백과사전을 파괴하지 않고 알파와 베타 테스트를 할 숙련된 편집자들의 자발적인 기여를 이용하여, 만약 그것이 신뢰할 수 있고 페이지에 파괴적이지 않을 때, 우리는 이 편집기를 새로운 사람에게 보여주는 것으로 디폴트를 바꿀 수 있다.그것은 아직 거기에 없다!Gnuish (대화) 03:11, 2013년 8월 7일 (UTC)[응답]
  451. 지금은 너무 덥기 때문에 선택해라.Jixzad123 (대화) 03:15, 2013년 8월 7일 (UTC)[응답]
  452. Opt in it는 여전히 베타 버전이며, 위키백과의 스팸 또는 관련 없는 페이지를 예방할 것이다.스트리그대MXV(사용자 대화:스트리그대MXV) 5:00, 2013년 8월 7일 (UTC)
  453. 베타 버전이 다 떨어질 때까지 확실히 선택해라.베타 이후에도 탈퇴하고 싶은지 모르겠어.편집자가 준비되면 그 질문에 대답합시다. -- Druid816 (대화) 05:04, 2013년 8월 7일 (UTC)[응답]
  454. 여기 있는 다른 많은 사람들이 말했듯이, 아직 황금시간대에 준비가 되지 않았다.Rcunderw (대화) 07:56, 2013년 8월 7일 (UTC)[응답]
  455. 현재 상태의 VE는 완전히 엉터리이기 때문에 비활성화되어야 한다.와이즈비에 (대화)08:24, 2013년 8월 7일 (UTC)[응답]
  456. 선택. 진행 중인 선택. 계정 생성 과정의 일부가 되어야 하며 베타 버전을 남길 때까지 실험으로 표시되어야 한다. --Alberto Fernández Fernández (토크) 08:26, 2013년 8월 7일 (UTC)[응답]
  457. Opt-in: 베타 버전은 기본적으로 활성화되어서는 안 된다.시각적 편집기가 제작용으로 충분히 적합한 것으로 판명되면, 기본적으로 활성화되어야 한다.위키 구문은 HTML을 알아야 하는 요건을 없애 문서의 공동 편집을 쉽게 하기 위해 개발되었지만, 완전한 해결책은 아니다.많은 사람들은 위키 구문을 장애물로 여긴다.인터페이스가 더 WYSIWYG이고 구문이 최소 및 선택적이라면 더 많은 사람들이 위키에 기여할 것이다. --Lance E Sloan (talk) 12:38, 2013년 8월 7일 (UTC)[응답]
  458. Opt-in: 아직 베타, 여전히 느리다.호주인 매트 (토크) 13:53, 2013년 8월 7일 (UTC)[응답]
  459. 선택: 두 가지 이유.물론 실험 소프트웨어가 기본이 되어서는 안 된다.하지만 그것이 완벽하게 작동한다고 해도 나는 VE가 디폴트가 되어서는 안 된다고 생각한다. 왜냐하면 나는 사람들이 그들의 편집에 대해 덜 생각하도록 장려하는 것이 좋지 않다고 생각하기 때문이다.그것은 등록된 사용자들을 위해 선택되어야 한다.페레스 (대화) 2013년 8월 7일 (UTC) 14:06[응답]
  460. 옵트인: 편집자는 완전히 쓰레기야.그것이 실제로 기능하지 않는 한 그것은 잘 숨겨져야 한다.또한 위키피디아에서 그것을 발표한 사람이 영구적으로 금지되는 것을 금지할 것을 제안한다.Nfitz (대화) 14:26, 2013년 8월 7일 (UTC)[응답]
  461. 확인된 신규 사용자만을 위한 강력한 선택.나는 아래에서 나의 추리를 자세히 설명하였지만, 간단히 말하자면 다음과 같다.신규 및 익명 사용자에게는 VisualEditor(등록된 사용자로 인한 이점 중 하나로서)의 존재를 알려야 하며, VE를 사용하여 계정이 자동 확인될 때까지 실제 기사를 편집할 수 있는 권한 없이 샌드박스 페이지에서 VisualEditor를 사용해 볼 수 있는 기회를 주어야 한다(새로 등록한 사용자는 사용할 수 없음).즉시 이미지를 업로드하거나 반보호 기사를 편집한다.GrammarFascist (대화) 15:52, 2013년 8월 7일 (UTC)[응답]
  462. VE는 미개척하고, 믿을 수 없으며, 믿을 수 없을 만큼 불필요하다.세컨드플래닛(토크) 16:24, 2013년 8월 7일 (UTC)[응답]
  463. Opt-in BSVulturis (talk) 16:33, 2013년 8월 7일 (UTC)[응답]
  464. Opt-in: VE는 광범위한 배치를 위한 준비가 되어 있지 않다. --자르그 (대화) 17:04, 2013년 8월 7일 (UTC)[응답]
  465. 역사의 한 부분이 되기 위해 빠르면 1월까지 옵트인이라고 말할 것이다.VE는 많은 약속을 했지만 아직 거기까지는 없다.레드슬래시 01:10, 2013년 8월 10일 (UTC)[응답]
  466. 옵트인. 다른 사람들이 지적했듯이, VE에는 여전히 큰 문제가 있고, 새로운 편집자들이 고장 난 소프트웨어를 사용하도록 만드는 것은 정말 나쁜 생각이다. 그들 중 많은 사람들은 그것을 어떻게 비활성화해야 하는지를 쉽게 알아내지 못하고 포기할 것이다.이 결정은 VE가 선택률이 높을 정도로 좋은 도구가 되면 검토해야 한다. --BrownHairdGirl (토크) (출연) 19:39, 2013년 8월 10일 (UTC)[응답]
  467. Opt-in - Mr Dolomite Talk 16:37, 2013년 8월 12일 (UTC)[응답]
  468. VisualEditor가 이러한 종류의 배치를 위한 준비가 되어 있다고 확신할 수 없다.비표준('베타') 소프트웨어는 사용자에게 강요되어서는 안 된다.OSborn 01:46, 2013년 8월 15일 (UTC)[응답]
  469. 베타 단계 후에도 선택.나는 이 편집자가 아무리 많은 개선이 이루어지더라도, 보통의 WYSIWYG 편집자 이상이 될 것이라고 확신하지 않는다.위키 마크업 작업은 우선순위로 남을 것이다.호버피쉬톡 10:57, 2013년 8월 16일 (UTC)[응답]
  470. 많은 개선이 이뤄질 때까지 참고자료를 추가하는 것은 터무니없이 복잡하고 장황하며 명확한 지시사항이 없다.만약 내가 위키피디아를 처음 접했다면, 나는 모든 '모수 추가' 버튼이 무엇을 하는지 결코 이해하지 못했을 것이고, 내가 한번 알아낸 후 인용하는 데 보통 위키마크업 편집기를 사용했을 때보다 훨씬 더 오랜 시간이 걸렸다.페이지 하단에 reflist를 추가하는 것도 너무 어렵다.비록 그것을 몇 번밖에 사용하지 않았음에도 불구하고, 나는 이미 그것을 나에게 충돌시켜서 내 모든 일을 잃어버렸다.Jr8825Talk 12:54, 2013년 8월 16일 (UTC)[응답]
  471. VE처럼 옵트인은 기존 편집자들이 혼란스럽지만 혼자 새로 온 편집자들이다.새로 온 사람들에게 "디폴트"로 만드는 것은 도움이 아니라 편집자 유지와 채용에 해를 끼칠 것이다. - 부시One ping only 레인저 00:23, 2013년 8월 17일 (UTC)[응답]
    • 실제로 많은 사람들이 {{wikitext}}을(를) 읽기 쉽다고 언급했다." 누가 4 msgs를 2 do wikitext를 할 수 없는지 ppl u know who txt 4 msgs can do wikitext (no)"라고 생각하는 것은 미친 짓이었다every1 can, sor 또는 L8r. -Wikid77 05:46, 2013년 8월 23일 (UTC)[응답]
  472. 내 생각에는 소프트웨어에 기술 메일링 리스트에 대한 철저한 공지가 필요한 것 같은데, 선호도에 있는 '베타 사물에 참여'를 누가 선택하느냐에 따라 그것을 제공해도 괜찮다(기본값이 아니라고 가정한다).그릴리다() 05:52, 2013년 8월 25일 (UTC)[응답]

옵트 아웃

  1. 나는 "Opt-in"과 "Opt-out" 옵션이 개념적으로 단순하다는 우려가 있다.가능한 많은 등급이 있다."옵트인"의 가장 큰 문제는 새로운 사용자들이 그것에 대해 배울 기회가 거의 없다는 것이다.다시 다이얼을 돌려 구현 속도를 늦추는 방향으로 움직인다면, 현재 진행 상황을 알고 있고, 시도하고 피드백을 줄 의향이 있는 신규 사용자들의 꾸준한 흐름도 보장할 필요가 있다.내가 보고 싶은 것은 새로운 사용자에게 VE가 그들이 원할 경우 탈퇴할 수 있는 쉬운 옵션과 함께 제공된다는 것이다.--Jimbo Wales (토크) 07:57, 2013년 7월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
    지금 버기 VE가 얼마나 대단한지 생각해 볼 때, 정말로 위키와 함께 하는 신인의 첫 경험을 중심으로 하고 싶은가?나는 그것이 최적의 것이라고 생각하지 않는다.아마도 나중에 VE가 안정화되면 옵션으로 사용할 수 있는 기본적인 기능을 처리할 수 있을 것이다.인토타트 다크니스 17:03, 2013년 7월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
    나는 어떤 변화의 일환으로 사람들에게 어떻게 다시 켜야 하는지를 알려주는 시테노티스가 있을 것이라고 예상한다.애덤 쿠어든 18:47, 2013년 7월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
    미래의 VE는 기본적으로 모든 사용자에게 공개되는 것이 적합할 것이라고 나는 생각한다.그러나 그날은 지금 아니다.쿠미오코(토크) 19:02, 2013년 7월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
    나도 동의해.그러나 "편집자가 VE를 사용하여 encylopedia에 대한 오류 없는 콘텐츠를 안정적으로 생성할 수 있는가?"라는 테스트가 되어야 한다."아니오"라고 답하는 한, 자동적으로 선택되어서는 안 된다.인토타트 다크니스 15:28, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
    나는 이것이 VE의 성공을 판단하는 타당한 기준이 아니라고 생각한다.확실히, 위키텍스트 편집기는 편집자들이 다른 일련의 오류를 생성하도록 만든다.특히 새로운 편집자들은 텍스트 편집기를 사용하는 경우, 텍스트 편집기를 사용하는 경우, 비위화 텍스트의 큰 블록을 추가하고, 잘못된 구문을 도입하며, 기사에 테이블이나 템플릿의 표시를 엉망으로 만들고, 링크의 작성을 피하고, 인용구를 추가하지 못하는 등...어떤 편집 메커니즘도 항상 그 자체로 몇 가지 오류를 야기할 것이며, 사용자가 그 사용을 통해 훨씬 더 많은 오류를 만들도록 장려할 것이다.나에게 문제는 VE를 사용하는 편집자, 특히 새 편집자 또는 캐주얼 편집자가 평균적으로 위키텍스트 편집기를 사용하는 것보다 더 유용할 수 있느냐 하는 것이다."오류 없는 콘텐츠"를 요구하는 것은 어떤 편집자도 충족시킬 수 없는 불합리한 기준이며 확실히 현재의 채무불이행으로 충족되지 않는다.자클립톤 (대화) 23:17, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
    물론이지매우 동의한다.— 오웬 블랙커 (토크) 16:48, 2013년 8월 3일 (UTC)[응답]
    ITD의 요점은 현 VE의 수많은 버그로 미루어 볼 때 선의의, 훈련된 편집자들조차 오류 없는 콘텐츠를 만드는 데 어려움을 겪고 있다는 것이지 게으르거나 훈련받지 않은 편집자들이 텍스트 편집기에서 일을 엉망으로 만드는 것은 불가능하다는 것이 아니라고 생각한다.LlywelinII 02:01, 2013년 8월 6일 (UTC)[응답하라]
    이것은 WP가 편집자 보유/채용에 초점을 맞춘다는 것을 감안하면 완전히 잔인한 것처럼 보인다.만약 그들이 탈 수 있는 모든 것이 부서지고 불타고 있는 작은 세계였다면 디즈니랜드에 갈 사람이 있을까?Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:57, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  2. 새 편집자에게 방금 그들이 어떻게 생각하는지 테스트한 후 그들이 말하는 대로 진행하라고 하십시오.위키 구문을 배운다는 것은 그 일을 해 본 사람들에게 큰 문제가 되지 않지만, 그 학습곡선에서 얼마나 많은 표가 상실되었는지 누가 알겠는가?Wnt (토크) 19:43, 2013년 7월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
    위키피디아-엔-도움말 사용자 몇 명이 소스 편집자처럼 VE에 의해 혼란스러워하고 있다.그리고 조력자가 아닌 채널로 들어오는 사람은 누구나 가장 친환경적인 사용자라는 점을 주목하십시오.제레미 v^_^v 19:53, 2013년 7월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
    많은 사람들에게 "옵트인"을 요청하는 것은 버그가 고정되고 주요 누락 기능이 실행되기 전까지는 일시적인 결정이라고 생각한다.문제는 현재 VE에 의해 야기된 문제를 대부분 새 편집자들이 모르고 있다는 점이다(필터 550, ...). --NicoV(Talk on frwiki) 20:49, 2013년 7월 30일(UTC)[응답]
    VE가 BETA를 벗어나면 옵트인을 요청하는 사람들 중 다수가 생각을 바꿀 것 같다고 가정하지 마십시오.위의 많은 논의는 원칙적으로 VE에 위배된다. 팬N토크Red X 22:48, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
    버그를 고친 다음 새로운 편집자들에게 그것에 대해 어떻게 생각하는지 물어보는 게 어때?물론 위키텍스트는 위협적일 수 있지만 무서운 메시지 상자도 마찬가지다.나는 위키피디아를 처음 접하는 사람들이 충돌, 동결, 자바스크립트 경고에 의해 불필요하게 겁을 먹고 있는 것이 걱정된다.28바이트 (대화) 21:41, 2013년 7월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
    나도 동의해.나는 VE를 시도해 보았지만 극히 간단한 편집을 제외하고는 쓰레기만 생산할 수 있었다.만약 VE가 유일한 선택사항이라면 나는 위키피디아에서 편집을 중단할 것이다.첫 위키백과 편집은 정말 기억이 나지 않지만, VE와 함께한 나의 시도만큼 비극적이었다니 믿을 수가 없다.옵트 아웃에 대해서: 일부 새로운 편집자들은 아마도 그 옵션이 무엇을 의미하는지 이해하지 못할 것이고, 다른 편집자들은 우리가 어떻게 대면하든 간에 그것을 보게 될 것이다.그래서 우선 그것을 좀 더 고친 다음 쉬운 반전을 가지고 옵트인(지금은 그런 식으로 보이나 새 편집자에게 분명한지 모르겠다)으로 만드세요.그리고 나서 1년쯤 지나서 우리는 다시 생각해 볼 수 있다.Kdammers (대화) 04:35, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  3. VE는 새로운 사용자 IMO에 대해 더 쉽게 사용하고 이해할 수 있다. 그것은 그들에게 편집을 시작할 수 있는 더 많은 동기를 제공할 것이다.그러므로, 그것은 제외되어야 한다.버그에도 불구하고, 나는 뉴스 사용자들이 텍스트 편집기보다 VE에서 실수를 더 적게 할 것이라고 생각한다.그러므로, 그것은 오직 옵트 아웃이 되어야 한다.경기부양에 대해서는 VE가 나날이 개선되고 있으며 점차적으로 걱정거리가 줄어들게 될 것이다.OrangeRelow (대화) 15:42, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  4. 옵트 아웃 - 이 VE 도구를 가지고 있는 것은 익명 및 새로운 사용자 편집자에게 매우 도움이 되고, 익명으로 기여하는 사람들이 그것을 가지고 있다고 생각하는데, 왜 당신이 계정을 만들기로 결정했다고 해서 그것을 다시 켜기 위해 스위치를 눌러야 하는가?(2번 질문에서 IP 사용자는 VE 베타 버전에 액세스할 수 있어야 한다고 생각한다고 대답했다는 점에 유의해야 한다.)지금은 기여력이 단순하지만 HTML/CSS와 우리의 마크업에 경험이 많지 않은 신규 사용자들의 접근성을 높인다. 그리고 이 시점에서 훌륭한 페이지를 만들기 위해 그것에 대한 지식이 필요하지만, 새로운 사용자들이 즉시 완벽한 기여자가 될 필요는 없다.그렇기 때문에 우리 모두는 어느 순간 이 자리에서 '새로운'이라고 불리게 되었고, 위키백과의 표준과 그 도구를 탐색하는 방법을 배워야 했던 것이다.소스 코드 편집으로 바로 뛰어드는 것은, 모든 곳에 코드가 있고, 경험이 없는 사람들이 무언가를 망치고 싶어하지 않을 것이기 때문에, 그들은 유용한 도구로 VE를 찾을 수 있고, 즉시 그것을 이용할 수 있게 하는 것이, 새로운 사용자들에게, 심지어 단순한 텍스트 추가에도 위압적일 수 있다.그러나 옵트 아웃 스위치는 코드에 싫증이 나거나 코드를 직접 사용할 수 있는 충분한 경험이나 지식을 얻었을 때 도움이 되어야 한다.레드 피닉스 18:04, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  5. 옵트 아웃 - 이 시스템은 새로운 사용자를 위해 설계되었으며, 이전 시스템보다 분명히 더 새롭기 쉽다.그것을 선택하도록 하는 것은 이치에 맞지 않는다. 이것은 그것을 경험이 풍부한 편집자(즉, 그들의 선호도를 바꿀 방법을 충분히 숙지한 사람)에게만 제한한다.로보피쉬 (토크) 22:25, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  6. 옵트 아웃.VE는 올바른 방향으로 나아가는 큰 걸음이며, 대부분의 간단한 편집에도 잘 작동한다.내 생각에는 아직 프라임 타임에 대한 준비가 되어 있지 않지만, 아마도 짐보의 말대로 아직 완벽한 상태가 아니라는 설명으로 새로운 편집자들에게 제공될 수 있을 것이다.아마도 몇 달 후면 훨씬 나아질 것이다.인베르트주 (대화) 22:46, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  7. 내가 이런 말을 할 줄은 몰랐지만, 이번 주에 6명의 비교적 새로운 사용자들을 가르친 나의 경험은 그들이 VE를 더 쉽고 고무적이라고 생각하는 것이다.이것은 심지어 나 자신보다 훨씬 더 일반적인 컴퓨터 지식을 가진 사람에게도 적용되었는데, 여기에는 html에 대한 뛰어난 지식이 있지만 WP 협약에 대한 경험이 거의 없는 사람, 개인적으로, 나는 아직도 그것을 사용하지 않고 있는데, 내가 가장 친숙하다고 생각하는 것에 대한 오류는 거의 없기 때문이다.WP에서는 WP 구문인데, 모든 키보드 매크로와 다른 개인 편집 기법이 그것을 위해 고안되었다. DGG (토크 ) 22:52, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  8. 옵트 아웃 - 위키백과 편집 커뮤니티는 서서히 사라지고 있으며, 우리는 개선해야 한다.우리는 커뮤니티 편집 도구와 품질 관리 대책을 개선하기 위한 새로운 아이디어와 시도는 모두 중단해야 하며, 이 기능이 고안된 정확한 인구를 위해 재단의 막대한 자원을 소비한 기능은 불합리하고 생산성에 역행하며, 미래 성장에 치명적일 수 있는 기능을 무력화시킬 필요가 있다.백과사전심사위원리얼777 (토크) 23:02, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
    Opt-Out - VisualEditor는 처음에는 사용하기 어려운 편이며, 특히 변경 훨씬 전에 Wikipedia를 편집하는 경우, 새로 만든 계정이 많은 경우일 것이다.이 때문에 신규 이용자를 대상으로 이용 방법을 설명하는 안내 투어가 있어야 한다.계정을 만들 때 가장 먼저 팝업되어야 하는 것은 "VisualEditor를 사용하시겠습니까?"가 되어야 한다.진킨슨 (대화) 23:13, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
    나도 동의해, 하지만 이건 네가 실제로 옵트 인을 지지한다는 뜻인 것 같아.거절한다는 것은 당신이 전혀 묻지 않고 그냥 아무렇게나 준다는 것을 의미할 것이다.사람들이 총계만 볼 것이기 때문에, 나는 당신의 #를 언급했다. — Llywelyn.II 02:12, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  9. 신규 및 익명 사용자가 VE를 사용하여 기사를 쉽게 편집할 수 있고, 좌절하지 않기 때문에 <"in">을 선택한다.Bsamiwalaa (토크) 16:02, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
    이것은 옵트 아웃에 대한 투표처럼 들린다.새로운 사용자와 익명 사용자가 시각적 편집기를 사용하여 문서를 쉽게 편집하도록 하려면 기본적으로 문서를 사용 가능으로 설정하지 않으시겠습니까?파워스 19:12, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  10. 형식적인 투표 거부!투표!이 투표는 아마도 반대의 흐름을 막는데 별 도움이 되지 않을 것이라는 것을 알고 있지만, 나는 원칙에 서야 한다고 생각한다.VE는 좋은 것이고, 마음에 들지 않으면 그것을 사용하지 않는 것은 사소할 정도로 쉽다.오해하지 마, 난 그게 버그라는 걸 알아. 그리고 재단이 여기서 심각한 실수를 저질렀다고 생각해. 하지만 내 생각에 그것을 부실로 무력화시키는 것은 이 위키의 집단 자살이나 마찬가지일 거야.

    일단 피할 수 없는 일이 일어나면, 누군가가 이 RFC를 불능화하기로 합의하고 폐쇄하게 되면, 나는 WMF가 우리의 이익을 위해 그 결정에 거부권을 행사하기를 간절히 바란다.위키백과는 모든 인간의 지식의 총합이지 위키 마크업을 잘하는 사람들의 지식의 합이 아니다.

    짐보처럼 좀 더 편리한 옵트 아웃이 해결책이라고 생각한다."편집"과 "원본 편집" 탭 근처에는 현재 언어 표시줄에 나타나는 작은 인터페이스 언어 옵션과 비슷한 것이 있어야 한다. PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 23:14, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]

    a) 사소한 일에도 쉽지 않다.비록 많은 사람들이 그것을 고쳤기를 바라지만, 그것은 큰 고통이었다.
    b) VE는 너무 취해서 내가 장애 조치를 취한 후에도 잠시 동안 무작위로 튀어나왔다.
    c) 드라마를 누른다.주요 페이지가 채워져 있기 때문에 편집자의 손실은 불가피하다: 1904년 노스캐롤라이나주 범블포덩크를 설립한 농부(팝.7)보다 남북전쟁에 대해 이야기하는 데 더 많은 사람들이 관심을 가지고 있다. 그것은 괜찮고 위키피디아의 성공에 대한 부수적인 결과물이지 실패가 아니다.더 중요한 것은, 새로운 편집자들의 문제는 평이한 텍스트가 그렇게 어렵지 않다는 것이다: 문자 그대로 어떤 것도 더 쉬울 수 없거나 더 쉬울 수도 있다.위키가 페이지 소유권에 가끔 큰 문제가 있다는 것이다; 페이지는 분명하지 않게 명명된 템플릿에 의존하게 되었고, nooB-biting이 너무 많이 진행되고 있다.그것들 중 어느 것도 그들에게 버기 소프트웨어를 줌으로써 조금도 바뀌지 않으며, (지금으로부터도 소프트웨어가 버기가 아닌) 일반 텍스트는 여전히 다른 대안보다 빠르고 덜 덜 버그가 될 것이다.
    d) (당신의 계정으로) 새 편집자들은 너무 어리석어서 평문 편집을 사용할 수 없고 오래된 편집자들이 너무 무례해서 제대로 포맷할 수 없기 때문에 우리가 우리의 이익을 위해 무언가를 강요해야 한다는 당신의 생각은 사실 pr의 교과서적인 예다.있어서의 문제.'짐보'와 'WMF'가 이 반대에도 불구하고 당신과 함께 한다면 위키백과의 문제는 견제가 아니라 가속화될 이다.
    e) 두 개의 편집 탭("소스 코드" 포함)은 더 위협적이다.가입할 때 선택권을 주고(즉, 가입) 그들의 선호도에 따라 그것을 바꿀 수 있는 능력을 주면 우리는 끝이다.LlywelinII 02:39, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
    첫 번째 요점에만 응답(다른 부분에는 동의하지 않는 것에 동의해야 할 것임):"편집" 버튼 대신 "원본 편집" 버튼을 누르는 것은 사소한 일이라 할 수 있다.그것을 사용하지 않기 위해 그것을 사용하지 않도록 할 필요는 없다; 나는 주로 Wikitext 나 자신을 사용한다. (당신처럼, 나는 보통 더 빨리 그것을 발견한다.) PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 03:02, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
    당신의 요점은 여전히 거짓이다. 여기서 논의 중인 설정은 VE를 디폴트로 강제하고 있으며, 이것은 페이지를 버그로 만들고 로드와 편집 시간을 현저히 느리게 한다.그것만으로도 그것은 사소한 문제가 아니었다.그것과는 별도로, 우리는 킬 페이지를 쉽게 가질 수도 있고 누르지 않을 수 있는 컨텐츠 버튼을 지울 수도 있지만, 그것들을 포함시키는 것은 여전히 형편없는 디자인일 것이다.소프트웨어의 버그 상태와 실제 새로운 편집자들이 VE를 즐기고 선호한다는 것을 보여주는 데이터 부족을 감안할 때, (편집자들이 그것이 그들에게 좋다고 생각하는 거들먹거리는 것과는 대조적으로), 이것은 원래대로 굴러다니지 말았어야 했다.LlywelinII 01:56, 2013년 8월 6일 (UTC)[응답하라]
  11. 확실히 옵트 아웃 VisualEditor는 느리거나 버그가 있을 수 있지만, 대부분의 새로운 편집자들에게는 매우 이상한 고전적인 위키미카크업보다 새로운 편집자에게 훨씬 더 좋다.그리고 많은 사용자들에게 그것을 가능하게 하는 것이 버그를 빨리 식별하고 고치는 유일한 방법이다.VisualEditor의 전체 목적은 새로운 편집자들이 쉽게 편집할 수 있도록 하고 그것들을 유지하는 것이다.만약 우리가 그들을 위해 그것을 가능하게 하지 않는다면, 모든 것의 요점은 무엇인가?그들은 다른 것을 선택할 수 있다는 것을 깨닫기 전에 마크업을 보면 도망갈 것이다.반자제니제 (대화) 23:49, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
    어떻게 일반 텍스트가 그 무엇보다도 낯설 수 있을까?제대로 된 스타일을 모르고 아무 문제 없는 사람들에게 바보같이 굴지 마.

    그러나 그것은 스타일에 관한 것이 아니다: 그것은 페이지 소유주들이 반대되는 편집들을 허락하는 것을 거절하고 그들이 VE에 들어오든, 마크업을 받든 상관없이 계속될 것이다.LlywelinII 02:39, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  12. Opt-out 나는 많은 파워 유저들이 시각적 편집자에 의해 화가 난다는 것을 이해하지만, 새로운 편집자의 경우 WikiText보다 훨씬 사용하기 쉽고 WikiText는 항상 백업이 존재한다.또한 시각적 편집기 버그에 대한 올바른 대응은 편집기를 비활성화하는 것이 아니라 버그를 수정하는 것이며, 기본적으로 시각적 편집기를 활성화함으로써 가장 빠른 방법으로 이루어질 수 있다고 생각한다.제레미 (대화) 23:56, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
    180명 이상의 사용자 v. 18은 정반대라고 생각한다: 파워 유저들은 nooB를 무시하기 때문에 시각적 편집기를 선호한다.진짜 편집자들은 단지 버기 베타 소프트웨어 없이 일을 처리하기를 원하고 사물에 괄호를 붙이는 법을 배우는 데 문제가 없다.주요 페이지가 채워짐에 따라 사용자들의 성장은 느려질 것이다; 해결 가능한 문제들이 있는 한, 그것은 nooB-biting과 템플릿과 스타일의 과다한 사용과 관련이 있다. 플레인텍스트 위키마크를 사용하는 것은 "어렵다"가 아니다.그렇지 않다고 느끼고 우리 모두에게 "우리 자신의 이익을 위해" 이것을 강요하는 것은 파워 유저들 뿐인 것 같다.LlywelinII 02:39, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
    만약 당신이 정말로 편집자의 거절이 단순히 큰 주제들이 "충족"된 결과라고 생각한다면, 나는 당신의 오해가 VE와 관련된 것보다 훨씬 더 넓다고 생각한다.점심식사 기사가 17kB라고 생각해라.또는 뉴욕 타임즈 매거진 기사가 얼마나 짧고 구식인지 생각해 보라.아주 중요한 주제에 대해 끔찍하게 쓴 기사가 눈에 띄지 않는 날이 거의 하루도 지나지 않는다."성장이 둔화될 것"이라고 말하는 건...그 성장은 오래 전에 둔화되었고, 꽤 오랫동안 부정적이었다.편집자의 수가 감소하고 있다.나는 이것을 합리화하려는 당신의 시도가 내가 앞서 했던 "이 위키의 집단 자살"의 요지를 크게 암시하고 있음을 발견한다. PublicAmpers&(main accounttalkblock) 17:41, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
    내가 토론하고 있던 잘난 체하는 편집자의 훌륭한 예를 제공해줘서 고마워.
    '주요 페이지'에 관한 당신의 주장에 대해 말하자면, 일요 잡지는 신문 자체만큼 중요하지는 않다. 그리고 점심식사(그리고 칭찬과 같은 비슷한 페이지들)는 그들이 하는 방식처럼 보인다. 왜냐하면 솔직히 말해서, 그들은 일반적으로 위키백과에 맡겨져야 하기 때문이다.그것들은 영어를 사용하는 사람들이 위키피디아에서 단순히 찾지 않는 일반적인 주제들의 정의 페이지들이다.여기에는 그러한 주제들에 대한 역사적 또는 문화적 치료를 위한 장소가 있지만, 그것은 당신의 요점을 이해하지 못한다: 그것은 많은 사람들이 (10년이 지나도 아직 개발되지 않았다는 사실에서 알 수 있듯이)에 대해 목소리를 내기 위해 이곳에 오는 것에 관심이 없다는 것은 매우 적절한 우려로 남아 있다.LlywelinII 01:56, 2013년 8월 6일 (UTC)[응답하라]
    실제로, 많은 사람들은 "nooB-biting and over-use of [비정상적인] 템플릿의 사용"을 새로운 편집자들이 떠나는 현장으로 보았다."{{ushr}}"가 4,000개의 기사에 사용될 줄 누가 알았겠는가? ("usher?"에 관한 것이 아니다.)BTW: 감소는 미미하다(2%) 마치 내년에 1000명 방에 980명이 있는 것처럼 23명이 스웨덴 WP를 유년기에 유지했을 때 '집단 자살'은 거의 없다, 현재 136만건이다. -위키드77 (대화) 11:46, 2013년 8월 6일 (UTC) 응답하라[응답]
  13. Opt-out VE는 어쨌든 새로운 사용자들에게 가장 유용할 것이다.그리고 네, 지금은 버기 베타 버전이지만, 베타 버전을 출시하는 모든 요점은 "실제" 조건에서 소프트웨어를 테스트하는 겁니다.우리는 새로운 사용자들이 소프트웨어로 실험을 할 필요가 있고 개발자들에게 피드백을 줄 수 있기를 바란다. 왜냐하면 그들은 소프트웨어로부터 가장 많은 이익을 얻을 것이기 때문이다.보리스블루 (토크) 15:01, 2013년 8월 6일 (UTC)[응답]
  14. 옵트 아웃 더 많은 편집자들이 참여하도록 장려하고 싶다면, 우리는 그들의 관점에서 사물을 볼 필요가 있다.많은 사람들이 프로그래밍에 대해 거의 아는 것이 없으며, 위키 언어가 상당히 단순하지만 시각적 편집자는 학습 곡선을 거의 또는 전혀 알지 못한다.위 편집자들 중 몇몇은 한동안 편집하면서 위키 언어를 이해했기 때문에 약간 왜곡되어 있는 것 같다.그러나 새로 들어오는 사용자들을 위해 시각적 편집자는 그들이 아는 어떤 과목에 대해서도 어떤 종류의 프로그래밍도 배울 필요 없이 그저 쓰기 시작할 수 있게 해주며, 따라서 IMO는 훨씬 더 많은 시청자들에게 위키피디아를 개방한다.Strong Opt-Out --Gloriousglib (대화) 00:02, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
    만약 그들이 단지 글을 쓰고 있다면, 그들은 이미 텍스트를 "그냥 쓸" 수 있고 Wikimarkup에서 그것을 하는 것이 항상 더 빠르고 덜 덜 덜 매끄러운 방법이 될 것이다.이것은 문제가 아닌 것에 대한 끔찍한 해결책이다.문제는 코드가 아니라 모호하지 않은 템플리트, noob-biting, 페이지 소유주들이 그 경험을 불쾌하게 만드는 것에 있다.LlywelinII 02:39, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  15. 내가 보기에 옵트 아웃을 하는 것에 대한 많은 우려는 현재 VE의 "버기"와 관련이 있다.일단 그 모든 것이 해결되면, 나는 그것을 꺼리는 것으로 만드는 것이 좋을 것이라고 생각한다.VE는 Wikimarkup을 이해하지 못하는 사용자들에게 좋을 것이다.나는 이것이 올바른 방향으로 나아가는 단계라고 진지하게 생각하며 새로운 편집자들을 참여시킬 것이다.만약 우리가 그것을 배제하지 않는다면, 우리는 적어도 VE가 쉽게 이용 가능하다는 것을 사용자들에게 분명히 해야 한다. 하지만, 그 당시에 우리는 이미 혼란 속에서 예비 편집자들을 잃었을지도 모른다.MJ94 (대화) 00:44, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  16. Opt-out 지금까지 VisualEditor에 대한 나의 경험은 훌륭했다.버그를 몇 개 본 적은 있지만(내가 직접 두 개의 버그를 보고한 적은 있지만), 사용자가 버그가 몇 개 있어도 간신히 사용할 수 있는 편집기를 사용하는 대신 사용법을 알아내지 못할 편집기를 사용하게 할 만큼 이 버그는 중요하지 않다고 생각한다.더군다나 버그는 시간이 지날수록 고쳐질 것이고, 이 RFC가 끝나고 VisualEditor가 베타에서 떨어질 때쯤에는 이미 상황이 호전되었을 것이다. -- 라스터스 버논 (토크) 01:05, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  17. Opt-out VE가 여전히 인정하고 있는 결함은 소스 편집기에 사용되었을 때만 정말로 눈에 띈다 - 대부분의 경우 새로운 사용자는 그렇지 않다.게다가, 거의 새로운 사람들이 볼 수 없는 장소에 새로운 비지니스 친화적인 시스템을 활성화하기 위한 선택권을 숨기는 것은 다소 어리석은 것으로 보인다.하르덴데핸드 (대화)20:54, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  18. Opt-out Have는 몇몇 비기술적(그러나 컴퓨터를 잘 쓰는) WP-편집자들에게 각 옵션을 시도해 보라고 요구했고, 그들은 일관되게 소스 편집자가 위협적이고 좌절감을 느낀다고 생각했다(어느 쪽이든 내 도움은 받지 않았다).더 중요한 것은, RFC가 제대로 형성되지 않았다고 생각한다. 왜냐하면 그것은 단순히 선택/탈퇴의 문제가 아니라 이것들이 어떻게 제시되느냐의 문제이기 때문이다.새로운 사람이 VE가 "개발 중"이라는 것이 무엇을 의미하는지 어떻게 알겠는가?그것은 그들의 작품이 20%의 시간 동안 손실되거나, 타락하거나, 공공 기물 파손으로 비난을 받게 된다는 것을 의미하는가?옵션을 완전히 명시하지 않은 상태에서, 이 RFC 결과는 전적으로 CE/VE, 제품 및 기타 무형 자산에 대한 경험 있는 사용자의 경험에 기초한다. -- Scray (토크) 01:52, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  19. 약한 중간 선택:새 프로그램은 사실 형편없지만(너무 많이 써서 절대 사용하지 않는다) 신입이나 애논도 이용할 수 있어야 한다. 왜 그럴까?첫째, VE는 새로운 사용자들을 위해 더 쉽게 편집하도록 되어 있다.나이든 편집자들은 미디어위키를 다루는 법을 알고 있기 때문에, VE는 더 나이든 남자들에게 필요하지 않다고 말할 수 있다.그러나 미디어위키는 사실 신인에게는 힘든 존재로 VE는 이를 극복한다.그래, 정말 짜증나. 하지만 만약 VE가 10년 후에 모든 버그를 처리한다면, VE 팀은 10년 동안 미디어위키의 어려움을 치료하기 위해 아무것도 하지 않고 가만히 앉아 있을 것인가?지금 하는 게 좋을 거야.게다가, 더 많은 수의 VE를 갖는 것은 벌레를 치료하는데 좋다. 왜냐하면 짧은 시간 안에 더 많은 벌레를 발견하기 때문이다.문제를 치료하려면 과도한 실험보다는 빨리 치료하는 것이 좋다.옵트인 쪽이 이기고 있는 것 같은데, WPans가 보유 문제(기억, 위키=커뮤니티)를 눈감아 주고 가능한 한 빨리 그 문제를 해결하려 하지 않는 현실이 안타깝다.
    고마워, --선국임 (지금까지 내가 한 일) (여기서 바빠) (요청해줘) 02:53, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  20. 익숙하다면 신규 사용자까지 탈퇴.--Jetstreamer 12:21, 2013년 8월 1일(UTC)[응답]
  21. 옵트 아웃.나는 이 "단순한" 질문의 표현에 완전히 혼란스럽다.나는 "새로운 계정을 만들 때 사용자가 원하는 대로 선택하지 않고 명시적으로 변경한 경우 소스 편집기를 사용하기 위해 버튼 옆에 있는 시각적 편집기를 사용할 수 있도록 버튼을 표시해야 한다"는 뜻으로 내 표를 이해한다.그러나 심각하게, 이 질문은 "새로운 편집자는 VE를 사용하도록 강요받는다"라고 들리게 틀렸다.질문의 표현은 어디서 논의되었는가, 아니면 이 RFC들 중에 똑똑한 사람이 방금 결과를 좀 예측할 수 있도록 적어놓은 것인가? --denny vrandechi (토크) 15:11, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  22. 편집 버튼이 실험으로 표시된 경우에만 선택 해제하십시오.마르틴 회크스트라 (대화) 15:15, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  23. Opt-out --Minihaa (대화) 15:32, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  24. 옵트 아웃 — VE의 개념 중 일부는 위키 코드로 인해 연기될 수 있는 편집자들을 끌어들이는 것이라고 생각한다.Wikia는 환상적인 VE를 가지고 있고, 나는 왜 우리의 VE가 더 낫지는 않더라도 그들의 VE만큼 훌륭할 수 없는지 모르겠다.저기서 일해, 짐보어떻게 생각해?고백0791 15:54, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  25. Opt-Out — VisualEditor가 궁지에 몰렸다.그것은 대다수의 사람들이 알지 못하거나 이해하지 못하는 두 가지 독특한 구문, 즉 HTML과 위키텍스트를 지원해야 한다.그리고 나서 그것은 (파르소이드의 도움을 받아) 그 정보를 해석하고 왕복해야 한다.중간중간 모든 순열을 지원하는 동안.웹 기술의 현재와 미래, 세상을 변화시키는 위키피디아와 같은 큰 것들은 모든 사람들이 참여하기 쉽고, 더 일관되고, 접근 가능하게 만드는 데 있다.그래, 완벽하진 않아.물론, 그것은 당신이 사용하는 모든 복잡한 기능을 지원하지는 않지만, 우리를 올바른 방향으로 이동시키고 있다.

    정보를 추가하고 편집하려는 대부분의 사람들은 상자에 입력하기를 원한다.그것이 VE가 대다수의 사람들에게 하는 일이다."지금 다시 진척되지 않는" 단추를 놓는 것은 우리의 집단적 진보를 늦추고, 새로운 기고자와 관련하여 자신을 '우리 대 그들'로 보는 편집자들 사이에 더 큰 불화를 만들어낸다.나는 이것이 제안하는 것이 신성모독이라는 것을 알지만, 위키텍스트를 완전히 없애는 것은 어렵고 시간이 많이 걸리지만, 그것을 지원하고 적절한 HTML을 제공하려고 노력하는 더 나은 장기적 해결책이다. VE는 이미 불명확한 구문을 없애기 위한 한 걸음이다.전적으로 찬성합니다Ckoerner (대화) 16:26, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

