I was surprised by this claim, as I didn't remember them being the same. And I checked, as a logged out user, on a wikia site and on wikipedia, and...
No, they're not the same by default.
Wikia/Fandom defaults to a WYSIWYG editor, linking is a 4-click process.
Wikipedia has a toolbar atop a wiki code view. It does offer the option of a WYSIWYG editor, but it is _not_ the default. Linking is [[some article title]].
I'm a logged out user on both sites, so it's not a preference I've set.
I said it’s the same VisualEditor. As in, it’s literally the same extension. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/VisualEditor
I never claimed the defaults are the same. VisualEditor will likely become default on Wikipedia at some point in the future, as it’s an opt-in feature. And it can be turned off on Fandom, which I’m sure core contributors are likely to.
As a platform, Fandom provides the same visual editor that is provided by MediaWiki. That was the claim.
No, you claimed that the visual editor was the default on wikipedia.
> I mean, it’s the same VisualEditor that’s used across MediaWiki sites, including as the default on Wikipedia.
I mean, I guess you could claim technical correctness if Wikia was defaulting to a non-visual editor, but that's going on a wild tangent and the opposite of the real situation
I'm not sure how the opt-in visual editor on wikipedia being the same as the default editor on wikia would disprove the claim that the visual editor's more difficult linking would cause people using the default experience on wikia (wysiwg editor) to link less compared to those using the default experience on wikipedia (source editor) with it's less sidelined linking experience.
