On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 3:42 AM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 8:44 PM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Newcomers with the VisualEditor were ~43% less likely to save a
single edit than editors with the wikitext editor (x^2=279.4,
p0.001),
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 8:44 PM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Newcomers with the VisualEditor were ~43% less likely to save a
single edit than editors with the wikitext editor (x^2=279.4,
p0.001), meaning that Visual Editor presented nearly a 2:1 increase
in editing difficulty.
Tyler Romeo,
On Jul 23, 2013, at 8:55 PM, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 9:55 PM, James Forrester
jforres...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
I hope that as few users as possible will
choose this way to degrade their experience and deprive the community of
their input.
Hi Risker,
On Mon, 2013-07-22 at 14:22 -0400, Risker wrote:
A note about the bugzilla: there's a reason why people are commenting
there. They're being ignored in every other venue, and WP:CONEXCEPT
(exceptions to project consensus)[1] has been invoked in regard to this.
Therefore the
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 2:16 AM, Terry Chay tc...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Whoa. Them's fighting words! :-D
Yeah I'm sorry if that came off as aggressive, but this entire conversation
has had the air of the VE team has decided this, but maybe they'll be
gracious enough to compromise with you.
On Jul 25, 2013 6:18 PM, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 2:16 AM, Terry Chay tc...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Whoa. Them's fighting words! :-D
Yeah I'm sorry if that came off as aggressive, but this entire
conversation
has had the air of the VE team has decided
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 1:11 PM, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.com
wrote:
I'm still wondering, when the call was made to disable this option, was it
expected this would cause massive resistance? If not, what is the WMF
planning to do to better judge that in the future (because imo
On Jul 25, 2013 8:02 PM, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 1:11 PM, Martijn Hoekstra
martijnhoeks...@gmail.com
wrote:
I'm still wondering, when the call was made to disable this option, was
it
expected this would cause massive resistance? If not, what is the
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.com
wrote:
That's a de facto decision isn't it? Somebody figured flipping that switch
without discussing it with the wikis first was a good idea. The question
still stands: if they didn't expect this fall out, why not,
On Jul 25, 2013 8:09 PM, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Martijn Hoekstra
martijnhoeks...@gmail.com
wrote:
That's a de facto decision isn't it? Somebody figured flipping that
switch
without discussing it with the wikis first was a good idea. The
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 2:15 PM, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.com
wrote:
I find that somewhat hard to believe, but if it is true, should that worry
us? I'm not sure that we should be comfortable with changes like these not
giving pause to our engineers.
Well to be quite honest it
On 25 July 2013 14:20, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 2:15 PM, Martijn Hoekstra
martijnhoeks...@gmail.com
wrote:
I find that somewhat hard to believe, but if it is true, should that
worry
us? I'm not sure that we should be comfortable with changes like
On 25 July 2013 11:00, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 1:11 PM, Martijn Hoekstra
martijnhoeks...@gmail.com
wrote:
I'm still wondering, when the call was made to disable this option, was
it
expected this would cause massive resistance? If not, what is the
On 25 July 2013 10:11, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm still wondering, when the call was made to disable this option, was it
expected this would cause massive resistance? If not, what is the WMF
planning to do to better judge that in the future (because imo this was a
I made the call about a year ago, and mentioned it in several of the
dozens of mailing list and on-wiki posts made about the development of
VisualEditor since then. Clearly my communication about it wasn't read, or
wasn't understood, by the people who subsequently complained, but I
wouldn't
On 25 July 2013 11:32, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
The preference didn't break anything. It had been active for months during
the alpha testing. It was a conscious decision not to permit its
continued
use after the deployment on July 1, and the way that it was disabled was
by hiding
I have avoided getting involved so I could stay focused on fixing bugs and
making improvements to VisualEditor.
This thread has served it's purpose; to surface various arguments about
whether the preference to disable VisualEditor should be hidden or not. The
conclusion has been reached. The
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 9:54 PM, Trevor Parscal tpars...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
I have avoided getting involved so I could stay focused on fixing bugs and
making improvements to VisualEditor.