    • 그게 효과가 있을거야...만약 VE가 사용한 코드와 프로세스가 HTML과 같다면, 그것은 아니다.위키피디아는 "완벽한 구문"을 기반으로 만들어졌다; 그리고 그것은 깨지지 않았는데, 왜 그것을 통조림으로 "수정"할 것인가?루케노94 (루크에게 여기서 나가라고 말해) 2013년 8월 1일 16시 36분 (UTC)[응답하라]
  26. 확실히 거절하겠지초보 편집의 바를 올리는 데 도움이 될 수 있다. --Matthias Alexander Jude Shapiro (토크) 14:44, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  27. 옵트 아웃.내가 Wikicode를 알고 있지만 빠른 변화를 위해 이것을 사용하고 만약 당신이 참여해야만 한다면, 혜택을 받을 사람들은 그것을 찾을 수 없을지도 모른다고 생각한다.Techdude3331 (대화) 17:39, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
      • 나는 분명히 해야 한다.다른 대형 웹 퍼블리싱 플랫폼이 이를 사용하지 않는다는 점에서 모호하다.대부분의 다른 (전부는 아닐 경우) 편집 및 렌더링에 HTML을 사용한다.VisualEditor가 단지 하나의 구문을 다루어야 한다면, 이것은 그것의 사용과 영향에 대한 매우 다른 반응일 것이다.위키피디아가 ti를 기반으로 만들어졌다고 해서 그것이 최고거나 영원히 사용되어야 한다는 뜻은 아니다.Ckoerner (대화) 19:50, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  28. 옵트 아웃.결국 그들을 위한 것이다.Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus reply here -- 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC) 16시 58분 16:58
  29. 옵트 아웃 그것은 신입들에게 매우 유용할 수 있다.그러나 이 탭의 편집 탭 이름은 "Visual Editor"로 변경되어야 하며, 원본 편집기는 기본 편집기로 만들어져야 한다.···바니스체누「m/Talk」17:18, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  30. --토바이어스1984 (토크) 17:24, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  31. Opt-out 그것이 표준이 되어야 한다.우리는 새로운 편집자들을 격려하기 위해 우리가 할 수 있는 모든 것을 해야 한다.편집자가 될 뻔했어, 너무 복잡해 보여서.이런 일이 가능했다면 내가 더 어렸을 때(청소년) 더 쉽게 편집했을 것이다.EdwardRussell (대화) 17:37, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  32. 옵트 아웃.— VE가 대단한 것이었음을 알 수 있고, 나는 그것이 편집 페이지의 미래를 보유할 것이라는 것에 사람들과 동의했다.나는 이런 것들을 위한 충분한 기술은 없지만, VE는 '편집 소스'보다 사용하기 더 쉬웠지?글쎄요, 새로운 계정은 WP에 새로 들어온 사람을 의미하지는 않는데, WP에 새로 들어온 사람이 있다고 해서 이런 편집에 대해 확실히 몰랐다는 뜻은 아니다.테이블 편집에도 문제가 있었지만(아마도 배우지 못했을 것이다) '편집-소스 전용' 시대로 돌아가고 싶게 만들지는 말아야 한다.지금쯤, 나는 여전히 VE가 가능하도록 선호를 설정하고, 몇 가지 문제가 해결되기를 기다리고 있었다.그것은 곧 그 일이 일어날 것이다.Vic2908 (대화) 17:40, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  33. 옵트 아웃 — VE를 디폴트로 설정하면 사용자 자신이 버그를 수정할 수 있는 충분한 사용자가 보장된다.나는 또한 VE가 일부 옵트인 표들이 암시하는 것만큼 비기능적이라고 생각하지 않는다.기본 편집에 매우 기능적이고 신규 이용자에게 이상적으로 보인다. -Thomas Craven (토크) 17:55, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  34. 좋아, 그럼 이 제안은 성공하지 못할 것 같으니까, 누가 내 탓을 하든지 여기에 내 지지를 보내는 게 낫겠다.나는 이 편집자를 강력히 지지한다. 왜냐하면 이 편집자가 가야할 방향이 딱 맞기 때문이다.내 말은, 현실을 직시하자. 위키 구문을 배울 수 있어. 사실, 템플릿 프로그래밍을 배우거나 MediaWiki 소프트웨어 쓰는 법도 배울 수 있어.그러나, 이것의 문제는 현재의 위키 구문이 기술에 정통한 사용자가 아닌 새로운 사용자들에게 이 프로젝트에 대한 엄청난 헌신을 요구한다는 것이다. 이 프로젝트에 참여하려는 시점에서는 그들이 하지 않을 것 같다.새로운 사용자에게 이 구문을 배우라고 요구하는 것은 일반 사용자에게 비독점 템플릿을 프로그래밍하도록 요구하는 것과 같다.당신의 조부모님 같은 사람들을 생각해 보라.그들은 이 사이트에 큰 기여자가 될 수 있는 엄청난 지식과 그 이상의 시간을 가지고 있지만, 다시 한번 그들은 이 구문을 더 이상 배우지 않을 것이다.하지만, 위키피디아를 편집하는 것이 워드 문서 편집만큼 쉽다면, 그들은 확실히 그것을 시도해 볼 수 있을 것이다.그러나 한편으로, 그것은 새로운 사용자들뿐만 아니라, 활동적이거나 장기적인 사용자들을 위한 훌륭한 도구다.간단히 드라이브 바이(drive-by) 편집을 할 수 있고, 카피 편집은 즉석에서 이루어지며, 일반적으로 편집은 전체적으로 더 빠르다.좋아, 보아하니 그 도구는 아직 약점이 있지만, 나중에 실행하면 다른 약점이 있을 거야.그래, 혼란스러울 것이고 초기에는 엄청난 문제가 있겠지만, 제기랄, 위키 프로젝트는 이전에도 많은 다른 변화에서 살아남았고 앞으로도 계속 그렇게 할 것이고, 이번 프로젝트는 더 이상 기다리기 싫을 정도로 더 나은 것을 위한 것이다. --The Evil IP address (대화) 18:15, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  35. 새로운 편집자들이 VE를 사용하여 편집하도록 가르치는 것은 믿을 수 없을 정도로 쉽다.기본적으로 켜져 있어야 한다. --Amir E. 아하로니 (토크) 2013년 8월 1일 18:17 (UTC)[응답]
  36. 연결을 해제하되 해당 순서대로 "[편집] [비주얼 편집기]"로 하고 두 링크를 모두 표시하십시오.Wikitext 편집기를 얻기 위해 맴돌아야 하는 것이 싫었기 때문에 나는 스스로 VE를 비활성화했다.나는 계속해서 실수로 VE를 받고 취소했다.내가 편집한 많은 것들은 위키텍스트의 섬세한 조정을 포함한다.링크들이 [편집] [시각적 편집자]였다면, 나는 VE를 사용할 수 있었을 것이고, 내가 그 기초가 되는 위키텍스트에 익숙할 때 그것을 사용할 것이다.아직 베타 버전인데 VE가 드디어 와서 너무 좋다.내가 제안했던 미디어위키에 대한 비판들 중 하나는 그들이 WYSIWYG를 원하고 아직 다른 마크업 언어를 배우지 말라는 것이었다.따라서 나는 VE를 디폴트로 이용할 수 있기를 바라지만, 두 편집자가 호버링과 같은 추가 작업을 할 필요 없이 이용할 수 있기를 바란다. --Marc Kuppertalk 18:23, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
    위키백과 설치 시:비주얼에디터/2013년 8월 여기서 꺼낸 이슈는 수정 완료. --Marc Kupper talk 07:36, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  37. Opt-out - 새로운 사용자들에게 덜 위협적인 요소 :) Srijay K - TechFilmer 20:33, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  38. 대화는 대체로 무뚝뚝하다.내가 보고 있는 거라곤 새롭고 빛나는 어떤 것에 대한 위키피디아 표준의 반응뿐이야: "다르고 싫어!"기본적으로 메모장 편집자인 일반 텍스트 편집에 대해 제기되어 온 스탠딩 편집 커뮤니티가 위키미디어 재단이 이 웹사이트를 사용 가능하게 하기 위해 쏟아 부은 막대한 투자에 대해 왜 어떤 의견이 있어야 하는가?나는 선의의 자원 봉사자가 아닌, 그것의 자기성을 두려워하는 권력 엘리트를 본다.블러피스 20:43, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
    위키피디아 사람들은 "shiny" Lua-based wp:CS1은 인용하지만, 몇 달 동안 시험되고 논의되었다. -Wikid77 22:59, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
    나는 네가 "사용 가능한"이라는 단어에 대해 다른 관점을 가지고 있다고 생각한다.편집기로 테이블과 템플릿을 편집하는 것은 물론, 그 밖의 여러 가지 투박한 것(랜덤 노위키 태그, 메타데이터 메스 등)도 편집하기 어렵다.스탠딩 편집 커뮤니티가 왜 사이트 편집에 대한 발언권을 가져야 하는가?글쎄, 그 질문은 저절로 대답되는 것 같다.VE가 완전히 사라져야 한다고 주장하는 사람은 거의 없다.나는 우리가 기능성과 사람들에게 그것을 강요하는 것에 더 관심이 있다고 생각한다.당신의 게시물은 더 광범위한 질문과 함의는 무시하면서 다른 사람들을 비난하고 있는 것 같다.Killiondude (대화) 21:10, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
    네가 내 평가를 들어주는 건 정말 칭찬할 만해, 킬리온두드. 그것은 실제로 지나가는 행인에게 이 곳에서 컨센서스 주도적인 논의가 일어나고 있는 듯한 착각을 불러일으킬지도 몰라.나는 시간을 들여 나의 우려를 충분히 설명하고 이 페이지가 이미 가득 차 있는 텍스트의 벽에 덧붙이지는 않겠지만 만약 이것이 당신이 정말로 추구하고 싶은 것이라면 다른 곳에서 대화를 계속하는 것이 행복할 것이다.나는 죽은 말을 (주+) 때리는 것이 이상적인 RfC 장식이라는 의심이 든다.(참고로, 우리는 한동안 말을 하지 않았다.지난 몇 년 동안 삶이 당신을 잘 대해주길 진심으로 바란다.)블러피스 08:30, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
    "표준 위키백과 반응"의 화두는 루아 기반 wp의 원활한 도입을 무시한다.CS1은 2013년 3월/4월 100만건의 기사를 6개월간의 시험과 토론을 거쳐 2배-3배 더 빠르게 재포맷(또는 편집-프리뷰)하기 위해 인용했으며, 한 달간의 단계별 일정을 통해 각 10만건의 인용문을 루아로 전환한 후 사용자 문제에 대한 업그레이드를 가능하게 했다.많은 사용자들이 불만을 제기할 경우를 대비해 항상 리턴-업그레이드 옵션이 있었지만, 루아 시트가 잘 작동하고 사람들이 새로운 기능을 기대했기 때문에 리턴-업그레이드 옵션이 없었다.대신, 우리는 함께 일했고, 개발자들은 4월에 대부분의 기사를 2-3배 더 빨리 편집하기 위해 루아 속도를 두 배로 높였다. -Wikid77 22:59, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  39. 옵트 아웃 누군가 이 새로운 장난감을 광범위하게 테스트해야 한다.en-wp(신입생들의 질문에 대답할 필요가 없는 곳)부터 해보는 게 어떨까?--릴케(대화) 21:31, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답하라]
  40. 옵트 아웃 나는 이 도구가 새로운 사용자들에게 덜 위협적이라고 생각한다. 그리고 그것을 옵트 인으로써 우리는 새로운 사용자들이 기존의 위키 편집에 이미 익숙해질 때까지 그것을 발견하지 못할 가능성이 높기 때문에 비주얼 편집기 개발에 투입된 작업이 헛것이라는 것을 거의 보증하지 않는다.AniMate 22:48, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  41. 새로운 사용자를 위해 설계되었기 때문에 옵트 아웃 - 로그인한 사용자와 동일한 옵션을 사용할 것으로 가정한다.나의 유일한 관심사는 시스템 로딩이다. 로딩과 저장에 훨씬 더 오래 걸리고, 그것이 모두 로컬 브라우저 오버헤드가 아니라면 시스템을 심각하게 망가뜨릴 수 있다.크리스55 (토크) 22:58, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  42. 옵트 아웃 - 특히 재펜싱과 관련하여 해결해야 할 소프트웨어 문제가 있지만, 나는 이러한 문제가 해결될 것이라고 확신한다.VE는 신규 사용자들을 위해 설계되었으며, 만약 그들이 참여해야 한다면, 거의 아무도 그것을 사용하지 않을 것이고, 그것은 프로젝트에 대한 대규모 혜택을 생산하지 않을 것이고, 그것에 대한 노력은 완전히 낭비될 것이다.Dcoetzee 23:01, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  43. Opt-out - Rillke에 동의하십시오.또한 나는 개인적으로 VE를 좋아하지 않고 여전히 구식 시스템을 사용하지만, 그것은 단순히 내가 익숙한 것을 사용하는 것을 더 좋아하기 때문이다.그러나 내가 보기에는 VE가 의도한 대로 새로운 사용자에게 적응하기가 더 쉬울 것 같다.내 경험상, 비록 지금은 위키텍스트를 사용하는 것을 선호하지만, 배우는 데 시간이 걸렸고 미래에 얕은 학습 곡선을 갖는 것이 더 나을 수 있다.르우벤코 (대화) 23:55, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  44. Dcoetzee 당 Opt-out.엠브 (대화) 00:17, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  45. Opt-out wikitxt 편집에는 적당히 가파른 학습 곡선이 있다.요령을 터득하는 데 시간이 걸렸다세계의 많은 사람들은 인터넷과 월드 와이드 웹의 차이를 알지 못하지만, 우리는 그들이 위키텍스트 마크업을 알기를 기대한다.여기 편집자들은 대부분 참전용사들로 처음 보는 게 얼마나 힘들었는지 잊어버린 것 같아."베타" 우려로 인해 옵트아웃이 실패할 경우, 그러한 요소가 더 이상 유효하지 않을 때 다시 제안해야 한다.Int21h (토크) 00:51, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  46. 짐보 웨일즈에서 옵트 아웃.아퍼슨 (토크!) 2013년 8월 2일 00:57 (UTC)[응답]
  47. 옵트 아웃 - VE의 이면에 있는 아이디어는 좋고 정확하다.모든 새로운 위키피디아 사람들이 Wikitext로 이해하고 쓸 수 있는 것은 아니며, 그들 중 몇몇은 그것을 배우려고 노력하지 않을 것이다. 왜냐하면 전형적으로 편집은 일회성이기 때문이다.이렇게 하면 위키피디아는 많은 건설적인 편집들을 잃게 될 것이다.게다가, 그것을 완전히 편안하게 느끼기까지 약 6개월이 걸렸다.Wikitext는 당신의 편집 내용을 직접 보여주지 않으며(WYSIWYG), 'Show Preview' 버튼을 광범위하게 사용해야 한다(진짜 골칫거리다).구문 오류(대괄호 닫기 실패 등)를 통해 새 편집자가 페이지 전체를 편집한 부분도 너무 많이 봤다.VE는 완벽한 해결책이다.Wikitext에 익숙한 편집자의 경우 VE를 탈퇴하고 Wikitext를 직접 편집할 수 있다.올리버릭 02:13, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  48. opt-out, 심지어 느리고 약간 덜렁거리는 VE도 여전히 위키코드보다 사용자 친화적이다.그래도 빨리 벌레를 찾아서 고치자.니콜라스1981 (토크) 02:34, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  49. Opt-out 이것은 나에게 전혀 생각나지 않는 것 같다.VE는 현재 경험 많은 편집자들에게 매력적이지 않고 여전히 약간의 작업이 필요하지만, Wikicode보다 훨씬 더 새로운 취미 생활이다.닉-D (대화) 08:38, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  50. 선택 취소, 그러나 6개월또는 Wikicode에 대한 테스트를 통과하기 전까지는 어느 것이든 이른 시점 - 커뮤니티의 최선의 노력에도 불구하고 여전히 인용 오류, 링크에서 잘못된 형식의 시도 등이 있는 기사를 정기적으로 접한다는 점을 고려할 때.내 의견은 모든 새로운 사용자들을 위해 Wikicode를 어떻게 사용하는지에 대한 테스트가 주어질 필요가 있고, Wikicode에 충분한 능력을 증명하는 사람들은 제외될 수 있어야 한다는 것이다.쇼니스: 이제 컬러로 09:28, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  51. Opt-Out 그것은 있는 그대로도 꽤 잘 작동한다.위키피디아는 지식을 공유하는 것이지 소프트웨어 개발이 아니다.주근깨 (토크) 11시 27분, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  52. 탈퇴하다.이것은 매우 중요한 것이다: 새로운 사용자들이 이해할 수 없는 위키텍스트의 거대한 벽을 포함하지 않는 단순한 도구를 얻도록 하는 것이다.The Land (talk) 11:44, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  53. 탈퇴하다.새로운 사용자로서 나는 VE가 충분히 사용자 친화적이라는 것을 알았다.포맷에 대한 모든 태그를 먼저 배워야 했다면 아마도 관여하는 것이 더 망설였을 것이다 --멜리1547 (대화) 15:36, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  54. 탈퇴하다.VE는 특히 대부분의 신규 사용자가 원하는 직접적인 편집을 위해 충분히 안정적이다.위키텍스트보다 훨씬 사용자 친화적이고 직관적이며 배우기 쉽다.Wikitext는 종종 새로운 편집자들이 옆에 붙어 있지 않는 이유로 언급되는데, VE는 그것을 지금 당장 바꿀 수 있을 만큼 충분히 훌륭하다.웨거스TALK 18:38, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  55. 탈퇴하다.VE is much more user-friendly than the traditional editor, and new editors are precisely those who stand to benefit most from it. (Incidentally, I'm an Opera user who has had to try it out in Firefox; if you do use Opera [by which I mean Opera-That-Was; I can't speak for the new Opera-On-Chrome], you simply default to the old editor.) — Shmuel (talk) 2013년 8월 2일 20:22 (UTC)[응답하라]
  56. 옵트 아웃 - 첫째, 다른 사람들이 웹 기반 응용프로그램에서 기대하는 것이 무엇인지 잘 모르겠다.버그는 항상 소프트웨어 개발의 일부였고 이전에 했던 것 보다 더 특별한 무언가를 하려고 하는 어떤 소프트웨어도 버그를 가지고 있을 것이다.신입 편집자로서 내가 하고 싶었던 일은 기사에 내용을 추가하는 것뿐이었다.위키피디아에 대해 배운 다른 모든 것은 거기서 나온 것이다.내가 하고 싶은 일이라곤 댓글을 달아서 다른 사람의 의견을 대답하는 일밖에 없다면 내가 위키코드를 알아야 할까 아니면 차라리 몇 개의 버튼을 눌러야 할까? -Wikishagnik (대화) 22:08, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  57. 옵트 아웃.VE가 애당초 개발되는 이유는 편집자 감소 문제를 해결하기 위해서다.그리고 감소에 기여하는 주요한 문제는 떠난 사람들을 대체할 신선한 피가 충분하지 않기 때문이다(부분적으로는 위키 코드를 배우는 것이 너무 어렵기 때문이다).오하나유나이티드Talk page 01:56, 2013년 8월 3일 (UTC)[응답
  58. 옵트 아웃.이곳의 기본 원칙은 「쉬운 것을 쉽게 한다」 「사용자를 놀라게 하지 마라」이다.마크업이라는 벽이 항상 장벽이 될 사람들이 많이 있다.복잡성을 숨기는 직관적이고 익숙한 툴로 시스템 채택을 쉽게 유도:깃허브가 벤처캐피털로 1억달러를 가져가야 했던 이유다.위키백과에 지능적으로 기여할 수 있지만 위키백과에서 사용하는 대부분의 간단한 마크업조차도 배우려고 하거나 배울 수 없는 사람들이 있다.장기적으로는 WYSIWIG/프리뷰 모드와 소스 모드 사이를 유동적으로 이동할 수 있는 통합 편집기를 보고 싶다.이것은 또한 시각적 편집자가 마크업을 만들 때 마크를 볼 수 있게 함으로써 새로운 사용자들을 가르치는 데 도움을 줄 수 있는 이점이 있다.그동안, 나는 당신의 디폴트를 끈질기게 전환하기 쉬운 한 비주얼 에디터가 디폴트가 되어야 한다고 생각한다.게르벡 (대화) 02:27, 2013년 8월 3일 (UTC)[응답]
  59. 옵트 아웃 -- 피비 / (말씀) 03:50, 2013년 8월 3일 (UTC)[응답]
  60. 그리고 둘 사이를 쉽게 전환할 수 있어야 한다. -- 애런쇼 (대화) 03:54, 2013년 8월 3일 (UTC)[응답]
  61. Opt-out - 위의 설명당 52번.신규 사용자가 VE에 대해 알지 못해 VE의 혜택을 받지 못한다면 VE의 목적은 거의 전적으로 훼손된다.프로토타임 (토크 · 기여) 04:07, 2013년 8월 3일 (UTC)[응답]
  62. 옵트 아웃:위키피디아는 어느 곳에서나 누구나 공통의 이익을 위해 자신의 (알려지지 않는) 지식을 기부할 수 있도록 하는 것에 관한 것이다.옵트인 기능으로 만들면 사이트 모토를 "위키피디아:괴짜들만이 편집할 수 있는 무료 백과사전."한편, 나는 괴짜와 괴짜들의 규칙이기 때문에, 아마도 그 가난하고, 이해력이 없는 평범한 사람들은 그냥 버텨내야 할 것이다. :-) -- 수퍼잡 (토크) 2013년 8월 3일 오전 4시 15분 (UTC)
  63. Opt-out VE의 요점은 설정이나 구문에 대해 잘 모르는 사람이라도 누구나 쉽게 기사를 편집할 수 있도록 하는 것이다.(웹 사이트가 어떻게 작동하는지 이해하기에는 너무 어리지만 단락을 쓸 만큼 나이가 많은) 그러한 라이트 사용자들은 VE를 통해 편집하는 것이 얼마나 쉬운지를 깨닫거나 "opt-in"하는 방법을 전혀 알지 못할 것이다.VE를 옵트 아웃(Opt-out)으로 하는 것은 위키백과 편집자 기반을 넓히고 전문 편집자가 쓰기에는 너무 비기술적이고 문화적인 주제에 대한 지식의 깊이를 넓힐 것이다.위키피디아는 너무 많은 규칙과 규정들을 가지고 있고 (수백 개의 도움말과 가이드라인 페이지에 수백 개의) 편집하기 너무 어렵다.VE는 후자의 문제를 해결할 것이다.재판장 (대화) 06:19, 2013년 8월 3일 (UTC)[응답]
  64. 확실히 거절한다.모든 기본 편집 작업은 VE와 함께 매우 직접적이고 직관적으로 수행할 수 있다.그래, 더 많은 작업이 필요하지만, 나는 이것이 신입 편집자들, 그리고 궁극적으로 모든 편집자들에게 바람직한 방법이라고 확신한다.우리는 몇몇 불명확한 신성한 의식을 옹호하는 성직자가 아니다.위키피디아는 진정으로 민주적인 프로젝트다.편집자에 관한 한 의미론적 기술 및 서술적 기술은 IT 기술보다 훨씬 더 가치가 있다.다로실미르 (대화) 07:34, 2013년 8월 3일 (UTC)[응답]
  65. 탈퇴하다.AGK [•] 13:17, 2013년 8월 3일 (UTC)[응답]
  66. 지금 당장은 두 가지 옵션 모두 훌륭하지 않다 - 나는 VE를 좋아하지 않는다 - 하지만 나는 이것이 더 나은 결과로 이어질 것이라고 생각한다.이걸 숨긴다면 정체될 거야앤드루 그레이 (대화) 13:43, 2013년 8월 3일 (UTC)[응답]
  67. 옵트 아웃 VE의 전체 요점은 더 많은 사람들에게 위키 사용을 권장하는 것이다.어떤 선택사항으로 숨기면 전체 요점을 무너뜨리는 것이다! 2013년 8월 3일 (UTC) 14:37, Talk 14:37[응답하라]
  68. Opt-out, 확실히 -- A1000 (대화) 14:41, 2013년 8월 3일 (UTC)[응답]
  69. Opt-out Samspade79의 말. --스페인어잼 16:19, 2013년 8월 3일 (UTC)[응답]
  70. 짐보 웨일스에 따르면 확실히 거절했어.VE가 불완전할 수도 있지만, 사람들이 편집하지 않는 주된 이유 중 하나는 대부분의 새로운 사람들에게 너무 복잡하기 때문이다.VE는 경험이 없는 편집자들에게 훨씬 더 단순하게 해주며 우리가 간단한 선택 방법을 제공하는 것은 어렵지 않다.나는 그렇게 많은 편집자들이 완벽을 선의 적이 되도록 허용하고 위키피디아가 새로운 편집자들을 격려하는 것을 방해하고 있다는 것을 거의 불쾌하게 생각한다.— 오웬 블랙커 (토크) 16:41, 2013년 8월 3일 (UTC)[응답]
  71. 옵트 아웃.그것은 새로운 편집자의 "입장 장벽"을 감소시킨다.말리쿠사이드 (대화) 17:03, 2013년 8월 3일 (UTC)[응답]
  72. 옵트 아웃.1970년이 아니라 2013년이다.진입 장벽을 없애고 익명 및 기타 사용자에게 그들이 기대하는 도구를 제공합시다.샌피치 (대화) 17:43, 2013년 8월 3일 (UTC)[응답]
  73. 강하게, 강하게, 강하게, 강하게, 강하게 거부한다.이것은 인기 있는 선택이 아니다.투표하는 하드코어 사용자들은 (그리고 어떤 소프트웨어의 오랜 사용자들도 거의 모든 디자인 변화에 저항하기 때문에) 옵트인이 승리할 것이라고 나는 보기 전에 예측했다.하지만 나는 VE의 모든 요점은 컴퓨터 괴짜가 아닌 사람들을 위해 위키피디아를 더 쉽게 편집하는 것이라고 강하게 믿는다.문제는 이 그룹이 일반 사용자들의 대다수를 구성하고 있다는 것(그들 중 상당수는 큰 기여를 할 수 있는 분야의 전문가들)에 걸지만, 이 페이지에 투표하는 사람은 극소수에 불과하다는 점이다.따라서 여기서의 합의는 디폴트(채무불이행)로 그것을 가능하게 하지 않는 것이 될 것이지만, 그것은 잘못된 결정이다.VE는 위키피디아의 전체적인 디자인을 오랜만에 크게 개선한 것으로서, 그것을 보고 안심했다; 그것은 지역사회가 끊임없이 지역사회 주도 프로젝트를 위협하는 불가피한 정체와 정체성을 극복했다는 신호였다.여기서 표결이 승리하고 편집자가 옵트인이 된다면 위키피디아의 미래에 대해 훨씬 덜 낙관적일 것이다. --MillingMachine (토크) 17:50, 2013년 8월 3일 (UTC)[응답]
  74. 옵트 아웃.마키(토크) 18:26, 2013년 8월 3일 (UTC)[응답]
  75. 위의 MillingMachine당 Opt-out(개념 #71).스키아사우루스(Skiasaurus, sskr's əs) 18:30, 2013년 8월 3일 (UTC)[응답]
  76. 물론, 탈퇴한다.쉼표 추가, 맞춤법 수정 등 몇 가지 수정은 꽤 쉽다.새로운 편집자가 자신의 작품의 결과를 즉시 볼 수 있게 되면, 그 편집자는 일어나 앉아, 감동을 받고, 위키피디아의 어려운 점수에 대한 덤핑을 잊어버리게 될 것이다.다르게 느끼는 노인들은 잠시 남의 입장이 되어 봐야 한다.조지루이스 (대화)20:48, 2013년 8월 3일 (UTC)[응답]
  77. 옵트 아웃.모든 사람들은 WYSIWYG 편집자와 함께 일하는 것에 익숙하다.위키백과에서 누구나 쉽고 빠르게 편집할 수 있게 해준다. --Alfred Xing (대화) 00:05, 2013년 8월 4일 (UTC)[응답]
  78. Opt-Out.새로운 사용자들은 그것이 존재하는지 모를 수 있고, 그것이 존재한다고 해도, 탭이 옵션으로 있는 것은 아무런 차이가 없다.(토크) 01:40, 2013년 8월 4일 (UTC)[응답하라]
  79. 강한 옵트 아웃.위키피디아는 사람들에게 VE를 받아들이도록 강요해야 한다.당신은 본질적으로 초소형 통조림 독재자로 가득 찬 거대한 퓨처라마 에스크 관료주의인 "프로젝트"에 뛰어들고 있다.또한 소프트웨어를 사용하기도 어렵고 투박하고 어려운 것을 배우도록 강요 받는 것은 어떠한가?만약 당신이 새로운 사용자로 VE에서 살아남는다면 당신은 공공 기물 파손, 편집 전쟁, 그들의 능력을 지키는 편집자들의 역전, 트롤에 대한 준비가 되어있다.Wtbe7560 (대화) 01:29, 2013년 8월 4일 (UTC)[응답]
  80. 매시브 옵트 아웃 이 시각적 편집은 우리를 바보로 만들고, 나는 위키코드 없이 수동으로 무언가를 해야 하는 것을 싫어한다.새로운 사용자와 익명의 사용자는 먼저 위키코드를 배워야 한다.Mkbw50 로그아웃! 2013년 8월 4일 (UTC)
  81. Opt-out 현재 상태에서도 VE는 새로운 편집자들에게 그들 대부분이 원하는 것을 제공한다.편집 버튼을 처음 눌렀을 때 우리 대부분이 원했던 것.상자에 간단한 내용을 입력하고 저장하십시오.그리고 아무도 그것을 사용하도록 강요받지 않는다.또한, 이 RfC는 잘못된 사람들에게 코멘트를 요청하고 있다.나는 이 RfC에 기고하는 누구라도 논평하기 전에 첫 편집자의 반응을 얻도록 부탁하고, 위키미디아가 이 RfC를 닫기 전에 처음 편집자들 사이에 적어도 지푸라기 여론조사를 조직해 줄 것을 부탁하고 싶다.리처드 키팅(토크) 09:41, 2013년 8월 4일 (UTC)[응답]
  82. VE 베타 단계가 완료되면 Opt-out.당분간은 새로운 사용자가 베타 테스트 위키 소프트웨어 대신 기사 개선에 동의할 수 있도록 선택. --프레데리코1234 (대화) 13:34, 2013년 8월 4일 (UTC)[응답]
  83. 옵트 아웃.나는 VE가 궁극적으로 활성화되고 모든 사람이 이용할 수 있어야 한다고 생각하지만, a) 참조: 참조는 훨씬 더 쉬워져야 하며(아마 마법사 또는 더 나은 입력 양식으로), 인터페이스는 참조를 강하게 권장해야 한다(예: 참조 메커니즘을 시각적으로 두드러지게 만들고 사용자 등록에 도전해야 한다).소스가 필요 없는 편집, b) 반달리즘: 아마도 선제적인 봇 주도 반반달리즘은 익명의 사용자들에게 촉진되어 봇이 편집 내용을 저장하기 전에 체크하도록 할 수 있다.생각일 뿐이야.현재의 인터페이스가 편집을 어렵게 만들고 이것이 공공 기물 파손을 막을 수 있다는 사실은 내가 보기에 전반적인 이익이 아니다.편집은 모든 사람이 쉽게 할 수 있도록 해야 한다.만약 그것이 실제로 참조를 더 쉽게 만들었다면 나는 VE를 사용할 것이지만, 그것은 그렇지 않다.NoMatterTryAgain (대화) 13:43, 2013년 8월 4일 (UTC)[응답]
  84. 옵트 아웃..새로운 편집자가 위키피디아나 다른 HTML 형식을 모를 수도 있기 때문에 VE는 기본적으로 활성화되어야 한다고 생각한다. --Dede2008 (토크) 15:44, 2013년 8월 4일 (UTC)[응답]
  85. 옵트 아웃..그냥 옵트인 제안은 말도 안 돼, 이게 뭐야, 음악원?지금 당장 다칠 수 있는 건 금지한다고?오, 제발 그 혜택이 어떤 위험보다 훨씬 더 중요해, 단지 시간 동안의 공공 기물 파손 비율을 봐. --Dany0 (대화) 15:56, 2013년 8월 4일 (UTC)[응답]
  86. 옵트 아웃.그것의 존재 이유는 noobs에서 더 쉬워지기 위함이다.선호도를 조사해서 취지를 꺾게 만드는 거지브라이언 에디터 (토크) 2013년 8월 4일 (UTC) 16시 42분[응답]
  87. 옵트 아웃.이것은 나에게 꽤 명백해 보인다.간단한 시스템은 초보자와 비초심자를 위한 것이다.다지(토크) 19:06, 2013년 8월 4일 (UTC)[응답]
  88. 옵트 아웃.나는 그것이 압도적임을 알 수 있지만 나는 오늘 오후가 정반대의 기분이다.사용자 Bandamerchant는 첫눈에 나의 본능적인 감정과 일치하는 주장을 폈다: 소프트웨어 자체는 수정을 필요로 하기 때문에 그리고 나는 소스를 편집하는 것이 서투른 편집에 대한 유용한 장벽으로 작용한다고 생각하기 때문이다. 편집을 더 쉽고 시각적으로 만드는 것은 공공 기물 파손을 조장할 가능성이 있다 - 우리는 전과 정확히 같은 수의 생산적인 편집자를 가질 것이다. 우리는 단지 그 위에 약간의 잡음을 더할 것이다.그러나 현실적으로, 편집을 쉽게 하기 위한 도구의 존재 여부는 우리 기사 중 한 기사를 드라이브로 촬영하려는 바보들에게 실질적인 장애물이 되지 않는다.그레그 L (대화) 19:28, 2013년 8월 4일 (UTC)[응답]
  89. 옵트 아웃.새로운 편집자는 VisualEditor를 기본 편집기로 설정해야 하며, 편집자가 경험과 자신감을 얻을 때 항상 사용할 수 있는 소스 편집기를 사용할 수 있어야 한다.마크 쿠퍼 버스터40004 Talk 20:30, 2013년 8월 4일 (UTC)[응답]의 제안대로 "[편집] [시각편집자]]를 보고 싶다.
  90. 옵트 아웃.모든 것은 비주얼이어야 한다. 모든 것은 "당신이 보는 것은 당신이 얻는 것"이어야 한다."위키 마크업 언어"는 애초에 존재하지 말았어야 했다.비주얼! 투석기!
    • 마크업 언어는 토크 페이지 서명(이하 ~~)을 자동 삽입하거나, 인구 데이터 템플릿으로 최근 인구 수(7개국)에 대한 마을 기사 25,000건을 매년 국가별로 10-15개씩 업데이트하는 방식이다. -Wikid77 23:26, 2013년 8월 5일(UTC)[응답]
  91. 옵트 아웃.잠재적 공공 기물 파손을 장려하거나 촉진한다.웨더베인13 21:22, 2013년 8월 4일(UTC)
  92. 물론, 아직 덜컹거렸지만, 지금까지는 나에게 아주 효과가 있다.만약 새로운 사용자들이 그것을 잘못 사용하거나 편집 전쟁을 일으킬 수 있다는 것이 문제라면, 나는 이런 종류의 변명이 위키피디아에 기여하려는 새로운 사용자들의 열정에 방해가 되어서는 안 된다고 생각한다.만약 그것이 새로운 사용자가 사용하기에는 너무 무미건조하다는 것이 문제라면, 나는 적어도 새로운 사용자들을 위한 "소스" 편집보다 낫다고 생각한다.그들이 그들만의 경험을 얻었을 때, 그들은 덜 버그가 있는 소스 에디터를 사용하는 것을 좋아할 것이다.아마도 몇 달 후, VE가 더 안정적이고 빨라질 때, 우리는 그것을 편집의 기본 방법으로 설정할 수 있다.정말이지, 모든 사람에게 한 가지 이상의 선택권을 주는 것이 항상 최선의 해결책이야.Lsls421 (대화) 02:06, 2013년 8월 5일 (UTC)[응답]
    • 사람들은 손전등 하나와 낡은 배터리를 가지고 동굴에 들어가거나 그랜드 캐년의 가장자리에 있는 난간 밖으로 걸어갈 수도 있지만, 그것이 최선의 해결책은 아니다.VE 편집은 위험하고 많은 사용자가 준비되지 않았다. -Wikid77 23:26, 2013년 8월 5일 (UTC)[응답]
  93. 옵트 아웃.그것은 사용자 친화적이고 직관적이며 매력적이 되는 것에 관한 것이다.버그는 제때에 고쳐질 것이고, 일어날지도 모르는 공공 기물 파손의 새로운 기회도 생길 것이다.위키백과가 무심코 편집에 관심을 갖는 새로운 사람들을 얻고자 한다면, 이것은 올바른 방향으로 나아가는 한 걸음이다.댄버브로 (대화) 04:20, 2013년 8월 5일 (UTC)[응답]
    • 안타깝게도 많은 중간 규모의 VE 편집이 Save에 실패했으며 신규 사용자의 41%가 변경 사항을 저장하지 않았다.사용자들은 전체 인포박스를 삭제하는 백스페이스가 어떻게 비직관적이었는지를 결론지었다.업데이트 저장 실패는 잘못된 방향으로의 한 걸음이다. -Wikid77 23:26, 2013년 8월 5일 (UTC)[응답]
  94. 옵트 아웃.에피시티95 (토크) 12:54, 2013년 8월 5일 (UTC)[응답]
  95. Opt-out, Paulexyn0 (토크) 15:27, 2013년 8월 5일 (UTC)[응답] 사용이 간편한 편리한 도구다.
  96. 옵트 아웃.완벽과는 거리가 멀겠지만, 현재 초보 편집자들에게 제시된 마크업 지옥보다 훨씬 낫다.게다가, 우리는 이 문제에 대해 사용자들에게 물어보는 것이 어떨까; *그들*은 변화의 영향을 받은 사람들이다. --로맨스키 (토크) 14:29, 2013년 8월 5일 (UTC)[응답]
    • 초보자 사용자들은 이미 위에서 VE(신뢰 전?)를 사용하지 않고 일부 응답했다.새로운 사용자 이름 중 약 65%가 Wikitext 편집기를 사용하고 있으며, 35% VE를 사용하고 있으며, 그렇게 생각하고 있다. -Wikid77 23:26, 2013년 8월 5일(UTC)[응답]
  97. 2013년 8월 5일 Nathan T 14:34(UTC) 옵트아웃[응답]
  98. 옵트 아웃 단기적인 대혼란을 야기할 수도 있지만, 장기적으로 상황을 더 단순하고 효율적으로 만들 것이다.사용자들에게 힘을 실어주는 어떤 새로운 기술도 처음에는 의심을 불러일으킨다; 위키피디아는 이것의 좋은 예다.장기적 사고, 단순성, 효율성, 신기술 선택, 기여자 신뢰. --Farzaneh (토크) 18:22, 2013년 8월 5일 (UTC)[응답]
    • 음, 초기 위키피디아는 만연한 반달리즘을 되돌리기 위해 급진적인 수준의 봇 편집으로 바뀌어야 했고, 많은 기사들은 여전히 80%의 해킹 편집+리버트로 되어 있다. -위키드77 23:26, 2013년 8월 5일 (UTC)[응답]
  99. 약한 옵트 아웃, 첫 인상이 가장 강하다.--왕쉬안8331800 (대화) 04:59, 2013년 8월 6일 (UTC)[응답]
  100. 옵트 아웃
    'opt-in'에 반대한다: 대부분의 사람들은 'opt-in'은 경험 없는 '열성적인' 신규 사용자들의 편집을 좌절시키면서 베테랑 '생산적인' 편집자들의 수를 그대로 유지하게 할 것이라고 주장한다.그 IMHO는 멍청하다.만약 아론 스와츠(R.I.P.)를 기억하는 사람이 있다면, 여러분은 또한 "Who Edites Wikipedia?"에 대한 그의 기사를 읽었을 것이다.기본적으로 그가 말하는 것은 경험 많은 '편집자'들이 텍스트를 수정하고 WikiMarkup을 추가하는 것과 같은 편집의 대부분을 하는 반면, 물론 새로운 정보와 상당한 양의 추가 정보는 새로운 사용자로부터 온다는 것이다.그래서 'opt-in'은 기여금의 상당한 손실을 야기할 것이다(이것은 위키피디아가 의존하는 것이다).
    'opt-out'경우: 새로운 계정에 대해 VE를 디폴트로 설정하는 것은 기여하는 것을 개의치 않지만 너무 두려워하거나 위키Markup을 배우는 데 시간을 투자하기를 원하지 않는 새로운 사용자들의 더 많은 기여를 장려할 것이다.그래서 우리는 더 많은 기여를 받는다(그리고 잠재적으로 고수하고 활동적이 되기로 결정하는 사용자들).경험 많은 베테랑들에 대해서는, 그들이 이러한 문제들을 알고 있기 때문에, 그들은 단순히 VE를 끌 수 있기 때문에 조금도 영향을 받지 않을 것이다.윈-윈(win-win) 상황이다. 기존 사용자에게 영향을 미치는 신규 사용자의 기여도가 더 많다. 기존 사용자가 선호도를 바꾸도록 하는 비용만 지불하면 해결된다. a. 신규 계정에 대해서만 선택을 하거나 b. 전환하도록 하는 것(관련되고 토론 내용을 알고 있기 때문에 문제가 되지 않는다).버그에 대해서는, WMF devs가 그 위에 있고, VE는 기본적인 작업(어쨌든 WikMarkup에 대해서조차 모르는 사용자들이 사용할 모든 것)에 대해서 상당히 잘 작동한다고 확신한다.
    진심으로, 겸손한 위키백과 n00b YatharsROCK (토크) 05:33, 2013년 8월 6일 (UTC)[답답답]의 긴 소릴.
      • 이후 연구들은 새로운 WP-write-WP 아이디어를 뒤집었다(wp:1EDITMYTH 참조). 현재, 나이든 사용자들은 WP 기사 대부분을 쓴다. 사실 WP(21만 기사)의 5%는 VE가 아닌 위키텍스트의 힘을 이용해 10명만이 글을 썼다.VE의 일부 버그는 치명적이다: 더 큰 편집 내용을 저장하지 못함, 하나의 추가 백스페이스로 infobox를 삭제함(신입자에게 설명), Wikitext가 사용될 때 변경 내용을 저장하지 않음.치명적. -위키드77 (대화) 11시 19분, 2013년 8월 6일 (UTC)[응답]
  101. 확실히 거절하겠지.많이 읽어봤지만, 지지와 반대 의견이 다 다른 것은 아니다.아주 설득력 있는 옵트 아웃 투표들이 많이 있다.나는 특히 공감한다: #10 VE가 싫어도 그저 "출처 편집"을 누르기만 하는 것은 정말 어렵지 않기 때문에, #20 질문이 제기되는 방식이 완전히 불공평하기 때문에, #72 약간 엄격하더라도, 그리고 물론 #1이 된다.나는 VE가 그렇게 해롭다고 생각하지 않기 때문에 선호 메뉴의 하위 메뉴에 묻어 새로운 편집자에게 적극적으로 숨겨야 한다고 생각한다.반대로, 내가 만약 새로운 위키백과 편집자였다면, 나는 그것이 매우 도움이 되었다고 생각할 것 같아!예를 들어, 내가 링크를 파이프로 연결하려고 할 때, 그리고 내가 몇 년 동안 있어왔을 때, 나는 내가 어떤 순서를 넣어야 하는지에 대해 아직도 혼란스럽다.내가 VE를 사용할 때 그런 걱정은 하지 않아도 된다. VE는 완벽하지 않다. 내 생각에는 적절한 형식의 참조를 추가하는 것이 어렵다.그러나 전반적으로 나는 그것이 적당히 도움이 된다고 생각하며 우리가 새로운 편집자들에게 그것을 사용할 수 있는 선택권을 주지 말아야 할 이유가 없어 보인다.AngnisticAfidtalk 06:12, 2013년 8월 6일 (UTC)[응답]
    옵트인을 투표하는 나 자신의 이유는 단지 VE가 아직 준비가 되지 않았을 뿐이고(많은 버그, ...), 초보 편집자들이 자발적으로 투표할 필요가 없다면 그 사실을 알지 못하기 때문이다.예를 들어, 이 편집은 <노위키> 태그가 들어 있는 이상한 내부 링크를 도입했다.나에게 있어, 일단 VE로 더 이상 원치 않는 손해가 발생하지 않는다면, VE는 옵트 아웃이 될 수 있다. --NicoV 06:34, 2013년 8월 6일 (UTC)[응답]
    • 도움말 상자:"wikitext"를 검토하려면 퀵 wp:helpbox 이름: {{wikitext}을(를) 참조하십시오.
    문제는 VE의 필요성보다는 위키백과의 사용법을 보여주는 '빠른 참조 카드'가 거의 없다는 것이었다.많은 사람들은 "수백, 수백"의 도움말 페이지와 몇 시간의 튜토리얼에 대해 불평했다.그러나 {{wikable}}}과 같은 빠른 도움말 상자는 위키 마크업을 장기간 사용하기에 훨씬 쉽게 배울 수 있다. -Wikid77 (대화) 11:19, 2013년 8월 6일 (UTC)[응답]
  102. 옵트 아웃은 개인적으로 VE를 싫어하지만, 만약 그것의 전체 목적이 WP가 신입들이 편집하는 것을 더 쉽게 하는 것이라면, 우리가 왜 그들에게 그것을 보여주지 않는 것일까?나의 유일한 주의 사항은 보다 숙련된 편집자의 경우 "출처 편집"이 "편집"으로 돌아가야 하고 VE는 "시각적 편집자"로 표시되어야 한다는 것이다.히지리 88 (聖聖) 10:08, 2013년 8월 6일 (UTC)[응답]
    • VE에는 몇 가지 치명적인 버그가 있다: 더 큰 편집에 저장하지 못함, 하나의 백스페이스로 infobox 삭제, 하나의 백스페이스로 템플릿 삭제, wikitext 사용 시 변경 사항 저장 거부.치명적인 버그는 새로운 사용자가 영원히 떠나도록 쉽게 좌절시킬 수 있다("컴퓨터 분노" 참조). -위키드77 (대화) 11:19, 2013년 8월 6일 (UTC)[응답]
  103. Opt-out 왜 이것이 질문인가?물론 새로운 사용자들은 인터페이스의 간단하고 사용하기 쉬운 버전을 얻어야 한다.편집을 시작했을 때, 나는 내가 원하는 것을 어떻게 하는지 알아내기 위해 위키마크를 공부하는데 몇 시간을 보냈다.대부분의 신규 사용자들은 그것에 대한 인내심을 갖지 못할 것이다.그들이 탐험할 수 있는 유기적인 인터페이스를 제공하라.현재 VE가 너무 헐겁거나 기능이 충분하지 않은 경우 수리하십시오.필요하다면 수리가 가능할 때까지 변경을 연기하는 것을 지지하겠지만, 그것이 우선되어야 한다.Phasma Felis (대화) 2013년 8월 6일 (UTC) 15:53 [응답]
  104. 옵트 아웃 VE가 옵트인 경우, VE가 무엇인지 이해하지 못해 전원을 켜지 않을 것이다.만약 그들이 그것을 켜야만 한다면 그들은 아마 그러지 않을 것이고 결과적으로 알아내지 못할 것이다.VE는 일반 편집이 효과가 있을 때, 아주 아름다운 보충물이다.나는 첫 번째와 기본 도구로 소스 코드를 선호하지만, 기본 기사가 만들어진 후 많은 수정을 하는 것은 VE에서, 다시 한번 그것이 작동했을 때 훨씬 더 쉽다.사람들이 사용하지 않으면 벌레가 발견되지 않기 때문에 일을 하지 않을 때 자극이 되더라도 아름다울 때는 벌레를 찾아야 하고 벌레를 찾는 것은 공동체의 노력이 되어야 할 것이다. 디벨디 19:54, 2013년 8월 6일 (UTC)[응답]
  105. Opt-out -- Stratoprutser (talk) 21:49, 2013년 8월 6일 (UTC)[응답]
  106. Opt-out -- WUSIWUG 편집자는 새로운 사용자에게 원시 위키마크를 보고 James van der Loeff 05:14, 2013년 8월 7일(UTC)을 떠나는 것보다 훨씬 덜 무섭다.
  107. Opt-out 나는 "visual"이 디폴트인 LiveJournal과 WordPress를 염두에 두고 있다.내가 제시하는 근거는 다음과 같다: 기술적으로 숙련된 기술자(즉 MW 마크업을 처리할 수 있는 사람)가 옵션을 성공적으로 탐색할 가능성이 가장 높다.NB: "출처 편집"과 "편집"이 헷갈릴 수 있다. --BenTremblay (대화) 05:59, 2013년 8월 7일 (UTC)[응답]
  108. 새 사용자가 다시는 옵션을 찾을 수 없을 수도 있기 때문에 계정 생성은 새로운 사용자에게 제공되는 선택을 제한할 수 있는 적절한 시기가 아니다.더 나은 접근방식은 계속해서 VE 옵션을 소스 편집기와 함께 제공하지만 페이지가 VE에 적합하지 않을 때 녹아웃되도록 상황에 맞게 만드는 것이다.이 프리젠테이션은 소스 편집기가 더 고급스럽고 복잡한 작업에 대해 있는 동안 VE가 단순한 편집에 가장 적합하다는 메시지를 전달하는 데 도움이 될 수 있다.앤드루 데이비드슨 (대화) 07:03, 2013년 8월 7일 (UTC)[응답]
  109. 옵트 아웃 나는 새로운 사용자들이 옵트 아웃을 찬성하는 반면 숙련된 편집자들은 옵트 아웃을 찬성한다는 것이 매우 흥미롭다고 생각한다.처음 위키피디아에 가입했을 때는 코드가 너무 복잡해서 아무 것도 하지 않을 뻔했다.나는 단지 VE가 더 논리적으로 말이 되기 때문에 그것을 사용했다.나에게 의견의 분업은 새로운 사용자들에게 미루어 질 수 있는 클럽 같은 행동의 증상이다. 그들은 경험 많은 사용자/관리자들은 거의 신과 같은 지위를 가지고 있고 새로운 사람들에 대한 인내심이 별로 없어 보이는 반면 바보 같은 문제아로 간주된다.공공 기물 파손과 의도하지 않은 실수를 고쳐야 하는 것이 매우 짜증날 수 있다는 것을 이해하지만, 모든 사람들이 위키백과에 참여하도록 권장되지 않는 한, 그것은 단순히 신선한 관점을 놓치고 있는 소수의 사람들의 POV가 될 것이다.그 시작은 새로운 사람들이 편집하는 것을 더 쉽게 하는 것에서부터 시작하는 것 같아. --IP7942 (토크) 08:53, 2013년 8월 7일 (UTC)[응답]
  110. 나는 사람들이 더 쉬운 편집기를 사용하기 시작하고, 그들이 위키 마크업을 사용하기를 원한다면 그렇게 해야 한다고 강하게 믿는다.그것은 사람들에게 위키피디아를 편집하도록 격려할 것이고, 대담해질 것이다!또한, 결국 태블릿 컴퓨팅 시대와 데스크탑보다 훨씬 더 많은 전화를 사용하는 사람들이 "Wikipedia Editor" 앱을 도입해야 한다고 생각하고, 어쩌면 모두를 위해 WYSIWYG 편집기를 사용하기 위해 마크업에서 멀어져야 한다고 생각한다! 싸이보그4 (토크) 2013년 8월 7일 (UTC)[응답]
  111. 이것이 미래의 물결이기 때문에 거절하라.나는 이미 잠재적 편집자들과 토론을 이끌었고 WISYWIG 편집자와 함께 참여하는 것이 얼마나 더 쉬운지 칭찬했다.그 벌레들은 정리될 것이다; 그것들은 일시적이지만, 위키피디아를 접근 가능하게 만들 필요성은 영원하다., 옵트 아웃 기능을 베타 기간으로 제한해서는 안 된다.나와 다른 많은 경험 많은 편집자들은 절대 그것을 사용하지 않을 것이다.나는 나를 편안하게 해주는 것을 사용할 것이고, 다른 선택사항들이 영구히 사라지게 할 권리를 가져야 한다.싫다고 해서 낫지 않다는 뜻은 아니니까 옵트 아웃이 가는 길. 일시적 선택이 아닌 진짜 선택을 하는 것.--~TPW 13:08, 2013년 8월 7일 (UTC)[응답]
    • 성가신 마이크로소프트 스타일 "시각적 편집자"는 미래의 물결이 아니며, 편집자에게 기사에 대한 같은 양의 통제권을 결코 주지 않을 것이다.그것은 우리가 사용하는 간단한 마크업을 배우기 위해 약간의 노력을 기울인 모든 사람들의 편집 속도를 늦출 뿐이다.여기에 기여하고 싶은 사람들은 위키 마크업 언어를 배워야 하는데, 이것은 10년 넘게잘 작동해 왔다.타타르어 (대화) 16:24, 2013년 8월 7일 (UTC)[응답]
      • 그것은 아마도 당신에게 효과가 있었지만, 위키마크를 배울 시간이나 욕구가 없는 다른 사람들에게는 효과가 없었다.위키피디아를 편집하는 요점은 코딩 언어를 배우는 것이 아니라 백과사전에 지식을 기부하는 것이다.프로토타임 (토크 · 기여) 20:28, 2013년 8월 7일 (UTC)[응답]
      • 실제로 Wikitext는 배우기 쉽다는 것이 입증되었으며(이 사람들은 컴퓨터를 사용할 수 있다는 것을 기억하라) 초보자에게 "{{convert 60mph}"를 사용하여 시간당 60마일(97km/h)을 얻도록 함으로써 "mph"를 자동 변환하는 간단한 비절차적 언어의 역할을 한다.파워 유저에게 Wikitext는 엄청난 생산성을 허용하는데, WP 페이지(21만개 기사)의 5%가 새로 시작한 10명만이 글을 썼다.다른 사람들에게 다음과 같은 wp:도움말 상자를 보라고 하십시오. {{Wikitext}}.느린 VE는 신규 및 장기 사용자에게 적합성을 유발했으며(위 읽기), 새로운 사용자 이름의 65%가 Wikitext를 선호한다.대신에 진짜 문제는 wp:data 사재기 입니다.사건 종결. -위키드77 03:23, 2013년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]
        • 사건이 종결되지 않았다.위키마크를 배우기가 아무리 '검증'됐다고 해도, 아직 배우고자 하는 시간이나 욕구가 없는 사용자들이 많은데, WYSIWYG 편집기는 위키마크를 배우려는 시간이나 욕구가 부족하지만 여전히 기여하기를 원하는 사용자들에게 훨씬 더 직관적인 도구다.그리고 만약 당신이 VE를 좋아하지 않는다면, 그것을 사용하지 말아라; 아무도 당신에게 강요하지 않는다.단지 다른 사용자가 개인적으로 특정 선택사항을 싫어한다고 해서 일부 사용자의 선택을 제한할 필요는 전혀 없다."사건이 종결되었다." –프로토타임 (대화·기여) 06:34, 2013년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]
  112. 하드코어 사용자는 사용자 선호도를 면밀히 검토하여 영구적으로 변경할 수 있다.나는 일년에 한 번 밖에 여기에 오지 않는데, 몇 초의 자바스크립트 도움은 고맙다.미스터비스터 (대화) 2013년 8월 7일 17:39, (UTC)[응답]
  113. 나는 편집자 감소를 되돌리기 위한 중요한 단계로서 Visual Editor를 강력히 지지한다.나처럼 기술력이 뛰어나지 않고 위키파크업과 씨름하지만 백과사전에 기여하고 싶어하는 사람들이 많을 것이라고 확신한다.현재 그들 중 많은 사람들은 마크업이 너무 어렵다고 생각하기 때문에 그렇게 하지 않는다.현재 비주얼 에디터를 사용하는 데는 어떤 문제가 있지만, 기본적인 글쓰기 및 기사 편집에는 잘 작동하는 것 같은데, 이것이 바로 새롭고 기술적으로 어려움을 겪고 있는 사용자들이 가장 원하는 것이다.어쨌든 사용하기 싫으면 마크업 편집 버튼을 클릭하는 것만으로도 매우 쉽다.넬잭(대화) 23:18, 2013년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]
  114. VE는 문제가 있지만 선택권은 한 걸음 뒤로 물러설 것이다.어느 시점에서는 이러한 '옵트아웃(Opt-out)'이 되어야 한다. 옵트아웃(Opt-out)이 있더라도 모든 페이지에 위키텍스트를 사용할 수 있는 옵션이 있는 한, 옵트아웃(Opt-out)이 더 낫다.마이크 크리스티 (대화 - 기여 - 라이브러리) 2013년 8월 21일 (UTC) 15:26 [응답]
  115. VE는 발전하고 있으며 버그를 해치는 기사는 점점 줄어들고 있다.모든 페이지에서 원본 편집기를 사용할 수 있으므로 VE를 사용하지 않으려면 편집기가 필요하지 않다.Thryduulf (대화) 13:54, 2013년 8월 25일 (UTC)[응답하라]
  116. 내 생각에 우리는 VE가 탈퇴할 것을 확실히 기대해야 한다.내가 그런 분야에서 일하는 것이 제한적이기 때문에 지금 내가 말할 수 없는 시간인지 아닌지는 모르지만 만약 우리가 앞으로 그것을 거부하도록 계획하지 않는다면 우리는 그것을 완전히 포기하는 편이 나을지도 모른다.물론 옵트 아웃 방법을 등록할 때는 쉽고 명확해야 한다.새로운 방식으로 처리되는 IMO는 어차피 필요하지 않다.VE를 갖는 것 만으로도 일을 늦출 수 있지만, 더 큰 문제는 구식 시스템으로부터의 혼란이다.이제 VE가 베타 및 편집 소스로 명확하게 표시되고 왼쪽에 있는 상황에서, 편집자 아래는 사람들이 시험해 볼 수 있을 정도로 충분히 좋다고 말했듯이, 나는 실제로 그것이 필요하다고 생각하지 않는다.만약 그것이 효과가 없다면, 그들은 그것을 무시해도 된다.만약 그것이 단지 그곳에 있는 것에 문제를 일으키고 있다면, 그들은 그것을 포기해야 한다.(또한 과거에 감사하게도 사라졌던 부분의 편집 소스 사물을 감추는 극도로 귀찮은 일 때문에 얼마나 많은 반대 의견이 나왔는지 궁금하다. 이는 VE가 처음 구현되었을 때뿐만 아니라 편집 소스를 인식하지 못한 사람들이 VE를 훨씬 더 많이 이용하지 못하게 만들었다.wikimark를 편집하는 데 사용되거나 습관적으로 잘못된 버튼을 계속 클릭해서 사용하지 않을 때 VE를 받았다.닐 아인 (대화) 22:09, 2013년 8월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
  117. 아가씨들을 쫓아라, 나는 기병이다(메시지미) 14:38, 2013년 8월 27일 (UTC)[응답하라]

기권하다

  1. 나는 또한 "시각적 편집"과 "원본 편집"이라는 두 가지 옵션 모두, "시각적"이 대부분의 사용자에게 기본이 되는 "시각적 편집"이라는 이름을 가진 것을 선호한다. --Dylan k (talk) 04:18, 2013년 8월 7일 (UTC)[응답]
  2. 음, 기권하는 나는 우리가 왜 우리가 모르는 편집자에 대해 선택을 해야 하는지 모르겠다. 우리가 실제로 여기서 투표하고 있는 기구에 대해서.차라리 통계와 분석 결정에 의해 이것을 알려주고 싶다.—DJ (대화기여) 07:47, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  3. "편집"과 "출처 편집" 링크가 모두 나에게 매우 많은 매력을 제공하는 현재 상황. (출처:나는 소스 구문을 알고 그것을 독점적으로 사용한다.j.eng (대화) 11:02, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
    그것은 옵트 아웃을 지지하는 것이 될 것이다. 그렇지 않은가?LlywelinII 01:33, 2013년 8월 6일 (UTC)[응답하라]
  4. 기권 나는 편집에 기본 설정이 있어야 한다고 생각하지 않는다.신규 사용자에게 등록 시 VE 및 소스 편집에 대한 정보를 제공하고 해당 시점에서 편집 기본 설정을 선택할 수 있도록 허용하고 싶다.현재 상태로는 원시 편집에 대한 학습 곡선은 많은 사람들이 위키피디아 사람들이 활동적인 위키피디아가 되는 것을 막아준다고 생각한다.마찬가지로 문제가 있는 VE는 현재 상태에서 WP에 좀 더 접근하기 쉽게 만들면서도 좋은 기사를 쓰거나 편집하는 것은 엄두도 못 낼 수 있다고 생각한다.새로운 사용자가 처음부터 편집하는 방법을 결정하고 WP의 비 WYSIWYG/고급 기능을 새로운 사용자가 쉽게 접근할 수 있도록 하십시오.korbnep «talk » 15:37, 2013년 8월 2일(UTC)[응답]
  5. TOPLEL Estricte 한편, 그것은 두뇌가 아닌 프로 익명 사용자 Ald™ ™_¬™ 15:59, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  6. 기권 나는 VE를 시도했지만 내가 편집하고 싶은 것을 편집할 수 없었다.인터위키 링크를 제거하는 중.그래서 나는 소스 코드 편집 버튼을 빨리 사용해야 했다.en을 거의 사용하지 않는 새로운 사용자 또는 사용자로서.위키백과는 내가 하는 것을 좋아하고 내가 읽거나 편집하고 싶은 다른 기사에 매우 빨리(위키위키)하는 것을 좋아한다.그리고 내가 편집하기 전에 편집자를 선택 또는 선택 취소해야 한다면, 나는 빠른 위키로 옮겨갈 것이다. 그리고 이 위키에 모든 실수와 오류가 있을 것이다.카스락 (대화) 2013년 8월 4일 14시 34분 (UTC)[응답]
  7. 기권하라. 나는 왜 그것이 둘 중 어느 한 쪽에 치우치기 보다는 단지 올바른 선택일 수 없는지 모르겠다.또한, 그것이 여전히 베타 VE에 있는 것이 분명 디폴트가 되어서는 안되지만, 새로운 사람들에게 그것을 테스트하는 것은 잔인할 뿐이다!윌리엄F12 (대화) 17:24, 2013년 8월 4일 (UTC)[응답]
  8. 기권하는 경우가 대부분, 내가 무언가를 편집하고 있다면, 그것은 토크 페이지에서 질문을 하거나, 아니면 카피 편집하는 것이다.내가 태그를 추가해야 한다면 이전 형식을 사용하는 것이 더 낫겠지만, 그것이 내가 익숙한 것이기 때문에 나는 편집자 둘 다 사용했고 둘 다 만족한다.솔직히, 나는 내가 하고 있는 일에 적합한 편집자를 찾을 수 있는 방법이 있는 한 이것이 어느 쪽으로 가든지 상관하지 않는다.JDZeff (대화) 19:46, 2013년 8월 5일 (UTC)[응답]
  9. 기권하다.익명 편집자 오랜만이야, 지금 막 탑승하고 있어.나는 이것이 한 표를 행사하는 것이 아니라 자료 중심적인 결정이 되어야 한다는 것에 동의한다.만약 편집자가 버그가 있다면 통계에 의해 그것이 보여질 것이고 그것은 옵트인으로 남아야 한다.벌레가 들어오지 않으면 옵트 아웃으로 전환한다.뱀모 (토크) 21:28, 2013년 8월 5일 (UTC)[응답]
    하지만 현재 선택권은 없다.버기 소프트웨어의 갑작스러운 부과는 여기서 대부분의 문제다. (다른 것은 새로운 사용자에 대한 일부 선택 편집자들의 거들먹거림과 이 솔루션이 실제로 해결하고자 하는 근본적인 문제들을 다루지 않는다는 사실이다.)LlywelinII 01:36, 2013년 8월 6일 (UTC)[응답하라]
  10. 기권 나는 사용자의 의견에 강력히 동의한다.더DJ. 당신mw에서 말한 것처럼 새로운 사용자들의 소규모 그룹에 대한 A/B 테스트로 아이디어를 테스트해 보십시오. VisualEditor/Portal/Why/Quantitive 데이터위키백과:VisualEditor/사용자 테스트 데이터 및 메타: 연구:VisualEditor가 새로 등록된 편집자/결과에 미치는 영향일부 사람들은 WYSIWYG가 단순한 텍스트 영역보다 "물론" 낫다고 확신한다.알려진 mw를 감안할 때 "물론" 간단한 텍스트 영역이 위키에 더 낫다고 확신하는 다른 사람들: WYSIWYG 편집자#WYSIWYG와의 문제. 비교적 편견이 없는 테스트의 객관적 결과는 이러한 준종교적 갈등을 해결하는 한 가지 방법이다. 더 나은 방법이 있는가?새로운 편집자가 새로운 디폴트 편집자가 되기 위해 "완벽"하거나 "버그 프리"가 될 필요는 없다. 단지 대안보다 더 나은 편집자일 뿐이다. --DavidCary (토크) 21:34, 2013년 8월 5일 (UTC)[응답]
  11. 기권 나 역시 시각적 편집자(사물이 어디로 갈 것인지에 대한 감각을 주기 위해)나 소스 편집자(소스 코드에서만 할 수 있는 수정을 하기 위해)를 선택할 수 있는 현재의 상황에 대해 괜찮다.나의 개인적인 선호도는 소스 편집기를 사용하는 것이다 - 내가 BBCode, LaTeX, Wiki와 같은 언어를 알 때 나는 WYSIWYG 편집기를 정말 좋아한 적이 없다 - 그러나 그것은 다른 사용자들이 사용할 수 있는 것과 무관해야 한다.Pikalax 14:52, 2013년 8월 7일(UTC)

새 계정 기본 상태 논의

  • 짐보의 말에 대해, 나는 신규 사용자 등록에 대해 (보다 장황하긴 하지만)의 선에 따른 문구와 함께, 명시적인 선택이 이루어져야 하는지 궁금하다.

"위키피디아는 현재 기존의 ("소스") 편집기보다 사용자 친화적인 새로운 VisualEditor를 개발하고 있다.이 새 편집기를 베타 테스트하는 데 도움을 주기 위해 편집한 일부 또는 전체에 사용할 수 있도록 "옵션"을 선택하십시오.만약 당신이 시험에 참여하기로 선택한다면, 당신은 새로운 VisualEditor 또는 당신이 위키백과 기사의 편집에 고전적인 소스 편집기를 사용할 수 있는 선택권을 얻게 될 것이다. 만약 당신이 선택하지 않는다면 당신은 소스 편집기만 사용할 수 있을 것이다.VisualEditor는 원본 편집기보다 Microsoft Word나 Wordpress와 같이 친숙할 수 있는 다른 소프트웨어와 더 유사하지만, 아직 완료되지 않았으며, 이를 사용하는 일부 편집은 불가능하거나 자신의 잘못이 없을 수 있다.소스 편집기는 직관력은 떨어지지만 모든 편집에 사용할 수 있고 훨씬 더 신뢰성이 높다.당신은 당신의 기본 설정에서 설정을 변경함으로써 당신의 마음을 바꾸고 언제든지 출입을 선택한다.[응, 새로운 VisualEditor를 베타 테스트하는 것을 선택하고 싶어] [아니, 클래식 소스 편집기만 사용하려고 해]."

삽입된 노트: 훌륭함 - 말씀하신 대로 70%까지 편집할 수 있다는 점만 제외하면!빌리시버스틱 (토크) 23:19, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 소프트웨어가 이것을 지원할 수 있는지 없는지 전혀 모른다는 것을 알아야 한다.트리듀울프 (대화) 2013년 7월 30일 (UTC) 12:00[응답]

    • 게다가, 평균적인 신입생은 문제를 찾는 방법을 전혀 모르고, Bugzilla/VPT를 검색하여 그들이 보고되었는지 확인하고 보고하는 방법을 전혀 모를 것이다.MER-C 12:50, 2013년 7월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
    • 나는 등록에 대한 선택을 하기 위해 이 제안을 지지한다.기본 라디오 버튼은 이전 편집기로 설정해야 한다.Train2104 (대화기여) 01:22, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
    • 선택은 덜 장황할 수 있다.다음 항목이 포함된 두 개의 확인란:

      편집 환경을 선택하십시오.

      ∘페이지의 소스 코드를 직접 보고 편집하거나,

      ③ 페이지에 있는 단어를 직접 편집한다(아직 개발중임).

      항상 환경설정을 편집하여 변경하십시오.

      이는 VE가 버그가 될 것이라는 경고와 함께 선택권을 제공하는 동안 간단한 뉴비어 언어(VisualEditor, opt in 등)를 사용한다.~Adjwilley (대화) 04:10, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
      • 그것이 훨씬 더 좋은 표현이고, 왜 내가 인터페이스를 쓰지 못하게 해야 하는지에 대한 좋은 예시야.Thryduulf (대화) 08:04, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답하라]
      • 그것은 매우 좋은 제안이다.체코는 키릴화(대화) 03:43, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
      • 나는 이 제안서를 좋아하지만, 어필리당 간단한 질문들을 "자세한 정보..'빌리쉬버스틱'의 전체적인 설명이 담긴 익스팬더박스?86.30.135.155 (대화) 02:53, 2013년 9월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
        • 나는 이것이 좋은 생각이라고 생각한다.Brambleclawx 15:41, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
      • 이것은 좋은 생각이다, 솔직히 나는 이런 것이 이미 시행된 방식일 것이라고 추측했다(그러나 분명히 그렇지 않다) 제버스989 13:24, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
      • 나는 또한 위의 기권에서 언급된 바와 같이 동의한다.Korbnep «talk » 15:46, 2013년 8월 2일(UTC)[응답]
    • 등록 시 옵트인이 아닌 자동 확증이 되면 VE를 사용해 볼 수 있도록 사용자를 초대하는 것을 제안하고 싶다.나는 그들이 비교의 근거를 갖도록 소스 모드에서 며칠과 십여 개 이상의 편집을 하는 것이 타당하다고 생각한다.오토콘 확증 후 처음 로그인하면 다음과 같은 메시지가 나타난다. "WP는 새로운 Visual Editor를 사용해 보십시오!툴, 장점과 제한 사항, 툴 사용 방법에 대해 자세히 알아보려면 여기를 클릭하십시오."필자의 생각으로는, 이러한 접근방식은 신규 사용자들이 아마도 무엇이 무엇인지 모를 때 등록 시 옵션을 제공하는 것보다 더 타당하다. -와인 가이~토크 19:28, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
      • VisualEditor 옵션을 누가, 그리고 어떤 상황에서 볼 것인가에 대한 나의 입장은, 바로 위의 코멘트에서 와인 가이 제안과 상당히 가깝다.(GMTA!)가장 큰 차이점은 로그인하지 않은 사용자나 자동 로그인되지 않은 사용자VisualEditor샌드박스 모드로 사용해 볼 수 있도록 허용하는 것(그리고 VE를 사용하여 기사를 편집할 수 있는 것이 등록의 이점 중 하나라는 것을 공개적으로 알리는 것)은 VisualEditor가 새로운 편집자유치하고 유지한다는 명시된 목적을 달성하는 데 더 큰 도움이 될 것이라고 생각한다.(내 세부 제안서는 내 사용자 페이지와 이 페이지의 "익명 편집자 기본 상태 토론" 섹션 머리글 모두에서 찾을 수 있다.)이와 관련하여, 나는 Adjwilley 체크박스 제안서를 더욱 위에 지지한다.두 편집 옵션을 구분하기 위한 일관된 언어를 없애는 것이 각 선택사항의 일반 영어 설명에 전적으로 찬성하는 것이라고 확신하지는 않는다.GrammarFascist (대화) 16:50, 2013년 8월 7일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 독일 WP 여론조사에 따르면 465명 중 98%가 옵트인: 2013년 7월 27일 독일 위키피디아가 여론조사를 실시했고, 2일 이내에 458명(465명 중 98.49%)이 옵트인 전용으로 응답한 반면 7명은 로그인한 사용자 이름에 대한 표준으로 VE를 지지한 것에 주목해야 한다.(독일어로) 458개의 의견은 다음과 같다.WP:Umfragen/VisualEditor_Opt-in#VE vorest nur als opt-in (wie vorher)" ["VE only as Opt-in (전처럼)"]WMF VE 팀은 VE를 독일 WP에 대한 유일한 옵트인(Opt-in)으로 설정하기 위해 Bugzilla 요청(Phabricator)을 수락했다.여론조사의 일부 코멘트는 "Bitte Keine Beta-Testversion, 현대적인 einputiges Productsk" ("완제품 대신 베타 테스트 버전을 사용하지 마십시오")와 비슷했다.한편, 일부 사용자들은 VE가 사소한 단어의 편집 충돌에 분화한다는 것을 깨닫지 못했고, "Und hior auf den Diskussionsseiten wére der VisualEditor auch nicht schlecht!" ("그리고 여기 대화 페이지에서는 VisualEditor 또한 나쁘지 않을 것이다!")라는 대화 페이지에 VE를 사용하기를 원했다.그 드웨키 여론조사에는 520여개의 다양한 의견이 있는데, 일부에서는 VE가 대기업의 전형적인 기능 소프트웨어일 것이라고 상상했다. -위키드777 (대화) 05:42, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 그들의 여론조사에 대한 신속한 답변이 많은 것은 그들이 모든 편집자들에게 그것에 대해 재빨리 알렸기 때문일 것이다.지금까지, 여기 영어 위키피디아에는 분명히 알림이 거의 없는 것 같다.이것은 위키 전체에 영향을 미치는 엄청난 변화인 만큼, 감시자 명단 공지를 받을 만하지 않은가?실버스렌C 09:25, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
이미 Kww가 해놓은 상태여서 지금 내 감시 목록에 나타나 있다:- 새로운 사용자와 익명 편집자를 위해 Visual 편집기를 활성화해야 하는지에 대한 RFC(Linked)진행 중이다.베이군 09:40, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
감시자 통지가 그렇게 좋은지는 확실하지 않다.나는, 한 사람으로서, 한 사람이 일어나고 있다는 말을 듣고 나서야 비로소 그들이 존재한다는 것을 알아차렸다.사이트 통지가 더 좋을 것이다.애덤 쿠어든 09:43, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
나는 그것에 동의한다 - 감시자 통지는 꽤 눈에 띄지 않는다.베이군 09:45, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
만약 우리가 그냥 주의할 거라면, 빨간색으로 할 수도 있고, 밝은 노란색 상자 같은 것에 넣을 수도 있어?애덤 쿠어든 10:23, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
de-WP에서는 다음과 같은 감시 목록 통지가 MediaWiki를 통해 표시된다.Watchlist 요약(MediaWiki를 통하지 않고 다른 배경색을 가진 기록 참조):Watchlist-details여기 있는 그대로의 경우다.일반적으로 워치리스트 요약은 워치리스트 세부사항보다 훨씬 눈에 띄지만, 자바스크립트가 없으면 전혀 보이지 않는다.JS가 없으면 당신은 항상 이러한 감시 목록 세부사항과 WP를 볼 수 있다.시테노티스, 그러나 결코 메타에서 온 센트럴 노티스(아마도 언어 전환 때문이었을 것이다)도 아니고 감시 목록 요약도 결코 아니다(이것도 왜 스크립트 기반 기능인지, 감시 목록 세부사항과 시테노티스는 그렇지 않은지 모르겠다).나는 사람들이 전에는 몰랐던 매우 새로운 옵션 때문에, 그리고 7월 27일 금요일 01:16 CEST = 26, 23:16 UTC unt.7월 29일 월요일 아침 10:05 CEST = 08:05 UTC
게다가, 528명의 시청자를 가진 현재 진행중인 여론 조사, 투표, 선거에 관한 메시지를 위한 "Beteiligen" 템플릿과 독일 쿠리에 (1.314명)에서의 메시지도 있다.또한 de:에 대한 문제와 버그도 논의되었다.WD:Kurier (Signpost 토론과 같은) 벌써 몇 주째 계속되고 있으며 VE에 대한 버그와 질문 또한 de:7월 24일 VE가 계정을 가진 모든 사용자에 대한 옵트 아웃으로 전환된 이후 Fragen Jur Wikipedia(지역 마을 펌프)도 양쪽 페이지에 여론 조사와 연계되어 있다.
나는 워치리스트 요약본이 그런 워치리스트 공지사항의 일반적인 미디어위키 메시지라고 생각하지만, 왜 모든 사용자에게 표시되지 않는지 궁금하다.시테노티스는 일반적으로 모든 사용자(IP 포함)에게도 표시되며, IP가 RFC에 참여하지 않을 경우 시테노티스에서 제외되어야 한다. --Geitost 17:00, 2013년 7월 31일(UTC)[응답]
  • 아마도 그냥 wp:7일 이내에 RFC를 닫거나 Bugzilla 이후: 광범위한 발표가 대규모 산사태 결정을 더 빨리 보여주는 데 도움이 될 것 같지만, 아마도 wp에 동의를 제기할 수 있을 것이다.예상 결과를 닫거나 Bugzilla 항목을 게시하여 이 RfC에서 권장하는 VE 메뉴 옵션을 재설정하십시오.10,000명 이상의 사용자가 VE를 사용한 후, 그 결과는 매우 명확하다.일부 의사결정 수준:74:2 = 97, 100:2 = 98, 150:3 = 98, 200:2 = 99, 200:4 = 98% (데위키 458:7 = 98.49%) -위키드77 12:33, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 나는 사이트 공지사항을 추가하는 데 문제가 없을 것이다.Kww(대화) 15:49, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 일단 중립을 유지한다.VisualEditor에 대해 할 수 있는 실제적이고 실행 가능한 개선에 초점을 맞춰야 할 것 같아. --MZMcBrid (대화) 17:09, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 나는 우리가 편집자 등록을 의무적으로 선택해야만 한다고 생각하지 않는다.새로운 편집자들은 그 질문이 무엇에 관한 것인지 알지 못할 것이고, 아마도 들어가서 편집하기를 원할 것이다.만약 큰 문제가 없다면 나는 새로운 편집자들이 기본적으로 이것을 받는 것을 보고 싶다.나는 그것이 너무 느려서 답답하다고 생각한다.그래서 아마도 자바스크립트로 테스트를 할 수 있을 것이고, VE가 그 행동을 취하는데 0.5초 이상이 걸린다면 그 일은 잊어버리고, 전통적인 편집기를 사용한다.이러한 개발자 중 일부는 VE에 필요한 인내심을 확인하기 위해 28K 모뎀을 사용해야 한다.Graeme Bartlett (대화) 22:14, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 공공 기물 파손과 VE 도입의 상관관계에 대한 확실한 통계가 있는가? --잭슨 피블스 (대화) 23:04, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  • VE에 대한 "opt-out" 기본 선호를 승인하는 모든 사람들이 베타 테스트에 참여하여 개발자들에게 피드백을 제공하기를 바란다.--Llywrch (토크) 01:20, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 문제는 VE 개발 및 배치의 목표가 제대로 정립되지 않았다는 것이라고 생각한다.당신은 편집자의 VE나 위키텍스트 선택은 WMF에 무관심하다고 말하는 진술이 있다. 그러나 우리는 WMF가 편집자들이 VE를 사용하기를 원한다는 진술을 본다.그것은 이 진술들의 대부분의 이해에 모순되고 혼란스럽다.만약 편집자들이 VE를 사용하도록 하는 것이 목표라면, 그것은 분명히 명시되어야 하고 우리는 VE를 개선하는 것으로 이동할 수 있다.지금처럼 WMF는 편집자들이 VE를 사용하길 원하는 것처럼 보이지만, 개발자 스스로도 편집자들이 위키텍스트를 선택한다면 마찬가지라는 입장을 취하고 있다.그 결과, 위키텍스트에서 편집하는 것이 어떻게 더 쉬운지에 대해 편집자들이 VE에 대한 피드백을 주기도 하지만, 개발자들은 이것이 비 이슈라고 응답한다. 왜냐하면 VE를 위키텍스트만큼 효율적으로 만들려는 목표가 없기 때문이다. 그리고 그 효율성을 원하는 편집자들은 위키텍스트를 대신 사용해야 하기 때문이다.이것을 듣는 대부분의 사람들은 그것을 받아들이지만, 다른 사람들은, 다양한 범위까지 혼란스러워 한다. 왜냐하면 그들은 VE를 사용하려는 어떤 압력이 있다는 것을 인식하기 때문이다.그 결과, 여기 RFC에서 보듯이 일부 편집자들은 효율성이 떨어지는 편집자를 오히려 더 효율성이 떨어지는 편집자보다 승진시키는 것을 원치 않기 때문에 뒤로 미는 것이다. --atethnekos (토론, 기여) 01:25, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

계정을 만든 후 새 사용자에게 표시되는 대화 상자

새 사용자가 계정을 만들자마자 바로 물어보는 것은 어떨까?—사랑, 켈빈송톡 22:47, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]

우리가 극도로 조심하거나 그들이 매우 영리하지 않으면 그들은 이해하지 못할 것이기 때문이다.편집자가 시도도 하지 않고 그들에게 어울릴지 어떻게 알 수 있을까?그렇긴 하지만, 위의 섹션에서 어저글리가 제안한 문구는 다르게 생각되는 것 같으며, 나는 그것을 시도해보는 것을 지지한다. DGG (토크 ) 23:04, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]

우리는 그들에게 두 편집자의 차이점에 대해 설명할 수 있다.대화 상자는 원하는 편집기를 테스트하기 위해 샌드박스로 이동할 수 있다.Wschlitz 15:00, 2013년 8월 1일(UTC)

계정을 만들 때 묻지 않고 기본 설정으로 옵션으로 남겨두는 것이 훨씬 더 나을 것이다.신규 사용자가 원할 경우 켤 수 있다.이 RfC에 따르면, 그들이 그걸 알아차리지도 못한다면, 그냥 내버려둬라.그것은 소프트웨어가 성숙되면 재평가될 수 있다.모디드 지니어스 17:12, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 Adjwilley가 제안한 대화와 비슷한 대화를 원한다: (여기...)

편집 환경을 선택하십시오.

∘페이지의 소스 코드 표시 및 편집
∘페이지에서 직접 텍스트 편집(계속 진행 중)

여기서 두 가지 편집기 옵션을 사용해 보십시오.너의 샌드박스에
( 편집기 환경설정을 편집하여 나중에 변경할 수 있다.)

