Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Default State RFC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I've closed this RFC in response from a plea on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard for a non participant. Below is a summary of the questions and my read on the consensus -- in some cases the individual subsections have more detail. Overall, community participants indicate strong feelings the current Visual Editor implementation isn't good but there is support for the concept as long as it doesn't preclude direct wikisource editing. I was disappointed to see opposition to visual editor on the basis that we should keep it harder for newcomers to edit which, of course, is contrary to a core Foundation principle.

3.1 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

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

No

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

Link should open wikitext editor and provide link to Visual Editor

3.4 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?

Consensus is editors should make explicit choice to become beta testers, therefore the preference state for existing accounts should be changed

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

Yes

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

Yes

4.1 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.

This proposal failed

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

A majority of editors felt that, in its current state, the Visual Editor should be scrapped, but many editors felt that a well done implementation would benefit Wikipedia.

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

There's support for a two pane option but not necessarily by default.

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

No consensus

4.5 5. Visual Editor should always be optional

Yes

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

No consensus

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

No (apparently this option is bad for mobile devices)

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

No consensus

NE Ent 14:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

---

Note RfC format

This page is a Wikipedia Request for comment (RfC). Please avoid editing the top 2 page sections, and instead, reply in the sections below, in response to various questions or topics below.

Overview

VisualEditor is the new interface that people currently get if they click on the "edit beta" button at the top of an article. The word "beta" means it is new software which still has some bugs in it. VisualEditor (VE) is an attempt to provide a really easy "what you see is what you get" interface, which does not require any knowledge of markup language. Markup language is a simple kind of computer code that Wikipedia editors have been using to edit since 2001. Editors who do not wish to use Visual Editor and who prefer to work using the markup language use the "edit source" button instead.

WMF has now provided a preference that allows individual editors to disable VisualEditor. This preference currently defaults to enabling the software, meaning that any new editor is exposed to VisualEditor, 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 editors who are not logged in, although those editors are not warned in advance that the editor is in beta test and may damage the article or behave in unexpected ways.

This RFC (Request For Comment) 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 VisualEditor. 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.

Questions

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.

---

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. Opt-in until out of Beta. My experience is that nothing drives people away from a program /web site faster than buggy soft ware. But wiki mark up is not perfect either, and possibly t reason VE bombs is because we have so many styles and transcluded templates. This discuss also does have tones of "Bah! Pictures! what s wrong with pen and paper?)"Jabberwoch (talk) 20:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
2. Opt-in. Nguyen QuocTrung (talk)
3. Opt-in because beta software should always be opt-in. --Robertiki (talk) 11:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
4. Opt-in because the software itself requires tweaking and because I think editing the source acts as a useful barrier against poor editing. Making editing easier and more visual is likely to encourage vandalism - we'll have exactly the same number of productive editors as before, we'll simply add some noise on top of that. Bandanamerchant (talk) 09:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
5. opt-in because the Visual Editor is not ready for prime time yet.
   Yellowdesk (talk) 02:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
6. opt-in wikicode takes effort to understand. those are facts.
7. opt in because with a new product not everyone may know how to opt out so then you can't get an accurate poll of who supports it, it should be very visible, but not opt out. 0alx0 (talk) 16:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
8. Opt in because it doesn't currently work in my browser (Opera) - it just sits there loading forever. It doesn't seem good practice to make something a default before it's out of beta testing, which by definition should mean it's not yet fully tested. That way those who want to test it can, but the fact that it's not yet ready won't put off less experienced users. --Tremolo (talk) 11:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

   You should report this as a bug -- VE is supposed to be disabled entirely on browsers which don't support it. SAnanian (WMF) (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

9. Beta software should always be opt-in. Not all editors want to test new code.—Kww(talk) 01:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
10. 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)
11. Opt-in. The software just isn't there yet. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
12. 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)

    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 -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 04:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

    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)

    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! -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 00:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

    HiLo48 - That was a pretty unpleasant and unnecessary flaming - but looking at your history and general weaselling I guess to be expected.Plingsby (talk) 18:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

    Anytime you'd like to go buy that upgrade for me, no strings attached, you go right ahead. -- Joe (talk) 19:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

13. Snow, until it is more stable.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

    Hi Canoe1967. I'm having difficulty understanding your comment here. What do you mean by "Snow"? --MZMcBride (talk) 09:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

    It should be a 'snowball' change because as of now the vote is 212/20. I think it is obvious that there are still issues that should be resolved. Until then editors should be given the opt-in option after being warned of the downside issues.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

14. 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)

    Hi 28bytes. As you may or may not be aware, each edit made with VisualEditor (VE) is tagged. For example, here is one of my edits made with VisualEditor. According to this same search, you currently have 0 VisualEditor edits. Can you please elaborate on the issues you're having with VisualEditor? --MZMcBride (talk) 07:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

    Sure, I'll be happy to. First, I tried to edit a section of a large page, and got this, repeatedly. Apparently you cannot edit a section (it looks like you were the one to report that problem originally, in May: T50429), so VisualEditor attempts to do its thing with the entire page, which it can't reliably do on large pages. I first tried this a month ago, and double-checked yesterday to see if this was still an issue: it is. Second, I tried to fix a bit of broken markup, which VisualEditor interpreted to mean I wanted to retain the broken markup but wrap it in <nowiki> tags. This led me to T51686, which even Jimbo acknowledged ought to be addressed: However, it is extremely well known, even by non-editors, that square brackets make a link, and the odds of someone actually wanting literal square brackets are very very small. Making the visual editor default to interpreting square brackets as a link sounds right to me. Why does Visual Editor assume someone typing brackets wants literal brackets? That seems like a very strange assumption. As has been pointed out earlier today, Visual Editor both requires editors to be familiar with the bracket syntax in one location (when editing linked elements of an infobox, for example) but refuses to accept it in another. Either treating [[ as a trigger to bring up the link insertion dialog or simply converting a properly formatted link to what the editor intended would be so much better than just giving them the stern warning You are using VisualEditor - wikitext does not work here. Click "Edit source" to edit the page in wikitext mode – unsaved changes will be lost. Speaking of which, why will unsaved changes be lost? When I'm using the WYSIWYG editor on other websites, I can quickly toggle between WYSIWYG mode and markup mode. That's a pretty basic feature. Why was that not included in the "beta" release? So you are correct, I have not saved any VE edits, because VE would either not (easily) let me do what I wanted to do, or would not even load the page at all. Don't get me wrong, I love the idea behind the VisualEditor – Wikipedia badly needs this. But the JavaScript warnings and lack of a toggle between two modes are dealbreakers for me. (Side note: there's a handy "–" link in the standard editor that inserts an en dash; is there a VE equivalent to that?) 28bytes (talk) 15:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

    I find it quickest to type Alt-0150 on a PC (easier on a Mac of course). Andreas JN466 16:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

    Thanks. I guess I was hoping VisualEditor offered a more... visual... way of doing it. 28bytes (talk) 20:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

15. 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. you get more focused feedback from those who will know what is the fault of VE, and what is not. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 04:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

    Hi Aunva6. I'm trying to understand your concerns with VisualEditor. As you may or may not be aware, each edit made with VisualEditor (VE) is tagged. According to a search of your edits, it looks like you currently have one edit made with VisualEditor, which looks completely fine to me. Can you please elaborate? --MZMcBride (talk) 07:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

    my problem is that "beta" software was forced on all users of the wiki. beta's are opt-in for a reason. not only does it save the project from looking bad due to all the bugs, the users who opt-in are more likely to know what problems are likely caused byu the software, and what is due to the nuances of the wiki markup. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 15:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

16. 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)
    • 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)
17. 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)

    Hi MER-C. I took a look at the link you provided (m:Research:VisualEditor's effect on newly registered editors/Results) and I'm not quite sure which fact or figure you're pointing to that shows bugs in VisualEditor are "destroying new editors' productivity and enthusiasm." Can you please be more specific? --MZMcBride (talk) 07:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

18. 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)
19. 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)
20. Opt-in during beta period. If things get fixed, we can talk again... Carrite (talk) 06:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
21. 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)
22. 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)

    With the answer to T52527 (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)

23. 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)

    Hi Yngvadottir. I'm trying to understand your concerns with VisualEditor, particularly why you feel it's a failed experiment. As you may or may not be aware, each edit made with VisualEditor (VE) is tagged. For example, here is one of my edits made with VisualEditor. According to this same search, you currently have 0 VisualEditor edits. Can you please elaborate on the issues you're having with VisualEditor? --MZMcBride (talk) 07:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

    It's causing everyone who does try it to break articles, and it was launched without adequate support for references, templates, alt chars ... and it takes ages to load and freezes/crashes. I did not volunteer for the true beta test, and saw all the bug reports from that test before it was made the default, let alone after. Those are my problems with it ... since you ask! Yngvadottir (talk) 12:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

    Well, not everyone. :-) If we filter Special:RecentChanges to only edits tagged with "visualeditor", we can see that plenty of edits are perfectly fine. But many are not.

    I understand and appreciate that VisualEditor very frustratingly continues to mangle certain edits, often without the user ever being aware. We need to fix this. If you have any more specific information about how/when VisualEditor freezes or crashes (which browsers, which operating systems, etc.), your feedback at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback or directly at Bugzilla would be invaluable to making VisualEditor suck less. Thank you very much for taking the time to respond to me and to elaborate on why VisualEditor isn't yet up to par. I really appreciate it. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

24. 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)

    Hi Stanistani. I'm trying to understand your concerns with VisualEditor. As you may or may not be aware, each edit made with VisualEditor (VE) is tagged. According to a search of your edits, it looks like you currently have two edits made with VisualEditor, which both look completely fine to me. Can you please elaborate? --MZMcBride (talk) 07:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

    Hi MZMcBride. Aside from the numerous unsaved attempts, and the non-support of Internet Explorer(!), and the three folks I've sat with (software engineers all) who cheerfully did a bit of stress-testing as new editors, and concluded that the interface "Looked like a feature-deficient port of CKEditor." <-- nicest comment (comma) there are these two links I've taken into consideration: VisualEditor Feedback & VisualEditor Assigned Bug List - Any further questions? →StaniStani  02:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

25. 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. Silverseren^C 09:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

    Hi Silverseren. I'm trying to understand your concerns with VisualEditor. As you may or may not be aware, each edit made with VisualEditor (VE) is tagged. According to a search of your edits, it looks like you currently have one VisualEditor edit. This edit looks fine to me and it seems like you've had no issue continuing to use the wikitext (or source) editor and/or avoiding the use of VisualEditor. Can you please elaborate on your concerns, particularly the fear that VisualEditor is being forced upon users? --MZMcBride (talk) 08:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

26. 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)
27. Currently not suitable for public consumption.  Sandstein  10:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
28. 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)

    Hi Lukeno94. I'm trying to understand your concerns with VisualEditor. As you may or may not be aware, each edit made with VisualEditor (VE) is tagged. According to a search of your edits, it looks like you currently have 0 VisualEditor edits. Can you please elaborate on your concerns? --MZMcBride (talk) 07:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

    I have 0 edits because I'd seen the mess VE made in my watchlist before I'd even thought about using it. I'm well aware VE edits are tagged; the nowiki error is obviously a common one, but there are plenty of other weird things I use. I fail to see why I need to elaborate on the above anyway; even the WMF admit the VE isn't finished, and the rest of my statement is common sense. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

    Hi Lukeno94. Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. :-)

    So you're commenting on VisualEditor without ever having tried it yourself? I'm not sure what you mean by "other weird things" that you use.

    I think we all agree that VisualEditor has a long way to go, but when you talk about software being "finished," I don't really follow along. Software is never finished. I'm reminded of this comic about having realistic criteria. Do you agree with this? --MZMcBride (talk) 09:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

    I tried it briefly. It is unsuitable to power users like myself (or anyone who prefers to work with the source directly). When I talk about software being finished, this refers to there being a stable, almost bug-free version, that is feature-complete; the version that is released to end-users, and then only gets some minor bugfixes and general maintenance updates. This is a pre-alpha program that is being presented as a beta, which in itself is totally wrong (betas are supposed to be almost feature-complete, this isn't close to that); add in to the fact that the WMF are forcing this half-finished, half-functional, half-assed editor on experienced editors and rookies alike, and you get the shit-storm that's going on at the moment. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

    Hi Lukeno94. I somewhat agree with the labeling and I agree with you regarding power-users, however I'm not sure why you say users are being forced by the Wikimedia Foundation. Who's being forced and how? As far as I can tell, the current interface provides side-by-side wikitext (or source) editing and visual editing, with a user preference to completely disable VisualEditor from the interface altogether. If you have the time, I'd really appreciate any feedback you might have about why you feel this is being forced upon you (you're hardly alone in feeling this way, as demonstrated on this page). It would help to get a better understanding of this feeling so that the Wikimedia Foundation's behavior can be adjusted accordingly, as necessary and appropriate. --MZMcBride (talk) 09:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

    I'm struggling not to get very incredulous here. This editor was enabled by default for everyone, regardless of if they wanted it or not. The WMF have made the "edit" button refer to the VE; so muscle memory will end up causing people to use the VE without wanting to. Also, making the old editor work on the "edit source" button will confuse new users, irregular users or even untechnically minded users, since it introduces a confusing term for them. The fact that the VE was rolled out to new users and IPs, even after it had been clearly demonstrated to be completely unready is a CLEAR example of the WMF not giving a shit and just barreling on regardless. As is the half-assed nature of the "turn off VE" debacle; first refusing to instate the switch, then enabling it with the "Temporarily disable VisualEditor while it is in beta", which is NOT what people want - we want a proper on/off switch that the WMF can't remove at their will by falsely claiming the VE is "finished". And the button is still invalid, because VE isn't a beta. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

    Hey Lukeno94. I apologize if my responses came off as badgering or trolling or anything of that nature. I assure you they're not.

    I completely agree with you that parts of the way that this has been deployed have been subpar. I screamed louder (and frankly meaner) than most about the deliberate removal of the user preference to completely disable VisualEditor and I was very glad when it was restored. I agree that the half-assed compromise (i.e., labeling the user preference as temporary) is not a sustainable solution, but as a temporary measure, it's a step in the right direction.

    I also think you're absolutely right, after having read beta software, that calling VisualEditor "beta" is not a good idea at this time. VisualEditor simply isn't beta software. I noted this at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Improvements with this edit and I'll be filing a bug shortly to try to get the software re-labeled here as soon as possible.

    Thank you very much for taking the time to explain your frustration with VisualEditor and its deployment. If you have other ideas for ways to make VisualEditor less annoying/cumbersome/painful/awful, please share at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Improvements. The community absolutely should be able to set priorities and triage what's most important to them and their work throughout VisualEditor's development. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

    Luke wrote: " Also, making the old editor work on the "edit source" button will confuse new users, irregular users or even untechnically minded users, since it introduces a confusing term for them." I support this comment whole-heartedly. I've edited here for years, though perhaps irregularly, and I'm untechnically minded. Source to me means something connected to citation/reference. I (still) find "edit source" confusing. --Hordaland (talk) 23:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

29. 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)

    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). Withdrawn. 13:52, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

30. Not ready. Andreas JN466 12:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

    Before anyone asks me: I have made plenty of edits with VE on German Wikipedia. The reason I haven't made any here is that on English Wikipedia I have never been able to get the VisualEditor to progress past the blue bars, which just keep flashing forever, without ever letting me edit the article. :) Even that I only get when I right-click on "Edit" and open VE in a new window. If I just left-click on "Edit" in the normal way, nothing happens. At all. There are people on German Wikipedia with the same problem in reverse: they can use VE here, but when they click on it on their home wiki, nothing happens. Andreas JN466 13:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

    Hey Andreas. That's really good to know. :-) If you have the time/inclination, filing a bug report in Bugzilla might be very helpful in diagnosing the issue that you're having.

    Off-hand (and with very little information), it sounds like a JavaScript conflict of some kind. Your Web browser has a JavaScript error console somewhere within it. If you can try to use VisualEditor and simultaneously check that browser JavaScript error log (sometimes called an error console) for any unusual output, it may help diagnose the issue you're having (e.g., a conflicting local user script or local JavaScript gadget). It's bugs exactly like this that need to get filed/reported so that the developers who are actively working on VisualEditor can fix them. Thanks again for expanding on your previous comment; I really appreciate it. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

    Thanks MZMcBride, will have a look. I'm not on Bugzilla, but have reported it over on de:WP. Andreas JN466 15:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

    Error message on left-clicking is "Uncaught TypeError: Object function (E,F){return new o.fn.init(E,F)} has no method 'Deferred'". Opening the error console after right-clicking shows "Uncaught TypeError: Not enough arguments". Andreas JN466 16:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

31. Opt-in. – Plarem ^{(User talk)} 13:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
32. Opt-in. Until community consent on VE's readiness. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 13:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
33. Opt-in - per User:Kww. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 13:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
34. Serving the innocent public with adulterated Kool-Aide, which does not quench thirst, is ill-mannered. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

    Hi Kiefer.Wolfowitz. I'm trying to understand your concerns with VisualEditor. As you may or may not be aware, each edit made with VisualEditor (VE) is tagged. According to a search of your edits, it looks like you currently have 0 VisualEditor edits. Can you please elaborate on your concerns re: Kool-Aide? --MZMcBride (talk) 07:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

    @MZMcBride: Editing music (GNU Lilypond) and apparently mathematics are beyond the scope of Visual Editor. You might have looked at my comments on VE or at my article contributions. Nobody in their right mind uses VE, and so perspicacious intelligent editors have zero edits using VE. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

    That is an insulting, prejudiced personal attack that suddenly declares all users who have edited with VE insane. Insulam Simia (talk) 18:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

35. Beta -> opt-in.--Aschmidt (talk) 14:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
36. Beta -> Opt-in, no question. -- Andreas Werle (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
37. Opt-in, per the above. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
38. Opt-in. No question at this stage. Intothatdarkness 16:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
39. Opt-in. It should have been opt in all along. Kumioko (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
40. 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)
41. Opt-in, at least until the bugs are worked out. Albacore (talk) 17:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
42. Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 17:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
43. 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)
44. Opt-in: too much missing functionality.--ukexpat (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

    Hi ukexpat. I'm trying to understand your concerns regarding VisualEditor. Which functionality do you find missing? Can you please elaborate? It will help development efforts. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 08:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

45. 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)

    Hi Seraphimblade. I'm trying to understand your concerns with VisualEditor. As you may or may not be aware, each edit made with VisualEditor (VE) is tagged. According to a search of your edits, it looks like you currently have 0 VisualEditor edits. Can you please elaborate on your concerns? In particular, do you think it's reasonable to say that the wikitext (or source) editor might put off an untold number of potential editors as it's arguably very intimidating? --MZMcBride (talk) 08:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

    MZMcBride: It is correct that I have not completed an edit with VE, because I was unable to. I did try it, but the slow performance made it essentially unusable. I don't disagree with the idea of having an assisted editor in principle, and in fact I think it's a great idea, as long as editors always have the option to directly edit the source. It's the current implementation that's the problem. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

    Sorry, I realized I didn't fully answer your question. For the type of edits a new editor will likely be doing (typo fixes, adding a sentence, etc.), I don't think the wikitext editor is terribly intimidating at all. However, there are some people who see any type of code-looking markup and run away screaming. By all means, give them the option of using the beta visual editor, but make sure they know it's beta. That will have two benefits: They'll know what they're in for, they'll know an alternative is available, and know to expect bugs and problems and that reporting them is encouraged and appreciated. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

46. 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)

    Hi Jéské Couriano. I'm trying to understand your concerns with VisualEditor. As you may or may not be aware, each edit made with VisualEditor (VE) is tagged. According to a search of your edits, it looks like you currently have 0 VisualEditor edits. Can you please elaborate on your concerns? --MZMcBride (talk) 08:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

    My concerns come from interactions with new users who have used VE and come to #wikipedia-en-help on IRC, who had just as much problems using VE, bugs or no, as they did using the wikisource editor. I made this clear in the last RfC. How about, instead of you playing devil's advocate with ad hominem attacks on the integrity of everyone demanding opt-in, you actually look at this from the point of view of the new users who were effectively forced to use this buggy piece of software? Until then, you and I have naught to discuss. Got me? —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

47. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

    Hi Juliancolton. I'm trying to understand your concerns with VisualEditor. As you may or may not be aware, each edit made with VisualEditor (VE) is tagged. According to a search of your edits, it looks like you currently have 0 VisualEditor edits. Can you please elaborate on your concerns? --MZMcBride (talk) 08:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

48. 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)
49. 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)
50. Opt-in until a stable and quick version is obtained.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
51. Opt-in. This shouldn't be forced on us anyone. Manxruler (talk) 21:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC) And by opt-in, I mean always opt-in, and not opt-in for a limited period. Manxruler (talk) 20:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

    Hi Manxruler. It looks like you currently have about 33,000(!) edits here, of which 0 (or none) are VisualEditor edits. Can you please elaborate on why you feel VisualEditor is being forced on anyone when you're capable of continuing to use the wikitext (or source) editor and you've successfully avoided using VisualEditor altogether here so far? --MZMcBride (talk) 08:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

    Hi MZMcBride. Yes, 33K+ edits. And not at any point, even when I first started more than eight years ago, was wikitext challenging to use, unlike VE. Yes, VE has had a negative impact on my editing, in that: 1. It took quite a while to get rid of that VE button labelled "edit", which was tiresome. 2. VE slowed things down for me, especially to begin with. I have a slow computer and a poor internet connection, which doesn't play well with VE, even when it's hid and just running in the background. 3. When I was recently offered the option to turn it off, it was also happily announced that "This option is recommended, as it will automatically give you a chance to try VisualEditor again when it's more developed and fully-featured." How lovely. No thanks. 4. I severely dislike having to make a regular effort to avoid VE. 5. Being "capable" of/allowed to edit with wikitext by jumping through various loops hoops isn't what I want, I want to be able to turn the VE thing off, and not be asked ever again. Period. And to not have made any edits with VE isn't the same thing as not having tried to use it. Manxruler (talk) 16:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

    Further, I think that rather than spend time looking into the edit history of each of the individuals here, you should be looking into the complaints and wishes expressed. Manxruler (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

    Hi again, MZMcBride. I just lost some more editing time, due to having to yet again disable VE, which I no doubt will have to do once again, as soon as VE is declared no longer beta. Manxruler (talk) 08:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

52. 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)
    • "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)
      • 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)
53. 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)
54. Per all of the above. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

    Hi Tryptofish. I'm trying to understand your concerns with VisualEditor. As you may or may not be aware, each edit made with VisualEditor (VE) is tagged. According to a search of your edits, it looks like you currently have 0 VisualEditor edits. Can you please elaborate on your concerns? Unfortunately, "per all of the above" doesn't really explain to me what issues you're having with VisualEditor. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 09:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

    Thank you for your attention to my editing history (maybe I'll be notable soon). In fact, I did try VE numerous times, but I decided not to save any of my edits because I was concerned each time that I might end up doing something unhelpful. However, I did acquire a reasonable amount of experience with it, and I went to the VE feedback page with a list of specific issues in mind. When I got there, I observed that other users had already reported everything of which I was aware, and there were already open Bugzillas on each of them. As for opt-in, I believe that something that is still as buggy as this should be something that users can choose to use, as opposed to having to choose not to use it. The defense rests. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

    That's fair enough. We'll leave Tryptofish as a red link for now. ;-)

    Thank you for expanding on your comments. It's comments such as yours that are giving me more clarity into editor frustration. The lack of a fast enough response to reported issues seems to be at the heart of many complaints (similar, in some ways, to the wiki principle "I didn't hear that"). Feeling as though feedback isn't being heard or isn't being acted upon quickly enough, especially in conjunction with the seemingly rigid deployment timeline, is going to create strife and anger. Thanks again for taking the time to flesh out your thoughts, Tryptofish. I appreciate it. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

55. 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)
56. Of course beta software should be opt-in. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
57. 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)
58. Opt-In Until community consensus that it is stable. TheOverflow (talk) 23:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
59. Opt-In though I rather see it removed completely as a failed project. Secret ^account 23:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

    Hi Secret. I'm trying to understand your concerns with VisualEditor. As you may or may not be aware, each edit made with VisualEditor (VE) is tagged. According to a search of your edits, it looks like you currently have 0 VisualEditor edits. Can you please elaborate on your concerns, in particular why you view VisualEditor as a failed experiment? --MZMcBride (talk) 08:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

60. (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)
61. 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)
62. opt-in per basically everyone. Sailsbystars (talk) 00:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

    Hi Sailsbystars. I'm trying to understand your concerns with VisualEditor. As you may or may not be aware, each edit made with VisualEditor (VE) is tagged. According to a search of your edits, it looks like you currently have 0 VisualEditor edits. Can you please elaborate on your concerns? Unfortunately, "per basically everyone" doesn't really explain to me what issues you're having with VisualEditor. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 08:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

    HiMZMcBride, I actually participated in the testing back in January and found VE less than useless (so I didn't make the edits) because it couldn't handles refs at that point. I also dithered around in the new editor without saving changes because it didn't do what I wanted to do at that particular time. Heck, I even filed a polite feedback item. The new version is vastly improved since what I tried back in January but still not at a level that it should be used as default. Sailsbystars (talk) 16:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

63. 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)
64. Definitely opt-in: the first comment pretty much said it all. Jsayre64 (talk) 01:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
65. This is too buggy to have otherwise. TCN7JM 02:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

    Hi TCN7JM. I'm trying to understand your concerns with VisualEditor. As you may or may not be aware, each edit made with VisualEditor (VE) is tagged. According to a search of your edits, it looks like you currently have 0 VisualEditor edits. Can you please elaborate on your concerns about VisualEditor being too buggy? --MZMcBride (talk) 08:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

    I don't have to have used it personally (though I did try it for a little while before it was officially released, don't know whether or not I saved an edit) to know of the errors it has considering sources and its inability to do section edits, et cetera. TCN7JM 09:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

    Hi TCN7JM. Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. :-) While earlier versions of VisualEditor did not support section-editing, the current version certainly does. Have you tried section-editing with VisualEditor? Does it work for you? If you could elaborate on what you mean by "errors... considering sources," that would also help with VisualEditor development. --MZMcBride (talk) 09:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

    Well I mean, like, section edit buttons are there, but you can still edit the whole page after clicking it, which kind of defeats the purpose of a section edit, since editing the whole page might still cause the edit conflicts et cetera. As a courtesy note, I will say that it is 4:40 AM over here and I probably should get some kind of sleep, so I'll be unable to respond for a few hours. TCN7JM 09:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

66. Opt-in at this time, please. - Dank (push to talk) 02:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
67. 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)
68. 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)
69. Beta -> Opt-in. Mkdw^talk 03:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
70. Opt-in. Spencer^T♦C 04:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
71. Nothing in beta should be default. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

    Hi StringTheory11. I'm having difficulty understanding your comment here. The current user interface provides a wikitext (or source) editor alongside VisualEditor, both in the tabs at the top of the page and with section-edit links. What do you consider to be the default if both options are being provided to users? I'm confused. --MZMcBride (talk) 09:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

72. Riggr Mortis (talk) 05:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

    Hi Riggr Mortis. I'm trying to understand your concerns with VisualEditor. As you may or may not be aware, each edit made with VisualEditor (VE) is tagged. It looks like you currently have one edit using VisualEditor. That edit looks perfectly fine to me. Can you please elaborate on your concerns with VisualEditor? --MZMcBride (talk) 09:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

73. Opt-in per Kww. —Bruce1ee^talk 05:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
74. 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)
75. Opt-in. Until VE is not in beta. LT90001 (talk) 07:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
76. Opt-in. Certainly. Insulam Simia (talk) 07:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
77. 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)

    Hi Modest Genius. I'm trying to understand your concerns with VisualEditor. As you may or may not be aware, each edit made with VisualEditor (VE) is tagged. According to a search of your edits, it looks like you currently have 0 VisualEditor edits. Can you please elaborate on your concerns re: VisualEditor being stable and well-developed? --MZMcBride (talk) 08:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