This thread has served it's purpose; to surface various arguments about
whether the preference to
I made the call about a year ago, and mentioned it in several of the
dozens of mailing list and on-wiki posts made about the development of
VisualEditor since then. Clearly my communication about it wasn't read, or
wasn't understood, by the people who subsequently complained, but I
wouldn't
On 25 July 2013 15:45, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 3:23 PM, James Forrester
jforres...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
That's just flatly wrong. Removing the preference was always the
intention
and had been mentioned several times.
See here it is again. Was is
On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 07:35:02 +0200, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com
wrote:
This interaction was committed by a volunteer not on the VE team.[1][2]
Ideally,VE would be good enough that we wouldn't need edit source links on
sections at all. Personally I advocated for not including them
An UI showing both edit links all the time is a much better way to do
it. I had the same discussion 20 years ago and as far as I know
nothing has changed when it comes to hidden user interactions that
suddenly (and with no explanation) changes the interaction and takes
the user with surprise.
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 5:34 AM, John Erling Blad jeb...@gmail.com wrote:
There are good reasons why users want to turn off VE and the most
important reason are not what most people in the thread seems to
think. Users that have learned to use a crappy direct editing user
interface tend to be
Alex,
On Jul 23, 2013, at 7:22 PM, Alex Monk kren...@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you for changing your mind.
I might have missed something, but is there any schedule for when
VisualEditor will be considered 'out of beta'?
You have not missed something. There is no schedule yet for out of beta and
The numbers are important. And perhaps what isn't being reflected well
here is the genuine disappointment felt by so many in the enwiki community;
there was more excitement about this project than probably any other that
WMF has undertaken in the past 5 years. The sudden leap from
I was glad to see some WMF members speak their mind against the current
stance from Erik and James.
But when I see Erik answer, I'm clearly understanding that WMF management
is simply being blind.
Erik, if I read correctly your reply :
- You still don't have analysed the A/B test period :
Thanks Risker,
I think you've summarized the position of many experienced users.
100% agreed.
Nico
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 8:14 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
The numbers are important. And perhaps what isn't being reflected well
here is the genuine disappointment felt by so many in
On 07/22/2013 10:44 PM, Tim Starling wrote:
Round-trip bugs, and bugs which cause a given wikitext input to give
different HTML in Parsoid compared to MW, should have been detected
during automated testing, prior to beta deployment. I don't know why
we need users to report them.
500+ edits are
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 6:35 PM, James Forrester
jforres...@wikimedia.org wrote:
It would imply that Wikimedia thinks preference bloat is an appropriate way
forward for expenditure of donor funds. This would be a lie. Each added
preference adds to the complexity of our software - so increasing
Erik, please stop and listen. Almost without exception, people from all
areas of the Wikimedia community are calling on a re-evaluation here. It's
lovely to have this vision of the Mediawiki future. But until you get
VisualEditor right, you need to get your feet back on the ground. People
were
On 23/07/13 15:23, Erik Moeller wrote:
Editing this page in Firefox on a 6-year-old system only slightly
faster than the tester's specs today takes about 5 seconds to
initialize. In Chrome it takes about 3 seconds, in the ballpark of
reloading the page into the source editor. Note that Gabriel
On Tuesday, July 23, 2013, Subramanya Sastry wrote:
500+ edits are being done per hour using Visual Editor
500+ people are making edits with the default editor, I'm pretty sure
(without doing stats on it) that a lot of them wouldn't be experienced
enough to kill it off
--
-- Sent from
On 23 July 2013 02:32, Subramanya Sastry ssas...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 07/22/2013 10:44 PM, Tim Starling wrote:
Round-trip bugs, and bugs which cause a given wikitext input to give
different HTML in Parsoid compared to MW, should have been detected
during automated testing, prior to beta
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 12:05 AM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I tried editing [[Argentina]] on my laptop just now, it took 45
seconds of CPU time and 51 seconds of wall clock time before the
percentage CPU usage began to drop. It's pretty slow.
Yes, that's why I said
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 12:19 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
You pretty much had one chance at A/B testing, and it's done now. You
can't repeat the tests as long as VE is the default editor.
That's not correct at all. It's still entirely possible to deliver
different editing
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 8:54 PM, Steve Summit s...@eskimo.com wrote:
Here's a thought experiment: if visual editing had existed (with
reasonable functionality) since day 1, would there ever have been
a way to disable it, let alone a hue and cry over a lack of a way
to disable it?