그리고 가장 좋은 것은 "여기서 두 가지 편집자 옵션을 시험해 보십시오..." 링크를 클릭하면 사용자 샌드박스가 WP 콘텐츠의 전형적인 사례를 보여줄 수 있는 WP-stuff의 작은 예로 채워질 수 있을 것이다.
제이비어 (대화) 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC) 10:09 [응답]

나는 VE를 선호하면서도 소스 모드를 사용하는 옵션을 표시하는 대화를 사용해야 한다고 생각한다.이 두 가지 옵션이 어떻게 보이는지 스크린샷을 제시하는 것이 중요하며, 기본 '다음' 옵션은 VE를 사용하는 것이어야 한다.Teslacuted (대화) 17:17, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 이것에 대해 제이비어에게 전적으로 동의해, 나에게 완벽한 해결책으로 보여.윌리엄F12 (대화) 17:34, 2013년 8월 4일 (UTC)[응답]

아직 자동확인을 받지 못한 사용자들은 VisualEditor를 사용하여 실제 기사를 전혀 편집할 수 없어야 한다는 생각이 강하게 든다.그러나 VisualEditor의 주장된 의도는 특히 새로운 편집자가 처음 편집한 후 다시 돌아와서 페이지계속 편집하도록 권장하는 것이므로, 로그인되지 않았거나 로그인되지 않았지만 자동 확인되지 않은 사용자에게는 샌드박스 페이지에서 VisualEditor를 "테스트 아웃"할 수 있는 기회를 제공할 것을 제안한다.이것은 또한 VisualEditor를 사용하여 실제 기사를 편집할 수 있는 것이 등록 사용자가 되는 것의 이점 중 하나라는 것을 그러한 사용자에게 알릴 수 있는 기회를 제공할 것이다.VisualEditor를 사용하거나 사용하지 못하도록 사용자에게 영향을 미치려는 목적으로 새로 생성된 계정 사용자에게 특별한 스플래시 페이지를 제공하는 것보다 사용자가 실제로 기사를 편집하려고 할 때 페이지 상단에 나타나는 간단한 메시지가 정보를 제공하는 데 있어 더 좋은 시간과 장소가 될 것이라고 생각한다.ut 편집-수정 옵션.예를 들어 (확인되지 않음 또는 IP) 사용자가 "편집"(또는 "편집(베타)" 또는 "출처 편집" 또는 "편집(VisualEditorbeta)" 또는 "편집(wikitext)" 또는 "편집(wikitext)" 또는 "편집 #$$BODY$$amp;%!키친싱크(KITCHENSINK)")는 다음과 같은 메시지를 볼 수 있다.

Wikitext 인터페이스를 사용하여 [문서 제목] 페이지를 편집하는 경우. 기존 사용자는 WYSIWYG 인터페이스인 VisualEditor를 사용하여 문서를 편집할 수 있다. [VE 샌드박스에 대한 링크 여기를 클릭하여 VisualEditor 인터페이스를 사용해 보십시오. 기존 사용자는 편집 페이지 또는 자신의 사용자 환경설정 페이지에서 기본 편집 인터페이스를 선택할 수도 있다.

로그인 및 자동 확인 기능을 모두 사용하는 사용자도 선택한 편집기(기사 상단에 있는 적절한 "편집___" 링크를 클릭하거나 기본 설정을 통해)에 관계없이 페이지 상단에 유사한 메시지가 표시되며, 사용자가 어떤 편집기를 사용 중인지 알려주고 해당 편집기를 사용할 수 있는 옵션을 제공한다.다른 편집자는 클릭 한 번으로 링크를 통해 '사용 중인 __ 인터페이스 편집' 메시지를 영구적으로 비활성화할 수 있는 옵션도 제공한다(그리고 인터페이스 기본 설정과 사용 중인 메시지에 대한 표시 여부는 사용자 기본 설정을 통해 둘 다 변경할 수 있다).GrammarFascist (대화) 17:47, 2013년 8월 7일 (UTC)[응답]

위의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

질문 2: 편집자가 익명으로 편집할 때 VE를 기본적으로 표시해야 하는가?

다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.


VE는 기본적으로 익명 사용자에게 제공되어야 함

  1. 익명 편집의 주된 이유는 편집의 출처를 위장하려는 욕구인가, 아니면 애논에디트가 대부분 꾸준히 기여하지 않는 사람에 의해 이루어진 일회성 수정인가?후자를 위해서라면 익명의 편집은 VE가 디폴트로 해야 한다고 생각한다. --마티아스 알렉산더 주드 샤피로 (토크) 14:47, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
    1. 익명 편집의 81.9%는 건설적이다.(출처)theonesian 20:16, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
      1. 이 통계량은 2007년 2월(2,361일 전)의 미미한 표본(248개 편집)에 기초한다.지금 어떻게 관련이 있을까? - 포인트리스트 (대화) 22:06, 2013년 8월 6일 (UTC)[응답]
  2. 소프트웨어가 베타 버전이라고 경고하는 동시에 익명 편집자는 VE에 액세스할 수 있어야 한다.Kww(대화) 01:28, 2013년 7월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
    동의해. 그들이 자발적으로 테스트하게 해도 해롭지 않아. 이를 제시하고 접근과 선택을 허용(기본값으로 자동 선택하지 않음), 명확한 베타 경고와 버그/경험 보고서를 제출할 수 있는 명확하고 쉬운 경로가 괜찮아 보인다. Bagoon 06:20, 2013년 7월 30일 (UTC) - 모든 사람들이 이 질문을 나에게 다르게 해석한 것 같기 때문에, 추가 질문 2.5에 대한 나의 답변은 이 문제를 다룰 것이다.베이군 01:33, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  3. 익명의 편집자들이 그것을 사용하려고 노력함으로써 해를 끼치고 있다는 실질적인 증거가 제시되지 않는 한, 그들은 그것을 이용할 수 있어야 한다.그들은 그것이 베타 소프트웨어라는 것을 경고해야 하며, 그들에게 위키텍스트 편집기로 갈 수 있는 링크를 주어야 한다.또한 편집 페이지에서 더 많은 지원/설명서를 받아야 새로운 편집자를 배울 수 있다.--짐보 웨일즈 (토크) 07:58, 2013년 7월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
    참고로 베타 소프트웨어는 사용자들에게 강요되어서는 안 된다.베타 소프트웨어는 통제된 경험 있는 사용자 그룹으로 제한되어야 한다.베타(Beta), 정의상 배치 준비가 되지 않았다는 뜻이다.그러나 배치는 정확히 이루어진 것이다.쿠미오코(토크) 19:04, 2013년 7월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
    쿠미와 비슷한 주의사항으로, 「사용가능」!= 「기본」이라고 하는 것이, 여기서 묻고 있는 것이다.나는 또한 VE가 그것을 선호하는 사람들에게 제공되어야 한다고 생각하지만, 실제로 그것이 일반 텍스트 편집보다 쉽거나 편집자 보존과 관련하여 우리가 겪고 있는 어떤 실제 문제에 대한 해결책이라고 믿지 않는다.LlywelinII 02:55, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  4. [아마도.첫 번째 실험의 사용자에게 Wnt (위) 19:45, 2013년 7월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
    앞쪽으로 더 짧은 표 추가.LlywelinII 02:55, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  5. VE 인터페이스는 일반 사용자가 위키피디아를 훨씬 더 쉽게 편집할 수 있게 해준다.사람들은 더 이상 복잡한 코드를 분류할 필요가 없으며, 그들은 단순히 그들이 읽고 있던 동일한 인터페이스에서 그들의 변화를 타이핑할 수 있다.위키피디아는 활발한 편집자들의 수가 정체되어 있는 것을 보고 있기 때문에, 우리가 새로운 사람들이 기여할 수 있도록 돕는 것이 중요하다.MakeBelieveMonster (대화) 03:49, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
    하지만 이것은 사실 어떤 식으로든 사실이 아니다.

    VE에 버그가 없는 경우에도(현재 매우 많이 없는 경우), 일반 텍스트 편집은 여전히 더 빠르고 덜 버그적일 이며 항상 그럴 것이다.새로운 편집자들은 지금 어떤 코드도 쓸 필요가 없다: 그들은 단지 오래된 손과 POV를 밀어내는 페이지 소유주들에게 무례한 대우를 받고 있을 뿐이다.

    주요 페이지들이 채워져 있기 때문에 어떤 감소는 불가피하다: 2000년 미국 인구 조사 수치를 2010년에 수정하는 것보다 남북 전쟁에 대한 의견을 내는 것에 더 많은 사람들이 관심을 가지고 있다; 일부 사람들은 논란이 되는 부분에 대해 오랜 기간 동안 합의되어 왔기 때문에 조용히 하라는 말을 듣게 될 것이다.어떤 것도 그것을 바꾸지 않을 것이고 둘 다 위키피디아의 성공 중 일부일 뿐 실패는 아니다.

    가능한 가장 높은 보존을 위한 방법은 nooBs를 물지 않는 것이다: 여러분이 그들의 말에 동의하지 않을 때 조차도 그들에게 어디에서 그리고 어떻게 합의를 바꾸어야 하는지 말해주는 것, 더 명백하게 명명된 템플릿을 사용하는 것, 그리고 {{ndash}}} 또는 {{zh}}}와 같은 특정 템플릿을 구슬프게 수정하는 봇.그리고 그들에게 일반 텍스트는 괜찮고 동료 편집자들이 와서 그들이 이해하지 못하는 비트를 쓸 수 있다는 것을 알려준다.그것들 중 어느 것도 문제를 찾는 해결책인 버기 소프트웨어와 관련되지 않는다.LlywelinII 03:10, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  6. 물론이지, MakeBelieveMonster의 상술에 따르면.나는 위키피디아의 새로운 편집자들을 제지하는 한 가지는 HTML/CSS를 분류하는 복잡성과 각 페이지의 소스 코드에서 우리의 마크업이라고 믿는다.비록 베타에는 버그가 있지만, 이 시각적 편집자는 백과사전에 추가할 수 있는 많은 것을 가지고 있지만 페이지의 소스 코드에 위축되어 있는 여러분의 일상적인 기고자에게 접근성을 가져다 줄 것이다.게다가, 우리가 베타 단계에 있는 동안, 왜 다른 방식으로 기여를 선택하는 두 종류의 사용자들을 차별하는가?나는 계좌를 유지하고 나의 기부금을 추적하기로 선택했다. 내가 아는 다른 사람들은 익명으로 기부하기로 선택했다.나는 모든 사용자에게 현재 이 시각적 편집기가 베타 단계에 있다는 경고를 주어야 하지만, 특히 익명 사용자들은 경험에 따라 기사의 소스 코드를 분류할 수 있는 가능성이 낮기 때문에 등록 사용자들만큼 새로운 편집 도구를 사용할 권리를 가져야 한다는 위의 의견에 동의한다.여기에서 HTML/CSS와 함께 Red Phoenix 17:55, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  7. 그래, 위와 같은 이유: '신입모드'야.만약 그들이 완전한 위키-syntax로 편집하기를 원한다면, 그들은 항상 계정을 만들 수 있지만 VisualEditor가 꽤 잘 작동한다면, 그것에 익명의 사용자를 노출시킬 필요가 없다.로보피쉬 (토크) 22:29, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
    새 아이러니 미터기 신세를 진 것 같은데.저건 방금 삐딱해졌어."VisualEditor는 꽤 잘 작동한다"?아서 루빈 (대화) 19:01, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  8. 응. 익명 편집자는 일반적으로 문법을 변경하는데, 그들이 로그인하지 않은 등록된 편집자가 아니라면 말이다.VE는 문법 편집에 좋은 디폴트다.메클레 (대화) 22:37, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  9. 잠정적이고 소심하게 나는 그렇다고 말한다.지금까지 나의 인상은 VE가 고품질의 사소한 편집(말하기, 구두점, 짧은 구절의 서툴거나 부정확한 표현)을 끌어들이고 있다는 것이다.하지만 이것은 학년이 시작되면 급격히 바뀔 수 있고, 지루한 학생들은 프로젝트를 연구하고 있다.IP들 사이에서 소스-편집자와 VE 둘 다에 대한 반달리즘/반복에 대한 좋은 편집의 비율을 측정할 수 있을지 모르겠지만, 나는 그 데이터를 보고 싶다.나는 VE를 사용하는 것을 싫어하고, VE를 통해 그러한 사소한 편집을 함으로써 내가 좀 더 적응하고 정보를 얻으려고 한다는 것 외에는 하지 않는다.그리고 나는 얼마나 캐주얼한 사용자들이 그런 식으로 피칭을 하고 싶어하는지를 알 수 있다.신월프 (대화) 22:42, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  10. 나는 짐보와 MakeBelieveMonster의 질문에 동의한다.인베르트주 (대화) 22:50, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
    그들은 서로 의견이 맞지 않는다.짐보는 그것을 이용할 수 있어야 한다고 말했고, MBM은 그것을 디폴트로 해야 한다고 말했다.MBM은 또한 버기 소프트웨어가 일반 텍스트보다 "무한히 더 쉽게 접근할 수 있다"고 생각하는 것은 완전히 잘못된 생각이다.LlywelinII 02:55, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  11. 정말 새로운 사용자는 VE로 더 잘하기 쉽다.아마도 많은 독자들이 작은 수정을 하고 싶어할 것이고, 만약 VE가 디폴트라면 우리는 그들에게 그렇게 하도록 권장할 것이다.지금쯤이면 작은 변화보다는 효과가 있을 것 같으니까 충분히 좋다. DGG (토크 ) 23:06, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  12. 네, 하지만 베타 테스트가 끝날 때까지는 안 될 겁니다.이것은 일상적인 편집을 장려할 것이다.xaosflux 23:39, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  13. 네, 물론이지요.많은 새로운 편집자들이 처음에는 익명으로 편집하려고 시도하다가, 그들이 원하면 등록한다.하지만 우리가 그들을 위해 VisualEditor를 활성화하지 않는다면, 그들은 위키마크를 좋아하지 않을 것이고, 전혀 등록하지 않을 것이다.그렇게 하면 그들은 편집하는 더 쉬운 방법이 있다는 것조차 모를 것이다.VisualEditor의 핵심은 새로운 편집자를 유지하는 것이지만, 만약 우리가 익명의 편집자에게 그것을 허용하지 않는다면, 결과는 반대일 것이다. 새로운 편집자가 점점 더 적게 등록할 것이다.반자게니제 (대화) 23:58, 2013년 7월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  14. 그렇다, 왜냐하면 많은 익명의 편집은 매우 간단하기 때문이다. 그리고 시각적 편집자는 더 복잡한 편집을 위한 발판으로 삼을 수 있기 때문이다.Jér (me (대화) 00:01, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  15. 응, 벌레가 적으면 베타 버전이 없어져.옥수수 치즈 (토크) 00:34, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  16. VisualEditor는 익명 사용자에게 제공되어야 한다.그렇다고 해서 기본값이나 다른 것으로 선택해야 하는 것은 아니다.무명 편집자가 계정을 만들거나 복잡한 조작을 수행할 필요 없이 VisualEditor에 접근할 수 있는 방법을 가져야 한다는 것이다.익명의 편집자와 신규 사용자는 정확히 VisualEditor가 가장 선호하는 사람들이기 때문에 익명의 편집자들로부터 그것을 빼앗고 그것을 사용할 수 있는 가능성을 주지 않는 것은 어처구니가 없을 것이다. -- Rastus Bernon (talk) 01:15, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  17. 그렇다, 반자게니제, 라스터스 버논에 따르면, 단순함과 진보된 기능들은 쉽게 접근할 수 없다.새로운 편집자는 마크업으로 위축될 수 있는 반면, VE는 사소한 변경을 쉽게 수행할 수 있도록 허용한다.IP는 테이블 마크업을 올바르게 포맷하지 않고도 테이블에 쉽게 선을 추가할 수 있으며, 이는 경험 많은 편집자를 혼동시킬 수 있는 작업이다. VE는 사소한 편집에 대한 편견으로 인해 사용자가 관련 없는 이미지 삽입, 템플릿 변경 등을 어렵게 하여 단어 삽입/삭제/변경을 수반하지 않는 반달리즘을 줄일 수 있다.s (허글과 트윙클의 단서봇과 사용자들에 의해 쉽게 역전되는 것).봇의 영역 아래에서 편집하는 것에 효과적으로 제한함으로써, 사용자들은 재범과 극단적인 경우에 더 집중할 수 있다.코스터로버1994 02:19, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
    아니다. 요점이 무엇인가?헷갈려.그런 끔찍한 편집 과정을 피하기 위해 그들이 등록하도록 하는 것이 아니라면, 나는 의미가 없다고 본다.오크트리 b (토크) 02:34, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
    여기서 논의 중인 요점을 실제로 지지하지 않았기 때문에 # 코멘트를 했다.LlywelinII 02:55, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  18. 그렇다, 나는 사실 VE가 결국 대부분의 편집자들에게 더 쉬워질 것이라는 것에 대해 의심하지 않는다.문제는 조기 석방이고, 어떤 면에서는 내부 일정 압력이다.소수의 심각한 버그(노우키, 섹션 편집, 저대역에서의 심각한 속도 문제, 참조문헌 작성 방법의 재해)를 수정하면 모든 사람에게 훨씬 덜 고통스러울 것이다.하지만, 그 동안, 코드에 운동을 시키는 것은 좋은 생각이고, 심지어 새로운 편집자들에게도 타이어를 찰 기회를 주는 것 또한 유용하다. --j⚛e 데커talk 02:40, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  19. : 애논이 VE를 사용할 수 있는지 없는지는 편집 내용을 바꾸지 않으며, 우리의 많은 첫 편집자로부터 사용자 친화적인 편집자를 금지한다는 것은 말도 안 되는 일이다.--선욱임(지금까지 내가)(여기서 바쁘다) (요청사항들을 말해줘) 02:59, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  20. . 다시 한 번 그 질문은 모호하게 표현되었다.나는 시각적 편집기를 사용하는 옵션이 "원본 편집" 옵션에 추가적으로 표시되어야 한다는 것을 의미하기 위해 이해한다.그것은 익명의 사용자들이 이용할 수 있는 유일한 선택사항인 것처럼 들리도록 표현된다.나는 이 RFC의 설치 방식이 매우 싫다. --denny vrandechi(토크) 15:14, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  21. 예(예)는 실험으로 표시된다.마르틴 회크스트라 (대화) 15:16, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  22. . 결국 신입 사원을 위한 거야.Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus reply here -- 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  23. , 기본적으로 켜져 있어야죠.적어도 누군가가 그것이 득보다 실이 많다는 것을 보여주는 설득력 있는 자료를 제시하기 전까지는 말이다. --Amir E. 아하로니 (토크) 2013년 8월 1일 18시 18분 (UTC)[응답]
  24. 나는 VE가 익명의 편집자들이 편집하는 유일한 매너여야 한다고 생각한다.그것은 편집 의도의 우세한 성격에 부합하며 그들이 계정을 만들 것을 제안하는 좋은 판매 포인트를 제공한다.:) 클라인 (대화) 18:36, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  25. 두 가지 이유:그것은 정말로 사용자들을 끌어들일 수 있고, 다시 말하지만, 누군가는 그것을 시험해야 한다.위키미디어 재단의 플래그십은 왜 안 되는가? -- 릴케 (대화) 21:35, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  26. 그렇다. 익명의 사용자들은 계정을 만들 시간/입력자가 없는 사람들이다. 그래서 당연히 그들은 위키 마크업을 배울 시간/입력 또한 없다.익명의 편집자들이 편집하는 대부분은 VE가 전적으로 적합한 단순한 텍스트 추가나 수정이며, 나는 이것이 전문가들과 다른 중요한 사람들로부터 더 많은 편집을 끌어들일 것이라고 확신한다.나는 또한 그렇게 단순한 산문 편집에서 비롯될 수 있는 심각한 문제들은 적시에 수정될 것이라고 확신한다.Dcoetzee 23:06, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  27. , 심각한 손상을 방지하기 위한 적절한 보호가 있는 한.잠재적인 이득은 무엇인가?알 수 있는 방법은 딱 한 가지예요.Twang (토크) 23:13, 2013년 8월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  28. , 물론이지요.왜 안 되지?아퍼슨 (토크!) 2013년 8월 2일 00:59 (UTC)[응답]
  29. . 위키텍스트는 반달리즘을 더 어렵게 만들지 않고, 위키텍스트는 편집을 더 어렵게 만들며, 사람들이 이 둘을 혼동하고 있다고 생각해.그 페이지를 편집하는 편집자들은 처음에 얼마나 어려웠는지 잊어버렸다.VE는 n00bs를 더 쉽게 만들며, 이곳에는 베테랑 편집자들의 저항이 있다.그리고 다시, "베타" 우려로 인해 VE가 디폴트로 실패한다면, 그러한 요소가 이상 유효하지 않을 때 다시 제안되어야 한다.Int21h (토크) 01:05, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  30. . 멋지고 멋져.그것은 많은 새로운 사용자들이 위키피디아에 머물도록 격려할 것이다.하지만 여전히 어떤 이유에서인지 나는 오래된 편집 도구를 선호한다. 단지 내가 그것에 익숙했기 때문일지도 모른다.위키에서 기사를 편집한 적이 없는 친구에게 페이지 편집을 부탁했더니 그는 완전히 놀랐다.그는 위키피디아에서 기사를 이렇게 쉽게 편집한다고는 생각지도 못했다. --RAT -yjam 2013년 8월 2일 01:26, (UTC)[응답]
  31. 아마도 VE에는 몇 가지 문제가 있지만, 수정 오류와 같은 사소한 편집에도 유용해 보이지만, 또한 쉬운 편집은 어느 정도 파괴력을 증가시킬 수 있기 때문에, CAPTCHA는 등록되지 않은 사용자에게 영원히 제시되어야 한다고 생각한다.(익명 사용자라는 용어는 나에게 다소 혼란스럽지만, wp에는 수천 명의 익명 사용자가 등록되어 있다...) Dianakc.(토크) 03:02, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  32. 강한 예 - 아마도 VE의 존재에 대한 가장 설득력 있는 정당성은 새로운 편집자들이 위키백과에 겁먹지 않고 위키백과에 기고할 수 있는 용이성일 것이다.만약 IP 사용자들이 기본적으로 그것을 이용하지 못하게 한다면, 기존의 사용자들은 위키마크를 사용하여 계속 편집하는 데 문제가 없을 것이기 때문에, 우리는 모든 것을 버리는 편이 나을 것이다.그러나 VE의 목적 또는 적어도 그 목적의 주요 부분이 우리의 백과사전에 새롭고 유능한 기여자를 끌어들이는 것이라면, VE는 기본적으로 IP 사용자에 대해 활성화되어야 한다. –프로토타임 (토크 · 기여) 03:12, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  33. 그래, 왜 안 되는지 모르겠네위키피디아의 접근성과 사용자 친화성을 높임으로써 훨씬 더 많은 계층의 사람들에게 지식을 장려할 수 있다. --스틀리온 (대화) 16:03, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  34. 그것은 위키텍스트보다 훨씬 사용자 친화적이어서, 과거에 새로운 편집자들이 여러 번 포기하게 만들었다.대부분의 새로운 편집자는 익명으로 먼저 편집하기 때문에 익명 편집자의 기본값은 VE이다.다른 편집자보다 로딩 속도가 약간 느리기 때문에 VE를 사용하여 반달들이 광범위하게 피해를 입히기가 더 어렵다. VE는 익명으로 편집하기 때문에 IP의 디폴트로 만들어야 하는 또 다른 이유다.웨거스TALK 18:41, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  35. 제안?그래. 난 선택권을 주는 것에 찬성해.디폴트(채무불이행)인가?말도 안돼. --조 (대화) 19:08, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답하라]
  36. 동의해, .왜 안 되지?반키셔 (대화) 21:01, 2013년 8월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  37. , 자연스럽게.오하나Talk page 유나이티드 01:57, 2013년 8월 3일 (UTC)[응답]
  38. yes phoebe / (말씀) 03:47, 2013년 8월 3일 (UTC)[응답하라]
  39. 예, 그러나 베타 태그가 제거되었을 때만.익명 사용자(일반적으로 경험이 적은 편집자를 의미함)에게는 베타(Beta)의 의미인 "버기(buggy)" 소프트웨어를 주어서는 안 된다.그러나 편집 경험이 적고, VE는 경험이 적은 사람들에게 더 쉽고 오류 발생 가능성이 적은 편집자여서 사용하는 것이 좋다.그들에게 그것을 주자...나중. 트루사나도(토크) 12:51, 2013년 8월 3일 (UTC)[응답]
  40. 네, 일단 소프트웨어가 베타 버전을 벗어났을 뿐이지만.AGK [•] 13:19, 2013년 8월 3일 (UTC)[응답]
  41. 그래… 교활한 반달은 편집 소스 버전으로 더 큰 피해를 입힐 수 있고, VE는 기본 버크가 평소보다 더 나쁜 행동을 하도록 내버려두지 않을 것이다. --Svartalf (토크) 17:06, 2013년 8월 3일 (UTC)[응답]
  42. 응. VE는 그 단계를 밟을 만큼 충분히 성숙했어.가져간 것을 보니 기쁘다.('출처 편집' 옵션이 여전히 두드러지는 한) 데릭 C. 18:22, 2013년 8월 3일 (UTC)[응답]
  43. 그래, WYSIWYG가 소스보다 쉬워WP는 이런 식으로 더 많은 편집을 할 수 있다.네오139 (대화) 01:50, 2013년 8월 4일 (UTC)[응답]
  44. 네. 편집 소스 편집기와 함께.NoMatterTryAgain (대화) 13:47, 2013년 8월 4일 (UTC)[응답]
  45. 그래, 농담하는 거지!!!미친 깡통 독재자들!그것이 자연스러운 방향으로 이끌도록 내버려 두어라.Dany0 (대화) 16:02, 2013년 8월 4일 (UTC)[응답]
  46. 예. ("표시"라고 가정하면 "구식 편집기와 함께 명확하게 표시된 베타 테스트가 된다는 의미)VE의 존재 이유는 noobs에서 더 쉬워지기 위함이다.그들이 계정을 얻도록 하고 그것이 목적과 어긋난다는 것을 발견하기 위해 선호도를 조사한다.브라이언 에디터 (토크) 2013년 8월 4일 (UTC) 16:45[응답]
  47. 응. 위에서 말했듯이, 작은 문법 교정에 유용해.사용하지 않고 사용자에게 베타 버전임을 명확히 하는 옵션이 있어야 한다.Max51 (대화)20:00, 2013년 8월 4일 (UTC)[응답]
  48. , 만약 모든 사용자에게 그런 일이 일어난다면.위키피디아가 익명을 선택한 사용자와 그렇지 않은 사용자를 어떻게 대하느냐에 차이가 없어야 한다.모건 레이 토크 12시 38분, 2013년 8월 5일 (UTC)[응답]
  49. 에픽리티95 (대화) 12:59, 2013년 8월 5일 (UTC)[응답]
  50. , 이미 작은 편집으로도 충분할 정도로 훌륭하다. --로맨스키 (토크) 14:32, 2013년 8월 5일 (UTC)[응답]
  51. 기본적으로 IP 편집기의 경우.나단 T 14:35, 2013년 8월 5일 (UTC)[응답하라]
  52. 그렇다. VE가 실패하고 새로운 사람이 아무도 위키 마크 텍스트를 사용할 줄 모르기 때문에 사용자가 위키 마크가 어떻게 작동하는지 알고 있다는 것을 증명하는 것이 사용자에게 관음이어서는 안 된다. 그렇지 않으면 새로운 사용자가 위키 마크 텍스트에 대한 지식을 갖췄다는 것을 증명하기 위해 25개 이상의 성공적인 편집을 해야 하기 때문이다.
  53. , 간단한 거면 괜찮아.리처드 키팅(토크) 2013년 8월 6일 16:21 (UTC)[응답]
  54. 그렇다 - 나는 질문이 모호하게 표현되어 있다는 점에서 데니가 쓴 것에 대해 두 번째로 말할 것이다.나의 찬성이라면 만약 그 선택사항이 익명의 편집자들에게 항상 "시각적 편집자"와 "출처 편집자"를 선택할 수 있는 선택권을 주거나, 두 번째 선택권을 얻기 위해 어떤 추가적인 행동을 할 필요가 없다면 될 것이다.VE가 처음 로그인한 사용자를 위해 출시되었을 때, VE를 얻은 것은 "편집"이었고, "편집 소스"를 노출한 것은 마우스를 움직였다.나는 맴도는 것이 너무 지장을 주어 VE를 무력화시켰다.이는 VE 8월호에서 고쳐졌고, 현재 나는 내가 편집하고 싶은 것에 어느 것이 적절한지에 따라 두 편집자를 모두 사용한다. --Marc Kupper talk 18:38, 2013년 8월 6일 (UTC)[응답]
  55. -- Stratoprutser (talk) 21:54, 2013년 8월 6일 (UTC)[응답]
  56. 당연히 그래야죠, 왜냐하면 우리는 위키피디아를 쉽게 편집하고 시각적 편집이 더 쉬워지길 원하기 때문이지요.우리 대부분은 아무런 설명도 없이 첫 번째 편집을 했다.컴퓨터에 대한 편안함 수준이 높은 중년의 백인이 아닌 편집자를 원하면 디폴트로 만드세요.--TPW 13:11, 2013년 8월 7일 (UTC)[응답]
  57. --Farzaneh (대화) 17:52, 2013년 8월 7일 (UTC)[응답]
  58. 이것은 이 프로젝트를 처음 접하는 사람들에게 더 친숙하고 그들이 하고 있을 것 같은 기본적인 것에도 잘 작용하는 것 같다.그것은 또한 미래의 방법이다.넬잭(대화) 05:53, 2013년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]
  59. . 마이크 크리스티(대화 - 기여 - 라이브러리) 15:28, 2013년 8월 21일 (UTC)[응답]
  60. 익명 사용자는 VE에 문제가 있거나 로그인한 사용자보다 기술적으로 더 유능하거나 덜 가능성이 있다.로그인하지 않기로 선택(또는 로그인할 수 없는) 사람들을 차별할 이유가 없다.Thryduulf (대화) 13:57, 2013년 8월 25일 (UTC)[응답하라]
  61. 물론 익명의 사용자들은 두 가지 옵션을 모두 제시해야 한다. VE는 여전히 문제가 있지만, 이것이 특히 심각한 침묵의 문제가 아닌 큰 문제를 야기할 만큼 나쁘지는 않은 것은 분명해 보인다.그것이 야기하는 문제들에 대해, 불행히도 시간을 낭비해야 할 것이다. 하지만 VE가 없었다면 VE 기여를 전혀 받지 못했을 것이고, 그러한 오류를 수정해야 하는 것이 짜증나는 반면, 내가 보기에 Mr. Pennis라는 단어를 동성애자 또는 무작위로 삽입하는 것은 덜 귀찮아 보인다.레. 닐 아인(토크) 22:16, 2013년 8월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
  62. 그렇다, 새로 온 사람들에게 베타 소프트웨어를 제공하는 것은 좋지 않은 생각일지라도, 그들에게 대다수가 기여하는 것을 만류할 위키텍스트 인터페이스를 제공하는 것은 훨씬 더 나쁘다.마틴풀터(대화) 2013년 8월 28일(UTC) 12:06, 2013년 8월 28일(UTC) "새로운 사용자의 목을 조르는 [인터페이스] 쇼핑에 반대하는 주장에 대해, 새로운 사용자의 목을 위키텍스트를 강요하는 것이 뭐가 그렇게 좋은가?마틴풀터(토크) 2013년 8월 28일(UTC) 12시 11분 [응답]

VE는 기본적으로 익명 사용자에게 제공되지 않아야 함

  1. 현재 상태가 아니다.나는 VE가 훌륭한 도구가 될 수 있다고 생각하지만, 대다수의 익명 사용자들이 등록되지 않았다면 그것이 도움이 되지 않을 것이고 베타 테스터가 되는 것에 관심이 없을 것이라고 생각한다.그렇긴 하지만, 일단 VE가 개선되고 나면, 특히 참고문헌과 템플릿에 대한 우려의 관점에서, 나는 그 때 이것을 익명의 사용자들에게 공개하는 것이 적절할 것이라고 생각한다.나, 제스로봇(주:아니다!) 05:17, 2013년 7월 30일 (UTC)[응답하라]
    당신의 생각과는 달리, 애논은 대개 위키에 새로운 것이기 때문에, 실제로는 테스트 단계에 관계없이 VE의 직설성에 더 열심이다. -- 같은 보트 - 同舟 (토크) 05:21, 2013년 7월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
    참고. 하지만 VE를 사용하여 편집한 후 예기치 못한 결과에 대해 아래 언급된 바와 같이 새로운 편집자에게 혼란과 좌절을 야기하는 것은 전적으로 동의하며, 새로운 편집자들이 흥미를 잃게 만드는 이 측면이라고 생각한다.나, 제스로봇(주:아니다!) 08:06, 2013년 7월 30일 (UTC)[응답하라]
  2. VE is more likely to ruin the layout of the article. Because it is more difficult to tell anonymous editors the damage they have done due to dynamic IP, it should remain unavailable to anons until VE is 100% bugfree. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 05:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Surely not in its current state as the VisualEditor belongs rather to the problems than to the solutions given the cleanup which is required due to its glitches. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Anon editors are either enthusiastic newbies, or gnarled old timers who wish to hit and walk away, in either case the substantial number of comment messages on a page need to be seen. Gnarled old timers are more likely to want to just fix {{cn}}s or slip in a {{convert}} and don't thank you for an extra layer of shoddy bling getting in the way. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 06:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Not with the current list of opened bugs or missing enhancements that currently generate damages in articles. It could be presented to anonymous users once it has been fixed, even if VE is not feature full. --NicoV (Talk on frwiki) 06:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. It doesn't work, and IPs are people too. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I suspect an IP editor accidentally damaging an article's formatting by using VE will be confused and driven away. "Cheez! I just destroyed that table! They'll think I'm a vandal." <foII color="red">→StaniStani 08:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Considering how many broken edits the Visual Editor is causing, even for editors who would otherwise be making a fine edit, it is much better to not have it on by default for them. Because the system is in Beta, it should be something where you have to opt-in, and creating an account would be the method for doing that. We're trying to encourage editors to make accounts anyways, so I don't see this as a big deal. SilverserenC 09:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Anonymous editors especially expect the default editing method to work. It doesn't - sometimes it breaks articles. And it doesn't include many features we want all editors to be able to use, such as footnoting. Sandstein 10:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. By default, they shouldn't be presented with a totally unfinished piece of software. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Not while there are still so many bugs and parts are still unfinished, and if and when it's changed back to default should be decided by another RFC. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Not ready. Andreas JN466 12:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Takes too long to load. – Plarem (User talk) 13:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Not until it's ready. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 13:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  15. per above - Takes forever loading & It's not ready at all. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 13:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16. That dog won't hunt, and it is a useless distraction now. It would be better to send newcomers to "adoption school", to learn how to pass RfAs without writing articles. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  17. No. I am a long-time IP editor who mostly fixes spelling and so forth. I commented on a previous RFC about this after a very bad first experience with this visual editor thing, which made me wait forever while it loaded and then forever again while I was trying to figure out what it was and how to make it go away. I hope you turn it off for IP editors by default, or at least put "edit source" links in sections instead of just for the whole article.198.72.143.40 (talk) 14:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Beta software will frustrate and drive away newbies.--Aschmidt (talk) 14:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  19. beta-software wich is not working will frustrate newbies. -- Andreas Werle (talk) 16:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  20. I have learned of at least one newbie who found it horribly confusing and distinctly preferred editing the wikitext directly. The approach to learning wikitext that the newbie uses is emulation of existing markup. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  21. No. Not now. Not until it's VERY stable. Intothatdarkness 17:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Not at this time. Right now there are too many problems with this unstable release. At some point in the future when the bugs have been worked out and the interface has been cleaned up and made more friendly we can implement it to unregistered users. It would be a good idea then. But not yet. Kumioko (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  23. See bugzilla:50540 and bugzilla:52202. I don't see how such buggy software can be presented to IPs in a way that is clear enough. They can't enable or disable preferences to customize it, or to remove it. So it makes more sense to disable it for IPs for now. What's the rush to enable it for IPs anyway? --Timeshifter (talk) 17:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Since they can't have preferences.--Gilderien Talk to me List of good deeds 17:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Also see what I've written here for more information. Kurtis (talk) 18:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  26. I see a lot of the vandals using VisualEditor to easily blank parts of sections because they can see more quickly what they are blanking. Since a large percentage of vandals are IPs, and since VisualEditor is so problematic, it shouldn't be presented by default. kikichugirl inquire 18:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  27. No. At present it's too easy for IP vandals to abuse, and is impenetrable to legitimately new users. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 19:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Of course not. It's beta software and beta software shouldn't be active for any user, especially not anonymous users without the possibility to opt-out. --Patrick87 (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  29. No. Absolutely not. Manxruler (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  30. No. Slow, bugridden and lacks critical functionality. Not yet, obviously. Black Kite (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  31. As with new editors. Hut 8.5 21:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  32. If presented at all, it should only be presented as an alternative to wikitext, with a caution that it is still in beta. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  33. If we allow editing by IP addresses, which we do, it is inappropriate to treat them as guinea pigs. (I wouldn't object to disabling editing by IP addresses, but I do object to using them as test animals. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Sorry Jimbo - The WMF should know that betas should be tested by experienced users and that anonymous editors should not be forced to test this buggy beta. PantherLeapord (talk) 00:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Hey I have an idea, let's beta test a bunch of buggy software on the most popular store of world's knowledge (for better or for worse) which a bunch of people who have never used it before. What could possibly go wrong? Sailsbystars (talk) 00:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Same as with new editors. postdlf (talk) 01:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Since IP's don't have the opportunity for a detailed explanation and radio button that user account creations do, I would say to play it on the safe side by default. — Train2104 (talkcontribs) 01:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  38. New users should not have to test this by default. TCN7JM 02:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  39. I am a software developer and quality assurance analyst by trade. Beta software testing is not for the faint at heart. I say don't even make it available to unregistered users at this time for much the same reason I gave a Strong Opt-in to even enabling it for new registered users. VE is simply not production ready. Jim Reed (Talk) 03:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Not right now. SpencerT♦C 04:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Beta should not be default. StringTheory11 (tc) 04:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Lfstevens (talk) 17:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  43. No. There is too much vandalism from anonymous IPs. This only makes it easier.Slacka123 (talk) 04:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Agree, not while it is still in beta. —Bruce1eetalk 05:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  45. No. I agree with the above, there is too much potential for abuse. I think that visual editor should be restricted to editors over a certain threshold of edits to maintain the correct usage and minimize vandalism. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  46. I agree with many of the views presented above. The original wiki markup is an effective deterrent to anonymous vandals because of its complex nature. The VE tool should be made available only to registered and established users (users who have made a significant number of edits, say, 500) to recognise them for their contributions and to offer them a "simpler" way to edit pages. It's like learning how to drive a manual car and getting a licence first before switching to an auto car. LDS contact me 05:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  47. No. Anonymous users should have the same 'preferences' as the default for new users. That's basic usability design. Modest Genius talk 10:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  48. The software is just too buggy. --Meno25 (talk) 10:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  49. --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 10:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  50. No. No VE for anonymous editors for the same reasons why I wanted opt-in above. VE is obviously still only a beta. Thomas.W talk to me 12:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  51. No. Even worse than by default for others. StevenJ81 (talk) 12:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  52. No. Per above. Vandalism seems to be at a very high level as it is. Also, the good IP editors don't need to be our crash-test pilots. Jusdafax 13:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Never. The amount of IP vandalism I come across that has the VE tag is massive. I also fully agree with LDS above. Make it an extra for established editors. Yintan 14:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  54. No. Too many problems with the beta.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Never it turns well meaning editors into unwitting vandals Agathoclea (talk) 16:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Not by default, but they should be able to use it after being clearly notified that it's a beta. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Yes but in the same state as it would be for "named" users, where they can opt in if they choose. KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ... 18:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  58. YE Pacific Hurricane 19:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Never. This tool is absolutely not ready for anons to use, and IMHO falls into the category of tools that should only be available to registered, autoconfirmed editors. There are several things anon editors can't do, using VE should be one of them. If they want to make constructive contributions, and think they would prefer using VE to do it, then that's one more benefit of creating an account. -Wine Guy~Talk 19:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  60. No: Not ready for prime-time, scares off conscientious newcomers, while enabling gleeful (as well as inadvertent) vandalism. Reify-tech (talk) 19:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  61. No, it should not be the default. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  62. No: not until important trechnical issues are resolved and it is not a beta anymore.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Every little tweak and bug should be worked out first. United States Man (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  64. No - not while there are so many issues with a feature that represents a core function of this website. --RA () 22:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  65. No - not with the present state of VE.--Jockzain (talk) 22:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  66. No: I'm sick of fixing good faith edits screwed up by the VisualEditor. Ginsuloft (talk) 22:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  67. No One of the dumbest ideas I've ever seen. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  68. No. It's still in beta, and it still has bugs that need to be worked out. Beta software such as this one should never be the default for editors until the problems are worked out and a stable version is released. Lugia2453 (talk) 22:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  69. No. "It's still in beta" - nuff said.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 22:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  70. No. Its terrible. Its so unuser friendly and down right confusing. Near impossible to edit with it. It glitches, it causes the website to load slow. --Rushton2010 (talk) 22:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  71. No. Oppose using our next generation of editors as lab rats.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  72. No now, Yes in the future—In concept, giving anons the VE is a good idea, however, until the bugs are ironed out, the VisualEditor is likely to harm Wikipedia's image among potential future editors.—Love, Kelvinsong talk 22:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Not yet: It is possible in the future, but with the limitations at present it might put off some users more than showing the syntax. When it is workable, it should be a one-time question.--Marianian(talk) 22:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  74. No simply on the basis that preferences don't work for anons. ⁓ Hello71 22:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: IMO it might be possible to save preferences based on cookies. --Marianian(talk) 22:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Hell no no reason to mistreat IPs more than we have to for technological purposes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  76. No per previous comments of mine, above and below. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 23:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  77. No, visual editor is too difficult and frustrating to use.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  78. No, not as it is working now. QED237 (talk) 23:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  79. No per previous statement and above. Elockid (Talk) 23:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Having two editing formats would be confusing to new editors. Better to start them off with the more stable editing format. SMP0328. (talk) 23:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  81. No the system's too buggy. B-watchmework (talk) 23:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  82. No - See above, the VisualEditor is a bad enough idea already. I mean, personally I don't think it should be available at all, but definitely not to anonymous contributors.--Newbiepedian (Hailing Frequencies) 23:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  83. No, not ready yet, and far too buggy.— James Estevez (talk) 23:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Not now. When it is properly functional, then it's worth considering, I suppose. Everyking (talk) 23:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  85. No. I think the regular form of editing is less confusing. Why learn one method and then have to change later? Newjerseyliz (talk) 23:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  86. No, too buggy and too soon. Prabash.Akmeemana 23:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  87. No - until VE moves out of beta (as in, most of the bugs are fixed and the thing is stable), the current editing system should remain the default for anonymous users. RandomArticles Talk 23:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  88. No. It takes to long to load and it's apparently still in beta. --Mαuri’96everything and nothing always haunts me…” 23:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  89. No VE isn't ready for primetime pbp 23:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  90. No Per my earlier comment. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  91. No As I said above, VE is in beta mode and needs to be tested by users with experience. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  92. No, until it's bugfree and out of beta. Jguy TalkDone 00:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  93. No, Not as the default. Jagnor (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  94. No, needs to be much better than what it is now to be default. -ELEKHHT 00:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Like Stanistani (vote number 7) said, the last thing we need is a new editor thinking that we assume that they're a vandal because VE broke something on the page. ALH (talk) 00:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  96. A beta stage is intended for testing by a select group. Having an account should at least be a threshold to be a member of that group. Holdek (talk) 00:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  97. This should not be presented to anons, beyond a link to it being on the to of the page of the traditional editor. And upon enabling this, users with small monitors should be warned that it may not work for them. Icedog (talk) 00:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Too buggy. While VisualEditor's purpose is to encourage and retain editors, in its current buggy state it may have the opposite effect. Deploy only the finished product to anonymous users. --teb00007 TalkContributions 00:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  99. No, and even not the default when it ends Beta testing.--DThomsen8 (talk) 00:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Connor Behan (talk) 00:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  101. No! Perhaps, a hint could be displayed somewhere that a VE interface is available if you click somewhere (and also keep it as default in your user preferences), but beyond that, VE should be set to disabled as default until it gets smart and fast enough. Normally, poor bandwidth connections and new/anonymous users go hand in hand. ViswaPrabhaവിശ്വപ്രഭtalk 01:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  102. No Anonymous editors have chosen to be anonymous, they need not be coddled for that. μηδείς (talk) 01:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  103. NO! I like it the way it is but, it is a great way to show it the way it should be. 22dragon22burn (talk) 01:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  104. NO!!! If registered users can't even get the hang of it, why would we have IPs use it as default Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Apteva (talk) 01:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  106. No. ★Saurabh P. ☎ talk 02:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  107. simple and step by step is always best--we should each be aware of what we're doing, not everything automaticNickholbrook (talk) 01:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  108. NO!!! There is already much too much anonymous vandalism without allowing wider and, eventually, easier access... GWFrog (talk) 02:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  109. No This is not easy to use and not appropriate for the typical anonymous editor because it presents an inferior user experience. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  110. I don't think it should be enabled for unregistered users for some of the reasons given above, most notebly the long wait time before the editor came up.Graham1973 (talk) 02:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  111. No I agree with many of the reasons outlined above. I just signed up for Wikipedia a few months ago and am finding the markup easier to use than the visual editor (which makes me afraid my computer is going to crash every time). I think it's a great idea to have a visual editor, I just don't think it's to the point where it is non-buggy enough to use for visitors/anonymous people. Neurosciency (talk) 03:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  112. No - Not now, maybe never. This facilitates and currently aggravates the errors they introduce. Rock4arolla (talk) 03:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Probably not. It should certainly be an option, but it is currently too buggy and roll-out after the worst bugs are fixed should be dependent on user feedback and not WMF higher-ups trying to fix a nonexistent problem: there is not actually anything easier than plaintext editing which is how Wikipedia got here in the first place. New users are simply not as stupid as they think they are and the problems with user retention come from other sources. — LlywelynII 03:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  114. No Maybe once the bugs are worked out. Not now. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Jclemens (talk) 05:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  116. No - comments above say lots of good reasons why. -- cyclopiaspeak! 10:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  117. No. I'm not comfortable with giving IP users the ability to use this new tool, specially when its misuses should be a time sink for fixing the errors.--JetstreamerTalk 12:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    See what I'm talking about?--Jetstreamer Talk 12:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  118. No per Jetstreamer. Jeff5102 (talk) 14:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  119. No. This thing is broken for regular users, giving to anon's is a terrible idea. Remove the VE from this site and test it somewhere smaller until it is actually working. Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  120. NO Absolutely not. Once out of beta status and proven effective, this will a great tool for new and unregistered users. We end up fixing just as many mistakes for their attempted wikimarkup as those currently resulted from VE bugs. Give it some time, then we should reconsider VE as default. — MusikAnimal talk 15:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  121. No no NO. It is confusing and overly-complicated, and as a result it makes it very easy to introduce errors to a page without realizing it. Users who have studied it enough to be able to use it without mangling the page they're working on almost certainly have an account already. --Aquillion (talk) 15:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  122. --Jasca Ducato (talk) 15:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  123. NO Absolutely not. As per first question, it is beta software for pete's sake. Jytdog (talk) 15:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  124. No. It could well be available to anonymous users, but not as default. Blue Elf (talk) 16:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  125. NO. It should be available, but Wiki markup should be preferred. Confusing, overly complicated, and simply not working. Not to mention that encourages opportunistic vandalism. RGloucester (talk) 17:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  126. NEVER NEVER NEVER Great way of making vandalism easier and vandalism largely comes from IP-editors. Might as well give street gangs guns, too. Make them register an account.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  127. No. They should have make a positive choice to use VE, since it's prone to breaking page layouts, at least for now. Kudu ~I/O~ 17:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  128. No. VE seems to be a tool for the introduction of errors and breakage. Frankly, no one should use it at all unless they've familiarized themselves with it in some kind of sandbox environment. bd2412 T 17:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  129. No Wait until it has all of the functionality of the wikitext editor. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  130. No. — This doesn't mean I don't like 'anonymous' to make some edits, as not all of them have bad interests. It just feels that the VE should be the advantage for people that have a registered account. — Vic2908 (talk) 18:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  131. No. Leaves the whole thing easily open to abuse of articles. I don't want to have to be the one clearing up constant article abuses because of easy access to editing. I'm not saying all anonymous users are bad, but some are, and I feel VE should be privallege of actual Wiki members that edit articles to improve their quality in a positive way. Furthermore, I would even suggest temporary halts of this privilege if members are found to abuse articles with no good reason. Bruno Russell (talk) 18:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  132. No. It is completely wrong. Stop uglify Wikipedia with initiatives like that.--Soul Train (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  133. No. I can't think of many better ways of putting off new editors. Arjayay (talk) 18:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Not yet Definitely not at least yet, until it's further refined with bugs virtually non-existent, and features (such as citation inputs) increased Tom W (talk) 18:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  135. No It's simply not ready yet, and there's too many issues that still need to be addressed. Signalizing (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  136. No I agree with the last 3 posts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talkcontribs) 19:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  137. No. It shouldn't be the default for anyone. In it's present state, it shouldn't even be available to anonymous. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Definitely NO, it's horribly slow and buggy. Will easily repulse good faith editors. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 20:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  139. No. Since they cannot choose, they should be given the most stable and functional tool. elmindreda (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  140. No (if that's not a double negative). Anonymous users have just as much right to a working interface as registered users do. Rivertorch (talk) 21:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  141. No VE button for anons. Tell experienced IP users to run "&veaction=edit" to access VE, since they know to Save and beware edit-conflict losing VE sessions. Many new IPs, like new usernames, will likely not Save the edit, as in the survey of 19,500 new users, which reported 41% new usernames (2 of 5!) neglected to save their VE edits. -Wikid77 22:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Anonymous users should not use VE by default. Anonymous users are more likely to use vandalism, and VE encourages that. The people who really want to help Wikipedia will learn to edit normally. Or just make an account to use VE. Kittenono (talk) 22:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  143. No - the point of beta-testing is to get bug reports and fix them. Throwing broken stuff at a segment of the userbase who are unlikely to report (or in the case of casual tweakers even recognise) bugs is in no way beta-testing, it's idiocy. VE is in no way ready for anything beyond beta-testing yet. FLHerne (talk) 01:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  144. No It's too buggy to be used by anonymous, and it will ruin the article even for experienced editor like me. Timothy G. from CA (talk) 02:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  145. No absolutely not SHIVAM SETU (U-T-C-E) 03:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  146. No Visual Editor should not be the default.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  147. No - It should be opt in, which implies WikiText as the default. Carrite (talk) 04:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  148. No: as per my !vote #268 favouring opt-in for new comers as well; not only will it hide warnings like "<--do not change this date; see talk-page-->" to the new comers to the wiki inviting rampant editing but also obviously has many other issues noted above. Can you really write a fully policy compliant article with just VE? --lTopGunl (talk) 04:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  149. No: I tried the new editor a few times and disliked its operation and how it misunderstood my intentions. It is not ready and I have gone to the trouble of removing it as a choice from my Preferences because I kept clicking on it by mistake because the Edit link defaulted to the irritating new editor, and the Edit Source option only appeared after a hover on the Edit link (which is stupid), and I drive the interface a lot faster than that: I can't hang around all day for a damned hover to be recognised and enacted. New or IP editors should not have to wrestle with something that doesn't work. What happened to traditional software testing prior to release? — O'Dea (talk) 04:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  150. No: The traditional editor is much simpler to use and new users can see what they are doing using that much more than with the visual editor. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 04:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  151. No. To preserve the integrity of Wikipedia, we must restrict certain features of the site (such as the Visual Editor) to registered members. This will, likely, prevent vandalism.--User:Historic 66 (talk) 12:16, 2 August 2013 (CST)
  152. No, for the same reasons as above in the opt-in discussion. Since anons have no account in which to register a preference, this is the natural counterpart of making the VE opt-in. -- The Anome (talk) 05:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Strong No: We should encourage anonymous editors to sign up with actual accounts by only offering both options to editors with actual accounts. Perhaps a small notice should appear to anonymous editors informing them that, when they sign up, they will have a VE option. allixpeeke (talk) 05:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  154. No thank you, instead re-open the issue when opt-in's become the majority (question 1). ~Michael Allan 07:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  155. No. I'm inclined to disagree with presenting VE to anonymous users by default for the same reasons as disagreeing with the 'opt-out' option for newer users. This is shoving a beta element of Wikipedia which drastically alters editing experiences down IP's throats. Aurora (talk contribs) 07:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Not in its current state. No beta version should be available to anonymous users. Editorranjitksharma (talk) 08:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  157. No — considering the long list of pending bugs and missing features of the current beta, there is a big change that anonymous users could (inadvertently) damage the layout of the articles. Clearly, this is all unnecessary extra work and the time spent to fix those issues, is time taken away from the creation of new articles or the enhancement of the existing ones. Toffanin (talk) 08:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Not right now, but revisit the issue in six months. Personally, I think this decision shouldn't be made right now, with the bug list the way it is. Hopefully, six months should be ample time to get things ironed out. ShawnIsHere: Now in colors 09:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  159. No There is currently way too much vandalism from anonymous users, something that may put vandals off the idea of wrecking a Wikipedia page would be the ever-so-slightly complicated edit box with its pieces of punctuation thrown all over. Vandals will be so much more likely to wreck an article if it is easier to edit it with a clean, easy-to-use interface. Having said that, it means that fewer people will be more likely to add to a Wikipedia Article. However, if they desire to continue to edit pages on Wikipedia, they can register themselves for an account; this is something vandals won't do. So, NO, do not allow VE to anonymous, unregistered users. Many thanks! Johnxsmith (talk) 09:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Not yet. I think that making the editing of an article more like using Microsoft's Word processor is desirable, especially for newcomers. However, the software still needs some debugging. Cwkmail (talk) 10:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  161. No! Alfie↑↓© 10:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  162. No. For the same reason I learned DOS before windows: if VE crashes and you don't know wiki mark-up, you can't edit anything...which could be a double edged sword...lol. but, still, NO. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 10:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  163. No. The editor is not finished. Enabling the VE for anonymous editors makes it easy for them to break the page in a single edit, requiring tedious fixing or alternatively reverting all of their changes, which might waste valuable/well-intentioned work. – Acdx (talk) 10:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  164. No. --Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 10:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  165. Nope. Insulam Simia (talk) 10:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  166. No Apart from the bugs, adequately described above, the VE makes it so much easier for hit-and-run IPs and newly-created users to vandalise pages, and would give serious editors even more clean up work. This extra workload could be self-defeating for WP by driving away serious editors and not significantly increasing the number of those dedicated. If this default is added, I hope there will be a study on the increased - or not - occurrence of vandalism, and through this a subsequent review of VE access. Acabashi (talk) 11:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  167. Definitely not, because it doesn't currently work in my browser (Opera) - it just sits there loading forever. This would be extremely frustrating if I was a new user. It doesn't seem good practice to make something like this a default before it's out of beta testing. --Tremolo (talk) 11:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  168. No. Too much damage can be done too easily, especially now when it is full of bugs and only at a beta level. Only after extensive testing by people who have a range of skills and editing styles should it even be considered for wider use, and not at all by anonymous editors! DDStretch (talk) 11:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  169. No Since others have already stated my reasons above, I won't restate them again here. Double sharp (talk) 11:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  170. No Due to the same concerns that others have. extra999 (talk) 12:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  171. No Definitely not. Yienshawn (talk) 13:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  172. No --Kjetil_r 14:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  173. No Rather than making things better, VE just make the edits worse with new users accidentally deleting the infoboxes.--FonFon Alseif (talk) 14:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  174. No When the Visual editor is less buggy and can do more, without accidental deletions, then IPs should have it. ~~Ebe123~~ on the go! 14:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  175. No because it is beta with bugs.--Yopie (talk) 16:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  176. No it is too glitchy. It introduces too many errors into articles. Every edit that I've seen using VE has had to be reverted because it messes too many other things up in the article (duplicating content, messing up tables, etc.)Goodsdrew (talk) 17:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  177. Not now. Perhaps, when it's out of beta, but first it has to get into beta. It's presently pre-alpha. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  178. No For the reasons I discussed in my answer to Q1. This should be teh same as for other editors. If set for all Wikipedians as default, have set for anonymous users by default; if not, not. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 23:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  179. No For the exact reasons established in the opt-in answers to Q1 Uncle Scrooge (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  180. Per my !vote above. Mohamed CJ (talk) 01:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  181. Definitely Not Too easy to abuse. It is a tool for proper use in the right hands. asdfawesomegreen (talk) 01:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  182. No VE by default, until VE is more complete and no longer beta. —ADavidB 02:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  183. No. It'll make vandalism too easy, and it'll turn away positive anonymous contributors. Gdfusion (talk) 05:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  184. Not now. Until it's suitable for registered users, it should not be used for anonymous users. -Thunderforge (talk) 05:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  185. No . We must not push new users to something which should have been easier to use, but it is not. --FocalPoint (talk) 06:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  186. No. VE is way too slow and broken to expect casual users to beta test. When/if the VE is finished and has the same capabilities as the raw wiki editor then it should be imposed upon casual users, until then let those that choose to use it use it, and not those that are forced to. Liamdavies (talk) 06:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  187. No. To be consistent with my vote on question #1, not default now and possibly not in the future. DPdH (talk) 07:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  188. Definitely not, in my opinion. I assume that by anonymous users, it is meant those uing an IP address. My arguments here would be essentially per my comment above, with the addition that legitimate anonymous users should be encouraged to create accounts, which can still give them anonymity anyway. Wotnow (talk) 08:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  189. No.-- Dewritech (talk) 11:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  190. No. There is too much potential for abuse. --Robertiki (talk) 11:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  191. No, not while VE is still in beta. As Agathoclea said above, "it turns well-meaning editors into unwitting vandals"—and it's less likely you can get in reliable contact with an IP than with a logged-in account to tell them what they're doing wrong. Ignatzmicetalk 13:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  192. No, keep it as is. Introducing a beta version of VE will actually make the quality of anons' (IP editors') edits worse. Keeping wikicode leaves little room for error. Epicgenius(talk to mesee my contributions) 15:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  193. No, VE should not be presented to anonymous users by default. The thing is way too buggy and not ready for prime time. Experienced users are important beta testers, and new or anon users should opt-in if they want to spend their time on Wikipedia debugging a buggy software release. N2e (talk) 15:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  194. No, as a very infrequent editor who does sometimes edit anonymously due to forgetting my password or not bothering to log in, I don't want to be forced to use the new editor. Especially if it's as buggy as people seem to be saying. Admittedly I have quite a bit of programming experience, so I might not be typical of infrequent editors. ArgentTurquoise (talk) 16:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  195. No way. VE is far too unstable and messy at the moment. Stifle (talk) 16:53, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  196. No, because editing is easy enough already and I think anonymous users who are not technically proficient enough to figure out how to use the old editor, would be likely to introduce errors or cause other problems. My opinion is not dependent on the stability or bugs in the VE--the bugs just provide additional reason supporting this view but I would feel the same way even if the VE were bug-free. I think there's a point at which it is not beneficial to make something easier to participate in--I want Wikipedia to be open to "casual" editors but not necessarily ones any more "casual" than are already editing it. If nothing is broken, don't "fix" it. Cazort (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  197. No, because it allows anonymous and thus possibly inexperienced editors to make accidental updates without realizing it. Dusty 💬 You can help! 17:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  198. No, because it is confusing to use. Maki (talk) 18:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  199. No, it is harder to use, than the code editor. Olaf (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  200. No, As above, more confusing to use, and allows for potentially damaging edits without realizing it! -- RWJP (talk) 19:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  201. VE should not be presented to anonymous users by default. Not in beta testing. The discussion should be re-visited once the software is fully functional.Rejectwater (talk) 19:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  202. NO—of course not! The vast majority of anonymous (IP) users have little experience in editing, and therefore can make serious mistakes in using VisualEditor. In doing so, they might, for example, remove links, templates, text formatting, and all sorts of necessarily placed special characters (such as non-breaking, thin, and other spaces). I've seen it happen before—tagged with "VisualEditor"—and each time it's just been a mess. VE is simply too risky to hand over to the most inexperienced of Wikipedia users, and therefore it should be made, at the most, optional for all users. Why would it ever be a good idea to give such a technical and unfamiliar tool to someone who has never used it before and likely does not even know that there is a way to disable it? — J~Pæst 23:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  203. No, if established users are more likely to wait until it loads and try to fight various bugs, anonymous users are less likely to try to deal with it. Although VE is good for fixing a small typo, it will be way harder for an anonymous user to create content in VE (at least in its current state), so a user should at least have a choise — NickK (talk) 01:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  204. Not now. If it's not working well, it shouldn't be the first experience an editor gets. Later on, maybe. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  205. No, that's crazy It will help vandals and confuse anonymous users who are full time but too lazy to make an account. This is Mkbw50 signing out! 09:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  206. No, highly illogical. It isn't developed enough and is very glitchy, giving newbs a bad experience. Not to mention the fact that vandals will love it. Ensignricky (talk) 13:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  207. Not yet: not until editors can see hidden comments, and can't accidentally delete a template without noticing, and it's much easier to add good references, and a load of other similar points. When it's working properly, then certainly have it as default for anon and new users. But not in its current buggy and inadequate state. PamD 14:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  208. No, VE should not be presented to anonymous users by default. Editing should be a conscious activity - casual editing of material through an opaque editor risks creating extra work for people making more serious edits directly in mediawiki markup. It also would discourage learning of elementary web and knowledge skills. Boud (talk) 14:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  209. No. It makes it appear way too easy to vadalise. --Mainline421 (talk) 16:49, 4 August 2013 (BST)
  210. No! Someone among the administrators and the board of directors needs to remember that Wikipedia is no longer a hacker's hobby. It is a massive enterprise which is not fix-able by any reasonable effort once it is messed up on the scale possible by implementing VE for anonymous and new users. Remember, rust never sleeps but painters have to rest every now and again. Trilobitealive (talk) 16:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  211. No. --Gourra (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  212. No! The visual editor and the links to it everywhere are annoying and really cluttering up the reading experience of articles (there used to be just one "edit" link after section titles, now there are like a whole sentence after each of them), and the tool doesn't edit the actual article text (which is the source, not its visual representation) and is not capable of handling the article text (source) responsibly. People using it are in danger of cluttering up the source (ie. the article) and should use this less than optimal tool at their own risk. Personally, I find the visual editor useless, and it would be best if new editors were encouraged to learn to edit the proper way as everyone else have managed in the past ten years. Using the visual editor is like driving a car with no sight. Tataral (talk) 17:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  213. No Certainly not. Not all editors can try the VE, even if they want it. The last thing experienced editors need in an unusual environment is defaulting to a new editor. Unscintillating (talk) 17:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  214. No This a no-no and emphatic no. I know democracy can be messy but editing as it was was quite democratic; this invites the anarchy of vandalism anonymously. So, no to VE, bugs or no bugs. Weathervane13 21:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  215. No, never. Only registered editors should have access, for the above & below reasons, & because of network & hardware differences. Less is more, in this case.
  216. No.' Never. This should never come to pass. -Kai445 (talk) 23:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  217. No.' God no. Is WMF trying to scare new people away? PumpkinSky talk 00:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  218. No. Well first, I don't think Vis Edit should be allowed for non auto confirmed, but that's a story for another heading. I think the potential for abuse is to high with this new editor, right now abusers have to learn wiki markup to make sure the abuse is visable now they can abuse Wiki really easy. Etineskid(talk) 01:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  219. No. Beta-testing should be done by experienced Wikipedians. --Stephen Gilbert (talk) 01:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  220. No. There is too much potential for abuse. TiMike (talk) 03:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  221. No - The Visual Editor not only discourages fluency within the confines of Wikipedia, but encourages anonymous editors to make constructive and more significantly, nonconstructive edits, with efficiency. DarthBotto talkcont 05:33, 05 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  222. Emphatically no. Visual Editors are more trouble than they are worth, and lead to poor coding and faulty, unreliable presentation of contents. They should never be presented as reliable, much less as a default. In fact, they should never be encouraged to anyone who lacks the expertise to fix the code by hand. Luis Dantas (talk) 15:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  223. No, it's still in beta state (if that). -- UKoch (talk) 16:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  224. No! Lova Falk talk 16:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  225. During testing VE on german wp there came mostly no good from anonymous users using VE.--Markscheider (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  226. No, the VE will aid in making anonymous users destroy the layout of the site Noahk11 (talk) 20:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  227. Not in its current form Heenan73 (talk) 21:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  228. No I think that having the HTML learning curve keeps people from abusing content on Wikipedia anonymously. If people want the convenience, then they should take that extra step and register. - 7partparadigm (talk) 5 August 2013.
  229. No When the visual editor is adopted by the majority of people editing Wikipedia on an opt-in basis, then it should be made the default. Until then, it should be an opt-in feature for all users.Jbaylor (talk) 01:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  230. No It makes vandalism seem easier. The VE is also much more computationally expensive than the simple text box. That makes it hard for people on low-powered devices to edit. LachlanA (talk) 03:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  231. No As others have pointed out, the visual editor makes it hard to learn by seeing how others have done things. I learned practically all the editing I know by looking at the source of existing pages. If one can't see the source, this approach doesn't work, and one will have to hunt through documentation or test options by trial and error in order to reproduce a table, say, or some template. The visual editor makes very easy tings marginally easier, makes easy things marginally harder, and hard things very difficult. While I understand the intention is to make the learning curve gentler, I think most of it is actually made steeper. Amaurea (talk) 08:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  232. No currently - browser support, speed and bug. Time will tell. Widefox; talk 11:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  233. ""No"" It may make it too easy for people to vandalize wikipedia pages anonymously.Cheerioswithmilk (talk) 13:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  234. ""No"". Given VE's development state, I do not believe it will overall be a viable asset as a default option for anonymous users. Koi Sekirei (talk) 13:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  235. ""No"" Buggy software should not be presented to anybody, whether anonymous, beginner or advanced. First make it acceptable then ask if it really is good enough, if majority agrees then finally you may present it. In commercial companies it works like that always, why not here? It's free, but does not give the right to frustrate clients. Another proof that Wikimedia is no democracy, but bureaucracy, close to a dictature.... Klaas Z4␟V: 13:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  236. No - it's incredibly obnoxious. Wikimarkup is not so complicated that most people of reasonable intelligence can't figure out enough of it to make basic edits. On the other hand, WYSIWYG editors have a nasty habit of making it too easy for you to accidentally introduce stuff you didn't intend to and make people more inclined to do things that look great on their own monitor/configuration, but not so great on other platforms. --B (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  237. No, but yes once the bugs are worked out. –Ugncreative Usergname (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  238. No- It is enough of a frustration for even some experienced editors. We might should, however, include an option in their preferences, but still keep the option on every page.Qxukhgiels (talk) 19:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  239. No- Not in the current state. When the bugs are found and eliminated - find out if this makes vandalism a bit too easy for IP-adresses and then ask the question again. Dyveldi 19:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  240. No - If the people developing the Visual Editor openly admit it is still in beta and has lots of bugs, then presenting it as the default option to anonymous users who aren't even logged in is a crazy idea. Giving them that option is fine, but don't make the default choice be something full of bugs. With most software, the easiest download link to find is for the stable version, and beta versions that may have bugs require a bit more effort to find and download, and for good reason. Wikipedia should go along with these standard practices of the software industry, of not having unstable beta versions be the default choice, but still allowing people to beta-test them if they wish. --Yetisyny (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  241. This. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 22:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  242. No Anons can be just as technically oriented as users sometimes. --Asmetr (talk) 00:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  243. No, don't easy the vandals' work. - Al Lemos (talk) 01:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  244. No, anonymous users needn't be penalized with a sluggish, buggy interface. -- Hoary (talk) 01:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  245. No, due to the VE's clunkiness and how it makes vandalism easier. -- Druid816 (talk) 05:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  246. Unless you want so scare them off the delay times of the VE and its horrible user-interface should not annoy the noobs. It´s totally sufficent to annoy the regulars with this stuff. Weissbier (talk) 08:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  247. Not Yet, Similar to many people here, I feel that it should wait until VE is out of it's Beta state, but then definitely yes. I've seen too many times when users have made constructive edits, but broken the markup in the process. VE will be very useful for them, but not now. Sincerely, Akjar13 (He's Gone Mental) 11:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  248. It's not ready. — Scott talk 11:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  249. No: Since the visual editor is still in beta and it should not be the default editor for new users, it should not be the default editor for anonymous users, either. However, anonymous users should be allowed to switch to the visual editor while they are editing. When the visual editor completes its beta period and becomes a full, production feature, then it should be the default editor for new and anonymous users. Just because a user is anonymous doesn't mean they don't have something important to contribute and all contributors deserve an editor that's easy to use. --Lance E Sloan (talk) 13:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  250. No: Definitely not for anonymous users. It's too slow, and as mentioned by Druid816, it makes vandalism easier. Australian Matt (talk) 13:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  251. No: As above. Don't want to lower WP quality by encouraging edits from those who don't want to commit to WP. Feraess (talk) 14:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  252. No: Use the same default as a registered user. Ask every time until the anon checks a box for "Don't ask me again on this computer (requires cookies)". Pikalax 14:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  253. No: BSVulturis (talk) 16:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  254. Absolutely NOT! I feel strongly that anonymous users (identified only by their IP address, including registered users who are not logged-in) should not even be able to use VisualEditor to edit actual articles at all. However (as I commented above under the heading "‎Dialog that's presented to new users after they create their accounts"), particularly since the claimed intent of VisualEditor is to encourage new editors to make their first edit, and then come back and keep editing pages, I propose that users who are not logged-in (or who are logged-in but have not yet been auto-confirmed) should be offered the opportunity to "try out" VisualEditor on a sandbox page. This would also present an opportunity to inform such users that being able to use VisualEditor to edit actual articles is one of the benefits of becoming a registered user, or of logging in if they are already registered. My main reasoning for denying VE to anonymous and/or new users is that the VE interface would encourage intentional vandalism too much; but, as long as VisualEditor is still in beta (or, let's be realistic, in alpha status as, truly, it is at present), enabling it for anonymous users at all, never mind as the default, would be begging for well-intentioned newcomers to vandalize pages accidentally... and what could drive potential new editors away more than having their simple spelling or word-choice tweak to one section of a long article wind up thoroughly trashing that article's infobox, references, and/or overall formatting? —GrammarFascist (talk) 18:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  255. No. As others have noted, there are still huge problems with the VE, and it's a really bad idea to drive casual editors into using broken software. Many of them won't easily find out how to disable it (if that's possible at all), and they will give up. This decision should be reviewed if and when the VE becomes such a good tool that it has a high opt-in rate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  256. No. As mentioned above, if we want to recruit editors, we need to encourage them - and WikiMarkup is much easier to learn and, therefore, more encouraging for a newcomer who clicks 'edit' on a page they stumbled across, then forcing them to flail at VE in order to edit. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  257. As I supported opt-in in the section above for reasons of the software needing more testing, I will do so here for the same reasons, I believe; a different approach looks unreasonable toward unregistered audience. Gryllida (chat) 05:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

