` ::Without picking nits, I'm not seeing anything in the above that I strongly disagree with, and I'm familiar enough with the technology sector in general to look at it in terms of my own experience.  However, I'm not sure I put much faith into those so-called user surveys you mention up above, and I'll bet dollar to donuts that there are serious problems with the data.  In other words, I dispute the overarching thesis that usability is the core problem with editor retention.  I know of at least a dozen editors who have stopped editing, some of whom I have met in RL.  When asked why they no longer edit, it always comes down to the same thing: the site stopped being fun and became a tedious task.  I've never talked to anyone who said, ``the site is too difficult to use``, and that's probably because I've selectively surrounded myself with type A and B people you've referred to up above.  The problem, as I see it and as I have experienced it, is that content concerns must inevitably separate themselves from the technical concerns.  This means, essentially, that writers must be free to write about topics in a supportive, transparent environment that isn't the least bit concerned with how the software works, much like screenwriters on a film project have no involvement with the animators using cloud rendering farms.  To even consider mixing the two is absurd, yet this is what happens every day on Wikipedia.   `