Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-33168089-20170821015513/@comment-168424-20170918182332

KockaAdmiralac wrote: Fandyllic wrote: Having a great editor for anons and new users is a good idea, but if it cripples or frustrates the most productive contributors, it is a net bad idea. Anons and new users may have enthusiasm at points, but the most dedicated and productive users rarely can rely on a pseudo WYSIWYG editor. That's why it's a test and not a released editor mode in any way. If they manage to replicate all source mode features in a WYSIWYG editor and make wikitext migratable to their syntax, would you really need source mode? If they don't, they'll probably mark the experiment as a failure and try work on a wikitext editor with features editors liked in Lucy.

A) You're talking about fully WYSIWYG editor that replicates at least 80-90% of the source editor capabilities which Fandom doesn't have nearly enough dev resources to pull off. Aka it's a pipe dream.

B) I mentioned a pseudo WYSIWYG editor, because that's the best we can hope for. Atlassian has already pioneered the WYSIWYG editor as the prime method of content creation in Confluence (corporate wiki that's major feature is tie in to JIRA) and guess what happened? They took away most of the markup editing support and have almost no customizability. Does that sound like a viable direction for Fandom content creation? Sure if you want crappy cookie-cutter wikis.

C) Fandom's standard for failure does not necessarily include pleasing contributors. This is a presumption.