  • Eh, Abstain I don't see why we should make choices about editors that we don't know/are so much not like the body that is actually voting. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 07:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain Anonymous editing should not be allowed, period. Too much vandalism. If someone wants to edit then they can sign up, anonymous editors aren't really anonymous since they can always be tracked down by various tracking mechanisms. Flaviusvulso (talk) 12:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Foundation issues such as IP editing are tangential to this discussion. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 21:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain Anonymous editing should not be allowed, The VE may be used to queue changes to allow at least one other AUTHOR to approve of content where facts are impossible to reference. ("I decided" is not a good reference - but a reference to my site and an article I wrote seems to be good enough). The site is becoming complete - now it is time to protect. Make "Discussions", "Comments", "Examples" and "Images / Media" tabs where anonymous users can post things. --KHF 23:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I am not swayed by the argument VE will make vandalism easier. If it makes vandalism easier, why doesn't it make other editing easier? If VE were so much better for new editors, why have an opt-in system for new accounts?
I doubt this will help VE improve anyways. The WMF's assertion, as I understand it, is that having a larger base of users testing VE will help its development. BUT, would an IP editor submit a bug report? No.
At the same time, I don't see a reason to restrict IP editors from using VE (since I don't believe it will impact vandalism.) OSborn arfcontribs. 17:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of anonymous editors' default state

This is a tricky one. If it's going to be presented, it needs to be clearly marked as experimental. I'd suggest that, if it is presented for anonymous users, it should only be for whole-page editing; section editing isn't really supported in VE at this time anyway. Would "VE should only be presented to anonymous users if very clearly marked as experimental" be an option? Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this question is slightly confusing. I don't support selecting VE as default interface automatically for IP users without offering them a choice and explaining what it is - I've tried to clarify my !vote to reflect that. Begoon talk 09:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then please give your thoughts in question 2.5. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 09:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done - thank you, I missed that question. Begoon talk 09:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I feel strongly that VisualEditor must be completely disabled for new (not-yet-confirmed) and anonymous users, at least until the major (page-breaking, and anything that leads to an intended edit messing up something on the page to the extent that the intentional constructive edit doesn't do better than merely balancing it) bugs are worked out. It doesn't matter if inexperienced editors use, like and/or prefer VisualEditor so long as edits they make using it are likely to damage the articles!

Yes, I know that the stated purpose of VisualEditor is to make editing easier specifically for new / newer users. (I created my account less than two years ago and have fewer than 100 edits, but I did enough IP editing previously that I probably shouldn't count as a "new" user...) With the software being as buggy as it currently is (I don't need to point to specific bugs, since many other contributors have done so at length, and VisualEditor's supporters are well aware of the mountain of bug reports) VisualEditor cannot meet its stated goal of encouraging and retaining new editors. As a compromise, new and anonymous / not-logged-in users could be informed that there is a VisualEditor option for regular users, and be 'offered a sandbox page to try VisualEditor out with; surely that would accomplish the goal of having VisualEditor encourage new users to make their first edit and then make future edits as well, without needlessly abetting those whose only intent is vandalism.

In my opinion, obvious vandalism, such as page-blanking or the insertion of obvious nonsense (e.g. "BOOBS BOOBS BOOBS BOOBS BOOBS"), is less of a problem, in terms of its impact on the average non-editing user of Wikipedia, than subtle vandalism that can easily be overlooked as vandalism by experienced editors and non-editing users alike. Consider, for example, an instance of vandalism I just discovered and corrected http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socotra_Starling&diff=prev&oldid=567518200 which dated to February 2011 (before I even created my editor account) and which had survived ten intermediate edits http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socotra_Starling&action=history by 8 legitimate editors (albeit mostly bots). The vandal's account was blocked shortly after their edit to Socotra Starling, and all their other vandalism under that account had already been reverted or otherwise corrected, but this one managed to fly under the radar (pun intended) for two and a half years. Vandalism of this sort harms Wikipedia's usability — and reputation — far more than more obvious kinds of vandalism; the latter type of vandalism is just as easily accomplished with VisualEditor as with standard markup, but the former in many cases would be significantly easier with VisualEditor, particularly on longer articles, in which such small, subtle acts of vandalism are more likely to go unnoticed. While it's true that a vandal motivated enough to come up with 'sneaky' ways of vandalizing an article is also more likely to be motivated enough to figure out how to do so via wikitext, such vandals are not necessarily motivated enough (or tech-savvy enough, though plenty of computer novices seem able to learn wikimarkup just fine) to do so. And I submit that dissuading those types of vandals is an important enough goal to be considered with equal weight alongside the question of whether VisualEditor access will encourage new users to start editing and continue editing.

For the non-new users among us, the current interface compromise (or at least what I'm currently seeing) shows "Read Edit source View history ☆ [watch] ▼ [move page drop-down] [searchbox]" I have to agree with the voters above who pointed out that the terminology "Edit source" is both unclear and likely to cause confusion of Source text with Source code in many users' minds. I think that if both options are going to be presented at the top of the page for any users, better terminology would be

"Edit (VisualEditorbeta) Edit (wikitext)"

(ordered alphabetically in this example, but I don't feel strongly either way as to what order the two options should be ordered in if both are to be shown). I considered calling the latter "Edit (wikimarkup)" but since there's a strong movement for VisualEditor to recognize at least some wikimarkup — particularly double-square-brackets for intralinks — that has the potential to be needlessly confusing.

Some experienced Wikipedians on both sides of the divide say they prefer to have only their choice of editing option show up at the top of every page. Others, especially those who see benefits to both options and would prefer to switch back and forth on a regular basis, will want both displayed at all times. The solution to this disagreement seems simple to me; regardless of whether a (logged-in, confirmed) user clicks on "Edit (VisualEditorbeta)" or "Edit (wikitext)" or simply "Edit", I propose a brief announcement at the top of the page to this effect:

"You are editing the page [article title] using the [whichever] interface. [link to the other edit interface Click here] to use the [the other] interface. If you do not want to see this message displayed again, [link that will hide editor-selection announcement click here]. You may also select your default editing interface and show or hide this message via your Preferences page."

Couldn't that please everyone without drowning the donkey?

FWIW, I have used VisualEditor to edit one article, back when it was abruptly enabled as default. I figured (unaware at the time of why VisualEditor had become the default or the controversy surrounding its introduction) I'd try it, and if it didn't work as expected, then I'd figure a way around it. It seemed to work well enough for the relatively simple changes I made, though it made a change to how one of the article's reference citations was coded for some reason; the change doesn't appear to me to have broken the citation, but I still haven't learned the citation system well enough to be 100% sure. But I vastly prefer the "good old" wikitext editor. To be fair, I should disclose that I also prefer to edit HTML "by hand" rather than with a WYSIWYG editor, but I'm only conversant with fairly basic HTML, and haven't learned javascript, CSS, HTML5 or any of the other fancy new stuff. My preference for "under the hood" editors (I use the HTML options on sites like Tumblr and WordPress as well) has at least as much to do with a desire for precision as with the ease of using what's familiar, however; I'm not opposed to change simply because it is change. —GrammarFascist (talk) 14:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question 2.5: If VE is presented to anonymous users, how visible should it be?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unchanged: The "edit" link brings user to VE and pops up the "edit source" link next to it.

  1. I disagree. I think that they should be taken to see the source code first so they get exposed to it and can learn it. It also can result in dead link fixes, and additional features being added to articles. Techdude3331 (talk) 17:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yes. Although I do wonder if new users will understand "edit source". Though longer, the tab might be re-named "edit wiki code" or something similar. Meclee (talk) 22:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I agree, if we stick with this way, i think a lot of people would understand "edit wiki code" or something similar, better than they would know what "edit source" is supposed to mean. Invertzoo (talk) 22:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I don't agree completely with this option, but I prefer it to the other option because making anonymous users have to first go in the wikitext editor and then open the VisualEditor just to use it would reduce their productivity. They shouldn't have to go through an editor just to get in the editor they actually want to use, if they do want to use VisualEditor. It should be possible to access VisualEditor from the tab bar at the top, just like the wikitext editor, but the wikitext editor could be made more prominent. Hiding the VisualEditor under the wikitext editor would however not be a good idea. -- Rastus Vernon (talk) 01:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support I think nearly everthing an IP wants can be done with VE and it is very easy, even it is a beta. --Minihaa (talk) 15:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. The current situation should be kept, at least until somebody present convincing non-anecdotal data that shows that it is doing more harm than good. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 18:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. So that a big portion of users will use it. WYSIWYG is the future. -- Rillke (talk) 21:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Simply put, if the UI does not direct users to the VE by default using the most visible and obvious link, they overwhelmingly will not use it, and no large-scale benefit will result. Dcoetzee 23:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. [ edit edit beta ]; as noted elsewhere the VE editor is the "add-on" extra. The always-available method of editing should be the primary method. At the moment hitting "edit" does different actions depending on namespace (talk: vs. article:). Inconsistency is sub-optimal, as it is not predictable by the user precisely what will happen. In locations where "edit beta" is not available (Talk, anon edits, …) it would not be shown, but the interface would still remain consistent. —Sladen (talk) 00:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support (Sladen) Edit source can be confusing, but "beta" is a more-known term. ~~Ebe123~~ on the go! 14:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11. This is perfectly self explanatory and still gives the users both options. WaggersTALK 18:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strongly disagree with this proposal. It forces users to use the annoying and less than optimal visual editor when they are meaning to edit the proper and normal and simple way. It should be the other way round, users should actively choose the annoying visual editor if they want to use it, and generally users should be encouraged to edit the actual article text (source). Tataral (talk) 17:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support (Sladen) Perfect reasoning. Changing the options to [ edit edit beta ] would be more consistent and easy to understand. Changing the button to [ edit source ] on pages that do not support VE would achieve consistency too Note: it seems it's already like this on this wiki! Max51 (talk) 20:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC), but the first option is a simple way to make it clear that VE is beta. Max51 (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Epicity95 (talk) 13:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support: IF (and it's a big if) you want anonymous users to use VE then there's no point hiding it. Feraess (talk) 14:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Yes --Farzaneh (talk) 17:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Much more user-friendly and works well for what new users are likely to want it for. Neljack (talk) 06:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Endorse Sladen (talk · contribs)'s proposal for a consistent interface. OSborn arfcontribs. 01:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still directs user to wikitext editor but display the VE beta tag and link to VE at the top of the wikitext edit page.

  1. This seems closest to what I'd prefer. The link should offer well presented warnings, help and assistance, and a clear path to submit bug and experience reports. Begoon talk 09:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. To allow voluntary testing as desired, but with an indication of the risks and caveats. Sandstein 11:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Sandstein. Thryduulf (talk) 11:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This seems a reasonable approach between more testing and not breaking the wiki. MER-C 12:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. If it must be presented to anonymous users at all, then extensive warning and advice is absolutely necessary. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per Sandstein.--Gilderien Chat List of good deeds 17:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. This would be better. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Sounds reasonable. Manxruler (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Yes. And please, make the tabs, whatever they say, consistent - at present "Edit" sometimes gets you VE and sometimes the wikitext editor, and that's a usability disaster. JohnCD (talk) 22:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong support - We need to at least make it clear that this is a BETA! PantherLeapord (talk) 00:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Allowing people to opt in (rather than forcing), knowing it's buggy and beta testy, isn't a bad idea. Sailsbystars (talk) 00:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support, as per the above statements. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13. --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 10:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong support - If it is available to anonymous editors at all, there should be ample warning and informed consent. Reify-tech (talk) 19:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support for the duration of beta testing. --Marianian(talk) 22:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support, that seems to make sense. Everyking (talk) 23:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Beta status must be disclosed. Holdek (talk) 00:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Seems like the most sensible approach. --teb00007 TalkContributions 00:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support because it sense. Corn cheese (talk) 00:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support That must be the way! ViswaPrabhaവിശ്വപ്രഭtalk 01:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Strong support Good solution for all new users hgilbert (talk) 02:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support great idea! Neurosciency (talk) 03:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support so long as it's labeled "beta". I mean, if new users aren't pushed to use it, who will? Chris Troutman (talk) 04:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Okay, with a huge warning that it is beta and that it can garble edits. -- cyclopiaspeak! 10:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Faizan 13:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  26. SupportMusikAnimal talk 14:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. This seems to be the best solution overall. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  28. --Jasca Ducato (talk) 15:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. If it must be presented to users, it would be better to push it as far out of the way as possible -- given its fundamental limitations and the inevitable frustration they're going to bring anyone who starts out by using it, I don't think we ever want it to seem like the default for anyone, which would be the effect of having simple 'edit' buttons lead there. --Aquillion (talk) 15:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. There's nothing wrong with making VE available to new and anonymous users, but it should be unobtrusive, and not pop two different "edit" links up right in the front. JIP Talk 16:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Less confusing, per Sandstein. Kudu ~I/O~ 17:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support - if we have to have VE at all, provided there is a full expanation of all the current problems. Arjayay (talk) 18:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support per Sandstein. Tazerdadog (talk) 19:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. This will provide users with our current best option for editing, which is still currently wikitext editing, by default, but will allow users to freely experiment with the VE as an open beta. -- The Anome (talk) 05:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  35. I Support This. Editorranjitksharma (talk) 08:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. This presents the user with reliable editing software, with an option to try a new product (still under development) which he/she may find more convenient to use. Cwkmail (talk) 10:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  37. --Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 10:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Less confusing and cuts down on VE-messed-up edits. Double sharp (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support I agree with -Florian Blaschke above, this is a reasonable compromise, and provides the opportunity to give new users warnings and instructions if they select VE. --Bejnar (talk) 16:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support it is too glitchy. It introduces too many errors into articles. Every edit that I've seen using VE has had to be reverted because it messes too many other things up in the article (duplicating content, messing up tables, etc.). It should not be the default.Goodsdrew (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support, with caveats. When VisualEditor is ready for release, anons should still be given an "opt-out" button, probably as a cookie plus a "state vector" in Wikipedia. But this proposal would be a reasonable base for that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Put it up as an alternative link, probably with equal weight, but definitely warn of its status, its limitations, etc. -- Joe (talk) 19:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. Vanquisher (talk) 21:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  44. If presented, this would be the best option, until VE is more complete and no longer beta. —ADavidB 02:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support This is fair, enough. you should happy with this, -- ɑηsuмaη « ৳ᶏ ɭϞ » 10:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support.-- Dewritech (talk) 11:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. I don't like when websites force clunky, unfinished renovations on me, Wikipedia should be no exception to new users. Crumpled Fire (talk) 11:35, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. This would allow those who really want it to use it, but keep most edits off until the software is less buggy. Ignatzmicetalk 13:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  49. If VE is enabled, it should not be the default until it is stable. Stifle (talk) 16:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. I hate the new VE editor and I love the old editor. It's a jarring break in continuity to make the old "edit" default to a new editor that I don't like. This opinion isn't just because of the bugs--I think there are advantages to seeing and directly editing the source and markup of the document. Not only do I think that the new VE is bad, but I think the idea of a VE for Wikipedia is bad and unnecessary, so even if it were bug free I would still want to make it less visible--and I certainly don't want to force it on users the way it is being done now. Cazort (talk) 17:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. I hate the new VE editor as well. Thank you for voicing my concerns, Cazort. Maki (talk) 18:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support, all anonymous users should be directed to the wikitext editor by default, and then be given a link to switch to the VE -- RWJP (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Seems to be a good compromise: a user can try VE if he wants to and keep old editing format if he does not like it — NickK (talk) 01:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Yep, that works. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support, an easy to recognise link to the VE along with a prominent link to a wiki markup cheatsheet makes sense. Bcharles (talk) 05:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Strong support - Even after beta! Mainline421 (talk) 16:52, 4 August 2013 (BST)
  57. I don't want to display a link to the visual editor in section titles. There could instead be a link to the visual editor from the editing page where there is already a toolbar. Tataral (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Noahk11 (talk) 20:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Give users the choice, without hiding either functionality. Tebello TheWHAT!!?? 09:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support - This is the closest to what I would prefer as a newer user and having just come in to Wikipedia editing. I probably would have preferred this when I was just starting as well. Koi Sekirei (talk) 13:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Strong Support - This is definitely the best option. --Yetisyny (talk) 20:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support - even after beta. -- Druid816 (talk) 05:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support - best option imho--Alberto Fernández Fernández (talk) 08:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support this or something similar. postdlf (talk) 00:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  65. I believe this is closest to opt-in one can reasonably get in this section. As it being opt-in is what I supported earlier I would find it unreasonable to default to VE in 'Edit' links. Gryllida (chat) 05:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of VE's visibility to anonymous editors

  • Definitely not for anonymous editors - How do we trace malicious and wrongful content? LOVE (talk) 10:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC) . Thank you.[reply]
  • I think that as a rule, content should never move except by the user clicking on it. There are fads where sites steer away from this, ranging all the way from the first blink tag to Windows 8's awful mouseoverable menus but they never seem to last long, because they're obnoxious. Just make "edit" and "edit source" plain, stationary tabs. Wnt (talk) 19:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Wnt:T52540 is requesting exactly this, and I would encourage you to add your comments about it there. Thryduulf (talk) 08:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • If Timeshifter is the one (partly) responsible for the hover link of "edit source", I'm afraid no more comment of ours will move him a bit because he is ASSUMING the VE is working "well" which is "not well" at all currently. I can't imagine how you reason with a person who could make such painful assumption for rejecting opposing comments. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 08:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Greetings Sameboat. I believe from reading your user page that your native language is Chinese. You are completely misreading what I wrote in bugzilla:50540. I oppose the hover link, and I do not think VE is working well. I stated both things in the Bugzilla thread. If Google translation is what you are using, or other machine translation, then I understand since I know how bad Google translation can be (or any machine translation). --Timeshifter (talk) 10:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am not sure it is good to enable VE in any way for anonymous IP editors. If just the whole-page VE edit link is left up, it could discourage many editors who try it since it is slow for many people. I think millions of dollars should be spent to do whatever it takes to make VE do true section editing. Also, editing references must be working very well before fully enabling VE for IPs. If IPs try to use either editor, and find both of them difficult to use, they may not come back for a long time. The hope is that IP editors find VE easier, but much of what I read says otherwise. It almost seems to be vaporware at this point. VE section edit links should definitely be removed for IP editors. 2 confusing page editors (VE and wikitext) are not better than one confusing (wikitext) editor. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Comment. I agree fully with Timeshifter.StevenJ81 (talk) 12:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not saying that VE should disappear. It just shouldn't be linked to "Edit". "Edit" should be the normal form of wiki editing. Call VE something else like "Edit lite" or "Edit basic". But VE should NOT be what appears when you hit "Edit".
  • Remaining neutral for now. I think we should focus on real, actionable improvements that can be made to VisualEditor. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I too am remaining neutral relative to casting "votes." I love the concept of IP editors, though the vast majority of vandalism occurs through IPs. Random IPs interject new thoughts and subjects that need research and development. They provide new information from sources the usual suspects wouldn't be watching. But based on my watchlist, the vast majority of edits made by inexperienced users, primarily IPs, with the Visual Editor, have been strewn with errors. Some errors are major formatting errors. Most edits need to be cleaned up, sometimes extensively. The Visual Editor itself needs to be repaired to minimize these common errors before its ready for prime time. Is this the desired effect? To have IPs more easily insert junk along with their valuable content, which will then attract the attention of an experienced editor to give it scrutiny while cleaning up the mess? Sure seems like it. Trackinfo (talk) 23:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't allow anon VP use during beta - If they aren't committed enough to create and use a login, then they are not committed enough to be trusted as beta testers. Anonymous editors are, as a group, usually considerably less proficient or diligent than logged-in users. Why would we facilitate their error generation any more than we already do? VE is making a mess of the site in its current state, and anon users are, as a group, 'contributing' much more than their fair share of VE errors. They are, as a group, not as aware of its problems as we are, nor as concerned about them as we are. If this is in beta, then it should only be a core group of testers using it - users who are aware of its problems and are concerned about correcting them, NOT just any stray person or bot that wanders in off the webs. I'm not sure if it was ready for beta yet, but I am sure it should not be the default choice for the 'most corrected' contributors yet. Rock4arolla (talk) 03:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. — I still prefer not to let anonymous using VE by now. Just like my comment above, the VE should be an advantage for people with registered account. — Vic2908 (talk) 18:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Edit source" really needs to be changed. I open WP by directly typing the URL in, and the first time I opened the website since VE's deployment (I wasn't logged in yet) my first instinct was "why is this article protected?" This might confuse some people, even those who've never worked with protected pages. — Train2104 (talkcontribs) 20:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The VE should display some editnotices on more helpful manner.Dianakc (talk) 03:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: While I do not believe anonymous users should have any access to VE, I do believe there should be a small notice when an anonymous user begins to edit a page informing said anonymous user that a VE option is available to those who sign up for an actual account. This would encourage people to sign up. allixpeeke (talk) 05:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm satisfied with the new labels that have been introduced today. The above choices I would not see applying anymore. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 07:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am just not sure how many anons know the difference between the two interface (and their pros & cons). Do we have the data on the % of anons contributing through regular interface and the % through VE? Also, some people tend to stay away from anything that says "beta" because they think it's less stable. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If it is given to IPs it should be the inverse of the first option, there is an "edit" link, and when one hovers the "edit with VE BETA" link appears, that way an IP must make the conscious choice to use VE, it should in no way be the first option, but a second option with clear label that is isn't finished. Liamdavies (talk) 07:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It would be a license for vandalism; a serious error. Heenan73 (talk) 21:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment VE should not be enabled in any way for anonymous IP editors. Australian Matt (talk) 13:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The current/changed setup seems fine to me where both are always shown, VE as edit but with the beta tag and edit source for editing wikimarkup. And keep edit on the right as long as the WMF and community feel it's still in beta. Nil Einne (talk) 22:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Village Pump discussion

This discussion seems relevant to many points discussed in the above comments, and it could use more input. Mysterious Whisper 22:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question 3: Should the preference be set to disable VE for all existing accounts, requiring editors that choose to test VE to specifically enable it?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Change preference state for existing accounts

  1. Yes. People should hit the preference check-box if they want to test the system. --Robertiki (talk) 11:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yes, I think that the articles should be edited with code first so that users learn wikicode and that allows them to add features like infoboxes and such. Techdude3331 (talk) 17:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Testing is something that should be done by choice. Casual and infrequent editors shouldn't be expected to keep track of things to avoid becoming test subjects.—Kww(talk) 01:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Agreed with Kww. Even today, I regularly see people surprised to learn they can opt out, as they had been desperate to do so, but couldn't figure out how, thanks to the flubbed launch. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I agree with Kww and would generally recommend to keep it that way as I still think that newbies will have less difficulty with wikitext than with the VisualEditor. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. per Kww. Begoon talk 06:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Agree with Kww, and editors now know about VE so they can enable it if they want to continue testing it. --NicoV (Talk on frwiki) 06:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. This would be best: return to a true beta test, the situation before they decided to force it on everyone despite the feedback they had gotten. If it needs testing, let it be tested. And fixed. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. This makes the most sense. Opt-in should be opt-in, not forced on people. So they would have to make the effort to hit the preference check-box if they want to test the system. SilverserenC 09:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Yes, contributing to the test should be a voluntary act. Editors should be notified about this change. Sandstein 11:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Obviously. Don't force half-finished software on people that aren't power users. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12. As is normal with beta testing it should be an individuals choice to participate. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Per Kww. Andreas JN466 12:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14. MER-C 12:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Plarem (User talk) 13:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 13:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  17. per User:Kww. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 13:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Obviously, to save vacationers and innocents the headaches of VE, which is useless now. Why not hire the folks who made "Scientific Workplace" to develop an editor and stop amateur hour? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  19. per kww -- Andreas Werle (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Don't turn anonymous users into involuntary guinea pigs. Vandalism is more than enough of a problem, frustration with non-working software will only exacerbate it. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Yes, we shouldn't be forcing users to beta test. Kumioko (talk) 17:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Please, manually switching off for two languages should be enough, I really don't want to navigate a preference menu in every language I visit to make a slight numerical correction. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  23. per Kww Gilderien Chat List of good deeds 18:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  24. See my thoughts here for more details. Kurtis (talk) 18:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Opt-in: too much missing functionality.--ukexpat (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Yes. It literally cannot be opt-in unless and until this happens.Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 19:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  27. It was an error to enable beta software for everyone by default in the first place, and this error should be fixed. --Patrick87 (talk) 19:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Why force editors to be beta testers? Ronhjones (Talk) 20:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Yes, the default must be off given what we now know, though I suspect most regular editors have made that choice. Black Kite (talk) 21:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Per Sarahj2107 etc. Manxruler (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Yes, and I'm getting kind of tired of looking for the "edit source" link. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Per Kww. The developers have plenty of bugs to be going on with, and limiting the number of VE users will limit the damage being done to the encyclopedia by VE through stray nowikis and the like. (In the last hour I checked, Filter 550 was tripped 50 times). JohnCD (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Forced beta testing of VE when people DO NOT want it enabled while it is in beta will almost certainly cause massive editor loss. PantherLeapord (talk) 00:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Per Kww. I'm a regular editor who pops up on a lot of policy pages here and there, and I was still thrown off when it suddenly showed up one day and I had to figure out what the hell I was looking at and if I could get rid of it. postdlf (talk) 01:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Beta testing is a nice way to find bugs, but there's always the warning of "do not use in a production environment" or something like that. The open wiki is certainly a production environment, and beta usage should be by choice and at the user's discretion. We can RFC again once the bugs are fixed. — Train2104 (talkcontribs) 01:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  36. A couple of my colleagues at USRD didn't even know there was a preference setting to turn it off. This needs to change. TCN7JM 02:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  37. By leaving it on for existing accounts, the community risks driving away some editors who might not know enough to disable it, or not care enough to even try (e.g., retired editors considering a comeback). Bringing more people into the fold is supposed to be the idea of this tool... and I don't think it should be at the cost of more established editors. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 02:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Per kww. SpencerT♦C 04:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Yes per Kww. StringTheory11 (tc) 04:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Yes, per Mendaliv. —Bruce1eetalk 05:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Insulam Simia (talk) 07:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  42. In most cases I don't think users' preferences should be changed for them. But in this case it's just setting it back to what it was before VE messed things up, so I think it's justified. However, users must be informed of the change, and provided with a link to turn it back on if they wish. Modest Genius talk 10:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  44. --Meno25 (talk) 10:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  45. --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 10:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Yes as per all above. Thomas.W talk to me 12:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Per Kww's comment, you cannot force users to test a new feature, especially as buggy as the VE is at the moment. However, a message should be displayed to registered users, which invites them to participate in a beta test, so the ones who are interested can try it out. 2Flows (talk) 12:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Per others.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Per Kww & 2Flows "opting in" should be the default for all testing. Forcing existing users to opt out is a time sink for everyone especially with something as unfinshed as VE currently is--Cailil talk 13:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Yes. Please. Per Sarahj2107. Yintan 14:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Yes. Please. Amongst other reasons, I often still use a 2006 era Pentium 4 computer, and VE takes an annoying ~10 secs to startup on moderate sized articles. Rwendland (talk) 14:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Yes. Experienced editors (or at least myself) greatly prefer the speed and enhanced functionality of the traditional editing mode. This is subject to change in the future if the VE improves. CaseyPenk (talk) 15:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Yes Brambleclawx 15:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Obviously, per Kww and others. Cheers, LindsayHello 16:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  55. No contest. Agathoclea (talk) 17:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Yes - Let those who just want to edit do so, without forcing them to do beta-testing. New, unexpected behaviors should always be opt-in; we have enough unpleasant surprises from bugs and outages already. Reify-tech (talk) 20:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Yes--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Yes--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 21:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Yes United States Man (talk) 21:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Yes Rollback to the previous state before this experiment. --RA () 22:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  61. per Kww.--Jockzain (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Yes This is the most important decision to make as it is experienced users who know how to edit wikitext. VE, even when disabled, slows down editing on wikipedia. The opt-in option should be available on all wikipedias, limiting this to the English is unhelpful. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  63. A feature should NEVER be imposed on a editor. My preferences or any other editor's should only be changable by the editor themselves....William 22:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  64. All VE has done is cost me time. Do it better and come back to us, don't impose it on us.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Yes. Disable it. The sooner the better --Rushton2010 (talk) 22:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Yes Let's assume all existing accounts are users who are familiar (or soon to be familiar) with the wikicode. Forcing the Visual Editor on them makes no sense. Wikipedia is not Facebook.—Love, Kelvinsong talk 22:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Opt-in. The principle of respect.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 22:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Yes because it should not have been enabled by default to begin with. I feel that experimental features should be limited to test sites (e.g.Test Wikipedia) until they are rolled out in full. This isn't to say that I'm resisting change, but even Twinkle, for instance, is not enabled by default. Tools should be opt-in, per the above consensus (at least, it looks like consensus), and the above !poll should have been taken before implementing these changes. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 22:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Yes. Beta software should never be set as default for editors. Lugia2453 (talk) 22:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Yes: Some editors like me are happy with using syntax: it helps when producing intricate tables. --Marianian(talk) 23:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Yes. I turned it off, but I suspect some users won't bother and will just use WP less. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Yes. Forcing people to beta test software is not respectful of your users. Let people opt-in if they want to test it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Yes, those editors that want to beta-test should opt it in themselves. Now you force people to beta-test. QED237 (talk) 23:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  74. 23:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Obviously Elockid (Talk) 23:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Yes (Third attempt - Edit conflicts!) There are so many problems with VE for the casual editor and those, like me, who don't understand how it has broken templates and tables, that it seems the only option is this one. I agree with User:Marianian - tables in particular can only be edited by wikitext, as VE is simply not built to deal with the syntax. doktorb wordsdeeds 23:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Yes - Pretty much all existing editors, especially longer-term ones, are accustomed to editing in Wikicode rather than through some WYSIWYG interface, so I'd make an educated guess that most of us are more comfortable with plaintext editing than the VisualEditor.--Newbiepedian (Hailing Frequencies) 23:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Definitely. Per... well, just about everybody else. MANdARAX XAЯAbИAM 23:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Yes. Especially while in beta still; any user should be able to opt-in via preferences if desired. — xaosflux Talk 23:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Beta software should always be marked as such. This is especially true when the software is buggy. SMP0328. (talk) 23:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  81. That sounds like the best thing to do. Everyking (talk) 23:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  82. I do not believe that the WMF should have access or be able to change my preferences. They've already done it twice already, so what's one more time to actually disable? Jguy TalkDone 00:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Please. -download ׀ talk 00:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Yes we can all opt out of things we dont want to do.. what is this Stalinist Russia? Prabash.Akmeemana 00:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  85. It was a mistake making a beta program the default. The best correction is to require an opt-in. Holdek (talk) 00:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Absolutely! That's how it should have been right from the start! ALH (talk) 00:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  87. I think it should be done by choice. Corn cheese (talk) 00:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Connor Behan (talk) 00:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  89. As a now infrequent editor, I'm embarrassed to admit that I didn't realize until I came to this discussion that I could disable VE in my preferences, and regain the ability to edit sections without mangling everything. - BanyanTree 00:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Change preference state for existing accounts with warning. This not ready for a general audience. Icedog (talk) 00:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC) Moved from other section and edited; 1:19 UTC.[reply]
  91. Yes all users should have to opt in. Learning curves are good. μηδείς (talk) 01:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Whatever it is , make it easy for anyone to edit. It has become harder and harder. I wish people would really allow it to be true that "anyone can edit" Wikipedia. If you make it too complicated or too off limits, people will stop trying. Ladybelle Fiske (talk) 20:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Yes, please! Do not force us to opt out of beta testing. LadyofShalott 01:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Yes. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Yes The preferences have been already changed (to automatically enable the VE) without the consent of the users. That was not fair. And it has to be undone. And then onwards, just leave the user to decide his choice. ViswaPrabhaവിശ്വപ്രഭtalk 01:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Yes, yet the editor chose. B-watchmework (talk) 02:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  97. emphatically yes--i myself stumbled into this discussion not knowing i was using a beta to do it--disconcerting.Nickholbrook (talk) 02:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Yes, it's a pain in the choo-choo to use, and I don't bother with it. Why make me turn it off? Make me turn it on if I want ... Oaktree b (talk) 02:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  99. YES - How can you call it a 'beta' when it has been defaulted for everyone on the site? That's what we call 'general release' where I'm from . . . . Rock4arolla (talk) 02:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Yes Keep it turned off unless someone requests it or until it works better than what already exists. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Yes - OPT IN not OPT OUT, not just for beta testing.--Petebutt (talk) 03:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Precisely as KWW noted, now and for all similar changes, however advertized in banner ads etc. — LlywelynII 03:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Yes. Disable by default, and advertise in watchlist-details. — Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 05:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Jclemens (talk) 06:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Yes, clearly. Isn't that what opt-in means? Sławomir Biały (talk) 08:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Yes - I can try it sometimes to help debugging the beta, or to see how it is going, but forcing it on users at this stage has been a huge mistake. Let it be opt-in. -- cyclopiaspeak! 10:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Yes. Just include it in the Preferences screen.--Jetstreamer Talk 12:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Faizan 13:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Yes. This thing is broken. Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Yes beta should never be opt-out — MusikAnimal talk 14:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  111. --Jasca Ducato (talk) 15:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Partly if a user has only ever experienced the classic editor (i.e. if the user account existed before VE became the default, and hasn't made any mainspace edits since it became the default) then change the user's settings back to the old editor. Otherwise, assume they'd have changed it themselves if they didn't like the new editor and change it back. davidprior t/c 15:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Yes. I've been editing Wikipedia for over seven years now, I'm used to ye olde editing style. I was rather annoyed that I had go to my preferences and disable it myself. --Soetermans. T / C 15:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Yes. I've been into the new edit half a dozen times, every time by accident because I've clicked 'edit' before the 'edit source' option comes up. Apparently (from comments above), I can avoid this extremely annoying behaviour. I'll be changing my set up right now ... Scarabocchio (talk) 15:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Yes, a thousand times yes. While I can appreciate the goal of retaining more users (even if I strongly disagree that the visual editor will accomplish that), there is absolutely no reason to present it to existing users, and serious risk of driving them away. While I can appreciate the need for feedback, it is obvious what the community reaction is at this point. --Aquillion (talk) 15:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Yes this is just a repeat of the first question. ANY beta software should be opt-in, not opt-out. Default should be that visual editor is OFF. Revisit these questions when VE is out of beta.Jytdog (talk) 15:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Yes, Beta or not, I didn't want to use this and it took me a while to find the opt-out, which I'd have preferred to not have had to do! (yay grammar) Nikthestunned 16:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Agreed, while VE is useful for some quick text edits, it makes more complex tasks far more difficult than they would be with code - editing templates is confusing and longwinded, I gave up before I could figure out how to add and modify tables. If it still a "test" then it shouldn't have been rolled out. What I would like to see (and there may be a gadget for it but I haven't looked, and I think it would be a good default) is a way to have the old editor as default, but still have access to VE rather than disabling it completely (essentially the current arrangement with VE switched on, but the roles of the two editors reversed with the old one in the position of prominence). I would ideally like to have the choice, but with the old editor as first-choice and the one that comes up when I double-click to edit, rather than having the current all-or-nothing approach. If this is not possible, it should be opt-in only. --W. D. Graham 16:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Yes. Blue Elf (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Yes, absolutely. First contact with this mode is confusing, particularly to editors looking to adjust template parameters and the like. bd2412 T 17:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Yes. Most people are more used to the old way, and I personally cannot stand the Visual Editor. I always make some sort of mistake from trying to do anything with it. Xxcom9a (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Be WP:Bold Abandon it and spend the time and effort resolving real problems like the toolbars not working. Arjayay (talk) 18:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Yes, I'd rather opt-in than have it forced onto me. Absolutely hate the VE feature. Mabuska (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Yes, once VE is FULLY functional, we can talk about which should be enabled by default. Tazerdadog (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Yes Beta testing should be done by choice, and with a somewhat stable product. Signalizing (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Yes. Far too buggy to force anyone into using it. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Definitely YES, the preference should be set to disable VE as default for all existing accounts! Gee, if there was ever a nuisance so big as to make editors quit en masse, this is it! I've found VE to be awkward, unwieldy, cumbersome and horribly inefficient. --AVM (talk) 21:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Yes per Kww and others. Want to retain new editors? Don't foist beta software on them. If the legacy editing interface had been half as buggy as Visual Editor seems to be, I wouldn't have stuck around for a month, let alone seven years. Rivertorch (talk) 22:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Yes. Of the several WP editors I've talked to recently, all of them disabled VE as soon as they became aware that the option was available; not all of them were aware within a reasonable time. Turning on an entirely unfinished and (currently) unacceptable feature - with little warning and no initial method to revert it - for the entire userbase was ridiculous, the best thing to do now is simply to undo that. FLHerne (talk)
  130. Yes - True opt-in. Carrite (talk) 04:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Yes - for the same reasons as the choice to make the VE opt-in. -- The Anome (talk) 05:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Yes - True opt-in. And please take away the keys for the person who just turned it back on for my account! This is just making more editors totally opposed to any use of this buggy tool being installed by buggy programmers! Vegaswikian (talk) 06:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Yes. I really don't want to have to deal with it until it actually in some sort of usable state... and I know I've already been so off-put by it that I'm hesitant to even waste time on it until it works to some degree. In its current state it has wasted time & energy - including installing every browser available in order to test it - which I would have used to get on with actually doing something productive here. I have involved myself with testing VE but it's an absolute abortion. I'm more than happy to assist in debugging it when it's not one giant bug. Get it to a serious beta stage before you start crashing everyone's computers --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Yes please. I agree with Kww, testing ought to be voluntary. ~Michael Allan 07:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Yes — experienced users prefer the functionality of the traditional editor. Toffanin (talk) 08:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Yes. I agree with Kww's reasoning. Cwkmail (talk) 10:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Yes --Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 10:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Yes This question is unclear. If we are talking about it now, then of course it should be disabled, because it has not been adequately tested or had enough bugs removed. We should not emulate some other big software companies who routinely release software (and charge a lot of money for it), and expect ordinary users to do a required testing phase in this way. If we are talking about it after extensive testing, then we cannot answer this question until we have seen the outcome from proper testing by a small group of editors with a range of skills and editing needs. All in all, that this question is being asked at this stage raises important issues to do with how this entire project is being managed, and whether it needs improved management. DDStretch (talk) 11:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Yes. However, I think it should be removed completed. — SoapFan12 Talk smile 11:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Yes Test iff you want to. Double sharp (talk) 11:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Yes --Kjetil_r 14:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Yes OriumX (talk) 14:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Yes And why was it back in my view today? I had previously disabled it and it reappeared. I had to go back to preferences and reclick the "temporarily disable Visual Editor" button. Why can't I permanently disable it? Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Yes. Please, do it ASAP. VE is clearly not ready yet. — sparklism hey! 15:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Yes.--Yopie (talk) 16:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Yes. Long term editors are accomplished in the code and to most its actually easier to use the code. I am against the Foundation using long term editors effectively as beta testers for something with so many flaws.Blethering Scot 16:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Yes it is too glitchy. It introduces too many errors into articles. Every edit that I've seen using VE has had to be reverted because it messes too many other things up in the article (duplicating content, messing up tables, etc.). Only beta testers who want to test it should be using it right now.Goodsdrew (talk) 17:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Yes. HiTrish (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Yes. If there is any evidence that the user may have opted in at some point, he should be informed on his talk page, but VE still is responsible for much of what an observer would call "vandalism". Perhaps it should be offered again when it gets into beta. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Yes. Beta testing should be voluntary. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Yes Joining the opinion of Reify-tech 20:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC): "Let those who just want to edit do so, without forcing them to do beta-testing. New, unexpected behaviors should always be opt-in; we have enough unpleasant surprises from bugs and outages already." Uncle Scrooge (talk) 00:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  152. I don't think there is any existing active account that don't know about VE by now. Chances are there are more who don't know how to disable it or can't be bothered to do so. Mohamed CJ (talk) 01:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Yes. The text editor is more reliable and powerful. Gdfusion (talk) 05:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Yes. VE is rarely used by logged in editors anyway, why encumber them with testing slow, broken software by default? VE - like all beta software - should be opt-in, no one should be expected to unwittingly become a beta tester, only those that choose. On a side note, when the links got changed around the other day the VE links reappeared, I thought this very bad form from the implementing devs, I had made no mistake when I previously disabled VE and to re-enable well before it is finished is irritating. Liamdavies (talk) 06:53, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Yes. As per my previous votes, I prefer to be able to choose whether I'll use a certain tool or not, even more if it is in beta testing. DPdH (talk) 07:46, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Yes.-- Dewritech (talk) 11:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Per Kww. Parsecboy (talk) 12:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Yes This should be opt-in. Bruinfan12 (talk) 13:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Hell yes. And not disabling with a gadget either. Only load it if users specifically want it, because it's incredibly buggy and bloaty. Stifle (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Yes - Make this opt-in, to do otherwise seems to be forcing an unstable and potentially controversial or undesirable "feature" on users. I personally dislike the new editor on many grounds and would dislike it even if it were bug-free. There seems to be something non-consensual, against the Consensus-run spirit of Wikipedia to do anything other than make this opt-in...I also didn't know about or participate in any discussion before the features was basically forced on users so the whole way it was done irritated me a lot. Cazort (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Yes. Again, Cazort has explained what is my opinion as well. Maki (talk) 18:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Yes This needs to be completely opt-in -- RWJP (talk) 19:35, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  163. Yes, in the current stage VE is simply not ready to be a default editor for everyone. If a user masters wiki markup and is completely satisfied with editing in it, he should not be switched to a new, slow and buggy editing interface he is not used to — NickK (talk) 01:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Yes, please. IF the VE can be made to run smoothly (at present it discriminates against users with less powerful machines[*]; it's slooooow even on a mid-range dual-core) and IF the vandalism problems can be dealt with, it could be ideal to lower the learning curve for new editors, and may facilitate the work of casual or "proofreading-only" editors. But to experienced editors who like to add substantial and thoroughly referenced content, it's a major pain in the ass. [*] I think such editors - people from regions until recently behind the digital divide, eg much of non-metropolitan Africa - represent Wikipedia's main growth potential in the foreseeable future. They need a low-threshold way to contribute quickly; more so since many articles relevant to them (e.g. local geography & politics stuff) still have a high proportion of stubs. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  165. Yes, the VE load time is reason enough; will discourage quick / casual edits that are key to incremental article improvement. - RoyBoy 15:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Yes, disable it for everyone who didn't opt-in to use the tool. They didn't ask to have it enabled in the first place. Tataral (talk) 17:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  167. Yes, you always ask first. This isn't Microsoft, after all. The Rev (talk) 18:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  168. Yes, always opt-in. Archolman User talk:Archolman 22:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  169. Yes. The default state should be opt-in, and this change supports such a measure. -Kai445 (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  170. Yes. Beta-testing should be opt-in. --Stephen Gilbert (talk) 01:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  171. Yes, per Stephen Gilbert just above. -- UKoch (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  172. Yes. Beta-testing should be opt-in. Neutralitytalk 05:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  173. Yes. - Again, for it to be opt-in, people who have had accounts for years should have the beta stuff like the Visual Editor off by default and have to enable it if they really want to use it. Making every single user of Wikipedia who wants to opt out manually change the preference would be quite an annoyance for most users, since it appears the vast majority of current users don't like it. If it's opt-in, less people will have to go through the trouble of changing their preferences. --Yetisyny (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  174. This. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 22:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  175. Yes. - People has to opt-in. - Al Lemos (talk) 01:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  176. It should be left to my own discretion if I want to waste my time or vandalize with this stuff. Weissbier (talk) 08:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  177. Yes. — Scott talk 11:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  178. Good gods yes. I am grateful there's finally a way to turn it off. It's the best choice for new editors, but those of us who grew up editing the source should automatically get the source -- for now and forever -- unless we choose otherwise.--~TPW 13:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  179. Yes, since this the closest to a return to status quo ante, though in the future I hope users' default preferences are not shanghaied again. BSVulturis (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  180. Yes. Opt-in is opt-in, and there shouldn't be a stealthy way of turning it into an opt-out. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  181. Yes — as I believe it was enabled without editor consent, it should be disabled, and editor consent should be required I believe. Gryllida (chat) 06:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do not change preference state for existing accounts

  1. While I don't like VE in its current stage, if the default preference of VE is disabled wholesale, chances are many Wikipedians who can help debug VE never know its existence at all. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 06:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sadly, very little chance of that being an issue (see: banners; notices; etc.). — LlywelynII 18:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Banners and notices are no substitute for the thing being right there when you go to click "edit". We're all highly trained in filtering out advertising. The path of second-to-least resistance doesn't hold a candle to the path of least resistance; i.e., using the editor that's put in front of you. Swpbtalkcontribs 19:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Users' preferences may not be altered by Wikimedia. After all, we are not Facebook.--Aschmidt (talk) 14:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    They already did. This would just undo some of that damage. — LlywelynII 18:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SupportLfstevens (talk) 17:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely this is precisely what the WMF did by forcing VE on people without their consent? Lukeno94(tell Luke off here) 16:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    They had not accepted that I had opted out of VE when this preference was just about done away with some weeks ago on enwiki. That night I had to install a js page in order to have VE disabled.--Aschmidt (talk) 19:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Disagree. Users can change their own preferences. (I agree that choosing wiki is the better action.) Robert McClenon (talk) 23:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. As it is, it is unfair enough that we do not offer an option to disable the text editor. There are enough eds who want to use the VE and it would be unfair on them to have to go and enable it to use it. It is fair that both the text editor and the VE should be offered for use as default.OrangesRyellow (talk) 12:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. No, same reasons as above. Changing this state would result in many users never discovering VisualEditor; it should be kept as the default. Robofish (talk) 22:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per Sameboat. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 23:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Firstly, per Sameboat, but, secondly, if you don't like VE you should be allowed to disable it. It's sort of like "try it before you buy it". - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Yes, some users don't know that they can opt-out, but this doesn't mean we should make everyone opt-out. If there are people who'd want to opt-out but don't know how, then making everyone opt-out will result in people who'd want to opt back in but won't know how. In both cases, we'll have a problem. The solution is to make the option to opt-out more prominent. -- Rastus Vernon (talk) 01:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. It is good for testing. Njaohnt (talk) 15:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11. --Tobias1984 (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. If you don't like it, you can either improve it or opt out. Opting out should be made more visible, but not made default. -Thomas Craven (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Yes, it should be enabled by default to old accounts, too. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14. No! It should not be enabled by default for old accounts too. Please, don't do that. I like the existing editor. It works. I don't want to use the Visual Editor. I don't want to test the Visual Editor. I test other things, like Article Feedback and one of the new WikiData things. I have helped test toolservers. I like toolservers. Please don't make me use the Visual Editor. I am happy with how things are now. Google and everyone else keeps changing things that work. First they say it is beta, then that it is optional, then the next thing I know, I'm stuck with something awful in comparison to the old thing that worked fine. I'm sorry. --FeralOink (talk) 19:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Put VE in everyone's face until they try it. More exposure is the only way to overcome the fear of the unknown that editors like the one above me are expressing. If you really hate VE, disable it or just ignore its presence. Swpbtalkcontribs 19:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16. This would be just confusing. -- Rillke (talk) 21:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  17. The whole point of a beta is to get feedback from a large number and variety of editors. If VE is not presented to every editor, the developers will not get the ongoing feedback they need to improve it to the point where it is a viable replacement for the basic editor. Anyone who has serious issues with VE can opt out, but I think everyone should try it at least once. Dcoetzee 23:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. — Any users with existing accounts should face the VE by default (as it happens now). They can switch to 'edit-source' if they like. VE is the future. This is kinda have the future as a second chance. No, we're facing the future, with the past (edit source) as an option. So, the problems on VE now must be fixed soon, so users have less chance for leaving VE. The VE is in growth, if had problems, it should not making us want to disable it permanently. — Vic2908 (talk) 03:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Flipping the switch again is highly annoying. People are already unappreciative of the 'new disable' option replacing the unofficial gadget not taking their old preference into account. This will even be worse. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 07:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Please do not fiddle with my settings behind my back. --NYKevin 13:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  21. The settings are fine as they are, please don't tinker with them. Let users choose their preferences but don't start mucking about with the global defaults - especially changing them from VE to WikiText as that's a very backwards step. WaggersTALK 19:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Do not a priori alter users' preferences, but certainly make users aware of the change. A good example of previoius notification of a preference change which I'm talking about would be the elimination of the "make all edits minor by default" preference. -- Joe (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. The Visual Editor should be the default on those browsers that support it, though I agree that individual users should have the ability to change their own default back to the old editor. But the latter shouldn't be the default. (As an aside, it might have been nice if any effort at all had been made for consistency among the various questions on this page. It's a thicket of misleading negatives and positives.) — Shmuel (talk) 20:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support The user is in charge to change it back, switching it on and off will cause more confusion. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 20:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Don't see why we need to go down this path. Funny how when Vector skin was rolled out it was defined as the default state across all wikis and nobody really complain about it whereas now people don't want things implemented by default. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support -- phoebe / (talk to me) 03:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support If an existing user wants something different, they can always change it themselves. I don't see the point in automatically changing it for everyone. --anamedperson (talk) 04:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support A Visual Editor was never an absolute necessity. It was a "nice to have" feature, lke so many others. --FocalPoint (talk) 05:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Vanquisher (talk) 06:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  30. No Chance, Users' preferences may not be altered by anyone execept the user -- A1000 (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support – While VE still has bugs, existing accounts may still continue to be grandfathered into using VE—however, new accounts don't need to use it. If users want VE, then it's their choice. Epicgenius(talk to mesee my contributions) 15:30, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support never changing a running system ;) --Markus S. (talk) 22:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Let users decide for themselves, leave it as it is, too many changes in too short a time are hard to digest. Disabling VE would give an impression that it has failed. Ahmer Jamil Khan (talk) 10:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support It's unnecessary changing that may create confusion and slow VE development. Max51 (talk) 20:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Strong Support. Never alter a users current settings, it's rude & unnecessary. Archolman User talk:Archolman 22:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Strong Support. Never alter a users current settings, it's rude & unnecessary.PumpkinSky talk 00:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support While I think VE is nowhere near to being up to par & should be rolled back, I haven't opted out at any point simply because I want to see how it is faring, as well as wanting to be able to test it & see how it is being presented (nomenclature, etc.). Resetting for those of us already in the system & have chosen not to opt out would be misleading. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Epicity95 (talk) 13:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support - It's already enabled, it's already optional, and it isn't going to hurt anyone. But it will increase exposure, which is needed if VE will ever be successful. And I agree with Sameboat's comment and both of Swpb's comments above. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 16:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Why is there so much opposition to VE? Because the many hundreds of participants in this discussion – including a lot of our most prolific editors – have tried it. Roughly 80% have decided that the current code is simply not good enough to go mainstream, and many have explained why. The current system works very well: the standard way of editing is there for us all, but editors with all sorts of opinions on VE can (and do) regularly click on the other button to see how things are going. Being optimistic I would suggest that editors periodically try it to see whether a certain type of edit would be easier in VE, being cynical I would suggest that some people do so in order to find new reasons not to change. Regardless, to completely disable VE by default (rather than have the two editing systems run side-by-side) only makes sense if we have given up on VE and intend to kill it off completely. —WFCFL wishlist 20:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support - Beta is beta. I have no objection to VE once it is fully functional. Heenan73 (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Per waitingforconnection above. Also, it seems to me that the horse is already out of the barn on this one...presumably everyone that hates VE has already opted out, so what's the point in making it opt-in at this late date? AgnosticAphid talk 06:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support It is now turned on, do not turn it off. If someone hates it so much that they need to turn it off, ok, it is an easy thing for them to do themselves. VE is now turned on and extremely easy to just not use if you do not want to. No point in turning it off. Dyveldi 20:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support - per Thomas Craven jamvanderloeff 05:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  45. Support -- Stratoprutser (talk) 08:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support: Although it's causing a few problems, you get better test results if it's not just the adventurous users who test it. Feraess (talk) 14:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Experienced users who hate it can turn it off for themselves. Neljack (talk) 06:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. Seems like common sense. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support - Agree with Mike Christie. An editor's preferences should be changed only by that editor. SMP0328. (talk) 19:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Nobody's preferences should be changed for them without very good reason. Some people disliking VE is not a good reason. Thryduulf (talk) 14:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  51. No point mucking around with this any more particularly not changing people's preferences. For better or worse, the WMF made the decision to roll out the VE after some testing (with the WMF feeling they weren't getting enough and some testers feeling it wasn't ready). In any case, if this is presented as a change of preference, it seems just wrong to change someone's preference. In many ways this is inherently tied to the above answers to me. Since we don't want to randomly change people's preferences, once the visual editor was introduced for everyone (rather then the old testing only visual editor), we should either roll it back to a testing only editor and keep it like that until it's more ready which I don't feel is necessary or wise, or make it opt-out for everyone for ever (or at least for all existing accounts, we could change what happens for new accounts), which means existing editors will always need to enable it no matter if nearly everyone prefers it and we get overwhelming consensus it's better, which IMO would be a mistake. Nil Einne (talk) 01:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of changing state for existing accounts