    What, are you trying to catch people out here? What relevance does my number of saved edits have? For what it's worth, I tried using it when it was first enabled, but had the following problems: a) it took forever to load and responded slowly to everything I tried to do, b) using the 'preview' button I realised that it was about to break other bits of wikitext (tables, nowiki tags etc.) c) I couldn't get it to sensibly use references d) I've seen a large proportion of edits using VE which have had to be reverted (mostly on my watchlist) e) there was no working opt-out, which itself shows the software wasn't fully developed. Once it became unavailable I opted out. Unless the software has substantially improved in the last couple of weeks (given its long gestation, that seems incredible), my concerns are still valid. Many people have raised a large number of legitimate concerns over VE, and hounding people who !voted for this proposal with a boilerplate reply does nothing to address them. Modest Genius ^talk 10:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

    Hi Modest Genius. I'm not trying to catch anyone, I'm just trying to understand the pattern I'm seeing here. It's quite clear that many don't like VisualEditor. It's not nearly as clear why that is. Knowing the latter may help resolve the former. Your expanded comment gave me a better understanding of why you feel the way that you do (and likely why others feel the same way that you do). I'm not sure if you following m:Tech/News, but VisualEditor is in fact undergoing rapid development. It isn't the same software it was a month ago or even a week ago. Changes are being made daily and being pushed weekly (if not several times a week). In any case, thank you very much for taking the time to expand on your comments. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

    Well then that work should have been done before the premature launch of untested software. Perhaps during - here's an idea - an opt-in beta testing phase. As it is the community has overwhelmingly turned against VE, and changing that is going to require a lot more than just saying it's being improved. The damage has been done. The best response by the WMF would be to disable VE completely, do some proper surveys of what does/doesn't work, fix the bugs, run an opt-in beta for a few months, then try again when it's working better (in say 3-6 months time). Modest Genius ^talk 16:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

78. Opt-in Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

    Hi Armbrust. I'm trying to understand your concerns with VisualEditor. As you may or may not be aware, each edit made with VisualEditor (VE) is tagged. According to a search of your edits, it looks like you currently have 0 VisualEditor edits. Can you please elaborate on your concerns? --MZMcBride (talk) 08:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

79. Opt-in --Meno25 (talk) 10:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
80. --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 10:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
81. 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)
82. 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)
83. Opt-in. VisualEditor is not yet in acceptable state to be the default editor. --Zundark (talk) 12:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
84. 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)
85. 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)
86. 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)
87. 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)
88. Opt-in. Frankly, the thing is way too buggy to be rolled out in the first place.  Yintan  14:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

    Hi Yintan. I'm trying to understand your concerns with VisualEditor. As you may or may not be aware, each edit made with VisualEditor (VE) is tagged. According to a search of your edits, it looks like you currently have 0 VisualEditor edits. Can you please elaborate on your concerns, particularly what you find to be buggy with VisualEditor? Any insights you have will be valuable to further development of VisualEditor. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 08:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

    I've used VE as an IP, experienced it, and read the many, many bug reports. Can you simply accept my opinion without checking my edit count? Thanks.  Yintan  09:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

    Hi Yintan. It's important in a discussion such as this to understand why people don't like VisualEditor. Actionable feedback helps improve the software. Simply saying the software is "buggy" doesn't give developers or others an idea of what to work on or fix. If you can provide any edits that were hurt by VisualEditor (as an IP or otherwise), that would be great. Thanks for getting back to me so quickly, I appreciate it. --MZMcBride (talk) 09:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

    If you need "an idea of what to work on or fix" I suggest you check Bugzilla. But I assume you're already a regular there, so I fail to see the point of your question. You want me to list all VE's problems with tables here, for example? Elaborate on the <nowiki> problems? Or how cut-and-paste doesn't work properly? Or how references can vanish? In short, tell you everything you already know? No, thanks.  Yintan  10:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

    By the way, I don't like your comment that this RFC "does not seem to be particularly constructive"[4]. I'd say you got plenty of feedback here. Detailed, too.  Yintan  10:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

    Hi Yintan. I'm one of the most active users in Wikimedia's Bugzilla installation. I've been actively following VisualEditor's development for a few months now and I'm certainly aware of the large number of bugs I've personally hit and the even larger number (mountain, really) of bugs that other users have hit. I'm trying to figure out how to make VisualEditor more tolerable, both in the short-term and in the long-term, so that its development can continue without a community revolt. (There have been serious suggestions of forking the project over this, which I think would be incredibly damaging to Wikimedia.)

    I believe that VisualEditor is the future, but that can't be true in a vacuum. Knowing why you or anyone else has decided to not use VisualEditor or to avoid using it is invaluable in figuring out ways to either make VisualEditor better or find ways to make it easier to hide (e.g., a much more prominent on/off switch).

    Some of the comments here I have indeed found less-than-helpful, as there's an active group of hard-working VisualEditor developers who are trying to look through a sea of noise and find signal and parts of this discussion make that really difficult. Actionable items such as "when I tried VisualEditor, it broke my edit in this way" are objectively more useful than simply saying "let's turn it off or make it opt-in again because it's buggy." We all know it's buggy—and at times deeply frustrating—but it can't improve without developers being able to figure out how to make it better, particularly by seeing which problems are being hit most frequently. Thank you for taking the time to expand on your comments. They added a bit of clarity to the underlying frustration that I'm seeing here and for that I'm grateful. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

    I don't doubt there are a lot of hard-working VE developers and I'm sure that some of the comments here are frustrating, but basically a lot of people appear to say "You've already got a massive To-Do list, fix that first before making it the default". A fair and very sensible point, IMHO. VE is a tool that isn't up to the job yet. From what I see on my RC patrols it appears to break as much as it's fixing. Limiting VE to dedicated users and beta testers makes perfect sense to me, rolling out an unfinished product to the entire wiki community doesn't. Regards,  Yintan  14:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

    That is the second time I've seen the edit count remark. Well, my edit count is likely zeero, but that does not mean I have not spent hours trying to edit with the stupid thing before giving up and using the plain editor. I've not saved any VE edits, but only because I have no idea what the result will look like.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 05:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

89. 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)
90. 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, Lindsay^Hello 15:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
91. 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)

    Hi Cabe6403. It looks like you currently have about 7500 edits here, of which 0 (or none) are VisualEditor edits. Can you please elaborate on why you feel VisualEditor is being forced on anyone when you're capable of continuing to use the wikitext (or source) editor and you've successfully avoided using VisualEditor altogether here so far? --MZMcBride (talk) 08:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

92. Opt-in. Too many problems with the beta.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

    Hi Bbb23. I'm trying to understand your concerns with VisualEditor. As you may or may not be aware, each edit made with VisualEditor (VE) is tagged. According to a search of your edits, it looks like you currently have 0 VisualEditor edits. Can you please elaborate on your concerns, particularly what you mean by "too many problems with the beta"? --MZMcBride (talk) 09:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

93. 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)

    Hi S Marshall. It looks like you currently have over 18,700 edits here, of which 0 (or none) are VisualEditor edits. Can you please elaborate on why you feel anyone is trying to make a decision about whether you should be a VisualEditor beta-tester when you're capable of continuing to use the wikitext (or source) editor and you've successfully avoided using VisualEditor altogether here so far? --MZMcBride (talk) 09:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

    Well, Mz, I'm one of the people who somehow managed to miss all of the notifications telling me that the Visual Editor was going to be enabled, so it came as a complete shock to me back when it was first switched on. I'm really not in the target demographic for the Visual Editor----I'm a Linux user. Therefore I'm obviously a speed-obsessed control freak with a gigantic beard who's accustomed to all computer-related changes no matter how small requiring my personal permission and password, and I'm obviously comfortable with text terminals... Anyway, when I logged in and found they'd changed things and slowed down the interface, I didn't try to edit. I immediately focused on working out how to turn it off. This was less than easy because at this point nobody had produced a shut-off guide, and there was a discussion taking place about how prominent the shut-off guide should be (with WMF employees openly advocating making it less obvious so that more people would try the editor).

    In short, the reason why I've avoided using the VisualEditor is because I've put effort and research into avoiding it. Which, I don't mind telling you, has put my back up and made me disinclined to co-operate.—S Marshall T/C 10:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

    Hi S Marshall. Thank you very much for expanding on your views. I completely agree that it was a mistake for the VisualEditor team to remove the user preference that completely disables VisualEditor and I'm very glad that it's been restored. Though even today it's currently being marked as a temporary user preference, which is really unfortunate. I hope that this mistake on the VisualEditor team's part does not end up being a fatal mistake, but the frustration that you and many others are expressing makes me worry, of course. I recognize that a certain set of users will always want to use wikitext/source editing (I'm likely among them, to be honest). I think finding a way to demonstrate clearly and forcefully that this user preference to completely disable VisualEditor is a non-negotiable would go a long way toward resolving editor tension and building trust between the VisualEditor team and active editors here. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

    I don't think we can allow it to be a fatal mistake. I think we're either going to have to make the wiki software easier to use or face up to the consequences of declining editor numbers. The visual editor, when fixed, is clearly the best of a bad set of alternatives. My point is that it has to be introduced in a respectful way without alienating existing users any further, in other words, each user needs to be asked before the editor's turned on for them.—S Marshall T/C 16:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

94. 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)
95. Opt-in. I have seen several bugs here and there, and it is not at the moment, ready for new editors. Prabash.Akmeemana 18:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
96. Opt-in. I didn't have to spend very long trying out VE before I got frustrated, and I kind of have a clue what I'm doing. On the other hand, when I first came to WP years ago I thought that learning the basics of wiki markup was amazingly easy. I agree with those above who believe that VE is nowhere near ready for prime time, it really shouldn't even be considered a beta. There are hopefully enough people willing to sacrifice their time to testing this thing, but until it actually works, neither new users or average everyday editors should have deal with it. -Wine Guy~Talk 18:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
97. Opt-in: VE's user experience looks to have been designed by programmers for programmers rather than for the general population. Clicking on various places on a page shows mysterious shade changes and little jigsaws, then brings up dialogues blathering about "transclusion" and "parameters"; is this really something fit for a new user's first experience? Wikitext is clear by comparison, which was after all its original virtue. (Incidentally, try putting Jacques Lacan into VisualEditor - even more obscure than the man's works.) AllyD (talk) 19:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
98. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}
99. Opt-in: Don't give new editors a buggy, unpleasant experience. Reify-tech (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
100. Opt-in. I too find the Visual Editor too slow to be useful. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
101. Opt-in but with a visible pointer to the VE which is clearly described/marked as a beta version--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
102. Opt-in--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
103. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
104. Opt-in United States Man (talk) 21:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
105. Opt-in The software is not production ready and the arguments behind its premature roll-out do not live up to empirical scrutiny. It is beyond my comprehension why this is being pushed upon user in a live environment when the extension itself is marked as experimental and comes with a warning to "[use] this at your own risk; it ... is not generally ready for real-world applications". --RA (✍) 22:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
106. Opt-in: It may be working better now, but not sure it should become the most prevalent editing option on Wikipedia. If any faults develop, or they take its early track record at face value, it might put new users off. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
107. Opt-in which is how it should have been done in the first place instead of having the stupid thing imposed on editors. VE is permanently turned off for this editor....William 22:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
108. Opt-in: I'm sick of fixing good faith edits screwed up by the VisualEditor. Ginsuloft (talk) 22:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
109. Obviously Joefromrandb (talk) 22:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
110. Opt-in- Launching a buggy, poorly-tested editor was a bad idea. Imposing it on new editors would be a worse one. Reyk _YO! 22:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
111. I'd prefer it was removed and brought back for beta testing when its ready for testing. But yes it needs to be opt in - with a warning that it is slow and buggy. ϢereSpielChequers 22:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
112. Opt-in. New users join up to edit articles, not to screw around with new software.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 22:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
113. No one likes this thing do they? I can't stand it. Haven't read anything but hatred towards it. Went to my preferences to turn it off so I didn't keep accidentally hitting the wrong edit tab and having to exit out of it. The first step should be to find if anyone actually wants it, and if so then after you get it working right, you can let people decided if they want to try it or not. You shouldn't force everyone to use something that most/all won't want. Dream Focus 22:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
114. This thing sucks on ice. I'd prefer getting rid of it altogether, but the WMF devlopers would whine about that and/or try to sneak it back in the back door. We can at least focus on shoving it in the background wherever we can. I haven't contributed to Wikia in ages because it uses some wacko javascript editor that won't run in my browser. I had minimal contributions there so it didn't matter much, but I'd miss proper Wikipedia and I'm not sure it could do without me. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
115. Opt-in. 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) 22:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
116. Opt in. I shudder to think how much money has been poured down the VE pit when we can't get access to databases for our content contributors.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
117. Opt in. Its doesn't look finished to me. --Marianian^(talk) 22:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
118. Opt-in. Not fully baked yet. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 22:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
119. Opt-in at the moment. --Stryn (talk) 22:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
120. Opt-in until it can better handle references Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
121. Opt-in until the major bugs have been sorted out and we are at a stable build. Even Twinkle is opt-in. Though I realize this is a component of Wikipedia that is meant for everyone, it shouldn't be rolled out if one doesn't want it. Now, when it hits a stable level, I'll change my position, but for now, I think that it would harm editor retention. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 22:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
122. Opt-in when it is beta and maybe longer. QED237 (talk) 23:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
123. Opt-in for obvious reasons that have already been stated a few dozen times. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
124. Opt-in visual editor is frustrating and difficult to use.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
125. Opt-in I think someone else said this, but I personally think that only experienced editors (that actually want to) should be testing beta software. ALH (talk) 23:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
126. Opt-in, as the software is still in beta. Beta software should be always have to be enabled by choice and not be the default for editors, since the software is not yet stable. Lugia2453 (talk) 23:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
127. Opt-in indefinitely, even when it comes out of beta. --Zcbeaton (talk) 23:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
128. Opt-in Poorly planned and poorly implemented. This should have been tested out thoroughly first especially on the Wiki with the most traffic. Elockid ^(Talk) 23:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
129. Opt-in I've been with Wikipedia for a long time, and when I first used the new editor, I was very frustrated by its slow speed. New users are more likely to make minor edits, for which the plain-text editor is much faster and just as easy to use. --Bowlhover (talk) 23:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
130. Opt-in I originally didn't want to use VE, because I had heard how slow it is. If they are fine with slow times, then they can Opt-in. If they don't, they don't have to do anything. buffbills7701 23:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)\
131. Every software should be opt-in. —$\mathrm {ITAC}$ $\mathrm {aaaaaaaayyy}$ 23:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

     Huh? Should people be able to opt out of the spam blacklist? Of the account-creation throttle? Of the abuse filter? I'm just saying... it's one thing to support disabling the VE, but you're making far too vast a generalization. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 00:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

132. Opt-in,I think KWW the very first vote for opt in pretty much said the critical thing. That is the way you do a beta test. Its very unusual for a beta test to be the default for anyone let alone new users. MadScientistX11 (talk) 23:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
133. Opt-in It appears that a very good idea has been very badly handled. Opt-in ensures that editors who are not so confident about editing are saved from broken or fractured programming doktorb _words^deeds 23:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
134. Opt-in  This editor is only an option for a subset of users; so design-wise, it is better to default to a common starting point for everyone.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
135. As stated above, VE is buggy and not ready for prime time. New editors would likely become frustrated and stop editing, because they wouldn't know how to opt-out of VE. SMP0328. (talk) 23:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
136. Opt-in. Here's how this should have been done (even if it was much better tested and had less limitations), and how I would support it remaining in the interface as opt-out: VE is made the second option after wikitext editing (with always an option of making it the default in the future); regular editing is not utterly marginalized by the deceptive label "edit source", in combination with VW being just "Edit", so that even some old hand users think VE is the only option and wikitext editing is gone, and some kind of note is floated above the two saying something about the new two-option editing system, maybe providing a link to an explanation page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
137. Opt-in Take it away and fix it. When it is fixed, ask who wants it. Bielle (talk) 23:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
138. Opt-in, but VE should somehow be advertised to new/anonymous users. BlueRidiculous (talk) 23:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
139. Per the numerous testimony that it being enabled by default is causing more harm than good. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
140. Opt-in - The VisualEditor is awful to begin with. I shudder to think about new members simply avoiding learning Wikicode and thus lacking a proper understanding of how all the formatting and mechanisms work. If people don't gradually learn about all the features of MediaWiki, they're bound to come up with suboptimal ways of doing things especially as regards templates and such.--Newbiepedian (Hailing Frequencies) 23:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
141. Opt-in. A good idea, but it isn't ready.— James Estevez (talk) 23:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
142. Opt-in. Code that is not RFP should not be on by default. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
143. Opt-in, of course. Everyking (talk) 23:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
144. Opt-in I decided to go from an IP account to a registered account in order to change the preferences so I don't see the Visual Editor. I kept hitting "Edit" by mistake (hundreds of times) instead of "Edit Source". If you have done ANY editing on Wikipedia and used mark-up language, Visual Editor is confusing. I still don't know what I can do besides edit text. I never figured how to wikify or create links. I'm not sure whether the VE backlash is so bad because VE has a bad user interface or because it just appeared one day and the community didn't get to choose. Newjerseyliz (talk) 23:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
145. Opt-in until VE improves. Unfortunately, the current opt-out structure means that new and anonymous users are essentially beta-testing something that experienced users know to avoid. Opt-out should be the eventual goal, but VisualEditor isn't there yet. Until VE is as fast and intuitive as making a comment on Facebook, it should not be the default. Andrew³²⁷ 23:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
146. Per Andrew in its current form VE is just as difficult to use as wikicode but for different reasons. If VE was improved I !vote otherwise but as per Andre above until VE is signiicantly improve Opting In is the best solution--Cailil ^talk 23:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
147. Opt-in. It works fairly well, but the bugs still need to be worked out, in my humble opinion. Michael Barera (talk) 23:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
148. Opt-in I think I've gotten VisualEditor to work properly twice? pbp 23:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
149. Opt-in. The stated purpose of Visual Editor is to encourage editor retention. But the reason editors leave the project isn't because they find the editing to be too difficult. By orders of magnitude, the issue is with social aspects of Wikipedia. Visual Editor is a technical solution to the wrong problem. I predict that, contrary to the aims of the WMF, it will not encourage more quality editors to stay with the project. Instead it will result in a net negative effect: a greater share of the contributions to the project will be poor, incoherent, or outright vandalism. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
150. Alfie↑↓© 23:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
151. Strong opt-in. I second #90 AllyD, #133 Newbiepedian, and #83 LindsayH , just to name a few. Get it
     1. working reliably
     2. easy to use
     3. with good clear documentation
     4. that doesn't assume the newcomer knows almost as much as the old-timer does.

     Then, and only then, we can talk about opt-out. Until then, provide it as an option with clear warnings that it's in betatest, including what "betatest" means (see my #4) and may be is guaranteed to be unstable. --Thnidu (talk) 23:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

152. Opt-in VE is still in beta mode, and needs to be tested by users with experience. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
153. Opt-in, Informed consent. Jagnor (talk) 23:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
154. Beta software is always opt-in. Regardless if its "released" or not. Jguy _Talk^Done 00:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
155. Although its a huge step forward and to be welcomed, its still (approx -ve) beta. As somebody who spend a lot of time c/eing their own edits, I can see how when its developed further, it's going to be of huge benifit. I hope the developers are not too discouraged by all this fuss re the too early release; VE's time will come and the work will be appreciated. Ceoil (talk) 00:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
156. Opt-in, doesn't make editing easier. Pelmeen10 (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
157. Opt-in: Visual Editor is an awesome idea, and should have been started years sooner. But apparently it wasn't. This software is currently not suitable even for Beta release; this is still alpha software. If it's so slow that even experienced users with a persistent desire to fix things get frustrated waiting for it, it seems to reason that the very group it targets, new editors, would be turned off in droves.Eaglizard (talk) 00:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
158. Opt-in at least until fully developed, per Thnidu. --ELEKHH^T 00:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
159. A beta program should never be a default. --Holdek (talk) 00:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
160. Opt-in I've actively used the Visual Editor on both Wikipedia and my private wiki for the past few weeks, and while showing promise and being occasionally useful, it is currently too buggy to be usable by inexperienced editors. Major problems I've encountered include failure to properly render complex articles in edit-mode, semi-silent refusal so save edits after a medium-sized edit session, various corruptions of the wikitext on save (actual corruptions affecting the article, not merely cosmetic issues), and sluggishness when editing large and complex articles (even on very high-end hardware). I have no objection to changing this to an opt-out feature once the software is sufficiently stable. —Ruud 00:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

     Indeed several people have tried making larger VE edits, unable to Save, losing all keystrokes, wasting their time. -Wikid77 16:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

161. Opt-in the current software is just not advanced enough. It doesn't work well with templates, which makes using the referencing templates difficult. It also takes a little time to get used to, whereas anyone who has edited Wikipedia in the last 12 and a half years (a large number of people) will be familiar with editing the source. -teb00007 ^{Talk • Contributions} 00:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
162. Opt In. Because it doesn't work with small monitors. And don't don't tell me about changing the resolution. No person who isn't a geek (or at least a power user) is going to that, nor should anyone, geek or not, have to do that just to edit Wikipedia. Icedog (talk) 00:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
163. Opt-in until it's out of beta. Corn cheese (talk) 00:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

     Beta software should always be opt-in. Not all editors want to test new code. Even very experienced editors like myself with 117,000 edits, may find the Beta software tricky and often stay mostly with the current software editing. Indent duplicate, unsigned vote. Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 01:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

164. Beta software should always be opt-in. Not all editors want to test new code. Even very experienced editors like myself with 117,000 edits, may find the Beta software tricky and often stay mostly with the current software editing. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
165. Opt-in. We want new editors to learn how to edit Wikipedia with a stable platform under their feet, and not have to deal with interface irregularities on top of learning policies and community norms. The Visual Editor is not ready for prime-time yet, and presenting new accounts with VE by default presents them with a bad first impression. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
166. Opt-in --AmaryllisGardener (talk) 00:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
167. Opt-in unless you rewrite it to be completely server-side. The VE cannot be made fast enough by fixing the existing bugs. Giant monstrosities of Javascript are inherently slow. Connor Behan (talk) 00:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
168. Opt-in, please. Let the user choose. Cwobeel (talk) 00:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
169. Opt in Tintin
170. Opt inElectroPro (talk) 00:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
171. Opt in, When I tried VE, it was slow, confusing, and crashed my UP TO DATE browser running on an UP TO DATE operating system. No thank you, I want to be able to edit Wikipedia, not test crappy beta software that makes editing next to impossible. I can't imagine how many new users would be scared off by forcing them to use this. I've been using the standard Wikipedia editing interface for quite a few years and it is what I am used to. Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 00:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
172. Opt-in, there is no reason to foist a buggy beta on everyone. Dagko (talk) 01:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
173. Opt in -- Isn't it too obvious? ViswaPrabhaവിശ്വപ്രഭ^talk 01:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
174. It's just too problematic at this point to use as the default. LadyofShalott 01:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
175. Opt-in Learning curves are good. μηδείς (talk) 01:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
176. Opt-in – Let's not rush into this just yet – wait until all hiccups have been ironed out. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 01:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
177. Opt-in It's a mess, to say the least. --Geniac (talk) 01:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
178. Opt-in Per all above. DecafGrub47393 (talk) 01:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
179. Opt-in - It is beta, it's annoying. Also per all above. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
180. Apteva (talk) 01:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
181. Opt-in It was ridiculous to have not done this from the beginning with buggy beta software, but no time like the present to fix it. However (a) it should not be located under "Gadgets" (very user-unfriendly jargon apparently copied from Google) but under "Editing" (and possibly also the main page) in the user preferences and (b) it should be prominently explained and offered during sign-up. You could go as far as keeping an "VE" tab (do NOT replace the "edit" tab), but I'd only suggest doing that after the code is less cumbersome and buggy.
     
