Talk:VisualEditor/Portal/New users

From MediaWiki.org
Jump to: navigation, search

This page looks orphaned now. --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 14:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

IRC[edit]

The IRC channel is extremely difficult to find. Why isn't it mentioned anywhere? Woudloper (talk) 14:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I added it here. This page instead is not about VE strictly speaking. --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Help[edit]

The Help/New users page was as close as I could get to "help," but it does not appear to be about help (for me) at all. I think it’s about me helping others. I can’t help others because the VE installation looks very technical. What I’m trying to find is help (for me), because I don’t understand how to install it on my wiki. I think I have to get it installed before I can try to use it. I think I saw something about installing Parsinoid (or something like that), and that Parsinoid was "particularly complicated to install on a Windows platform". Since I use Windows 7, that means too complicated for me. Stephen G. Brown (talk) 05:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Stephen G. Brown! Do you need to install VE for a wiki site you own, or are you interested in enabling it for use at WMF sites like the English Wikipedia? --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 07:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
It’s a WMF site, nv:Íiyisíí Naaltsoos. We’ve just received a notice about the Visual Editor, but it seems that some sort of installation is required. Stephen G. Brown (talk) 11:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer, Stephen G. Brown. No installation is required. Part of that message says:
  1. Opt-in to VisualEditor by going to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures and choosing "VisualEditor". Save your preferences.
  2. Edit any article or your user page in VisualEditor by clicking on the new "Edit" tab at the top of the page. See the mw:Help:VisualEditor/User guide for information on how to use VisualEditor.
Can you tell me if you see something unclear there? The first point tells you how to activate VisualEditor. The second one includes a direct link to the user guide, which contains further help. Thank you. --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 12:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Outdated[edit]

Hi Elitre (WMF). I considered your your edit summary reasonable: we agree completely, except for the part that's your interpretation of data, so I was going to correct the issue by quoting the results. However as I looked at the draft-edit, I had to question the result. One version said "Not supported by subsequent research", and another version would quote results saying VE had "no effect". Do you mean to argue that "no effect" is somehow different from "Not supporting" "a lot more new contributors"? Do you think that quoting the results would be better?

I'd also like to focus on the fact that each edit should improve the page for readers. I certainly agree that phrasing can be improved. However I don't see how it benefits readers to completely remove a link to important research on the subject. I think the 2015 study supersedes the 2013 one, so we could drop the older link. Alsee (talk) 16:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I think that it may be good to just have a "See also" section with links to research. Page is short enough to draw attention to that. --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 17:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Elitre (WMF), if a Wikipedia article on colon cancer says powdered avocado seeds are a cure, would it be reasonable to update the page with a see-also link to "Avocado seed research" which says avocado seeds do not cure cancer? Clearly not. It's misleading to have a page say one thing and bury the exact opposite information behind an obscure link.
Either the page should be properly updated, or the outdated tag should helpfully inform the reader (or the person resolving the outdated tag) of a key reason the page is outdated. Alsee (talk) 11:19, 9 September 2017 (UTC)