  • Remaining neutral for now. I think we should focus on real, actionable improvements that can be made to VisualEditor. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that there should be a focus on finishing VE, as in the long term it clearly has the potential to be better than wikitext. The first step that way, however, should be to pull it back off the frontlines, do real consultation ("Here everyone, use this and file angry bug reports when it causes massive disruption" doesn't count), then take the various complaints into consideration and bring it back when there's a consensus that it's at least acceptable for everyday use. At the moment there are too many angry people to have a proper discussion of the issues. FLHerne (talk) 01:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a ridiculous discussion. If the software isn't ready for general use then don't even put it on this website. Miqrogroove (talk) 03:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right. If improvements are required just to reach a minimally acceptable state then it is not ready for general deployment. It appears that limited voluntary usage provided all the feedback (bug reports) that WMF can handle; they do not need to force more feedback. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Sorry, but how did we get to this point? Granted, I've been away for a month or 6 and have missed pretty much the entire initial discussion and early implementation of VE, but it seems to me that one of the reasons this RfC is happening is because there was no publicly visible decision process informing everybody that VE (which is in beta, and unfinished and not fully functional) was to be switched on as the default for everyone, and the source of much of the anger and user issues facing VE stem from overriding personal preferences without community consensus - if the comments on the page are correct, then I think that was perhaps the least smartest move made on the implementation of VE so far. It's clearly not ready, and requires a lot of work from people who know what they're doing in relation to improving the software - not the entire user base, many of whom are neither able to or interested in helping fix bugs. I look forward to using VE when it's officially ready for use, but until that time, restore the proper default of the 'source editor' to all and work on fixing VE and making it fully functional with a proper beta testing group. RandomArticles Talk 01:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: How would changing the user preference for existing accounts affect the users? I've briefly read over some comments for changing it and most of them say that the VE system is too slow and slows down their computer. The only time I have exprienced VE to be slow is when I loaded it for editing. Other than that, it has had no effect on my editing experience or computer. Koi Sekirei (talk) 13:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. YesThat would save me a lot of headache.--Asmetr (talk) 00:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • When it's out of beta, why don't we just prompt people on their next login to select whether they want to have VE enabled for them or not? Then, if they wanted to change, they could do so via Preferences but we wouldn't be so invasive as to default it on or off for users that could have signed up years ago or seconds before the VE launch! cyborg4 (talk) 10:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pretty sure counting votes cast regarding Question 3 ("Should the preference be set to disable VE for all existing accounts, requiring editors that choose to test VE to specifically enable it?") has been rendered pointless by the fact that what the default preference setting is has been changed from 'VE enabled for all accounts' to 'VE disabled for all accounts' since voting began. So some of the people who cast votes under "Change preference state for existing accounts" meant that they felt the default should be changed back to the wikitext editor from VisualEditor, while others who cast their votes under the same heading meant that they felt that the default should be changed from the original wikitext editor being the default to VisualEditor being the default unless someone chose to opt-out of the beta [sic]. The wording of the other option for answering question three, "Do not change preference state for existing accounts," did nothing to alleviate the subsequent confusion when the default preference setting was changed during voting, and votes under that section are similarly split between those who want VisualEditor to be the default (again) and those who want the default to be (remain) the original wikitext interface. Hopefully we can all learn from this example how not to word answers to multiple-choice questions... —GrammarFascist (talk) 18:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question 4: Should the user interface explicitly warn editors that pressing the "edit" button is using beta software?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Explicitly warn that it is beta software

  1. Yes. It is logical. --Robertiki (talk) 11:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yes. If there is a bug with it that changes a article weirdly, They should know it's beta so they don't think it was their fault. Techdude3331 (talk) 17:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The "edit" button should explicitly say "beta editor" or something similar to warn the editor that he is testing, as opposed to simply editing.—Kww(talk) 01:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Yes. Not marking beta software as such is a good way to cause a lot of confusion when things go wrong or features are discovered to be missing. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wow, this isn't mentioned? I thought I might've missed it. Yes, this certainly needs to be made clear to users that this is still a WIP where bugs should be expected. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I'm happy to test VE, but getting grumpier by the day with its slothfulness. On this front, many times, through force of habit, I've simply clicked the Edit button to make what's a simple edit in the traditional editing mode but a ghastly one in VE, and then had to wait ages for VE to start before I could cancel it. Please label that Edit button more clearly as the way to the Beta version. Also, enable me to kill VE quickly when I accidentally start it by mistake! HiLo48 (talk) 05:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Caveat emptor still applies. MER-C 05:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    ? Who's the "buyer" here? HiLo48 (talk) 05:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Logical and sensible. Carrite (talk) 06:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Indeed per Kww. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Certainly. Users expect a certain number of bugs and quirks in beta software, we should not surprise and possibly upset/disappoint editors by not warning them. Some users will also feel inclined to submit more bug and experience reports as part of testing - if they know that is what they are doing... Begoon talk 06:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Yes, at least users will know that VE can cause damages to articles, and they will be more inclined to check their edit. --NicoV (Talk on frwiki) 06:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12. This is a distant second or third best. Best is returning to a true beta test; second best is default is the editor that works, with VE presented as if it is a working alternative mode of editing. If they don't have the basic respect for editors trying to improve and maintain the encyclopedia to implement either of those, then yes, a warning should be added. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Yes, because they need to know that they must verify that their edits aren't inadvertently breaking something. Sandstein 11:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Obviously. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  15. This is the responsible option. We must make it clear that there is a possibility users' edits make break the page through no fault of their own. Thryduulf (talk) 11:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16. That's what it is. --Andreas JN466 12:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  17. At the moment there doesn't seem to be anything to warm new editors that VE may cause problems with their edit and mess up/delete parts of the page. This means they don't know to check their edits thoroughly before and after saving, leaving it up to more experienced editors and patrollers to come and clean up after. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Plarem (User talk) 13:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  19. per User:Kww. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 13:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  20. I forget the ethical requirements of software engineers of the Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility and the Association for Computing Machinery, but I'd bet that incompetent software is condemned as a danger to the public, a waste of their time (at best), and a danger to software engineers. There should be a crash course on software ethics by the staff. In general, it would be better to let the "Scientific Workplace" team develop an editor, and fire the people responsible for VE. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Of course.--Aschmidt (talk) 14:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  22. I am completely surprised that anybody can think, that users should not be warned when using malfunctioning beta-sofware. -- Andreas Werle (talk) 16:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Absolutely. Even Captain Obvious finds this question a wall-banger. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Yes absolutely. Kumioko (talk) 17:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Simply yes. More objectively, it should also save before and after in a cache so we have a full edit trail and valuable new work can be reinstated when the wretched thing crashes on save- I would also encourage anyone to take a copy of their text before saving, pasting it in to a .txt file on their local machine- it is only alpha/beta software so that is just good practice.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 17:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  26. So prospective editors are not "surprised" when something untowards happens and don't edit again.--Gilderien Chat What I've done 18:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  27. As a very weak alternative to my preference, which is removing the feature entirely. Also see what I've written here for more details. Kurtis (talk) 19:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Yes. There is no reason the "edit" button shouldn't mention the fact it's using VE. Either change the tab or the tooltip to make it clear it's using VE, preferably the former. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 19:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Sure, you're always warned of beta software – only WMF thinks it should be deployed as a "default". --Patrick87 (talk) 19:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Per Kww. Manxruler (talk) 21:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Truth in advertising. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Absolutely. Someone who has knowingly chosen to test, having been warned of problems, is less likely to be permanently turned off than someone who has wandered in all unawares and then tripped over problems. JohnCD (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Agree with JohnCD and others. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  34. ABSOLUTELY - Every other company in a public beta test of software makes it clear at every opportunity that it is a beta! It's common sense to do so! PantherLeapord (talk) 00:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  35. For sure. Visual editor has come a long way since January, but it still has a looooooooong way to go. Sailsbystars (talk) 00:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Per Kww and pretty much everyone else above. postdlf (talk) 01:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Agree with JohnCD. The knowledge, either explicit (by "are you sure" nagging, which I don't support) or implicit (by the eye glancing over the word "beta) prompts the user to think, "hey, I'll report this" as opposed to "forget about this". — Train2104 (talkcontribs) 01:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Basically for the right to know; per Postdlf. Jsayre64 (talk) 01:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Yes. TCN7JM 02:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Definitely. SpencerT♦C 04:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Label "Edit for beta or worse" (just kidding). Perhaps label as "Edit slow" or "Edit risky" or such. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Of course. StringTheory11 (tc) 04:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oh yes. Insulam Simia (talk) 07:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Of course. If the software is beta, it should be clearly marked as such. That applies in every situation. Modest Genius talk 10:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Of course. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Yes, please. --Meno25 (talk) 10:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  47. --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 10:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Yes. To be honest I don't understand why VE has been enabled at all, because no sane company would use beta software in a production environment. Thomas.W talk to me 12:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Yes, per all of the above. 2Flows (talk) 12:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Per others.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  51. This would be a good idea. Gives editors some notice. Brambleclawx 15:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Yes, if we are to test this on the live site. At this stage, I think test.wikipedia.org would be the appropriate place to debug this software. I noticed an item in the road map saying "updated alpha deployment to all Wikipedias" [5] which strikes me as incautious. —rybec 17:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  53. If software is beta, you make that clear. That will not only make sure editors are aware of what's going on, but also know that they're using a beta product and are encouraged to report bugs/issues. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Yes - Fair warning is much better than giving the false impression that all experienced editors here use poor-quality tools, and just grit their teeth and ignore all but the nastiest bugs. Reify-tech (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  55. yes'--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Yes - In my opinion, the eariler warning the better for users. United States Man (talk) 21:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Yes Users need to know clearly that they are using software known to contain bugs so that (a) they know when things go wrong that this is not the expected behavior; and (b) so that they know to log issues with VE. --RA () 22:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Yes Ginsuloft (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Yes. Since beta software such as this tend to have problems and are not stable, it is definitely necessary for users to know that they are using beta software. Lugia2453 (talk) 22:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Yes - Beta programs should be marked as such. In this case, it might aid in editor retention; I can see some brand-new editors giving up early if they thought that some of the bugs in VE were not due to the developmental nature of the programming. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 22:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Slow buggy version would be better though as I'm not sure how many people know what beta means, or frankly whether the v/e is really ready for beta testing yet. ϢereSpielChequers 22:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Yes Otherwise, new users may come off with the impression that editing Wikipedia is always error prone and dysfunctional. Veterans may blindly trust the Visual Editor and not bother to check the edits to make sure they didn't break anything.—Love, Kelvinsong talk 22:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Yes but as WereSpielChecquers points out, a lot of people don't know what "Beta" means. Perhaps you can explain that it is "a version that is being tested and is still not quite working perfectly", or a similar explanation. Invertzoo (talk) 22:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Yes Seventh attempt (SEVEN edit conflicts!) - It would ensure editors are aware of potential problems doktorb wordsdeeds 23:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Yes, Of course. Why on earth would we hide or obfuscate this fact? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Yes, Of course. Editor must be warn it is beta. QED237 (talk) 23:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Yes - Until the kinks can get worked out. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 23:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Yes Yes, this is the minimum.— James Estevez (talk) 23:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Yes - who wants to hide the fact that its still in development? B-watchmework (talk) 23:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Yes And "Beta" should never be the default!
  71. Needless to say. Everyking (talk) 23:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Yes. I second answerer #1, Kww, who said “The "edit" button should explicitly say "beta editor" or something similar.” --Thnidu (talk) 23:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Every piece of beta software should have this warning. Jguy TalkDone 00:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Yes per above comments. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Yes.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 00:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Yes The "BETA" in the upper right-hand corner isn't that noticeable, so it should be replaced with a large, more prominent notice. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Yes, that would be really helpful for the new guys! Prabash.Akmeemana 00:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Beta is, by definition, testing. To not disclose this is unethical. Holdek (talk) 00:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Yes it should have a warning about it being in beta. Corn cheese (talk) 00:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  80. YES/ From what I've read, it's a bloody waste of time. Let's just WRITE ARTICLES and let them sort it out...... (It says it might take 15 mins. to load a big article?: RUBBISH). Viva-Verdi (talk) 01:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Yes are you telling me it is NOT beta? μηδείς (talk) 01:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Yes - Trapping both loyal old and innocent fresh users into a half-baked adventure like VE without any warning is just not fair and ethical. ViswaPrabhaവിശ്വപ്രഭtalk 01:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  83. No, nor should car manufacturers have to warn buyers about known major problems with motors or brakes. After all, none of us minds when software functions improperly or really slowly. Or when the clutch fails. hgilbert (talk) 02:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Suggestion: what if there were two tabs visible to every user: one for "edit WP source", the other for "edit in experimental visual editor". Something less clumsy and space-absorbing could be formulated, but this would offer clarity that (1) there are two options, and (2) exactly what each is about. hgilbert (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Yes But the word "beta" on the tab is really all that's required. --j⚛e deckertalk 02:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  85. of course--otherwise you create a cliff in the fog situation!Nickholbrook (talk) 02:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Yes The software obviously does not work properly and it would be wrong to suggest that this is a typical experience. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Yes - It's beta. Total no-brainer Rock4arolla (talk) 02:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  88. +1 -dainomite 03:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  89. The edit button should be to wikipedia source (no "edit source"). The VE should identify itself as beta, if it has to have a tab. Better still to not have any tab unless users have opted in. — LlywelynII 03:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Yes all beta software should be labeled such. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Yes - The potential editor deserves to know before his or her computer is stuck for three and a half minutes loading an experimental program they weren't expecting to use. Nick1372 (talk) 04:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Jclemens (talk) 06:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Please. This is still in a very buggy phase. Teemeah 편지 (letter) 09:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Obviously it needs to say that it's beta. Just think what the effect on editor retention would be if we presented as the default a buggy piece of software with no indication that it's beta! It doesn't need to be worded in a way to scare people off, contrary to some of the !votes against. Buggy software with no indication that it's beta seems more likely to scare users off. Sławomir Biały (talk) 09:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Yes, even better, write it is alpha software. That's what it actually is. Anyway, editors should be warned from the start they're going to use an experimental gadget that is at risk of outputting garbage edits. -- cyclopiaspeak! 10:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Yes if it's in beta, it should be told... Redalert2fan (talk) 14:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Yes seems only right to me... — MusikAnimal talk 14:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Yes 'but' this isn't beta. It's alpha. Broken. Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Yes unless you like frustrated users -- Safety Cap (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Yes or a little stronger, mark it experimental. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Yes, definitely. Also, the 'source edit' button should just be 'edit', and should be on the left where it's the first button people see. --Aquillion (talk) 15:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Yes. Communicating simple information like this is IT 101. Why is this even a question? Jytdog (talk) 15:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Yes. It's beta-grade software, there's no way around it. Kudu ~I/O~ 17:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Yes more zeta minus (i.e. fail) than beta - potential users need to know that there are serious problems. Arjayay (talk) 18:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Yes, per Sandstein. it is not fun to find the page saved as <nowiki>[[example link]]</nowiki>
  106. Yes, expectations should be set correctly in the editor's mind
  107. Yes, editors should expect bugs. [Soffredo] 20:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  108. There already is a big fat beta together with a question mark and when first using it, a bubble appears. That's enough but it's prominent and explicit. -- Rillke (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Yes - things like Firefox don't automatically upgrade to their beta tests. It's something you choose to do. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Absolutely - When editing its essential to know that the work you do is secure. Losing a lot of work as the result of unknowingly being part of an experiment is a massively unacceptable possibility. Twang (talk) 23:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  111. [ edit edit beta ], This would ensure the familiar edit interface and muscle-memory remain familiar and as-is. The intent and state of the "beta edit" be the optional secondary action (the new addition) that can be seen with the :hover action only. It would remove the unnecessary and confusing "source" reference; people do not need to know what "source" is to edit Wikipedia. Note that this should not be shortened to "[ edit beta ]" as the meaning of this would be even more unclear. —Sladen (talk) 00:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Agree Signalizing (talk) 00:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Agree I like Kww and Sladen's suggestions. ALH (talk) 01:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Strong agree Per Kww Timothy G. from CA (talk) 02:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Yes, warning is necessary. -- t numbermaniac c 02:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Strong agree - I was amazed that there wasn't a warning in the first place. This is common sense. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Yes: Absolutely & beyond a shadow of a doubt. There's a reason why, for the past 20 years of my using a computer, it has been accepted as standard practice to let people know that they're opting to try a beta version: being that it's a BETA version and isn't stable. In fact, the visual editor isn't stabilised enough to unleash on anyone. In fact, I don't even consider it to be beta but the primate cousin to beta which should still be brewing in the labs. I'm shocked that it was introduced on the date predicted as it's so bug-riddled that I don't want to waste my time even trying it to change a single word using it anymore! The fact that it's become the first choice before 'edit source' implies that it works. Personally, I'd like to opt out of seeing it until it's actually developed enough for me to waste more time trying to use it only to have it throw up error messages or scramble my work if it does actually save. It isn't WYSIWYG, it 'what you see has nothing to do with what you get if you get that far'. WYSHNTOWWYGIYGTF!!! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Yes -- why shouldn't it say beta. Should say beta until it is as accurately working as the source edit. Regards, Kmw2700 (talk) 04:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Yes, of course. Pretending it isn't beta-quality software doesn't help anyone. -- The Anome (talk) 05:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Yes please, since it's true. ~Michael Allan 07:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Yes. If VE blunders, the new users should know that the fault may not be theirs. Cwkmail (talk) 10:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  122. --Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 10:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Yes. Reduces confusion greatly. Double sharp (talk) 11:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Yes OriumX (talk) 14:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Yes No doubt...seems only common sensical, per all the supporting "yes votes" above. Cheers. Azx2 15:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Yes it is glitchy and users should know they are not using finished software.Goodsdrew (talk) 17:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  127. "Yes Kebabipita (talk) 17:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Yes. HiTrish (talk) 17:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Yes. Preferably with a pop-up, or something else difficult for the user to ignore. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Yes. The amount of beta software I use is minimal for a reason. I want close to all of my software to be production grade. I don't want to wonder if it's my goof or a bug; I often don't have the time to figure out which it is. Using beta software by its nature increases the likelihood it's a bug, and could be difficult to identify definitively. -- Joe (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Yes ~~Ebe123~~ → report 20:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  132. No brainier. This is standard procedure everywhere. Mohamed CJ (talk) 01:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Yes. Although it is an easy tool, it also has its own drawbacks since its --FocalPoint (talk) 05:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)in beta stage. asdfawesomegreen (talk) 01:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Yes, absolutely. Given the objections to it being default opt-out for new users being based on the fact that it is in beta, I think a warning at least is warranted. In my opinion, in fact, this would tend to reduce the possible negative effects of bugs scaring people off (because they know what is actually going on) and provide fair warning, so that, as long as "edit source" is also prominently displayed, a lot of the issues that are currently standing against keeping it for everyone would be mitigated. --anamedperson (talk) 04:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Definitely Yes. Users must be warned until it is deemed ready.
  136. Yes. Vanquisher (talk) 06:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Yes yes. -- ɑηsuмaη « ৳ᶏ ɭϞ » 10:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Yes.-- Dewritech (talk) 11:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Yes Beta-versions should never be the default. Uncle Scrooge (talk) 12:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  140. +1 Epicgenius(talk to mesee my contributions) 15:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Yes for many reasons given above. Cazort (talk) 17:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Yes. Beta programs should always be marked as such and never be set as default. Maki (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Yes, Absolutely. Beta Software is Beta Software, and it should be made very clear at every opportunity -- RWJP (talk) 19:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Yes --Markus S. (talk) 22:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Yes, it is a necessary step, as users should be encouraged to report bugs and not think that this is a predicted behaviour — NickK (talk) 01:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Yes. Editors may be more forgiving of VE's faults if it is abundantly clear that it is still a work in progress. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  147. Yes. Transparency is paramount; also I'm being consistent with my responses to previous questions. DPdH (talk) 13:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Yes, and offer link to WP:VEF for any bug reports. PamD 14:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Yes - there should be a prominent warning, including a recommendation to learn mediawiki markup for long-term editing. Boud (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Yes. It's still pretty slow and buggy. Brian the Editor (talk) 16:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Yes, and everyone using this visual tool should on a permanent basis be warned that they are not editing the actual article (source) directly, be visibly informed of where to edit the actual source, and be warned of the limitations of the visual tool and that they use it at their own risk. Tataral (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Yes, and the best way to warn it would be with buttons [ edit edit beta ] (much better than [ edit edit source ]), as mentioned above. Max51 (talk) 20:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Yes. Always with test-software.Archolman User talk:Archolman 22:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Yes Epicity95 (talk) 13:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Yes. And emphasize that visual editors are never to be fully trusted while you are at it. Luis Dantas (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Yes, that's what you do with beta software. -- UKoch (talk) 16:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Yes - may I add Duh!? Thank you. Heenan73 (talk) 21:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Yes - it is beta software at the moment, and not saying so is dishonest. I think new users need to be warned about bugs too. Some editors mentioned that many contributors might not know what "beta" means, so explaining it in a simpler way may be warranted. Kimera757 (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Strong yes And agree with /Max51 that the old system should be the default edit (perhaps [ edit VisualEdit (beta)] would indicate the benefit better, however). Liam3851 (talk) 12:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Yes - Beta software is beta software and should be labeled as such. It isn't finished and most people accustomed to using a computational device know that "beta" entails that some feature(s) of the product or service, or more importantly the product or service overall aren't finished. Koi Sekirei (talk) 13:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Yes - but take the trouble to explain to new users what beta is. It is not good enough to say beta, every user is not a computer programmer. Dyveldi 20:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Yes - If something has bugs in it people deserve to get a warning in advance. --Yetisyny (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  163. Yes - It makes sense. - Al Lemos (talk) 01:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Yes I'm tempted to say "All web software is beta", if only to suggest that it's a continuum/sliperry slope; beta v0.4a isn't beta v0.8b ... your call on when to drop the warning. But, of course, the warning can include invitation to feedback, which is always good with something new. --BenTremblay (talk) 06:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  165. Since this thing causes a lot of damage, people should be warned. Weissbier (talk) 08:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Yes: There's no percentage in trying to deceive people. Feraess (talk) 14:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  167. It's not even good enough to call beta yet.GrammarFascist (talk) 19:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  168. Yes', as to do otherwise could very easily be defined as a form of bait-and-switch. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  169. Yes the way it's now handled is fine. Nil Einne (talk) 01:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do not warn that it is beta software

  1. Any warning should come after the user clicks on it. This isn't "abandon hope all ye who enter here" - it's perfectly OK to land in the pretty graphic-designed editor and see an ugly little line of red text "still being tested, report bugs _here_", and have that as your first and only warning. Wnt (talk) 19:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that the only warning present is a small "BETA" in the upper right-hand corner. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Wnt. If the user does not want to press the "Save" button on a beta editor, they have had enough warning and it is easy enough to go the the text editor for any subsequent edits.OrangesRyellow (talk) 12:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I have yet to experience any game-changing bugs with the Visual Editor, so a beta warning seems unnecessary. It works just fine even if it's slow. No need to pile on additional warnings. Keep the interface simple. CaseyPenk (talk) 15:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you tried making more difficult edits than just proofreading? VE is far from being ready for full deploy. The template editing function is horridly slow and counterproductive, even when you only want to correct a single number in an infobox, for example. It cannot properly handle citations, and it takes forever to fill in a cite web template in it. It really slows down the work of experienced editors. it takes me 30 seconds to type in a cite web citation by wikicode but takes 2-3 minutes to do the same in VE (and consider that my articles in huwiki contain 100+ references. Not funny job with VE...). None of the functions work flawlessly. I was happy to discover that it can finally handle images, which is a plus, but it takes ages to properly place and resize one, let alone add galleries. VE might be a start for really novice users who only want to write a paragraph with minimal formatting, add one source and maybe one photo, but it is, in its current form, a hinder for experienced editors and not a useful tool. I'm using it just for the sake of beta testing, if it were to be deployed permanently, I would opt out immediately. Teemeah 편지 (letter) 09:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I'm with Wnt, which I guess puts me more in the "do warn" camp than the "do not warn" side, but I feel that the warning should not scare people off from editing, especially for new and IP editors who are most likely to be discouraged. Give the beta tag and a fallback to the text editor somewhere within the VisualEditor UI so editors know they have an option if something goes wrong (and they know where to submit bug reports), but don't treat it as a dangerous activity requiring a warning. Zachlipton (talk) 23:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I agree with Wnt on this one, for the reasons he gives. We will never see how it works with new editors if we scare them away from it. DGG ( talk ) 23:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. The visual editor is in beta and this should be made clear, yes, but while there are many bugs, the editor is still entirely usable and is not in a state such that we need to scare users away from it. Just make the beta indication slightly more prominent and that'll be enough. Bugs that result in wrong wikitext are rare; what is much more common is editing bugs that make editing more difficult, and those aren't bad enough for us to keep the new editors away from the visual editor. Yes, it's slow. Yes, it has some editing bugs. But it isn't dangerous to use or harmful to the encyclopedia. We don't need to scare users away from it. -- Rastus Vernon (talk) 01:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. They should be aware of this when the choose to enable VE, so no further reinforcement is necessary. --Jasca Ducato (talk) 15:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Do warn. (For clarity, as this question is phrased as a double-negative). At the top of the page in "beta mode", a link should ideally be provided to switch to normal editing. —Sladen (talk) 00:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Do not warn. — I'm talking about, what if VE set to be default? With some improvement in the coming days, VE should be easier to use than the other one. Conversely, do warn users that will choose 'edit-source' mode, because after all, the more important issue on editing WP is not 'VE is slow', but 'the pages screwed up' by people who don't know how to edit with 'edit-source' (just like me before, hehe..). — Vic2908 (talk) 04:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Do warn. Sorry, Wnt. It's okay once, but not okay by the fourth attempt. If this is a new contributor's first experience with editing, there'll be more newbies waving bye-bye than coming back for more. I'd suggest that most people would prefer to use a WYSIWYG interface than have to learn the nuances of source editing. Having the more comfortable option posturing as being fairly viable but spitting them out is not encouraging. It's plain discouraging. There needs to be an honest & highly visible warning that the VisualEditor should not be expected to be operating smoothly. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Yes - I see that the August 1 release of VE already auto-detects "[[" and pops up a warning that wikitext is not supported. It seems it would be easy to change the code to auto-detect "[[ ... some stuff ... ]]" and to automatically handle that as a wikilink, including converting it into blue/red text and showing warning if they selected a disambiguation page, etc. If someone does ''something'' then assume they want italics. Wikitext is designed to be syntactically dissimilar to English. --Marc Kupper talk 6:54 pm, Today (UTC+1)
  12. Do not warn Aaronshaw (talk) 04:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Warn. Always warn if it's test-software. Archolman User talk:Archolman 22:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Do not warn how many questions are there??? -- Stratoprutser (talk) 08:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Per Wnt. Neljack (talk) 06:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

  • I believe the question should be clarified to include the following options:
    • Can someone think of a different way to present VE, other than by two buttons side-by-side?
    • If so, should the 'Edit' button renamed to 'Edit source', or stay as is?
    • Should the second button be named:
      • Edit (beta)
      • Edit (visually)
      • VisualEditor
      • Something else?
I hereby abstain from responding, as the question is misleading in its current form and does not help reach agreement. Gryllida (chat) 06:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of warning

  • Remaining neutral for now. I think we should focus on real, actionable improvements that can be made to VisualEditor. This section actually somewhat heads in that direction, but I'm concerned that the RFC title ("Default State RFC") will drown out the signal in the noise. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find this question super vague and confusing. Is the warning supposed to be a pre-emptive warning, like the "edit" button would instead say "edit, but watch out!" (but more professional, obviously)? That seems to me to be both kind of unnecessary given that a post-click warning is feasible, and also unsightly to have posted all over every single wikipedia page. Is the warning supposed to be a warning after someone clicks on "edit" that says, "just so you know, this editor is in beta" somewhere that it would be seen before the editor clicks on "save page"? I think that's an excellent idea and I can't really imagine anyone being opposed to it as long as it was both clear and unobtrusive not garish. Is the warning a pop-up that shows up after you click edit but before you actually enter visual editor that says "are you sure you really want to edit with this slow piece of unstable software?!" That seems like it would discourage people from editing. This question is so vague that it's impossible to give a meaningful answer. AgnosticAphid talk 22:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I intended when writing the question was to have the actual button say "beta editor" or something similar. That's how most people seem to have interpreted it.—Kww(talk) 22:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm, well I can't honestly say that just having it say "beta editor edit source" really seems very obtrusive. And certainly there should be a warning that it's in beta and there's bugs somewhere – even the oppose votes above seem to agree. But a "beta editor" warning is not very informative. A warning at the top of the actual VE page could be more descriptive. Or we could use a pop-up before the page is (slowly) loaded, but I really do think that a "WATCH OUT" pop-up is likely to result in a lot of "oh, nevermind"s. Nonetheless, I can't say that the question as posed seems to be drawing many responses that delve into these pretty crucial issues. AgnosticAphid talk 22:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Faizan 13:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a very strange question. The software already says that it's beta. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 18:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it does. I suggest this question be removed, because it's not relevant to any significant issue and is generating a lot of confusion. If you want to keep it then be specific about how such a warning would work and how it's different from the current warning. Dcoetzee 23:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're both overlooking the fact that the BETA is unobtrusively lodged in the right hand corner: visualise this as a newbie (which is the question at hand). It's difficult enough getting one's head around the learning curve (not that the Wikipedia source editing is particularly difficult to work out) without error messages being thrown at you when there's a purportedly intuitive WYSIWIG editing option being presented as the first option. Why would a newcomer even think about going to the 'edit source'. Personally, I'd assume that it's for advanced editors wanting to do some sort of tweaking in a mysterious world of coding I shouldn't touch unless I have advanced coding skills. Making assumptions about the confidence of new users is bad planning. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • At the present time, if it's not to be removed entirely, it needs not only to have the label beta editor, but to reserve a line of real estate on the screen for "This editor frequently doesn't work properly. If you are worried about editing correctly, please use "Edit source" to verify that random changes are not occurring." It could be toned down when it reaches beta. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The changed labels of today pre empt this question. I'm good with the new labels.
  • The new layout of the edit tags is even more kludgy than before. Now there are two options: "edit source" and "edit beta". What the hell is "edit beta"? Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with Sławomir on this issue. If it barely makes sense to contributors already here who know about the deployment of the VE, how is a new contributor going to interpret these tags? This is utterly nonsensical terminology! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me, it is already telling people that this is beta when you click on the edit button. Surely people know what they're getting into if they click on the edit button with the word "beta" on it. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a very recent change. I don't think it is a sufficient change. The source editing label should be "edit" or "standard edit", while the VE editing label should be "beta editor". A new editor may not understand which editing format is which and which does what. That will likely cause new editors to edit less often, because they will fear making a serious mistake. SMP0328. (talk) 02:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's warranted. The "Edit source" button should be changed to "Edit", while the "Edit beta" button should be unchanged. Epicgenius(talk to mesee my contributions) 15:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please, I say again, "edit beta" is meaningless. Can we please have it say something meaningful, like "Visual editor"? Also the "edit source" should have stayed as "edit". It's a basic principle of software design to preserve as much of the old familiar interface as possible. There's no reason to change the old "edit" link into "edit source". Keep it as "edit", change "edit beta" to "Visual editor". Minimize confusion. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe some of people, such as AgnosticAphid, Dcoetzee, Epicgenius, Sławomir Biały, have shaped concerns over question being in poor shape; I have created an 'Abstain' section for indicating this sort of response, among other things. Gryllida (chat) 06:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question 5: Should the VisualEditor support basic wikimarkup shortcuts, such as '''bold''', ''italics'', and [[Link]]?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Current default behaviour is to use <nowiki> tags to present the wikimarkup as part of the article. See bug 49686. Users attempting to use wikimarkup in VisualEditor and having it not work is a major source of edits requiring cleanup afterwards.

Yes, using wikimarkup in VisualEditor should be supported.

  1. A toggle switch could be used to turn off this support in the rare cases you actually want wikimarkup to display in the article. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I understand the purism on display below but, since there is no time a user will want to use double/triple apostrophes or double brackets except for such formatting and since such formatting is easier and faster than wading through buttons and menus, yes, of course they should be supported. There's no reason to make something slower and less helpful just to make it "purer" WYSIWYG. Cf. WP:POINT. — LlywelynII 03:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What about a user quoting a passage which contains an existing quote? Par ex: 'Anna said she overheard John say "This is an example."' --Matthias Alexander Jude Shapiro (talk) 14:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Then the user would use one single-quote next to one double-quote. They're different characters; Wikimarkup uses two, three or five single-quotes in a row. Ignatzmicetalk 13:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't that what the example is already using—quotation marks? Epicgenius(talk to mesee my contributions) 15:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC) [reply]
  3. When a user types wikitext into the visual editor and saves the page, ask if they'd like the unrendered code to appear exactly as typed or if they'd like it to appear as formatted text and links in the saved page. — Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 05:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Why else would someone type '', [[, or {{? Also because backwards compatibility is a good thing. ϢereSpielChequers 06:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Yes, certainly as long as editors are still presented with wikimarkup in some circumstances (like editing template parameters) and other namespaces. It is totally unlogical to disallow wikimarkup in ne environment, but require it as the only option in another. Furthermore, the vast majority of square brackets (and certainly double square brackets) used in articles is intended as wikimarkup, not as "nowiki". Software shouldn't make the exception the default, but should make the most common usage the default. No opinion on other markup, since the problem is less pronounced there, but for square brackets, it is really hard to see the benefit of disallowing the use of them, certainly when this WYSIWYG editor is not a real one anyway, but a partial one... Fram (talk) 10:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Yes - Especially for links and templates. This, along with on-the-fly rendering, could actually make VE very useful, once in a decent state. A toggle could be employed to disable the functionality. An added plus, especially but not only for beta testing, would be switching on the fly, with a click or keyboard combination, between Wikimarkup and visual rendering, to immediately see what's going on. -- cyclopiaspeak! 10:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Yes, this would improve accessibility considerably. Arguments based around "this won't make it a 'WYSIWYG' system" are fallacious: this RfC question is whether it should support these features, not replace the WYSIWYG system. — Richard BB 14:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Jasca Ducato (talk) 15:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Yes unless they choose not to, because it is annoying when I use those shortcuts, and it doesn't work.Njaohnt (talk) 15:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. For some things allow this for wikilinks, and anything else where there isn't a standard keyboard shortcut. For bold/italics/etc, presumably people will be used to using Ctrl-B/I/etc and so won't continue to type wikimarkup after a short adjustment period. davidprior t/c 15:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Yes, always. Unifying user experience is a worthwhile goal, and there are many things that can't be accomplished without wikitext; the number of situations where people would want wikitext to display is vanishingly slim, and in those situations the user will probably know enough to use the visual editor and the nowiki tag. A button could be added to switch this on and off, but that would just make the visual editor even more hopelessly complicated by adding another widget to worry about. --Aquillion (talk) 15:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Yes, of course. It speeds things up. They're going to write on their keyboard anyway, it's much faster to simply keep typing than to reach for the mouse and click on icons. JIP Talk 16:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Yes. I think this works well on wikia? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus reply here 17:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Yes if we want to make VE a tool for everyone to use, and not just some training wheels before people move to the regular editor. The feature should be toggle-able, of course. Kudu ~I/O~ 17:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Yes for now, tho I think this should just be transitional. DGG ( talk ) 18:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Yes but not just bold/italics/links but also (at the very least) table markup, <ref>...</ref> tags, images and templates. We have dozens - maybe hundreds - of help pages which describe how to do things using Wikimarkup. Regardless of which "edit" tab that they went for, or their reasons for choosing that tab, users should be able to copy the examples from help pages (amending where necessary, of course) and not screw up the page the instant that they save. Some notice it and fix it; others (either because they don't know how to fix, or simply don't notice) leave it for others like me to sort out. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  17. View→Non-printing Characters, this interface protocol and presentation is already well-understood for word-processors. The toggle interface and presentation should be as close to that as for word-processors as possible. It should ideally be the default so that it is clear when a VE user has switched between view and edit. The "non-printing markup" can be used as a very clear visual clue that the user is still in edit mode and/or has unsaved changes. —Sladen (talk) 00:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Yes - I can only speak for myself, but I prefer the preciseness of the wikitext editor, but I don't want to have to remember to click for a button to disable/enable the VE. (And yes, I know this is concerning defaults for new and anon users, not me, but it could grow in the future.) As others above have mentioned, it's highly unlikely that people would type wikitext by accident, so supporting it should not be a problem. For someone like me that prefers wikitext, I would love a visual editor that understands wikitext. That would truly be the best of both worlds, and I would use that as my default. I'd still want to be able to drop into source mode when I work on templates, but for regular article editing, a hybrid editor would be fantastic. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 00:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Yes Don't throw out the baby with the bath water. The editor should be backwards compatible and allow for different/traditional editing styles, and not adhere to strict guidelines on purity. This is not the 1980s; we can have both text markup (e.g. TeX) with a WYSIWYG editor (e.g. LyX), and we should not be stuck with some new interface (e.g. Microsoft Word equation editor). Int21h (talk) 00:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Agree - perhaps as a user preference? Signalizing (talk) 00:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Yes - it wouldn't hurt for "live syntax highlighting" to be activated here. -- t numbermaniac c 02:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Strong yes, make it an option - So long as editors have the choice as to whether to allow this in their own preferences, I don't see what the harm could be, and I do see quite a bit of benefit--such as helping to avoid mistakes when using VE, allowing editors who like it the ability to work more efficiently, and helping new users feel comfortable easing into the basics of wikimarkup without being intimidated by learning the entire language. And as long as it's a choice, then it shouldn't harm anyone (though for reasons that escape me, some here really do wish to limit the choices of others.) –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Yes. They can be used as shortcuts. Czech is Cyrillized (talk) 03:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Yes - same reasons as Prototime. Regards, Kmw2700 (talk) 04:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Yes. — Even more, I might to say, what if VE support more tools in editing page, as it on the 'Advanced' tab on 'edit-source' mode? — Vic2908 (talk) 04:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Yes. It seems obvious that this should be enabled. At the very least, it must be an toggleable option. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Yes. This is such a natural thing to do, I'm surprised it wasn't enabled right from the start. The ability to click somewhere to "unfold" things like templates within the VE to show, and edit, their wikitext would be nice, too. -- The Anome (talk) 05:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Yes. It comes down to an issue of idealistic purism vs. real-world pragmatism. It's easy to be confused when switching between different edit modes, especially for a newbie, and observation proves that VE users frequently are confused. Knowledge about basic markup is widespread even among non-hardcore editors. And as pointed out plenty, there is no real problem with the default assumption that wikitext is meant when double apostrophes or brackets are entered. Essentially, what VE should have done from the beginning on is to augment and assist editing the wikitext, to help with the more complicated aspects such as templates and tables, instead of replacing the wikitext editor wholesale. Basic markup is no biggie for most newbies, the advanced functions are what makes their heads spin, and what taxes the memory even of experienced editors. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 06:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Yes. As comments #4 and #5 (above) argue, how often will people type those strange markup symbols for any other purpose than an edit? If and when VE becomes the main editing software, the old markup symbols will become mere curious relics; but at present, they're useful. Cwkmail (talk) 10:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support as at least an opt-in feature - it is far easier and quicker to type "[[link]]" than find the button/hotkey, open the dialogue box, select the field, fill the textbox(es), and then click the button to insert it. Hand-holding is fine for beginners, but as an experienced user I find it patronising and inconvenient. --W. D. Graham 11:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Yes. There are non-visual and visual interfaces (keyboard shortcuts) in Microsoft Word. It will be OK... Double sharp (talk) 12:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Yes. It will be used much more if it was enabled.Redddbaron (talk) 13:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Yes. Particularly supporting points made in 27, 25 and 21. korbnep «talk» 15:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Yes. jezzapandd
  35. Yes, for the most part. I can see circumstances in which it might not be a good idea, so opt-out from the feature might be acceptable, but point 30 gives a very good reason for inclusion, even for people not familiar with Wikimarkup. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Yes Should be default but have a toggle switch. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 20:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Yes but it should be opt-in via preferences. Aside from the fact that it can be faster to use markup than the visual interface, for people with certain disabilities, markup is much easier to input than to use a mouse or pointer device. So this is important if we are to be inclusive. Kerry (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Yes since it is one of the common attempted things. Why discourage it? It will also increase familiarity with the source editor for those more complex things. Thegreatgrabber (talk)contribs 22:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Use = Yes; wikilink display = yes You should be able to use basic wikimarkup in the visual editor, but links should always be displayed in wikicode there, as the content/targets of links are not always obvious. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 23:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  40. I think that basic wikicode could "autocorrect" to the WYSIWYG format, as occurs with certain typed codes in Microsoft Word. An undo button, or an pop up message could inform users about the wikicode conversion (with an option to not display message in the future). --Zfish118 (talk) 23:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Yes as it would make the editing a bit easier for most of the people are so used to Italics, Bold, Underline, etc. asdfawesomegreen (talk) 01:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Yes If this can be done easily, then what's the harm. Its good for users, those are used to wikimarkup. Otherwise trying wikimarkup in VE could be a disaster. -- ɑηsuмaη « ৳ᶏ ɭϞ » 10:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Yes Joining Signalizing 00:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC): "Perhaps as a user preference?" Uncle Scrooge (talk) 12:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Yes. I know the devs have said this would be difficult to code for, but it shouldn't be that difficult—after all, VE saves every edit as wikitext editable in the source editor anyway. People have made, are making, and will continue to make the "mistake" of using wikimarkup in VE—why not make that legitimate? Ignatzmicetalk 13:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Yes at least as opt-in feature as per suggestion below, and maybe as default behavior. hgilbert (talk) 13:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Yes. I don't believe it's that difficult. Stifle (talk) 17:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Yes Of course it should be supported. Why is this even a question? Maki (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Yes I still don't know, how to make links in VE, the brackets would be useful when someone switches to VE. Olaf (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Yes A good answer to some arguments to this are per Adam Cuerden, and letting me use markup in VE would be the best of both worlds- still giving me the freedom to do what I want while making the interface easier. Cuz you know there's no hardcore editor that'll get much use out of VE as it is. ✔ JLDWtalk 00:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Strong yes, at least for simple things. I don't want to advertise anything, but I love using MS Office formula editor since it started supporting LaTeX in their WYSIWYG editor: it is much more efficient to type shortcuts instead of picking a necessary element from the panel. Same here: it is much easier to type Link or {{fact}} instead of picking a necessary option on the panel. I think it will be much quicker to write in an editor supporting both basic wikicode and WYSIWYG features — NickK (talk) 01:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  51. DTRT. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Yes. If the Parsoid system needs to be reworked for this to work, it shall be reworked. Insulam Simia (talk) 08:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Yes. Would give the user more options, provide greater flexibility, and provide compatibility with previous versions of the Wiki. Plus experienced editors might find quicker to use markup rather than buttons. DPdH (talk) 13:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Yes. Backward compatibility for the millions of editors who have been using Wikipedia and making it what it is today is an important benefit. It would allow editors used to the traditional tools to continue to use the syntax they know while at the same time enabling users who prefer to use VE-native syntax to use it. Factchecker25 (talk) 15:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Yes. What use would not supporting it serve? Mainline421 (talk) 16:56, 4 August 2013 (BST)
  56. Yes. 1) VE is meant to be a WYSIWYG editor accessible to the general public. 2) One of the most well-known WYSIWYG editors is MS Word. 3) MS Word supports something like this by autoformatting asterisks and underscores into *bold* and _italics_ --Brian the Editor (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Yes, that would be an improvement that could possibly make the visual tool at least a little bit useful for quick fixes and small edits. Tataral (talk) 17:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Yes, it would make it more useful and allow faster editions for those that already know wiki language. Without allowing wiki mark-up, it's much slower to create links and it's presently not possible to create normal sections and reference section. Max51 (talk) 21:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Yes.
  60. This is simple principle of least astonishment. There is no real reason that inexperienced editors would be using '''three single quotes''', or [[two square brackets]], or {{two curly braces}}. On the other hand, experienced editors expect such markup to do this or this or this (talk · contribs). If that's not done, you will never see significant adoption among experienced users, and from the current stats, not too much among newer users either. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Yes. Toggled access would be ideal. Archolman User talk:Archolman 22:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Yes Epicity95 (talk) 13:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Absolutely. There's no good reason to take away options. I don't program but have already learned how to use wikitext, and don't want to give it up. There's already multiple types of wikitext in some instances (for instance, there's at least two ways of making text bold in the non-visual editor) and I haven't found that to be confusing. Kimera757 (talk) 22:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Yes. This is such an obviously essential feature that it never should have been rolled out without it. Neutralitytalk 05:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Yes. This is what I thought was missing. Great idea. Surfer43 (talk) 14:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Yes - This will prevent a lot of mistakes from happening. --Yetisyny (talk) 20:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Yes - There is literally no logical reason to oppose this. It retains consistency within the code, it retains consistency for users, it makes the VE more likely to be adopted by experienced editors, and this proposal does not suggest that this should be the only way things are done. Plaintext should work, standard HTML formatting (where applicable) should work, and so should markup. Simples. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Yes Users unlike me will find this useful. --Asmetr (talk) 00:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Yes - More options for experienced users. - Al Lemos (talk) 01:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Yes - OK with wikimarkup although I personally favor shortcuts. --Alberto Fernández Fernández (talk) 07:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  71. The way to edit links with the VE ist totally annoying. Using those double brackets costs only 1% of time the VE needs for one lousy link. Weissbier (talk) 08:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  72. What is the point otherwise?: At least half of my wall-clock time editing is spent on this sort of task, and for a VE to make it harder is the Wrong Thing. BSVulturis (talk) 16:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  73. I don't understand why it doesn't do this already. Double and triple apostrophes, double square brackets and double curly brackets are used specifically because they are unlikely to be used in text, so this shouldn't cause problems for inexperienced editors while making the VE useful for the more experienced. An autocorrect type feature, where the wikimarkup is rendered as typed would be a nice middle ground between wikitext and WYSIWYG. Laura Scudder talk 16:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  74. I don't think I could've put it better than Laura Scudder (#73 above) did in her vote-comment. I'd like to add, though, that having basic wikimarkup of the sort extremely unlikely to be intended as anything other than wikimarkup (5 single-quotation-marks in sequence, sets of double square- or curly-brackets, etc.) is more likely both to draw more of the experienced users into using (and promoting) VE, and to help newer users be more comfortable with traditional wikimarkup once they reach the point where they want to make an edit that VE simply cannot handle due to the inherent limitations of WYSIWYG editors. —GrammarFascist (talk) 19:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Yes. Should be very obvious. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Yes, see T49779. Thryduulf (talk) 14:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Yes, although what sort of wikimarkup, what to support and whether by default etc will need to be decided and we should be careful how we handle this and try to avoid making something the default when the VE is still in the earlier stages and many people want to use it out of frustration but it turns out it would be better/less likely to cause confusion or cause problems in the future when VE is better so we then have a tricky mess of suddenly changing the default and causing a fair amount of temporary confusion and acromony or sticking with a suboptimal condition. While these issues aren't that likely since wikimarkup is of course intentionally stuff you will rarely add for other reason, they should still be considered carefully. The question of timing as opposed to other important features also should be considered. Nil Einne (talk) 01:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, present all attempted wikimarkup as plain text.

  1. I'm going to disagree on this one. 22dragon22burn (talk) 01:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I hesitated on this one, but I think it's best to not keep the old editing habits of the wikitext editor. The visual editor should be as simple as possible and not have features that can confuse users. The Ctrl+I and Ctrl+B shortcuts are very well known as they are used in office suites, web page editors, forum software and everywhere else. While this could make the transition easier for experienced editors, it is not necessary. Experienced editors will get used to it and it will all in the end make the editor less confusing, which is a good thing. -- Rastus Vernon (talk) 01:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    1. There will not be a transition for experienced editors. The source text always was and is the actual article, not the visual representation of it, and always was and will be the preferred way of editing. The visual editor will never be able to handle the article text with the same precision as editing the proper way, and annoying, slow and limited as it is, I don't expect many experienced editors to use it except maybe for minor edits. Tataral (talk) 18:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It would no longer be a true WYSIWYG editor if this feature would be included. If it looks like a WYSWYG editor then it should also behave like one. --Frederico1234 (talk) 02:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, Charlie, but VisualEditor is already not "a true WYSIWYG editor" (and wouldn't be even if it was working correctly, which it isn't, nor is it likely to anytime soon). Was that your only reason for wanting VE to reject standard wikimarkup? — GrammarFascist (talk) 19:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. It annoys me that if i type a link it will come up as [[something like this]] but I agree, the editor should probably work like Microsoft Word or Livejournal or something...Neurosciency (talk) 03:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't understand why you feel that way: Whilst the Cntrl-B and such things should be supported as well, why should I have to give up wikitext habits just to see a visual representation? Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    i mean, it would be nice to have that support. livejournal has that thing where you can type code and it will be recognized in the text box (like to link to a user account). i think it would be a great idea. i just wasn't sure if it was possible (but i'm sure it is, i just don't have the 1337 skills to comprehend. lol)Neurosciency (talk) 12:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. If you want to write wiki code then don't use a visual editor, duh. Miqrogroove (talk) 03:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. agree--since purpose is to get people used to a new tool, every step in its use should be made obvious to us--experienced editors will devise rapid workarounds if they want, and not be hampered at all.Nickholbrook (talk) 02:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Yes - If it's a direct visual editor, then everything should be interpreted and displayed as it was entered. Don't go all MicroSloth on us and start deciding what we 'really meant to type' for us. Rock4arolla (talk) 03:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per User:Frederico1234. You shouldn't attempt to have it both ways. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I agree that using CTRL+I & CTRL+B is the way to go. Nick1372 (talk) 04:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Per my comment in the discussion. — This, that and the other (talk) 07:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11. No. A WYSIWYG editor should be that. It should not be a source editor. All aspects of editing need to be done through the visual interface. This is a basic software design principle. A word processor (like MS Word) is different from a text editor (like GNU Emacs). Sławomir Biały (talk) 09:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12. No, there is already a warning message if you try to type certain wikimarkup (I think that was added very recently). That should be enough. --WS (talk) 14:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    •I feel you should do one or the other. If it's a visual editor, keep it entirely visual. As mentioned, we have the issue with the nowiki tags and links, perhaps this should be autocorrected to a normal link and not wrapped in nowiki. I mean, in the article space, how often does the editor actually want [[link]] and not link ? — MusikAnimaltalk 15:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Commented out, since MA's proposal to autocorrect the brackets to links is the exact opposite side of the vote here and shouldn't count towards the people who precisely do want to see [[link]] link show up (presumably because they feel the editors should be trained not to do that and've forgotten about WP:POINT). — LlywelynII 18:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14. I wish that VE had a toggle like Wordpress where you could switch from WYSIWYG to code views. In its current incarnation, allowing people to use Wikicode while looking at the plain text version of an article could create problems. Andrew327 15:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  15. We'll have to learn how to deal with it, but those cuts are idiotic from a blank slate perspective. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16. No, VE is substantially different than from the old style, a mix of those two should be definitely separate in my opinion. This works like so and so, that works like so and so. --Soetermans. T / C 15:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  17. I don't believe anyone starts contributing to Wikipedia with the idea that they also have to learn a specific syntax in order to do so. A novice user just wants to add information in a way similar to text messaging, email, or a word-processing document. Current users may be confused, but language (in the interface) and education can alleviate errant wikitext being entered. Ckoerner (talk) 16:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  18. --Tobias1984 (talk) 17:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Developing it is a waste of time. Programmers have more useful things to do. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 18:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  20. No, this proposal completely misses the KISS principle that the VE has basically been developed upon. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 18:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  21. No - except link provided WP:OVERLINK is explanied - I spend excessive time de-bolding and de-capitalizing articles. New editors tend to try and make their point by over-emphasis. Arjayay (talk) 19:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Absolutely not. The point of the visual editor is to ultimately to replace the basic editor, not to train users to use the basic editor, or to accommodate users familiar with the basic editor. In my experience with VE using the GUI for this markup has not slowed me down very much because it's not used very often, and I find the search capability of the linking feature accelerates the searching I would have to do anyway before linking something. Dcoetzee 23:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  23. "Visual Editor" should mean "WYSIWYG editor," and should not include code of any kind. Holdek (talk) 07:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  24. No it's a visual editor. Learn to use the hotkeys, or just disable the VE for your account. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 07:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  25. No. While it does take some getting used to, I think it's best if all wikimarkup is kept out of VisualEditor. At the moment it notifies you if you try to use it, which I think is the right approach. Any move away from WYSIWYG is just likely to further confuse new editors. Robofish (talk) 12:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  26. No, more widespread standard keyboard shortcuts (such as Ctrl_b for bold, Ctrl_i for italics, Ctrl_k for links) should be (and are) supported instead. WaggersTALK 19:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  27. No. Why mix metaphors? Either it's WYSIWYG or it's not, not some frankenmeld. -- Joe (talk) 19:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  28. No. Mixing wikimarkup with a WYSIWYG editor seems to miss the point; you only need that markup when you don't have a better alternative. — Shmuel (talk) 20:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  29. No. Per Frederico1234. APerson (talk!) 23:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  30. It could be confusing. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Edits in VE should be treated as plaintext, though if wikimarkup is evident, a warning would be appropriate. —ADavidB 02:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  32. No. Those who want/need to edit in Wikimarkup already have tools for doing so. VE should support users with other needs & preferences. Aaronshaw (talk) 04:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  33. No. Krinkle (talk) 05:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  34. No. Vanquisher (talk) 06:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  35. No. Absolutely not. Or WYSIWYG or wikimarkup. but the two things combined can get confusing.Neo139 (talk) 01:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  36. No it makes little sense to do this particularly since the page will already contain wiki markup and possibly no wiki content too. IMO a warning about markup wiki and HTML should be issued prior to saving
  37. No—VE is for those who don't know wiki markup. -- UKoch (talk) 16:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  38. No this will help people learn wiki markup.
  39. No -- Stratoprutser (talk) 08:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  40. People who want to engage in complex editing tasks can learn markup.--~TPW 13:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  41. No: If you choose a visual editing method then that's what you should get. I don't think it's necessary to combine the two ways of editing, and it adds potential for new user confusion. Feraess (talk) 14:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  42. No Remove cruft caused by backward compatibility. The users would learn to create bold and italics as they do on their favourite text processor once they have made and fixed a couple of mistakes. --Farzaneh (talk) 18:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  43. NO Who keeps adding these suggestions? Shall we just keep asking whether one-timers and other newbie trolls will get to use wikipedia without any learning curve until everyone gives up? What gf edits are we lacking now that granting every rumplestiltskin in the world access to will improve? μηδείς (talk) 03:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  44. There is a similar option in word processors, such as replace _foo_ with foo, and *foo* with foo. However, I would find it counter-intuitive where the user might want to place actual symbols, and has ctrl+b, ctrl+u, and similar shortcuts available. Gryllida (chat) 06:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of wikimarkup shortcuts

  • I certainly think making VE not "understand" the wacky multiple-apostrophe syntax is most welcome: Ctrl+I and Ctrl+B are very well-known and widely-used shortcuts that make so much more sense. As for links [[, though, I'm not so sure. Those double square brackets are nice to have. — This, that and the other (talk) 01:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can see absolutely no reason why both shouldn't be options, when this not being supported is the second biggest source of page mangling in VE after tables. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, number of nowiki insertions are now about 7 in last 500 edits (about 10 an hour). Of the 7, one is from page vandalism. One is a known bug in VE. Two are from inserting spaces (which VE might fix in the UI). Only three are wikitext insertions. So, while 3 in 500 is not insignificant, this is no longer as big a number as it once was. Ssastry (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see the reason of it, but it's not worth the effort IMO. The problem is it's less work and faster to use ctrl shortcuts than typing the apostrophes. If I'm italicizing lot of terms of one whole column in a large table, I usually just copy and paste the 2 apostrophes instead of typing it directly. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 07:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • My own feelings: The wikilink shortcut is probably a good idea but I doubt the italic/bold shortcuts are. Roughly speaking, a lot of new editors will use apostrophes not intending wikisyntax, but I doubt double-left-square-bracket is going to be particularly common. More importantly, I'm not !voting above because I believe that this is a question for which a best answer can be determined by testing. This is a place for user science, not voting. --j⚛e deckertalk 02:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    My own feelings: there's not actually any time an editor should be using double and triple apostrophes (which is why they're employed in the first place), so there is no confusion involved. — LlywelynII 03:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You might be right, I'd expect some less technical editors to try double-apostrophe for double-quote. But data will show either way. --j⚛e deckertalk 18:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some people are opposing this because it is a WYSIWYG editor. But it isn't, of course. Try to add or change a link in a gallery, or in a template parameter (or perhaps some other places), and you still need wikimarkup. Try to add a link elsewhere, and the very same wikimarkup gives you a warning and isn't allowed. This is counterintuitive and counterproductive, since 99% of the double square brackets are placed to be wikilinks, but all of them are nowikied by default. As long as, even in the mainspace, people are required to use wikilinks (double square brackets) in some instances, they should be allowed in all instances. Fram (talk) 14:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a good question, but it digresses from the main issue of the RfC, which is about enabling/electing VE rather than what features VE ought to support. There is probably a better venue for feature requests. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since this is here (albeit possibly misplaced), here is my 2c: I understand that this functionality might be difficult to code. So instead, just give me a preference option that disables <nowiki> tags in VE altogether. The preview will still show the wikimarkup in the article text, but when I click save it will parse into the source. No additional computational overhead, and completely trivial to code. If I have a difficult pipe or whatever that I need to preview, then I can use the VE tool or go to source editing. VQuakr (talk) 19:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does this have to do with the default state of VE? Legoktm (talk) 20:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nothing probably, but it is or was the most common source of errors and probably frustration (the warnings that have since been introduced at least reduced the errors, perhaps not the frustration). Fram (talk) 12:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of the oppose votes here seem to be about keeping a "pure" WYSIWYG experience. I am having difficulty understanding this position. Why is it better to have a "pure" WYSIWYG editor than one which incorporates useful features from the old editor? Saying "it's not a WYSIWYG feature" seems to me to be simply a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --W. D. Graham 19:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is unintuitive behaviour. Say for exemple that I want to edit the Objective-C article. I add some text, like "In [[self alloc]] the message "alloc" is sent to the object "self"". Quite unexpectadly (assuming one doesn't know wiki-markup), [[self alloc]] becomes self alloc. Why is it red and why did the square brackets dissappear? --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, then why not make it a purely opt-in feature, so only users who already understand and have enabled replacement will encounter it? --W. D. Graham 20:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Opt-in would be OK. --Frederico1234 (talk) 21:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have a toggle. Neither yes nor no is really right here - what you want is a little box that you click to set nowiki on and click again to turn it off. When it's on all your Wiki markup goes straight to the article text. When it's off it is interpreted as source at some point where convenient - until then it is displayed in red or something to point out that it is extraneous shrapnel. (Note that this interim representation and when to convert is a big can of worms and could slow down responsiveness, though) Default should remain nowiki per Frederico1234. Wnt (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Appended Proposals

1. That visual editor, in its present form, should NOT be made available to unregistered users, and that it should not be made available to anonymous IP users in the future, without a community-wide discussion & vote.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2 Reasons for this:

i)The software isn't ready; not even close...
ii)Even (if/)when the software improves enough, we shouldn't make it that easy for unregistered users to mess about in the article space.