     As I've noted elsewhere, this entire project was wrong-headed: you added this to encourage new editors, but the problem is not difficulty or disinterest in Wikicode but aggressive page-owners; nooB-biters; and non-obvious templates. The VE is irrelevant to any of that & giving new users a buggy experience on top of everything else isn't going to help your cause. — LlywelynII 01:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
182. Opt-in I would not have been able to become an editor if VE was being used when I joined WP in 2006. I am elderly with little computer experience and I learned how to edit by looking at the way that others managed to do it. In fact, that's still how I do it. Gandydancer (talk) 01:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
183. Opt-in like any buggy, slow test version aiming at replacing stable, fast software. Love the idea, though. hgilbert (talk) 01:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
184. opt in, definitely, always for betasNickholbrook (talk) 01:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
185. Opt-in Is the logical setting with a beta version.--Mariordo (talk)
186. Opt-in. Definitely Girona7 (talk) 02:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
187. Opt-in - I'm a little conflicted...I'm not sure I would have discovered the VE for a while if it had not been auto-enabled for me. It's great but the increased potential for vandalism and/or accidental edits concerns me... Perhaps if it were opt-in, but when a user attempts to edit a page, there's a big info box informing them about this cool new VE that's in beta that they can try? Seems like a decent compromise to me... Jaardon (talk) 02:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
188. It's not ready for the public. -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 02:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
189. Opt-in always for new code. Malke 2010 (talk) 02:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
190. Opt-in, until it is out of beta. ★Saurabh P.  |  ☎ talk 02:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
191. Opt-in! Let the new users learn and adjust to it until they learn. RafaelPPascual (talk) 02:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
192. Opt-in I wondered what it was when I first saw it, and couldn't figure it out. I just go edit source and keep working. A new editor likely won't understand it without some tutorial first, which kind of defeats the purpose. Oaktree b (talk) 02:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
193. Opt-in. I will switch my vote the first time that an opt-out voter creates a single policy-compliant biography of a living person using only the Visual Editor. --j⚛e decker^talk 02:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

     This smells like a fun challenge... Legoktm (talk) 20:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

     Enjoy! Somewhere back in the archives on the Feedback page I include the 78-step process of adding a single reference. --j⚛e decker^talk 15:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC) (Added: Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback/Archive_2013_07#Reference_Issues:_Omnibus_Edition here ya go. --j⚛e decker^talk 15:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

194. Opt-in always for beta code. The new editor simply isn't ready for prime-time use. Signalizing (talk) 02:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
195. Opt-in This is not ready for wide release. I regularly train new Wikipedians and features of the Visual Editor are not instinctive for new users to use. Besides being difficult to use, the Visual Editor runs slowly and does not have reference features which I would expect it to have. I regret that it was rolled out in Beta version and I question why this was even done. I also do not find it convenient for me to use as an experienced editor. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
196. Opt-in during beta. i agree with what Bluerasberry said above. Neurosciency (talk) 02:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
197. Opt-in No one should ever have to opt-out of something like this...even after beta. Personally, from what I've seen of it, I think VE is a colossal waste of time. Seriously, this is what my donation goes to?--ColonelHenry (talk) 02:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

     I think many people wanted an "InstantEditor" not just Visual, to type "[[xx]]" and instantly see "xx" on the screen, but that simplicity was not understood and was rejected by developers as "invalid" input (error! error!). -Wikid77 16:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

198. Opt–in until it is fully developed. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  03:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
199. Opt–in - Beta software should NEVER be the default. Rock4arolla (talk) 03:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
200. Opt-in. Though I would like to see easier editing for newbies, IP vandals should be discouraged by still making them have to edit the source manually. Longbyte1 (talk) 03:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

     Vandalism formerly focused on the top paragraph, as the first text in the wikitext edit-buffer, but now they can click-and-move images anywhere as if "improving" the entire page layout. -Wikid77 16:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

201. Opt–in - Beta software should NEVER be the default. Rock4arolla (talk) 03:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
202. Opt-in--MichaelMaggs (talk) 03:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
203. Opt-in – The Visual Editor is only functional on a few browsers, and even then almost no earlier versions are supported. That is just unfair to people with older broswers who are expecting it to work! In addition, the whole point of the Visual Editor is to attract people with little to no knowledge of technology. And the little old guy who is still using Windows 4 is in that targeted demographic of people we still need to draw to the site, but he'll just get frustrated when it doesn't even load. My proposal is that we add a box of text just above the edit box of an new/unconfirmed user that directly points them to the associated Preferences section, but also informs them that it is still experimental (avoiding scaring them off with the word 'beta' is important). The box would appear until they were autoconfirmed, and by then they should be able to find it by themselves. Thanks, Nick1372 (talk) 03:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
204. Opt-in per User:Adjwilley. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
205. I agree with Kww: Beta software should always be opt-in. — Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 05:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
206. Jclemens (talk) 05:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
207. Opt-in Its useful for correcting things like minor typos, but difficult to use for making articles from scratch, with tables and references etc.Apwoolrich (talk) 06:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
208. Opt-in Beta software should always be opt-in. Leujohn ^{(talk, stalk me?)} 07:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)+
209. Opt-in Tried it, disabled it. Even were it bug-free I think it will encourage vandals and careless editors. Dave.Dunford (talk) 09:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

     Indeed VE has been used for hack edits, and another danger is hiding the template structures where new editors do not see how articles follow special styles, or hiding internal warnings: "<!--do not change this date; see talk-page-->". When I first edited WP pages, I wanted to rewrite them for my style until I realized thousands of pages followed wp:MOS styles. VE encourages rampant rewrites by new editors, with no warnings, just inviting trouble, but we did not forsee that massive problem. Instead of VE, we need a smart text editor, not a visual editor, but a wp:talking text editor. -Wikid77 11:37, 1 August, 16:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

210. Opt-in with a big, red warning that it is beta software and that it can make garbled edits. -- cyclopia^speak! 10:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
211. Opt-in, at the very least during the beta period. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 11:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
212. Faizan 13:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
213. Opt-in For now anyway. Too many bugs, plain and simple. — MusikAnimal ^talk 14:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
214. Opt-in Redalert2fan (talk) 14:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
215. Opt-in, if not disabled entirely and tested on a smaller site. It just doesn't work properly. Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
216. Opt-in. There's no way that this software should be enabled by default. — Richard BB 14:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
217. "Opt-in" until it is out of Beta. -- Safety Cap (talk) 14:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
218. Opt-in forever. The visual editor has numerous inherent flaws that make it unsuitable for the default view; it hides both comments and the underlying structure of the page. When dealing with smaller "easy" edits it has no advantage over editing plain text, and as soon as complicated formatting is introduced the visual editor becomes hopelessly complex -- its buttons and options are no more intuitive than the code is. It's also impossible to easily see how something was done by viewing its source, making it much much harder for new users to learn how something was done (that is, you can't tell which buttons on the visual editor you need to push to produce something by looking at how it was done elsewhere!) Users who learn how to edit Wikipedia via the visual editor are setting themselves up for long-term frustration that can only ultimately decrease editor retention, so it's important to never make the visual editor the default. --Aquillion (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
219. Opt- in until it is out of Beta. And it must stay in Beta until it is significantly more useable. nancy 15:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
220. Opt-in-Reasons: beta version, slow, difficulty in editing tables.
221. Opt-in. --Jasca Ducato (talk) 15:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
222. Opt-in Visual Editor makes it too easy for vandalism. Njaohnt (talk) 15:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
223. Opt-in -beta version, too slow, difficulty in editing tables R!j!n (talk) 15:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
224. Opt-in - shouldn't default to using a beta version of something, when a stable version exists. davidprior ^t/_c 15:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
225. Opt-in- It is still quite "wonky"; it could end disastrously for those who don't know how to use it. Perhaps later down the road, but certainly not now. It is not difficult to become autoconfirmed. UncappingCone64 (talk) 15:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
226. Opt-in while the software is in development and until it's much more stable and usable. ElKevbo (talk) 15:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
227. Opt-in while the software is in development and until it's much more stable and usable.Jytdog (talk) 15:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
228. Opt-in to avoid vandalism, both intentional and unintentional. It is very pleasant to use though, especially for small edits like grammatical error.--Rochelimit (talk) 15:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
229. Opt-in - right now not stable enough --TheMostAmazingTechnik (talk) 16:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
230. Opt-in, definitely. Users Seraphimblade, Manxruler, LlywelynII and many others have said it very well. Blue Elf (talk) 16:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
231. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
232. Opt-in, needs more work. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
233. Opt-in Wikipedia is fundamentally a text culture. That's what makes the collaboration model possible. I don't think it's the markup syntax that puts new users off. I think it's disorientation within the hailstorm of unfamiliar symbols. What the visual editor offers is better orientation. You can see the pictures and breaks. You know where you are. Great. Having achieved that, edits are best made directly on the underlying syntax, but we don't need to force the issue. I would have gone more in the direction of Mylyn's task filter from Eclipse. The user could use the visual editor to select the scope of what they wish to edit, then switch to the underlying text representation with the undesired scope in dim letters, and which resists accidental modification. I'm generally opposed to default opt-in to a derivative culture. (It won't cease to be derivative until diff/merge/conflict resolution are equally visual.) Another way to do this would to be have two buttons: revise as well as edit. Revise could go by default to the visual editor, and commend itself for small changes. Edit would remain as always. Or the first time a new user clicks "edit" they could be prompted on whether they would prefer to make "revise" the default instead. There are many ways to skin this cat. I've used a personal wiki for all my own projects since about 1.6, logging ten of thousands of total edits. When I go to add a citation to an article on Wikipedia, I still suffer a moment of disorientation. The markup is so dense in places. The Mylyn trick would work a treat for me (preselect the ROI from a visual presentation and then have the edit box render regions to edit in bold and non-bold for semi protected, to override if you insist). In my view, this would have been a better compromise between aiding newcomers without shifting people into a derivative culture. — MaxEnt 16:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
235. Opt-in, it's still in beta, people may have become used to editing source only on other wikis, and it's confusing to see two different "edit" options. JIP | Talk 16:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
236. Opt-in. It is still in beta, first of all. Second of all, it should be presented as a direct choice to the user. Do they want markup or VE? The user should make the choice at account creation, not WMF. RGloucester (talk) 17:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
237. Opt-in. While it's clear from above that this discussion is in dire need of input from people with expertise in software development, I still think users should be able to opt-in to sweeping UX changes. No software feature is ever "finished"; it's simply deemed acceptable enough to release. This feature is not that great—running a simply set of heuristics on it reveals many fundamental UX problems. We don't want this to be people's default experience. --Laser brain (talk) 17:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
238. Opt-in. VisualEditor still shows a lot of room for improvement, so the editor should have a positive choice to make, at least for now. Kudu ^~I/O~ 17:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
239. Support Lfstevens (talk) 17:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
240. Opt-in. Until it's out of beta. Will someone close this already? Snowball! I find it's rarely useable for my edits, and believe the same applies to new users. Once the major bugs folks mention most are fixed, it should be the default. --Elvey (talk) 17:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
241. Opt-in. Editors should understand how the sausage is made before they start garnishing it. bd2412 T 17:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
242. Opt-in for the time being. In six months when the bugs have been ironed out and the most intricate aspects of template syntax can be reliably edited with VE, we can talk.Tazerdadog (talk) 17:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
243. Opt-in - On paper, the concept of the VE is of course sound, but in practice, as we know to our despair, it's just a no-go for the time being. Per Rochelimit above -- the Visual Editor should be opt-in to prevent vandalism of both an intentional and unintentional nature. Ronan McGurrin (talk) 18:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
244. Opt-in. I creatively suggest that VE be the manner an IP uses to edit; it will definitely slow down the IPs here to vandalize, and it gives us a new approach to suggesting benefits for an IP to create an account. :) John Cline (talk) 18:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
245. Opt-in. --Olsi (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
246. Always Opt-in. Even if VE was somehow "fixed," there simply isn't any reason for it to be used by default. Gnutronium 18:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
247. Opt-in. No doubt!--Soul Train (talk) 18:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
248. Opt-in I believe it is more confusing and intimidating then editing source code. Rejectwater (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
249. Optin With a full explanation of all the problems they are likely to suffer if they do opt in. Arjayay (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
250. Opt-in: It's a good idea, but when I try to use it, it's slow or just does not work; also, editing image captions seems very complex. Perhaps I'm just an old fuddy-duddy trapped in the past, but I do prefer the old system.  Giano  18:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
251. Opt-in for now Definitely opt-in for now, 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)
252. Opt-in This editor looks like it could be a great help to inexperienced editors, but at the moment, it's so slow and buggy that it's nearly impossible to use. Once most of the bugs and errors have been addressed, I will probably re-consider my choice. George Sorby 19:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
253. Opt-in VisualEditor, in its present state and probably for several months, will scare away new editors and damage Wikipedia articles. This shouldn't have been rolled in its slow and buggy condition just so some mid-level manager could claim that he got his project done on time. Chris the speller ^yack 19:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
254. Opt-in This was incredibly confusing to me, both as a new user (registred just yesterday) and an informatician. Kebabipita (talk) 19:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

     Yes, the VisualEditor was forced onto all users despite numerous warnings from experienced users and software experts about the many risks and potential to confuse or alienate new users with all the known problems in VE, long before it was released across the English Wikipedia. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

255. Opt-in. I don't even like it, but making it a default is even worse. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
256. Opt-in At least until it's more stable. elmindreda (talk) 21:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
257. Opt-in. It was absolutely unusable when I (inadvertently) tried it with my alternate account on my phone. But features still in beta should never be turned on by default. Rivertorch (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
258. Opt In - for everyone. Frankly, until it works properly we should not be having this discussssion, and once it is working it should not be forced on anyone. --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 21:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
259. Opt-in. I can't tell you how many times I accidentally clicked it to be greeted be the god-awful slowness. It's not ready for the red carpet yet. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
260. Opt-in. The default shouldn't be VE. Kittenono (talk) 22:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
261. Opt-in. For everyone, not just new users and anons. And for those, cough - MZMcBride - cough, that have been critising anti-VE comments from contributors with zero or few VE edits ... I've tried VE a few times but never saved in it either because it wouldn't load for me so was just generally not up to the task, always reverting to the text editor. This does not mean I'm not familiar with VE and its failings. WMF should leave VE where it belongs - in wikia.com FanN | talk 22:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
262. Opt-in. Still beta, not fully useful as of right now. DDima 00:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
263. Opt-in. Visual Editor is easier for spelling mistakes and other typos, however i feel it hurts the new editors more than helps. They never learn the wikitext that is required for harder edits. I feel to really help new editors, more editing help videos and simpler instruction guides need to be made. Especially when it comes to making tables and charts. --Jamo58 (talk) 00:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

     Other users have noted the need for a wp:Talking text editor, to give help and advice to users. -Wikid77 03:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

264. Opt-in-only for six months. Two fold advantages: (1) show our users that WP works reliably today; (2) take the heat off the developers and give them the chance to stabilise and debug the current iteration. After six-months advertise a one-week notice of changes and improvements; if this one-week period validates the improvements in reliability, speed and conformity, open a site-notice poll (like this) for switching from Opt-in→Opt-out. When it was deployed I believed that VE had the potential to be the future; I believe the negative experiences and reception are because (a) VE does not load/work/save (yes, I have reported bugs on bugzilla), (b) VE deployment was not (despite intentions) appropriately advertised at the point of deployment (to pre-empt MZMcBride, this was reported and documented with my assistance on MediaWiki talk:Sitenotice#Visual Editor and #mediawiki-visualeditor at the time; as was the request for sitenotices on interwiki deployment noted above in the same talk page). —Sladen (talk) 00:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
265. Opt-in. I also find it very slow, especially on large sections/pages, and especially on an iPad. The view of the page jumps up and down a couple of times in a confusing way. Another problem is that precision edits are pretty much impossible in tricky places, such as adding a comma after an italicised phrase or a quote or similar. 'Tis a great idea, since wiki markup is difficult or forbidding, but it needs a lot more refining. Ricklaman (talk) 00:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
266. Opt-in for reasons ably given above.Brozhnik (talk) 01:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
267. Opt-in. VE is still too unreliable to be pushed at new users - especially given the tidying-up work required of existing editors - and when I last used it was missing features that I'd consider essential for good editing. To be honest, the reasoning behind forcing a broken and incomplete beta release upon the community still escapes me - why not wait until it's finished, polished and fully-functional (as I'm sure it will be, provided Mr Moeller stops closing serious and widely-supported issues as WONTFIX) before pushing it out wiki-wide, rather than putting thousands of editors off it long-term? FLHerne (talk) 01:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
268. Opt-in: as I'm not able to use VE on en-wiki with my current settings, I tested it on fr-wiki, and found it quite confusing to use for anything beyond the simplest of edits - and sometimes not even those (See for example this edit, which didn't use VE: when I tried to remove the extra space, there was an error message declaring that I could only do so in source mode.) Adding common special characters like endashes or accented letters was difficult to do, particularly where the character needed didn't already exist on the page (and so couldn't simply be copied and pasted). There are also issues regarding templates/references. I can figure out why there are references in fr:Établissement_de_la_radio_tunisienne even though the VE-edit mode says there aren't; could a new editor?. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

     Nikkimaria, the references list is often truncated in VE; I and others have noticed the same. By the way, I have another problem similar to yours: I can use VE on German Wikipedia, but not on English Wikipedia. I know of at least one user on German Wikipedia who can use it here, but not on German Wikipedia. We're not alone. :) --Andreas JN466 02:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

269. Neither Kindly show a selection with help and let the user decide whether they want to choose visual or text editor during the signup process itself. Also, since Opt-in is shown as the first option in this questionnaire there is a likelihood of it getting maximum votes and hence biased views. On the other hand if wiki allows the user to choose both and take their opinion via a questionnaire after a month from regular users, wiki would know which if the two has more acceptance. Ideally A/B_testing must be conducted and its results must be considered to take appropriate decision. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 02:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
270. Opt-in: The wysiwyg will trash carefully maintained markup and make the articles harder to maintain. Also, if a potential editor can't be bothered to take five minutes to learn a simple syntax then they probably also can't be bothered to provide sources or do the other bits of honest work that it takes to make a good article. Craig Pemberton (talk) 02:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

     VE counter-culture hacking pages: Already many pages reveal the new VE users, unaware of wikitext (unseen), are mimicking lists by a counter-culture of nowiki-speak in hidden markup: "<nowiki> </nowiki> 3. Item". Ironically, VE, intended to simplify editing, is confounding new users unaware how lists can be easily aligned by simple asterisk-bullets '*' or '#' and footnotes easily grouped by reftags, plus long-term users encounter the VE nowiki-speak as complicating the simple nature of wikitext, with bizarre concoctions to mimic lists. VE appears to be one of the greatest software disasters ever, as the epitome of "design flaw" from an objective viewpoint. -Wikid77 03:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

271. Opt-in: After my own bad experience of making a large edit (without wikilinks) and then encountering a bug where the save mechanism failed, I think VE should not be a new user's experience. Wikipedia has attracted new users for years with the old interface, there is no reason to rush VE in until it is in better shape. —Megiddo1013 02:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
272. Opt-in during beta, opt-out afterwards: It is much friendlier to newbies than the source editor, but can result in frustration/confusion if it results in corrupted pages, etc. - ^Darwin/_Peacock ^[Talk] 03:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
273. Opt-in I'm no technical guy but this would have been the best way to go based on what I've read. I think there would be enough editors to tinker with VE before it was implemented to everyone. It was supposed to be for new editors but if there was an opt-in before there would be a lot more established editors who would then be experts after the tinkering and there would be much more help for the newer editors in the long-run. The most interesting man in the world (talk) 03:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
274. Neither Visual Editor should be removed from the system completely until it is fixed and works like a real application should. It is full of bugs and should only be available for use in user sandboxes.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
275. Of the two options, opt-in. It's slow, buggy, and less user-friendly than the wikicode version. A preferable option would be to postpone having the Visual editor as an option until such time as the bugs have been removed (or preferably, abandon it completely - it sucks giant ones). Grutness...wha? 03:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
276. Opt-in: Judging by the number for opting in and the rationale (it's an absolute bugger!), I'm not the only one avoiding it like the plague & going straight to 'edit source'. I use Firefox, but have tried the visual editor on Chrome & IE Opera and it's equally flawed. On the rare occasions it has 'saved', I've had to go into the source & fix the errors it's made. Definitely & absolutely MUST be stabilised before being unleashed on newbies who'll be frightened off contributing. IMHO, it shouldn't be available for opting-in until a new contributor has put in quite a few hours working from the source. Sadly, it's a monster. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
277. Opt-in: 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. Also I agree with #187. Can you really write a fully policy compliant article with just VE? --lTopGunl (talk) 04:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
278. Opt-in: 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. — O'Dea (talk) 04:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
279. Opt-in: The Visual Editor should be enabled by default to the new users because some of the new users are not familiar with the coding of the Wikipedia (and other Wikimedia families). While I understand most of the users are able to write an article, however the unfamiliarity of the Wikimedia coding may cause the page to shows some error messages exists in the article. Error messages in the article can compromise the reading experience. The Visual Editor is based on WYSIWYG (What You See is What You Get) concept in which when editing, it editing on preview view on real-time so that it can easily spot how does the article should be look like before saving to public view. Since this version is currently in beta, the editing system should come with ability to switch between Visual and Coding view through tab when editing. -- WPSamson (talk) 04:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
280. Opt-in: The visual editor is annoying, people shouldn't be encouraged to use it. Crypticfirefly (talk) 04:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
281. Opt-in: It's a great feature, but needs work. For the sake of users who come from other MediaWiki wikis, it should be disabled for ease-of-use until its problems are fixed. --GeorgeBarnick - Talk/Contribs 04:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
282. Opt-in until the VE has been thoroughly redesigned and made fit for purpose. -- The Anome (talk) 05:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
283. Opt-in is my first preference. My second preference would be for new editors who sign up to have to choose upfront which option they choose; they would also be informed upfront that they may go back and forth any time between disabled VE and enabled VE. allixpeeke (talk) 05:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
284. Opt-in before stable ver. Visual editor should not be encouraged to use before more functions are settled. Curisu | Talk 05:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
285. Opt-in. And please restore the edit tabs! Vegaswikian (talk) 06:19, 2 August 2013
286. Opt-in. When I began editing, I had many problems which tended to deter me from contributing. But using the source editor was not one of them. I think that having to use the confusing and buggy VE would have put me off. Maproom (talk) 06:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC) (UTC)
287. Opt-in. Its very good to have a visual editor. It really helps.User:Ajeyaajeya
288. Opt-in. First of all, it's in beta; there is no excuse for setting something that's inevitably buggy and unfinished as a default option. Second of all, I don't know if anybody else experiences this but I have large issues with absurdly slow loading times when attempting to use VisualEditor, which deters me from using it. I, for one, loathe VisualEditor in its current state; I've disabled it for the foreseeable future and will not be re-enabling it until it's much closer to being 'finished' or 'finished'. Aurora (talk | contribs) 07:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
289. Opt-in please. Re-open the question when opt-in's become majority. ~Michael Allan 07:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
290. Opt-in. VE should be available to everyone with a warning. It is in fact slower than markups. Moreover, it needs caution. Editorranjitksharma (talk) 07:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
291. Are we seriously discussing this? The visual editor is slow, buggy and, when it comes to edit anything other than plain text, actually less user-friendly than wikicode. Of course it should be opt-in; in fact, it should be filed under "obscure wikitools some people, for some reason, like to use". complainer (talk) 08:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
292. Opt-in until most of the bugs are fixed. Toffanin (talk) 08:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
293. Opt-in Fox1942 (talk) 09:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
294. Opt-in VE should be made available till they have certain number of edits. Ddineshk (talk) 09:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
295. Opt-in. I agree that the traditional editing process (in which editors must learn HTML markup) is probably daunting to new editors (although I, like comment #176 above, learned by following others' examples). I tried using VE when I edited an article on the ancient Greek-Persian wars. I made many minor edits (typos, grammar, clarifications, etc.), but VE did NOT save them. Very frustrating. Also, it was slow, it did not open to the section that I'd specified, and it does not offer special characters (Greek or Cyrillic alphabets, special punctuation marks, etc.). I think that making editing more like using Microsoft's Word processor is basically a good idea: I often find it confusing to insert a reference into a series of existing references since it's hard to see where one reference begins and the next one ends; the source text can be VERY messy and confusing. (BTW, what the heck is "transclusion"? Software engineers' jargon should be avoided whenever possible.) Cwkmail (talk) 09:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
296. Opt-in -- too many bugs. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 10:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
297. Opt-in. The editor is not finished and makes editing very complicated and fiddly, especially for new editors. – Acdx (talk) 10:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
298. Opt-in --Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 10:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
299. Opt-in: The editor is incomplete and openly declares itself to be at beta level. Only after extensive testing by a small group of people who have a range of skills and editing styles should it even be considered for wider use!  DDStretch  (talk) 11:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
300. Opt-in: Really should not even be in beta yet (nowiki, nested sub/superscript markup, need I say more?) Double sharp (talk) 11:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

     No subscript insertions in VE, as of 1 August 2013, yet compare the ease: X{{sub|1}}Y{{sub|2}}Z{{sub|easy wikitext}} for "X₁Y₂Z_{easy wikitext}". -Wikid77 16:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

301. Opt-in per review. Kierzek (talk) 13:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
302. Opt-in now and forever. Per #102, #211, and others. Levdr1lp / talk 13:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
303. Opt-in --Kjetil_r 13:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
304. Opt-in. Vanquisher (talk) 14:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
305. Opt-in Its that buggy it gives out the wrong impression. --JetBlast (talk) 14:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
306. Opt-in OriumX (talk) 14:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
307. Opt-in It's not that I hate anything new, I like new things - if they work well. This doesn't. Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

     By comparison, the new Lua script was well-received in March 2013, and now "{{substring|one good example|4|4}}" instantly shows "good". -Wikid77 16:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

308. Opt-in It's beta-software. ~~Ebe123~~ on the go! 14:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
309. Opt-in, because it is beta and it is with bugs. Beta software is usually tested by skilled users.--Yopie (talk) 16:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
310. Opt-in for right now, and the forseeeable future. When VE is easier to use than edit source, only then would considering a decision to make it the default be appropriate. How much money and time we've invested in something should not be a criteria. --Bejnar (talk) 16:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
311. Opt-in 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)
312. I would say no, because one of the greatest features of wikipedia in my opinion is the infobox. Not all articles have one yet, and they are slowly getting added. Providing the code first gives a chance to show that you can use infoboxes, and you can also see the blank lines where something you know (say you know that a new mayor was elected and hasn't been added yet), Shouldn't that be added? They should know they can. Also it gives them a chance to learn wikicode. I think a best case scenario is everyone learns it and uses it. Techdude3331 (talk) 17:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
313. Opt-in The visual editor doesn't work properly. And it makes the website a little slower in some content than the normal. And it has many bugs. So, I think it will be wise enough to disable it. Sourov0000 (talk) 17:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
314. Opt-in I am not a fan of the visual editor; it doesn't work as seamlessly as other WISYWIGs I've used. New users shouldn't be offered this potentially confusing and destructive shortcut. LeavemealoneNSA (talk) 17:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
315. opt-in Big, slow, slow to load, not compatible with all browsers, just a bad idea all around. Sorry, I don't mean to impugn those who are working on it, but it's 2 steps forward and 12 steps back. It's great for people with FTTP for Internet connectivity and Core i5's or Bulldozers for examples, but worse for people with less-than-stellar Internet or older computers. Also, if JavaScript isn't enabled at all (think NoScript), it would presumably fail totally if enabled by default. Wikimedia markup just isn't all that tough to learn or to use. The most trouble I have is finding a closing </ref> when editing a page. Otherwise the markup is fairly straightforward. -- Joe (talk) 18:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
316. Opt-in (except for a limited trial where new users are randomly assigned in or out) as VE is so buggy as exaccerbate new-user frustration. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
317. Opt-in Users should not be forced to use the new visual editor as I currently am forced to use IE8 at work and the Visual Editor has not loaded correctly in this version, I just stopped tyring to load it, this would lead to me not being able to edit wikipedia pages at work which is where I mostly do my editing. Cmjdm (talk) 20:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
318. Opt-in But, I think that a user should have a right to choose, so they have to make a choice when they create their account. This means that the user has to make a choice whenever they sign up. No option is selected by default though. Thanks, George Georgeh109 (My Talk Page) 20:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
319. Opt-in' It's still too "beta". And not being available in all major browsers is likely to be a source of confusion to new users if they use different browsers in different situations. Kerry (talk) 20:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
320. Opt-in Currently it has too many bugs and should not be offered to new users until it has reached a reasonable llevel of stability. I currently have it turned off, but I am not averse to trying it out again when it is out of beta. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 21:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
321. Opt-in newbies to visual editor don't realize a lot of the features they're enabling. They may unintentionally through pasting or misclicking clutter up our source code with unnecessary things. Wiki code is incredibly easy to understand and any users of value will be up to the challenge of mastering it. If they are not, I question how much benefit they can provide the wiki in terms of content. It's much harder to understand things like how to properly reference than it is our source code. Ranze (talk) 22:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
322. Opt-in satellizer (talk - contributions) 23:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
323. Opt-in The biggest problem with this is that it will encourage editors not to learn wikimarkup. As it is, it presents wikimarkup as something "other" or "hard". Without it, editors may just learn a tiny piece at a time, but once they get started, they can fairly simply progress to being able to use templates and more complex wikimarkup fairly simply. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

     Indeed the wikitext is much simpler to use for nested templates. Imagine using VE to insert a cite template, but also need to convert a quoted measurement into metres, as in "royal robe was 2x3 yards". The wikitext could use "{{convert|2|x|3|yd|m|1 |disp=sqbr}}" to show "2×3 yards [1.8×2.7 m]" and put that inside the template "{{cite_web |quote=royal robe...}}" but imagine editing in VE to insert that cite, then for the quote parameter, trying to insert the {convert} template, while already inserting the cite_web template. No wonder VE cannot even format some complex pages when trying to edit. -Wikid77 03:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

