- These high school theater kids put on a totally awesome ‘Alien’ play Saturday 3:59 PM
- Behold these photos of Elon Musk, but with Elizabeth Holmes’ eyes Saturday 3:11 PM
- Barbra Streisand gets canceled over remarks about Michael Jackson’s alleged victims Saturday 2:09 PM
- Report: Florida man raped Texas teen after posing as Instagram celeb Saturday 12:14 PM
- Lori Loughlin’s daughters, Olivia and Isabella, could be banned from USC forever Saturday 11:46 AM
- ‘Starfish’ is a heartbreaking tale of BFFs, grief, and apocalyptic alien invasions Saturday 10:35 AM
- How to stream UFC Fight Night 148 for free Saturday 10:00 AM
- The kids are making scantron memes instead of studying Saturday 9:29 AM
- Every installment of Hulu’s ‘Into the Dark,’ ranked Saturday 6:00 AM
- The internet is mocking Robert Mueller’s report deadline Friday 7:53 PM
- Instagram blocks some anti-vax hashtags—but still has far to go Friday 6:20 PM
- Study: Netflix released more originals than licensed titles last year Friday 2:26 PM
- Laura Ingraham, Dinesh D’Souza slam journalist for having a job Friday 1:40 PM
- Netflix is testing a cheap-as-hell mobile-only plan Friday 1:08 PM
- Astrology app Co-Star’s bizarre push notifications are now a meme Friday 12:18 PM
Wikipedia’s VisualEditor was supposed to solve a problem, but instead, it’s caused one of its own.
The Wikimedia Foundation—the group in charge of, but not really in charge of Wikipedia—faces mounting backlash as the foundation continues to implement a new user interface that has rankled the sensibilities of longtime editors.
Wikipedia’s new VisualEditor interface went wide nearly three months ago, becoming the default setting for all logged-in editors on English Wikipedia. The “What You See Is What You Get”-style editing system is a ploy by the WMF to solve the site’s recruitment crisis, making it easier for new editors to get involved and stay involved.
But it’s a move that forsakes the wants and desires of longtime Wikipedians, who say VisualEditor is buggy and untested. They voted overwhelmingly to make the new editing platform an opt-in, rather than opt-out program, but WMF moved forward with their plans to make it the default setting.
“Most of you are familiar with the VisualEditor problem,” Kww wrote. “Despite an overwhelming consensus that the tool should be opt-in […] WMF has insisted on keeping the editor opt-out.”
Though it may seem odd that a single administrator can circumvent the will of the organization most responsible for guiding Wikipedia’s growth, it’s rather easy. Though the Wikimedia Foundation plays a large role in developing the online encyclopedia, their administrative authority on the site is minimal. If the majority of administrators outside of Wikimedia decide they don’t like the system, they can change it—at least in theory.
“It remains to be seen if the administrator corps of Wikipedia can in fact overrule the decision of the Wikimedia Foundation,” said Gregory Kohs, co-founder of the Wikipedia criticism site Wikipediocracy. “It’s really a ‘wait and see’ scenario—a true test of wills.”
For its part though, the Wikimedia Foundation seems interested in working out a solution to the VisualEditor debate without resorting to a direct override.
“We’re confident that we’ll be able to find a compromise that works for the majority of people,” said Wikipedia spokesperson Jay Walsh.
Speaking to the Daily Dot, Walsh defended the VisualEditor and the way it has been implemented. Though he admits the site has its glitches, he said they will never be ironed out without wide-scale beta testing—particularly on the kind of new users the site hopes to capture with this new interface.
For years, Wikipedia has been hemorrhaging users. Between 2006 and 2011, the site lost 15,000 English language editors—roughly 30 percent of the total number of editors it had operating at its peak. Inquires into the editorial decline have uncovered a number of causes, including the difficulty of the text-based editing interface. That’s why WMF made it one of their top priorities to revamp the editing process, making it more intuitive, like Tumblr or WordPress.
And although few editors will say attracting new users is a bad thing, they do believe VisualEditor was rushed to meet arbitrary deadlines. Kohs told the Daily Dot that the foundation was working on a “calendar-based mandate” rather than “an operational-based mandate of constructing a working editor that actually improves on the problem areas of the old editor.” Many of their complaints center around extreme lag times when editing larger articles, broken text, and the reintroduction of old programming bugs.
“As with all things Wikimedia, making a big change in a large and vocal community is always a complex challenge,” Walsh said.
As of Monday night, Kww’s patch was still in place.
Photo by Ting Chen/Flickr
Tim Sampson is a reporter who focused on the technology, business, and politics beats. He's also an established comedy writer, with work on Comedy Central and in The Onion and ClickHole.