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

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.