324. Opt-in I suppose if people wish to test and de-bug alpha and beta software not ready for prime-time, then they should be able to do so. — Ched :  ?  23:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
325. Opt-in Joining the opinion of "Sarahj2107 11:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)" Uncle Scrooge (talk) 23:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
326. Opt-in, definitely. Alpha and beta software should always be opt-in. Not everyone wants to test new software. NealCruco (talk) 00:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
327. As many explained earlier, I think VE is not a good thing to have new editors start with. Mohamed CJ (talk) 01:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
328. Opt-in - too problematic and too many bugs. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 01:53, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
329. Opt-in As a new user, my experiences thus far with the Visual Editor have been negative. The issues I experienced are not new, based on the bug reports I have read- therefore, I will not be submitting duplicate reports. Please refrain from looking up my editing history and commenting that 50% of my edits have been made with VE; this is because I have only made two successful edits, and that statistic does not represent my negative experience with VE. Overall, I find the source editor to be faster (loading, editing text, and saving edits), easier to learn, and less prone to error. I believe that the simpler, more established editor should be the default, and that users should opt-in for the newer, bulkier editor that is still ironing out most of its bugs (not to mention that it is not even to the RC stage yet). Ehope.pandab34r (talk) 02:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
330. Opt-in, until VE is more complete and no longer beta. —ADavidB 02:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
331. Perhaps in the future it should be made default, but it's not ready yet. -Thunderforge (talk) 05:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
332. Opt-in, until users who decide to use it and keep it are many many more than everybody else. --FocalPoint (talk) 05:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
333. Opt-in, until VE is fully developed at a minimum. And please make it easy to find how to activate it. DPdH (talk) 07:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
334. Opt-in. New users should not be defaulted to a beta program. That is absurd. New users are always going to be on a learning curve of some sort, completely regardless of the editing platform. Their access should default to a well-established editing platform. Wiki markup is not that difficult to learn, it is well tested, and new users have a very good support community. New users can become as proficient as they choose or are able to, and any errors are relatively easily sorted out. My argument comes from both personal and observational experience. I myself have made various errors during the course of my learning curves (not to say there are not more learning curves to come). Many editors contributed to my learning, whether it be tips, comments, assistance, or outright criticism: it all matters. It is absurd to expose novices by default to a platform that is known to require debugging. It is true that for the purposes of debugging, one needs to test such a program on a sample of novices. But is exactly what it should be: a sample of novices who have consciously opted-in, after being informed of what it is they are opting into: some readers will recognise this as the concept of "informed consent", which is not just some esoteric human rights issue, but rather, one of pragmatism. Wotnow (talk) 08:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
335. Opt-in-- Dewritech (talk) 10:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
336. Opt-in for now (until it's out of beta).--Gregor K. (talk) 11:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
337. Strong opt-in until it is finished. {| class="wikitable" |- | cjquines || talk |} 11:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
338. Beta software should always be opt-in. Parsecboy (talk) 12:35, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
339. Opt-In should always be the default action on any function. All users should get, by default, the same (typically limited) functionality, and opt-in (as desired) to enable more functions. Truthanado (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
340. Opt-in - beta/unfinished software should not be used in a production environment and certainly not be put into the hands of the least experienced users. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
341. Opt-in — there have been TONS of bugs IDed so far, and I saw somewhere that the devs will have their hands full with other stuff for the foreseeable future. There will be plenty of users who choose to keep using it, but until things are a LOT better we shouldn't force people to use beta software by default. (Because that's why it's called "beta" software.) Give them a choice, but don't make it default. Ignatzmice•talk 13:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
342. Opt-in – VE, while making it easier for new users to edit, has many known bugs, as stated above. Until a version of VE comes out that doesn't force users to scroll to the top to create a wikilink, make bold/italic text, or create section headings, I prefer to opt in. Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 15:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
343. Opt-in — the VE breaks too many parts of the existing Wikipedia edit tool suite; should definitely be opt-in, so folks don't have to spend time figuring out how to turn the infernal thing off, as I did. Moreover, there ought to be a way to permanently disable the visual editor, not merely make it the second choice.N2e (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
344. Opt-in – except with very minor edits, I always review my changes before saving to make sure VE didn't add any <nowiki> tags or anything weird like that. New users will not look for that, or if they see it they will assume it is normal. ~HueSatLum 16:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
345. Opt-in — VE should be denied to anonymous logins, period. I could be wrong, of course, but IMHO the majority of anonymous users are just troublemakers looking to wreck havoc in the data. At the very least they're likely to be INexperienced and should not be given a powerful tool. You wouldn't hand _your_ two-year-old a pneumatic nail gun, right?! Experienced users hopping in for a quick fix don't care which editor they're using. And creating whole new articles or making major changes/additions (where the power of VE is actually useful) should remain in the venue of experienced users, again IMHO, because (1) they're experienced and know how Wiki articles should be approached, and (2) they're used to Wiki hiccups and won't go berserk when VE goes south (as beta software is wont to do on occasion LoL). And, last but NOT least, VE is STILL BETA!! To be honest, maybe it should be limited to a select number of users who are experienced Wiki-editors AND software designers. JimScott (talk) 16:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
346. Opt-in -- VE should NOT be denied to anonymous logins. None of these are really anonymous as their IP addresses are clearly shown. I don't see any benefit to making people put up a name instead of using an IP address. Besides that the posts should be considered on their own merits. From my looking at the debates where some people have used just IP addresses, the claim of preventing anonymous postings is really just a way to remove legitimate comments that others disagree with. Bobbys63 (talk) 11:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
347. Still horrendous, buggy, and limited. Wouldn't wish it on anyone. Stifle (talk) 16:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
348. Opt-in – and not just because it's beta or has bugs. I don't like the Visual editor, and I don't like Wysiwyg editors in general. I think there are many advantages to the old editor, in terms of ease of use, speed, simplicity, and helping users better and more thoroughly understand how Wikipedia works, and for this reason I'd always like the new editor to be opt-in only. The bugs just make me feel more strongly and urgently, but I would support opt-in even if there were none of the bugs mentioned here. Cazort (talk) 16:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
349. Opt-in at least until the visual editor is perfected. I think VE stands more of a chance of confusing and annoying new users than being required to learn the markup language. I am strongly in favor of putting an option in Settings to turn the damn thing off entirely. I will never use it. To me, it is a superfluous gadget that hinders my work, rather than supporting or facilitating it. Judging from the comments I've seen here, I am not the only one who feels this way. --Bluejay Young (talk) 18:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
350. Opt-in I have only been occasionally annoyed by it, though I haven't tried much serious content work with it and do not think it would be suited for such work. However, it is a great supplemental tool for various bits of small-time grunt work. Making it an opt-in function is best, though, until all the kinks are worked out.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
351. Opt-in Olaf (talk) 19:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
352. Strong opt-in Beta Software should always be Opt In. -- RWJP (talk) 19:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
353. Opt-in - It is not ready, yet. --Joshua Issac (talk) 19:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
354. Opt-in My 2 cents is that this whole VE thing is a fiasco. It seems to have resulted in a bump in anonymous vandalism and only frustrated and alienated established editors. The stated goal of VE was to attract more new users — but my feeling is that it has so far only managed to repel existing ones. The VE seems to have been developed by the WMF as an internal project by mostly hired engineers, and already in a March 2013 blog they seemed to admit that the task they were facing was an impossible one: VE simply can not be made to work right with our present wiki-markup using the approach they had chosen. The project seems to have been pushed through regardless. When the team hit the deadline, without much thought the WMF took a nasty dump on the whole en-wikipedia community by feeding the still-buggy software on every user without opt-in. I was surprised to see this happen, because after the blog post it seemed to project was infeasible and was not going to ship in many years, if ever. I tried to edit with VE maybe 2-3 times, and found it just as futile as I was expecting it to be, and turned it off from the preferences, just like I do with those banners that begin to haunt us around Christmas each year. Please make everyone a favor and revert the UI to how it was before, with VE as strictly opt-in. And WMF should probably quit wasting donor money on this project so you don't have to run so many banners again at the year's end, just saying. --hydrox (talk) 19:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

     Use of wikitext editor has rebounded: Edit-counts show users have re-awakened and returned to using the wikitext editor: edits by new/old usernames are 96% wikitext (up from 91% last week), and IP edits are 80% by wikitext editor (up from 70%, 30% were VE) in a sample of 3,000 edits on 3 August 2013. The overall IP edits are still 27% of total (799 of 3,000) as during last month. Be assured: people who write encyclopedia articles tend to be quick-learners and not long distracted by fads. Some people prefer power tools, circular saws and drills, while others might plod along with a chisel and handsaw, but not for long. -Wikid77 23:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

355. Opt-in. Does not allow edit of single sections? Thus, a newbie cannot cause extra work by mis-editing a page. Plus, it is beta. -(unsigned by JustAnotherJoe (talk) 22:04, 3 August 2013‎)
356. Opt-in. (1) The non-visual editor is in many ways easier and clearer to use, since it shows you everything that affects the appearance of a page. It's like the difference between raw HTML and Dreamweaver: the latter overlays a bunch of stuff, making it difficult to tell exactly what the results of a change wil be, while the former is plain and clear. (2) Why fix something that is not, and never was, broken? No one thus far seems to have much if any trouble learning to use the regular editor. Bookgrrl ^holler/lookee here 00:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

     Problem is rambling footnotes which VE only hides: Instead, we need a tool which could semi-automatically move many reftag footnotes, which cluttered the text, into References as {{Reflist|refs=<ref name="x"></ref>}} and simplify the upper text with just "<ref name=x/>". -Wikid77 04:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

357. Opt-in. As much as I'd want to make editing more accessible, it's still in beta and simply isn't ready to be released Eemoso (talk) 00:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
358. Keep it opt-in at least while it is beta and it extremely slow — NickK (talk) 01:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
359. Opt-in. (Although I would rather lose it). It is too easy to screw up existing heading structures. Infindebula (talk) 01:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

     People do not know an extra VE backspace deletes the infobox. Imagine the puzzled users, unaware how typing one extra backspace in VE deleted the entire infobox (Gee, what happened?), and so some people want new users to edit with that?!? -Wikid77 04:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

360. Opt-in. Its buggy and its harder to use than the traditional editor where you have the benefit of seeing all the formatting Dimspace (talk) 01:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
361. Opt-in. I think new users should start learning the markup language.Neo139 (talk) 01:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

     According to Kaizen, if something seems difficult, then do it more and more, not less, and repeat until it becomes easy. -Wikid77 04:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

362. Opt-in. Learning how to work with the markup language is an important step toward becoming an effective editor. If you want to skip this step, you should have to make an active choice to do so. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
363. Opt-in --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 03:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
364. Opt-in this is extremely buggy, I just wanted to change one single character or a page and the whole infobox was cleaned without me noticing... But I admit that I was not very careful at this point, but most noobs and anons are most probably even more careless. especially since html coded things (like Ruby) cant be changed in VE.
365. Opt-in, the traditional wiki markup editor is more reliable, more capable and more common across the web. A segment of potential editors may prefer a wysiwyg editor and can opt to try it. Bcharles (talk) 06:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
366. Opt-in. Permanently. I tried it twice and gave up. Like many others I learnt editing here through trial and error and pinging the talk pages of more experienced contributors. VE seems to lead to even more errors with pages. Valenciano (talk) 08:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
367. Opt-in: For at least as long as it is in Beta, it should be opt-in. I'd prefer the markup editor to remain the default even when the VE is out of Beta. Ahmer Jamil Khan (talk) 10:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
368. Opt-in. I had one experience with VE, and it was most displeasing due to extremely poor performance. I haven't tried many features, because scrolling made the editor unusable.MiniCampos (talk) 13:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
369. Opt-in: Keep this opt-in for a while longer, at least until the functions are more stable. Gautehuus (talk) 13:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
370. Opt-in for now: it's just not ready. Wait until hidden comments can be shown to editors, and it's impossible to accientally delete a template by backspacing, and the system for adding references is much more user-friendly, and ... (other VE users will have other pass/fail criteria). Then release a great, welcoming, new interface which will allow non-geeky subject experts to use their expertise to improve the encyclopedia much more easily. PamD 13:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
371. Opt-in. One must be able to concentrate on only the content. Hulten (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
372. Opt-in: Knowledge is structured. Anyone wishing to contribute to Wikipedia editing is necessarily obligated to understand that "knowledge" in the Wikipedia sense is not supposed to be just a vague stream of thought. Wikipedia is, by definition, elitist in this sense. New users should be encouraged to use mediawikicode and structured editing. Boud (talk) 14:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
373. Opt-in - I've taken a brief look at the new WYSIWYG editor, and it's great! I think it will really help new users... in 3 to 6 months, when the bugs others have found are worked out, and the lag is a bit more manageable (I wasn't even able to make an edit due to 30s+ lag times on each action I took using FireFox). I really like the idea of this editor and think it should be enabled by default... just not quite yet. Thanks for all the hard work to those working on this project. Keep it up! It's looking great so far:). — Gopher65_talk 15:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
374. Opt-in. Wikipedia is not a blog and not something to be edited haphazardly. It requires structure and focus. The VE makes it that much easier for new and anonymous editors to begin changing text without taking any steps to learn the basic standards and policies of Wikipedia. I also agree that the VE needs additional work. By opting in, individual editors can make the personal decision whether the VE is sufficiently useful for their needs. Factchecker25 (talk) 15:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
375. Opt-in. It makes vanadalism appear too easy. Mainline421 (talk) 16:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
376. Opt-in. I didn't like it and think it would lower the average quality of edits even if it worked like a charm. Muad (talk) 15:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
377. Opt-in. I can't believe this version would have been implemented for anyone, much less new accounts! Rust never sleeps. Trilobitealive (talk) 16:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
378. Opt-in at present. - Pointillist (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
379. Opt-in, or provide a choice between the traditional and VE systems without pre-selecting one or the other. The Rev (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
380. Definitely Opt-in. Trajing (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
381. Opt-in. The visual editor and the links to it everywhere are annoying and really cluttering up the reading experience of articles, 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) 17:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
382. Opt-in for sure while the code is in beta. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
383. Opt-in. It's beta code! Jdp407 (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
384. Opt-in. It's an invitation to vandalism. Peterrivington (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
385. Opt-in until out of Beta. My experience is that nothing drives people away from a program /web site faster than buggy soft ware. But wiki mark up is not perfect either, and possibly t reason VE bombs is because we have so many styles and transcluded templates. This discuss also does have tones of "Bah! Pictures! what s wrong with pen and paper?)"79.69.205.62 (talk) 19:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
386. Opt-in. I wouldn't want to make it *easier* for numbskulls to vandalize. I know I'm well intended, but I still like the fact that it takes a modicum of *effort* to make changes. Demodave (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
387. Opt-in doesn't work on some platforms I use. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
388. Opt-in. Because Beta. --Orangutanklaus (talk) 20:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
389. Opt-in, certainly as long as it's Beta. Plus, my own experiences with the VE have not been encouraging. --Craig418 (talk) 21:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
390. Opt-in always. Archolman User talk:Archolman 21:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
391. Opt-in. I've run into several bugs while trying to save edits with VE, and it's too unstable for new users. —DragonLord^{talk/contribs} 22:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
392. Opt-in because the VE sucks. And at no point in the future should it be any other way. -Kai445 (talk) 23:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
393. Opt-in mainly because of its buggy features, and vandalism. 7cc.19edv (talk) 00:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
394. Opt-in VE is so bad it should be abolished. It is too shaky to force on new users.PumpkinSky talk 00:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
395. Opt-in VE is still a beta, it's too slow and inconvenient.--Typing General (talk) 01:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
396. Opt-in. New users should not be automatically made beta-testers. --Stephen Gilbert (talk) 01:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
397. Fe Nite (talk) 02:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
398. Opt-in. If someone really wants it, they'll figure out how to turn it on. TiMike (talk) 03:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
399. ""Opt-in"" Until the Visual Editor can be proven to be fairly stable and bug-free, I believe it should be opt-in only. However, once it has a fairly good track record of stability, there's no reason we can't publicize it to all users so they are made aware of it if they weren't already. Wiki's aren't always the easiest site to get the hang of, at least when editing and creating content. There's a lot to learn - talk pages, user pages, main pages, etc. The last thing you want a new user to go through is being overwhelmed by a buggy experience. There's no reason all users have to know about it right now, we can always share a site-wide note like the request for comment on this very matter. Just my 2.5₵ Corey Edwards (talk) 05:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
400. Opt-in err on stability. kschiesser (talk) 05:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
401. Opt-in. Even just from the fairly limited testing that's been done so far, I've already had to clean up entirely too many cases where a new user or an anonymous IP used VE to bury an article in <nowiki> tags for no discernible reason whatsoever — as well as another article where an editor used VE to add numbers to a list that was already numbered, causing its entries to display as "1. 1.", "2. 2.", "3. 3.", etc. I understand that the tool has valid and productive uses, and not everything that people do with it is going to be as stupid as those examples — although I have to acknowledge that I can't figure the damn thing out to save my life, and I'm one of the most experienced editors on Wikipedia. Option for people who have demonstrated enough knowledge of Wikipedia to figure out how things work and how to use it properly, sure — default option for everybody including anonymous IPs, hell to the no. Bearcat (talk) 07:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
402. Opt-in, strongly, per Jabberwoch. "It's in beta" is reason enough. And per Wikid77: "People do not know an extra VE backspace deletes the infobox." Good grief! This is a Pandora's Box that should not be by default open to beginners (or anyone, really; I hope the issue is fixed while VE is still in beta.) --Middle 8 (talk) 08:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
403. Opt-in as long as it is in beta, Ter-burg (talk) 09:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
404. Opt-in until it is the easiest interface being regularly used by experienced editors. Don't hide the opt-in, or make it difficult to opt-in, but recognise that until the best editor-people are using it, it is not the best editor-interface. Paul Beardsell (talk) 10:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
405. Opt-in because it's easier for new user. inori989
406. Opt-in BUT only if: (1) it is more then clear how to switch to traditional, most users are familiar with the way used so far (2) there will be added everywhere a button "report a bug", as in many cases the proper way to use it is not obvious and need to be adjusted to common understanding of VE (3) it will be developed further, and there is not possibility of development without feedback from users, even when now it is a horrorware, I don't know how to do some things with VE (4) hence ought to be possible to switch easier between those two VE and traditional (5) in all screens will be added help explaining what options in current moment are aviable, as now it is not obvious (at last for me) (6) traditional way will NOT be removed, it is needed, some things are easier to do traditionally.
407. Opt-in from now until the end of time. Jhw57 (talk) 12:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
408. Opt-in. It's still beta. New users are the one who need VE the most, but a unstable version of VE will only make them have a bad experience about wikipedia. Tututudi (talk) 13:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
409. Opt-in given current state - proviso but aim for opt-out when more mature. Other future options such as testing on % new users "phased opt-out" most sensible. Widefox; talk 14:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
410. Most definitely Opt-in, and please consider changing the wording from "Edit / Edit Source" to something like "Edit / Edit in Visual Mode". Editing the source should always be the default. Visual Editors are always buggy to some extent and should never be seen as anything better than a rough tool for first drafts and the like. Luis Dantas (talk) 14:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
411. Opt-in even after the formal release. I fully concur with the goal of VE, however, someone who wants to edit should be held to the responsibility of learning the system including its protocols. clayjar (talk) 15:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
412. Opt-in VE should be disabled by default. Having to look up tags as I edit helps me learn more about WikiMedia. In another incarnation I also use Wordpress and Blogger, and I almost always use the HTML editor rather than allow TinyMCE or whatever blogger uses to litter my posts with unwanted formatting and style elements that I can't fix from the WYSIWYG editor. I understand you want new users to be able to add formatted content quickly. Is it worth the overhead to manually check and edit all the content tagged as being created by the Visual Editor? Let's make the VE only available to registered users who have already done some editing. Dreadfullyboring (talk) 15:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
413. Opt-in because it's (at most) beta. -- UKoch (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
414. Opt-in. Innab (talk) 17:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
415. Opt-in. --Markscheider (talk) 17:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
416. Opt-in. Unmismoobjetivo (talk) 17:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
417. Opt-in; there is no comment I can make that hasn't already been made above. — Scott • talk 17:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
418. Opt-in. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 18:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
419. Opt-in; "principle of least surprise", and I prefer the standard editor. Cgwaldman (talk) 18:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
420. Opt-in – this isn't even close to being ready for prime time; the lack of basic functionality like editing tables means that it should never be the default until it's really release-quality, not just meeting some arbitrary deadline. *** Crotalus *** 18:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
421. Opt-in. The visual editor is so uncomfortable to use right now. Learning to edit using the source might be a little more daunting and dry at first glance, but you end up learning how to do way more that way. The visual editor feels clunky and unstable. If the visual editor is what I had encountered when I first started using Wikipedia, I might have given up on trying to contribute edits early on. I know it seems backwards, but the visual editor actually seems less immediately comprehendible than the visual editor--and maybe that's the part of me that grew up with phpbb message boards and HTML code, but there you go. T. H. McAllister (talk) 19:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
422. Opt-in. Because it is easy and new users tend to mes up with an article. -Polytope4d (talk) 19:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
423. Useablity is an important thing, but at the moment VE is frustratingly slow, and the limitations of the beta code visually obvious (check the infobox of any football team for one example). The whole point of VE is to attract technophobic readers into the editing circle, which will in turn give us a more diverse editing base. Unlike many above, I believe that VE will eventually achieve these goals, but rolling out the current code would probably result in the precise opposite: driving away productive anons and putting off toe-in-the-water newbies. The one benefit to rolling the current code out for all IPs and new accounts would be to slow down vandalism, but that would be a pretty shoddy reason to go for this. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 19:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
424. Opt-in; I agree with earlier comments that a not-entirely-functional beta test (labeled as the primary method of editing) is only going to dissuade new editors, at least until the kinks are worked out. Beige.librarian (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
425. Opt-in. It will encourage new users to learn the much more powerful wikimarkup Noahk11 (talk) 20:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
426. opt-in - partly because it's beta, partly because it could make serious vandalism easier. Heenan73 (talk) 21:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
427. Opt-in although it's all been said before. I do think VE would give vandals additional firepower. Second, syntax is more robust, isn't actually that difficult to learn, and is powerful when one has learnt how to use it. People who actually care enough to call themselves editors will go to those lengths. sabine antelope 22:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
428. opt-in I do not do a lot of editing, so my vote may not be worth a full tally mark. I primarily just fix the obvious things I see wrong while I am reading Wikipedia. I became aware of the visual editor when I found a horrible edit that looked like a random portion of a complex hyperlink/ref/image line of code was copied and pasted within itself (see my last edit of Statin). I was trying to figure out how such an edit could have happened when I noticed it was tagged with VisualEditor. My opinion is that no tool should be given precedence over an existing and functional tool until it is very mature and voluntarily adopted by the majority. Jbaylor (talk) 01:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
429. Strong opt-in for beta, weak middling opt-in for stable. At least until out of beta. I think that we should be more certain of how well this software works before we even consider making it opt-out. Further more, I am of the personal belief that all editors should be at least familiar with editing the source. Both methods can have different advantages. There's a lot of missing features right now, and we don't know which will be easier. Furthermore, I consider source editing both the inherent default, and to be longer lived and more likely to have more power... especially for things like editing sections of infoboxes. Repku (talk) 01:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
430. 'Opt-in I'm not liking the ides of beta being used by random accounts. User_talk:hawraalmana 6:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
431. Opt-in for Beta with a "edit markup" or "edit visually" as an option. For a quick edit, the visual editor is heavier to work with and it's easy to end up doing two edits in the place of one. --Betasam - Talk 05:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
432. Opt-in - way too buggy for new users. Neutrality^talk 05:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
433. Opt-in. Still buggy. —Wasell^(T) 08:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
434. Opt-in. A 15 second loading delay is below the standard of a minimal viable product. Thom2002 (talk) 11:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
435. Opt-in until out of beta. First time I tried it it loaded so slowly I killed my browser thinking it had crashed (I now realise it was just loading very slowly, as the page had a large table). Had I been a new editor I would likely have been scared away and never tried editing again. Liam3851 (talk) 12:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
436. Opt-in - HÆDO_reply 13:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
437. Opt-in. The first time I "used" Visual Editor before the "edit" options were switched (with "edit beta" now being the second option whereas it was originally the first), it was taking too long to load. Much longer than what it took me to go to "Edit Source" and make my changes. I may not have waited as long as others here but when you have instantaneous results on the web, a wait time is something no one wants to endure. For now, until it is more developed or a dialog box containing a warning due to its development state can be implemented, I say opt-in. Koi Sekirei (talk) 13:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
438. Opt-in for everybody until the bugs are removed enough in a way we have an acceptable editor. So far it makes more problems than it solves if any at all  Klaas|Z4␟V:  13:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
439. Opt-in, default to off. It's incredibly obnoxious. --B (talk) 14:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
440. Opt-in - There isn't any urgent rush for getting this out users, is there? So there's no problem with letting people find it when they find it. When the code is solid, that would be time for another decision. Sah65 (talk) 15:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
441. OPT-IN - Damn if I can figure out how the sucker is useable on any page with templates and references, which is the whole encyclopedia these days. And I've seen a lot of editors since I first coded software back in 1976, send this thing back to the drawing boards. // FrankB 17:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
442. Opt-in, not a very useful tool for anyone who is a regular enough user to create an account. Gateman1997 (talk) 18:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
443. Opt-in, My recollection is that most new users find traditional wiki text easier. I personally prefer traditional wiki text myself, as I have been frustrated by VE and have neglected using it.Qxukhgiels (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
444. Opt-in, the Visual Editor is full of bugs and messes up articles, and is nowhere near ready for prime time. Maybe someday if you work out all the bugs and get it out of beta it might makes sense for it to be default, but it's ridiculous for such a buggy editor to be the default. It should be off by default for everyone (anonymous users as well as logged in users) and come with a STRONG warning message that it is a beta product that still has bugs and may mess up articles. But for all the people DO want to use it, the preference to enable it should be easy to find. --Yetisyny (talk) 19:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
445. Opt in, Visual Editor is great, but looks identical to the view mode which could create confustion. Until this is addressed, an anynomous user could edit mode, gets distracted, and click yes to save without reading the dialog (Hey it can happen.) Then it creates extra work for contributors. Do not make it too easy for idiots, multitaskers, or distracted individuals to unintentionally damage articles without realizing that they are doing so! SirBrainChild (talk) 21:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
446. This. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 22:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
447. Opt in, on other wikis where this is implemented (like Wikia) it buggs me not to be able to work on code from the start. --Asmetr (talk) 00:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
448. Opt in, people needs to work first with code. - Al Lemos (talk) 01:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
449. Opt in. That is, if it should be available at all (other than to developers and people who volunteer for alpha-testing). And I'm rather reliably informed that it makes referencing difficult -- even though the non-provision of references is likely (i) to attract huffy-sounding warning flags, or even quick reversions, and thus (ii) to dissuade the very newbies that VE is (I think) intended to encourage. And if it has a "Show changes" option, then I didn't notice this. An editor with no (obvious) way to compare before and after? Retrograde. -- Hoary (talk) 01:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
450. Opt in Until Wikipedia can square the basic user experience with iOS functionality, VE is dead on arrival as it simply DOES NOT WORK ON iOS. Hiberniantears (talk) 03:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

     Also: Category:Users Opposed to Visual Editor Pre-GA. Hiberniantears (talk) 03:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

451. Opt in. New users should not be pushed into unreliable software. Once it has been debugged, using the voluntary contributions of experienced editors who will alpha- and beta-test it WITHOUT trashing the encyclopedia, then if/when it is reliable and not destructive to pages, we could switch the default to showing this editor to newbies. It is not there yet! Gnuish (talk) 03:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
452. Opt in because it's too buggy right now. Jixzad123 (talk) 03:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
453. Opt in It is still in beta and will prevent spam, or irrelevant, pages on Wikipedia. StrigidaeMXV (User talk:StrigidaeMXV) 5:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
454. Opt in for sure, until it is out of beta. I'm not sure if I would want it opt-out even after beta. Let's answer that question when the editor is ready. -- Druid816 (talk) 05:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
455. Opt in. As so many others on here have noted, it's not ready for primetime yet. Rcunderw (talk) 07:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
456. Since the VE in its present state is totally crap it should be deactivated. Weissbier (talk) 08:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
457. Opt in. Opt in process Should be part of the account creation process and labelled as experimental until it leaves beta. --Alberto Fernández Fernández (talk) 08:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
458. Opt-in: Beta version should not be enabled for anybody by default. When the visual editor has been found to be good enough for production use, then it should be enabled by default. Although wiki syntax was developed to make collaborative editing of documents easier by removing the requirement of knowing HTML, it's not a complete solution. Many people consider the wiki syntax to be an impediment. More people would contribute to wikis if the interface were more WYSIWYG and the syntax were minimal and optional. --Lance E Sloan (talk) 12:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
459. Opt-in: Still beta, still slow. Australian Matt (talk) 13:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
460. Opt-in: Two reasons. Of course experimental software shouldn't be the default. However even when it works perfectly I don't think VE should be the default because I don't think it's a good idea to encourage people to think less about their edits. It should be opt-in for registered users. Feraess (talk) 14:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
461. Opt-in: The editor is a complete piece of crap. Unless it's actually functional it should be well hidden. Also suggest banning whoever released it to be permanently banned from Wikipedia. Nfitz (talk) 14:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
462. Strong opt-in for confirmed new users only. I explained my reasoning in detail below, but to be brief: New and anonymous users should be informed of the existence of the VisualEditor (as one of the benefits of being a registered user), and given the opportunity to try out the VisualEditor on a sandbox page, without the privilege of using VE to edit actual articles until their account has been autoconfirmed — the same as newly-registered users cannot immediately upload images or edit semi-protected articles. —GrammarFascist (talk) 15:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
463. Opt-in The VE is unsubale, unreliable, and incredibly unnecessary. Secondplanet (talk) 16:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
464. Opt-in BSVulturis (talk) 16:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
465. Opt-in: VE is not ready for wide deployment. --Zarggg (talk) 17:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
466. To be a part of history, I will say opt-in until January at the earliest. VE's got a lot of promise but it's not there yet. Red Slash 01:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
467. Opt-in. As others have noted, there are still huge problems with the VE, and it's a really bad idea to drive new editors into using broken software. many of them won't easily find out how to disable it, and 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) 19:39, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
468. Opt-in — MrDolomite • Talk 16:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
469. Opt-in I am not convinced the VisualEditor is ready for this kind of deployment. Substandard ('beta') software should not be thrust upon users. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 01:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
470. Opt-in Even after beta phase. I am not convinced that this editor is ever going to become anything more than a usual WYSIWYG editor, no matter how many improvements are made. Working on wiki markup is going to remain a priority. Hoverfish Talk 10:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
471. Opt-in until a lot of improvements are made, adding references is ridiculously complicated and long-winded, and there are no clear instructions. If I was new to Wikipedia I would have never understood what all the 'add parameter' buttons did, and it still took me a lot longer to cite once I'd worked it out than it would have normally taken using the wikimarkup editor. Adding a reflist at the bottom of a page is also way too hard. Even though I've only used it a couple of times I've also already had it crash on me and lose all of my work. Jr8825 • Talk 12:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
472. Opt-in, as VE as it stands is confusing to established editors, yet alone newcomers. Making it "default" for newcomers will hurt editor retention and recruitment, not help. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
     • Indeed, many have noted {{wikitext}} is easy to read. It was crazy to think, "ppl u know who r txting 4 msgs cant lern 2 do wikitext" (no). Every1 can, soonr or L8r. -Wikid77 05:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
473. Opt-in, I think; the software needs a thorough announce on tech mailing lists, and it's ok to offer it to uses who tick the 'participate in beta things' in preferences (assuming this is not the default). Gryllida (chat) 05:52, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

