Jump to content

Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Default State RFC

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:VisualEditor

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Geitost (talk | contribs) at 17:00, 31 July 2013 (→Discussion of new account default state: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Overview

WMF has now provided a preference that allows individual editors to disable the Visual Editor. This preference currently defaults to enabling the software, meaning that any new editor is exposed to the Visual Editor, although that editor is not warned in advance that the editor is in beta test and may damage the article or behave in unexpected ways. Similarly, the option of using VE is presented to anonymous editors, although that editor is not warned in advance that the editor is in beta test and may damage the article or behave in unexpected ways.

This RFC is intended to seek English Wikipedia's consensus on whether this is the correct behaviour for this preference. It is true that the WMF is not bound by this consensus, but they have shown a willingness to respect the decision for both the Dutch and German Wikipedias, both of which have persuaded WMF to default to disabling VE until an editor changes his preference, making it an "opt-in" preference.

This RFC is structured around a few simple questions. It is not a vehicle for insulting WMF, nor is it a vehicle for venting any frustrations about the Visual Editor. The options are purposely not mutually exclusive: it would be quite possible, for example, to favor leaving the switch unchanged for existing editors while making it default to "disable" for any new accounts. Similarly, one could believe that it is legitimate to leave VE enabled for anonymous editors and also favor changing the user interface to clearly indicate that VE is in beta.

Question 1: When a new account is created, should the preference be set to disable VE ("opt-in") or to enable VE ("opt-out")?