This isn't
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Subramanya Sastry
ssas...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 07/22/2013 10:44 PM, Tim Starling wrote:
Round-trip bugs, and bugs which cause a given wikitext input to give
different HTML in Parsoid compared to MW, should have been detected
during automated testing, prior
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:35 AM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On the first point, right now, we're approaching categories and
similar page metadata from the point of view of the editing surface as
an entrypoint. This makes sense if you simply try to map all aspects
of markup (which
2013/7/23 MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com
What we need is for you and Erik to recognize that you're wrong and to
make this right. Is there anyone besides you and Erik who agree with the
position you're taking here?
They are not alone. I also agree with their position, and I sincerely hope
we
snip
Since the devs implemented resource loader it has become
harder and harder to block the poorly developed bloat that has crept into
mediawiki. I used to be able to isolate the JavaScript file causing the
issues (I remember BITS geolocation being a major hog) and just block it.
Now thats not
However, from a user's standpoint, it still doesn't make a ton of
sense to do it that way. If I just want to add a category, I shouldn't
have to invoke an editing surface at all. Similarly, if I want to turn
a page into a redirect, I shouldn't have to edit the page at all. As
most of you
Hi John and Risker,
First off, I do want to once again clarify that my intention in the
previous post was not to claim that VE/Parsoid is perfect. It was more
that we've fixed sufficient bugs at this point that the most significant
bugs (bugs, not missing features) that need fixing (and are
On 23 jul. 2013, at 18:06, Subramanya Sastry ssas...@wikimedia.org wrote:
A leading line feed in a parameter - what the?
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Sam_%26_Cat_episodescurid=39469556diff=565437324oldid=565416618
This is something I'll have to investigate.
This is
On a side note, I find it interesting how none of the actual VE and Parsoid
developers replied here, apart from Roan, Chris and Subbu on off-topic
technical issues (thanks for that).
--
Matma Rex
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
In the interest of gathering slightly larger statistics, I manually
reviewed 200 VE entries on recent changes.
I am classifying these as
* Good edit
* Test edits / newbie errors likely to happen in either editor (not VE's fault)
* Obvious vandal edit (not VE's fault)
* Damaged source that
Why do you think those nowiki tags were added by the editors?
Risker
On 23 July 2013 15:32, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote:
In the interest of gathering slightly larger statistics, I manually
reviewed 200 VE entries on recent changes.
I am classifying these as
* Good edit
* Test
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 10:28 AM, Derric Atzrott
datzr...@alizeepathology.com wrote:
snip
Since the devs implemented resource loader it has become
harder and harder to block the poorly developed bloat that has crept into
mediawiki. I used to be able to isolate the JavaScript file causing the
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Daniel Barrett d...@vistaprint.com wrote:
Risker asks:
Why do you think those nowiki tags were added by the editors?
I can't speak for the original poster, but the last time I used VE,
it added unwanted nowiki tags by itself.
You can see an example in my most
Le 23/07/13 21:12, Bartosz Dziewoński a écrit :
On a side note, I find it interesting how none of the actual VE and
Parsoid developers replied here, apart from Roan, Chris and Subbu on
off-topic technical issues (thanks for that).
I am myself not replying because I don't want to be involved.
I am a Parsoid developer. I was participant #6 in the thread. As noted,
reponses #14 and #16 were also from VE developers, and our contributions
have continued. From my perspective the devs involved have done a pretty
good job of picking out technical content from the discussion and acting on
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Roan Kattouw roan.katt...@gmail.comwrote:
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Daniel Barrett d...@vistaprint.com
wrote:
Risker asks:
Of course those nowiki tags weren't added by the editors, VE doesn't
let you do that directly. What I think Robert was talking
On 22 July 2013 18:35, James Forrester jforres...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 22 July 2013 11:45, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
Putting all of the issues aside, I'd like to know what the reason is for
hiding the preference. Let's assume for a second that VE does not hinder
users at
Thank you for changing your mind.
I might have missed something, but is there any schedule for when
VisualEditor will be considered 'out of beta'? Or is it simply a case of
the VE team deciding that it's stable enough?