   I do not think this is a valid criteria to judge success of VE. Certainly, the wikitext editor causes editors to generate a different set of errors. Editors, especially new ones, using the text editor are more likely to add big blocks of un-wikified text, introduce invalid syntax, mess up the display of tables or templates in articles, avoid creating links, fail to add citations, etc... Any editing mechanism will always cause some number of errors on its own and will encourage users to make a far greater number of errors through its use. To me, the question is whether an editor, especially a new or casual editor, using VE is, on average, able to be more useful than one using the wikitext editor. Demanding "error-free content" is an unreasonable standard that can't be met by any editor and certainly isn't met by the current default. Zachlipton (talk) 23:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

   Absolutely. I could not agree more. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 16:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

   I believe ITD's point was that, given the numerous bugs in the current VE, that even well-meaning and trained editors are having difficulties creating error-free content, not that it is impossible for lazy or untrained editors to muck things up in the text editor. — LlywelynII 02:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

   This seems downright cruel given WP's supposed focus on editor retention/recruitment. Would anyone go to Disneyland if all they could ride was It's A Small World, which was broken and on fire? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

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)

   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)

   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)

   Don't presume that many of those requesting opt-in are likely to change their minds once VE is out of BETA. Plenty of the above discussion is against VE in principle. FanN | talk 22:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

   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)

   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)

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)
4. Opt-out - I think it's very helpful to anonymous and new user editors to have this VE tool, and that those who are contributing anonymously have it, so why would you have to hit a switch to turn it back on again just because you decide to create an account? (I should note that in question 2, I did answer that I think IP users should have access to the VE beta). While its contributing power is simple at the moment, it increases accessibility for new users who aren't so experienced with HTML/CSS and our markup, and though knowledge of that is needed to make great pages at this moment in time, new users don't necessarily have to be perfect contributors right off the bat. That's why we were all called "new" at this at some point, and had to learn the standards of Wikipedia and how to navigate its tools. Jumping right into editing the source code can be daunting to new users, even for simple addition of text, because there's code everywhere and the unexperienced won't want to mess something up, so they may find VE as a useful tool, and making it available right off the bat will help make it accessible. An opt-out switch ought to help when one grows tired of it, though, or has gained enough experience or knowledge to start working with the code directly. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 18:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Opt-out - the system is designed for new users, and is arguably more newbie-friendly than the old system. It makes little sense to make it opt-in, which would restrict it to experienced editors only (that is, those experienced enough to work out how to alter their preferences). Robofish (talk) 22:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Opt-out. VE is a huge step in the right direction, and it does work OK for most simple edits. To my mind it's not quite ready for prime time yet, but perhaps, as Jimbo says, it can be offered to new editors with an explanation that it is not yet in perfect shape. Maybe in a few months it will be much better. Invertzoo (talk) 22:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
7. Opt-out I did not expect to be saying this, but my experience in teaching half a dozen relatively new users this week, is that they find the VE easier and more encouraging. This even applied to someone with much greater general computer knowledge than my own, including an excellent knowledge of html, but little experience with the WP conventions, Personally, I still don't use it, except once or twice a day to keep in touch with improvements, because I make fewer errors with what I find most familiar. On WP, it's the WP syntax--and all my keyboard macros & other personal editing gimmicks are designed for it. DGG ( talk ) 22:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
8. Opt-out - The wikipedia editing community is slowly dying out, and we must improve. We need to stop shutting down all the new ideas and attempts to improve the community editing tools and quality control measures, and to disable a feature that has consumed massive resources of the Foundation for the exact population that the feature was designed for is absurd and counter productive, and may prove fatal to the future growth of the encyclopedia. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

   •Opt-out - VisualEditor is kind of hard to get to use at first, especially if you were editing Wikipedia long before the change, as is doubtless the case with many newly created accounts. For this reason, there should be a guided tour explaining how to use it for new users. The first thing that should pop up if you create an account should be "would you like to enable VisualEditor"? Jinkinson (talk) 23:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

   I agree, but I think this means you are actually supporting Opt in. Opt out would mean you don't ask at all, just give it to them willy-nilly. Since people are only going to look at the number totals, I've commented out your #.  — LlywelynII 02:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

9. Opt out <"in"> because new and anonymous users can easily edit articles using VE and wont get frustrated.Bsamiwalaa (talk) 16:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

   This sounds like a vote for Opt-out. If you want new and anonymous users to easily edit articles using the visual editor, wouldn't you want it enabled for them by default? Powers ^T 19:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

10. Perfunctory opt-out !vote I'm aware this !vote will probably do little to stem the tide of !votes to the contrary, but I feel compelled to stand on principle. VE is a good thing, and if you don't like it, it's trivially easy to not use it. Don't get me wrong, I know it's buggy, and I think the Foundation has made some serious mistakes here, but disabling it by default would be, in my opinion, tantamount to the collective suicide of this wiki.

    Once the inevitable happens, and someone closes this RFC with a consensus to disable, I very much hope the WMF vetoes the decision for our own good. Wikipedia is the sum of all human knowledge, not the sum of the knowledge of people who are good at wiki markup.

    Like Jimbo, I think a more convenient opt-out is the solution. Near the "edit" and "edit source" tabs, we should have something similar to the little interface language option that now shows up in the languages bar. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 23:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

    a) It's not trivially easy. It was a huge pain, although hopefully so many people are opting out that they've fixed it.
    b) VE was so buggy it randomly popped up for a while even after I had disabled it.
    c) Dial down the drama. Some loss of editors is inevitable as the major pages are filled in: more people are interested in talking about the Civil War than the farmer who founded Bumblepodunk, North Carolina, (pop. 7) in 1904 and that's fine and a side-product of Wikipedia's success, not failure. More to the point, the problem for new editors is not that plaintext is hard: literally nothing is or could be easier. It's that Wiki has sometimes major problems with page ownership; the pages have become dependent on non-obviously named templates; and there's too much nooB-biting going on. None of that is changed in the least by giving them buggy software and (even years from now when the software isn't buggy) plaintext will still be faster and less buggy than any other alternative.
    d) Your idea that we should have something forced down our throats (there's more than 10:1 opposition here - we're not talking about snobbish elite users) for our own good because (by your account) new editors are too stupid to use plaintext editing and old editors are too rude to format it properly for them is actually a textbook example of the problem in (c). If "Jimbo" and "WMF" go along with you in the face of this opposition, it will accelerate, not check, Wikipedia's problems.
    e) Two edit tabs (including a "source code") are more (not less) intimidating. Give them the option at sign up (i.e., opt in); give them the ability to change it in their preferences; and we're done. — LlywelynII 02:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

    Responding only to your first point (I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the rest): It's trivially easy to press the "edit source" button instead of the "edit" button. You don't need to disable it to not use it; I mostly use wikitext myself (like you, I find it faster usually). — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 03:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

    Your point remains false: the set-up under discussion here is forcing the VE as the default, which makes the page buggy and dramatically slows down load and edit times. That by itself made it not a trivial issue. Apart from that, we could as easy have a kill page or delete content button that would be "trivially easy" not to press, but it would still be poor design to include them. Given the buggy state of the software and the lack of data being presented showing actual new editors enjoying and preferring the VE (as opposed to condescending editors thinking it's good for them), this should not have been rolled out the way it was. — LlywelynII 01:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

11. Definitely Opt-out However the VisualEditor may be slow or have bugs, it is still much better for new editor than classic wikimarkup, which is very strange for most new editors. And enabling it for large number of users is the only way to quickly identify bugs and fix them. The whole purpose of VisualEditor is to make editing easy for new editors and keep them. If we do not enable it for them, what is then the point of the whole thing? They will run away when they see the markup before they realize they can opt-in for something else. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

    How can plaintext be stranger than anything? Just don't be an ass to the people who don't know the exact proper style and there's no problem.
    
    But it's not really about style: it's about page owners refusing to let in opposing edits and that will continue regardless of whether they come in VE or markup. — LlywelynII 02:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

12. Opt-out I understand that a large number of power-users are upset by the visual editor, but seriously, for new editors, it is much easier to use than WikiText, and WikiText always exists asa backup. Also, I think that the right response to the visual editor bugs is not to disable the editor, but to fix the bugs, and that can be done in the quickest way by enable the visual editor by default.–Jérôme (talk) 23:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

    I think 180+ users v. 18 shows the exact opposite: the power users prefer (to force others to use) the visual editor because they look down on nooBs. The real editors just want to get things done without buggy beta software and have no problem learning to put brackets around things. The growth in users will slow down as major pages are filled up; to the extent there are solvable problems, it has to do with nooB-biting and over-use of templates and styles, not "difficulty" in using plaintext wikimarkup. It seems to be only the power users who feel otherwise and forced this on all of the rest of us "for our own good". — LlywelynII 02:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

    If you seriously think that editor decline is simply a result of the big topics being "filled up", I think your misunderstandings are far broader than those pertaining to the VE. Consider that the lunch article is 17kB. Or consider how short and out-of-date the New York Times Magazine article is. Not a day goes by, pretty much, that I don't see a horribly-written article on a very important topic. You say "growth will slow down"... The growth slowed down a long time ago; and it's been negative for quite some time. The editor population is in decline. I find your attempt to rationalize this to be greatly indicative of the "collective suicide of this wiki" point that I made earlier. — PublicAmpers&^{(main account • talk • block)} 17:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

    Thank you for providing an excellent example of just the kind of condescending editor I was discussing.

    As to your argument concerning 'major pages', the Sunday magazine is not nearly as important (let alone interesting to anyone not working for it) as the paper itself and lunch (and similar pages like praise) look the way they do because, in all honesty, they should generally be left to wiktionary. They are definitional pages of common topics that English-speaking people simply don't look for on Wikipedia. There is a place here for a historical or cross-cultural treatment of those subjects, but it doesn't make your point: it remains a very niche concern that the mass of people are not interested in coming here to voice their opinions about (as shown by the fact it's still undeveloped after a decade). — LlywelynII 01:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

    Indeed, many us of saw "nooB-biting and over-use of [unusual] templates" as spot-on reasons for new editors leaving. Who knew "{{ushr}}" would be used in 4,000 articles (not about "usher"?). BTW: Decline is minimal (2%), as if room of 1000 has 980 people next year, hardly "collective suicide" when 23 people maintained Swedish WP in lean years, now has 1.36 million articles. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

13. Opt-out VE is going to be most useful to new users anyway. And yes, it's a buggy beta for now, but the whole point of releasing a beta is to test out the software in "real-life" conditions. We need new users to be experimenting with the software and hopefully giving the developers feedback, since they are the ones who will benefit the most from it.Borisblue (talk) 15:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
14. Opt-out If we want to encourage more editors to join, we need to see things from their perspective. Many people know little to nothing about programming, and even though wiki language is fairly simple, the visual editor has little to no learning curve. I think the perspective of some of the editors above is a little skewed because they have been editing for a while and understand the wiki language. But for new users coming in, the visual editor allows them to just start writing about whatever subject they know, without having to learn any kind of programming, thus, IMO, opening up wikipedia to a much larger audience. Strong Opt-Out --Gloriousglib (talk) 00:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

    Except: if they are just writing, they can already "just write" text and doing it in wikimarkup will always the be faster and less buggy way to do that. This is a terrible solution to a non-problem. The problem is not with code but with the overuse of non-obvious templates, noob-biting, and page owners making the experience unpleasant. — LlywelynII 02:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

15. Many of the concerns I see about making it opt-out have to do with the "bugginess" of the VE at the moment. Once that all gets squared away, I think it would be great to make it opt-out only. VE is going to be great for users who don't understand wikimarkup. I seriously think this is a step in the right direction and will bring new editors on board. If we don't make it opt-out, we should at least make it clear to users that VE is available for ease of use; however, at that time, we might have already lost prospective editors in confusion. MJ94 (talk) 00:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
16. Opt-out So far, my experience with the VisualEditor has been great. I've seen some bugs (I've reported two bugs myself), but I don't think these bugs are important enough to make users use a editor they won't figure out how to use instead of using an editor that they'll manage to use even if it has some bugs. Furthermore, the bugs will get fixed over time, and I'm sure the situation will have improved already by the time this RFC is over and VisualEditor is out of beta. -- Rastus Vernon (talk) 01:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
17. Opt-out The flaws that the VE admittedly still has are only really noticeable if one is used to the source editor - which new users are, in most cases, not. Besides, hiding the option to activate a newbie-friendly system in a place few newbies would ever look at (the preferences) seems rather silly. Haltendehand (talk) 20:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
18. Opt-out Have asked a few non-technophile (but computer-literate) never-WP-editors to try each option, and they consistently found the source editor intimidating and frustrating (with no help from me either way). More importantly in this context, I think the RFC is poorly formed, because it's really not just a question of opt in/out but how these are presented. How would a newbie know what it means for the VE to be "in development"? Does that mean their work will be lost 20% of the time, that it will be corrupted, or that they'll be be blamed for vandalism? Without fully specifying the options, this RFC result will be based entirely on experienced users' personal experience with the CE/VE, its products, and other intangibles. -- Scray (talk) 01:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
19. Weak-Medium Opt-in: Though the new program actually is terrible (so much that I never use it) it should be available for newbies and anons. Why? First, VE is supposed to make editing easier, for new users. The older editors know how to deal with MediaWiki, so it could be said that VE isn't necessary for older guys. However, MediaWiki is in fact hard for the newbies, and VE overcomes it. Yes, it's very buggish-but if VE takes care of all the bugs ten years later, are we just going to sit around doing nothing to cure the difficulties of MediaWiki for ten years, while the VE team uses another ten year's worth of money? Better do it now. Besides, having more VE people is good for curing bugs, because more bugs are discovered in a short amount of time. To cure a problem it's better to cure it fast instead of excessive experimentation. It seems that the opt-in side is winning, and I pity the fact that WPans are blind to the retention problem (remember, wiki=community) and refuses to cure the problem as quickly as possible.

    Thanks, --Seonookim (What I've done so far) (I'm busy here) (Tell me your requests) 02:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

20. Opt-out until the new user if familiar with it.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
21. Opt-out. I am utterly confused by the wording of this "simple" question. I understand my vote to mean "upon new account creation, the user should be displayed the button to use the visual editor next to button to use the source editor if they did not go to their preferences and changed that explicitly". But seriously, this question is framed to sound "a new editor is forced to use the VE". Was the phrasing of the question discussed anywhere, or is this one of these RFCs where a smart person just wrote it down in a way so that the result is kinda predictable? --denny vrandečić (talk) 15:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
22. Opt-out if and only if the edit button is marked as experimental. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
23. Opt-out --Minihaa (talk) 15:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
24. Opt-out — I think part of the concept behind the VE is to attract editors who might be put off by wiki code. Wikia has a fantastic VE, and I don't see why our VE can't be as good as theirs — if not better. You work over there, Jimbo. What say you? — Confession0791 ^talk 15:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
25. Opt-out — VisualEditor is in a tight spot. It has to support two unique syntaxes that a majority of people don't know or understand - HTML and wikitext. It then has to interpret and round-trip (with the help of Parsoid) that information. All while supporting every permutation of use in-between. The present and future of web technology, the big things like Wikipedia that change the world, are in making it easier, more consistent, approachable for everyone to be involved. Sure, it's not perfect. Sure, it doesn't support every complex function you use, but it's moving us in the right direction.

    Most people who want to add and edit information just want to type into a box. That's what VE does for the majority of folks. To put a "back out of progress now" button slows down our collective progress and creates a greater fissure between editors who view themselves as 'us vs. them' in regard to new contributors. I know this is blasphemy to suggest, but doing away with wikitext entirely, while difficult and time consuming, is a better long-term solution that trying to support it and render proper HTML. VE is a step toward the elimination of an already obscure syntax. I'm all for it. Ckoerner (talk) 16:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

    • That would work... if the code and process the VE used was anything like HTML; it's not. Wikipedia was built on that "obscure syntax"; and it's not broken, so why "fix" it by canning it? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
26. Opt-out, definitely. May help raise the bar for beginner editing. --Matthias Alexander Jude Shapiro (talk) 14:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
27. Opt-out. I use this even though I know wikicode to make quick changes and I think if you had to opt-in, the people who would benefit from it may not be able to find it. Techdude3331 (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
    • • I should clarify. Obscure in the sense that no other large web publishing platform uses it. Most others (if not all) use HTML for editing and rendering. If VisualEditor just had to deal with that single syntax this would be a very different reaction to it's use and impact. Just because Wikipedia was built on ti doesn't mean it's the best or should forever be used. Ckoerner (talk) 19:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
28. Opt-out. It's for them, after all. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
29. Opt-out It can be very useful for newbies. But the edit tab for it should be renamed to "Visual editor"; and the source editor be made as the default editor..···Vanischenu^「m/_Talk」 17:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
30. --Tobias1984 (talk) 17:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
31. Opt-out It ought to be the standard. We should do everything we can to encourage new editors. I nearly didn't bother becoming an editor, because it looked so complicated. I would have edited more readily when I was younger (a teenager) had this been possible. EdwardRussell (talk) 17:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
32. Opt-out. — I see that VE was a great thing, and I agreed with people that it will hold the future of editing page. I'm not skilled enough for these things, but VE was easier to use than the 'edit source', right? Well, new account doesn't mean newcomer on WP, even if someone is new on WP, it doesn't mean that he/she definitely didn't know about this kind of editing. I also had a problem in editing table (maybe I hadn't learn something), but it should not makes me wanna back to 'edit-source-only' era. By now, I still wanted the preference be set to enable VE, while waiting some issues to be solved. That will be soon after it. — Vic2908 (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
33. Opt-out — Making VE default ensures enough users that the users themselves will fix the bugs. I also don't believe VE is as non-functional as some of the opt-in votes imply. It seems very functional for basic edits and ideal for new users. -Thomas Craven (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
34. Alright, so this proposal will most likely not be successful, so I might as well post my support here w/o anyone blaming me. I strongly support this editor, as this is just the right direction to go to. I mean, let's face it, sure, you can learn wiki syntax, matter of fact you can also learn how to program (complex) templates or even learn to write the MediaWiki software. However, the problem with this is that the current wiki syntax asks new, not tech-savvy users of making a huge commitment to the project which at the point of joining they likely are not (yet) willing to do. Asking new users to learn this syntax is like asking an ordinary user to program non-trivial templates. Think of people like your grandparents: They have a huge knowledge and more than enough time with which they could be great contributors to this site, but then again they wouldn't learn this syntax anymore. However, when editing Wikipedia is as easy as editing Word documents, they sure could be convinced to give it a try. But then again, it's not only for the new users, it's also a great tool for active or long-term users. You can easily make simple drive-by edits, copy-editing is done on the fly and editing in general is a whole lat faster. Ok, apparently the tool still has its weaknesses, but then there'll other weaknesses when you implement it later. Yes, it will be chaotic and there'll be a huge lot of problems in the beginning, but heck, wiki projects have survived many other changes before and will continue to do so and this one is so much for the better that I wouldn't want to wait much longer. --The Evil IP address (talk) 18:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
35. It's unbelievably easier to teach new editors to make edits using the VE. It should be on by default. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
36. Opt-out but make the links "[edit] [visual editor]" in that order and both should be visible. I disabled the VE for myself as as I hated that I needed to hover to get the wikitext editor. I kept getting VE by accident and cancelling out. Many of my edits involve delicate adjustments of wikitext. Had the links been [edit] [visual editor] I would have left VE enabled and would use it those times when I was comfortable with that the underlying wikitext would be good. I love that the VE is finally here even though it's still in beta. One of the criticisms of mediawiki I'd heard from friends that I suggested it to was they wanted WYSIWYG and not to learn yet another markup language. Thus I'd love to see the VE available by default but that both editors be available without needing to do any extra work such as hovering. --Marc Kupper|talk 18:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

    With the installation of the Wikipedia:VisualEditor/August 2013 update the issue I brought up here has been fixed. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

37. Opt-out - makes things less intimidating for new users :) Srijay K - TechFilmer 20:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
38. Opt-out, this conversation is largely moot. All I'm seeing is the standard Wikipedian reaction to anything new and shiny: "it's different and I hate it!" Why should the standing editing community, that's been raised on plain-text editing in what is essentially a notepad editor, have any say over the huge investment the Wikimedia Foundation has put into making this website finally usable? I see a power elite fearing for its selfhood, not good willed volunteers. Blurpeace 20:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

    Wikipedians accepted "shiny" Lua-based wp:CS1 cites, but those were tested and discussed for months. -Wikid77 22:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

    I think you might have a different viewpoint on the word "usable". It is difficult to edit tables and templates with the editor, as well as many other clunky things (random nowiki tags, metadata messes, etc.). Why should the standing editing community have a say about editing the site? Well, that question seems to answer itself. Very few people are advocating that VE should go away completely. I think we're more concerned about functionality and forcing it on people (in its current and planned state(s)). Your post seems to lambast others while ignoring broader questions and implications. Killiondude (talk) 21:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

    Your singling out my assessment is certainly commendable, Killiondude; it may actually provide a passerby with some illusion that consensus-driven discussion is taking place here. I won't take the time to expound my concerns in full and add to the walls of text this page is already full of but would be happy to continue the conversation elsewhere if this is something you really wanted to pursue. I have my doubts that beating a (week+) dead horse is ideal RfC decorum. (By the by, we haven't spoken in a while. My sincerest wishes that life has been treating you well these last couple years.) Blurpeace 08:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

    The talk of "standard Wikipedian reaction" ignores the smooth introduction of the Lua-based wp:CS1 cites in March/April 2013, to reformat (or edit-preview) 1 million articles 2x-3x times faster, after 6 months of testing and discussions, with a month-long phase-in schedule which allowed upgrades for user concerns after each 100,000 citations were transitioned to Lua. There was always a revert-upgrade option, in case many users complained, but they did not because the Lua cites worked well and people anticipated the new features. Instead, we worked together, and developers doubled the Lua speed in April, to make WP edit most articles 2x-3x faster. -Wikid77 22:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

