

Wikipedia visual editor - vishal0123
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/07/31/translate-ui-wikipedias-visual-editor/

======
mistercow
It's a very good start. The main things that are still really lacking I think
are "References" and "Transclusions". Even the word "transclusions" needs to
be expelled from the interface. Nobody knows what that means, guys. Just call
it "templates".

~~~
teeja
It is a very good start, and it's good that it's a clearly labelled 'beta'
option. It -might- eventually make doing cites easier (especially ones that
involve minor changes in existing cites), but already anyone who comes along
and sees something wrong can fix typos, clumsy phrases, even repair some
vandalism. It enables tens of thousands of reader eyes to do that. Major plus.

~~~
mistercow
Yeah, and even for experienced editors, it's an easier tool to use for typo
and grammar correction, since you can see the error in the same visual context
as you first spotted it.

------
ghostdiver
Editor is not sandboxed in cross domain iframe environment.

Homakov go!

~~~
Hario
I don't understand. Can you link me to a thing that will teach me to
understand, please?

~~~
nitrogen
Use the search box at the bottom of the page on HN, or hit hnsearch.com,
search for "Homakov" (click the radio button to limit to stories), and if
that's not enough, add in key words from the parent post (iframe, domain,
cross-domain, sandbox, etc.).

------
pervycreeper
I suspect that removing having the ability to learn Wikipedia's markup
language as a filter for contributors will decrease the average quality of
edits. If you're incapable of learning simple patterns or closing parentheses,
maybe the quality of your thinking and judgement is not that high. If so, I
don't really want to read your ideas or opinions.

~~~
anigbrowl
And I suspect you're wrong. I didn't find Wikipedia's markup language
difficult, but I did find it needlessly cumbersome, plus it makes proofreading
more difficult. Do you have any evidence for judging the quality of authorship
by the standards of typesetters?

~~~
pervycreeper
Just compare the average Tumblr blog to, say one produced with Jekyll,
document produced with Latex vs. Word, etc.

Relatedly, making things too "easy to use" often obscures what's actually
happening underneath and makes them harder to understand for certain classes
of user (i.e. those that want to understand what they're actually doing).

~~~
malandrew
Just create a reputation system for edits. For every edit, ask it to be given
a type (typo, additional info, factual correction, etc) and a quality score.
Wight the value of a rating using the rating of ther rater. People who make
good contributions will rise to the top. Those who make poor contributions
will fall to the bottom

There are better solutions than making something needlessly complex.

~~~
anigbrowl
Quite. I don't think that making it hard automatically makes it better, any
more than I think that using vi will make you a better programmer than using
[insert your favorite GUI editor here].

------
Hario
I noticed this the other day. It's pretty exciting!