Opt-in

  1. Beta software should always be opt-in. Not all editors want to test new code.—Kww(talk) 01:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Opt-in until more of the bugs are fixed. VE (in my experience) is not ready to be the default yet. (Just to be clear, I think VE is going to be a great thing someday, and is the way of the future; for now, though, it's not ready. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Opt-in. The software just isn't there yet. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. MUST be Opt-in. VE is a disaster for new editors. It's just too darned slow. Guaranteed to make them lose interest in the project. A discussion on this (with pretty strong unanimity) is underway at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention#Visual editor's slothfulness is an editor retention issue. HiLo48 (talk) 02:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    slowness? I don't notice any. even on my cheapo laptop. unless you're running a 10-year old system (and then it's way past time to upgrade), it shouldn't be significantly slower, unless it's coded inefficiently -- Aunva6talk - contribs 04:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Aunva6 - did you bother to look at the link I provided? Or just assume that your experience is common to everyone? I learnt that was a bad approach to life when I was about 8 years old. HiLo48 (talk) 07:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    sorry, misunderstood. i thought you meant it slows the site down even when not in use. my bad. it is really, really slow to load up, even on my i7-920. not sure how they managed to make it so slow, but that alone should put this into the Alpha status, it's not even ready for beta! -- Aunva6talk - contribs 00:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Snow, until it is more stable.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Opt-in, per the above comments. I've tried using VE three times over the past few weeks, on three separate pages. Each time, it didn't work right, and when I went to report the problems, I saw that the issues had already been reported (but not fixed.) I expected bugs, but not a 0% success rate. This tells me that the software is not yet ready for widespread use, although I think anyone who wants to help beta test it should be able to do so. 28bytes (talk) 02:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. opt-in, beta software is, by definition, that which is too buggy for a full release. this might even be borderline alpha, but it still got pushed out. there is a reason that beta is typically an opt-in testing phase. yopu get more focused feedback from those who will know what is the fault of VE, and what is not. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 04:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. opt-in. As a host at The Teahouse, I have been watching discussions revolving around use of and confusion about use of the VE from new editors who swing by to ask questions about it (see [1], [2], and [3]). The experience has generally been confusing for new editors and, as a host, I and others have found it difficult to feel motivated to give advice on how to use an interface that is frustrating to a new editor. It should therefore certainly be an opt-in feature. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be fair, there is now a full opt-out option in the editing section of preferences (which two of the links you point to asked about), and references have been improved since the comment you posted (to get rid of the confusing first step to select an existing citation). Still a lot of room for improvement, to be sure.--Eloquence* 06:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. New editors sign up (hopefully) to improve the encyclopedia, not to serve as involuntary beta testers. m:Research:VisualEditor's effect on newly registered editors/Results shows that bugs in VisualEditor are destroying new editors' productivity and enthusiasm. MER-C 05:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. One stage further, new editors should have a substantial number of edits behind them before they are give the chance to opt. On many of the most popular pages we have substantial comment messages to help new editor from embarrassing themselves- they need to see these as they start to edit. New editors should not be exposed to software that is not rock solid stable. No-one should be given an open choice before they understand the implications, and they need to have experience in the basics before the choice is meaningful. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 05:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Opt-in. I am still of the opinion that traditional wikitext editing is easier for newbies as they can quickly learn from the wikitext typed by other Wikipedians. See also comment by User:I Jethrobot. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Opt-in during beta period. If things get fixed, we can talk again... Carrite (talk) 06:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Opt in. Until serious bugs and limitations are fixed and there is consensus that the software is no longer alpha or beta status. Begoon talk 06:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Opt in for the time being. Once bugs are fixed and VE is more feature full, we can change this after discussion. --NicoV (Talk on frwiki) 06:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    With the answer to Template:Bugzilla (the main problem that add spurious nowiki tags to hundreds of articles every day) being "WON'T FIX", I would even go for totally disable VE now. --NicoV (Talk on frwiki) 20:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Opt-in. It's a failed experiment. How we treat new editors (especially) should not depend on crystal-balling that something will someday work. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Opt-in. You're not there yet, by a country mile. The VE beta may even need to be brought back to the initial requirements stage and recast. →StaniStani  07:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Opt-in. Considering the current state of the Visual Editor, we're only doing a disservice to the new editors by trying to get them to figure out this, clearly, currently broken system. Having it be as an opt-in option for them would mean that just as many new editors (and anyone else) can try it if they'd like, but it isn't forced on them by default. SilverserenC 09:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Opt-in or get rid of it. It fails (and actually does harm to) it's intended purpose. North8000 (talk) 11:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Currently not suitable for public consumption.  Sandstein  10:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  20. No-brainer. Anything that is not finished should not be released as the default, when a perfectly usable alternative is already in widespread use. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Opt-in. At the very least until all the bugs are fixed and it is able to support all the commonly used features that the normal editor allows. Although even then such a major change to the default editor should have community consensus before becoming opt-in. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Opt-in by default iff the option for no default (see discussion section) is not possible or as a temporary state until it is. Thryduulf (talk) 12:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Not ready. Andreas JN466 12:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Opt-in. – Plarem (User talk) 13:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Opt-in. Until community consent on VE's readiness. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 13:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Opt-in - per User:Kww. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 13:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Serving the innocent public with adulterated Kool-Aide, which does not quench thirst, is ill-mannered. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Beta -> opt-in.--Aschmidt (talk) 14:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Beta -> Opt-in, no question. -- Andreas Werle (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Opt-in, per the above. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Opt-in. No question at this stage. Intothatdarkness 16:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Opt-in. It should have been opt in all along. Kumioko (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  33. New editors first experiences editing articles can't be *crash*. And that's the only behaviour I can get out of the VE on any article of any decent length. Courcelles 17:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Opt-in, at least until the bugs are worked out. Albacore (talk) 17:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 17:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  36. When I first saw "edit" and "edit source" above the subsection of an article a few weeks ago, I actually thought that it might have some practical use to it; nothing wrong with keeping an open mind, right? But after using the new feature, I feel very confident in saying that it is a textbook example of a solution in search of a problem. When I first started editing all the way back in 2007, I had no issues with learning basic Wiki markup. I remember the first time I wanted to add a link to another page — so I looked around on the editing screen for examples on how to do it. Every other piece of text that appears as a link in the article was surrounded by two square brackets on each side. Typing [[The Sixth Sense]] as shown here results in an interwiki link: The Sixth Sense. Then I wanted to figure out how to add a link to another article while making it so that the text was different from its title. Just by looking around, I learned that by typing [[The Sixth Sense|this]] as shown, with a line between the article's title on the left and the featured text on the right, it'll give me this (I only learned several years later that this technique is called "piping"). Are we to assume that the average person isn't competent enough to figure this out for themselves? Even if they just wanted to make a minor edit, like adding the word "sold" to a paragraph, all they have to do is click the "edit this page" button at the top of the article (or just the "edit" button at the top-right corner of the relevant section), scroll down, and type it in. It's not rocket science! And now that I think of it, having two separate options for altering the page actually strikes me as more intimidating to newcomers, because the "edit source" part gives the impression that there's a steep learning curve to picking up on Wiki markup, and that's simply not the case at all. So I think it should be an opt-in feature for registered accounts at most; I wouldn't lose any sleep if it were removed from the MediaWiki interface entirely. Kurtis (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Opt-in: too much missing functionality.--ukexpat (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  38. It's still beta, and there are a lot of known issues. If a new editor thinks that's the way editing will always be, it's likely to put them off, and they may not come back even once VE has reached release-ready performance and functionality. To address Jimbo's concern below, a new editor could be explicitly asked, at account creation, if they would like to use the beta editor as the default, with instructions on how to disable it and a warning that it's beta software and will have issues. That will give them the choice. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Opt-in. That way new users don't get turned off by a plugin/software that isn't fully functional and may have some serious bugs. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 19:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  40. – Juliancolton | Talk 19:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Opt-in in it's current state (unless you claim every user with an account is a beta-tester, which is nonsense of course, but the kind of nonsense WMF actually seems to believe in). --Patrick87 (talk) 19:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Forcing beta onto newbies is simply destructive - it obviously goes diametrically against our editor-retention aim. Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Opt-in until a stable and quick version is obtained.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Opt-in. This shouldn't be forced on us anyone. Manxruler (talk) 21:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Opt-in. Given the NOWIKI issue, where the VE managers have now stated that a bug that is damaging multiple articles by the hour will not be fixed and it is to be left to editors to clear up the mess, this is now imperative. Black Kite (talk) 21:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The nowiki issue" is really several issues. The nowiki tag is used for escaping wikitext. We will always escape, rather than parse, wikitext that's entered into VisualEditor. We've already inserted a warning when this occurs to reduce accidental insertion of wikitext, and are open to other options. There are other contexts in which wikitext is sometimes escaped where we can do more to reduce over-escaping.--Eloquence* 22:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not really the point Erik, and I think you know it. Regardless of how many articles the NOWIKI issue is breaking (and it is breaking articles on a regular basis, and you're requiring someone to clean up after it) the main issue is that code that is not functional is still being used. Frankly, Opt-In isn't the issue here; IMHO VE really needs to be turned off until it's not causing multiple errors and problems. Black Kite (talk) 02:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  46. This software simply isn't ready. I can't believe we are now having serious discussions about writing bots and scripts to clean up mess made by this that the developers have said they're not even going to try to fix. The WMF's own research shows the software is damaging editor recruitment and Kww has a point that new editors shouldn't be involuntarily used as software testers. Hut 8.5 21:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Per all of the above. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Opt-in, with a notice to tell them that there is a new experimental VE available to test, directing those who are interested to a page listing pros, cons and expected problems, how to report bugs and linking to the user guide. (It is apparent from the number of new editors tripping Filter 550 that many of them have some prior experience of wiki markup, having edited as IPs). JohnCD (talk) 21:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Of course beta software should be opt-in. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Opt-In Let the newbies choose down the line, hopefully when it's out of beta. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 23:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Opt-In Until community consensus that it is stable. TheOverflow (talk) 23:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Opt-In though I rather see it removed completely as a failed project. Secret account 23:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  53. (edit conflict)Opt-in - Unless we want this buggy beta to cause us to lose more new editors than we would gain without it! PantherLeapord (talk) 23:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Opt-In (edit conflict) at least 6 months to re-evaluate. The study of 19,500 new usernames revealed that 41% of VE-enabled users (2 of 5!) did not save the edit, while most non-VE users did save (given option to quit the edit). VE has revealed a new interface format: WYSIWYG-WASTE ("Without Anyone Saving The Edit), because new users should be warned to Save changes, and those 41% who neglected to Save were likely thinking the words were typed on the screen to update the page (so, What is Save?). The July edit-activity stats should show a huge reduction in edits, due to 41% not saved by new usernames, even though perhaps nearly as many people were trying to edit. Turn off VE for new users to require Opt-in, for 6+ months. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  55. opt-in per basically everyone. Sailsbystars (talk) 00:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Opt-in because new users should not have an incomplete, non-intuitive, and buggy interface as their default editing experience. postdlf (talk) 01:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Definitely opt-in: the first comment pretty much said it all. Jsayre64 (talk) 01:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  58. This is too buggy to have otherwise. TCN7JM 02:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Opt-in at this time, please. - Dank (push to talk) 02:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Opt-in. My personal distaste for WYSIWYG editors aside, I stridently object to making something new and poorly tested the default choice. Most new editors will have no clue how to disable this, or even that an alternative exists. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Strong Opt-in. I am a software developer and quality assurance analyst by trade. If a QA analyst were to let software as buggy as this slip past in this state, he'd be looking for a new project, if not employer. If a Project Manager were to suggest putting it in front of a client for anything other than milestone review (let alone acceptance testing), he'd be laughed out of the room. VE is simply not production ready.  Jim Reed (Talk)  03:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Beta -> Opt-in. Mkdwtalk 03:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Opt-in. SpencerT♦C 04:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Nothing in beta should be default. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Riggr Mortis (talk) 05:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Opt-in per Kww. —Bruce1eetalk 05:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Opt-in even though as an Opera user I haven't been able to actually try it... Dsergeant (talk) 06:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Opt-in. Until VE is not in beta. LT90001 (talk) 07:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Opt-in. Certainly. Insulam Simia (talk) 07:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Opt-in. If and when the software is stable and well-developed, then we can reassess. Until then, it should not be the default. Modest Genius talk 09:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Opt-in Armbrust The Homunculus 10:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Opt-in --Meno25 (talk) 10:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  73. --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 10:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Opt-in Since it's known to be buggy, have it "Opt-in" for those that want to help debug it. New users, realistically, shouldn't be expected to look for bugs in Beta software as well as learn the Wikipedia itself.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  11:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Opt-in I support the idea, but let's make it work a little better, so we don't lose editors. Particularly the ones who are not entirely familiar with Wikipedia and beta testing. I have peers who dont realize the new editor is in Beta, so they gave up on editing megacephalic 12:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  76. Opt-in. VisualEditor is not yet in acceptable state to be the default editor. --Zundark (talk) 12:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Definitely Opt-in per the above comments, VE is not at all ready for becoming the default editor yet. 2Flows (talk) 12:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Opt-in. VE is full of bugs and not ready for prime-time, causing a lot of problems for others (i.e. the people who have to do the clean-up). Another (though probably not politically correct) reason for opt-in is that VE IMHO makes it too easy for new inexperienced editors to make big edits and large changes that they're not ready for yet. Thomas.W talk to me 12:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Opt-in VE has many problems and a lot of time is required to fix them. The current interface might be a little boring but it much better than VE. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 13:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Opt-in - I'll pile on. Let me add that recently I started using STiki to revert vandalism, since I seemed to notice a lot of it on my watchlist. A large percentage of vandals use VE, I am finding. Maybe we should call it VV instead... Visual Vandalizer. Jusdafax 13:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Opt-in. Frankly, the thing is way too buggy to be rolled out in the first place.  Yintan  14:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Opt-in because it's not ready for primetime (YET). Experienced editors (at least myself) greatly prefer to simply edit source rather than use a laggy WYSIWYG tool. CaseyPenk (talk) 15:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Opt-in. I am utterly astonished that this is even being asked, given the experience the community has had with this not-yet-ready-for-prime-time interface. I have tried VE on several occasions, both on my main account and a new one, and neither way has it been worth while; in fact, i'm not certain i've actually managed to save any worth-while edits with it, and if i, relatively experienced and motivated, can't, why would a new editor, with less or no experience and motivation, bother to try? Cheers, LindsayHello 15:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Opt-in - it's a beta product, not suitable for general release just yet. Keep it opt-in for those who wish to help beta test but don't force it on unknowing editors Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 15:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Opt-in. Too many problems with the beta.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Opt-in. There's a decision to be made about whether I'll spend my volunteering time beta-testing the software or editing the encyclopaedia. Since I'm the volunteer, I should be the one that makes that decision. The "opt-out" model of the initial rollback was cheeky because it was an example of the WMF trying to manage how my volunteering time would be spent. I'd like to be treated with more respect in future please.—S Marshall T/C 16:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Opt-in. people want to get on with editing not beta-testing. Those that have spare time on their hands can opt-in. Agathoclea (talk) 16:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opt-out