Strong Support -- I think that VE should not be provided to them becoz by doing so , we are making wikipedia an easy place to vandalize. Those who want ot be a real wikipedian and to edit without vandalising, let him create an account. It is very easy to create one, no??. BenisonPBaby 05:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose -- I oppose this proposal because the second clause does not conform to Wikipedia's core values.— James Estevez (talk) 02:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- as drafter of this proposal (which doesn't seem to have been included among the options, anywhere in the original text) Lx 121 (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- reason ii is not in the spirit of what a wiki should be about. yes unregistered users do vandalize, but they also become future users of the wiki. We shouldn't scare new users away. Oldag07 (talk) 15:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose, I've seen them do good work, VE has a potential. Prabash.Akmeemana 15:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on the basis that I believe the second point is incorrect. Ease of access is important for all contributors, anonymous ones included. You still have to hit an edit button as well; it's not as if you can just put your insertion point in and just start typing and auto-save your changes as you go. Why should unregistered users have a hard time trying to contribute? That's what prevents them from becoming registered users and actively contributing. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 15:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but everyone should be allowed to choose how they want to edit, I've edited here before my account in 2004 and Im far to used to the code appearance than VE's on screen editor. Prabash.Akmeemana 15:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose. Neither Wikipedia nor VE is an exclusive club, where ID is needed at the door. As always, any unregistered IP editors should get a polite notice welcoming them to WP and an offer to register. As for any increased vandalism, there are also set guidelines for that as well. — Wyliepedia 15:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose. I'm not for the VE myself, but if it would be implemented, then it shouldn't be a registered user only thing. It is still in development (see beta discussions), and not without its flaws, but that's no reason to withhold it from anon users. If anything, the input of everyday kinda viewers and edits should be welcomed, not made more difficult. Concerning vandalism, that is still an issue here on Wikipedia, I don't see why VE would make it easier somehow. --Soetermans. T / C 15:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose. Why should knowing code be a condition to sharing info, or even trying to improve? And who does have total knowledge? How much effort is put into correcting code, designing new templates, sharing tricks, and simply asking “how”? How many articles have more corrections than actual input? Is protecting a geek hobby really necessary?Sammy D III (talk) 17:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose. The "war on unregistered users" is completely unwarranted, there's no reason not to let them opt into features. Kudu ~I/O~ 17:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is not as if it is war against the person (in personam) it is a war against being anonymous which allows subversion of topics, at the very least fully sourced edits and formats must be made as a compromise. Otherwise let's have every major conglomerate on here posting whatever emotive or unreliable forms facts they like and no real decent research. You know just what I mean, you've registered and rightly so. - Adam37 Talk 19:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I think VE is a pile of steaming junk, but even I oppose this idea. After all, unregistered users and brand-new users are who the VE is for - take VE away from them, and you may as well bin it altogether (which I wouldn't oppose, personally; but that's irrelevant to this subthread) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - the whole point of VE is to retain new editors. What is the point of it otherwise? What is the point of this stupid proposal? Dumbass. Richard75 (talk) 17:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Per my comments above: this, right here, is the problem we have with retaining new users. It has nothing to do with supposed 'difficulties' with plaintext editing.
As for the other posters above, I believe that it would be warranted to nix functions that massively expanded vandalism on the site, but I think the evidence so far is that there hasn't been (much? any? of) a spike since this went live. But maybe that low rate's just because the editor's currently so buggy... ;) — LlywelynII 18:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per everyone above. Absolutely tedious idea. Insulam Simia (talk) 19:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find this really hard to answer, as your question is 2 questions in one. Personally, I don't think the VE should be available to anons in its present form. Once the major problems are ironed out though, I think it should become widely available to everyone, including IP users. If, and only if, it is shown that having the VE available to anonymous users causes a increase in vandalism, then we should have a conversation about whether or not to allow IP users to be able to use the VE. ALH (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose I find it disgusting that the second reason was suggested. I don't think it corresponds at all to the general values of the Wikimedia community. The whole idea behind Wikipedia was to create an encyclopedia that anyone could edit; if we scare new users away and intentionally don't add features that could make it easier for them to edit just because we don't want them to vandalize, then we're assuming bad faith and we're preventing them from becoming experienced and active editors that contribute regularly. I also think the first reason is incorrect: obviously, VisualEditor isn't ready, but saying that it isn't close to being ready is (in my opinion) exaggerating. It will not be ready tomorrow, but it will certainly be ready in a year, and even in some months. It is already completely usable right now, and if the admittedly astonishing number of bugs was lowered and some important features (table editing in particular) were added, then it could be said to almost be ready. Obviously that can be done in less than 6 months, surely in much less than that, and hopefully soon. -- Rastus Vernon (talk) 21:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I feel that wikimarkup is easy to learn, but to even attempt to understand it requires a certain level of dedication. If we add VE for non members, then we would offering an interface that essentially facilitates easy, anonymous, and noncommittal edits. More than vandalism, I fear we would see an influx of a large number of small, unpolished edits. It's shouldn't be about preventing vandalism, it should be about encouraging healthy growth of the community.

Comment: I totally disagree with the second reason given, but: I think that the push by the WMF to introduce the Visual Editor early despite its faults and shortcomings is based on a misunderstanding of what the main problem for new editors nowadays is: It's not the user interface. The main problem lays deeper, at the content level, and there's not really a fix for it. Wikipedia simply has grown a lot and is now offering at least reasonably useful content for the majority of everyday subjects people are looking for; e.g. whether you want an article about bread, Beethoven, the sun, or dolphins, you get one. In the beginning of Wikipedia, the typical user encountered many glaring gaps, many of which were quite easy to fill, which was a great incentive for contributing. There are still lots of gaps, of course, many articles to write and many to improve, but it's getting harder because the still missing content is often harder to research and there are higher quality standards. So, if you don't feel compelled to contribute at all because there's already an article on the subject you were looking up, or if you feel that it would be too hard to research something missing (e.g. historical facts about a lesser known American town which aren't online), a Visual Editor will not change this at all. To summarize - the "issue of new editors" is a content issue, not an interface issue! Gestumblindi (talk) 21:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose Wasn't the editor implemented for the new and inexperienced editor sin the first place? Petter Bøckman (talk) 23:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The idea of presenting inexperienced users with more difficult-to-use software in an effort to discourage them from editing is obviously absurd. If vandalism becomes a serious issue, we have other ways of dealing with that - but I don't anticipate it would be any worse than it is now. Dcoetzee 23:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose. The second reason is not a good reason at all, and I also disagree with the first reason. APerson (talk!) 01:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. C6541 (TalkContribs) 03:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. — Like my comments above, I want VE is easier to use and become an advantage for registered accounts. — Vic2908 (talk) 04:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Once the program leaves the beta stage, there's no reason to withhold it from anyone. Holdek (talk) 07:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong opposeTheDJ (talkcontribs) 07:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose I am happy with how it is now. As long as the better editor is given more prominence and the new one is marked as beta.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Banning VE would be justified only if VE were doing more harm than good. So far, most of the complaints from long-term editors have been that VE simply doesn't work very well -- although there have also been some complaints that it also occasionally damages articles. Cwkmail (talk) 10:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support per OP. — Richard BB 11:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose. Reason #2 is almost offensive, btw... Azx2 15:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Half the point of VE is to encourage new users and show people how easy it is. --Sgtlion (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose. "we shouldn't make it that easy for unregistered users to mess about in the article space" is completely contrary to the Wikipedia core mission. We absolutely want to make that as clear and easy as possible. — Shmuel (talk) 20:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Option i: weak support. Option ii: Oppose. Even if the software is not ready for general use, there is no evidence that opening up the ability to edit has or will increase the incidence of vandalism or decrease quality, and to say so is to assume a lot. --anamedperson (talk) 04:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support The one who want to use the tool can easily create an account. The beta version is only confusing for wikipedia-novices. Uncle Scrooge (talk) 12:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support I think the way this software was forced on users and editors by surprise with no discussion and no consensus goes against the spirit of Wikipedia. I think of Wikipedia as a consensus-run organization and the way this was very top-down. This proposal I think represents an attempt to salvage the consensus-based aspect of this change, which I think is a major decision. Cazort (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose While I agree with reason 1, reason 2 is completely against the spirit of a wiki. While I dislike Visual Editor, some users may not; a visual editor can be useful, but only once it's ready, and if it is not forced onto everyone. Let's not wage war on unregistered users, but at the same time, let's also remember that there are non-newcomers, who would like to see changes that, instead of simplifying, give editors more editing power (source editor is often cited as preferable due to being more powerful). Brambleclawx 23:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on principle any proposal to make it harder for new users to edit. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Comment -- hello, this is me checking in on the discussion; things seem to have moved on to further debates further down, but i'd like to reply to some of the counter-arguements raised here, in any case.

what is boils down to is this:

i absolutely understand that the goal is to "fix wikipedia" by getting (& keeping) more editors, i support that goal, & i think that making it easier for committed users to edit is a good idea, BUT...

is it REALLY asking that much, for new users to have to create a user account, before we give them access to the "power tools"?

they don't have to provide their real name, or identification;

they don't even have to provide an email address.

is it really TOO MUCH to ask that people should have a user name & password, to demonstrate some minimal level of intelligence, commitment to the project, & ACCOUNTABILITY for their actions (not to mention account security) BEFORE we give them access to a tool that will allow {anyone who can point, click, & type} to go through the article-space with a buzz-saw?

because i'm not saying "scrap the VE project" (even if the results, thus far, are crap & the "rollout" was VERY badly handled).

& i'm not saying "do not allow NEW USERS to use VE",

what i'm saying is "IT IS NOT A GOOD IDEA TO LET RANDOM ANONYMOUS USERS HAVE ACCESS TO THIS TOOL" & if we are going to do so, then at the very LEAST, it should be a clear community decision (on this one, specific issue), before we pull the trigger...

Lx 121 (talk) 13:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose, It should still direct the user to wikitext editor but link to VE at the bottom of the wikitext edit page. [[User:Mainline421Prabash.]][[User Talk:Mainline421 17:06, 4 August 2013 (BST)

Support -- Vandalization is enough of a problem without streamlining the process. While there are certainly legitimate reasons one might prefer to make useful edits anonymously, I suspect that number is a lot lower than the number of anonymous vandals. Any WYSIWYG-style editor should be for registered users only. The Rev (talk) 16:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support. Obviously we would need to have a community consensus before enabling this tool to anyone except those who opt-in themselves, and the tool is capable of seriously messing up articles because only those who are aware of its significant limitations compared to editing the source will be careful enough when using it. Tataral (talk) 18:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think if the point is to make it as easy to change things as a typical word-processing document, it needs to require a sign-in, and perhaps even some way to "authorize" users. My concern is just that things get way out of hand, not because I don't want to everyone to have access to information and to contribute, but because there are those out there that do not care for others and do not think far enough ahead to understand the consequences for their actions. JC Berger (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose WP should be user-friendly. Dadge (talk) 19:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. People who wish to contribute to Wikipedia should stand behind their work to the extent that they identify themselves, if only with an account username/handle. I feel that I see too much WP vandalism as it is. (Doesn't help, of course, that I follow UFC content.) There is, of course, the complicating factor of people who need anonymity for personal/political reasons, so I have downgraded my "strong support" to mere "support". Demodave (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Strong Support. Archolman User talk:Archolman 22:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support. I feel that with the vandalism that comes with Wikipedia they should not be able to edit with visual editor. Vis edit should be like Anon Edit Block of page (you have to be auto-verified to use Visual Editor). Etineskid(talk) 01:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Strong Support Why place the burden of debugging on very new editors? In addition to some of the other reasons above
[reply]

  • When using some browsers and you try an edit using Visual Editor you can get the message "This browser is not officially supported"... and then VE lets you go ahead and make the edit! This is true for at least the Silk browser on the Amazon Kindle Fire HD.
  • At the very least how about a sand box version of VE for unregistered editors until a stable version of VE is reached; THEN make it available to all, with VE the default editor. Neonorange (talk) 06:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support. WP already has a near-catastrophic level of vandalism and just plain bad editing from IP users. I would estimate that >90% of the anon user edits on pages I watch are either vandalism or objectively wrong, and 90% of the useful edits are just fixing typos. The top level of admins and others promoting IP user editing seem to fail to realize that it's the necessity of maintaining article quality against the onslaught of garbage from these people that's driving good editors away (myself among them). There's no reason to encourage them by putting edit links everywhere on the page and making vandalism that much easier to do. KarlM (talk) 05:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose. There should be no difference in how wikipedia treats those editors who choose to be anonymous compared to those who don't. Morgan Leigh Talk 12:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support - but then I believe (a) it shouldn't be too easy for vandals and (b) it should be different for those who choose to remain anonymous. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a chat room for trolls. Heenan73 (talk) 21:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose. Vandalism is a separate issue, and is just as easy to perform using wikicode. Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia than anyone can edit, and we should not be impeding new users, as a matter of principle. Tebello TheWHAT!!?? 09:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This proposal would reduce vandalism considerably, BUT it would go too far in limiting the ability for unregistered users to edit Wikipedia. I think having the Visual Editor be disabled by default and be opt-in and carry a warning message is the best way to go, there's no reason to ban it completely from being used by unregistered users, that's going too far. 90% of the relevant vandalism can be eliminated by making it disabled by default, opt-in, and having a warning message, there's no reason to disable it COMPLETELY, that's overkill. --Yetisyny (talk) 20:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Extremly strong agree. It's good that have VE, however it's actually good to be have original edit area like Wikipedia is originally source only. And Wikipedia should not be too alike wikia in editing. And also, I have cause many corruption indeliberately when using VE. 42.60.254.205 (talk) 01:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Regardless of the potential of vandalism and other malicious edits, to disable would be to fundamentally oppose one of the core principles of Wikipedia; Anyone can edit and should be able to do so in the most efficient way we can offer. I can appreciate the desire to restrict to confirmed users but am vehemently opposed in principal. We should not be handicapping any editors. Tstorm(talk) 02:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose. The whole point of VE is to make it easier for total beginners to contribute, whether they are logged in or not. To give an example, there is a vast army of older (60s, 70s, 80s), extremely well-educated people who are not extremely computer-literate, who are retired, and who have a lot of time on their hands. These people have a lifetime of professional experience in one or more fields, and they are very knowledgeable and responsible. Currently those people are using the encyclopedia every day, but they are not making any edits. We need to be able to attract the expertise of those people to build the encyclopedia. If they try using the VE to make simple edits, they may be delighted to see they can actually do some real work here without having to learn code first. I am 65 and unusual in my age group that I did not find the wiki markup much of a barrier, but we must let older people know that Wikipedia needs their work too, and have an open door for them. Invertzoo (talk) 13:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be daft. Editors without an account and editors who are not logged in to their account are not second class citizens, and should be presented with the same choice in text or visual editor. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per the three oppose votes immediately above this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thryduulf (talkcontribs)
  • Oppose. We should treat anons like any other editor; and anons are more likely to start editing with VE. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose No reason for this as I've already outlined above the the need for community support to in case it becomes too easy for people to edit fundamentally misses the point of the VE and wikipedia. If vandalism really get's that bad (which I'm not aware has really happened) or whatever, we need to look at other ways to handle it, not making it hard to edit for making it hard's sake. To put it a different way, worst case scenario we require registration for all editors, we don't say 'you can edit, but only if it's hard to edit, if you want it to be easy to edit, register'. Nil Einne (talk) 01:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2. That visual editor should be shelved completely, and things go back to how they were before.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reasons for this: ""Agreed"" Shouldn't we let features be added to articles like infoboxes? I also agree with the answer below too. What was wrong with the editing base we have now. It is a 21st Century skill. Didn't webs.com contribute to a lot of cheap websites and trash the idea of web innovation? Lets not let wikipedia get to that spot. It is already trashed for school research projects since "anyone can edit it". Techdude3331 (talk) 18:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with the old system? I came back to Wikipedia after some time off and was shocked...shocked at this new visual editor thing. My first edits were asking what exactly this was at the Reference Desk. It was bewildering. I read on the WP:VE page that the developers thought that Wikimarkup somehow was too complex and "wouldn't do in 2013" or something to that effect. I don't know why, aren't kids today even more tech-savvy then they were in 2001? This Visual editor thing just seems to be another example of the "dumbing down" of society in general. We should just can VE, and have the traditional editing the only kind available. Herzlicheboy (talk) 17:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree with you. I don't think that Wikipedia need any VE - we've successfully created articles for many years, so why should we change anything?--Soul Train (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - It's a huge POS, frankly. - Who is John Galt? 18:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed VE is a pain in the rear for experienced people like myself. Just put it out of its misery and remember this about the traditional editing system: "if it ain't broke, then don't fix it..." Jay (talk) 04:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Please put the visual computer crasher out of its misery. petrarchan47tc 19:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Totally Agree far too much time and money has already been spent on this, but we know WMF are so intent upon it, that they will not listen. Arjayay (talk) 19:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree WYSIWYG is no good. (If you do decide to keep Visual Editor: Make it an option on the registration form, leave it disabled by default for existing users, and for anonymous users show a "edit visual" and "edit source" tabs) --Zzo38 (talk) 19:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree VE just doesn't have the abilities that "Edit Source" has. buffbills7701 19:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. While VE is certainly not yet ready, nor even close, it does have potential. If there was a functional form of VE, it would be nice to have as another option at the very least. I have confidence that WMF will get it right eventually. Not everyone is technically savvy, and even non-technically savvy people should have the ability to productively edit the wiki. Tazerdadog (talk) 19:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the problem with something new, if the old is left in place? It is not a replacement (yet), they are parallel. I'm not using VE, but don't object to others using it. Why not just ignore it?Sammy D III (talk) 19:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The VE would be really nice if done correctly, but unfortunately, that isn't currently the case. While I don't think it's usable now, which is why I haven't logged an edit with it, once they fix some of the bugs and glitches, I'd be more than willing to try it out again. All the time and money spent on it makes just trashing it now even more wasteful. TCN7JM 19:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The wheel wasn't round enough, huh? Gotta reinvent it? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. They aren't mutually exclusive, so why should we drop one? Someone might have a taste for the VE. Personally, I'm sticking with the source editor, and the only improvement I would like to see is a color-coding system to make is easy to distinguish prose from comments and ref tags.Kurzon (talk) 20:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. VE will create cascading problems related to vandalism and introducing new users to serious editing. The system will require significant readjustment, which will be nothing but a massive waste of time. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 21:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - This particular RfC is pointless. We already know how much of damn the WMF give about what the users think; and they're certainly not going to shelve this, and they wouldn't even if they bowed to the consensus with everything else. In fact, asking them to do so is borderline absurd. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. This argument seems to violate WP:Assume Good Faith as it's reading negative intentions into the WMF, and on a more objective level, I simply don't agree with it. I think that if there were a strong consensus of editors to oppose this tool, the WMF would probably abandon this project--and that is actually what looks like is happening here. WMF makes do with very limited human resources and I don't think they'd really want to support a project that was this unpopular among editors. Cazort (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh... have you ignored everything surrounding this farcical software? The WMF ignored requests to give a proper off switch (which they still haven't done), they ignored the obvious fact that this piece of shit isn't ready for widespread release, and forced it on new editors, despite the fact that even experienced editors were experiencing severe technical difficulties... the WMF haven't shown any interest in the community's views whatsoever. Almost every single comment by a WMF editor is either aimed at the small minority who actually like the VE, or is designed to completely miss the points people make. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, the original editor was fine on its own, and VisualEditor is a buggy mess. WikiRedactor (talk) 21:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, even with the bugs, I find simple edits (adding items to lists, typos) to be much simpler with the Visual Editor. Once it's fixed, it could be the simple WYSIWYG method for average users. Kupiakos (talk) 21:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, I appreciate the idea, but it doesn't work as intended. It's slower, and nowhere near as intuitive as even the most basic UBB software "comment" boxes. I think the standard edit screen works - it just needs more UBB style tools for inserting links / refs etc. Koncorde (talk) 21:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - put the wretched thing out of its misery.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 21:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, Too many problems. People want to edit here at WP not test buggy software....William 22:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The software was never ready for primetime and despite the glaring issues, some of which the devs refuse to work on (heads need to roll for that) it was still effectively forced on us. It needs to go away, if not indefinitely, then until every major bug is fixed. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 22:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. It allows for more errors by non-registered users. Icarus of old (talk) 22:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree it is startling, slow to load and non-intuitive. - Nbpolitico (talk) 22:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. There will always be users who can't use it due to slow hardware or whatever, but every single other publishing platform on the web has a GUI editor, and the vast majority of our editors do not have the time or inclination to learn markup just to make basic prose edits. Some people who want to take down the VE are the same people arguing that anons shouldn't be allowed to edit because they're mostly vandals, a prejudicial concept which is not borne out by the facts. Dcoetzee 23:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Woah, so many fallacies here. First: Bandwagon fallacy. Other sites are not Wikipedia (and most of them are not even wikis). Second: You don't have to learn any markup at all to make basic prose edits in most cases, even if it is helpful to know, and advanced markup can be totally ignored. Third: What is stated without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. That said, I'd argue that anons are mostly vandals, POV warriors, crackpots and cranks or at best unhelpful, this being the bitter daily experience at Wikipedia. Yes, there are expert anons who make useful changes. One of a hundred edits, and that's a highly optimistic estimate. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 08:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a user who opposes the new VE on the basis of its ease of use. To clarify, my concern about the increased ease of use of the editor is not about vandals--vandalism is a problem that is, IMHO, easy to control on Wikipedia and not among the largest problems faced by the site. Simple reverts, IP blocks, and semiprotection of pages combine to provide an adequate solution to vandalism. My concern is about how the VE hides the internal workings of the site and makes it harder for both anonymous and casual users to become familiar with how Wikipedia is structured. I am also concerned that any user who doesn't want to invest the very small amount of time necessary to fiddle with and understand the old editor (which seems to me to be very straightforward and easy to use, much simpler than HTML), would be unlikely to want to invest the much greater amount of time necessary to make responsible edits that respect Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. My opposition is not about the VE facilitating vandalism, it's about the old editor creating responsible and knowledgeable editors. Cazort (talk) 17:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Even seasoned webpage developers who have been building websites since the mid-'90s still primary rely on text editors, and code their html by hand, and shun away from visual editors (WYSIWYG). All visual editors make assumptions, and far too often those assumptions are wrong, and I don't see a web based visual editor ever achieving more (or equal) to what a coded and compiled visual editor can achieve. At the most, Wikipedia should default to its extended text-based editing (extended, meaning the little tool bar at the top), but can have a button above (or perhaps to on the right hand side of) the toolbar allowing those who want to use a visual editor to switch to that (on websites I have built that allow common users to edit content, I usually have two buttons at the top of the text-based wiki editor saying "Edit as HTML" and "Edit using WYSIWYG", and those buttons change if they switch to a different editor to allow the option to return to text-based wiki-like markup; however, the default is always the text-based wiki-like markup). From my own testing of WP's Visual Editor, IMHO, it is atrocious, and I agree with the above user who called it a POS. — al-Shimoni (talk) 23:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It may not be perfect, but a lot easier than what we had. Petter Bøckman (talk) 23:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as per Petter Bøckman APerson (talk!) 01:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, the idea of VE is good. In the future, VE will hopefully be a good companion to the existing standard editor with server-side rendering on submit. What VE needs in the mean-time is more time for stabilising, speeding up, and debugging. —Sladen (talk) 01:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You've just given the only argument in favor of the VE that I hear as remotely convincing--i.e. that it could take the load off servers by having rendering done on the local machine. I kind of like this aspect of the VE, but I'd rather have this be separated out. I'm not convinced of your first point "the idea of VE is good" -- on what grounds? I see ways in which the idea of a VE can be bad, like hiding the structure and workings of Wikipedia from editors in ways that make it harder for them to learn and understand how the site is really organized. Cazort (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I don't like it personally, but I am not against progress. Maybe it will improve. It simply lacks the functionality of the markup method. I remember having hard time moving from WordPerfect to Word for the same reason. I realize I'm dating myself with the last comment! Verne Equinox (talk) 01:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with the implication here that a bug-free VE would constitute "progress". I think this point needs discussion on its own merits. I think the old editor helps people to understand the structure of the Wiki and I think the potential losses by enabling people to use a WYSIWYG could exceed the potential gains in terms of ease-of-use. You may not agree, but I think this point needs discussion, not just assuming that a VE is inherently "better" or "progress". Cazort (talk) 17:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Wikipedia is not difficult to edit. It can be done (and IS done) by children and pensioners and everyone in between. We all took a few minutes, at the start, to learn how to do this, which is not only entirely reasonable, but is actually something I would expect to do on any type of project I was taking seriously. If your pipe leaks, do you want it fixed by a plumber with a toolkit or by a passer-by with a big hammer? Visual Editor is clumsy and crude, like taking a big hammer to the project instead of a toolkit. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 01:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, more or less. I have been sensitive to the issue of WYSIWYG vs markup for a number of years, and I submit there never is true WYSIWYG (Drupal, Wordpress, whatever, all need to be tweaked using HTML). That being said, I wouldn't want to deprive anyone from using the tool of their choice. I am a programmer by training, so markup comes naturally, and I like the power to get things to look the way I intend, not merely for aesthetic reasons but to add meaning to the text. I tried the WP visual editor but probably will never use it in the future. LaurentianShield (talk) 02:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose. VE is undeniably leagues more user-friendly than editing lines of code and will likely attract more capable editors to Wikipedia. It may not be perfect, and it still has bugs, but I cannot fathom why some editors would seek to deny other people the choice to use it. If you don't like it, don't use it, and it won't hurt you. Period. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find the VE more user-friendly for the way I like to edit. I'm someone who feels more at home editing source and I feel like the VE hides the structure of the page and the wiki from me. It's not so much that I object to the idea of people having the choice to use it, it's the idea that I don't want Wikipedia providing and endorsing the editor on an official level without a consensus of editors to the effect that that choice is a good idea. If we had an ongoing discussion and decided that we had a VE that an overwhelming majority of editors wanted to support, or if we could reason that the VE were more in the spirit and goals of the organization, then I could support it. Right now though there's no consensus and it seems there's a stronger feeling opposing this editor. It seems completely against how Wikipedia is normally run to have this editor be integrated into the site when the consensus is leaning towards opposition of it. Cazort (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you would agree that by saying you are more at home with editing source code puts you in a minority. Most people don't know how (or care to know how) an email is encoded, but use that technology daily. The same should apply to adding information to Wikipedia. The goal is not to learn another formatting syntax, but to enable anyone to easily add and edit content. That's what makes Wikipedia great. We often forget in these discussions that there are tons more people at home with at WYSIWYG editor and that while Wikipedia is a huge part of many peoples lives, it is still a small percentage of a persons experiences.Ckoerner (talk) 13:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ckoerner; the majority of internet users simply do not feel more at home editing code. And importantly, allowing the use of VE does not take away your ability to edit code, so if you feel more at home doing so, you are unaffected. I still fail to see how limiting other editors' choices is an improvement. (As for the argument that there is no established consensus among editors for implementing VE, there also was not an established consensus for using wikimarkup (or using it exclusively) when Wikipedia started, and I see that argument as little more than a red herring.) –Prototime (talk · contribs) 20:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree: The visual editor should be removed it can cause vandalism by users using visual editor. Most of the stuff I seen use by visual editor are very much meaningless, disruptive and confusing. I've also seen users vandalized article with visual editor. It's apparent that visual editor is causing more problems than it solves. Therefore, I think it should be removed permanently and not come back. BattleshipMan (talk) 02:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose, for same reasons as Prototime. - Darwin/Peacock [Talk] 02:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot Agree More I use an iOS device to edit most things at times and to bypass VE and use "the old way" in certain instances takes forever to get into. Even using VE itself with a non-PC is difficult, for me anyway. — Wyliepedia 03:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Per above C6541 (TalkContribs) 03:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Even if it ultimately proves to be a failure (and I do not think we are anywhere near that point), I do agree that it is important to try new things. I don't think this particular deploy-to-default exercise was a good idea, but I do think VE is one that has lots of room to develop. Risker (talk) 04:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Agree What exactly is the "problem" that VE is supposed to fix? I've used the VE a few times now and I intensely dislike it. I hate this continual dumbing down of everything, do not forget the old saying that the trouble with trying to make a thing fool-proof is that if you succeed only a fool will want to use it. - Nick Thorne talk 04:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. — As my comments above, I think VE is the future, and we should face it. The past one can be an option, but VE should be default. It just need some improvements. Anyway, people would be more familiar with it over time. — Vic2908 (talk) 05:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- As per Gestumblindi, there are deeper-seated issues at stake. Another vital aspect overlooked by the VE is that various hidden code (<--- Don't change date --->; <---Comments made to self about what goes where --->; <--- Community rulings & warnings --->, etc.) aren't visible! We can look forward to a mess with registered users already having inadvertently deleted hidden comments/code. Yes, that HAS already been happening. There is no reason why it wouldn't be nice to have a intuitive WYSIWYG editor except for the fact that, at source level, there's a lot more going on than a WYSIWYG editor can deal with. Current contributors can barely keep on top of cleaning up messes. How will anyone be able to stay on top of huge tracts of information getting lost in the editing? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree for the same reasons as Timothy Titus. Visual editor is a pain. Arre 06:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support – We have more than enough problems already, mostly with newbies, and the reason is exactly that explained by Gestumblindi: Newbies can't be helpful anymore in most cases. The project is at such an advanced state now that the signal-to-noise ratio in newbie edits has become abysmal. If I had the say, I'd protect all articles above a certain length (articles where there is not much to contribute to anymore, as opposed to stubs) completely against newbie edits because monitoring them against vandalism, good-faith but unhelpful edits, or ignorant or downright malicious POV-pushing by Randies in Boise, nationalists and crackpots is a total pain in the arse, and drain on the project. It's not worth keeping the article open for editing by anyone. If knowledgeable good-faith newbies want to contribute, they need to use edit requests on the talk page. We aren't building an encyclopedia anymore, we are out of that phase: we already have an encyclopedia, and are in the maintenance phase, where we have need to protect the work that has been done so far and keep it from degrading. Anything that helps us with that goal, whether flagged revisions, pending changes, or what have you, is now needed. We have to face it: the encyclopedia that everyone can edit is only an invitation to vandalism now, and an idealist principle that doesn't work anymore at this stage and hasn't been true for a long time now. It's outdated, it's become a lie and we need to acknowledge that. Let's stop this constant source of frustration for our most valuable editors. The editors we need the most are already working on the project, significant new blood is not likely to be on the horizon and the trend we already have, namely the trend towards a Wikipedia where most edits consist of fixing vandalism, nonsense and low-quality contributions, won't encourage the new blood we actually want to attract, namely experts. All the cumbersome and off-putting bureaucracy is not there because of them. It's needed because of the vandals and POV warriors. The keep growing or die principle is as wrong for Wikipedia as it is for economy. Quality is far more important than quantity when it comes to new editors. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 07:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

^This, right here, is the attitude that's killing Wikipedia: 'We already have an encyclopaedia, now let's stop newbies from touching it'. It's nothing more than pull-up-the-drawbridge elitism, and utterly wrongheaded. Wikipedia's biggest problem at the moment is a dwindling supply of new editors. If the WMF adopted the kind of strategy you outline, the project will slowly but surely grind to a halt and die out. Robofish (talk) 13:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
^This elitism is very disappointing but, unfortunately, not surprising. As such, I Oppose the RFC. Azx2 15:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have no actual arguments against what I'm stating (only baseless speculation, again, and the old red herring "elitism"). Likely because it's the sad truth. Note that Gestumblindi was the first one to point this out, not me. Don't attack the messenger just because you don't like the message.
Also, note that I'm not against newbies editing stubs, where there is not a lot to break yet. However, most of our articles are far too long and near impossible to monitor, we just don't have the manpower. I see articles degrading through incompetent edits all the time, edits which are usually so old that you can't simply hit undo and it's a lot of work and a royal pain in the arse to undo their effects. You just don't realise the extent of that problem.
Perhaps the real problem is that our articles are too long, though. Shorter articles would be easier to monitor. Still, there would be even many more articles, which would compensate for their shortness and in the end nothing would be won. It all comes down to the fact that manpower is our biggest problem. But monitoring articles is unsexy, tedious and frustrating work and VE won't attract the editors we need, I'm afraid. In fact I am quite sure that nothing will. Almost nobody wants to do this kind of work, and few are competent enough in the first place.
That VE will attract those editors we need, namely experts (and we need them in vast numbers because there is just so much work to do), remains an unproven and even doubtful assumption. As long as the evidence is not there, nor even proper attempts to make this plausible, I remain skeptical. All I have seen are ex cathedra pronouncements. VE is running on faith not evidence. Good faith perhaps, but still faith, which is not enough. It's wishful thinking.
If you don't think that most newbies are vandals or at least unhelpful, and that VE is genuinely helpful for newbies, prove it. I have seen otherwise. Daily experience constantly flies in the face of this belief. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It seems like a handy tool for those who choose to use it. Holdek (talk) 07:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - So far I have seen no argument against the Visual Editor that would warrant its removal. Yes, the VE is still (far to) buggy and lacks support for many Wiki elements, but that is a concern that time and development will take care of. Neither do I agree that the VE will cause more vandalism; If a person's only goal is causing damage any tool can be abused without too much of an effort. Finally, the argument that the VE will attract the wrong type of editor or tries to solve a non existing problem is nonsensical. Not every person is computer literate, and not every (casual) editor is interested in learning wiki syntax before contributing to an article. Wikisytax can act as a quality filter for new editors, but far to often it will also bar the passage of topically knowledgeable editors we would like to have around. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 07:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed. So far, that's only a hypothesis without substantiation. You can always add plain text (including plain text refs) to an article, and if it's useful it will be integrated and wikified. The problem is just that in 99.99% of all cases it is not. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 08:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Florian Blaschke: I agree that my own comment is partially based on assumptions. However, any call to prematurely scrap the visual editor over concerns that it might result in an increase of vandalism is equally unproven (And borders on a "baby and the bathwater" case). You're definitely right that it is possible to paste plain text and citations into an article. However, how many editors would choose to paste plain text in an otherwise correctly formatted article? This situation was raised as a prime concern by new editors: They didn't want to break the article / didn't want to paste sub par content in it (Sub par being defined as unformatted). On the other hand: Editors of the calibre "Lets add 'He Is Awesome!' after every line" are arguably less prone to such self-restraint since they have little clue as to what is encyclopaedic in the first place. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 10:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, evidence please. New editors have always the talk page if they don't dare to touch the article itself, we just need to promote the awareness of talk pages much more; talk pages are awesome. Note that I have never claimed that the VE will result in an increase of vandalism – that's again just a knee-jerk assumption you are making, and one that is frankly offensive to me –, just that it doesn't even begin to address the real problems with Wikipedia. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest possible oppose: per excirial —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 07:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The idea behind VE is sane (ie to lower the learning curve for new users by presenting then with a familiar WYSIWIG interface instead of a Wikipedia specific markup language). In addition, I find VE easier to use as you don't have to scan through tons of wikimarkup in order to find the place in the text you want to change. This is especially true when there are lots of citations in the text. Of course, someone things are always easier to do in code; The "edit source" option is great as well. --Frederico1234 (talk) 09:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with every fibre of my being. Normally I don't accept WP:BATHWATER arguments, but this really is just more effort than it's worth. — Richard BB 09:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree We are now in pain in Russian Wikipedia because of this thing. I’ve never reverted more good will edits (they were distorted by VE and turned to vandalism). — kf8 09:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose We need a visual editor. It should get better in time. With the position of the edit buttons moved I am now okay with it live. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The present version of VE has problems, but the basic idea of making the editing of Wikipedia more like using Microsoft's Word processor is reasonable. As noted above, wading through a sea of wiki markup text is often confusing and learning html markup is probably daunting for many. Will VE make vandalism easier? Yes, but presumably existing methods for handling the routine vandalism -- deleting whole pages, inserting obscenities, inserting repeated characters, etc. -- will be able to keep pace. Cwkmail (talk) 11:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Particularly with ref to User:Kf8 point above. Apart from the beta bugs, adequately described, the VE makes it so much easier for hit-and-run IPs and newly-created users to vandalise pages, and would give serious editors even more clean up work. This extra workload could be self-defeating for WP by driving away serious editors and not significantly increasing the number of those dedicated. If the VE becomes permanent I hope there will be a study on the increased - or not - occurrence of vandalism, and through this a subsequent review of VE. Acabashi (talk) 11:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stongly Agree Per above. Visual editor is annoying and a big pain. If some users want to edit, well they will need to learn how to use it, like we all to do. Totally agree with Zzo38.(If you do decide to keep Visual Editor: Make it an option on the registration form, leave it disabled by default for existing users, and for anonymous users show a "edit visual" and "edit source" tabs).

Strongly Agree The Visual Editor simply isn't good enough, end of. I've tried to use it several times, but it's hopeless. This is a wiki, not a blog - WYSIWYG arguments make far less sense in a wiki environment. Mpjmcevoy (talk) 11:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose. Stop trying to hold back progress just because you’ve taken the effort to get comfortable with something unnecessarily hard to use and don’t want the generations after you to have it easier. — Timwi (talk) 12:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very strongly agree. I've never known Wikipedia come up with such a lousy piece of crap in all the time I've been here. If this was Facebook, I might expect some roll-out of new software which would make the site less user-friendly and less intuitive for dedicated editors, whilst simultaneously making it easier for vandals to get in, do their damage, and get out. The shortcomings in terms of being able to use wikimarkup with VisualEditor will mean either a lot of headscratching from new (and also experienced) editors, or a return to the bad old days of having a significant proportion of Wikipedia articles with no markup and requiring clean-up squads to follow editors around like nannies. The old markup was masterable in about 30 seconds, even for someone with no previous knowledge of any form of markup language. The VisualEditor, by comparison, looks like a childish version of MSWord, itself a piece of software which is often inadequate for the task it's supposed to perform (writers don't joke about their computers "sadly suffering from MS" for nothing). If that has been used as a model for what we want, I'd suggest that instead some actually useful piece of software is used as a basis. Adobe hasn't redesigned Photoshop to work like Etch-a-sketch; Wikipedia shouldn't redesign itself to work like MSWord. Wikipedia is usually more sensible than that. It's also usually far more sensible than to roll out buggy software before it's anywhere near being properly usable. All the shortcomings which it looks clear that VisualEditor would have if it were working properly are compounded by this ludicrous decision. Given that the best that has been said for the bugs is "it should get better in time" (note: not it will, but it should), I suggest that the software and its documentation be placed in a steel case with several large pieces of concrete and tossed overboard by a ship passing over the Marianas Trench. Grutness...wha? 12:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Strong Oppose. "Dumbing down" should be a good thing. VisualEditor certainly has potential to simplify editing on Wikipedia, but some time, patience and bugfixing is required. For all those that complain it'll make it easier for people to vandalise - that can be fixed. Can't use complex wikicode with it? That can be fixed. Pl<nowiki></nowiki>acing [[unwarranted]] <nowiki> tags in articles? That can be fixed. Every valid complaint here can be fixed. Don't kill a work in progress. Insulam Simia (talk) 12:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


(edit conflict)Oppose. We might all be used to wikitext, but there's little doubt in my mind that it's unnecessarily complicated and offputting to people. Some of it's offputting to me and I've been editing here for nine and a half years. The Visual Editor has the potential to be a great step forward for us. The Land (talk) 12:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC) - even dealing with an edit conflict takes up two minutes!!![reply]

Strong Oppose. If you don't like it, don't use it, but I see no reason to stop other editors from using it. At the moment VisualEditor has some problems, but also significant advantages over wikimarkup; even if there's significant opposition to it at the moment, it should one day be the default option for editing Wikipedia, and we should be gradually moving towards that position. Objecting to it even being an option seems like head-in-the-sand refusal to accept change for its own sake, and failure to recognise what's in the long-term best interests of the project. Robofish (talk) 13:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly agree. One of the most worldwide visited sites should have only one care: QUALITY. ^musaz 14:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Agree I agree with this statement in general, but would be 100% behind it if it read "This visual editor should be shelved until fully beta tested by experienced Wikipedia editors, and it works in both main and talk pages." Otherwise, new editors are presented with two systems to learn to fully participate in the project. Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly agree, IMO VE's been nothing but a pain in the arse since launch!!. -
→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support The visual editor is horrible, I turned it off after one day and most of the users on Wikipedia have done the same. Rainbow Shifter (talk) 15:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - It just isn't needed. These days people are a lot more tech-savvy than they ever were, and stating that wiki-markup is archaic and hard to work with is ludicrous. In any case, getting more familiar with the inner-workings of webpages is a very useful skill in today's world. I completely agree with the assertions made by Herzlicheboy; and it's pretty much my stance on any major interface change here on Wikipedia. --Yellow1996 (talk) 16:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Oppose. People have a problem with change all the time. Once the bugs are ironed out people will come to like it. This is a step in the right direction - easy accessibility and quick work. This another step in the stairs to an ultimate compendium of human knowledge. --Sgtlion (talk) 16:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly agree Wikimarkup is not hard to learn. VE makes it too easy for interlopers with no real interest in strengthening Wikipedia to mess up articles.Goodsdrew (talk) 17:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very strongly agree. Take it off the general offering now and create a pilot group of users behind the scenes who interested in ironing out ALL the bugs -- before introducing to the general populace. And then, it should be OPT-IN only for registered users. Don't fix something that isn't broken and force people to use it before it's ready. HiTrish (talk) 17:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly agree It is not needed. Bugs can be taken out and changes are fine as long as they help Wikipedia become better. Yet, this is NOT "another step to an ultimate compendium of human knowledge", this is a step towards reducing Wikipedia to a social network level. I have removed it from my settings but I keep seeing it when not logged in and I find it the worst idea that I have seen implemented in my 7 years here. If one cannot come to terms with wikimarkup I doubt the same will ever come to terms with all the policies and guidelines. Hoverfish Talk 18:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly agree. It avoids people using basic tools of analysis and emulation which this "forum" demonstrates with people copying each other's comments. As to quick work, that is no substitute for detailed work, such as colourful tables, tailored boxes and pictures, basic use of templates such as {{clear}}, and good presentation. In short don't turn this beautiful corner of the web inadvertently into some bland dictionary or belittle people by suggesting it's far more than they can handle. - Adam37 Talk 19:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, but probably not for the same reason as others, above. One can make a reasonable argument that this editor is so bad that no part of it should be used in a reasonable visual (but not WYSIWYG) editor. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Its present form of being all server-side, making it big, is just a really bad idea. If you want to make it an opt-in gadget like a lot of other Wikimedia things (wikEd for example), fine, but it shouldn't be taking up valuable page space. If you feel such a need for WYSIWYG, perhaps there were to be an API and client-side implementation (Java perhaps? something else cross-platform? something tailored to major platforms?) it would be a lot more palatable. -- Joe (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. It is not needed and causes more problems than it solves. Dazedbythebell (talk) 20:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree. The Visual Editor is the single best thing to happen to Wikipedia in ages. — Shmuel (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree (strongly). However commendable its intent, and however much some of you like the interior decorating, this implementation is poorly spec'ed and fundamentally flawed, and requires a complete tear-down. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. It's a failed implementation. Look at the known limitations: Wikipedia:VisualEditor#Limitations. This needs to go back to the drawing board. Possibly with a new development team. It doesn't do enough to be useful. The "Reference" feature is pathetic - users need to know how to fill in templates, and the "Visual Editor" gives them the illusion they did it right. John Nagle (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I don't think it's such a bad idea in principle—if, for example, it were conceived merely as a beginner's tool to help people get started, or to help occasional editors make minor changes—but it's probably not worth the effort, especially now that the whole thing has been utterly poisoned by this horrible implementation. How many people would really use it after all this insanity, even if at some distant point in time in the future it's made to work properly? The Wikipedia community is angry about this, and rightly so. The best thing now would be to simply cancel it and direct the effort in more productive ways. Everyking (talk) 00:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. First choice. — Ched : ? 00:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. First of all, I'd like to thank everyone that has taken the time to express his views on this topic. I just had some new ideas about Wikimarkup. One: Wasn't one of the main selling points of Wikimarkup back in the day, that is was much easier to learn and simpler than HTML coding? Heck, you can edit a wiki without knowing any Wikimarkup, just hit "edit," type in your additions and hit "submit." Wikimarkup is basically like a "visual editor" in itself, isn't it? (except for images, tables, etc, which are still relatively simple.) It took me, and probably many of you, mere seconds to get the hang of using it, right? Second: Isn't learning Wikimarkup like a commonality we all share? Something that we have all done, and something that strengthens our bond as fellow Wikipedians? Think about it. Such will be lost with the Visual Editor, correct? Herzlicheboy (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Its complicated itself in the way things are made for it and what its put to use for so it may have to go back as a last resort. It is a tool, not a essential. asdfawesomegreen (talk) 02:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I think the Visual Editor has a lot of potential to increase user participation in editing. As long as people who don't like it can still edit the source directly, I don't see why people shouldn't have the option to use the Visual Editor. Of course since it's still in Beta there are going to be problems, but those can be worked out. And maybe it will increase vandalism, but Wikipedia has been dealing with that in the past, and I think it can handle it. --Greenbreen (talk) 03:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. VE should be dropped as a bad solution to a non-problem. It was a disappointment to find how many things I couldn't do in VE. It was a happy day when I found I could disable VE in "preferences" and be presented only with the good 'ol interface. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not to over do it on the buzzwords, but this is absolutely and unjustifiably elitist. I think that what we should keep in mind is that (wiki)code knowledge =/=> universal expertise. It seems that it would be just as easy for a vandal, aka someone who does not take things seriously, to mess with wikicode they do not entirely understand without being intimidated as it is for an expert in a field, concerned with quality in their work, to be intimidated by their lack of experience with the markup and not contribute. I know that there is no "proof" for this, but that does not actually invalidate an argument like this. Wikipedia is based on an ideology of openness, and I would respect that. That said, wikimarkup isn't that hard to learn, and you really don't have to know it anyway to add text. Of course, that just invalidates the argument that using it exclusively will keep out vandals or the incompetent. --anamedperson (talk) 04:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose. The tool isn't ready yet but that's not an argument to be conservative and to refuse the development of new features. The people who don't like it can still edit the source directly, I don't see why people shouldn't have the option to use the Visual Editor. Uncle Scrooge (talk) 12:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose: I think the VE team are often on the wrong track with the features they add and features they refuse to add, but it's a good idea overall. If more community feedback is actually listened to, it should be fine. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose, conditional: I like the idea of a visual editor, as a tool to attract new users and because in some cases it's just better, so I'm opposed at present to simply scrapping the whole concept. However, if the current attitude of its developers (dumping clearly unfinished junk on the community and expecting us to clean up the mess, while dismissively WONTFIXing obvious improvements and refusing to even provide a permanent official opt-out) is going to be the way of things I'd gladly see it killed with fire. FLHerne (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree: I don't like the idea of a visual editor. I think the old editor was plenty easy to use. The old editor seemed so simple and straightforward to me, and I don't like the idea of people editing Wikipedia who are not technically competent enough to use the old editor. If someone isn't willing to invest the few minutes of time to fiddle with the old editor in order to figure out how to use it properly, I am highly doubtful that they'd be willing to invest the much larger amount of effort necessary to figure out how to edit Wikipedia in ways harmonious with the guidelines and policies. I like the idea of Wikipedia being open to all but I think this is where I would put my foot down about not wanting it to be too accessible. I also think the old editor helps users (including both casual and more serious users) to more quickly understand how the site is structured and how the Wiki software works. I think this creates better edits and better editors. I think there would be a loss associated with even a small portion of users switching over to a visual editor, and it's not clear to me that any gains (which seem theoretical to me, I really don't understand what is to be gained here) outweigh the problems or costs. Cazort (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. 5Q5 (talk) 17:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong oppose Programmers wouldn't get anywhere if they shelved every project because the initial version had bugs.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 18:35, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Agreed. The new editor is something I would never use, given the choice. Please shelf it and get rid of it. Maki (talk) 19:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Freedom of choice should rule here. The visual editor isn't for me, just as I prefer to use Vim or TextMate to complex IDEs like NetBeans and Eclipse. But I'm pretty unrepresentative of wider humanity: the fact that most people on the planet prefer their computing experiences to be WYSIWYG GUI-based rather than text-based and command line based environments is something I have to take seriously. The rollout of the tool should be done in a way that is proportional to its readiness, but it not being ready yet is no reason to say "nope, never!" If we wish to deal with systemic bias, we need to have tools that allow people outside the wiki-bubble to edit Wikipedia in a friendly, sane way. One of the arguments presented above is that the level of complexity of editing should be in line with the level of complexity of the editing process, of the rules and procedures. This is true, but the conclusion that I think follows from it is "let's make the rules and procedures a lot simpler" not "let's ban the visual editor from ever happening ever because we don't want people who aren't familiar with all the Wikipedia rules and processes editing". Indeed baking the rules, procedures and other editorial assumptions into the software may actually help acclimatise new editors. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose Again, don't can it completely: it is a useful tool, but only once it's ready. However, that doesn't mean that everyone should be forced to test it, nor should anyone be forced to use it. Brambleclawx 23:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Strong oppose It is a good system that will make Wikipedia better.Njaohnt (talk) 23:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Strongly agree. The visual editor is hopelessly complex bloatware that can never hope to become a universal way of editing such a complicated wiki; all it can do is confusingly divide user experience and lock new users out of essential parts of the project. It was a bad approach to the problem from the start, all evidence indicates that it is consistently driving people away from the wiki, and even if all of its problems were solved there is absolutely no reason to think that it would ever be able to achieve the goal it was designed for. I do appreciate that some people might find it easier in a vacuum; but unfortunately it can't exist in a vacuum, and the inevitable collision between it and the existing wikimarkup it has to interface with is going to be confusing, frustrating, and ultimately far more complicated for the people who try to use it than just working with wikimarkup directly. That is why they got favorable responses in their tiny bottle-test, but got atrocious ones when they tried to actually give new users the editor and have them use it on the wiki itself; trying to hide the complexity of wikimarkup from new users is ultimately just setting them up for frustration that will drive them away. --Aquillion (talk) 01:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Agree It adds nothing, its heavy, clunky, and its not even easier to use. You lose the benefit of seeing the key formatting of the article, and I envisage editors spending half their time correcting messes made by other users. Dimspace (talk) 01:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, There is nothing wrong with offering an option that may appeal to some new editors and to potential editors who are code phobic. If there is a problem with inexperienced anonymous editors, limit its use to logged in users. Bcharles (talk) 05:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I completely agree. We should get rid of visual editor. Source editor is the best. It's simple. It's great. It works. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Nicolas Love (talk) 06:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: VE as it stands today is buggy and inadequate, but it has potential to be a welcoming and easy-to-use tool so that non-geek subject experts can share their knowledge and improve the encyclopedia. It needs much better handling of references in particular and templates in general, it needs hidden comments to be made visible, it needs the dialogue boxes to not hide the entire text, it needs to make it impossible to accidentally delete a template, it needs to become more WISIWYG (eg {{italic title}} should take effect when you add the template, not wait until after you've both page-saved and reloaded), and a whole load more (see WP:VEF). But it is basically a Good Thing. PamD 13:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Wikipedia is not a blog. Boud (talk) 14:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support. It doesn't work, it's annoying and a pain, not only the editor itself but the excessive advertisement of it in links in section titles now (with no community decision to do so!). We should go back to normal at once, and if anyone wants to enable this tool to other users than those who opt-in, they should first propose this and obtain community consensus, as normal procedure dictates here. And frankly, I think the tool will never be useful to anyone but the occasional vandal, and users should rather be encouraged to learn to edit properly. Tataral (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Scrap it. Manxruler (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree This visual editor experiment needs to be drowned. -Kai445 (talk) 23:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree The slight difficulty of using mark up helped keep out both potential idiot vandals and idiot editors - both positive. For potential good editors, the shallowness and lower challenge will reduce the sense of joining the project and the amount of reward received for editing, both leading to lower continued editing rates. Furious Style (talk) 02:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose. Excluding editors by making it difficult to edit is just outright wrong. Anyone claiming that markup text aids in combatting vandalism please present your evidence, especially that it doesn't also deter a similar proportion of good edits. And for pete's sake, do not oppose an improvement for others just because you're not going to be using it yourself. Nobody is forcing you to use this editor. You don't have to like it.--Romanski (talk) 14:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Wikitext really is too complicated for most people. We shouldn't deliberately exclude most of the world from editing. --Yair rand (talk) 16:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support. A visual editor is not a completely bad idea. But editors are expected to learn to edit wikitext all the same. It really should be demanded of even casual editors. I'm not going to complain if the VE is shelved for good. Luis Dantas (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Don't like it? Don't use it. I agree with Kupiakos. MJ94 (talk) 18:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Oppose - In its current form, it stinks - but it is in beta, which should mean that further development is planned. It would be foolsih to throw it away before people have the opportunity to assess a fully working version. On the other hand, if it is known that a fully functioning version is not possible at this time, then please don't prolong the agony. Heenan73 (talk) 22:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose. For wiki to remain current, as NPOV as possible, and cover as wide a range of topics as possible, it needs new users to be able easily to contribute. I don't agree with rolling it out yet because I think its bugs will be offputting to new/casual users. But someday when it is ready for prime time it should be rolled out. Liam3851 (talk) 12:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support - the new system cannot edit any kind of wikibox, it is clumsy, and I believe it makes vandalism even easier to carry out. There does need to be an at least nominal barrier to entry, and if the syntax puts off a casual vandal, all the better. --Simfan34 (talk) 17:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Oppose - VE is good even with bugs. I want the opportunity to supplement ordinary source editing with VE edition. Dyveldi 20:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opppose - It should be kept as a beta feature that is off by default, opt-in, and comes with warnings, but if people REALLY want to use it, they should be able to use it. I'm sure the developers will continue to work on it and it will get better over time. Just killing the whole project is overkill, some people actually like using it, and once the bugs are sorted out, the edits they produce will be fine, although it should be off by default for most people. --Yetisyny (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support The == tools should be what helps users navigate to edit.--Asmetr (talk) 00:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support until the software can remove the boundary between just exiting text in the article and "full" editing manually using wiki markup. Moreover, if people are concerned about vandalism from increased number of edits, should they not also worry about an influx of edits that have incorrect formatting? Tstorm(talk) 02:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose. The tool isn't ready yet but the people who don't like it can still edit the source directly. --Alberto Fernández Fernández (talk) 08:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support It´s just a piece of bloatware. Weissbier (talk) 08:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose. I'm a curmudgeon. I will never use the visual editor. But its existence is good for the project. It will make it easier for people to contribute. We ask people here to contribute to human knowledge, not to master markup. Now that I have a way to opt out (and I hope it sticks around after beta), there is no reason for me or any editor to complain that it's available. This is the future of the project.--~TPW 13:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose. This is an option that we absolutely need to have. It can exist in parallel with the old way and is not intended as a replacement. Wikipedia is, and has always been, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit; it is not the encyclopedia that you can edit assuming you are a techie and enjoy using some code. Editorship is declining. This is the way forward and out of that bottleneck. Invertzoo (talk) 13:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean that ALL wikipedians, from the very first edit till now, have been "techies"? This sounds very far fetched. From "editorship is declining" to "this is the way forward" there is a huge gap in logic. Firstly editing is not declining because of the wikimarkup. The markup hasn't been getting more "difficult" lately than it has always been, so this can't be part of the reason of the decline. There are many serious reasons why editorship is declining, including the deteriorating economical situation the average person faces (which means an increasing need to invest one's time in paid work) and the deteriorating education level of the average young person. So to say that a VE (in some future viable form) is the way "out of that bottleneck" is too wild of a guess for me. It may be a welcoming element in first sight, but a few steps further the newcomer has to face the usual problems with editing articles, people removing or seriously altering his edits or even warning him in his talk page about them (I am sure you know what I am talking about), which may very well be an additional serious reason for declining editorship. People are made to feel that ANYONE can edit wikipedia and before they get a chance to understand why, their edits are gone, modified, marked as OR and POV, citation needed. They are frustrated, feel they have entered a forbidding environment and many give up. So why not invest all this energy that is going into the VE in creating a better and more fruitful experience for the newcomer? Because it is hard, much harder than making a mere good gadget. There is no easy way out this bottleneck. I do not pretend to know the solution, but I can't accept the VE as being IT. Actually the VE may reduce participation in editors who have been trying to keep things tidy. Then you have more articles of deteriorating quality. And then you have people saying that Wikipedia is an unreliable source, like I hear it said for the Spanish one from most Spanish speakers I know. Still I am glad to say, "but the English Wikipedia is more reliable", which is true, and I hope it remains true in the future. Hoverfish Talk 16:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't go quite that far; but it's not far from the mark, and the target's moving awfully slowly... While I think it's entirely possible that a better WYSIWYG-type editor could be developed for Wikipedia, either by the existing dev team going back to the drawing board or by a fresh team tackling the project, I'm reasonably sure that the time, money and other resources already spent on VisualEditor have created enough inertia that VisualEditor is likely to be the only interface option more WYSIWYG than the traditional interface (which is not actual "source"-code editing, despite the terminology many people have been using in discussions about wikitext vs. VE) available for Wikipedia for the foreseeable future. VisualEditor has plenty of potential, though the way it was rolled out — and shoved unceremoniously down users' throats — so prematurely, while it was still beset by so many serious bugs, and with so many essential functions still missing entirely, has done incalculable harm to its appeal to both established editors and many of the potential editors WikiMedia Foundation hoped VisualEditor would help attract and retain. (This is likely particularly true of the sort of non-registered IP editor I used to be: users who read Wikipedia fairly frequently, and make constructive edits where and when we see an edit is needed, but never felt it necessary to sign up for an account.) I would hope it was obvious that VisualEditor in its current state is categorically unready for release as anything other than an opt-in beta-testing phase (or, more accurately, alpha-testing, as VisualEditor is certainly far from being "feature-complete"), but recent events have instead only made obvious that VisualEditor's insufficiency is not obvious to the people who most need to be aware of it. Default for ALL users must be the original wikitext edit interface (referring to the original interface as "source" editing is highly problematic, particularly due to Wikipedia's ever-present insistence that information in articles must be backed up by a reliable source, and the inevitable misunderstandings this double usage will cause), at the very least until VisualEditor is truly ready for beta release — and by "ready for beta release" I mean ready for users to be offered the option to participate in beta-testing a product which is acknowledged to still have bugs and/or other functionality issues, iff those users can meaningfully consent to be beta-testers. To sum up: For the time being, default interface for all users must be the original / "wikitext" edit interface, with VisualEditor available on an opt-in basis only, while development continues to prepare VisualEditor for wider release.GrammarFascist (talk) 21:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very strong oppose'. We want to enable editing by as many people as we can and VisualEditor is one way of achieving that. The source editor will always be available as well for those who want it. Thryduulf (talk) 14:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per multiple comments above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose people keep saying that anons make few useful edits or that anons make many, when I've looked in to the statistics, the actual evidence on both sides is full of holes. Ultimately it doesn't matter that much anyway. We can't realisticly predict how behaviour would change when the editor is less of a problem. What is fair to say, is there are a lot of people who could contrib decent stuff with references, written in an encyclopaedic tone etc who are not doing so at the moment. For an unknown number of them, technical reasons and the confusion over how to edit is one of them. There are plenty of other reasons why an editor may not do so at the moment, e.g. unwillingness to work in an environment when you may have to explain yourself to people who's knowledge on the subject is limited and who have no real interest in learning, or where you work may be removed at any time etc but these are largely irrelevant. Since the WMF has already decided and invested a fair amount of time and resources in this with the specific support of donors, under the belief there are enough of them for it to be worth it, there's no point arguing over it either. Of course, beyond those people, there are those who already contribute who will just find it easier when the VE is good enough. Again we don't know how many this will be, although we should remember how plenty of people have embraced more GUI and WYSIWYG elements in many areas of life, despite being familiar and comfortable with the more traditional interfaces. Not all of course and we can't predict how many or say for sure it will happen here, but again, particularly since it's already part of the way there, abandoning or arguing over it now is pointless. Note that, sometimes people do perhaps become so used to such elements (or simply never learn the alternative) that they start to waste more time or do dumb stuff they wouldn't have done before, and there's a fair chance this will happen here but I think it's hard to suggest that most such situations didn't end up being net positives when and if they did ultimately get embraced. (And does few that didn't get embraced will naturally die out.) Nil Einne (talk) 02:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

3. Visual editor should display two editing panes by default, one WYSIWYG pane and a smaller pane for source code editing.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reasons for this:

This two-window arrangement would be familiar to anyone who has used WordPerfect, in which your page is shown in the upper pane and a smaller snippet of 'source code' appears in the lower pane. You can edit in either pane, going to the lower pane to tweak special codes for formatting, tags, etc. as needed. The cursor/caret in one pane always follows the other, auto-scrolling as required.

(Addendum: Alternatively, there could be a button to toggle quickly between WYSIWYG and mark-up, like many blog editors.)

This arrangement has three obvious advantages:

  • You can edit in either environment as needed simply by clicking your mouse in one pane or the other. There is no question about choice of editor; you use either one based on your comfort level as the situation requires. Either editor by itself lacks the advantage of simple switching to another without a long wait while the page re-loads. A two-pane solution doesn't have that problem.
  • Newbie editors will quickly learn Wiki-markup by seeing instantly how source code and WYSIWYG are related, in real time as the user edits.
  • Two panes eliminate the need for a "Preview" function to re-load a page just to see the effect of your source-code editing. The WYSIWYG pane is the preview pane, so you can edit freely in the source code pane and instantly see the results.