39. Opt-out Someone has to test this new toy extensively. Why not en-wp (where I do not have to answer questions by newbies) first? -- Rillke (talk) 21:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
40. Opt-out I think the tool makes things less intimidating for new users, and by having it as opt-in we all but guarantee that the work put into the development of visual editor is for nothing because new users most likely won't discover it until they've already used to classic wiki editing. AniMate 22:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
41. Opt-out since it is designed for new users - I presume they get the same options as logged-in users now do. My only concern is system loading - it takes a lot longer to load and save and unless that's all local browser overhead it could seriously wreck the system. Chris55 (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
42. Opt-out - there are software issues to resolve, particularly regarding refencing, but I have confidence these will be resolved. VE is designed for new users and if they have to opt in, almost none of them will use it, it will produce no large-scale benefits for the project, and the effort on it will have been completely wasted. Dcoetzee 23:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
43. Opt-out - Agree with Rillke. Also, I personally don't like VE and still use the old system, but that's simply because I prefer to use what I am used to. It does seem to me, though, that VE, as it was intended to, would be easier to adapt to for a new user. In my own experience, although I now prefer to use wikitext, it took me some time to learn and it could be better to have a shallower learning curve in the future.Reubenco (talk) 23:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
44. Opt-out, per Dcoetzee. Emw (talk) 00:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
45. Opt-out There is a moderately steep learning curve to editing wikitext. It took me a while to get the hang of it. Much of the world does not know the difference between the Internet and the World Wide Web, yet we expect them to know wikitext markup? I think most editors here are veterans and have forgotten how difficult it was their first time. If Opt-out fails because of "beta" concerns, this should be re-proposed when such factor no longer holds true. Int21h (talk) 00:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
46. Opt-out, per Jimbo Wales. APerson (talk!) 00:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
47. Opt-out - The idea behind VE is good and correct. Not all new Wikipedians can understand and write in Wikitext, and some of them will not make the effort to learn it, typically because the edit is a one-off thing. This way, Wikipedia will lose many constructive edits. Furthermore, it took me around 6 months to become completely comfortable with it. Wikitext does not show your edits directly (WYSIWYG), and extensive use of the 'Show Preview' button is needed (which is a real pain the ass). I've also seen far too many edits where new editors, through a syntax error (such as failure to close square brackets etc), have screwed the entire page. VE is the perfect solution. For editors who are comfortable with Wikitext, they can opt-out of VE and edit Wikitext directly. Oliverlyc 02:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
48. Opt-out, even a slow and slightly buggy VE is still user-friendlier than wikicode. Let's find and fix the bugs quickly, though. Nicolas1981 (talk) 02:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
49. Opt-out This seems a no-brainer to me. While VE isn't attractive to experienced editors at present and still needs some work, it's much more newbie-friendly than Wikicode. Nick-D (talk) 08:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
50. Opt-out, but after six months or until they can pass a test on Wikicode, whichever is earlier - Considering that despite the best efforts of the community, I still regularly encounter articles with cite errors, malformed attempts at links, etc. My opinion is that a test needs to be given on how to use Wikicode for all new users, and those who demonstrate sufficient ability to wikicode should be allowed to opt-out. ShawnIsHere: Now in colors 09:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
51. Opt-Out It works quite well, even as it is. Wikipedia is about sharing knowledge, not software development.Frecks (talk) 11:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
52. Opt out. This is very much the point: so that new users get a simpler tool that doesn't involve a massive wall of incomprehensible Wikitext. The Land (talk) 11:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
53. Opt out. As a new user, I've found the VE to be user friendly enough. If I'd had to learn all the tags for formatting first, I'd probably have been more hesitant to get involved --Mkelly1547 (talk) 15:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
54. Opt out. VE is stable enough, especially for the straightforward edits most new users would be wanting to make. It's much more user friendly, intuitive and easy to learn than wikitext. Wikitext is often cited as a reason why new editors don't stick around, and VE is good enough to change that right now. WaggersTALK 18:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
55. Opt out. 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) 20:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
56. Opt-out - Firstly I am not sure what other people expect from a web based application. Bugs have always been a part of software development and any software that tries to do something extra than what it did before, will have bugs in it. As a newbie editor all I wanted to do, when I started was add some content to an article. Everything else I learned about Wikipedia came from there. If all I want to do is add comments and answer those of others do I have to know Wikicode or should I rather press a few buttons? -Wikishagnik (talk) 22:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
57. Opt-out. The reason why VE is developed in the first place is to address the problem of editor decline. And a major problem that contributes to the decline is because there's not enough fresh blood to replace the people who left (partly because it's too difficult to learn wiki-code). OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
58. Opt-out. The basic principle here is "make the easy things easy" and "don't surprise the user." There are lot of people for whom a wall of markup is always going to be a barrier. Intuitive, familiar tools that hide complexity make it easier to drive adoption of a system: This is the reason that GitHub had to take $100 million in venture capital. There are people out there who could contribute intelligently to Wikipedia but who aren't be willing or able to learn even the mostly simple markup Wikipedia uses. Long term, I would love to see a unified editor that allows you to fluidly move between WYSIWIG/preview mode and source mode, possibly even offering a split screen, à la Dreamweaver. This would also have the advantage of helping teach new users by allowing them to see markup as the visual editor creates it. In the mean time, I think the visual editor should become the default as long as it's easy to persistently switch your default. Gerweck (talk) 02:27, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
59. opt-out -- phoebe / (talk to me) 03:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
60. opt-out And it should be easy to toggle between the two. -- Aaronshaw (talk) 03:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
61. Opt-out - Per comment #52 above. If new users aren't going to receive the benefit of VE because they don't know about it, VE's purpose is undermined almost entirely. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
62. Opt-out: Wikipedia is all about allowing anyone anywhere to contribute their (notable) knowledge for the common good. If we make it an opt-in feature, we would have to change the site's motto to, "Wikipedia: The free encyclopedia that only nerds can edit." On the other hand, I'm a nerd and nerds rule, so maybe those poor, unintelligent normal people will just have to tough it out. :-) -- superjag (talk) 4:15 AM August 03, 2013 (UTC)
63. Opt-out The point of VE is to let everyone edit articles easily, even those who don't know much about settings or syntaxes. Such light users (who may be too young to understand how Websites work but is old enough to write paragraphs) wouldn't have any idea how to "opt-in" or realize how easy it is to edit through VE. Having VE as opt-out will expand the Wikipedia editor base and expand the depth of knowledge on subjects which are too non-technical and culture-specific for professional editors to write. Wikipedia has too many rules and regulation (hundreds upon hundreds of Help and Guideline pages) and is much too difficult to edit. VE will solve the latter problem. Trialeditor (talk) 06:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
64. Opt-out for sure. All basic editing tasks can be carried out very directly and intuitively with the VE. Yes it needs more work, but I'm convinced this is the way-to-go for newbie editors, and ultimately for all editors (though I haven't cracked citations yet). We are not priests defending some obscure sacred rituals. Wikipedia is a genuinely democratic project. As far as editors are concerned, semantic & descriptive skills are far more valuable than IT skills. Darorcilmir (talk) 07:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
65. Opt out. AGK [•] 13:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
66. Neither option is great right now - I don't like VE myself - but I think this is the one likely to lead to a better outcome. If we hide this away, we'll stagnate. Andrew Gray (talk) 13:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
67. opt-out The whole point of the VE is to encourage more people to use wiki. If you hide it under some option it's defeating the whole point! talk 14:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
68. Opt-out, definitely -- A1000 (talk) 14:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
69. Opt-out What samspade79 said. --Spannerjam 16:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
70. Definitely opt-out, per Jimbo Wales. Whilst the VE might be imperfect, one of the main reasons people don't edit is because it's too complex for most newcomers. The VE makes it much simpler to inexperienced editors and it's hardly difficult for us to provide a simple means of opting out. I almost find it offensive that so many editors are allowing perfection to be the enemy of the good and preventing Wikipedia from encouraging new editors. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 16:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
71. Opt-out. It reduces the "entrance barrier" for new editors. Malikussaid (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
72. Opt-out. It's 2013, not 1970. Let's remove barriers to entry and give anonymous and other users the tools they expect. Sanpitch (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
73. Strongly, strongly, strongly, strongly opt-out. This is not a popular option. I predicted before looking that opt-in would be winning, because hardcore users who vote don't need it (and longtime users of any software resist pretty much any design change). But I strongly believe that the whole point of the VE is to make editing Wikipedia easier for people who aren't computer geeks/comfortable with code. The problem is, I bet this this group makes up the vast majority of regular users (many of them experts in their fields who could make great contributions) but only a small minority of people voting on this page. So the consensus here will be to not enable it by default, but that's the wrong decision. The VE is the first major improvement to Wikipedia's overall design in a long time, and when I saw it, I was relieved; it was a sign that the community had overcome the inevitable gridlock and stagnation that perpetually threatens community-driven projects. If the vote here wins and the editor is made opt-in, then I will be a lot less optimistic about the future of Wikipedia. --MillingMachine (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
74. Opt-out. Maki (talk) 18:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
75. Opt-out per MillingMachine above (comment #71). Skiasaurus (skē’ ə sôr’ əs) 18:30, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
76. Opt out, of course. It is pretty easy to make a few edits—add commas, correct spelling, etc. When a new editor can see the results of his or her work immediately, that editor will sit up, impressed, and forget about dumping on Wikipedia for its difficult markup. The old-timers who feel differently should put themselves in others' shoes for a while. GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
77. Opt-out. Everyone's used to (and more comfortable) working with a WYSIWYG editor. It makes it simpler, easier, and faster for anyone to edit on Wikipedia. --Alfred Xing (talk) 00:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
78. Opt-Out. New users may not know it exists, and even if they do,having the tab there as an option doesn't make any difference. (talk) 01:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
79. Strong Opt-out. Wikipedia should force people to accept VE, period. You're wading into a "project" that's essentially a giant Futurama-esque bureaucracy filled with micro-managing tinpot dictators. Why not also be forced to learn clunky, difficult to use software as well? If you survive VE as a new user then you are ready for vandalism, edit warring, reversions by editors guarding their feifdoms, and trolls. Wtbe7560 (talk) 01:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
80. Massive Opt-out This visual editir us just stupid, and i hate having to manually do stuff without wikicode. New users and anonymous users should have to learn wikicode first. This is Mkbw50 signing out! 08:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
81. Opt-out Even in its current state VE gives new editors what most of them want. What most of us wanted when we first hit the Edit button. Just type something simple into the box and Save. And nobody's being forced to use it. Also, this RfC is asking for comments from the wrong people. I'd ask anyone contributing to this RfC to get a first-time editor's reaction before they comment and I'd ask Wikimedia to organize at least a straw poll among first-time editors before they close this RfC. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
82. Opt-out once VE Beta phase is completed. Opt-in for now, so new users can consentrate on improving articles instead of beta-testing wiki-software. --Frederico1234 (talk) 13:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
83. Opt-out. I believe VE should ultimately be enabled and available to all, but with the following caveats: a) Referencing: referencing must be made much easier (perhaps with a wizard or a better input form), and the interface should strongly encourage referencing - for example, making visually prominent the referencing mechanism, and challenging the user regarding edits that are unsourced; b) Vandalism: perhaps pre-emptive bot-driven anti-vandalism could be facilitated for anonymous users - so that the bot checks the edit before it's saved. Just an idea. The fact that the current interface makes editing difficult and that this may deter vandalism is, in my view, not an overall benefit. Editing should be made easier for everyone. I would use VE if it actually made referencing easier, but it doesn't. NoMatterTryAgain (talk) 13:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
84. Opt-out.. I believe the VE must be enabled by default, since the new editor may not know wikiformat or another HTML format. --Dede2008 (talk) 15:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
85. Opt-out.. Just the suggestion of opt-in is ridiculous, what is this, conservopedia? Now we ban anything that might hurt right away? Oh please, the benefits outweigh any risk GREATLY, just look at the rate of vandalism during time. --Dany0 (talk) 15:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
86. Opt-out. Its reason for existence is to be easier on the noobs. Making them dig through the preferences to find it defeats the purpose. Brian the Editor (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
87. Opt-out. This seems rather obvious to me. The simple system is for beginners and non-nerds. Dadge (talk) 19:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
88. Opt-out. I can see it’s a landslide but I’m feeling contrarian this afternoon. User Bandanamerchant made a point that matched my instinctual emotion on first sight: Opt-in because the software itself requires tweaking and because I think editing the source acts as a useful barrier against poor editing. Making editing easier and more visual is likely to encourage vandalism - we'll have exactly the same number of productive editors as before, we'll simply add some noise on top of that. In reality however, the existence or not of tools to make editing easier present no practical hurdle whatsoever to morons who want to do a drive-by shooting on one of our articles. Greg L (talk) 19:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
89. Opt-out. New editors should have the VisualEditor set as the default editor, with the choice to use the source editor always available for use when the editor gains experience and confidence. I would like to see "[edit] [visual editor]", as suggested by Marc Kupper Buster40004 Talk 20:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
90. Opt-out. Everything should be VISUAL. Everything should be "What you see is what you get". The "wiki markup language" should never have existed in the first place. VISUAL! WYSISYG!
    • The markup language is how we auto-insert talk-page signatures ("~~~~") or update 25,000 town articles for recent population counts (in 7 nations), by population-data templates, as 10-15 edits per nation each year. -Wikid77 23:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
91. Opt-out. Encourages or facilitates potential vandalism. Weathervane13 21:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
92. Opt-out Of course,it's still buggy and slow,but so far,it works great for me.If the problem is that new users will use it in a wrong way or it can cause editing wars,I think this kind of excuses should not get in the way of new users' enthusiasm for contributing to Wikipedia.If the problem is that it's too buggy for new users to use,I believe that as least it's better than the "source" editing for new users.when they have gained their own experience,they will be glad to use the source editor,which is less buggy,period.Maybe months later,when VE becomes more reliable and faster,then we can set it as the default way of editing. so seriously,leaving more than one choice to EVERYONE is always the best solution. Lsls421 (talk) 02:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
    • People could choose to enter a cave with one flashlight and old batteries, or walk outside the handrail on the rim of the Grand Canyon, but that's not the best solution. VE editing is risky, and many users are not prepared. -Wikid77 23:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
93. Opt-out. It's about being user-friendly, intuitive, and attractive. Bugs will be fixed in time, as will any new opportunities for vandalism that may arise. If Wiki wants to get new folks even casually interested in editing, this is a step in the right direction. Danberbro (talk) 04:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, many medium-sized VE edits have failed to Save, and 41% of new users did not save their changes. Users have concluded how one backspace deleting the entire infobox was non-intuitive. Failure to store updates is a step in the wrong direction. -Wikid77 23:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
94. Opt-out. Epicity95 (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
95. Opt-out for me, it's a handy tool simple to use Paulexyn0 (talk) 15:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
96. Opt-out. It may be far from perfect, but it's still miles better than the markup hell presented to novice editors at the moment. Besides, why don't we ask *novice* users about this; *they* are the ones affected by the change. --Romanski (talk) 14:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Novice users have already responded, above, some without even using VE (pre-novice?). Among new usernames, ~65% use wikitext editor, ~35% VE, and that is what they think. -Wikid77 23:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
97. Opt-out Nathan ^T 14:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
98. Opt-out It might cause short-term havoc, but would make things simpler and more efficient in the long run. Any new technology that empowers the users causes doubts at first; Wikipedia is a good example of this. Think long-term, choose simple, efficient, new technology, and trust your contributors. --Farzaneh (talk) 18:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Well, the early Wikipedia needed to be changed with radical levels of Bot-editing to revert the rampant vandalism, and many articles are still 80% hack edits+reverts. -Wikid77 23:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
99. Weak Opt-out, first impressions are strongest.--Wangxuan8331800 (talk) 04:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
100. Opt-out

     Against 'opt-in':: Most people argue that 'opt-in' would cause the number of veteran 'productive' editors remain the same, while discouraging edits by inexperienced 'vandalous' new users. That IMHO is dumb. If anyone remembers Aaron Swartz (R.I.P.), you may also have read his article on "Who Edits Wikipedia?" (if not, just Google it). Basically what he states is that while the experienced active 'editors' do most of the editing like fixing text and adding WikiMarkup, sure; most of the new info and substantial amounts of added info come from new users. So 'opt-in' would cause a significant loss of contributions (which is what Wikipedia relies on).

     For 'opt-out': Making the VE turned on by default for new accounts would encourage more contributions from new users who don't mind contributing but are too afraid of or don't want to invest the time in learning WikiMarkup (I should know) removing the one of the most limiting barriers to editing Wikipedia. So we get more contributions (and potentially some users who decide to stick and become active). As for the experienced veterans, they won't be affected the slightest bit as since they're aware of these issues, they can simply turn VE off. It's a win-win situation: more contributions from new users w/o affecting the old ones; at only the cost of having the old ones switch their preference, which can be solved by a. turning opt-in only for new accounts or b. having them switch (which won't be a problem as they're the ones involved and aware of the discussion). Regarding the bugs, I'm sure the WMF devs are on it and the VE works pretty well for basic tasks (which is all that the users who don't even know about WikMarkup will use anyway).

     Sincerely, a long rant by a humble Wikipedia n00b YatharthROCK (talk) 05:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

     1. • Later studies reversed the newcomers-write-WP idea (see: wp:1EDITMYTH): now, the older users write most of WP articles; in fact 5% of WP (210,000 articles) were written by only 10 people, using the power of wikitext, not VE. Some bugs in VE are fatal: failure to Save on larger edits; deleting the infobox by one extra backspace (explain that to a newcomer); refusal to Save any changes when wikitext used. Fatal. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
101. Opt-out, for sure. I've read through a lot, but not all of the different support and oppose votes. There's a lot of very convincing opt-out votes. I'm particularly sympathetic to: #10 since it's really not hard to just press "edit source" even if you don't like VE; #20 since the way the question is posed is totally unfair; #72 even if it's a bit strident; and, of course, #1. I don't think VE is so harmful that we should actively hide it from new editors by burying it in a sub-menu of the preferences menu. To the contrary, it seems to me like if I were a new Wikipedia editor I would think it was super helpful! I still get confused about what order I'm supposed to put things in when I'm trying to pipe a link, for instance, and I've been around for a few years. I don't have to worry about that when I use VE. VE isn't perfect – it makes adding properly formatted references difficult, in my view. But overall I think it's moderately helpful and there doesn't appear to be any reason we shouldn't be giving new editors the option of using it. AgnosticAphid talk 06:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

     My own reason for voting Opt-in is just that I believe that VE is just not yet ready (a lot of bugs, ...), and that novice editors are not aware of that if they don't have to voluntarily opt-in. For example, this edit introduced strange internal links with <nowiki> tags in it. For me, once there are no more unwilling damages done with VE, VE could then become opt-out. --NicoV ^{(Talk on frwiki)} 06:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

     • Helpboxes: To review "wikitext" see quick wp:helpbox named: {{wikitext}}, which shows:
     1. • [[hyperlink]] or [[hyperlink|link]] or [[expert]]ly → hyperlink or link or expertly

     The problem was not so much the need for VE, but rather there were few "quick reference cards" to show how to use Wikipedia. Many people complained about the "hundreds and hundreds" of help-pages and hours of tutorials. But a quick helpbox, such as {{wikitable}}, can make learning the wiki markup much easier for long-term use. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

102. Opt-out I personally hate the VE, but if the whole point of it is to make WP easier for newbies to edit, then why the devil would we not show it to them? My only caveat is that for more experienced editors "Edit source" should go back to being "Edit", with VE being marked as "Visual Editor". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
     • VE has some fatal bugs: failure to Save on larger edits; deleting the infobox by one extra backspace; deleting any template by one backspace; refusal to Save any changes when wikitext used. Fatal bugs can easily frustrate new users to leave forever (see: "computer rage"). -Wikid77 (talk) 11:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
103. Opt-out Why is this even a question? Of course new users should get the simple, easy-to-use version of the interface. When I started editing, I spent hours studying WikiMarkup to figure out how to do what I wanted. Most new users will not have the patience for that. Give them an organic interface they can explore. If the current VE is too buggy/insufficiently featureful, then fix it. I would, if necessary, support delaying the changeover until fixes can be made, but that should ba a priority. Phasma Felis (talk) 15:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
104. Opt-out If VE is opt-in people will not turn it on due to not understanding what it is. If they have to turn it on they probably won't and consequently will not find out. VE is a beatiful supplement to ordinary editing, when it works. I prefer source code as the first and basic tool, but a lot of corrections after the basic article is made is much easier in VE, again when it works. If people do not use it, the bugs will not be found, so even if irritating when not working it is a beaut when it is, the bugs need to be found though and finding the bugs will have to be a community effort. ツ^ツ Dyveldi  ☯  19:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
105. Opt-out -- Stratoprutser (talk) 21:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
106. Opt-out -- A WUSIWUG editor is far less scary for a new user than being seeing the raw wikimarkup and just leaving James van der Loeff 05:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
107. Opt-out I have LiveJournal and WordPress in mind, where "visual" is default. The rationale I offer is this: the technically adept (i.e. those who can handle MW markup) are most likely to successfully navigate the option. NB: "Edit Source" and "Edit ^beta" might be confusing. --BenTremblay (talk) 05:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
108. Account creation is not the right time to restrict the choice offered to the new user as they might never find the option again. A better approach would be to continue to offer the VE option alongside the source editor but make it context-sensitive so that it greys-out when the page is not suitable for VE. This presentation might help convey the message that the VE is best for simple edits while the source editor is for more advanced and complex work. Andrew Davidson (talk) 07:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
109. Opt-out I think its very interesting that the new users (myself included) are in favour of opt-out, whereas the experienced editors are in favour of opt-in. When I first joined wikipedia I almost didn't bother doing anything because the code was so complex. I used VE solely as it makes more logical sense. The division of opinions to me is a symptom of the club-like behaviour that can be off putting to new users, whereby they are considered dumb troublemakers while experienced users/admins have almost god-like status and don't seem to have much patience for newbies. I understand it can be very annoying having to fix vandalism and unintentional mistakes, but unless everyone is encouraged to take part in wikipedia, it will simply be the POV of a handful of people missing out on fresh views. I think that starts with making it easier for new people to make edits, not harder. --IP7942 (talk) 08:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
110. I strongly believe that people should start out using an easier editor, and then if they wish move on to using the Wiki markup. It would encourage people to edit Wikipedia, and be bold! Also, I think that eventually, in the age of tablet computing and people who use phones far more than desktops, we should introduce "Wikipedia Editor" apps, and maybe even move away from markup to use a WYSIWYG editor for everyone! cyborg4 (talk) 10:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
111. Opt-out because this is the wave of the future. I have already led discussions with potential editors and extolled how much easier it is to participate with a WISYWIG editor. The bugs will be sorted out; they are temporary, but the need to make Wikipedia approachable is eternal. However, the opt-out feature should not be restricted to the beta period. I, and many other experienced editors, will never use it. I will use what makes me comfortable, and should have the right to make other options disappear permanently. Just because I don't like it doesn't mean it isn't better, so opt-out is the way to go . . . just make opting out a real, not temporary, choice.--~TPW 13:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
     • Annoying Microsoft style "visual editors" are not the wave of the future and will never give the editor the same amount of control over the article. It only slows down editing for anyone who has made the slightest effort to learn the simple markup we use. Those who want to contribute here should learn wiki markup language, this has worked well for over 10 years. Tataral (talk) 16:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
       • It has worked well for you, perhaps, but not for others who don't have the time or desire to learn wikimarkup. The point of editing Wikipedia is to contribute knowledge to an encyclopedia, not learn a coding language. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 20:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
       • Actually, wikitext has proven easy to learn (remember these people can use computers), acting as a simple nonprocedural language to auto-convert "mph" by telling a novice to use "{{convert|60|mph}}" to get: 60 miles per hour (97 km/h). For power users, wikitext allows massive productivity, where 5% of WP pages (210,000 articles) were written by only 10 people, who started as newcomers. Tell others to see wp:helpboxes such as: {{Wikitext}}. Slow VE has caused fits for new and long-term users (read above), and 65% of new usernames prefer wikitext. Instead, the real problem is wp:data hoarding. Case closed. -Wikid77 03:23, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
         • Case not closed. No matter how easy to learn wikimarkup has "proven" to be, there are still many users who don't have the time or the desire to learn it, and a WYSIWYG editor is a much more intuitive tool for users who do lack time or desire to learn wikimarkup but still wish to contribute. And if you don't like VE, don't use it; no one is forcing you to. There is no need, at all, to limit the choices of some users just because others personally dislike a particular option. "Case closed." –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
112. Hardcore users can wade through user preferences and turn it of permanently. I only come here once a year and a few seconds of javascript help is appreciated. Misterbister (talk) 17:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
113. I strongly support Visual Editor as an important step towards reversing the editor decline. I am sure there are lots of people who, like me, are not very tech-savvy and struggle with wikimarkup but are keen to contribute to the encyclopaedia. Currently many of them don't do so because they find the markup too difficult. Currently there are problems with using Visual Editor for some thing, but it seems to work all right for basic writing and editing of articles, which is what new and technically-challenged users are most likely to want to do. In any case, it's very easy just to click the button for the markup editing if you don't want to use it. Neljack (talk) 23:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
114. VE has problems but opt-in would be a step backwards. At some point this *has* to be opt-out; so long as even with opt-out there is the option to use wikitext on every page, opt-out is better. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
115. VE is progressing and article damaging bugs are getting fewer. No editor is required to use VE if they don't want to as the source editor is available on every page. Thryduulf (talk) 13:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
116. I think we definitely should expect VE to be opt-out. Whether that time is now I can't say since my work in such areas is limited but we might as well abandon it entirely if we don't plan to make it opt-out in the future. Of course it should be easy and clear when registering how to opt-out. IMO with the new way it's handled it's not really necessary anyway. While just having the VE can slow things down, the bigger problem is the confusion from the older system. With VE now being clearly marked as a beta and edit source now being on the left, I don't actually see it necessary, as I said below the editor is good enough for people to try out. If it doesn't work, they are free to ignore it. If it's causing problems just having it there, then they should optout. (I also wonder how much of the opposition came because of the extremely annoying hiding the edit source thing for section in the past which is thankfully now gone which made the VE far more of an encumberance to those who simply don't want to use it as well as the fact when VE was first implemented many people didn't recognise the edit source was used to edit wikimark or perhaps out of habit kept clicking the wrong button so got the VE when they didn't use it.) Nil Einne (talk) 22:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
117. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 14:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Abstain

1. I also prefer having both options, named clearly "visual edit" and "source edit" where "visual" would be the default for most users. --Dylan k (talk) 04:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
2. 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 here. I'd rather make this an informed by statistics and analytics decision. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 07:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
3. The current situation where both a “Edit” and “Edit source” link are offered very much appeal to me. (Disclaimer: I know the source syntax and use it exclusively.) —j.eng (talk) 11:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

   That would be support of opt-out, wouldn't it? — LlywelynII 01:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

4. Abstain I don't think there should be a default setting for editing. I'd like to have new users given information about VE and source edit at registration and allow them to select their editing preferences at that point. As things stand now, I think that the learning curve for raw editing keeps a lot of people from becoming active Wikipedians. Similarly problematic, I think that VE, in its current state, while making WP more accessible, can be prohibitive to the writing/editing of good articles. Let new users decide how to edit from the beginning and make more non-WYSIWYG/more advanced features of WP more easily accessible to newbies. korbnep «talk» 15:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
5. TOPLEL Abstain Meanwhile it's a no brainer, but also a pro anonymous user Ald™ ¬_¬™ 15:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
6. Abstain I tried VE and could not edit want I wanted to edit. Removing interwiki links. So I needed very quickly use the edit sourcecode button. As a new user or an user that rarely uses en.wikipedia I like to do my thing and be very quick (wikiwiki) to the my other article that I want to read or edit. And if I need to opt-in or opt-out an editor before I can edit, then I will move to the wiki that is quick and leave this wiki with all it's mistakes and errors.Carsrac (talk) 14:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
7. Abstain I don't see why it can't just be a straight choice, rather than a bias towards one or the other. Also, while it's still in BETA VE should definitely not be the default, testing it on newbies is just cruel! WilliamF1two (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
8. Abstain Most of the time, if I'm editing something, it's either asking a question on a Talk page, or copy-editing. I've used both editors and am happy with both, although I'd probably rather use the older form if I have to add tags, because that's what I'm used to. Frankly, I don't care which way this goes, as long as there's a way to get to whichever editor I feel is appropriate for what I'm doing.JDZeff (talk) 19:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
9. Abstain. Long time anonymous editor, just getting on board now. I agree that this should be a data-driven decision, not one put to a vote. If the editor is buggy, stats will show it and it should stay as opt-in. Once the bugs stop coming in, switch to opt-out. Vammo (talk) 21:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

   But it's not currently opt-in. The sudden imposition of buggy software is most of the problem here (the others being some opt-in editors' condescension towards new users and the fact that this solution does not actually address the underlying problems it purports to solve). — LlywelynII 01:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

10. Abstain I strongly agree with User:TheDJ. Go ahead and test out ideas with A/B testing on small groups of new users, like you said you would at mw: VisualEditor/Portal/Why/Quantitative data and Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Why/User Test Data and meta: Research:VisualEditor's effect on newly registered editors/Results. Some people are convinced that "of course" WYSIWYG is better than a simple textarea. Other people who are convince that "of course" a simple textarea is better for a wiki given the known mw: WYSIWYG editor#Problems with WYSIWYG. Objective results from relatively unbiased tests are one way to resolve this quasi-religious conflict -- is there a better way? A new editor doesn't have to be "perfect" or "bug-free" to become the new default editor -- it merely needs to be better than the alternative. --DavidCary (talk) 21:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
11. Abstain I too am fine with the current state of affairs, where we can choose either the visual editor (to give us a sense of where things will go) or the source editor (to make corrections that can only be done in the source code). My personal preference is to use the source editor - I never really liked WYSIWYG editors when I know the language i.e. BBCode, LaTeX, Wiki - but that should be independent of what is available to other users. Pikalax 14:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

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]".

inserted note: excellent - except you could edit this down 70% as you said! Billyshiverstick (talk) 23:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I should note that I have no idea whether the software can support this. Thryduulf (talk) 12:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• • Furthermore, the average newbie would have absolutely no idea how to look for problems, search Bugzilla/VPT to see whether they have been reported and report them. MER-C 12:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I support this proposal to make it a choice on registration. The default radio button should be set to the old editor. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The choice could be less verbose: How about two check boxes with:

    Please choose your editing experience:

    ☑ See and edit the source code of the page directly, or

    ☐ Edit the words directly on the page (still under development).

    You always change this by editing your preferences.

