Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-33168089-20170821015513/@comment-896291-20170914182057

Yeah, even as a "potential thing" this sounds like a bad idea from the word "Lucy" (which invokes images of a bad Luc Besson movie), and reading about the crash and burn on a test wiki isn't encouraging either. Recreating a visual editor is one thing, but potentially removing the source editor is a pretty sure-fire way of alienating the ones who rely on it and want to keep it. This read like another potential update that will benefit one group and is not a help to the other party who disagree with it, and will likely not be given an opt-out option if it ever comes to pass.

Even the most "relevant" social media platforms maintain a basic html / source editor for their userbase, largely for the sake of usability and functionality and don't remove it based on how many people will use it verses how many people use a visual editor. It's a basic fundamental editor that's treated like a requirement, as it should be. It's a no fuss, no muss editor that keeps things at their simplest, and it's complex enough for people who are top-tier coders.

MechQueste wrote: On wikipedia, there is a hybrid of sorts between source and visual. it works well and its still being pushed further (its still in beta). It would be that.

Wikipedia.org's visual and source editor is more or less the functional ideal for any Wikifarm editor, definitely one I'd attempt on modeling any wiki editor after.