Pine W wrote: >The hypothetical here is that I have a binary choice between Echo and >Flow. In practice it's possible to develop them in parallel. With the >hypothetical in mind, I'll outline why I would prioritize Echo. > >My thinking is that Echo is used widely on many, many wikis and is helpful >to users of all skill levels. It must be years since I've heard someone >say that they find the nature of Echo to be problematic. By contrast, the >reception to Flow is more mixed. Also, as some of us are discussing with >Lila, it may be feasible to extend VE to talk pages and/or give some love >to the wikimarkup editor at less expense and with less disruption than the >expense and disruption involved with converting talk pages to Flow pages. > >[...] > > Flow has its supporters and I think that keeping it maintained and >healthy on wikis where the communities like it is probably wise. Given >the choice of investing more resources into further development of a >product that has mixed reviews, is used on only some wikis, and about >which community questions aren't answered, seems questionable to me when >investing in a well-accepted and widely-used tool (Echo) is an >alternative.
Hi. Thank you for your reply. To me, it highlights and confirms a number of troubling trends and a few misconceptions that I think really need to be openly discussed and ultimately addressed. However, wikitech-l isn't the most appropriate discussion venue for this, so I'll move to wikimedia-l. MZMcBride _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