    This uses simple newbie language (no VisualEditor, opt in, etc.) while still offering a choice with the warning that VE will be buggy. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    • That is much better wording, and a good example of why you should not let me write interfaces. Thryduulf (talk) 08:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    • It is a very good proposal. Czech is Cyrillized (talk) 03:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I like this proposal, but how about using the short questions per Adjwilley with a "More info..." expanderbox with the full description from Billyshiverstick? 86.30.135.155 (talk) 02:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
      • I think this is a great idea. Brambleclawx 15:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    • This is a good idea, to be honest I assumed something like this would be how it was already implemented (but apparently not) Jebus989^✰ 13:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I also agree, as noted in my above abstention. korbnep «talk» 15:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd like to suggest inviting users to try VE once they are autoconfirmed, rather than an opt-in upon registration. I think it makes sense to give them a few days and a dozen-plus edits in source mode so that they have a basis for comparison. The first time one logs in after being autoconfirmed, they get a message saying: "WP would like to invite you to try our new Visual Editor! Click here to learn more about the tool, it's advantages and limitations, and how to start using it." To my way of thinking, this approach makes more sense than offering brand new users an option upon registration when they probably don't have any idea what's what. -Wine Guy~Talk 19:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    • My position on who should see the VisualEditor option, and under what circumstances, is quite close to Wine Guy's suggestions in the comment immediately above this one. (GMTA!) The main difference is that I think allowing not-logged-in and not-yet-autoconfirmed users to try out VisualEditor in sandbox mode (and overtly informing them that being able to use VE to edit articles is one of the benefits of registering) would do more to allow VisualEditor to achieve its stated purpose of attracting and retaining new editors. (My detailed proposal can be found both on my user page and under the section-heading "Discussion of anonymous editors' default state" on this page.) On a related note, I also support Adjwilley's checkboxes proposal further above... though I'm not convinced that eliminating consistent language for distinguishing the two editing options entirely in favor of plain-English descriptions of each option is a good idea.—GrammarFascist (talk) 16:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• 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 (Phabricator) 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)

• 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? Silverseren^C 09:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

I agree with that - watchlist notices are pretty unobtrusive. Begoon ^talk 09:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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)

• I would have no problem with adding a site notice.—Kww(talk) 15:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• 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)
• I don't think we should give a mandatory choice to signing up editors. New editors will not not know what the question is about, and probably just want to get in and edit. If there were no significant problems I would like to see new editors getting this by default. I find it is so slow that it is frustrating. So perhaps a test could be done in javascript, and if it is going to take more than 0.5 seconds for VE to get its act together then forget about it, and use the traditional editor. Some of those developers should be working of a 28K modem to see what patience is required for VE. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
• Are there any solid statistics on the correlation between vandalism and the introduction of VE? --Jackson Peebles (talk) 23:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• I hope everyone who endorses an "opt-out" default preference for VE is participating in the beta testing & providing feedback to the developers.-- llywrch (talk) 01:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• I think the problem is that the goal of VE development and deployment is not well-defined. You have statements which say that editors' choice of VE or wikitext is indifferent to WMF. But then we see statements that WMF wants editors to use VE. That is contradictory and confusing on most understandings of these statements. If the goal is to have editors use VE, then that should be stated clearly and then we can move from that to improving VE. As it is now, it seems that WMF wants editors to use VE, but the developers themselves take the position that it is just as well if editors choose to use wikitext. The result is that sometimes editors come to give feedback about VE concerning how it is easier to do some edits in wikitext, but developers respond that such is a non-issue, because there is no goal to make VE as efficient as wikitext, and editors who want that efficiency should just use wikitext instead. Most people who hear this accept it, but then others, to various extents, get confused because they perceive that there is some push to have VE be used. The result is that some editors, as seen here at this RFC, push back because they would rather not have the less-efficient editor promoted over the more-efficient editor. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 01:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• I support giving choice to users in the way User:Adjwilley did. This is Mkbw50 signing out! 08:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• Suppoort, User:Adjwilley has the right idea, clear language and a straight choice. WilliamF1two (talk) 17:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Dialog that's presented to new users after they create their accounts

Why not ask new users as soon as they make their accounts?—Love, Kelvinsong talk 22:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

because unless we are exceedingly careful or they are very clever they won't understand. How can someone know if an editor will suit them without trying it? That said, the wording suggested by Adjwilley in the section above does seem vary well conceived, and I'd endorse trying it. DGG ( talk ) 23:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

We could give them an explanation on the difference between the two editors. The dialog could direct them to the sandbox for testing which editor they prefer. Wschlitz 15:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Much better would be to leave it as an option in the preferences, defaulting to off, without asking when creating an account. If new users want it, they can turn it on. If they're not even aware of it, leave it off, per this RfC. That could be reassessed once the software is mature. Modest Genius ^talk 17:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer a Dialog similiar to the one suggested by Adjwilley: (here above ...)

Please choose your editing experience

---

☑ Show and edit the source code of the page

☐ Edit the text directly on the page (still under development)

---

Try out the 2 editor-options here ... in your sandbox

(You can Change this editor-preference later by editing your Preferences.)

And best would be, if by clicking the link "Try out the 2 editor-options here ..." the (new) users sandbox would be prefilled with a tiny example of WP-stuff to demonstrate some typical cases of WP content.
Jaybear (talk) 10:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I think a dialogue should be used, favouring the VE but still displaying the option to use the source mode. It is crucial to present screenshots of what these two options look like, and the default 'next' option should be to use the VE. Teslacuted (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree with Jaybear on this one, seems like the perfect solution to me. WilliamF1two (talk) 17:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I feel strongly that users who have not yet been auto-confirmed should not be able to use VisualEditor to edit actual articles at all. However, 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 not-yet-auto-confirmed, 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. Rather than (or in addition to) giving newly-created-account users a special splash page for the purpose of trying to influence them towards or against using VisualEditor, I think that a brief message appearing at the top of the page when a user attempts to actually edit an article would be a preferable time and place for providing information about edit-interface options. For example, after an (unconfirmed or IP) user clicks "Edit" (or "Edit (beta)" or "Edit source" or "Edit (VisualEditor^beta)" or "Edit (wikitext)" or "Edit #$&%!KITCHENSINK") they might see a message like:

You are editing the page [article title] using the wikitext interface. Established users can edit articles using VisualEditor, a WYSIWYG interface. [link to the VE sandbox|Click here] to try out the VisualEditor interface. Established users may also select their default editing interface, from either any edit page or their own user preferences page.

Users who are both logged-in and auto-confirmed would also get a similar message displayed at the top of the page, regardless of which editor they have selected (either by clicking the appropriate "Edit ___" link at the top of an article, or via their Preferences), telling them which editor they are using, offering them the option to switch to the other editor, and also offering them the option to permanently disable the 'you are using the ___ edit interface' message via a single-click link (and noting that interface preference, and whether to display the message about which one is in use, can both be changed via user preferences).—GrammarFascist (talk) 17:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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.

---

VE should be presented to anonymous users by default

1. Is the primary reason for anonymous editing the desire to disguise the source of the edit, or are anon-edits mostly one-off corrections made by persons who don't consistently contribute? For the sake of the latter I'd think the VE should be on by default for anonymous editing. --Matthias Alexander Jude Shapiro (talk) 14:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
   1. 81.9% of anonymous edits are constructive. (source) theonesean 20:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
      1. That statistic is based on an insignificant sample (248 edits) in Feb 2007 (2,361 days ago). How can it be relevant now? - Pointillist (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
2. 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)

   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)

3. 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)

   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)

   With a similar caveat as Kumi, "available" != "default", which is what's being asked here. I also think that VE should be available for those who prefer it, but don't actually believe that it's easier than plaintext editing or is a solution to any actual problems we're having with editor retention. — LlywelynII 02:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

4. [Maybe]. Ask the users from the first experiment what they think (as above) Wnt (talk) 19:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

   Added shorter vote to front. — LlywelynII 02:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

5. 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)

   Except this isn't actually true in any way.
   
   Even when VE is free of bugs (which it currently very much isn't), plaintext editing will still be faster and less buggy and always will be. New editors don't need to write any code now: they're just being treated rudely by the old hands and POV-pushing page owners.
   
   Some decline is inevitable as the major pages are filled in: more people are interested giving their opinions on the Civil War than correcting the 2000 U.S. census numbers to the 2010 ones; some people are inevitably going to be told to please be quiet because there are long-standing consensuses on controversial points. Nothing is going to change that and both are a part of Wikipedia's success, not failure.
   
   The way forward towards the highest possible retention is to stop biting nooBs: tell them where and how to start changing consensus (instead of "sit down and shut up") even when you disagree with what they're saying; using (or adding redirects to) more obviously-named templates; bots that correct certain templates like {{ndash}} or {{zh}} to plaintext; and letting them know that plaintext is fine and fellow editors can come through and spruce up the bits they don't understand. None of that involves buggy software, which is a solution looking for a problem rather than the other way around. — LlywelynII 03:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

6. Absolutely yes, per MakeBelieveMonster's above comment. I believe that one thing that holds back new editors from Wikipedia are the complexities with sorting through HTML/CSS and our markup in the source codes for each page. Though the beta does have bugs right now, this visual editor will bring that accessibility to your everyday contributor who may have a lot they can add to the encyclopedia but are daunted by the source codes of the pages. Furthermore, while we're in the beta stage, why discriminate between two classes of users who choose to contribute in different ways? I choose to maintain an account and track my contributions; others I know have chosen to contribute anonymously. I agree with above comments that all users should be given a heads-up that this visual editor is in beta stages at the moment, but they should have as much a right to use the new editing tools as registered users, especially since anonymous users are less likely to be able to sort through the source codes of articles depending on their experience here and with HTML/CSS. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 17:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
7. Yes, same reason as above: it's 'newbie mode'. If they want to edit in full wiki-syntax, they can always create an account, but there's no need to expose anonymous users to that when VisualEditor works pretty well. Robofish (talk) 22:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

   I think you owe me a new irony meter. That one just pegged. "VisualEditor works pretty well"? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

8. Yes. Anonymous editors typically make changes to grammar, unless they are registered editors not logged-in. VE is a good default for grammar edits. Meclee (talk) 22:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
9. Tentatively and timidly, I say yes. My impression so far is that VE is attracting higher-quality minor edits (spelling, punctuation, poor or inaccurate wording of short phrases). But this may change precipitously when the school year kicks in, and bored students are researching projects. I don't know whether we can measure the ratio of good edits to vandalism/reversions for both source-edits and VE among IPs, but I'd be interested in seeing that data. I hate using VE, and don't, except that I'm trying to become more acclimated and informed through making those kinds of minor edits via VE. And I can see how casual users would be much more inclined to pitch in that way. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
10. I agree with Jimbo and MakeBelieveMonster on this question. Invertzoo (talk) 22:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

    They don't agree with each other. Jimbo said it should be available; MBM said it should be default. MBM is also simply completely wrong in thinking buggy software is "infinitely more accessible" than plaintext. — LlywelynII 02:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

11. A really new user is apt to do better with the VE. Probably many readers want to make small corrections, and if the VE is the default we'd encourage them to do so. It's good enough by now that it's more likely to work than not for small changes. DGG ( talk ) 23:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
12. Yes, but perhaps not until the beta-testing is complete. This should encourage casual editing. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
13. Yes, of course. Many new editors try editing as anonymous at first, and then register if they like it. But if we do not enable VisualEditor for them, they will not like the wikimarkup, and would not register at all. That way they would not even know that there is easier way to edit. The whole point of VisualEditor is to keep new editors, but if we do not enable it for anonymous editors, the result will be contrary — less and less new editors would register. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
14. Yes, because many anonymous edits are very simple, and the visual editor can sevrer as a springboard to more complex edits.–Jérôme (talk) 00:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
15. Yes, when there's less bugs & it's out of beta. Corn cheese (talk) 00:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
16. VisualEditor should be presented to anonymous users. This does not mean it should be selected as the default or anything else. What it means is that anonymous editors should have a way to access VisualEditor without having to create an account or perform complicated manipulations. Anonymous editors and new users are precisely the people VisualEditor is the most for, so taking it away from anonymous editors and not giving them the possibility to use it would be ridiculous. -- Rastus Vernon (talk) 01:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
17. Yes, per Vanjagenije, Rastus Vernon, simplicity and that advanced functions are not easily accessible. A new editor might be intimidated by the markup, while VE allows one to perform minor changes with ease. An IP can easily add a line to a table without having to correctly format the table markup, a task that can confuse experienced editors Due to its bias toward minor edits, VE makes it difficult for a user to insert irrelevant images, change templates, and the like, possibly reducing vandalism that does not involve insertion/deletion/change of words (something easily reverted by the ClueBots and users on Huggle and Twinkle). By effectively limiting rookie vandals to edits under the realm of bots, users could focus more on repeat offenders and extreme cases. Coasterlover1994 02:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

    •No. What's the point? It's confusing. Unless the idea is to get them to sign-up to avoid such a horrible edit process, I see no point. Oaktree b (talk) 02:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

    Commented out # since not actually supporting the point under discussion here. — LlywelynII 02:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

18. Yes I don't actually have any doubt that VE will eventually be easier for most editors. The issue is premature release and, to all appearances, some sort of internal schedule pressure. Fix a small number of serious bugs (the nowiki thing, maybe section editing, severe speed issues at low bandwidth, and the disaster of a method for writing references) and this will be significantly less painful for everyone. But, in the meantime, giving the code a workout is a good idea, and giving even new editors a chance to kick the tires is also useful. --j⚛e decker^talk 02:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
19. Yes: Whether anons can use VE or not does not change their edits, and it is ridiculous to ban user-friendly editors from many of our first editors.--Seonookim (What I've done so far) (I'm busy here) (Tell me your requests) 02:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
20. Yes. Again the question is ambiguously phrased. I understand it to mean that the option to use the visual editor should be presented additionally to the "edit source" option. It is phrased in such a way to sound like it would be the only option available to anonymous users. I deeply dislike the way this RFC is set up. --denny vrandečić (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
21. Yes if and only if it is marked as experimental. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
22. Yes. It's for newbies after all. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
23. Yes, it should be on by default. At least until somebody presents convincing data that shows that it's doing more harm than good. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 18:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
24. I believe VE should be the only manner for anonymous editors to edit. It suits the predominate nature of their editing intentions and provides a good selling point for suggesting they create an account. :) John Cline (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
25. For 2 reasons: It may indeed attract users and again, someone has to test it. Why not the Flagship of the Wikimedia Foundation? -- Rillke (talk) 21:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
26. Yes. Anonymous users are people without the time/inclination to create accounts - so naturally they don't have the time/inclination to learn wiki markup either. Most edits by anonymous editors are simple text additions or corrections, which VE is completely suitable for, and I am confident this will attract more edits from experts and other important people. I also have confidence that any serious issues that may results from such simple prose edits will be fixed in a timely manner. Dcoetzee 23:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
27. Yes. So long as there are adequate protections against doing significant damage. What are the potential gains? There's only one way to find out. Twang (talk) 23:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
28. Yes. Sure. Why not? APerson (talk!) 00:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
29. Yes. Wikitext does not make it harder to vandalize, wikitext makes it harder to edit, and I think people are confusing the two. Editors editing the page have forgotten how difficult is was in the beginning. VE makes it easier for n00bs, and there is resistance by the veteran editors here. And again, If VE by default fails because of "beta" concerns, this should be re-proposed when such a factor no longer holds true. Int21h (talk) 01:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
30. Yes. It looks and feels awesome. It is going to encourage many new users to stay with Wikipedia. But still for some reason I prefer the old edit tool, maybe just because I was used to it. I asked a friend who never edited an article in Wiki to edit a page and he was totally amazed. He never thought it was this easy to edit an article in Wikipedia. --RAT -.- Poke it 01:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
31. Maybe, though there are some problems in VE, it seems useful for minor edits such fix misspellings, but also the easy editing can increase vandalism someway, then I think CAPTCHA should be presented to non-registered users forever. (The term anonymous users is somewhat confusing to me, there are thousand registered anonymous users in wp...) Dianakc (talk) 03:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
32. Strong yes - Perhaps the most compelling justification for VE's very existence is the ease by which new editors can contribute to Wikipedia without being intimidated by wikimarkup. If we're not going to make it available to IP users by default, we might as well dump the entire thing, because established users will have no problem continuing to edit using wikimarkup. But if VE's purpose--or at least a major part of its purpose--is to attract new, capable contributors to our encyclopedia, then VE should be enabled for IP users by default. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
33. Yes. I don't see why not. By making Wikipedia accessible and user-friendly, we can encourage knowledge from people from far more walks of life. --Sgtlion (talk) 16:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
34. It's more user friendly by far than wikitext, which has caused new editors to give up many times in the past. Since most new editors edit anonymously first, it's essential that VE is the default for anonymous editors. Because it's slightly slower to load than other editors it's harder for vandals to do much widespread damage using VE - another reason to make it the default for IPs (since most vandals edit anonymously). WaggersTALK 18:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
35. Offer it? Yes. I'm all for offering choice. Have it be the default? No way. -- Joe (talk) 19:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
36. Agree. Yes. Why not? Vanquisher (talk) 21:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
37. Yes, naturally. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
38. yes phoebe / (talk to me) 03:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
39. Yes, but only when the Beta tag is removed. Anonymous users (which generally means less-experienced editors) should not be given "buggy" software, which is what Beta means. However, since they are less-experienced at editing, and VE is an easier (and less error-prone) editor for those with limited experience, it is better for them to use it. Let's give it to them ... later. Truthanado (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
40. Yes, though only once the software is out of Beta. AGK [•] 13:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
41. Yes ... a savvy vandal can do worse damage with the edit source version, and VE won't let the basic berk do worse than usual. --Svartalf (talk) 17:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
42. Yes. VE is mature enough to take that step. I'm glad to see it has been taken. (As long as the "edit source" option is still prominent) Deryck C. 18:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
43. Yes. A WYSIWYG is easier than the source. WP can get more edits this way.Neo139 (talk) 01:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
44. Yes. Alongside the Edit Source editor. NoMatterTryAgain (talk) 13:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
45. Yes. You've GOTTA be kidding me!!! Crazy tinpot dictators everywhere! Let it lead it's natural course. Dany0 (talk) 16:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
46. Yes. (Assuming that "presented" means "be a clearly marked beta test alongside the oldstyle editor.) VE's reason for existence is to be easier on the noobs. Making them get an account and dig through the preferences to find it defeats the purpose. Brian the Editor (talk) 16:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
47. Yes. As said above, it's useful for making small grammar corrections. There should be the option not to use it and make clear to user it's beta. Max51 (talk) 20:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
48. Yes, if that's what happens to all users. There should be no difference in how wikipedia treats those users who choose to be anonymous and those who don't. Morgan Leigh | Talk 12:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
49. Yes Epicity95 (talk) 12:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
50. Yes It's already more than good enough for small edits. --Romanski (talk) 14:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
51. By default for IP editors. Nathan ^T 14:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
52. Yes It shouldn't be avalibe to users less then a year new or have proven they know how wiki-mark up works because say VE fails and no one new knows how to use wiki-mark text then we would have a big situation on our hands, or new users would have to done 25 or more successful edited to prove they have knowledge of wiki-mark text.
53. Yes it's fine for simple stuff. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
54. Yes - I'll second what Denny wrote in that the question is ambiguously phrased. My yes would be if the options were to give anonymous editors a choice of "visual editor" and "edit source" at all times, with no need to hover, or do some extra action to get the second choice. When VE was first released for signed-in users it was "edit" which got the VE, and hover which exposed "edit source." I disabled the VE as the hovering was too disruptive. This got fixed in the August release of VE and now I use both editors depending on which is appropriate for what I want to edit. --Marc Kupper|talk 18:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
55. Yes -- Stratoprutser (talk) 21:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
56. Of course it should, because we want editing Wikipedia to be easy, and visual editing is easier. Most of us made our first edits without an account. If we want editors who aren't middle-aged white men with a high comfort level with computers, make it the default.--~TPW 13:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
57. Yes --Farzaneh (talk) 17:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
58. It is more user-friendly for those who are new to the project and it seems to work well for the basic stuff they are likely to be doing. It is also the way of the future. Neljack (talk) 05:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
59. Yes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
60. Anonymous users are no more or less likely to have problems with VE, or to be more or less technically competent than, logged in users. There is no reason to discriminate against those who choose not to (or are unable to) log in. Thryduulf (talk) 13:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
61. Yes anonymous users should be presented with both options, VE still has problems but it seems clear it's not so bad as to be generating massive problems in particular not massive silent problems. For those problems it does generate, it's unfortunate time will have to be wasted correcting them yet there's no guarantee we would have gotten the VE contributions at all without the VE and while annoying to have to correct such errors, to me it seems less annoying then removing Mr Teacher is gay or random insertions of the word penis to an article. Nil Einne (talk) 22:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
62. Yes Even if presenting newcomers with beta software is a bad idea, presenting them with a wikitext interface, which is going to dissuade the great majority from contributing, is much worse. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC) As for arguments against "shoving [the interface] down new users' throats", what's so good about forcing wikitext down new users' throats? MartinPoulter (talk) 12:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

   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)

   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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
6. It doesn't work, and IPs are people too. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
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. Silverseren^C 09:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
12. Not ready. Andreas JN466 12:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
13. Takes too long to load. – Plarem ^{(User talk)} 13:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
14. Not until it's ready. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 13:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
15. per above - Takes forever loading & It's not ready at all. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 13:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
18. Beta software will frustrate and drive away newbies.--Aschmidt (talk) 14:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
19. beta-software wich is not working will frustrate newbies. -- Andreas Werle (talk) 16:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
21. No. Not now. Not until it's VERY stable. Intothatdarkness 17:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
24. Since they can't have preferences.--Gilderien Talk to me|List of good deeds 17:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
25. Also see what I've written here for more information. Kurtis ^(talk) 18:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
29. No. Absolutely not. Manxruler (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
30. No. Slow, bugridden and lacks critical functionality. Not yet, obviously. Black Kite (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
31. As with new editors. Hut 8.5 21:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
36. Same as with new editors. postdlf (talk) 01:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
38. New users should not have to test this by default. TCN7JM 02:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
40. Not right now. Spencer^T♦C 04:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
41. Beta should not be default. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
42. Support Lfstevens (talk) 17:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
43. No. There is too much vandalism from anonymous IPs. This only makes it easier.Slacka123 (talk) 04:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
44. Agree, not while it is still in beta. —Bruce1ee^talk 05:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
48. The software is just too buggy. --Meno25 (talk) 10:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
49. --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 10:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
51. No. Even worse than by default for others. StevenJ81 (talk) 12:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
54. No. Too many problems with the beta.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
55. Never it turns well meaning editors into unwitting vandals Agathoclea (talk) 16:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
58. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 19:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
61. No, it should not be the default. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
62. No: not until important trechnical issues are resolved and it is not a beta anymore.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
63. Every little tweak and bug should be worked out first. United States Man (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
65. No - not with the present state of VE.--Jockzain (talk) 22:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
66. No: I'm sick of fixing good faith edits screwed up by the VisualEditor. Ginsuloft (talk) 22:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
67. No One of the dumbest ideas I've ever seen. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
69. No. "It's still in beta" - nuff said.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 22:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
71. No. Oppose using our next generation of editors as lab rats.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
74. No simply on the basis that preferences don't work for anons. ⁓ Hello71 22:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

    Comment: IMO it might be possible to save preferences based on cookies. --Marianian^(talk) 22:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

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)
76. No per previous comments of mine, above and below. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 23:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
77. No, visual editor is too difficult and frustrating to use.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
78. No, not as it is working now. QED237 (talk) 23:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
79. No per previous statement and above. Elockid ^(Talk) 23:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
81. No the system's too buggy. B-watchmework (talk) 23:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
83. No, not ready yet, and far too buggy.— James Estevez (talk) 23:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
84. Not now. When it is properly functional, then it's worth considering, I suppose. Everyking (talk) 23:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
86. No, too buggy and too soon. Prabash.Akmeemana 23:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
88. No. It takes to long to load and it's apparently still in beta. --Mαuri^’96 “everything and nothing always haunts me…” 23:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
89. No VE isn't ready for primetime pbp 23:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
90. No Per my earlier comment. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
92. No, until it's bugfree and out of beta. Jguy _Talk^Done 00:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
93. No, Not as the default. Jagnor (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
94. No, needs to be much better than what it is now to be default. -ELEKHH^T 00:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 ^{Talk • Contributions} 00:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
99. No, and even not the default when it ends Beta testing.--DThomsen8 (talk) 00:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
100. Connor Behan (talk) 00:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
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. ViswaPrabhaവിശ്വപ്രഭ^talk 01:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
102. No Anonymous editors have chosen to be anonymous, they need not be coddled for that. μηδείς (talk) 01:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
105. Apteva (talk) 01:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
106. No. ★Saurabh P.  |  ☎ talk 02:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
112. No - Not now, maybe never. This facilitates and currently aggravates the errors they introduce. Rock4arolla (talk) 03:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
114. No Maybe once the bugs are worked out. Not now. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
115. Jclemens (talk) 05:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
116. No - comments above say lots of good reasons why. -- cyclopia^speak! 10:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
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.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

     See what I'm talking about?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

118. No per Jetstreamer. Jeff5102 (talk) 14:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
122. --Jasca Ducato (talk) 15:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
123. NO Absolutely not. As per first question, it is beta software for pete's sake. Jytdog (talk) 15:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
124. No. It could well be available to anonymous users, but not as default. Blue Elf (talk) 16:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
129. No Wait until it has all of the functionality of the wikitext editor. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
132. No. It is completely wrong. Stop uglify Wikipedia with initiatives like that.--Soul Train (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
133. No. I can't think of many better ways of putting off new editors. Arjayay (talk) 18:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
136. No I agree with the last 3 posts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 19:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
138. Definitely NO, it's horribly slow and buggy. Will easily repulse good faith editors. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 20:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
139. No. Since they cannot choose, they should be given the most stable and functional tool. elmindreda (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
145. No absolutely not SHIVAM SETU (U-T-C-E) 03:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
146. No Visual Editor should not be the default.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
147. No - It should be opt in, which implies WikiText as the default. Carrite (talk) 04:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
156. Not in its current state. No beta version should be available to anonymous users. Editorranjitksharma (talk) 08:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
161. No! Alfie↑↓© 10:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
164. No. --Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 10:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
165. Nope. Insulam Simia (talk) 10:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
170. No Due to the same concerns that others have. extra999 (talk) 12:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
171. No Definitely not. Yienshawn (talk) 13:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
172. No --Kjetil_r 14:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
175. No because it is beta with bugs.--Yopie (talk) 16:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
179. No For the exact reasons established in the opt-in answers to Q1 Uncle Scrooge (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
180. Per my !vote above. Mohamed CJ (talk) 01:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
182. No VE by default, until VE is more complete and no longer beta. —ADavidB 02:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
183. No. It'll make vandalism too easy, and it'll turn away positive anonymous contributors. Gdfusion (talk) 05:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
189. No.-- Dewritech (talk) 11:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
190. No. There is too much potential for abuse. --Robertiki (talk) 11:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
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. Ignatzmice•talk 13:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
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 me • see my contributions)} 15:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
195. No way. VE is far too unstable and messy at the moment. Stifle (talk) 16:53, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
198. No, because it is confusing to use. Maki (talk) 18:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
199. No, it is harder to use, than the code editor. Olaf (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
211. No. --Gourra (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
217. No.' God no. Is WMF trying to scare new people away? PumpkinSky talk 00:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
219. No. Beta-testing should be done by experienced Wikipedians. --Stephen Gilbert (talk) 01:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
220. No. There is too much potential for abuse. TiMike (talk) 03:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
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 _talk•cont 05:33, 05 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
223. No, it's still in beta state (if that). -- UKoch (talk) 16:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
224. No! Lova Falk talk 16:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
226. No, the VE will aid in making anonymous users destroy the layout of the site Noahk11 (talk) 20:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
227. Not in its current form Heenan73 (talk) 21:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
232. No currently - browser support, speed and bug. Time will tell. Widefox; talk 11:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
233. ""No"" It may make it too easy for people to vandalize wikipedia pages anonymously.Cheerioswithmilk (talk) 13:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
237. No, but yes once the bugs are worked out. –Ugncreative Usergname (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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.  ツ^ツ Dyveldi  ☯  19:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
241. This. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 22:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
242. No Anons can be just as technically oriented as users sometimes. --Asmetr (talk) 00:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
243. No, don't easy the vandals' work. - Al Lemos (talk) 01:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
244. No, anonymous users needn't be penalized with a sluggish, buggy interface. -- Hoary (talk) 01:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
245. No, due to the VE's clunkiness and how it makes vandalism easier. -- Druid816 (talk) 05:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
248. It's not ready. — Scott • talk 11:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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 (talk • contribs) 07:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• 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)

  Foundation issues such as IP editing are tangential to this discussion. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• 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 ^arf_contribs. 17:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

Then please give your thoughts in question 2.5. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 09:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done - thank you, I missed that question. Begoon ^talk 09:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

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 (VisualEditor^beta) | 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 (VisualEditor^beta)" 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)

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 Mavinx fixes, and additional features being added to articles.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
7. So that a big portion of users will use it. WYSIWYG is the future. -- Rillke (talk) 21:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
11. This is perfectly self explanatory and still gives the users both options. WaggersTALK 18:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
14. Support Epicity95 (talk) 13:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
16. Yes --Farzaneh (talk) 17:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
18. Endorse Sladen (talk · contribs)'s proposal for a consistent interface. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 01:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

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)
2. To allow voluntary testing as desired, but with an indication of the risks and caveats.  Sandstein  11:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Per Sandstein. Thryduulf (talk) 11:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
4. This seems a reasonable approach between more testing and not breaking the wiki. MER-C 12:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
6. Per Sandstein.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 17:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
7. This would be better. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
8. Sounds reasonable. Manxruler (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
10. Strong support - We need to at least make it clear that this is a BETA! PantherLeapord (talk) 00:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
12. Support, as per the above statements. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
13. --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 10:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
15. Support for the duration of beta testing. --Marianian^(talk) 22:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
16. Support, that seems to make sense. Everyking (talk) 23:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
17. Beta status must be disclosed. Holdek (talk) 00:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
18. Seems like the most sensible approach. --teb00007 ^{Talk • Contributions} 00:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
19. Support because it sense. Corn cheese (talk) 00:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
20. Support That must be the way! ViswaPrabhaവിശ്വപ്രഭ^talk 01:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
21. Strong support Good solution for all new users hgilbert (talk) 02:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
22. Support great idea! Neurosciency (talk) 03:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
24. Okay, with a huge warning that it is beta and that it can garble edits. -- cyclopia^speak! 10:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
25. Faizan 13:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
26. Support — MusikAnimal ^talk 14:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
27. Support. This seems to be the best solution overall. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
28. --Jasca Ducato (talk) 15:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
31. Less confusing, per Sandstein. Kudu ^~I/O~ 17:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
33. Support per Sandstein. Tazerdadog (talk) 19:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
35. I Support This. Editorranjitksharma (talk) 08:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
37. --Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 10:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
38. Support Less confusing and cuts down on VE-messed-up edits. Double sharp (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
43. Support. Vanquisher (talk) 21:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
45. Support This is fair, enough. you should happy with this, -- ɑηsuмaη ^{« ৳ᶏ ɭϞ »} 10:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
46. Support.-- Dewritech (talk) 11:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
48. Support. This would allow those who really want it to use it, but keep most edits off until the software is less buggy. Ignatzmice•talk 13:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
49. If VE is enabled, it should not be the default until it is stable. Stifle (talk) 16:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
54. Yep, that works. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
58. Support Noahk11 (talk) 20:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
59. Support Give users the choice, without hiding either functionality. Tebello TheWHAT!!?? 09:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
61. Strong Support - This is definitely the best option. --Yetisyny (talk) 20:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
62. Support - even after beta. -- Druid816 (talk) 05:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
63. Support - best option imho--Alberto Fernández Fernández (talk) 08:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
64. Support this or something similar. postdlf (talk) 00:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
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)

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.