I find the Visual Editor cumbersome right now. If it had the capability to display the corresponding source as I edit, and let me click on that source to edit if I preferred, that would be great. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this can be done in an intuitive manner, which i doubt, then this is a great idea. However, I'm not sure that this is technically possible. Note that editing either pane really does have to affect the other. (ie fixing a typo in the visual interface has to alter the text in the wikitext environment, and adding aa template in the wikitaxt environment has to result in the template popping up fully rendered in the WYSIWYG environment. This does not seem to be easy to do technically. Tazerdadog (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Take it from me, it is technically feasible if the right data structure is chosen for the text buffer, the visual render and the text render are then just windows on that buffer. What appears to be happening is that the edit buffer and the display buffer are one and the same thing and dual displays (and I include inline templates) cannot be done. From what we have seen there was little thought about this before coding started and the coders are boxed in. It is common for coders to want to demonstrate results early on, when in real life there will be nothing to show for months and it will all come together in the last few days. Similarly the need for this facility would have been quickly established if the functional requirements of actual power users had be sought- a process that precedes drawing up the functional specification in most software development paradigms.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 21:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely this proposal makes things even more cumbersome, and you're left with the worst of both worlds? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually the opposite is true, because you get the benefits of both ways of editing, and it should be easy to hide or ignore one of both edit modes if you find it confusing or don't have a use for it. Diego (talk) 08:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we have to do this make it side-by-side - most computers have uselessly wide screen s these days and tediously poor vertical resolution. Top-and-bottom layouts don't work.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 21:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an erstwhile WordPerfect user, I find this an intriguing idea. It certainly should be technically feasible and I might even like it, but I doubt that most users would like it. Heck, I'll bet that lots of users wouldn't even understand what they were looking at. It wouldn't work on mobile devices, of course. Honestly, the more I think about the whole topic of Visual Editor, the more I wonder if it's such a good idea in any form. Rivertorch (talk) 22:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's quite common in blog platforms and such to have a tab for "raw" markup editing, and to be able to freely switch between the raw and WYSIWYG views. I would absolutely support this. I don't think it's very useful to have them both on the screen simultaneously though. Dcoetzee 23:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good point. Thinking back on my WordPerfect days, I certainly appreciated the Show Codes feature when I needed to verify something or troubleshoot a problem, but I don't think I ever left the secondary window open while I was composing text. It would have been a distraction. Rivertorch (talk) 04:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment That is a good point. One of the things I liked a lot of the Blogger platform was the ability to tab b/w WYSIWYG and "raw" markup editing. I have no idea how this relates to the Visual Editor as it's currently envisioned and being implemented, but I would really like to be able to do this and not have to wait for a "preview" that I had to trigger the creation of...but anyway... Azx2 16:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wish I could edit a section on the fly what seems quite easier than a whole WYSIWYG editor, if this mean I can edit a section in the same page, then I agree with two tabs.Dianakc (talk) 03:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but not as default setting - I like the idea of having a separate pain in VE for wikimarkup. It's reminiscent of Adobe Dreamweaver and would allow users the flexibility of using both VE and wikimarkup simultaneously. However, I don't think it would be wise to make this the default - part of the problem with editing wiki markup is that its complexity is intimidating for potential contributors, and this hybrid pane is even more complex in some ways with an even greater potential for confusion among new editors. Thus, I would definitely allow this functionality (and would likely use it myself), but it should be an "opt-in" feature of VE. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. People Most people are going to use one or the other. This will just complicate and clutter matters. Holdek (talk) 07:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
People are going to use one or the other False. I would use both if this was available, and would find it the optimal layout. Unfortunately this will never happen, as it would require re-coding the VisualEditor from scratch to accommodate the needs of power users. Diego (talk) 08:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would probably use both if available (or at least I would appreciate the ability to quickly switch b/w WYSIWYG and wikimarkup), too, but I'm not a newbie nor are my needs and desires necessarily representative of theirs. Props to the OP for a unique, interesting proposal tho. Azx2 16:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Edited to clarify. Holdek (talk) 02:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, even if that implies refactoring the whole VisualEditor or remake it from the start. This dual nature of keeping the visual and the internal representation always in sync is the state-of-the-art of how visual editors are built. Diego (talk) 10:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have mixed feelings about this proposal. It would be useful for experienced editors who want to use VE because they could ensure that VE is doing what they intend it to do. However, I think that newcomers, who thought that they were using VE, would find a sea of wiki markup text to be confusing. Cwkmail (talk) 11:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - this would be a great idea, if it works (and I get the feeling it might be difficult to implement in practice). I'm not so sure about it being the default, but it should definitely exist as an option if it can be achieved. Robofish (talk) 13:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, but weakly - I can see the merits in this, but I don't think that the interface displaying two editing panes by default is necessarily the best implementation. My needs/desires relative to this feature could be satisfied simply by being able to tab quickly b/w a WYSIWYG interface and a raw markup pane. Props to the OP for suggesting something interesting tho.... Azx2 16:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG oppose - This sounds like a LOT of Javascript. There's already WAY too much with the Universal Language Selector and the Visual Editor being there. More will KILL the usability of the site. If some PC's load a long page in VisualEditor in a minute, imagine just editing, as changes to one box have to be translated to the other and vise-versa. VERY bad idea. Jguy TalkDone 16:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technically oppose as a lover of liberty this sounds very liberal in a good sense, however totally unwieldy in terms of accommodating devices and mbps connection. Worse still you'll make people think they are dumb if they use the top and hacker if they use the bottom. I mean really let people learn quick the latter and stop this awful divorce between those who get basic coding and those who think even wikipedia's "wikicode" must confuse a large minority unwilling to learn which is for most users I have met really very quick. - Adam37 Talk 19:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as an option required before it should be released. I'd consider using VE if this were implemented, even though I'm not on a wide-screen monitor. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this is technically viable, then I'm all for it. It's definitely an improvement. Mohamed CJ (talk) 01:20, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Although this would be very helpful, it would most likely do more harm than good as it may cause some confusion. Maybe in the sandbox would be helpful? asdfawesomegreen (talk) 02:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • supportif you look at dreamweaver and Microsoft expression, the two most popular professional web development suites, both offer you a WYSIWYG and source html. it allows you to make source code changes, and see the effect instantly, as well as edit with WYSIWYG, when each situation demands it. I find it quite handy.
  • Support for dual-pane preview/sourcecode view. Several popular websites already use something similar -- Stack Exchange Network and several of its clones. Re-rendering things like templates and TeX may be horrifically complicated, but the visual editor is apparently already maintaining an internal wikitext source document and re-rendering templates etc. on the fly. Since the wikitext source already exists in the VisualEditor, I don't think it adds significant complexity to make that pre-existing text visible in a textarea. Since the VisualEditor already has some function that re-renders templates etc. on the fly whenever an edit is applied, I don't think it adds significant complexity to call that pre-existing re-render function whenever someone edits the sourcecode pane. --DavidCary (talk) 04:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support the second option of having an easy toggle between the two that preserves your edits between them, if that is possible technically. I know the first option of having the two together on the same page would make things way too cluttered, so I oppose that. --anamedperson (talk) 05:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support It's a good idea, however it sounds like it will be slower, and will not be good for some people. It would be perfect if they could choose to disable it. Njaohnt (talk) 23:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Good thinking. It might be a bit crammed for smaller devices though. trespassers william (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support per proposer. Surfer43 (talk) 14:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This is a great idea, although the 2 editing panes should be side-by-side, not one on the top and the other on the bottom. Most people have wide-screen monitors nowadays so a side-by-side view is a better idea. --Yetisyny (talk) 20:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support. I believe this would be the best option if it is technically feasible. There should be buttons to hide either pane if the user finds it too cluttered or simply only wants to use one or the other. I use WikEd and it allows you to toggle back to classic view anytime you want. I don't have much interest in using Visual Editor right now, but if it allowed me to edit the old fashioned way while seeing an on-the-fly preview I would love that.The myoclonic jerk (talk) 22:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. No objections to this if the devs say they can do it with little effort, but somehow I don't think that's going to happen. This is not worth the effort it would take. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partial support I don't think there's anything wrong with such an idea as an option although I'm not sure it should be the default. More widely I'm not sure how easy this would be to implement, if it's too hard, it may not be worth it. If it's likely to be easy then go ahead although as always, with due consideration of the importance vis-a-vis other things. Nil Einne (talk) 02:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

4. The section edit tabs should be removed for the visual editor

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rationale: Whatever its other shortcomings, this is not a section editor. Clicking any of the "edit beta" links on any section gives the same result... an edit attempt for the entire page. Including this same link repeatedly on every section is therefore redundantly redundant and basically useless.

  • Support. K7L (talk) 00:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Agreed. — James Estevez (talk) 04:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It is good idea. Nicolas Love (talk) 06:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, in agreement. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 06:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. If VE isn't going to do section editing (for the foreseeable future), then the section edit links are a waste of space. Insulam Simia (talk) 08:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per Insulam Simia above. -- The Anome (talk) 10:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, showing "edit beta" on sections makes no sense if it can't edit only a section. (moved to oppose) However, the best option would be to have a technical solution on VE section editing, as maybe it would make VE faster while not having to load the entire page. Max51 (talk) 21:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support please remove this confusing option from section edit tags. Hoverfish Talk 23:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Surfer43 (talk) 05:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)(moved to oppose)[reply]
  • Support Visually distracting, annoying & ugly. Why clutter a page with something that serves no legitimate purpose? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Yes. Unnecessary, annoying and advertising···Vanischenu「m/Talk」 14:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as per OP. — Richard BB 15:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, make it an option instead - I disapprove of the absolute nature of this question. For someone who uses VE, it can be convenient to keep the page on a particular section when VE is activated as opposed to having to scroll back to the top of the page, activate VE, and then scroll back down. Others may not like it for the reasons stated above. For those users who don't like seeing section links to activate VE, allow them to remove those links; allow the users who do like the section links to keep them. There is no need to limit choices. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 19:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • strongly oppose - the 'local' edit button should allow the page to become editable with the local section in view; so what if it has the same function; this would save redundant scrolling. Heenan73 (talk) 22:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Yes please. Also I'm going to add another proposal subsection proposing that the default action for clicking on a "section edit" link be for "edit source", and not to open the VE. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talkcontribs) 00:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support They can be readded if VE ever gains the ability to edit sections. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Heenan73. Surfer43 (talk) 14:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose having both choises in section edit was my way to find VE and I like VE (even with bugs). It is a far easier and more natural way to start VE editing than having to go to the top of the page. It is easy to see that you are getting two choises and easy to choose the one you want. No point in loosing the option in the section edits, it really should not bother anyone. If it feels bothersome to some they will probably chose to turn VE off entirely anyway. Dyveldi 20:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It depends. If the Visual Editor can be limited to just editing one section rather than the entire article, then no, I oppose this. If the Visual Editor always edits the entire page when you open it, then yes, I support this. So it depends on whether the developers of the Visual Editor manage to make it so that it can edit just one section while leaving the rest of the article unchanged. --Yetisyny (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Heenan73. Max51 (talk) 02:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as per Heenan73. --Solstag (talk) 08:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Now that the link hovering behaviour has been fixed, there is no benefit at all in this proposal. Also per Heenan73. Thryduulf (talk) 14:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per Thryduulf and Heenan73. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Heenan73. In addition since I believe edit source should generally be shown by default, whatever the future of the VE, I think it will be unnecessarily confusing to editors to only have the edit source link when they are on a section. Nil Einne (talk) 02:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

5. Visual Editor should always be optional

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I was rather unhappy to see that the "official" off switch for VE in preferences is only intended while it's in beta. Of course, that's better than no off switch even for the beta (which was the original situation), but even if we could make VE work perfectly today, there will always be some editors who just don't have any interest in using it. Some will need to do tasks it's not capable of, some will just be used to or prefer source editing. There must always be an off/opt-out switch, and making that happen shouldn't require community development time for workarounds or gadgets. Once VE is in a stable, release-ready state, it may be made the default, but an opt-out which disables it completely must always exist.

  • Support as proposer. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support Mainline421 Talk 16:59, 4 August 2013 (BST)
  • Strong Support We should be able to set our preferred tools, rather than be presented with something some of us will never use and having to click another button to get to the edit screen we want. The Rev (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible support VE is terrible, even when it works. Manxruler (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This goes without saying! And the VE gadget should never be the default, but an optional gadget. Tataral (talk) 18:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support VE should not be default ever. And if for whatever reason it came to be, there should always be a way to turn the damn thing off. -Kai445 (talk) 23:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support Even if VE works fine in the future, I still prefer editing sources, so I would like to be able to turn it off. Chmarkine (talk) 07:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support as per OP. — Richard BB 15:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. Visual editors are inherently limited and almost by definition "Beta" software at best. They should never be unavoidable or even particularly encouraged. Luis Dantas (talk) 15:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support Even if VE actually works in the future, there will probably still be some tasks it was never designed for. -- UKoch (talk) 16:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I cannot see how giving users options to control their uses of VE is a negative thing. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 19:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support - May I say Duh! again? Thanks. Heenan73 (talk) 22:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but I strongly insist that just as it should be possible to disable VisualEditor, it should be possible to disable the wikitext editor. The reasons why one may not want the former also apply to the latter, and it should therefore be possible to disable both. -- Rastus Vernon (talk) 00:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The wikitext editor is the editor. The visual editor is only a gadget to assist to make changes in the actual editor, that performs poorly and doesn't display everything properly. Those who use it edit blindly, without seeing hidden comments, seeing references properly and so forth. It is not an editor on par with the actual editor. We should never allow users to disable the actual editor. If they don't even want to be able to access the proper editor and see the structure of the article they are editing, they shouldn't edit Wikipedia at all. After all, we don't allow blind people to drive cars either. Tataral (talk) 16:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support - Wikipedia is about choice. Users can choose whether to enable other plugins like Twinkle, and IMO this should apply to VE too. Timothy G. from CA (talk) 00:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. Timothy G. hit the nail on the head when he said that VE should be treated like other plugins (such as Twinkle). It should be optional, and definitely not the default (see proposal number 7, below for what I mean about not being the default). — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talkcontribs) 01:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support from a editor of nine years' tenure. Neutralitytalk 05:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support - Choosing which editor to use by default, as well as each time they edit a page, should always be a choice users can make. Never force anyone to use one editor or the other, let people choose. --Yetisyny (talk) 20:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong and obvious support - I think in the future, when VE is feature-complete and stable, both VE and markup should be optional. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support beyond mortal reasoning--Asmetr (talk) 00:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Users should always be able to uncheck a box. VQuakr (talk) 01:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. There must always be an option for any editor to edit the source directly. Thom2002 (talk) 11:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible support. I've never been much of a WYSIWYG guy, and I know I'm not alone. Rwflammang (talk) 11:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. — sparklism hey! 12:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As framed, this is merely a reaction to and condemnation of the current state of the VE. I can imagine a VE that would, in fact, be worthy of being the true default editing environment, and only curmudgeonly lovers of low level programming languages (and I claim membership in that) would use what we now think of as the standard editing tool. That said, that ideal VE is ... a long way from what this question is flaming at. BSVulturis (talk) 17:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, at least, when this means what I think it means, that there should be an option that turns off the optional visual editor. For the longest time, source editing should be supported and enabled in the interface without any hassle. But this sounds a lot like over-dramatically demanding to get that ghastly link to the visual editor out of your face. It's just an option, and nobody is forcing you to click it. If it bothers you, don't click it. If you mean something else, the explanation should have been clearer. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So you're saying that all users should be forced to use VE, and only VE, rather than retaining the option to use the one they prefer? --W. D. Graham 13:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support - It is simply impossible for a WYSIWYG editor to provide an adequate interface for editing complex tables, templates and some other complex structures. Link editing will always be more clunky than source. --W. D. Graham 13:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - An option for disabling VE should exist after the beta phase is complete. (The question is phrased in an unfortunately ambigous way and needs clarification). --Frederico1234 (talk) 14:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I am slightly concerned that an effort could be made to 'force' all editors to transition to VE. I am perfectly happy editing markup. OSborn arfcontribs. 01:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I find it depressing that we're having to even discuss such a thing. Everyking (talk) 05:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support We need to work on markup and we need it by far more often than we need to check for a simple typo or punctuation, and this editor doesn't look like it's ever going to be the WYSIWYG editor that has transcended all the many limitations of WYSIWYG editors. Hoverfish Talk 10:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose, there are two things here, turning off the button which could surely always be supported via a gadget and actually turning off the visual editor so it doesn't load. As long as it doesn't cause problems or make it worse for the WMF (including the amount of resources they need to invest) that the visual editor can be turned off completely, I would support keeping that option. However if it does cause problems or makes it worse for the WMF, I would only support keeping the option provided the need for such an option (meaning demonstrable problems caused by it, not editor wanting to disabled it completely symbolically) is greater than the cost. Nil Einne (talk) 02:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

6. "Edit source" after section titles on talk pages should be changed back to "edit"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There was never any consensus to change it from "edit" to "edit source", and the latter is confusing to experienced editors who are used to see the term source mostly in connection with protected pages. Having two words is also wholly unncessary and draws more attention away from the contents to the technicalities of the page; "edit" means "edit". (Addendum: Similar links elsewhere are obviously also included in this proposal)

  • Support (proposer). Tataral (talk) 18:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Manxruler (talk) 18:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because I support consistency with article pages. If "edit" means the visual editor on an article page, it shouldn't mean something completely different (the source editor) on talk and project pages. Let "view" be the symbol of protection. Sometimes the cheese must move to a more logical place. Damian Yerrick (talk) 18:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but it must be made along with a broader change to [ edit edit beta] or [ edit edit visual ] (instead of [ edit source edit beta ] ), preferably showing the second edit button only as mouse hovers over "edit", as mentioned in other topics above. Max51 (talk) 21:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems hover function was confusing for many people (see updates page), so I maintain my position without the hovering. Max51 (talk) 03:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Max51. The damn visual editor should have the "edit visual" or some similarly named tab. -Kai445 (talk) 23:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, not only on talk pages. Should be [edit edit visual beta] on pages where VE works (at all). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As above, I prefer [edit edit visual ] Chmarkine (talk) 07:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I found that suddenly turning up to edit one day and finding edit didn't mean edit anymore more confusing. Put it back as it was and make the visual editor have the qualifer. Morgan Leigh Talk 12:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for consistency purposes. Let's not make things more complicated than they need to be. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 16:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because I too support consistency with article pages. Heenan73 (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, because "edit source" is less ambiguous. Experienced editors may be used to "edit", but it's better to confuse experienced editors, who can figure it out, than new editors, who cannot figure it out, and won't understand. -- Rastus Vernon (talk) 00:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support if changed at top of page as well per Damian Yerrick and Max51. Liam3851 (talk) 12:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support, for it should be stressed that editing the wikitext markup is the default and shall continue to be. Luis Dantas (talk) 18:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - People ought to know ahead of time whether clicking on something will bring them the source editor or visual editor, having it say "edit source" is much more clear about what happens when you click on the link. --Yetisyny (talk) 20:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is only one actual editor of pages on a project running MediaWiki. The "Visual Editor" is a gadget (one of countless others, of dubious usability) that ostensibly helps users make changes in the real editor without doing it themselves, and not an editor on par with the proper, actual editor. It will always only be secondary compared to The Editor. We could easily imagine users creating other "visual" gadgets to assist editors, should each of them also be included in every single section title? It is self-evident that clicking "edit" in a section title leads to The Editor. Also, there was no consensus to make this unilateral change, so it needs to be changed back in any event until those who want to change it obtain consensus for their proposal. Tataral (talk) 15:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, but it should be contrasted with something that describes the alternative rather than just "edit". Thryduulf (talk) 14:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I think "edit source" is an accurate description. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose edit source is an accurate description, frankly I was suprised how many people didn't realise it was the wikimarkup editor but if you can learn wikimarkup you can learn what edit source means. As others have said, it makes little sense to be inconsistent with the main link anyway and as I said above, the visual edit edit should remain for sections. Nil Einne (talk) 02:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

7. The default action upon clicking a section edit link should be "edit source", not to open VE

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Currently, when one clicks on a section edit link, the default action is to open VE. I'm aware that one can mouse over the section edit link and select "edit source"; that is not the issue. Many of us edit from Kindles and other mobile devices, myself included. You can't hover over a link with your mouse pointer on a Kindle, so if someone editing from one wants to edit a section, s/he is stuck with Visual Editor. This is wrong because a) VE is still in beta, and b) Kindles do not like to work with Visual Editor. Therefore, the default action upon clicking [edit] should be to open up the original mode of editing Wikipedia, which is "edit source".

  • Oppose The problem with mobile devices was fixed because both choices are displayed. This would make things more confusing. Surfer43 (talk) 14:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, this problem has already been addressed in a better way - Users simply shouldn't be required to mouse over to access "edit source"; both "edit source" and "edit" should be displayed without the need to mouse over the links. And that's exactly how it is right now, with "edit source" and "edit beta" both being permanent links, so the problem appears to be solved anyway. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 17:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The default should always be to edit source, rather than the buggy Visual Editor, at least while the Visual Editor is in beta and full of bugs. Plus the proposer of this has some good points about editing on mobile devices like Kindles, although I do think that future generations of mobile devices such as Kindles will probably have better web browsers that are capable of handling things such as the Visual Editor, maybe a couple years from know. But for now, I support this, and agree with the excellent arguments by the proposer. --Yetisyny (talk) 21:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There should only be the usual "edit" link leading to the proper editor in section titles, unless the user has enabled the "Visual Editor" gadget. The "Visual Editor" is one of countless gadgets, not core functionality, and we don't force gadgets on users (especially not gadgets that slow everything down and are in the way and obstruct editing for most users). Tataral (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Neither the VisualEditor nor the SourceEditor should be labelled simply "edit". Thryduulf (talk) 14:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As I said at the beginning, I think the hiding thing was just a poor idea. On an iPad while you could click to enable edit source, it was annoying and easy to click the wrong thing. So I agree the hiding thing was a poor idea but this is an unnecessary solution. The current method mostly addresses this although I do believe the visual editor should eventually move back to the left but without the hiding thing. Nil Einne (talk) 02:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

8. Should we add a link in the edit page to switch between wikitext and VE?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unchanged: Don't bother

  1. Another unnecessary addition and another way for the WMF to break everything further. Plus it would be incredibly annoying to click on accidentally during editing, and to jump to the other editor - regardless of which editor is being used initially, and whether it retains the information or not. No matter where it is located, this would happen. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Unnecessary indeed. No real advantages, only risks as expounded above. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Not unless and until T49779 is fixed and users can switch between modes without losing changes. Thryduulf (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The importance is marked low in Bugzilla, I worry how long this feature will be implemented. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 00:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. 'No, per Thryduulf. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 19:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. No, per Thryduulf. When Bugzilla 47779 is fixed, yes. JohnCD (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. If the user wants to change editors, they can do so. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Sorry, what? I'm not even sure what's being proposed here. Then again, it doesn't really matter since I want VisualEditor removed anyways. Also see my comments here for more on that subject. Kurtis (talk) 11:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Very much unnecessary. United States Man (talk) 21:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Rethought vote. Doesn't seem particularly useful. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. There will be enough work to improve the VE as it is; this extra functionality seems like it would be too difficult to implement, and is not strictly needed. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 23:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11. No. Not necessary at this stage.— James Estevez (talk) 23:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12. No, per Luke. Like it or don't like it, but I can't imagine many people want or need to switch on the fly a whole lot. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13. per Thryduulf. Jguy TalkDone 00:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Unless Bug 47779 is fixed, NO. Corn cheese (talk) 00:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  15. No, once users figure out what it is they can choose the link, or set the option in their preferences. It would just add clutter to the edit page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Not now. When VE is a smooth operator then experiment with double vision. Dyveldi 20:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  17. No, only if the user in their preferences has enabled the Visual Editor. Tataral (talk) 16:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes

  1. Whether we enable or disable VE by default, it should be easy for us to switch between the 2 editors conveniently in the edit page. Checking the "remove VE from UI" in preferences-gadget does not technically forbid us from accessing VE if we know to add ?veaction=edit at the end of the wiki article URL. But lacking the link creates an illusion of black or white dilemma which discourages more users to test VE. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 14:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. _Provided_ it works I really like this idea. The module editor for Lua has a feature like this, which I particularly appreciated because I regarded that as very slow and buggy, though to be fair they have since squashed quite a few bugs and I don't really prefer the plaintext option so much anymore - though as with VE it is always reassuring to have it handy. Wnt (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yes, since I could not think of a situation more frustrating than having made edits to an article with VE and recognizing one can't finish the edit because of VE's limitations. One should be able to quickly change to the good old WikiEditor, which allows doing everything one could wish to do. --Patrick87 (talk) 20:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. A switch option should be added to enable more efficient beta testing/potentially encourage more involvement. However, given its apparent complexity, it is critical that developing such a switch should not take priority over fixing the bugs in VE. — Train2104 (talkcontribs) 01:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Such a switch has already been devised by User:John Vandenberg and I have been using it for some days now. It is at User:John Vandenberg/switch editor as indicated by another user in the lower section. I am absolutely delighted by its performance, and it has helped save my edits going waste more than once. At present, the switch seems to be able to switch from VE to text editor. I would like the switch to be incorporated in VE as default and suggest that it should also be able to jump from text editor to VE too. For those opposed or neutral, I think they should try out this switch before dismissing the idea. Thanks and regards.OrangesRyellow (talk) 12:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Yes, absolutely. I truly think this is a no-brainer. There will always be times when one or the other editing mode is the more useful and the other awkward or impossible for a given change. An editor will sometimes need to make one change in one mode then a second change in the other mode. Smooth on-the-fly switching between modes in a single editing session is no more than a common courtesy to the editor. (I am thinking say of a web editor switching between WYSIWYG and raw text modes). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Yes, provided that it works. This could easily cause more problems than it solves, but if the switch works, I'd be for it. Robofish (talk) 22:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Yes, certainly, but as Robofish says, provided it works perfectly! Invertzoo (talk) 23:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Absolutely. --Zcbeaton (talk) 23:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Definitely. Even once VE is complete and fully rolled out, it should be easy to flip between the two modes.--Gloriousglib (talk) 00:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11. To echo the above comments, yes, firstly, provided that it works, but also, secondly, I think that perhaps a rollout of such a feature should be delayed until after beta mode. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Seems like a simple convenience, and it's already on the article page when signed in. Holdek (talk) 00:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13. This will mitigate VE's worst drawback - its hamfisted handling of internal and external links. Short of fixing VE itself (like showing the editable source when clicking on a link!) this will be the next best thing. And there are some technical details that need to be shown in expanded mode, which is wikitext's strength. I've exited the VE and entered wikieditor so many times, but it's a clumsy procedure currently. We need something smooth. --- Nitrobutane (talk) 00:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Yes, once T49779 is fixed. This is exactly what we need. You want to perform a task but you cannot do it in VisualEditor because the feature isn't implemented? Switch to the wikitext editor, don't lose any change, make your edit and go back to VisualEditor. A bug in VisualEditor prevents you from accomplishing a task (this is the most common kind of bugs)? Switch to the wikitext editor without losing any change, make the edit and go back to VisualEditor. This feature would fix the two most important problems with VisualEditor: editing bugs and missing features. -- Rastus Vernon (talk) 01:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strong yes - Per Rastus Vernon. I see little drawback, especially if users have the option whether to use this feature or not. There's a simple rule when it comes to the VE's functionality: More choices = good; less choices simply because some editors won't take advantage of them = bad. Don't limit the choices of others. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 20:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong Yes - People should be able to switch back and forth between the 2 editors very easily, rather than being stuck in one editor and unable to switch to the other. However, there should be a little confirmation window that comes up to ask the user if they REALLY want to switch editors, because some people might accidentally click on the link to switch editors and not really mean it. --Yetisyny (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Strong Yes, but perhaps not immediately. Either make VE a dual-pane editor or allow a switch from VE to wikitext without losing data (or some other workflow allowing wikitext editing without leaving VE or losing edits in VE) is required for long term usability. VE will never have the complete functionality of wikitext editing (at least until wikitext is limited to what Parsoid can handle). VE should never be presented as an easy choice until it is fast and you can change to wikitext editing if you find the VE won't work for you. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. — Only for registered accounts.--Inayity (talk) 07:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of a switch

Although care should be taken that this switch won't carry your current edit in progress to the other mode because it's not yet submitted. In the ideal world, what WYSIWYG provide is an instant preview between source mode and visual mode. The major failure of Wikimedia's VE is the lack of instant preview of wikitext, so it's nearly impossible for anyone to find out what kind of wikitext VE generates until we submit the content and check the article in wikitext editor. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 14:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the proposal is to keep two tabs at the top of the page one labelled 'Modifier'/Modifier la source(fr) or Bearbeiten/Quelltexte Bearbeiten (de)- which reverse the original meaning of 'Modifier' or 'Bearbeiten' then obviously not. If the proposal is to rewrite the VE editor into a tri-modal editor where one automatically edits in wikitext, but can switch and edit in a visual mode where all the inline comments are visible, and a preview mode in full visual mode where one just sees the final output to page we may have progress. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 18:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what I would like to see is the "edit" and "edit source" buttons switched. It's that simple. I'm used to clicking the first edit button, not the edit source button, and VE then proceeds to slowly pop up in all its glory before I can change it. But yes, a switch like this would do well, because it's preview while still being able to edit (one of the main annoyances about source editor is having to hunt through all of the code for that one tiny reference in order to fix). kikichugirl inquire 18:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that I would like to be able to switch which editor is activated by the "edit" button. I'd like the option to use the visual editor for some major content additions. However, I often make small tweaks, and I'd like to switch the edit button bring let me edit the code directly without waiting for the visual editor to load. --Zfish118 (talk) 17:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that is annoying, but it hadn't registered. It would be useful to highlight some text on the page and press <ctrl+m > to enter the editor at exactly that spot- that ought to be easy to code and add to the skin.js custom file. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClemRutter (talkcontribs)
I have the Same problem as kikichu. Please switch them Slacka123 (talk) 05:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've only tried this briefly and it seemed to work fine, but I believe others have used it more extensively and it is reported to work: User:John Vandenberg/switch editor (also mentioned in the above bugzilla). Seems to indicate that this can fairly easily be done with some javascript. If it withstands testing, then why not incorporate it? Seems it might address the requirements of some of the people posting in this section. Begoon talk 02:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:John Vandenberg/switch editor.js is bit tricky, perhaps because of lack of description in the VE save form. I prefer User:John Vandenberg/switch editor 2.js which uses the top "edit source" link as the switch. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 14:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Testing now. This has been a suggestion I've made about VE for some time. Will see how it works. Meclee (talk) 22:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remaining neutral for now. I think we should focus on real, actionable improvements that can be made to VisualEditor. This section actually somewhat heads in that direction, but I'm concerned that the RFC title ("Default State RFC") will drown out the signal in the noise. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that (and this section) should be the topic of a completely separate RFC, MZMcBride. The purpose of this RFC was to focus solely on who should have VE enabled and under what conditions. How it behaves once it is enabled is a separate topic.—Kww(talk) 17:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So let's move this section to the talk page. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 23:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Related discussions

Wrong questions?

I think these are the wrong questions. I don't think it is a matter of whether VE should be opt in or opt out. I think that both editors can and should be visible and available to every user, but it should be clear to everyone what they are, and they should not be easily accidentally confused or inadvertently mis-selected. Most of this is easily done. Make the edit links permanently visible, and label them unambiguously. Add a mouse-over message to each describing what it is, and what its problems are, with a link to a detailed help page and leave them there. Use whichever you prefer. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree. I've not had the time or inclination to even find out what it does, but the little I've seen inclines me to be an opt out if it comes to the crunch. It does seem to make finding things easier, but I've not yet worked how to do things once I've found them... Peridon (talk) 17:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree with you.···Vanischenu「m/Talk」 17:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Keep the interface intuitive and leave the choice with the (potential) editor. Twang (talk) 23:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree; VE should be opt-in or opt-out (ie, one of the two), and I strongly oppose Pbsouthwood's comment that both editors "should" be visible to every user. Users should be able to choose which editor to use, and should be able to disable the editor they have no intention of using - long-term, this theoretically means that people may opt to disable the source editor (when VE is feature complete and stable, which may be a long way away) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can agree to that, and I made a point in an edit in another section that — at most — WP should have a button on the edit page to allow people to switch to a visual editor if they prefer. One of the biggest things that angered me regarding Visual Editor was that there was no obvious option to switch back to text-based editing. It took googling on Google to figure it out (when you have to leave a website to for answers on how to work out something basic like that for a site, that is not a good sign of intuitive user friendliness). As for VE itself, it is horrible (as expected with any WYSIWYG editor). — al-Shimoni (talk) 23:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't want to see a mouse over message every time I'm trying to click an edit link, that's absurd. Tataral (talk) 18:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I must be missing something. I see "edit" and "edit source" tabs, and mouse to the one I choose. Maybe a preference is in order, but I can deal with four vs. three tabs, and I'm impaired. Sammy D III (talk) 18:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, when I first saw this, I clicked on "edit", not knowing the difference, and I'm a fairly experienced user who had some idea VE was coming. The 4 vs 3 thing is not remotely my point anyway; a user should have free reign over whether they use the VE, the source, or both, and, long-term, they should be given the ability to disable the VE or the source editor completely. And if anyone files out the ridiculous "the resources used are miniscule, so it doesn't matter" comment... well, they clearly don't understand how programming works (a hint: never waste resources that can be easily saved!) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A better question may be: "What needs to be done before VE is set as the default?" This way we could get input on what issues need to be changed/fixed before VE is the default.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) 99% of the time I do section editing and don't use the tabs. At the time I disabled VE (July 10th) the choices at the section level were "edit" which went to the VE, and then hover which brought up "edit source" which is the wikitext editor. I did not see an obvious "edit source" from within VE. After repeatedly getting the VE when I wanted wikitext editing I disabled VE. I disagree strongly with Lukeno94's position. I want both options available to me without needing to do extra work. Showing "[edit] and [edit source]" at the section level should not cause long lasting confusion and allows people to use the the editor that's appropriate at that instant. --Marc Kupper talk 18:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Marc, with Firefox and nothing disabled, I get both tabs on sections. Talk is different, edit gets me code, but that's just a name glitch, isn't it?Sammy D III (talk) 19:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sammy - this has been fixed. I had disabled VE on July 10th as it was too disruptive. I re-enabled the editor and see that the sections now have [edit source edit beta]. --Marc Kupper talk 07:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question — what is the point of asking users to opt in or out if they do not know what it is they are opting into or out of? Whatever options users are given need to be accompanied by a clear, accurate and authoritative statement of what the two options entail. I have yet to see such a thing. Spectral sequence (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, come on, it's obvious; the question is whether VE should be enabled by default, where you opt-out, or whether it should be disabled by default, where you opt-in. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preferences, default to VE (when it's ready). Code people will know what to do.Sammy D III (talk) 22:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's obvious what the question is: what is not obvious, is what the options actually mean to the user. In other words, given that we are discussing giving users a choice when they start editing (logging in or otherwise), what will they be told about the choices? Or are they expected to just know out of nothingness what "Visual Editor" is and what using it means?
  • Agree terrible these are indeed terrible questions. "When did you stop beating your wife?" Visual Editor should be removed completely from the system until it can be properly tested and prepared for real use.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree terrible: salient points have been brought up as to why so many people detest VisualEditor. A) It doesn't even qualify as being beta as yet & I suspect most of the people working on Wikipedia (& those who potentially want to contribute) don't want to waste valuable time as guinea-pigs for something that isn't ready to be packaged, much less taken out of the box, as yet. B) Even more frustratingly, the VE does NOT show hidden comments, so it does NOT present the whole picture! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong questions: there is no question on the validity of the new edit interface. I find it clumsier and less reliable than the "raw" edit source. It think it is actually an impairment for many users. I think we'd be better off by replacing the WYSIWYG edit with a somewhat intermediate interface between raw source edit and WYSIWYG edit.--Sum (talk) 11:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Loaded Questions Most of these questions are loaded and presume that Visual Editor is going to be kept available in some form and right from its current state to ordinary users. Really, this whole process shows that (a) Management of this project has serious errors: one should not release any software for production use until it has been extensively tested by a small group of testers who have a range of editing skills and needs. (b) The questions indicate a serious lack of skill in framing questions that are unbiased and not loaded, and it really renders moot the questions, bar the main one: "Should Visual Editor be released at this stage?". The real question should be answered by paying good attention to proper project management and software testing, and not by a large group of ordinary users. I have taught questionnaire and survey design now for over 30 years. If a students did this on one of my courses, they would be criticized and told to go away and try again. I see no reason to change my stance with this project. DDStretch (talk) 11:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, it's the large group of users who decide, by consensus, on this project, including whether this tool should be used. Tataral (talk) 18:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I very strongly agree with this proposition. This "opt-in" vs "opt-out" discussion has all the hallmarks of the sterile "big endian" vs "little endian" debate, and arises solely because both factions implicitly agree with each other that only one of the choices should be available by default. But if both choices are equally available via different edit tabs, as seems to be the case at present, each contributor can freely choose whichever method they prefer at any time, and this whole unprofitable discussion is concluded at a stroke! (And please, it should be possible to agree on which text to put in either tab without revisiting the issue by proxy!) --R J Sutherland (talk) 03:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as well. And coming a long time after it started (I viewed it briefly at the beginning but decided it was a mess and purposely avoided it but hearing it would close decided to comment), I think another thing which means this will be largely ignored is that a of this stuff is partially irrelevant. E.g. stuff related to the hiding edit in sections; or at least the questions and comments often don't consider later changes. And I'm not referring to bug fixes but simple stuff like moving the visual editor to the right while it's in beta (or of course the hidding edit source). And some of the stuff is just strange, e.g. the vandals are going to destroy wikipedia bit (okay that was always a bit strange but it's even more so now unless we assume VE is so bad the vandals can't use it either although in reality it's already very easy to do simple vandalism when you don't care if you destroy the page, the only thing I can see VE helping is sneaky vandalism yet I just searched and only one person seemed to mention this and it was after a lot of the discussion). Plus without defending the way the whole thing was handled by the WMF, having a discussion like this when feelings are still so high rarely produces the best outcome and is a surefire way to ensure responses are mostly ignored. A far better thing was to talk to the WMF and propose resonable solutions or changes like what we've ended up with, let people get used to VE being there (whether or not they use it) and the confusion over the edit source no longer exists, and then a month or two later talk about it when the questions are clearer and people have better considered the issues like whether having the VE button there is really a problem for them or not. 100 people giving good reasons why the button is a problem despite not using it would carry far more weight than what we have here and may have a chance to result in a desired change. A particular point as I noticed in some of my responses, a lot of the questions are confusing since IMO they seem to be conflating, 'what should we do right now' and 'how to handle the VE'. While I didn't support, I can understand people's desire to roll back the visual editor to trial mode where you need to opt in to test. I'm far more strongly opposed to the visual editor being be optin to new users in the long term and to a lesser extent fpr all editors. Yet as several people said, fooling around with someone's preferences is generally best avoided. The way to solve these issues, if VE were really to be disabled for now, would be not to make it optin for new editors etc but as I said roll the VE back to trial mode and stay with a plan to make it opt-out (instead of opt-in) when it's reintroduced when it's ready as a feature (whether in beta or not). Some may consider this semantics but I see this as an important distinction particularly since it's not clear that all the responses were considering future plans and the goals of the VE (or in other words, a lot of what was being said was, it's badly broken at the moment so it should be hidden to avoid confusion/problems/disappointment). Although I personally don't agree with such sentiment, I would have far more sympathy to the idea that the WMF should listen to the idea of the VE not being ready at the moment and so needs to be rolled back from being available by default rather then the confusing questions above on default states point blank. (Although the WMF would likely still want more then most people don't feel it's ready, something more along the lines of it's not ready and should be turned off because of X, Y, Z and I think there's always a risk of the WMF saying well we fixed X, Y and Z or there's no evidence of it still happening.) Nil Einne (talk) 03:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My biggest concern

I am very concerned that this editing interface is being developed to one day be the only editing method with only administrators being authorized to edit source code! That would be ruinous in my opinion and my concerns were spawned at seeing "edit source" chosen for source code editing; especially with this being the exact language use for protected articles which only admins can edit. I would really like to see an unequivocal assurance that this is not even a possibility! :) John Cline (talk) 18:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Things like that do concern me with other systems, but it doesn't seem like something Wikipedia would do. Still, assurance that it won't be administrators only would help everyone. --Zzo38 (talk) 19:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Who would give that assurance? Admins, the same people whose future actions give us doubt to start with? Zzo38 may be extreme, but your answer doesn't really help him, does it?. Sammy D III (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This really is a discussion that belongs on the the talk page, but I can assure you that no one has informed me of any such plan, and it does seem unlike anything that WMF would force on us.—Kww(talk) 20:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
John Cline, can you not set up a Mediawiki instance and install VE on it, and play with it there? Gryllida (chat) 08:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I may have mixed John and ZZ's names up, but I get the idea. Why would someone inform you if they were going to take advantage of you? "seem unlike anything"? Right. I used to trust... Sammy D III (talk) 20:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who would you like that assurance from, John? I'm sure that could be arranged. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • James and Erik have, I think, already made assurances on this topic, but let me add mine: we have zero plans to switch off source editing. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restricting wikitext to administrators is just as ridiculous in my opinion as preventing new editors from using VisualEditor so that they cannot vandalize as easily. I am completely against both, though it appears there are more people against the former than against the latter. -- Rastus Vernon (talk) 21:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course they don't. Otherwise they wouldn't have had to develop Parsoid (I guess this was really expensive?) and running extra-Servers (is this correct?) that primarily serve for Visual Editor in order to support the "overly complicated Wiki-Markup". -- Rillke (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rastus; indeed, and it's not something the devs have any plans to do. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this concern. I had the same thoughts as John when I first saw this interface. This feature should be a preference-selectable user-gadget and nothing more special than that. If we find evidence that such a tool is under-utilized out of ignorance rather than contempt, an informative link to the user's Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets (perhaps titled "settings") above or below the editing box would be reasonable. Anything beyond that is too much. ―cobaltcigs 02:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I apologize for placing this concern here when perhaps it should have been on the talk page. I would not raise an objection if organizers decide to move it there. I certainly did not proffer my regards in jest and suggesting it is a ridiculous concern does practically nothing to alleviate my apprehension. I do appreciate the information that did manifest and I'm not suggesting this as an existing plan. It is something I feel could materialize down the road; after VE is effectively developed.

    I suppose I'd like to have it said that if it did come up for discussion, existing editors would, at minimum, be excluded from any requirements by an expressed grandfather clause. Seeing Mr. Wales affirm such a clause would be sufficient for me to discard my concern altogether. I do hope I haven't offended anyone for the things I've said; that would not have been my intention. I have witnessed a tremendous amount of diligence in the utmost spirit of good faith; and I think the endeavor is worthwhile—even commendable on many levels. :) John Cline (talk) 04:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "source" always was and always will be the actual article, not the visual representation of it. It is the source that is released under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license and the GFDL license. Editing the source, i.e. the article, directly, will always be the primary method of editing the article in any wiki software (or else, it wouldn't be a wiki anymore and Wikipedia would have to change its name to VisualEditorPedia or Visualpedia). A visual tool will always only be a secondary method, a gadget, as the users don't even see the article they are editing (i.e. the source) when they are using this tool. And a visual editor will never be as precise as editing the article directly the proper way. Tataral (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Precautionary Principle

Wikipedia works magnificently in spite of every reason to fail. Vandalism happens everywhere, as much destruction of the internet is for the shear joy of screwing up others with such ease.

Perhaps the complexity of the current system acts as somewhat of a barrier against those who will have the satisfaction of simply making destructive changes. There are many refined erudite articles that must have a small group of informal managers who set the tone. They are left alone now, and can go for years as a mature informative article.

Why are we making a change. At the very least make the VI, visual interface for signed in users, ideally with some history. Don't underestimate the unique magnificence of this universal encyclopedia. I use it dozens of times a day, as it is my continuing education.

Precaution is in order. Arodb (talk) 04:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Perhaps the complexity of the current system acts as somewhat of a barrier against those who will have the satisfaction of simply making destructive changes." My thought exactly. Arcanicus (talk) 03:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no "perhaps" as we purposely structured templates to deter changes: I will not mention the template names, to avoid attracting trouble, but we discovered how multi-level templates were difficult to change and it has provided a level of stability for years, without fully protecting the pages against all changes. In many cases, having few changes has been preferable to rampant updates; however, I also favor protecting the major templates, while allowing semi-protected, minor alternative templates for new features in limited use, until tested to put inside the major templates. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Precaution IS in order. I would cite the Hippocratic Oath that doctors take: "First do no harm". Any change to Wikipedia should first do no harm. The recent change of making the Visual Editor the default has violated the Hippocratic Oath and done harm to Wikipedia. We should not make that mistake again. --Yetisyny (talk) 03:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was this just turned on for all users?

I turned off VisualEditor over two weeks ago, and I just noticed that the box saying that I didn't want to use it was unchecked. Did anyone just turn it on for all users? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the Wikipedia:VisualEditor/August 2013 update broke the gadget to hide VE (which is unsupported); there is an official, supported preference in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing. Could it be that you've got the gadget turned on, but had the preference turned off?--Eloquence* 06:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, take away the keys for anyone involved with this fiasco. When I turn it off it should stay off. If the turn off tool is not supported, then replace it with a working one before anyone is allowed to touch the production systems with these mistakes. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know I have the preference turned off, although it makes sense that the update broke everything, as someone probably forgot to make sure that it wouldn't override the preferences of a few hundred thousand users. Oh well, no harm done! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I don't think this is a fair comment in this instance. Erik and the VE team seem to have made some concessions due to what the community has expressed (see his link above). Let's not get carried away due to one tiny thing. Killiondude (talk) 07:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When i turned this crap off i didn't think it would be forcibly re-activated and the off switch made mandatory re-confirmation even though it remained a checked box. Now if only the turning of it off would remove all trace of it, ie the "edit source" label. It is so nice to know that the gadget to banish VE is actually unsupported. Why can't VE itself be unsupported? That would be so much better. Monobook wasn't deleted when Vector was made the default css. Forcing VE upon those who hate it is a great way to piss off those people who are contributing and dislike VE for the sake of gaining some new contributors. Why people always seem to believe the incoming will be greater than those turned off by the change really baffles me. This should not have been activated until there was a legitimate, supported, fully functioning opt-out in place. delirious & lost~hugs~ 09:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents: Everyone should be able to use it. This is how I have always dreamed of using Wikipedia. Much user friendly. Come on, it's an encyclopaedia made by everyday users. It's a no brainer to make it easier for the creator to create. Allen750 (talk) 09:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having a working Visual Editor which doesn't break things would be nice, of course. However, what are the "everyday users", especially the new users, going to write? The user interface is IMHO a secondary aspect when it comes to gaining and retaining more new users in the future. The existing user interface hasn't people kept from creating an encyclopedia that is at least usable, and I don't think that WYSIWYG, which is a very old concept, has suddenly become extremely more important to people wishing to contribute. What (potential) new users need is an incentive to contribute at all - so, a possibility could be a prominent link on the main page which leads to an overview of areas where new articles and article improvements are needed. For, as I already said in other places, a main incentive for participating used to be obvious gaps, obviously missing important articles - and there are daily less of them. Also, writing and improving articles has become more challenging due to requirements like citing sources being applied more strictly than in the early years, so new users need help regarding this, and pointers to good sources. Gestumblindi (talk) 11:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is outrageous WP did it again. I turned off VE and have stated I will never use it again. Plus I have stated above I totally disagree with anyone changing an editor's preferences without their consent. This morning I wake up to find out VE was turned on again and I'm not the only one. As I said at the beginning of this, This is outrageous. Were myself and other editors not in favor of VE deliberately targeted? I think explanations are due....William 11:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The gadget itself was always advertised as an user created script that was not officially supported. And yes, that means that the gadget might break after an update of the visual editor. There is a new setting that officially supports turning the VE off.
But good grief, can anyone explain to me why people get so upset over this? Even if the visual editor is turned on the source editor is still available, albeit a few pixels further to the right. That is at most something man would refer to as "inconvenient" or "annoying". Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 11:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Be glad to. IT WASTES MY TIME! I have far too little of it, choose to spend a little of that remaining to me making a 'mini-edit' which turns into a production because this hated thing pops open when I click edit... the Edit Source is slow to manifest... I'm hurried, not wanting to fix whatever anyway, but feel compelled, then this thing ambushes me... GOOD REASON to despise it. Keep it out from under my feet, please. // FrankB 17:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Noone deliberately turned it on for users with the "Remove VisualEditor from the user interface" gadget at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. The following may still annoy you but you asked for explanations so here they are. VisualEditor is made and controlled by the Wikimedia Foundation which runs a lot of wikis. The gadget is made by the English Wikipedia with code at MediaWiki:Gadget-oldeditor.js. That gadget is not supported by the Wikimedia Foundation which has never said VE would remain compatible with it. As the page says: "It's bound to break on the slightest changes to VE itself". It also says: "pester the VE team to restore the option to disable VisualEditor". The VE team actually did do that after much pestering, although they may decide to remove the option later when they declare VE is out of beta. The disable option is at the bottom of Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing. It works much better than the gadget ever could, because the gadget cannot prevent loading of VE. Instead it attempts to hide the interface of the already loaded VE, but how to hide it depends on details of the VE code. It would be great if somebody with the proper knowledge could update MediaWiki:Gadget-oldeditor.js so users with this gadget don't have to find the new way to disable VE, although the new way is better. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hogwash' If you do an update that turns something on that editors turned off, it is a deliberate act. Second- I had those special preferences set or at least at a glance at them now shows that. What we have here is either a deliberate act to annoy people or sheer laziness. If someone has to make sure they don't turn VE back on for all the editors who turned it off, do it before completing an upgrade. Just DO IT and stop making excuses!...William 12:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not making excuses. You asked for explanations and I just explained how we arrived at the current situation. I'm not on the VE team and don't like the situation either. But it clearly wasn't deliberate of the VE team to circumvent the gadget. They just don't care about the English Wikipedia gadget and ignore whether it is compatible with VE changes. I don't know how to make it compatible but have done what I can by asking for an update of it, both here and at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Edit source vs. Edit. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I had the same thing, I had turned it off in Preferences and it reappeared. I'd point out how it's labeled in preferences, "Temporarily disable VisualEditor while it is in beta" shows that the intent is to never let us turn it off again after it's not in beta. If that's not what is meant by that choice label, then someone needs to change the choice label. Otherwise it's a clear sign this is about to rammed down our throats and unable to ever disable again. Due to medical issues with flashing or moving screen items I really do not like this editor; the soft fade and the spinning animated wheel aggravate my condition and so I turned it off at the earliest time (and it was then turned back on for me today). I also do not think it will help us retain new editors; most of the VE edits I've seen on my watchlist have been vandals. Of course 100% of the vandalism I used to correct was on our plain old editor which I hope is never taken away. Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From what I know, the update was not intended to turn VE on, but as a consequence of it, it now seems the "unofficial" gadget does not work anymore. This was not planned and there is no way AFAIK you can predict whether user-created scripts will or will not work once you update something (this is true in general, and for MediaWiki as well, not just for VE). Still, I am sorry if this caused inconveniences today. It is worth noticing that, should the "unofficial" gadget not get repaired, there is an official option among your Editing preferences and that it should stay there for a good while, as I understand from James' sentence "beta period, which we anticipate will continue for several months at least" (so I don't think it will be removed if this stage does not end). If you did not use it before, you might be unaware that it has been sitting there for a while now and that its description did not change in the meanwhile. Please notice there would be no point in deliberately annoying people with this switching on/off thing, so just keep assuming good faith: if it was possible to promise it will never happen again I would do it, but of course, nobody can say such a thing. :) --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 15:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I had it turned off in my Wikipedia preferences & it reappeared. I had to go back to Prefs and turn it off again. I didn't use any aftermarket things to turn it off, just my Wiki Prefs. Most programs don't make you reclick your preferences once selected!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again: this was not intended to happen... --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 15:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not buying it If you read here[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:VisualEditor/August_2013_update it says, "While we realise that many users would prefer that VisualEditor be a user preference that users have to specifically turn on in order for it to appear in the interface, we don't feel that it will be possible to develop VisualEditor effectively with only a small pool of users who have chosen to activate it by means of a preference". Certain people around here are using us as guinea pigs for their experiments....William 15:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would be really useful to understand how this move would result in (more?) people being used as "Guinea pigs". The only result I see, especially since people are complaining about this, is that after today people might switch from the unofficial to the official way of hiding VE. If you have numbers about people who instead thanks to this "glitch" reconsidered using VE, it would be great if you could share them with us. --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 15:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the team do not "feel that it will be possible to develop VisualEditor effectively with only a small pool of users who have chosen to activate it by means of a preference", then it is obvious that they do not have the expertise or experience in developing such software, because this is exactly how they are supposed to do it at this beta level. They need to take their time and do it properly, instead of trying to cut corners, because I don't think money is involved here (or is it?). They need to recruit a team of people who are given specific tasks and issues they need to consider when using the software. Then they ask them to test it "to destruction" on some sandbox with real articles that are copied there. They need to set up tasks that routine editing might involve, and ask them to carry out those tasks in as many different ways as possible. This should not be done at a production level use. Only after this phase, should they cautiously let the software be used by a wider group of editors who are similarly asked to try it out. Finally, after all these hurdles have been jumped over, then it can be considered for general use. The present situation smacks of amateurism acting within (false) time pressures writ large. DDStretch (talk) 15:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm sorry, User:ddstretch, but I find your excessive and relentless negative feedback and criticism to be both unconstructive and distracting. Can you contribute some useful feedback that doesn't involve denigration? Azx2 17:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @User:Azx2- I'm sorry, User:ddstretch, has contributed a serious analysis of the situation, and it is totally incorrect to get personal and impute his integrity. Throwing a wikiwobbly does not advance the argument in anyway. Please refer to content of his post and learn from it. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 07:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I reject the idea that I have not made positive suggestions. I have, though I am sorry that you cannot see that. Please take time to read my messages (in particular the one you made this comment on) and see that I have made very definite suggestions in which this project should be improved, though it would mean radically changing course from what appears to be happening at the moment. The criticisms are not denigrating, they are spoken with knowledge of managing large projects and teaching for many years how such projects are best managed. The questions we are asked to comment on ARE loaded, and the release of beta software IS a big mistake, as others have pointed out. Just why you pick on me for saying what others have said is beyond me, because I HAVE said how things ought to be done to help retrieve the situation.. DDStretch (talk) 20:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Should anybody being interested in an analysis of how devs worked until now on VE, yesterday James Forrester posted something about it on the talk (it's where the bulleted list starts). --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 16:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC) )[reply]

Temporarily disable

I do hope that the option "Temporarily disable while in beta" doesn’t imply what I think it does. I have nothing against visual editor, but I don’t want to use it. I don’t want to temporarily disable it, I want to do so permanently. Why was this changed? RGloucester (talk) 15:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree totally with you. I find the statement "Temporarily disable while in beta" quite ominous. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The official option to hide VE had this description since day 1 and it was not changed today. You probably did not realize this because you were hiding VE via the "other gadget". Can this suggest that an official option of disabling VE won't be available after the beta phase? Yes, it can. Does this mean we can be sure now that such an option won't be offered? No, it actually doesn't. If you take a look at this page you can see that there are unplanned changes that, well, happen. So I don’t think anybody can tell _now_ what will happen after the beta stage, which according to the very same page "we anticipate will continue for several months at least.". —Elitre (WMF) (talk) 15:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that I can keep it removed. I know that there is still edit source, but now there are two editing options on each section when enabled, which is ugly and distracting when reading. I have it disabled at the moment, but the "temporarily" part bugs me. SL93 (talk) 15:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I need VE to stay removed now that I've managed to get rid of it, again. I've tried it several times, and I severely dislike it. I can't even imaging actually doing my editing with it, whether it "works" or not. Manxruler (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This use of "Temporarily disable", along with the very loaded questions (see my comment on the "Wrong Questions" section) asked in this RFC make me think that either we will be railroaded into using this editor after it emerges from beta testing (well, beta use, it seems), or that the person responsible for using this form of words was incredibly inept. This latter option would fit in with the apparent failure of proper project management (you should never release beta software for production rel;ease, and never ever switch to use it by default), and the inept phrasing of the questions we are supposed to answer that presuppose this editor will be used, perhaps even soon. If this is the case, we may as well not bother to respond at all, and sit back and watch more editors leave as they become fed up with the problems that happen when using it. The fact that the wording is still there, despite it being quite a while since the issue was raised, does not bode well. DDStretch (talk) 15:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - You seem very upset, exceedingly critical and negative, and even bitter about this. Why would you encourage others to "not bother to respond at all, and sit back and watch more editors leave"? That smacks of elitism & hysteria (not to mention a perverse desire to see the project fail). Azx2 16:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am attempting to put an honest assessment of the software. If you cannot see that what I have said is an expression of despair at all the errors that have been made over this, then I am afraid your Panglossian approach will not work. I see now that on this talk page, there are other editors who agree with the sentiments I have put forward about a serious flaw in the testing of this software. I earnestly want wikipedia to progress, but we do need an honest, frank, an open assessment of what has gone wrong here, because something has clearly gone wrong. DDStretch (talk) 20:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am attempting to put an honest assessment of the software. @User:ddstretch That I can understand and appreciate. If you cannot see that what I have said is an expression of despair... That I can now also recognize and acknowledge. I, too, want Wikipedia to continue to progress as I've derived great benefit from its existence and enjoyment from contributing to its evolution and improvement. Learning Wikimarkup has been an ongoing process that continues to this day, and while it's not been a barrier to my participating, I broadly support any effort to make it easier for new contributors to become involved in the project (assuming good faith and positive intentions on their part!). I apologize for singling you out for rebuke and criticism if my doing so was perceived as unfair, although I still believe that the way in which you chose to express your obvious passion and strong feelings against facets of the ongoing development and implementation of VE did not necessarily serve your purpose well. That said, I do want to acknowledge that it seems the impetus for your comments was genuine interest and concern, and not whining or malingering. Cheers. Azx2 16:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • During a bout of insomnia last night, I logged in and found the edit buttons renamed "edit source" and "edit beta", but worst of all, their position was swapped. I had just gotten used to the other configuration. This morning I didn't see VE at all. That sorta lends credence to those who are saying the test launch was poorly thought out. Creatures of habit like me edit via spatial memory, so we don't like the whiplash. I actually support having VE, as long as I don't have to use it. Above, I comment that my impression has been that VE attracts a higher proportion of small but positive edits from IPs, contrary to my expectation that it would accelerate vandalism. If VE is to fulfill its main and perhaps sole purpose of luring in new editors, it needs to appear as the first and most obvious edit option. I wouldn't like to see this noble venture suppressed because it makes established editors unhappy, so I hope we can make sure that for logged-in editors it can be hidden and never again worried about unless by choice. Adding: Now the "edit beta" button is back, so I want to reiterate that if it's to appear, it really needs to be the first option available to casual users, or it serves no purpose. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also like the option to permanently disable the Visual Editor, at least for my own personal Wikipedia account. I don't care HOW good the Visual Editor gets, even if they fix every single bug in it, even if it becomes feature-equivalent to the source editor, I still prefer editing code directly, just as I prefer editing HTML directly rather than using a WYSIWYG editor for web pages. I happen to be a programmer with a degree in Computer Science and editing code directly is the way I do things, PERIOD. Thus the option to temporarily disable it until the beta is over is quite problematic because I don't want to have to disable it AGAIN later. And will I have to disable it again a third and fourth time after that? Honestly... --Yetisyny (talk) 05:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Side Question: Will VE eventually be the only editing option in the future?