  1. I have a concern that the options "Opt-in" and "Opt-out" are deceptively simple. There are many possible gradations. The biggest issue with "Opt-in" is that new users will have very little chance to learn about it. If we move to dial back and slow down on implementation, we need to also ensure a steady flow of new users who are informed of what is going on and who are willing to try it and give feedback. What I prefer to see is that the VE is offered to new users along with an easy option for them to opt-out if they want.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Given how buggy VE is right now, do you really want a newcomer's first experience with Wiki to center around it? I don't see that as being optimal. Perhaps later, once VE becomes more stable and can handle basic functions that would be an option. Intothatdarkness 17:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I would expect there would be a Sitenotice telling people how to turn it back on as part of any change. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    For what its worth I think at some point in the future VE will be fit to be released to all users by default. But that day isn't now. Kumioko (talk) 19:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. But the test for it being opt-out should be "can an editor use VE to reliably generate error-free content for the encylopedia?" As long as the answer is "no," it should NEVER be automatically opt-in. Intothatdarkness 15:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Ask the new editors it was just tested on what they think, and go by what they say. Learning Wiki syntax is no big deal to the people who have done it, but who knows how many votes were lost in that learning curve? Wnt (talk) 19:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    We've had a few users in wikipedia-en-help be just as confused by VE as they were by the source editor. And note that pretty much anyone coming into that channel who isn't a helper is the greenest of users. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 19:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that for many people asking "opt-in" is a temporary decision, until bugs are fixed and major missing features are done. The problem is that new editors are mostly unaware of the problems currently caused by VE (filter 550, ...). --NicoV (Talk on frwiki) 20:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not fix the bugs, then ask new editors what they think about it? Sure, wikitext can be intimidating, but so are scary message boxes. I am concerned that people new to Wikipedia who would otherwise become enthusiastic contributors are being needlessly scared away by the crashes, freeze-ups and JavaScript warnings. 28bytes (talk) 21:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. I tried the VE but could only produce garbage except for some extremely simple edits. I would stop editing in Wikipedia if I had only the option if VE were my only option. I can't really remember my first Wikipedia editing, but I can't believe it was as catastrophic as my attempts with VE. As for opting-out: some new editors probably would not understand what the option means and/or entails and others would nto see it regardless of how in-your-face we might make it. So, first fix it up some more and then make it an opt-in with easy reversal (the way it is now seems okeh to me but I don't know if it is clear to a new editor). Then down the road a year or so we can re-think things. Kdammers (talk) 04:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The VE is easier to use and understand for new users IMO. It will provide them more of an incentive to begin editing. So, it should be opt-out. Even with its bugs, I think news users would make fewer mistakes with VE than with the text editor. So, it should be opt-out only. As for bugginess, the VE is improving day by day and it would gradually become less and less of a concern.OrangesRyellow (talk) 15:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of new account default state