• 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)
  • @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)
    • 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)
      • 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)

• 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)

1. Comment. I agree fully with Timeshifter.StevenJ81 (talk) 12:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

• 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)

• 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 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - The VE should display some editnotices on more helpful manner.Dianakc (talk) 03:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• 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)

• Comment I'm satisfied with the new labels that have been introduced today. The above choices I would not see applying anymore. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 07:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• 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. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• 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)

• Comment – If VE is enabled for IPs, then at least keep the "Edit source" tab. Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 15:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment It would be a license for vandalism; a serious error. Heenan73 (talk) 21:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment VE should not be enabled in any way for anonymous IP editors. Australian Matt (talk) 13:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
6. per Kww. Begoon ^talk 06:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. Silverseren^C 09:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
12. As is normal with beta testing it should be an individuals choice to participate. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
13. Per Kww. Andreas JN466 12:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
14. MER-C 12:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
15. – Plarem ^{(User talk)} 13:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
16. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 13:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
17. per User:Kww. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 13:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
19. per kww -- Andreas Werle (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
21. Yes, we shouldn't be forcing users to beta test. Kumioko (talk) 17:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
23. per Kww Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 18:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
24. See my thoughts here for more details. Kurtis ^(talk) 18:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
25. Opt-in: too much missing functionality.--ukexpat (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
26. Yes. It literally cannot be opt-in unless and until this happens. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
28. Why force editors to be beta testers?  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
30. Per Sarahj2107 etc. Manxruler (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
31. Yes, and I'm getting kind of tired of looking for the "edit source" link. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
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/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
38. Per kww. Spencer^T♦C 04:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
39. Yes per Kww. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
40. Yes, per Mendaliv. —Bruce1ee^talk 05:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
41. Insulam Simia (talk) 07:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
43. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
44. --Meno25 (talk) 10:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
45. --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 10:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
46. Yes as per all above. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 12:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
48. Per others.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
50. Yes. Please. Per Sarahj2107.  Yintan  14:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
53. Yes Brambleclawx 15:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
54. Obviously, per Kww and others. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 16:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
55. No contest. Agathoclea (talk) 17:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
57. Yes--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
58. Yes--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
59. Yes United States Man (talk) 21:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
60. Yes Rollback to the previous state before this experiment. --RA (✍) 22:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
61. per Kww.--Jockzain (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
65. Yes. Disable it. The sooner the better --Rushton2010 (talk) 22:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
67. Opt-in. The principle of respect.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 22:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
69. Yes. Beta software should never be set as default for editors. Lugia2453 (talk) 22:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
74. —$\mathrm {ITAC}$ $\mathrm {talk}$ 23:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
75. Obviously Elockid ^(Talk) 23:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
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 _words^deeds 23:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
78. Definitely. Per... well, just about everybody else. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
81. That sounds like the best thing to do. Everyking (talk) 23:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
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 _Talk^Done 00:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
83. Please. -download ׀ talk 00:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
86. Absolutely! That's how it should have been right from the start! ALH (talk) 00:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
87. I think it should be done by choice. Corn cheese (talk) 00:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
88. Connor Behan (talk) 00:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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.
91. Yes all users should have to opt in. Learning curves are good. μηδείς (talk) 01:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
93. Yes, please! Do not force us to opt out of beta testing. LadyofShalott 01:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
94. Yes. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
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. ViswaPrabhaവിശ്വപ്രഭ^talk 01:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
96. Yes, yet the editor chose. B-watchmework (talk) 02:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
101. Yes - OPT IN not OPT OUT, not just for beta testing.--Petebutt (talk) 03:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
102. Precisely as KWW noted, now and for all similar changes, however advertized in banner ads etc. — LlywelynII 03:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
103. Yes. Disable by default, and advertise in watchlist-details. — Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 05:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
104. Jclemens (talk) 06:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
105. Yes, clearly. Isn't that what opt-in means? Sławomir Biały (talk) 08:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
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. -- cyclopia^speak! 10:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
107. Yes. Just include it in the Preferences screen.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
108. Faizan 13:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
109. Yes. This thing is broken. Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
110. Yes beta should never be opt-out — MusikAnimal ^talk 14:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
111. --Jasca Ducato (talk) 15:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
119. Yes. Blue Elf (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
125. Yes Beta testing should be done by choice, and with a somewhat stable product. Signalizing (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
126. Yes. Far too buggy to force anyone into using it. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
131. Yes - for the same reasons as the choice to make the VE opt-in. -- The Anome (talk) 05:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
134. Yes please. I agree with Kww, testing ought to be voluntary. ~Michael Allan 07:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
135. Yes — experienced users prefer the functionality of the traditional editor. Toffanin (talk) 08:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
136. Yes. I agree with Kww's reasoning. Cwkmail (talk) 10:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
137. Yes --Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 10:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
139. Yes. However, I think it should be removed completed.  — SoapFan12 ^Talk 11:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
140. Yes Test iff you want to. Double sharp (talk) 11:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
141. Yes --Kjetil_r 14:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
142. Yes OriumX (talk) 14:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
144. Yes. Please, do it ASAP. VE is clearly not ready yet. — sparklism ^hey! 15:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
145. Yes.--Yopie (talk) 16:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
148. Yes. HiTrish (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
150. Yes. Beta testing should be voluntary. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
153. Yes. The text editor is more reliable and powerful. Gdfusion (talk) 05:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
156. Yes.-- Dewritech (talk) 11:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
157. Per Kww. Parsecboy (talk) 12:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
158. Yes This should be opt-in. Bruinfan12 (talk) 13:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
161. Yes. Again, Cazort has explained what is my opinion as well. Maki (talk) 18:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
162. Yes This needs to be completely opt-in -- RWJP (talk) 19:35, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
167. Yes, you always ask first. This isn't Microsoft, after all. The Rev (talk) 18:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
168. Yes, always opt-in. Archolman User talk:Archolman 22:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
169. Yes. The default state should be opt-in, and this change supports such a measure. -Kai445 (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
170. Yes. Beta-testing should be opt-in. --Stephen Gilbert (talk) 01:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
171. Yes, per Stephen Gilbert just above. -- UKoch (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
172. Yes. Beta-testing should be opt-in. Neutrality^talk 05:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
174. This. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 22:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
175. Yes. - People has to opt-in. - Al Lemos (talk) 01:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
177. Yes. — Scott • talk 11:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

   Sadly, very little chance of that being an issue (see: banners; notices; etc.). — LlywelynII 18:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

   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. —Swpb^{talk•contribs} 19:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

2. Users' preferences may not be altered by Wikimedia. After all, we are not Facebook.--Aschmidt (talk) 14:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

   They already did. This would just undo some of that damage. — LlywelynII 18:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

3. Support Lfstevens (talk) 17:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

   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)

   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)

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)
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)
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)
7. Per Sameboat. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 23:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
10. It is good for testing. Njaohnt (talk) 15:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
11. --Tobias1984 (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
13. Yes, it should be enabled by default to old accounts, too. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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. —Swpb^{talk•contribs} 19:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
16. This would be just confusing. -- Rillke (talk) 21:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 (talk • contribs) 07:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
20. Support Please do not fiddle with my settings behind my back. --NYKevin 13:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
26. Support -- phoebe / (talk to me) 03:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
29. Support Vanquisher (talk) 06:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
30. No Chance, Users' preferences may not be altered by anyone execept the user -- A1000 (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
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 me • see my contributions)} 15:30, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
32. Support never changing a running system ;) --Markus S. (talk) 22:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
34. Support It's unnecessary changing that may create confusion and slow VE development. Max51 (talk) 20:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
35. Strong Support. Never alter a users current settings, it's rude & unnecessary. Archolman User talk:Archolman 22:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
36. Strong Support. Never alter a users current settings, it's rude & unnecessary.PumpkinSky talk 00:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
38. Support Epicity95 (talk) 13:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 20:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
41. Support - Beta is beta. I have no objection to VE once it is fully functional. Heenan73 (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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.  ツ^ツ Dyveldi  ☯  20:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
44. Support - per Thomas Craven jamvanderloeff 05:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
45. Support -- Stratoprutser (talk) 08:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
47. Experienced users who hate it can turn it off for themselves. Neljack (talk) 06:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
48. Support. Seems like common sense. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)

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)
  • 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

1. YesThat would save me a lot of headache.--Asmetr (talk) 00:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
7. Caveat emptor still applies. MER-C 05:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

   ? Who's the "buyer" here? HiLo48 (talk) 05:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

8. Logical and sensible. Carrite (talk) 06:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
9. Indeed per Kww. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
14. Obviously. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
16. That's what it is. --Andreas JN466 12:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
18. – Plarem ^{(User talk)} 13:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
19. per User:Kww. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 13:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
21. Of course.--Aschmidt (talk) 14:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
23. Absolutely. Even Captain Obvious finds this question a wall-banger. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
24. Yes absolutely. Kumioko (talk) 17:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
30. Per Kww. Manxruler (talk) 21:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
31. Truth in advertising. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
33. Agree with JohnCD and others. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
36. Per Kww and pretty much everyone else above. postdlf (talk) 01:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
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 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
38. Basically for the right to know; per Postdlf. Jsayre64 (talk) 01:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
39. Yes. TCN7JM 02:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
40. Definitely. Spencer^T♦C 04:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
42. Of course. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
43. Oh yes. Insulam Simia (talk) 07:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
45. Of course. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
46. Yes, please. --Meno25 (talk) 10:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
47. --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 10:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
49. Yes, per all of the above. 2Flows (talk) 12:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
50. Per others.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
51. This would be a good idea. Gives editors some notice. Brambleclawx 15:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
55. yes'--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
56. Yes - In my opinion, the eariler warning the better for users. United States Man (talk) 21:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
58. Yes Ginsuloft (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
64. Yes Seventh attempt (SEVEN edit conflicts!) - It would ensure editors are aware of potential problems doktorb _words^deeds 23:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
65. Yes, Of course. Why on earth would we hide or obfuscate this fact? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
66. Yes, Of course. Editor must be warn it is beta. QED237 (talk) 23:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
67. Yes - Until the kinks can get worked out. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 23:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
68. Yes Yes, this is the minimum.— James Estevez (talk) 23:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
69. Yes - who wants to hide the fact that its still in development? B-watchmework (talk) 23:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
70. Yes And "Beta" should never be the default!
71. Needless to say. Everyking (talk) 23:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
73. Every piece of beta software should have this warning. Jguy _Talk^Done 00:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
74. Yes per above comments. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 00:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
75. Yes.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 00:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
77. Yes, that would be really helpful for the new guys! Prabash.Akmeemana 00:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
78. Beta is, by definition, testing. To not disclose this is unethical. Holdek (talk) 00:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
79. Yes it should have a warning about it being in beta. Corn cheese (talk) 00:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
81. Yes are you telling me it is NOT beta? μηδείς (talk) 01:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
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. ViswaPrabhaവിശ്വപ്രഭ^talk 01:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
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)

    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)

84. Yes But the word "beta" on the tab is really all that's required. --j⚛e decker^talk 02:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
85. of course--otherwise you create a cliff in the fog situation!Nickholbrook (talk) 02:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
87. Yes - It's beta. Total no-brainer Rock4arolla (talk) 02:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
88. +1 — -dainomite   03:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
90. Yes all beta software should be labeled such. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
92. Jclemens (talk) 06:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
93. Please. This is still in a very buggy phase. Teemeah ^{편지 (letter)} 09:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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. -- cyclopia^speak! 10:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
96. Yes if it's in beta, it should be told... Redalert2fan (talk) 14:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
97. Yes seems only right to me... — MusikAnimal ^talk 14:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
98. Yes 'but' this isn't beta. It's alpha. Broken. Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
99. Yes unless you like frustrated users -- Safety Cap (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
100. Yes or a little stronger, mark it experimental. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
102. Yes. Communicating simple information like this is IT 101. Why is this even a question? Jytdog (talk) 15:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
103. Yes. It's beta-grade software, there's no way around it. Kudu ^~I/O~ 17:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
112. Agree Signalizing (talk) 00:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
113. Agree I like Kww and Sladen's suggestions. ALH (talk) 01:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
114. Strong agree Per Kww Timothy G. ^{from CA} (talk) 02:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
115. Yes, warning is necessary. -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 02:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
119. Yes, of course. Pretending it isn't beta-quality software doesn't help anyone. -- The Anome (talk) 05:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
120. Yes please, since it's true. ~Michael Allan 07:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
122. --Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 10:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
123. Yes. Reduces confusion greatly. Double sharp (talk) 11:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
124. Yes OriumX (talk) 14:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
125. Yes No doubt...seems only common sensical, per all the supporting "yes votes" above. Cheers. Azx2 15:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
126. Yes it is glitchy and users should know they are not using finished software.Goodsdrew (talk) 17:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
127. "Yes Kebabipita (talk) 17:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
128. Yes. HiTrish (talk) 17:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
131. Yes ~~Ebe123~~ → report 20:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
132. No brainier. This is standard procedure everywhere. Mohamed CJ (talk) 01:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
135. Definitely Yes. Users must be warned until it is deemed ready.
136. Yes. Vanquisher (talk) 06:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
137. Yes yes. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{« ৳ᶏ ɭϞ »} 10:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
138. Yes.-- Dewritech (talk) 11:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
139. Yes Beta-versions should never be the default. Uncle Scrooge (talk) 12:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
140. +1 Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 15:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
141. Yes for many reasons given above. Cazort (talk) 17:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
142. Yes. Beta programs should always be marked as such and never be set as default. Maki (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
144. Yes --Markus S. (talk) 22:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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).
147. Yes. Transparency is paramount; also I'm being consistent with my responses to previous questions. DPdH (talk) 13:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
148. Yes, and offer link to WP:VEF for any bug reports. PamD 14:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
150. Yes. It's still pretty slow and buggy. Brian the Editor (talk) 16:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
153. Yes. Always with test-software.Archolman User talk:Archolman 22:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
154. Yes Epicity95 (talk) 13:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
156. Yes, that's what you do with beta software. -- UKoch (talk) 16:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
157. Yes - may I add Duh!? Thank you. Heenan73 (talk) 21:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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.  ツ^ツ Dyveldi  ☯  20:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
162. Yes - If something has bugs in it people deserve to get a warning in advance. --Yetisyny (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
163. Yes - It makes sense. - Al Lemos (talk) 01:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
165. Since this thing causes a lot of damage, people should be warned. Weissbier (talk) 08:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
166. Yes: There's no percentage in trying to deceive people. Feraess (talk) 14:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
167. It's not even good enough to call beta yet. —GrammarFascist (talk) 19:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
169. Yes the way it's now handled is fine. Nil Einne (talk) 01:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

   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)

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)
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)

   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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
13. Warn. Always warn if it's test-software. Archolman User talk:Archolman 22:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
14. Do not warn how many questions are there??? -- Stratoprutser (talk) 08:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
15. Per Wnt. Neljack (talk) 06:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)
• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

1. Faizan 13:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• This is a very strange question. The software already says that it's beta. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 18:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
• 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. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
  • 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)
• 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 me • see my contributions)} 15:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)

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)
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)

   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)

   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. Ignatzmice•talk 13:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

   Isn't that what the example is already using—quotation marks? Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 15:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

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)
4. Why else would someone type '', [[, or {{? Also because backwards compatibility is a good thing. ϢereSpielChequers 06:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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. -- cyclopia^speak! 10:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
8. --Jasca Ducato (talk) 15:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
13. Yes. I think this works well on wikia? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
15. Yes for now, tho I think this should just be transitional. DGG ( talk ) 18:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
20. Agree - perhaps as a user preference? Signalizing (talk) 00:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
21. Yes - it wouldn't hurt for "live syntax highlighting" to be activated here. -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 02:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
23. Yes. They can be used as shortcuts. Czech is Cyrillized (talk) 03:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
24. Yes - same reasons as Prototime. Regards, Kmw2700 (talk) 04:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
32. Yes. It will be used much more if it was enabled.Redddbaron (talk) 13:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
33. Yes. Particularly supporting points made in 27, 25 and 21. korbnep «talk» 15:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
36. Yes Should be default but have a toggle switch. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 20:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
43. Yes Joining Signalizing 00:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC): "Perhaps as a user preference?" Uncle Scrooge (talk) 12:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
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? Ignatzmice•talk 13:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
46. Yes. I don't believe it's that difficult. Stifle (talk) 17:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
47. Yes Of course it should be supported. Why is this even a question? Maki (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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. ✔ JLDW^talk 00:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
51. DTRT. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
61. Yes. Toggled access would be ideal. Archolman User talk:Archolman 22:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
62. Yes Epicity95 (talk) 13:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
64. Yes. This is such an obviously essential feature that it never should have been rolled out without it. Neutrality^talk 05:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
65. Yes. This is what I thought was missing. Great idea. Surfer43 (talk) 14:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
66. Yes - This will prevent a lot of mistakes from happening. --Yetisyny (talk) 20:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
68. Yes Users unlike me will find this useful. --Asmetr (talk) 00:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
69. Yes - More options for experienced users. - Al Lemos (talk) 01:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
70. Yes - OK with wikimarkup although I personally favor shortcuts. --Alberto Fernández Fernández (talk) 07:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
75. Yes. Should be very obvious. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
76. Yes, see T49779. Thryduulf (talk) 14:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
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)

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)
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)
   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)
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)

   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)

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)

   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)

   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)

5. If you want to write wiki code then don't use a visual editor, duh. Miqrogroove (talk) 03:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
8. Per User:Frederico1234. You shouldn't attempt to have it both ways. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
9. I agree that using CTRL+I & CTRL+B is the way to go. Nick1372 (talk) 04:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
10. Per my comment in the discussion. — This, that and the other (talk) 07:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
13. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

    •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 ? — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

    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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
18. --Tobias1984 (talk) 17:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
23. "Visual Editor" should mean "WYSIWYG editor," and should not include code of any kind. Holdek (talk) 07:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
24. No it's a visual editor. Learn to use the hotkeys, or just disable the VE for your account. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 07:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
27. No. Why mix metaphors? Either it's WYSIWYG or it's not, not some frankenmeld. -- Joe (talk) 19:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
29. No. Per Frederico1234. APerson (talk!) 23:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
30. It could be confusing. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
33. No. Krinkle (talk) 05:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
34. No. Vanquisher (talk) 06:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
35. No. Absolutely not. Or WYSIWYG or wikimarkup. but the two things combined can get confusing.Neo139 (talk) 01:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
38. No this will help people learn wiki markup.
39. No -- Stratoprutser (talk) 08:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
40. People who want to engage in complex editing tasks can learn markup.--~TPW 13:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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 decker^talk 02:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

  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)

  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 decker^talk 18:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• What does this have to do with the default state of VE? Legoktm (talk) 20:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  • 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

Opt-in would be OK. --Frederico1234 (talk) 21:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Oppose. C6541 (Talk ↔ Contribs) 03:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

Strong oppose —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 07:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Oppose per the three oppose votes immediately above this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thryduulf (talk • contribs)
• 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)
• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

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

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Agree Per above C6541 (Talk ↔ Contribs) 03:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

^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)

^This elitism is very disappointing but, unfortunately, not surprising. As such, I Oppose the RFC. Azx2 15:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

@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)

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)

Strongest possible oppose: per excirial —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 07:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

(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!!!

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

• 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• Oppose, per multiple comments above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
• 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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

  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)

  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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

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)

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)

Edited to clarify. Holdek (talk) 02:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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 _Talk^Done 16:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Support. Good thinking. It might be a bit crammed for smaller devices though. trespassers william (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• Strong support per proposer. Surfer43 (talk) 14:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

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)
• Support. Agreed. — James Estevez (talk) 04:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support. It is good idea. Nicolas Love (talk) 06:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support, in agreement. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 06:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• 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)
• Support, per Insulam Simia above. -- The Anome (talk) 10:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• 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)
• Support please remove this confusing option from section edit tags. Hoverfish Talk 23:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support Surfer43 (talk) 05:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)(moved to oppose)
• 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)
• Support Yes. Unnecessary, annoying and advertising···Vanischenu^「m/_Talk」 14:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support, as per OP. — Richard BB 15:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support They can be readded if VE ever gains the ability to edit sections. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Heenan73. Surfer43 (talk) 14:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• 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.  ツ^ツ Dyveldi  ☯  20:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• 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)
• Oppose per Heenan73. Max51 (talk) 02:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, as per Heenan73. --Solstag (talk) 08:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• 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)
• Oppose, per Thryduulf and Heenan73. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
• 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)

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)
• 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)
• Strongest possible support VE is terrible, even when it works. Manxruler (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Strong support as per OP. — Richard BB 15:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Strong Support - May I say Duh! again? Thanks. Heenan73 (talk) 22:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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)
• 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)
• 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 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support from a editor of nine years' tenure. Neutrality^talk 05:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• Support beyond mortal reasoning--Asmetr (talk) 00:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Users should always be able to uncheck a box. VQuakr (talk) 01:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support. There must always be an option for any editor to edit the source directly. Thom2002 (talk) 11:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• 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)
• Support. — sparklism ^hey! 12:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)

  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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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 ^arf_contribs. 01:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support. I find it depressing that we're having to even discuss such a thing. Everyking (talk) 05:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)

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)
• Support Manxruler (talk) 18:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• 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)
  • But for the same reason, I support Max51's proposal. Damian Yerrick (talk) 02:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Support As above, I prefer [edit | edit visual ] Chmarkine (talk) 07:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• Oppose because I too support consistency with article pages. Heenan73 (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• 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)
• Support if changed at top of page as well per Damian Yerrick and Max51. Liam3851 (talk) 12:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
• Oppose, but it should be contrasted with something that describes the alternative rather than just "edit". Thryduulf (talk) 14:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think "edit source" is an accurate description. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
• 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)

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".

• Support (proposer). — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 00:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)
• Oppose. Neither the VisualEditor nor the SourceEditor should be labelled simply "edit". Thryduulf (talk) 14:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• 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)

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)
2. Unnecessary indeed. No real advantages, only risks as expounded above. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
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)

   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)

4. 'No, per Thryduulf. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
5. No, per Thryduulf. When Bugzilla 47779 is fixed, yes. JohnCD (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
6. If the user wants to change editors, they can do so. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
8. Very much unnecessary. United States Man (talk) 21:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
9. Rethought vote. Doesn't seem particularly useful. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
11. No. Not necessary at this stage.— James Estevez (talk) 23:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
13. per Thryduulf. Jguy _Talk^Done 00:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
14. Unless Bug 47779 is fixed, NO. Corn cheese (talk) 00:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
16. Not now. When VE is a smooth operator then experiment with double vision.  ツ^ツ Dyveldi  ☯  20:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
17. No, only if the user in their preferences has enabled the Visual Editor. Tataral (talk) 16:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
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 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
8. Yes, certainly, but as Robofish says, provided it works perfectly! Invertzoo (talk) 23:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
9. Absolutely. --Zcbeaton (talk) 23:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
18. Support. — Only for registered accounts.--Inayity (talk) 07:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

So let's move this section to the talk page. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 23:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

Completely agree with you.···Vanischenu^「m/_Talk」 17:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Keep the interface intuitive and leave the choice with the (potential) editor. Twang (talk) 23:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

• @Pbsouthwood, Peridon, and Vanischenu: you might be interested in James's proposal here. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

(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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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)

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)

• 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)
  • 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Who would you like that assurance from, John? I'm sure that could be arranged. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
  • Rastus; indeed, and it's not something the devs have any plans to do. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• 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)

  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)

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)

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)

"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)

• 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)
• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Again: this was not intended to happen... --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 15:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

(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) )

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)

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)

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)

• Very reassuring. RGloucester (talk) 15:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

Ok, thanks, interesting. Herzlicheboy (talk) 16:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• 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)

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 great, Spectral sequence, thanks for clarifying w/ that info. Cheers. Azx2 16:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I strongly oppose VE becoming the only option. Please always offer source editing. Maki (talk) 19:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

*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)

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)

+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)

Yup. — Shmuel (talk) 20:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

*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)

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)

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

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)

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. — Confession0791 ^talk 21:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

That's pretty good.Sammy D III (talk) 21:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

ALH, don't believe everything you read. Visual Editor DOES work with Internet Explorer. Tiyang (talk) 04:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

@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)

You are questioning my veracity. Tiyang (talk) 23:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

*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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

@BattleshipMan, i agree with you. Jiawhein (talk) 13:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

Because it offers edits to every would-be vandal?!?!?!? μηδείς (talk) 03:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I agree. Taram (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I also agree. Roller Coaster Rider (Jonathan) (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Fourthed.OrangesRyellow (talk) 02:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

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. Hoverfish Talk 13:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. Ignatzmice•talk 00:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[[User:All Hallow's Wraith|]], have you cleared your cache yet? (Control+F5 on most browsers) Red Slash 03:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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 Kupper|talk 20:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 09:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

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 (talk • contribs) 10:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

• 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)
  • 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)

• • • 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• I think I'll reply to this on your talk page. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

There is no vote on whether we want the VE or not, just on how we want it. Hoverfish Talk 19:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

What about VD? --MZMcBride (talk) 21:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

VD?? Hoverfish Talk 22:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• The VisualEditor had been called "VisualDung" (VD) earlier, re "PoS" but that was then. -Wikid77 16:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• Visual Diarrhea or Visual Disaster are equally valid descriptors. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:50, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Venereal Disease.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 09:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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.