|Thread title||Replies||Last modified|
|The future is past||1||07:28, 28 December 2012|
|Edit user interface is Godawful||6||13:01, 12 July 2012|
|Communication Comparison||2||11:03, 17 May 2011|
Should we simply have a redirect to Roadmap? I'm not sure about the current value of the Future/ subpages at this point.
The inline citations and templates are extremely painful when looking at things in edit mode. You can't even see the prose. Asking people from outside to write this way is absurd. Everyone has had MS Word on their desktop since 15 years ago and it handles citations fine, so they are hyperlinked the same way when editing or when reading. The Wikipedia has HUGE spaces where the content is lacking or poor quality. But why would a good writer or an outside expert want to write here, when you value his time so little that you make him use this inefficent interface.
126.96.36.199 07:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
P.s. I don't like how this page does not clearly set out the problem but has a lot of bland vague comments.
The Visual Editor project is aiming on making it way easier for people to use citations & templates. Check out https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Visual_Editor_design .
The individual wiki pages about our product strategy/annual plan, the visual editor, real-time collaboration, etc. have some more details about the problems we're solving -- check those out.
Thanks. I still think it would be better if you had some screenshot showing how BAD things are now. Just open up a random Featured Article and go to a heavily cited paragraph.
I want to see how gut-wrenching BAD things are now...and then a mockup of how they will be better.
Your pages need to be more gutty in describing the real problem and the solution. And less theoretical.
I think it will help build support and motivate your work.
Everyone already knows how bad it is. Such "motivation" won't get things done any better or faster.
there are troglogytes who think that since they have gotten used to it, they don't understan why others should not. Or people that are not active prose editors. I think nothing lost by rubbing the truth in people's faces. It may motivate action. After all, the problem has been allowed to fester for many years after it was obvious.
I think that comparing IRC&Mailing lists to Etherpad is like comparing pears and apples and doesn't make sense.
- "The pear is a fruit tree of genus Pyrus (play /ˈpaɪrəs/) and also the name of the tree's edible pomaceous fruit. The pear is classified in subtribe Pyrinae within tribe Pyreae and is a perennial. The apple (Malus domestica), which it resembles in floral structure, is also a member of this subcategory."
They're not identical, but they're related. Communication is necessary in various forms; that we have some in existence does not constitute a reason why no other forms of communication should be considered.
A common use case for etherpad is to create and edit a document collaboratively. Another common way to do that is by having someone write up a draft, then send it around to other people via e-mail for comments and additions.
Another way to do that is to write the document on a wiki, then have people edit and comment on it, using a mailing list, or IRC, or wiki discussions, or direct emails, or IM, or another communication method to inform each other of interest or ideas.
These things are all related, and it's the actual use cases that matter, not the underlying technology -- when we see that different technologies can be helpful, we certainly should consider how we can make use of them and if we can do anything to make it easier or better.