  • In response to Jimbo's comment, I wonder if on registering new users should be given an explicit choice, perhaps with wording along the lines of (although less verbose than) "Wikipedia is currently developing a new VisualEditor that is intended to be more user friendly than the existing ("source") editor. To help beta test this new editor, you are invited to "opt in" to using it for some or all of your edits. If you choose to take part in the test you will get the choice to use the new VisualEditor or the classic source editor for your edits to Wikipedia articles, if you choose not to you will only be able to use the source editor. Although the VisualEditor is more like other software you are likely to be familiar with such as Microsoft Word or Wordpress than the source editor, it is not finished yet and some edits using it may not be possible or may break through no fault of your own. The source editor is less intuitive, but it is available for all edits and is significantly more reliable. You change your mind and opt in or out at any time by changing a setting in your preferences. [Yes, I would like to opt-in to beta testing the new VisualEditor] [No, I only want to use the classic source editor]". I should note that I have no idea whether the software can support this. Thryduulf (talk) 12:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • German WP poll shows 98% of 465 for Opt-In: It should be noted, here, that the German Wikipedia ran a poll on 27 July 2013, and within 2 days the poll closed, when 458 users (98.49% of 465) responded at Opt-In-only, while 7 users supported VE as Standard for logged-in usernames. The 458 opinions (in German) are: "de:WP:Umfragen/VisualEditor_Opt-in#VE vorerst nur als Opt-in (wie vorher)" ["VE only as Opt-in (as before)"]. A Bugzilla request (Template:Bugzilla) was accepted by the WMF VE-team to set VE as only Opt-in for German WP. Some of the comments in the poll were similar to here: "Bitte keine Beta-Testversion, sondern ein fertiges Produkt" ("Please not a Beta-test version, instead a finished product"). Meanwhile, some users did not realize VE would crater on the slightest one-word edit-conflict, and wished to use VE for talk-pages: "Und hier auf den Diskussionsseiten wäre der VisualEditor auch nicht schlecht!" ("And here on the talk-page, the VisualEditor would be also not bad!"). There are over 520 various opinions in that dewiki poll, where some imagined that VE was released to dewiki because it would be functional software typical of a large corporation. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure the large number of swift responses to their poll was because they quickly notified all the editors about it. Thus far, it seems like there's been markedly little notifying here in English Wikipedia. Since this is such a huge change that affects the entire Wiki, doesn't it deserve a watchlist notice? SilverserenC 09:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Already done by Kww, and showing up on my watchlist right now:- There is an ongoing RFC(linked) as to whether the Visual editor should be enabled for new users and anonymous editors. Begoon talk 09:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure watchlist notices are that good. I, for one, had never noticed they even existed until I was told one was happening and looked. A Site notice would be better. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that - watchlist notices are pretty unobtrusive. Begoon talk 09:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If we're going just-watchlist-notice, could we make it red, or put it in a bright yellow box or something? Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On de-WP, these watchlist notices are shown via MediaWiki:Watchlist-summary (see history, also with different background colours) and not via MediaWiki:Watchlist-details as it is the case here. Watchlist-summary normally is much more visible than watchlist-details, but it isn’t shown at all without JavaScript. Without JS, you can always see these watchlist-details and also the WP:Sitenotice, but never the CentralNotice from Meta (perhaps because of language switching) and never the watchlist-summary (I don’t know why this also is a script-based feature, while watchlist-details and also the sitenotice aren’t). I think that there has been so much participation in a very short time firstly because of this very new option which people didn’t know before (it had been switched to opt-out on July 24 on de:) and don’t want ’cause of those many bugs, secondly because of the much more visible watchlist notice since Friday, July 27, 01:16 CEST = 26, 23:16 UTC until Monday, July 29 in the morning 10:05 CEST = 08:05 UTC.
Furthermore, there’s also a „Beteiligen“ template for these messages about on-going polls, votes and elections which has 528 watchers, and also a message in the German Kurier (1.314 watchers). In addition, the problems and bugs have been discussed on de:WD:Kurier (like Signpost discussions) since weeks already and the bugs and questions about VE also on de:Fragen zur Wikipedia (local village pump) since July 24 when VE had been switched to opt-out for all users with accounts, on both pages there have also been links to the poll.
I think that watchlist-summary is the normal MediaWiki message for such watchlist notices, but I wonder, why it isn’t shown for all users. Sitenotice normally is also shown for all users (IPs inclusive), IPs then have to be excluded in the sitenotice, if they shall not take part in the RFC. --Geitost 17:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps just wp:SNOW-close RfC within 7 days or post Bugzilla: I guess the wide-ranging announcement would help show the massive landslide decision, sooner, but maybe we could just raise a motion to wp:SNOW-close the projected outcome, or otherwise post a Bugzilla entry to reset the VE menu-options as recommended by this RfC. After VE usage by over 10,000 users, then the results are quite clear. Some decision levels: 74:2 = 97%, 100:2 = 98%, 150:3 = 98%, 200:2 = 99%, 200:4 = 98% (dewiki 458:7 = 98.49%). -Wikid77 12:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question 2: When an editor is editing anonymously, should VE be presented by default?