Alex Monk
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 2:55 AM, James Forrester
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 9:55 PM, James Forrester
jforres...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
I hope that as few users as possible will
choose this way to degrade their experience and deprive the community of
their input. Instead of endlessly arguing the point about this, I'd rather
my team and I spending
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 7:22 PM, Alex Monk kren...@gmail.com wrote:
I might have missed something, but is there any schedule for when
VisualEditor will be considered 'out of beta'?
Not so soon that we couldn't afford to let this thread die down for a bit.
I personally know for a fact nobody is trying to trick the user in this case.
We are simply trying to make editing easier for new editors without confusing
them. As a membwr f the visual editor team, I'm supportive of our advanced and
seemingly more important editors opt-out during the beta.
My apologies for the ham handed email. I'm supportive of the opt out feature
while ve is in beta. Going forward I agree with the notion that experienced
editors know what editor they want to use before the page completely loads. I
like the idea of a preference to select a default editor.
—
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
I know that this crafty UI was introduced to encourage users to use
the new editor. The trouble is, this assumes that users have no idea
which editor they want to use, and thus will happily use whatever
editor the JS
I wrote:
I think users should be encouraged to use VE by making VE really
awesome, and by promoting its awesomeness, rather than by trying to
trick them into using it.
To clarify: I didn't mean to imply that the VE team were trying to
trick users. They are not. I just mean that if you consider
This isn't an appropriate list for this, but MaxSem and hashar told me to
post it here anyway, so here goes.
There's a patch[1] to remove 'visualeditor-enable' from $wgHiddenPrefs,
essentially allowing for disabling VE on a per-user basis again. It has
overwhelming community support, but the
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Bartosz Dziewoński
matma@gmail.com wrote:
This isn't an appropriate list for this, but MaxSem and hashar told me to
post it here anyway, so here goes.
There's a patch[1] to remove 'visualeditor-enable' from $wgHiddenPrefs,
essentially allowing for
I wasn't aware the preference was hidden. Interesting. This should
definitely be merged and deployed.
*-- *
*Tyler Romeo*
Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2016
Major in Computer Science
www.whizkidztech.com | tylerro...@gmail.com
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 9:47 AM, bawolff
And now it's REOPENED. I'd like some justification rather than the VE team
saying it's our product, so we decide.
*-- *
*Tyler Romeo*
Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2016
Major in Computer Science
www.whizkidztech.com | tylerro...@gmail.com
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Bartosz
On that note, I think we should start forcing MediaWiki developers to use
Eclipse for PHP. Of course some people prefer using just a text editor, but
I'm sure no matter what it'll be more efficient in Eclipse, and if it isn't
we can just have Eclipse fix it.
Seriously, though, I understand why
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Bartosz Dziewoński matma@gmail.comwrote:
The bug for that patch was just WONTFIXed, synchronizing information.
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.**org/show_bug.cgi?id=50929#c16https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50929#c16
Just to accomodate people too
The bug for that patch was just WONTFIXed, synchronizing information.
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50929#c16
--
Matma Rex
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
When Vector skin became the default, users continued to have preferences
for other skins. That went extremely well, and did not negatively impact
editing. (I'll note that there were comparatively few bugs reported when
Vector became default, and none of them prevented people from doing
I am getting real sick of the WMF developers shoving shity products down
the throat of their users and saying FUCK YOU. That is the pattern that I
have seen over the recent months starting primarily with Notifcations and
now moving to VE. It really pisses me off that more and more sites are
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 9:51 AM, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
Seriously, though, I understand why the VE team might want to force
everybody to use VE
That's a misrepresentation of the facts. We're not talking about
forcing people to use VE. We're talking about whether there should
be
I support merging and deploying https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/73565 as
soon as possible. That said, there are still open questions in my mind.
C. Scott Ananian wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
Our overall concern, and the reason we did not offer a preference, is
that out of sight, out of mind makes it
Minimal java-script load my ass, I guess you must be using a fiber-optic
connection. Most pages already have a lag due to the amount of JS needed to
run the site. Jumping pages have been a normal thing since resourceloader
(caused by lagging JS issues)
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Erik
Putting all of the issues aside, I'd like to know what the reason is for
hiding the preference. Let's assume for a second that VE does not hinder
users at all, that it's JS footprint is nonexistent, and that the interface
changes aren't that bothersome (which, to an extend, are true). Even with
Le 22/07/13 15:40, Bartosz Dziewoński a écrit :
This isn't an appropriate list for this, but MaxSem and hashar told me to
post it here anyway, so here goes.
