Help talk:VisualEditor/VE as the main editor

I welcome suggestions about a better title for this page! --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 02:49, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * So one thing I'd probably like to add at some point, as a best practice example, is a suggestion to create a page like https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Cosa_cambia. What I did there back then was explaining very plainly:
 * what the change was about; what people would perceive as such
 * what's really cool about VE
 * what still can't be done with VE
 * who was already using it...
 * ...even to create articles from scratch
 * where people can get related updates
 * where relevant community discussions had taken place
 * who was doing what to support the deployment (let's be grateful with brave pioneers!)
 * what's left to be done
 * what to do in case of problems, or to disable it, etc.
 * Re: the "Hall of Fame" part, I believe that there's huge value in finding VE "power users" and involving them. That's because they'll have a lot of stories/tips and tricks to share, and they also know where VE should improve. --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 12:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Community
Visual Editor was built on the theory that wikitext was an obstacle in the on-ramp for new editors, and initial interviews with non-editors seemed to support that theory. The idea was that a Visual Editor would make it easier to edit and that it would bring in new editors. The VisualEditor Rationale states: ''The decline in new contributor growth is the single most serious challenge facing the Wikimedia movement. Removing avoidable technical impediments associated with Wikimedia's editing interface is a necessary pre-condition for increasing the number of Wikimedia contributors.'' That is a laudable goal, however Visual Editor has manifestly failed to meet that rationale. The WMF's May 2015 study found that making VE available helped an additional 0% of new users make their first edit, it resulted in a 0% increase in new editor retention, and it resulted in a 0% increase in total contributions. I will skip the debate over why wikitext editing is actually easier to learn and why it is generally superior to VE. I will simply let the WMF's data attest to the fact that VE yielded exactly 0% of the claimed benefits. The original theory turned out to be wrong, and the initial interviews with non-editors turned out to be misleading.

There are significant community concerns that VE is not an option as the only editor (making it necessary for any serious editor to learn both), and that Visual Editor may have negative impact on the general editing learning curve which not which may not shown up in those new editor statistics. To the best of my knowledge, the prevailing community view is that the wikitext editor is the main editor and should remain the main editor for the foreseeable future.

Is this page intending to assert that VE is the main editor? Or is this hoping to persuade the communities that VE should become the main editor? Alsee (talk) 18:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * See my first remark at the top of this very page. As a non-native speaker, I simply used an imperfect term to describe a then current situation (VE being deployed as the first editing tab - where first just means "the one on the left", for LTR wikis, which was the default setting for almost all the wikis). Other terms, like "primary", "default" etc., although more widely used, are similarly imperfect, FWIW. I still lack a term to describe "the moment when the VE option isn't in the Beta tab anymore". --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 07:53, 9 April 2016 (UTC)