VE should be presented to anonymous users by default

  1. While warning them that the software is beta should be required, anonymous editors should have access to VE.—Kww(talk) 01:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. No harm in letting them test it voluntarily. Presenting it and allowing access and choice (not selecting it for them automatically as default), with a clear beta warning, and a clear, easy path to submit bug/experience reports seems fine. Begoon talk 06:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC) - Striking, since everyone seems to have interpreted this question differently to me, and my response to the extra question 2.5 will cover this. Begoon talk 01:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Unless real evidence is offered that anonymous editors are doing harm (more harm than normal!) by trying to use it, it should be available to them. They should be warned that it is beta software, and they should be given a link to get to the wikitext editor. They should also be given more support/explanation on the edit page so they can learn the new editor.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect, beta software shouldn't be forced on users. Beta software should be limited release to a controlled experienced group of users. Beta, by definition means not ready for deployment. Yet deployment is exactly what was done. Kumioko (talk) 19:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Ask the users from the first experiment what they think (as above) Wnt (talk) 19:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The VE interface makes editing Wikipedia infinitely more accessible for the average user. People no longer need to sort through complicated code, they can simply type their changes from the same interface where they were reading. As Wikipedia is seeing stagnant numbers of active editors, it is important that we help enable new people to contribute. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 03:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VE should not be presented to anonymous users by default

  1. Not in its current state. I think the VE can be a great tool, but I feel like the vast majority of anonymous users will find it unhelpful and won't be interested in being beta testers if they are not registered. That said, I think once the VE has improved, particularly in terms of the concerns over references and templates, I think it will then be appropriate to roll this out to anonymous users. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Contrary to your belief, since anons are usually newbie to wiki, they're actually more eager to use the VE for its straightforwardness, regardless of its testing stage. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 05:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted. But I am in complete agreement over unexpected results after editing using the VE causing confusion and frustration in new editors as mentioned below, and I think it is this aspect that cause new editors to lose interest. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 08:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  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." →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 (talk • contribs) 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 (t • c) 04:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  42. No. There is too much vandalism from anonymous IPs. This only makes it easier.Slacka123 (talk) 04:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Agree, not while it is still in beta. —Bruce1eetalk 05:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  44. 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]
  45. 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]
  46. 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]
  47. The software is just too buggy. --Meno25 (talk) 10:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  48. --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 10:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  49. 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]
  50. No. Even worse than by default for others. StevenJ81 (talk) 12:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  51. 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]
  52. 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]
  53. No. Too many problems with the beta.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Never it turns well meaning editors into unwitting vandals Agathoclea (talk) 16:57, 31 July 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]

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

  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]

Discussion of VE's visibility to anonymous editors

  • 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: Template:Bugzilla 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]

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?