I read up as much as I can about VE. I was wondering if the eventual, long term, plan is to make VE the only way to edit articles? (i.e., getting rid of the Wikimarkup "edit source" option.) Also, is there a plan to make VE available for talk and projectspace editing? Herzlicheboy (talk) 16:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Herzlicheboy, today Erik wrote this at the Signpost: "And no, we're not taking markup-level editing away. Some users may always prefer it over visual editing, even if the exact nature of the markup changes, and even if VisualEditor becomes the best tool it can possibly be." And yes, of course VE will reach other namespaces, but I am not sure when and about talks, see this, in the meantime. --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 16:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks, interesting. Herzlicheboy (talk) 16:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I was wondering if the eventual, long term, plan is to make VE the only way to edit articles? I hope not. Azx2 16:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I had a personal commitment from Jimbo Wales: "The source editor will remain available" [6]. Spectral sequence (talk) 16:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's good to know, thanks. My concern is more for the long term, like 2 years or more from now. Another thing I thought of, how can we be "Wiki"pedia without the "wiki" part? If we go to mostly (or all) VE-based editing in the future, wouldn't they have the change the name of the project? Herzlicheboy (talk) 16:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
how can we be "Wiki"pedia without the "wiki" part? If you read the wiki article you will see that a wiki is "a web application, which allows people to add, modify, or delete content in a collaboration with others.". The method used for that collaboration is not what defines it. Thryduulf (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't be replaced. Even if VE becomes default it should at least be an option in preferences. asdfawesomegreen (talk) 02:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly oppose VE becoming the only option. Please always offer source editing. Maki (talk) 19:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I too strongly oppose VE ever becoming the only option. We should always be able to opt out. Anything else is ludicrous. Manxruler (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To repeat yet again: Source editing will always be available. Source: Jimbo and all the senior VE team members. Thryduulf (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know that it will always be an option. I feel, however, that it should be a discouraged option. Visual editors are simply too much trouble for too little gain, and should never be allowed to people who don't feel able of editing source code. Luis Dantas (talk) 15:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism increasing to 2x, 5x, 10x or maybe 100x more

There may be no way to predict the amount of the increase of vandalism if it becomes as easy as typing into a word processor or comment window, but common sense seems to say that serious editors will be fixing vandalism at first about twice as often, then more, then more, as more people find out just how easy it could be to pull pranks on Wikipedia. After a while, IMAGINE spending 10 times as much time to fix pranks and deliberate vandalism. Imagine, after a few years, that amount of time increasing to maybe 100 times as much time. I love the idea of easier editing. I hate the idea of easier vandalism. Misty MH (talk) 16:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC) Formatting change Misty MH (talk) 16:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from Wikipedia:VisualEditor/FAQ:
Should we worry about a potential large increase in vandalism?
One of the goals of the randomly-selected new user testing done in June on the English Wikipedia was to discover if one will occur. We think that those who come with the intent to vandalize are probably doing it now because hitting the “Edit source” tab and blanking a page using the wikitext editor is just as fast (if not faster) than doing the same thing with VisualEditor.
Personally, I don't think there will be an significant increase in vandalism at all. It wouldn't surprise me if there was different vandalism (e.g. it's easier to do some things in VE than in source and vice versa), but rollback and undo work regardless of which editor was used to vandalise. Thryduulf (talk) 16:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - while vandalism is super-annoying and hardly desirable or something one wants to encourage, the hysteria over potential VisualEditor-enabled exponential increases in vandalism seems to verge on...hysteria? Azx2 17:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a serious concern, Misty MH. But let's think of this from the perspective of a would-be vandal. WBV goes to a Wikipedia page and realizes he/she can change the content to display something ribald or insulting to his/her Chem class partner. Is WBV going to care what editing interface is offered? Markup does not seem to scare off these type of people (or, perhaps more fairly, people in this mindframe). One can look at wider society and see that, luckily, only a small percentage of the population is driven to break things (riots excluded). We will always have that contingent on Wikipedia as long as we remain open to everyone editing. However, I don't think it follows that we will have more of this contingent with VE, or that it will be somehow more satisfying to dirty pages with VE so people will do it more often. Really, though, only time will tell. If we do indeed see a measurable uptick in the ratio of bad/good edits compared to what we have seen historically with wikitext, we may have to consider some changes. PEarley (WMF) (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious vandalism (adding invective and obvious nonsense, especially when it doesn't replace anything else) is our least problem, because it's quickly recognised and reverted (thanks to ClueBot, frequently even automatically). There are much more subtle forms such as replacement or removal of things, manipulation of figures, manipulation and addition of statements while making it seem they are supported by the following footnote when they are not. Besides the activities of POV warriors, well-intentioned but incompetent edits are a far worse problem than obvious vandalism. Subtle pranks such as the infamous spurious first name of a German minister on de-WP can be incredibly hard to catch. The volume and variety of unhelpful edits is a nightmare, and VE won't improve anything in that regard, to put it mildly. It appears to me as if many people here have no idea what can go wrong besides obvious vandalism; I say stop focusing on it because it is a red herring. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, to spare not servers but servants (ie us and all our bots), broadsheets (quality newspapers) require all blog editors to log in first. The question is in fact one of stopping anonymous editors who have not auto-confirmed themselves from doing edits. What a smokescreen about whether VE would increase vandalism, categorically yes but only in exact proportion to the amount of improving edits done, assuming ceteris paribus which can only be ensured now if we do what the papers do. - Adam37 Talk 19:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ease of vandalism would increase, but not nessesarily vandalism itself, we should wait for a month, then see how many acts classified as vandalism by administrators were made on VE. maybe we should offer it as a priviledge instead of a right, or enable it for logged in users only 0alx0 (talk) 16:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that may well increase -- until such time as VE is debugged -- is good-faith edits being accidentally deemed vandalism because VE threw in large globs of extra text. This has already happened. DS (talk) 20:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, DragonflySixtyseven. Aside from the fact that only time will tell whether there is any increase in intentional vandalism, I doubt whether vandals particularly care which type of editor they use. The real issue is that I've had to fix up my own unintentional vandalism while experimenting with VE. As you've noted, it throws in code willy-nilly & the easiest way to repair it is not to hit the undo button, but to go into the source & patch it up. Working on the premise that most one-off edits & casual editors are adding in good faith, I've often retained the substance of what has been added but reworked it... but I don't want to have to clean up after people have inadvertently deleted hidden comments, made a botch of a table or non-English script, etc. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
i think this is a faulty argument, for two reasons:
  1. what this argument says is basically, "when it's easier to edit, it's also easier to vandalize, so any change that makes editing easier is, by definition, bad". this does not hold water, even it it were true that VE makes vandalism easier, because the logical conclusion would be that any improvement that makes editing easier is, by definition, bad (how about allowing editing from mobile devices? same argument there, no?)
  2. in reality, even though good edits became easier, vandalism was always easy: with the "old" editor it's harder to make good edits, but it's just as easy to vandalize as it is with VE (press "edit", and type some junk or remove some good stuff - easy as 1-2-3). true, some more sophisticated vandalism (replace 17 Kg with 13 Kg) *did* become easier, but for the sophisticated vandals the editor was never an obstacle, and it's highly doubtful that the sophisticated vandalism will really increase.
peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 18:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not a faulty argument. It's easy to vandalize in both editors, it may be easier to make minor improvements in VE (once the reference tool from the "source" editor is incorporated in VE), but it's not yet, and probably will never be, easy to make fully compliant edits. At the present time, and probably for the foreseeable future, it will be easy to accidentally remove templates, visible or not, in VE. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ease of vandalism would increase, but ease of fixing vandalism would likewise increase, if the Visual Editor actually worked right (which is entirely hypothetical, since in the real world, it doesn't). The real problem is the Visual Editor is so buggy that it messes up pages when people are attempting to do good faith edits, resulting in something that looks to people as if it's vandalism, when really it's just caused by a buggy editor that's not ready for prime time. And this also gives actual vandals with bad intentions a cover, they can claim that they made good faith edits but that the Visual Editor botched them up and that it's not their fault, and they can use that excuse to evade punishment and commit serial acts of vandalism as long as the Visual Editor remains buggy. We need to distinguish between deliberate vandalism and accidentally messing something up despite having good intentions. That distinction was much easier to make in the past with the source editor, but now with the Visual Editor, not so much, now every vandal will have plausible deniability. --Yetisyny (talk) 05:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh*

I've seen the same basic comment reiterated a ton of times, and I think it basically needs to stop. Something along the lines of "If people can't be bothered to learn wikimarkup, they shouldn't edit articles." Or "can't be bothered to add references." Or "won't format things right." Or a dozen other asinine comments that basically say that if people aren't perfect, we don't want them. Shouldn't we be welcoming of every well-intentioned edit? Who cares if someone misaligns something a little bit? There's no deadline after all, someone can always fix things up later. Anyway, I think we can disagree on VE without making broad statements about the kind of people we want to edit. ^demon[omg plz] 17:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I share your concern. Many Wikipedians have taken this RFC as an opportunity to display their unfiltered elitism and disregard for Wikipedia's systemic bias. That said, I doubt a general plea for that to stop will accomplish much. But the sentiment is shared. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
+1. For those in our community that spend much of their time fighting vandalism, it can become easy to forget that most new editors are not vandals. So, for every act of vandalism enabled by a more newbie-friendly interface, there will be more editors now able to undo that vandalism because the barrier to entry is lower. The premise that the grand total of all edits will have worth is the foundation of this encyclopedia, and increasing the population of editors improves the equation. VQuakr (talk) 18:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. — Shmuel (talk) 20:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps "we" could avoid making broad statements that a broad mass of objections are "asinine"? The broad mass of objections are not about whether some kind of editors will be enabled, but whether VE is up to the task of enabling anyone. Or even disabling. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with J. Johnson. Perhaps, rather than projecting your own judgement on what the issues are, you should take a little time to actually read some of the comments. You may just discover that there are real problems with the VE being brought up and addressed. It actually extends to areas such as hidden comments, mathematical equations, charactersets, etc. Don't assume that, because others don't agree with you, that they are "asinine" or elitist. A bit of 'misalignment' is hardly what is being argued by the majority here. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that we should welcome everyone and try to help as many people as possible use Wikipedia, but the basic fact is that Wikipedia is built on a foundation of wikimarkup, and knowledge of wikimarkup will always be required to work on many core parts of it. (Any editor that could completely replace wikimarkup would itself have to be so hopelessly complicated as to defeat the purpose of introducing it in the first place.) This means that teaching people to use Wikipedia via an (inevitably) crippled editor is only setting them up for frustration when they discover that the complicated editor they have painstakingly learned still will not let them work on certain parts of the project at all, and that they'll have to actively unlearn them in order to productively contribute in many sorely-needed areas. Having two different ways to edit the project is a terrible idea that can only divide and frustrate the userbase, ultimately leading to decreased editor retention. I totally agree that it would be better if Wikipedia had been designed with an easier-to-use interface from the start; but it wasn't, and it's a mistake to try and force that in on top of the existing system -- sending people the message that they can edit Wikipedia as if it were a Word document is misleading and isn't going to help them in the long run. (I also strongly disagree with the assumption that the editor is easier -- the inability to see "how" something was done by viewing the source, as you can with wikimarkup, makes it painfully more difficult to learn for any but the most trivial tasks. No evidence has been presented that the editor actually makes it any easier for typical new users to edit, or that it's necessarily convoluted and confusing array of buttons is any easier to use than straightforward markup. Certainly a new user won't always understand what the markup means in detail; but they're able to edit the text between it and slowly pick it up as they go, just based on what they saw. The editor is no easier initially, presenting users with a confusing array of buttons of uncertain purpose, and unlike markup it never becomes easier through simple use.) I understand that people dearly want the editor to be easier, and want a way to make Wikipedia easier; and certainly some experienced users have managed to untangle the editor's complexity and now find it simpler for them. But the basic fact is bad way to go about it; it hasn't made anything easier, and there's no reason to think that extra work on it will actually make it any better at that core goal. It would be better if the entire editor were discarded in favor of another approach. --Aquillion (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Above: I've seen the same basic comment reiterated a ton of times, and I think it basically needs to stop. Something along the lines of "If people can't be bothered to learn wikimarkup, they shouldn't edit articles." Or "can't be bothered to add references." Or "won't format things right." Or a dozen other asinine comments that basically say that if people aren't perfect, we don't want them. Shouldn't we be welcoming of every well-intentioned edit? ¶ No we should not. I do not expect perfection, which I very often fail to provide myself. I don't expect that newcomers will understand the REF tag, or even that they'll immediately understand that what's not a factual assertion generally doesn't belong in an article and what is a factual assertion generally requires a reference. I'll attempt to point this out politely. If it still doesn't persuade the contributor (and it often does not), then his or her edits can be perfectly well-intentioned but they are unwelcome. ¶ Mediawiki markup can be a little rebarbative. (I still don't remember tabular formatting myself, and when I need it must look it up or copy it from an existing article.) But the notion of a markup language seems very simple to me, even though I'd rate my intelligence as merely moderate (I've been diagnosed as brain-damaged and "something less that [sic] a primate"). Editing Wikipedia constructively requires care and concentration. This requirement doesn't worry me. -- Hoary (talk) 01:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is ironic that someone arguing against the wisdom of requiring users to learn wikimarkup heads his section not with an argument or summary but with a distinctly rude reproduction of the noises of one of his bodily functions. The deserved response is pffftht! μηδείς (talk) 02:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*disruption*

I consider myself a "casual" editor of wikipedia. The only reason I am here is that someone felt that it was worthwhile to put a global site notice up for all "active" editors about these changes. Having briefly read the discussion - I am very sad - most people seem to be more interested in winning some bullshit argument than improving wikipedia. AGF is not some optional extra but a fundamental of our project - the visual editor is a bold but vital change - we should support it not invent ludicrous technical objections. AlasdairEdits (talk) 19:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At the present rate of development, VE will be ready for beta sometime in 2015. It shouldn't be made available to anyone until it reaches at least alpha. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um.... so, wikitext doesn't work? and i'm still getting used to the OLD system! --User:SmartyPantsKid 20:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is "beta" a bad name? I don't know where to put this, but it doesn't seem like it would be clear to rookies. If this is going on for long, should it be renamed? And is it right to be changing this stuff (not well) while the discussion is going on? What has happened to the simple word processor now? Sammy D III (talk) 21:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think "source" would be unclear as well to some newbies. I propose it say
[ edit code edit visual ]. The beta warning pops up anyway. — Confession0791talk 21:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty good.Sammy D III (talk) 21:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say this is necessarily about winning some "bullshit" argument as you say. (it probably is for some people, but I guess that's not how I viewed it when I cast my votes) For me, this comes down to the fact that I don't think this was ready for mass release. As far as new editors go, I think it would be pretty bad if the VE broke something that they thought that we would all think that they were a vandal. Not to mention, if the VE does accidentally break something on the page, a new editor probably won't have the experience to know how to fix it like an experienced editor would. This is why I think that software in beta should be tested only be editors who know what they're doing, not rolled out for everyone. Not to mention, VE currently doesn't work with Internet Explorer or Opera, which means that according to this, around 25% of Wikipedia's non-mobile users simply can't use the Virtual Editor. To me, this indicates that the Virtual Editor was simply not ready for "mass release," if you will.
You also make it pretty clear that all you did was "briefly read the discussion," because if you had actually read a little more, you might have noticed these arguments that people like me are making. Overall, I'm not opposed to the idea of the Virtual Editor, but I don't think that it should be as widely available in its present form as it is. I also don't want the Visual Editor in its current form to be someone's first experience with Wikipedia. Once the major bugs are ironed out, it's sped up, and support for Opera and Internet Explorer is added, it should be made widely available to be used by those that want to use it. Anyways, that's just my two cents on your "related discussion." ALH (talk) 00:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ALH, don't believe everything you read. Visual Editor DOES work with Internet Explorer. Tiyang (talk) 04:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Tiyang:, VE doesn't work in my IE10. I just checked here on enwiki and also on mediawiki. Are you sure it works for you? - Pointillist (talk) 10:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are questioning my veracity. Tiyang (talk) 23:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So will I. How are you able to make this claim, Tiyang? If the software detects that someone is editing with IE, it doesn't present the option of using Visual Editor. How are you able to bypass that in order to use VE with IE? If you have been testing this, why doesn't your edit history show a single edit made with Visual Editor?—Kww(talk) 00:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tiyang, it seems you have many of us amazed and perplexed as to how you've managed something no one else has. Are you absolutely certain you're talking about the browser? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Tiyang: I was questioning your wikt:veracity, but only in the sense of "accuracy", not "truthfulness"! Either way it wasn't assuming good faith, and I'd like to apologize for that. It would have been better if I'd said that I haven't been able to verify your claim so I'd be grateful for a note of how you did it. Now, I've investigated further and I wonder whether I may have found a solution. Is User:Tiyang/TWA/Earth the edit you are referring to? It is part of a guided tour called WP:The Wikipedia Adventure, which I believe you tested at the beginning of August. If I'm right, the page that appeared to have been created by Visual Editor was in fact created by a script in the guided tour. The edit summary says New Message (simulated automatically as part of The Wikipedia Adventure). Might that be the answer? - Pointillist (talk) 08:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please everyone see the comment I made at Kww's talk page. Also, I apologized to Pointillist for incivility. Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 05:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*The old "edit source" works better*

I hate the new visual editor as it can't do anywhere near as much as the old edit source and is far more complicated to boot. I can only edit text in the new visual editor and can not do anything else on it. - Playerstroke (talk) 21:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well obviously its still in beta and of course its going to be more complicated to boot asdfawesomegreen (talk) 02:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I must say that I too have only experienced its limitations rather than its benefits, and simple edits were never too difficult in the first place on "Edit Source" mode. But as you say, it is at a beta stage so we'll see if later there are improvements. The Big Hoof! (talk) 10:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to add my two cents here...I have mixed feelings about VisualEditor. There are some circumstances under which it is useful - quick textual fixes (grammar, punctuation, word choice). However, I have found it to be frustrating to use if I have to work on formatting, order of sentences or paragraphs - or anything to do with references. It is also very slow with long articles. While wikitext has a learning curve, it is in the long run still more efficient. Therefore, the question really isn't about who should have access to VisualEditor but rather how to make it more efficient in terms of use. And I agree with the discussions above - all users should never lose access to wikitext - it isn't hard to use once you learn it. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:30, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer "edit source". Peter Horn User talk 23:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"edit source" (or just "edit") is the best. Nicolas Love (talk) 06:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

if this feature is automatic even for non users, then "anonymous" vandalism can happen easily, and its easier for vandals. 0alx0 (talk) 20:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

It's already ridiculously easy to vandalize Wikipedia. You don't even need to know any Wikitext, unless you want to be really creative about it. If this feature is actually shown to cause a severe increase in vandalism, then there should be a discussion about whether or not anonymous users should be able to access the Virtual Editor. ALH (talk) 00:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen anonymous and new user vandalized anything on Wikipedia using Virtual Editor. So therefore, I think VE should be removed and never return. BattleshipMan (talk) 05:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And anonymous and new users didn't ever vandalize Wikipedia before they could use the Virtual Editor? ALH (talk) 05:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@BattleshipMan, i agree with you. Jiawhein (talk) 13:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment though, anonymous and new users are effectively being forced to vandalise, whether they want to or not.[7] Right now it should be turned off for them until the bugs are mostly gone. --AussieLegend () 21:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing with that (in fact I voted against the VE being the default editor for IPs right now). I'm against this particular viewpoint that that because the Virtual Editor might increase vandalism, we should never have the the VE. ALH (talk) 03:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mainline421 It should not be present for anonymous editors simply because it gives the impression of being easy to edit. It already annoys me enough when poeple claim Wikipedia is "all wrong because anyone acn edit it" as if people don't lie when there's no edit button.

An 'old' editor, I just had my first real try at using the VE. It's now nicely labelled as [edit edit-beta]. I'm going to buy in for minor repairs. Think it's going to make fixing vandalism easier. In citations, at least, it will sure make fixing glitches easier. And modding an existing cite in a pop-up?? I'm in! A major strength of VE is that anyone literate who spots a typo/misspelling or clumsy phrase can fix it: one at a time millions of times. This is great news for us underpaid gnomes. Twang (talk) 17:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, a person who wants to vandalize a page will do so, no matter what tool is available. It is easy enough to blank a page or section, and VE does not change that. Buster40004 Talk 20:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's a balance to be struck here. As Buster has pointed out, making it more difficult to edit challenges vandals and deters goodfaith editors, so conversely making it easier to edit should attract a disproportionate amount of goodfaith editors. Unfortunately as this was released from Beta testing too soon, we have a couple of difficulties: We can't always tell the difference between deliberate vandalism and inadvertent bug caused damage that will often happen when a goodfaith editor is editing with v/e. And because things like referencing are not very practical with v/e it doesn't really help the editors who we most want to attract. ϢereSpielChequers 21:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why assume that VE will attract vandals? Buster seems right, vandals will happen either way. If they are not doing refs, links, tables, anything complex, why should they care? You can post stupid stuff, or blank a page, pretty easily with code now. VE is made to attract good faith rookies, correct? Vandals are here now, will VE attract more vandals that good faithers? Maybe regulars miss it, but code makes doing a good job tough for rookies, even those who read and think.Sammy D III (talk) 17:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because it offers edits to every would-be vandal?!?!?!? μηδείς (talk) 03:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the concern is not about attracting vandals, but about attracting a new kind of vandalism. I think one of the saving graces of Wikipedia at the moment is that vandalism is relatively easy to spot precisely because it tends to lack proper code structure. I think there probably will be more good faith edits with VE, but I also suspect vandalism will be harder to spot. Feraess (talk) 14:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
μηδείς, I'm not following you. What does VE offer what code does not? Either way, all you need is access and to click a tab. Does the average vandal do "refs, links, tables, anything complex"? Can't you type "it's stupid" just as easily in code as in VE?
Feraess, that's a point, maybe. But again, if you are only inserting text, what code structure would be wrong? And, frankly, my code (and tons of others) must look like crud, and I'm trying.Sammy D III (talk) 20:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - FT2

I agree with those who are incredulous and exasperated at some comments which imply that somehow, only experienced editors should edit; people who won't learn markup somehow have 'less right' to edit and get less tolerance, or victim blaming where people who don't know Wikipedia well are blamed for trying to help us by editing without having the markup knowledge relevant to an experienced user.

Wikipedia (and all our communities' projects) exist only for the mass public. All our projects including enwiki assume good faith of anyone who may want to edit or improve knowledge, and we have always, and always will, welcome all newcomers, however hard it is for experienced users to maintain and remove any vandalism by a minority. Our lifeblood is and always has been in new users, and especially, new IP users. People like these may not feel part of our movement but might click to improve knowledge and add to our reference works. In the past, when abuse filter, revdelete, and numerous other tools didn't exist, tools were more primitive and resources fewer, vandalism was often harder to fight. But we never stopped welcoming newcomers, because we benefit from doing so, and the world - our readers and re-users - benefit in turn.

Let's have no more talk of experienced editor elitism, however expressed. Let's skip by the dead-ended idea that editing should privilege some techno-literate elite, or those prepared to learn arcane editing tools and markup that is acquired by more intense involvement. Editing is for those who want to improve wiki, nothing more. It needs no major commitment, and in an ideal world, no technological outlook. No technical skills barriers should exist to mass public contribution.

If this means more vandalism as well, then we need to encourage more editing and make it more enjoyable, to get enough committed editors to handle vandalism, and we may need better tools. It's still no excuse for elitist claims of what newcomers "should" do. They should do 'nothing but want to improve wiki. Everything else is us removing barriers that get in the way.

That said, we will be publicly judged by usability. Our committed core users are the testbed for major tools such as VE. If experienced users don't feel ready or happy to foist VE on newcomers, because of concerns over usability and deterrence due to significant or high profile bugs or issues, then VE should not be forced on people with no motive to hang round, or who may never come back if disappointed by their first try. They don't owe it to us to come back - we owe it to them to make it enjoyable to do so. Until we can deliver that, VE should be made known for the adventurous who want to try it, but left off by default.

FT2 (Talk email) 23:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than open an entire new section to offer your insights into what you perceive to be an issue of 'elitism', please have the courtesy to give this page more than a cursory glance & read the comments with care. You'll find that responses to your concerns have been addressed in a plethora of existing sections already. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Friends of mine who do not frequently update wik have commented recently to me that they messed up a few articles because they were slightly confused. It took me a little getting used to as well. Just my two cents.. Myownworst (talk) 06:27, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some people complain that wiki formatting is extremely diffult, so they want something that is totally simple. Fine, give them that, as an option. Anything that can make Wikipedia better and easier to use is good.
But it irks me to see that people who speak up against the half-finished visual editor are called "elitist". To me that smacks of suppresion techniques, to ridicule people who disagree with you. Unfortunately, it also hints at Wikipedia's core problem, the user environment that is too often unfriendly and hostile, where some users want to be kings and behave as if they think they own the place.
I respect that some people don't understand wiki formatting, but I don't think it is extremely difficult. In its basic form, the simplest and most important kinds of wiki formatting is easy to learn for most people. You don't need to be have a university degree to learn how to link to other Wikipedia articles, to make headlines or to insert references. Most of us who are relatively experienced contributors on Wikipedia (I have been here since 2005) don't know how to make tables, infoboxes or complex templates from the bottom. For the most part we manage as much as we need to by copying and adapting tables and templates that others have made, and add and tweak and change them into something that works for the needs we have. If we still can't figure it out, we ask other wikipedians for help. So then, is that "elitist"?
But yes, Wikipedia is getting more and more complex, it is straying from the fairly basic wiki formatting and relies more and more on templates and infoboxes. Instead of us getting by with knowing some basic formatting and principles and then maybe learning a little more as we get by, we are now expected to know of hundreds of different templates and infoboxes. It seems that no Wikipedia article is complete without at least one, preferably several, templates or infoboxes of one kind or another. From what I understand, templates and their use are now also one of the things that the visual editor is struggling with.
It would be nice if those few who are strong proponents of the visual editor would stop talking down to others, and instead listen to the arguments that are being made about it. We (or at least I) are not trying to make ourselves an "elite" who want to keep Wikipedia to ourselves and not let others in. Quite the opposite. A well functioning visual editor will make things easier for those who need it and will be nothing but a positive addition to Wikipedia. But it needs to be well tested before it is put into regular use. And if it makes it so that all of us who are not newbies will have to re-learn how to contribute to Wikipedia, it will only be a giant shot in the foot and be very harmful for Wikipedia. I am pretty certain that Wikipedia will lose loads of experienced contributors if it becomes impossible to edit using basic wiki formatting. Blue Elf (talk) 19:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well said, Blue Elf. The only point you overlooked was about adding images--which even after years of practice I still struggle with. If VE addressed these problems, everyone would be much happier. -- llywrch (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Randomized Assignment (A/B Testing)

A small subset of users (anonymous and registered), and a small subset of articles, should be defaulted to the Visual Editor, and its effects on their edit quality and activity compared to those not defaulted to the new editor. If it leads to better outcomes, more users/articles should be defaulted to it over time; if not, keep adjusting its capabilities on a small subset until it does. That is, apply the same rigor as is used on fundraising appeals. --Gojomo (talk) 07:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For previous A/B tests, see this page on Meta to learn more (although the results page is just a draft). Thanks, --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 08:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the pointer... but I don't see any results either way there. Any results at all from that research would be worth as much or more than all the non-testing-based opinions on this page. --Gojomo (talk) 03:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: I found the results link hidden up among the header boilerplate; I've made it more easily findable with a numbered section below. It seems the test was only run for a very short time, didn't clearly show improvement on the key metrics, and had to be cut short when the VE was enabled for all. --Gojomo (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Gojomo: You're absolutely right. This test was not a very solid one, for a variety of reasons, starting with the fact that 72 hours is not nearly enough time (we usually look at a week). We really should be running controlled tests of VE again to get an objective look at the new editor impact of VE. Steven Walling (WMF)talk 09:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AB testing is great for small improvements like the "your edit was saved" feature or new login forms. It's much less appropriate for drastic major changes to the interface, because we need to maintain two sets of documentation and have some way of switching users between them. If we have 25% of editors/articles on VE and all the help talks about the normal editor (or vice versa), we're going to confuse them. Andrew Gray (talk) 13:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, AB Tests are very easy and effective on small tweaks. But, they also work for bigger changes, as a kind of randomized control trial. The development and testing of VE so far already has switches in place to allow some users/articles to use it, and others not.. so it shouldn't be that hard to support and document both options, and quickly direct a user to the help resources relevant to their assigned/chosen editor. And to get significant data, you wouldn't need anything like 25% of the editors in the rolling trials. You could use very small subsets to measure how well the desired improvements in ease/participation/quality are happening (or not). --Gojomo (talk) 03:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly oppose this idea. Forcing editors to use the VE? That's crazy. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here) 14:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that we're going to be forced to use it eventually anyway, especially on talk pages with Flow etc. But I've read so much about it, maybe I am misremembering that statement from somewhere on one of the many VE-related talk pages... Shearonink (talk) 16:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You could still allow people to opt out of their random assignments, and the rate of opting-out/opting-in is another useful metric. --Gojomo (talk) 03:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I still say it should be available to everyone to use, with the option to disable it of course. Maybe it should be restricted to registered/more established members but I still think the VE is the best thing to happen to Wikipedia in a long time. Allen750 (talk) 15:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Taram (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree. Roller Coaster Rider (Jonathan) (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fourthed.OrangesRyellow (talk) 02:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with all 4 of you, at least about the part where Allen750 said the Visual Editor is the best thing to happen to Wikipedia in a long time. The stuff he said earlier in that comment, I agree with, but he lost me with that last bit, the Visual Editor is awful. I'm not saying we should get rid of it, I'm just saying it needs improvement and ought not be the default editor, but rather an option people can pick if they prefer it. Furthermore, in reply to the higher up comments discussing A/B testing, I think A/B testing on the Visual Editor is a terrible idea, people ought to be able to decide whether or not they have it, not have which editor they use determined by a random number generator and then being stuck with it with no option to change it. We aren't guinea pigs, after all, we're people. --Yetisyny (talk) 06:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it simple

How about "Edit" and "Easy Edit [beta]" ? This whole thing just got me thinking about WWGD (what would google do) and this seems like a good estimation. It should probably be available to everyone. Equazcion (talk) 19:41, 3 Aug 2013 (UTC)

Continuing discussion at the Village Pump (I went with 'What did Yahoo! do'). Mysterious Whisper 20:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although Google seems to have a superior search engine, I think that in general "WWGD" would suggest what n o t to do. lifeform (talk) 23:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify your suggestion? And can you do it at the village pump section I linked, where the discussion started and continues to take place? Many thanks. Mysterious Whisper 00:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My decision

Purely speaking in terms of my own self, yeah but there are problems. You need to deal with the problems inherent in beta versions of any internet software. It doesn't always work properly, and that is the bottom line. I don't know when though, it always works fine for me. Who says it doesn't work properly? Let them prove their ccase. I no longer care. But at the end of the day if you don't let everyday users use the editor everyday, then how are they even editors?

Explain that with logic. You can't

Well met, I am the Hoarse Foreman; My throat hurts. 17:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you put this on the very top of the page, as if your opinion should supercede the actual RFC to which you're ostensibly replying? Azx2 20:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the above user (HoarseForeman) has just been blocked for 48 years. Is this LustyRoars (talk · contribs) ? Soap 02:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikia

I've brought this up before and I will again. On a Wikia site, you can insert any raw html code into their visual editor, and it will save it properly. You can also toggle between the visual and source editor without losing any html or wiki code while editing. My question is: can't we recruit/hire some of the Wikia programmers to help us here? I think it would be a wise consideration. — Confession0791 talk 22:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I might mention that Inez Korczyński, one of the coders working on VisualEditor, is a Wikia employee. — This, that and the other (talk) 10:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If Wikia's Visual Editor is so great and Wikipedia's is so bad, why doesn't Wikipedia just throw out the current Wikipedia Visual Editor and replace it with the one Wikia uses? Seems simple enough to me. I say Wikipedia ought to go ahead and replace their Visual Editor with the one from Wikia. If one Visual Editor is bad and another one is good, you replace the bad one with the good one. It's common sense. I would suggest that Inez Korczyński could delete all the source code for Wikipedia's Visual Editor, then copy and paste all the source code from Wikia's Visual Editor back into its place. Easy. Even I know how to copy and paste. --Yetisyny (talk) 06:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Important matter of principle

I believe all editors should have the same environment in which to edit. By becoming an editor you enter the community and become a citizen of Wikipedia. The rules, rights, obligations, privileges and responsibilities should be the same for all editors. I do not believe introducing more "class structures" by having different rules and environements for different users is helpful. Personally I would prefer to see anonymous editing abolished because it works against this principle. Robertwhyteus (talk) 01:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no anonymous editing. "Anonymous" editors are identified by their IP addresses, rather than usernames. If you eliminated "anonymous" editing by people not logged in, you'd eliminate a HUGE percentage of people who edit Wikipedia and for whatever reason, don't feel like creating user accounts here. Turning away a huge percentage of Wikipedia's userbase runs counter to Wikipedia's mission of being an encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit that tries to encourage participation. Refusing to allow people who aren't logged in to edit anything doesn't exactly encourage people to participate or make them feel very welcome. As for "class structures", I am sure you are aware that Wikipedia has admins, and actually does have a hierarchy, with people at the top of the organization who are in charge. All large organizations are run that way, whether they are governments, corporations, labor unions, nonprofit organizations, NGOs, or vast criminal enterprises. There is always a social hierarchy in organizations. It is unavoidable, a necessary evil; without that social hierarchy, the organization would not exist. Even in groups that attempt to have everyone have equal status, such as Occupy Wall Street or the Anonymous hacker movement, there are still various social strata that form, the difference being that in a large movement with no central leadership, people instead form various competing cliques, some of which are more successful than others, ultimately resulting in the usual social hierarchy as the end result. Regardless of that "class structure", Wikipedia tries to be as open as possible to all people, whether they register as members or not, and take the opinions of everyone into consideration. Abolishing "anonymous" editing is completely anathema to everything this site is about, being an open encyclopedia that anyone can edit. --Yetisyny (talk) 06:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And who will do the all the cleanup?

I have been called here to comment about the VE, which I did (shelve it), only to see that there is a default tag for my opinion. I am an "elitist" who doesn't care about new users and I refuse to let Wikipedia become more perfect. Is that so? So I ask you: who is going to do all the cleanup? Who will keep articles from becoming flooded with images? I have seen several that start looking like flickr pages. Who will control improper categorization? Who will patrol for copyvios? Surely not the developers and supporters of the VE. Or do you intend to do new software that will deal with all the negative side-effects of the VE? No, it will be the usual cleanup crew again who will take the extra load. And do you really care about how newcomers feel when they see their good will edits and media removed from articles as "crap" or some other frustrated remark as is most often the case, or even with a level 1 warning template on their talk page? Elitist is a person who thinks that what he is up to is far too important to listen to the ones who will take the load from his actions. Hoverfish Talk 03:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a seasoned Wikipedia editor, but I have done some of it, and I feel I can speak for newbies as well as veterans. It's hard to do editing with all the templates and codes, and good tutorials are hard to find too. Still, I do most of my editing in code, probably simply because I've become used to stay away from complex things. Just now, I wanted to insert a picture into an article and was pleasantly surprised by the smooth wizard on Wikimedia Commons that led me through the steps. Maybe that's the way to go: Have wizards help the editors, but not giving them complete freedom? This would be good for newbies as well as pros, and the above-mentioned clean-up effort should be much less. Geke (talk) 13:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the wizard can become intelligent enough to "know" when one is adding irrelevant, unnecessary, or simply too many images in an article, it would help. The same goes for categories. If it can "get an idea" of how categorization goes in the particular whereabouts and discourage (or forbid?) whimsical or improper categorization, it would help. But then all this would slow down the editing process and I think this is a major issue with the VE. At best it should somehow help instruct one towards proper categorization, or media use. Hoverfish Talk 16:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I side with Geke and Hoverfish on this. Wizards for the editors are really helpful and impactful. It helps people to understand what the goals need to be. Most people mean well, but if you are not a "techie" person it can be hard sometimes to know what's right to do. Maybe people should get a link to the image guidelines when they add images for the first time? ReginaldTQ (talk) 22:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I never understood this point... I mean you might as well say "who is gonna verify write copyedit spellcheck delete all those articles"/"who will educate ban assist all those editors"/"maintain all that javascript css/lua"/. The same people that have always done so, namely those who WANT to. It worked pretty nice so far if you ask me. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 22:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is as you say TheDJ: those who want to have always done the maintenance. Here, however, we are talking about a development that will make it much harder for them to keep up with what is coming in. If the problem that brought up the need of a VE is reduced contribution, you should consider very seriously what a reduced contribution in maintenance tasks would mean. It isn't too much of a guess to say that this new development will make many of our maintenance contributors give up trying. This is not an evolution of wikipedia stemming from how things have gone so far. This is wikipedia running after anyone, making one feel more at ease with editing it, trying to give one the feeling it's as close to him as his favorite blog or social network, with notifications and all. It is a move that changes completely the equation of how things have been so far. If it wasn't done in such a haste, I would tend to imagine that this equation was carefully considered. However, as badly as things are going, I have every reason to believe that the study has been narrow-minded and that the vision of the future it is supposed to meet is disconnected from the situation that the wide majority of the people are (and will increasingly be) facing. So I urge you to please try to understand this point while you keep going for the VE. HoverfishTalk 13:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The survival of Wikipedia depends on getting new editors. None of us here are going to be here forever. It is perfectly reasonable that even the most active people will in most cases want to edit for only a few years--a volunteer activity is not a lifetime career. People will always come and need to learn. We must remove artificial barriers, and technical difficulties, so we can concentrate on helping people learn the important things: how to select topics, find references, and write articles. DGG ( talk ) 22:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with everything DGG said about writing articles, but there's also the question of who'll maintain existing material when our long-standing editors/admins wind down their involvement. Stagnation of articles and erosion of quality has been a concern for some time (viz. this 2010 discussion). This doesn't show up in our current statistics. We report edit counts, but most determined content editors do much of their work offline. In the hour they take to assemble a major edit, a cut-and-paste contributor can update baseball statistics a hundred times. We don't analyse the rates of addition and attrition of references. Given the number of citations that are based on unstable sources or use current rather than permanent links, and with Webcite running out of cash, that's another long term risk. There's also the motivation angle: most young editors would agree that building a new encyclopedia from scratch is cool, polishing your Dad's wikipedia probably isn't. Taking all those together, it's hard to see Wikipedia prospering in the long term without the right sorts of new editors. But what are the right sorts of new editor? How can VE be positioned to attract them? - Pointillist (talk) 00:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A simple VE may not be what solves such problems. We may need instead a broader type of intelligent/intuitive interface with newcomers, so we can make their experience both more interesting and more fruitful. It should be helpful in showing them how to do what they came in to do, and how not to waste their contributing time by making edits likely to be removed. A simple VE in all this can work either way, though it is my opinion that it will have a rather negative effect all things considered. I can't see how it can be "positioned" to work only in a positive way. It should be a lot more than just a well-functioning VE. Hoverfish Talk 03:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After reading "Who Writes Wikipedia?" by Farzaneh further down this page, I can see much better and appreciate what you mean by "positioned to attract them", though I still don't see how. Hoverfish Talk 21:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help Channel

I don't see that this has been brought up on this RFC yet, so apologies (& please don't jump down my throat) if it's been mentioned before and I somehow missed it in all the discussions here... Re: VE being the Default: If it is made the opt-out Default, the people who understand and who actually use VE need to consider regularly hanging out in the #wikipedia-en-help channel to help all the new editors who will end up there with their VE questions. I used to always help out there but haven't been back since VE was introduced. I love Wiki-markup, it does what I need it to do, I can explain to the editors who end up in the help channel about how to fix their editing issues (and even that we can't help them with their disability payments or with how to avoid getting arrested...but I digress...) VE? Haven't used it and, frankly, I confess I have no interest in learning how. I edit a lot of historical biographies that are incredibly long...and having to bring up the entire article to edit one aspect of it (instead of being able to do it by sections) just doesn't interest me. If people come into the help channel & have issues with VE, I can't help them, I am crippled by my lack of knowledge. So those of you who "get it" please consider being a Helper. That is all. Thanks. Shearonink (talk) 17:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, VisualEditor has never been the default editor. What happens if you click a red link? You get the classic wikitext editor. What happens if you undo an edit? You get the classic wikitext editor. When people talk about VE "being the default", what they really mean is that it was available as an option to all editors by default, not that it was the default editor. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Um... point? Missed. Yes, I definitely see what you mean (and I too am often very anal about those sorts of things), but Shearonink's point was quite clear. Ignatzmicetalk 00:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that Shearonink's point is abundantly clear. Where is the VE support unit at the help channel? You don't seem to be offering a support unit to The Tearoom or anywhere else confounded newcomers are going to be asking for VE help with, either. Wasn't this factored in in the development of VE? If it wasn't, how on earth can WMF justify rolling it out at a relentless pace? This serves as yet another indicator as to how badly planned & implemented VE has been. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikipedia:IRC#How_is_Wikipedia_IRC_related_to_Wikipedia?: "Wikipedia IRC is not owned or controlled by Wikipedia/Wikimedia. It is a project run by volunteers of their own accord." The WMF does not control the IRC help channel or supply any sort of "support units" to it.
The Teahouse, like many other help-related groups, was informed of VisualEditor and invited to prepare for it months ago. They are WP:VOLUNTEERS, and therefore they are free to make their own choices about how to respond to such invitations. If they didn't feel that learning about VisualEditor before its launch was the best use of their time, then that was their choice, not the WMF's.
I agree that Shearonik's point is adequately clear, but I think it's worth being precise when we're talking about this. The WMF's early help pages made the same mistake, and they are likely the original source of this way of putting things, and so I think it's up to us to point out that this is an error. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts

Progress is not achieved by worrying so much about the future that you don't do anything. Go ahead and turn it on, and decide if the increase in vandalism greater is than the increase in non-vandal edits. And, even then, it might be a temporary thing until the lazier vandals discover that it doesn't really help them much.

Some people are good at proofreading, formatting, etc. Others aren't. But that doesn't mean that they don't have great ideas, and it doesn't mean that they won't improve.

If you're concerned about hidden comments, see about making them appear as an un-deletable symbol/marker, at least until the visual editor is able to support them better. Or, perhaps you could disable visual editing, for now, for article which contain hidden comments.

I like the idea of the split window, showing both visual and code.

Newbies should NEVER be given buggy code. Many will assume it's a reflection of the quality of Wikipedia as a whole (and would they be wrong, if you're going to deliberately inflict buggy features on them??). Maybe tested/untested features can be flagged, and logged-in users can check a box to disable the untested features on an individual basis. When a certain percentage of users disable a feature, have it turn off system-wide for everyone automatically, until the feature is next updated. --Scott McNay (talk) 01:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. Some of us happen to be the kind of plonkers who relish a learning curve & don't get intimidated easily, but the majority are easily overwhelmed by even minor glitches. The IT rule of thumb is not to roll anything out until it's been debugged enough to be considered serviceable. If it's flawed, don't be too proud to roll back. I can't even begin to imagine what the last few weeks have looked like to a newbie: tabs being moved; nomenclature changing every time they open an entry they want to edit. I know that Wikipedia is far from professional, but some degree of professionalism must be applied to every aspect. V/E hasn't been rolled out professionally - it's been inflicted on WP! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RFC tag

The tag "There is an ongoing request for comment as to whether the Visual Editor should be enabled for new users and anonymous editors." appears at the top of every Wikipedia page I am on, and won't go away. What do I have to do to remove it? (I have Javascript turned off, so I imagine that's why it's happening). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 09:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a "[hide]" option fixed on the right-hand side of the RFC. Selecting that will permanently remove it (until the top bar is edited once more). --Jasca Ducato (talk) 13:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have pressed that button. The tag simply re-appears on the next page I go to. It is because I have JavaScript turned off. Is there any way to turn off the tag in the "preference" section, for example? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - in your preferences, in the 'Gadgets' tab under the 'Browsing' heading, check 'suppress display of the fundraiser banner'. KrakatoaKatie 01:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I already have it checked. It doesn't seem to stop this tag. Is there some kind of code I could enter? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[[User:All Hallow's Wraith ]], have you cleared your cache yet? (Control+F5 on most browsers) Red Slash 03:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did, just now. When Javascript is turned off, the RFC tag appears regardless. It is just always there. When is it going to be removed, in general? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 03:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've verified All Hallow's issue.
  • If JavaScript is disabled there is a [hide] link above the MediaWiki:Sitenotice but it does not do anything. I verified this in both IE and Firefox.
  • The site notice for this RFC is apparently not a "fundraiser banner" and so the "Suppress display of the fundraiser banner" preference will not remove the RFC site notice.
I'll start a new thread at MediaWiki talk:Sitenotice as this seems like a bug. --Marc Kuppertalk 20:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 09:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sitenotices should be read by users, so you should not suppress them with a gadget like the fundraiser gadget does (and admins wouldn't allow such a gadget I think). If you don't have JS you can't dismiss a message (because there is not a serverside database per user where we could store such information). So if you browse without Javascript, this is one of the sacrifices you need to make. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 10:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My vote (is this the vote page)

I vote comment no talk page yes, because wikipedia shall not look so like wikia. And this promotion is so big.Jiawhein (talk) 11:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, can the functions in http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:StringFunctions be enabled too? Jiawhein (talk) 13:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it should be enabled for new users. A lot of these "vandalism" claims are due to the fact that the text editor is extremely confusing when it's first used. Bookster451 (talk) 22:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beta

It worries me that whoever started this project seems to have little idea of the convention of Beta, and that ignorance is repeated throughout this discussion.

It seems to me that imposing a beta system on users is at best bullying, and at worst seriously disruptive.

It also seems to me that asking people to vote on topics that have not been fully explained, is likely to result in a poor decision. Just, as they say, sayin Heenan73 (talk) 22:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed. What a piece of crap! It's barely functional, deadly slow, and totally unintuitive. I can't even get it to function at times - just turns all the text light grey. The last thing a regular user needs is to see this tag. If it needs the word "beta" beside it, it shouldn't be visible to anyone. And if it's such a shitty editor, it shouldn't be there. Not sure where to vote ... but that's my thought. (A FAIL Barnstar to all involved!) Nfitz (talk) 03:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with both - This software is closer to an alpha and to call it beta is almost megalomanic at least very arrogant. I wouldn't dare a product like this not even present to my collegues, I would be ashamed of it, First be happy with it yourself, then your family and friends. Here the developer chose for the opposite... First the world - an upside down approach - Why? Klaas Z4␟V: 13:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I will have to agree with someone above. Go ahead and turn it on. Then, determine if there is an increase in vandalism, and if so, is it greater than the increase in beneficial edits. Why is this such a contentious issue?

Dubious benefit

Regardless of experience, Wikipedia is the work of editors who:

  1. Contribute unique information (add new content to Wikipedia's extensive collection of articles); and/or
  2. Maintain encyclopedic standards (ensure material is presented clearly, supported by secondary sources, and formatted in a way that contributes to the perception of Wikipedia as a legitimate source of information).

I find it unlikely that visitors intimidated by the markup editor represent a significant source of unique information. Moreover, their lack of interest in encyclopedic presentation is self-evident.

I see no reason for the WYSIWYG tool to be abandoned at this point--if it is developed to reliably perform all the functions of the existing markup editor. If it's meant to be a limited tool for casual contributors, I struggle to see the point.

--Patronanejo (talk) 19:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I regularly do "casual contributions" by fixing spelling and grammar mistakes. I've been using the Visual Editor for that. --Marc Kupper talk 19:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By casual contributors I mean those intimidated by the markup tool; I've edited my post to reflect the possibility of other interpretations.
I too have tried the VE for quickie edits of the type you describe, and--as someone who was raised on WordStar--I readily acknowledge the potential of WYSIWYG for superior productivity. Patronanejo (talk) 21:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to some extent. The task of writing an encyclopedia is serious enough to warrant a little learning on the part of editors. The syntax for wiki markup is fairly easy, and even editors who don't want to learn the details can add text fairly straightforwardly, and for many of the other functions the old editor does provide a toolbar. So I don't think that a WYSIWYG editor is a necessarily evil that must be inflicted on the whole for the greater good (with the stated purpose of "fixing" the problem of editor retention of all things). But I also don't think it hurts anyone to have it as a preference (disabled by default) available for logged in users. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps for casual editors and/or minor edits VE might be an improvement, for regulars and creating a completely new article that looks good, follows de facto standards and perhaps be a candidate for featured articleit's in my book a wee bit contra-productive. Perhaps I'm pessimistic and improvements are as good as promised then it's time to call it β0.0.1 or even label it VE1.0.0 or something like this. This qualification it doesn't deserve yet. The editors TextWrangler and Notepad++ do their job better, faster and more intuitive for experienced users. In bocca al lipo (Italian for 'good luck'), Klaas Z4␟V: 22:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not so.. Dubious of benefit

Here as in most places and things in life, everyone's opinion is formed from their own past experiences. I've always found some aspects of editing Wikipedia source to be the esoteric realm of the elite devotee and discovered I didn't care to spend my time on learning what might yet become another obsolete language. Hey, I've been wrong on that count a number of times! And yet, for some reason I just can't make the time to learn yet another set of definitions and syntax. For you youngsters out there, that's what happens when one gets older... much older. (sigh) yes, it does get harder to teach an old dog new tricks.

On Topic: My two cents...

'FIRST: ONE SHOULD NEVER EVER... EVER!' release Beta to the public, especially as default. OMG what were you thinking setting a new standard or paradigm shift? Beta is for experienced users to assist the project developer in finding problems before the public finds out; it's for a select elite volunteer group large or small. Really, that few editors edit on Wiki? That's scary! What did you hope to accomplish? General uproar, and, a bad name? Good Job! It appears you were successful!

And for any one group to have such control as to force the use of Beta (VE) or even force make an optional choice.. non optional... while in Alpha, Beta or Release! I'm truly flabbergasted!

I'm a casual editor - here and I edit other wikis, in earnest, where source is the only option. I liked the VE for casual editing or defragging vandals. There are times when a casual VE would be helpful. As a coder of all kinds for years I've yet to find an integrated WYSIWYG that doesn't break, especially regarding markup languages. My preference would be to have edit with 'VE always ON (default) for anonymous editors, and edit Source always ON (default) for logged in users, with the option to turn on VE... temporarily(default) or permanently.

The problem I find with languages, markup or otherwise, has more to do with remembering the codes. I've forgotten more code than I can presently remember, because most of it is obsolete. For quick fixes VE is great. I think if VE is on for anonymous it will cut down on vandalizing source, as most vandals are like kiddie script users, anonymous and more interested in seeing what they can do to and with something than doing for something. Defaulting to VE OFF, or SOURCE ON for logged users just means an extra step if one wants the simplicity, and I'm fine with that. And, I had no opinion on the subject when I came here to read, and I want to thank everyone for their points of view. Without your varied opinions, I really wasn't sure what all the hubbub was about.

I wanted to add that in other editors, where no VE is available, there are times after creating the template and populating everything with rudimentary information that I wish I could switch to a Visual editor to chum over the article and then switch to source only as necessary. It works for programming, it works for HTML & JS, and it works in MS Word. But, when I want, anytime I want, I switch to code, whether macro or markup or editing css, and fix problems created by the VE. The harder the VE or IDE is coded into the app; the harder it is to fix the problem. I'm fond of saying that "On a computer, we don't so much as fix problems as we fix what the computer thought was the right solution to a problem we didn't think existed.--Cyberchip (talk) 12:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who Writes Wikipedia?

It's very important to read Aaron Swartz's data and the analysis (however slightly outdated) of who actually contributes content to Wikipedia. The formatting and alignment is typically done by many hardworking contributors who don't mind getting their hands dirty with wiki markup, coding, whatever. The content, however, is mainly produced by users who don't spend much time learning the nitty-gritty editing of the wiki source. They are experts in their fields, and Wikipedia vitally depends on their expertise. To make the most of these occasional expert editors, having something like VE is long overdue. An odd formatting error would be spotted and fixed by experienced Wikipedians and bots, and as VE improves, they would happen less frequently. --Farzaneh (talk) 18:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nowadays Wikipedia is written by power users, not passing strangers: There was a myth that newcomers provided most text, but it was debunked when checking thousands of pages and authors (see: wp:1EDITMYTH). Instead, power users write the contents and format the style of most pages. In fact 5% of WP pages (210,000 articles) were written by only 10 people (see top editors in: stats-EN). Today, 8% of editors make 87% of all edits, and that massive 87% includes new articles and expanded text. To understand Wikipedia, think logically about the whole. If WP were written mostly by passing strangers, then there would be no incentive to invite newcomers, because they would already be editing, but they are not. Instead, many new articles today arrive as complete pages with infoboxes+categories, as if sprung fully grown from the "head of Zeus" as written by power users. The power users edit the protected pages, decide the rules, develop the templates, revert the edits, and wp:AfD-delete all pages they dislike. Newcomers are lucky to "get a word in edgewise". The power users are doing everything, as newcomers work in the shadows. Make sense now? -Wikid77 (talk) 08:57/16:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To all intents & purposes this forum is closed. Having said that, I'd suggest that, while a working VE could be invaluable, this is not a working VE. Much of the content on Wikipedia is desperately in need of updating but unleashing (erhem, I mean rolling out) a system that makes critical errors is the wrong move. How much screwed up code is the average editor going to be prepared to unravel in order to establish what a new contributor is trying to add before they just start hitting 'revert' out of exasperation? I doubt one needs a crystal ball to see that even the old faithfuls you're counting on will be leaving in droves if the WMF remain adamant about their projected December deadline. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The December timeline is a projection, and it may change. So far, it appears that every single projected date has been changed except the 01 July rollout to registered editors here, so I think it highly likely that the December one will change, too.
  • Since you've only edited two articles outside the English Wikipedia, and since there are no plans to rollout anything related to VisualEditor except bug fixes on the English Wikipedia (where you've edited only about two dozen articles in the last two years), the projected December timeline doesn't affect you at all. Why do you care when VisualEditor becomes available to projects that you've never visited, or even heard of? If we turn on VisualEditor at the Tagalog Wikipedia later, will you actually learn Tagalog and go edit there? Would you edit more articles here if the date was changed? Or does it make no actual difference to your editing? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's nothing wrong with expressing the opinion that inflicting bug-ridden code on Tagalog speakers is a bad idea, even if one does not speak Tagalog.—Kww(talk) 20:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh dear, Whatamidoing, you're showing your hand... or is that shooting yourself in the foot? Since you've taken time out to investigate my activities, you may have noted that I've actually only become regularly 'active' as of relatively recently. Finally being able to retire from the workforce is sitting well with me, thank you very much for your (what I will politely accept as being an) expression of concern. Being employed is a funny thing: it tends to take up one's time. In other words, I actually am representative of the people Wikipedia are aiming to involve & retain, n'est pas? One thing I am certain of is that I have been around just long enough to see that VE is definitively not something which just needs to be tweaked a bit to get rid of a few bugs here & there. Your reference to Tagalog is not entirely out of place as you are only seeing the tip of the iceberg regarding where I'll be editing. Watchlists & contributions grow... given a little time & motivation. In a nutshell, you have no idea of how many areas I'm familiar with nor whether Tagalog will affect me. In fact, if you care to pull up my stats again, you might just see that cyrillic & various other language tags (including being able to incorporate medieval text) do effect me. Perhaps, now that we've done with the acerbic patois, you might wish to consider who the contributors you're so desperately trying to woo, & how best to accommodate them, really are. Shame on you for making assumptions about how valuable a commodity I could potentially be based on my past performance. Always read your stats with care. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hilariously textbook case of selection bias

The visual editor's big advantage is that it helps that vast majority of humans—many of them experts in specific fields—who aren't used to dealing with code.

Yet the only way to edit or respond to this RFC is via editing wikicode. Of COURSE the vote will be hugely skewed against the visual editor. It's like holding a vote on Wednesday on whether you should move your Wednesday meetings to Thursday. Of course all 30 of you vote for Wednesday; the 50 people who can only do Thursdays missed the vote! --199.167.121.172 (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, you seem to have figured out not only how to add your statement but add a section, properly sign the statement and even left a decent edit summery. Seems like it worked out ok for you. So why wouldn't other also? Kumioko (talk) 15:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Kumioko, I was able to figure out how to reply ... because I've been editing Wikipedia for many years, I have a CS background, and I've been writing code for two decades. (I just got logged out and haven't bothered logging back in.)--76.24.31.43 (talk) 18:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think more VE users did not vote "VE" here because once they saw the immediate talk-page editor messages, they started Facebooking their friends about the neat WP talk-editor that instantly warned them they were "Editing" and "preview only...changes not yet saved" so most changed their !votes to "not VE". So easy, "even a caveman" newcomer could tell wikitext was faster and more obvious. No wonder two-thirds of new usernames chose wikitext over VE, despite being considered "too stupid" to learn wikitext. I guess some people are surprised how new users of an encyclopedia can learn so quickly. This "sum of all human knowledge" idea seems to be working. -Wikid77 16:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as Wikid says below it was a bit of sarcasm but at the same time, people have learned how to do it for years. Lets remember that the vaste majority of editors never learn Wikicode very well and some have been here for years. They learn the basics and keep rolling picking things up as they go. They are writers, or copyeditors or readers. Most edits are just grammer and typoe fixes. There is no need to learn a bunch of complex coding. And it really doesn't take that long to figure out most of the basic stuff like how to make italics or how to bold something. Its no harder than learning how to use MS word, or Excel or even Outlook or any number of other applications. With all that said, I do agree wholeheartedly that a good visual editing program would be beneficial. But, and with all good intentions aside, VE is not it. It's slow, non intuitive, it takes too many steps to make an edit, it doesn't work for many browsers, it doesn't do a lot of common tasks and worst of all it breaks articles. We should never, ever, ever, release an application that intentionally breaks stuff. And when I say intentionally what I mean is as soon as the WMF found out that VE breaks articles, it should have been turned off...immediately. But it didn't, it left it enabled and then continued to roll it out allowing it to break even more. After they knew it was breaking articles. You say you have been a programmer for decades. I have been doing project management and IT program management for nearly as long and if this would have happened in most of the programs and projects I worked on, it would have resulted in somone being fired. So although Yes I concede that a Visual editor is sorely needed and I even concede that Visual Editor might some day be the cats meow, right now it still borders on being crap. Even though improvements are being made to it on a weekly and sometimes even daily basis. I do not agree that its selection bias at all. In fact if anyone is guilty of selection bias it would be the WMF who implemented the software. I am glad though that you are editing and I do appreciate your point of view. We need more people with technical skills here and I hope that you continue to edit. It sounds like you have been doing it for a while and that's a great thing. I just don't agree that this has anything to do with bias as much as it does the WMF failing to maintain a basic level of comepetence when releasing half finished software to a volunteer community. I also apologize if it seems I am upset with you, I am not. I am still upset that the WMF dumped this steaming terd half completed and expected the WP community to clean it up. So if I seem like I am being rude its not directed at you. The topic still gets me heated because I am passionate about the project and it bothers me greatly when those in the positions to protect the project do not. Happy editing and I hope to see you around. Kumioko (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, 199.167.121.172. Users who already are intimidated or don't have the time or desire to deal with wikimarkup may have already decided to avoid editing Wikipedia altogether (or now that VE has been introduced, at least pages that require wikimarkup editing like this RFC). I'll add that another selection bias may occur in that casual editors who stand to benefit more from VisualEditor are less likely to want to involve themselves with internal Wikipedia politics and this RFC. As to Kumioko's point, generalizing 199.167.121.172's abilities and desires to the entirety of Wikipedia users is a bit silly. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 15:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect Kumioko's generalizing of abilities was *sarcasm* about someone thinking newcomers are too dense to understand the button "Save Page" versus the South Parkian notion of wikitext to newcomers having "warped their little minds". -Wikid77 16:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect there are a lot of assumptions being made about objections to VE & how it was rolled out, full stop. Creating a scenario to fit your theory and presuming to call it 'textbook' does not make for a valid observation: only your own assumption. It seems we aren't all as gifted as you, 199.167.121.172, at drawing conclusions from no particular evidence. Personally, I think you need to work on your analogies... but that's my personal opinion, and I wouldn't deign to create a circular argument to support it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is always a problem with selection bias in RFCs. If you wanted to reach a representative sample of users, you would have to deliberately seek out a representative sample, use proper polling software, and ask well-written, ideally validated questions. I believe there are a couple of people here who could help design a more neutral poll, if that were actually wanted. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 15:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there was a substantial selection bias in term of the first four questions (I can't speak for the additions). That's why there weren't questions about the personal use of the Visual Editor, the desirability of having one at all, etc. They focused strictly on whether the software should be enabled in its current state.—Kww(talk) 16:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, Whatamidoing & Kww. The RFC questions served their purpose quite adequately and there is no reason to deem the vote outcomes here as being invalid. Other issues of a fundamental nature were raised in the form of comments on VE as a by-product. It has become apparent that there are other serious concerns regarding VE held by enough Wikimedians to address them separately. I'm certain that everyone here, whatever specific skill-sets they bring to Wikipedia, hold a common interest in keeping it a healthy, relevant resource. The fact of serious grievances is best addressed in a constructive manner in order to maintain a constructive community and contributor culture. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Selection bias is about who offers an opinion, not about how the questions are phrased. For example, about 40% of edits are made by IPs. If you have an unbiased response from all editors, then you should presumably have approximately 40% of edits on this page be from IPs. Similarly, in an unbiased group, people like Kww (and myself), who are in the top 1% of most prolific contributors, should form no more than 1% of the respondents. As is typical for any RFC (and even for the WMF's editor survey), IPs and new editors are vastly underrepresented, and highly active editors are significantly overrepresented.
Well-written questions only enter into the issue of selection bias if you have questions that are understood differently by different groups, with the result that some groups disproportionately refuse to complete the survey (e.g., see dog-whistle politics). However, poorly written questions can additionally seriously bias the results, even if your sample is perfect. It is certain that the sample here is far from perfect. There are complaints elsewhere about the questions, including concerns raised by editors who say that they have professional experience in the relevant field. I make no particular claim about the questions myself, and I do recognize that a significant effort to be fair was made. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 05:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've left off responding to this for a few days, Whatamidoing, as it is best to address issues on a cool head. No matter how I read this diatribe on selection bias statistics & representation, it still reads as being a)evasive; b)an indictment of RFC's as being cynical exercises in being seen to address issues but, ultimately, meaningless due to lack of participation by those who don't have a voice (or don't know they have a voice), and any value being contingent on hearing voices from unknown universes, or whether a tree falling in a forest with no one to hear it makes a sound.
What has been presented on this page is evidence that the WMF has bypassed the question of whether the VE is desirable; whether agile programming is a desirable method of developing VE (if VE is deemed to be desirable); whether anyone cares about the aesthetics of Wikipedia pages; whether the incidence of idiotic content (which can only be construed as 'good faith' contributions that have damaged pages) has increased dramatically & is exhausting editors monitoring pages ('good faith' often breeds bad will); whether we'd all go into shock if we had an inkling of how many entries which haven't been monitored for years have been completely trashed; whether VE is genuinely serving - and will continue to serve - a valid role in bringing new, useful editors/contributors to Wikipedia.
While you've taken time out to come to my talk page in order to wag your finger at me and tell me that I'm only one voice and can only speak for myself, I say that my mathematics isn't all that terrible and the repetition of the same complaints about VE throughout this page can only be seen as an equation: 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 (etc.) individual voices = a significant number of voices expressing their dismay over the same issues = begs the question of "Whose interests is VE really serving?". You can apply demographical & statistical analysis to this fact until the cows come home but it won't obfuscate the obvious - there are a lot of very unhappy editors/contributors who don't like the way VE is being handled. How do these individual voices approach the WMF in order to be heard? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that anyone intended this RFC to address questions of Wikipedia's aesthetics or the problem of vandalism or incompetence on unwatched pages, or most of the other things you mention here. I know that you think agile programming is a horrible idea because it gives users more interaction with half-finished software than many users want. The problems of getting representative responses at RFCs (and especially RFC/Us) are well-known and amply documented in the archives at WT:RFC, among other places. I don't think that it is necessary to assume cynicism to recognize the reality about who responds to RFCs, and I don't think that it requires cynicism to notice the over-representation of WP:MOSTEDITS people and the under-representation of others.
This is a perfectly fine way for these individuals to present their views to each other and to the WMF about their own preferences for their own community. When it comes to expressing opinions about what other Wikipedias should do, I don't believe that there actually is a good way for someone who basically only edits the English Wikipedia to make her opinion count more than the opinions of those other communities. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no vote on whether we want the VE or not, just on how we want it. HoverfishTalk 19:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Despite no vote about wanting VE, there were quite a few opinions cast as to how the incurably stupid newcomers must have VE for their "little minds". -Wikid77 16:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What about VD? --MZMcBride (talk) 21:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
VD?? Hoverfish Talk 22:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The VisualEditor had been called "VisualDung" (VD) earlier, re "PoS" but that was then. -Wikid77 16:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Venereal Disease.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 09:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the tips everyone. Don't let it become too silly, please. I wasn't thinking on the lines of how we want it named. Hoverfish Talk 16:06, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.