There's a patch[1] to remove 'visualeditor-enable' from $wgHiddenPrefs,
essentially allowing for disabling VE on a per-user basis
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Antoine Musso hashar+...@free.fr wrote:
The reason I did not deploy that change on sight it is that it goes
against bug 48666 which asked to hide the preference:
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48666
Since I was not willing to enter an
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 11:41 AM, John phoenixoverr...@gmail.com wrote:
Minimal java-script load my ass,
Your language and tone are inappropriate. Please keep it civil.
I guess you must be using a fiber-optic
connection. Most pages already have a lag due to the amount of JS needed to
run the
On 23/07/13 04:36, Erik Moeller wrote:
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 9:51 AM, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
Seriously, though, I understand why the VE team might want to force
everybody to use VE
That's a misrepresentation of the facts. We're not talking about
forcing people to use VE.
On 22 July 2013 11:45, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
Putting all of the issues aside, I'd like to know what the reason is for
hiding the preference. Let's assume for a second that VE does not hinder
users at all, that it's JS footprint is nonexistent, and that the interface
changes
On 7/22/13, James Forrester jforres...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 22 July 2013 11:45, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
Putting all of the issues aside, I'd like to know what the reason is for
hiding the preference. Let's assume for a second that VE does not hinder
users at all, that it's
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 6:49 PM, Brian Wolff bawo...@gmail.com wrote:
Really? Given the number of inane preferences in Special:Preferences
(I'm looking at you preference to disable sending 304 status codes),
this is where we're going to draw the line?
A preference for this seems fairly
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 7:19 AM, Brian Wolff bawo...@gmail.com wrote:
Really? Given the number of inane preferences in Special:Preferences
(I'm looking at you preference to disable sending 304 status codes),
this is where we're going to draw the line?
And also considering the fact that there
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 9:35 PM, James Forrester
jforres...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
It would imply that this is a preference that Wikimedia thinks is
appropriate. This would be a lie. For a similar example, see the removal of
the disable JavaScript option from Firefox 23.
You still haven't
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 7:17 PM, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 9:35 PM, James Forrester
jforres...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
It would imply that this is a preference that Wikimedia thinks is
appropriate. This would be a lie. For a similar example, see the
On 7/22/13, Ryan Lane rlan...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 7:17 PM, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 9:35 PM, James Forrester
jforres...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
It would imply that this is a preference that Wikimedia thinks is
appropriate. This
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 10:25 PM, Ryan Lane rlan...@gmail.com wrote:
Assuming a proper implementation of edit/edit source I'm not sure what the
big deal is, but I'm not a hardcore editor so I'm likely just not seeing
it.
I don't edit that much myself, so I can't speak first-person here, but
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 10:25 PM, Ryan Lane rlan...@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe there's a comparison to be made, but there's not really a simple way
to disable VE in MediaWiki other than by having a preference.
I suppose the closest comparison to the Firefox situation would be if
the preference
On 23/07/13 11:35, James Forrester wrote:
It would imply that this is a preference that Wikimedia will support.
This would be a lie. We have always intended for VisualEditor to be a
wiki-level preference, and for this user-level preference to disappear once
the need for an opt-in (i.e., the
Tyler Romeo wrote:
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 9:35 PM, James Forrester
jforres...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
Each added preference adds to the complexity of our software -
so increasing the cost and slowness of development and testing,
and the difficulty of user support.
Stop being so dramatic. This
I'm glad that Tim is bringing some facts and numbers that back up what the
community is demanding.
To do otherwise will be to play tug-of-war which will lead to an even worse
outcome.
Besides of enabling the preference, a good approach would be to activate or
deactivate that preference depending
James Forrester wrote:
Creating such a preference is a lie, and a lie I cannot endorse.
Oh, for Christ's sake, James. The last thing this thread needs is very bad
pseudo-poetry. And that's not a lie.
What we need is for you and Erik to recognize that you're wrong and to
make this right. Is
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 8:44 PM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote:
and the results from Aaron Halfaker's study [2]
As noted at the top of the page, the analysis is still in progress.
Importantly, there were many confounding variables in the test, some
of which are already documented.
90 matches
Mail list logo