Change preference state for existing accounts

  1. 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]
  2. 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]
  3. 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]
  4. per Kww. Begoon talk 06:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. 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]
  6. 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]
  7. 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]
  8. 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]
  9. 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]
  10. As is normal with beta testing it should be an individuals choice to participate. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Per Kww. Andreas JN466 12:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12. MER-C 12:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13. – Plarem (User talk) 13:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 13:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  15. per User:Kww. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 13:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16. 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]
  17. per kww -- Andreas Werle (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  18. 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]
  19. Yes, we shouldn't be forcing users to beta test. Kumioko (talk) 17:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  20. 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]
  21. per Kww Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 18:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  22. See my thoughts here for more details. Kurtis (talk) 18:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Opt-in: too much missing functionality.--ukexpat (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Yes. It literally cannot be opt-in unless and until this happens. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 19:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  25. 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]
  26. Why force editors to be beta testers?  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  27. 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]
  28. Per Sarahj2107 etc. Manxruler (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Yes, and I'm getting kind of tired of looking for the "edit source" link. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  30. 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]
  31. 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]
  32. 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]
  33. 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 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  34. 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]
  35. 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/2¢/Δ's/ 02:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Per kww. SpencerT♦C 04:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Yes per Kww. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Yes, per Mendaliv. —Bruce1eetalk 05:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Insulam Simia (talk) 07:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  40. 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]
  41. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  42. --Meno25 (talk) 10:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  43. --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 10:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Yes as per all above. Thomas.W talk to me 12:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  45. 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]
  46. Per others.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  47. 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]
  48. Yes. Please. Per Sarahj2107.  Yintan  14:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  49. 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]
  50. 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]
  51. Yes Brambleclawx 15:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Obviously, per Kww and others. Cheers, LindsayHello 16:25, 31 July 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]
  2. Users' preferences may not be altered by Wikimedia. After all, we are not Facebook.--Aschmidt (talk) 14:48, 30 July 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]
  3. 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]
  4. 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]

Discussion of changing state for existing accounts

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

Explicitly warn that it is beta software

  1. 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]
  2. 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]
  3. 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]
  4. 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]
  5. 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]
  6. Logical and sensible. Carrite (talk) 06:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Indeed per Kww. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. 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]
  9. 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]
  10. 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]
  11. 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]
  12. Obviously. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13. 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]
  14. That's what it is. --Andreas JN466 12:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  15. 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]
  16. – Plarem (User talk) 13:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  17. per User:Kww. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 13:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  18. 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]
  19. Of course.--Aschmidt (talk) 14:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  20. 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]
  21. Absolutely. Even Captain Obvious finds this question a wall-banger. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Yes absolutely. Kumioko (talk) 17:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  23. 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]
  24. 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]
  25. 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]
  26. 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]
  27. 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]
  28. Per Kww. Manxruler (talk) 21:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Truth in advertising. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  30. 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]
  31. Agree with JohnCD and others. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  32. 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]
  33. 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]
  34. Per Kww and pretty much everyone else above. postdlf (talk) 01:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  35. 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 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Basically for the right to know; per Postdlf. Jsayre64 (talk) 01:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Yes. TCN7JM 02:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Definitely. SpencerT♦C 04:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  39. 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]
  40. Of course. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oh yes. Insulam Simia (talk) 07:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  42. 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]
  43. Of course. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Yes, please. --Meno25 (talk) 10:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  45. --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 10:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  46. 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]
  47. Yes, per all of the above. 2Flows (talk) 12:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Per others.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  49. This would be a good idea. Gives editors some notice. Brambleclawx 15:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do not warn that it is beta software

  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]

Discussion of warning

Question 6: Should we add a link in the edit page to switch between wikitext and VE?

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 Template:Bugzilla 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]

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. Yes, though with Thryddulf's limitation. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. 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 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not really asking for a (JS) toggle switch which requires rewriting the VE software (although it sounds like WIP). It's just a simple link in the edit page to access another mode without the need to enable VE in preference again or type the URL command manually. However, I do expect this measure lasts after the actual switch has been implemented into VE as an escape route for user who feels VE to be too laggy or pure wikitext mode to be intimidating. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 03:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. 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]
  7. 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]

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]

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 (talk • contribs)
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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Default_State_RFC&oldid=566598243"