In recent discussions within the WordPress community, a lot of attention has been drawn to the conflict involving WordPress, Automattic, Matt Mullenweg, and WP Engine. For those unfamiliar with the situation, a quick search for “WP Engine vs. WordPress” or “WP Engine is not WordPress” will yield numerous articles detailing the controversy. Interestingly, the majority of these articles are hosted on WordPress-powered blogs, a testament to the platform’s ubiquity.
Here, I’ll offer my professional perspective on the matter.
The Constant Confusion: WordPress.com vs. WordPress.org
As a co-organizer of the Las Vegas WordPress Meetup group since 2011, I’ve explained the difference between WordPress.com and WordPress.org more times than any other topic within the WordPress community. Every month, without fail, there are new individuals confused about the distinction, and often, long-standing members of the group will answer the question before I even have to.
The confusion typically stems from individuals signing up for WordPress.com, expecting to build a feature-rich website, only to realize that many advanced features require payment. This leads them to discover WordPress.org, which offers full customization, provided they find a suitable hosting provider.
Across the thousands of WordPress Meetup groups in the U.S., I’m confident every co-organizer has dealt with this confusion more often than addressing distinctions between WordPress and WP Engine.
WordPress Core Functionality: Post Revisions Controversy
One of the central points of contention in this debate involves WP Engine’s decision to disable post revisions, a core WordPress functionality that dates back to the early days of the content management system. Post revisions allow content creators to track changes, making collaboration easier by storing various drafts within the database.
However, there has long been debate within the WordPress community about whether post revisions can negatively impact site performance. Over the years, I’ve heard arguments on both sides from highly respected authorities in the WordPress ecosystem. For many clients, we often choose not to enable post revisions due to concerns over performance.
That said, I believe WordPress has evolved to a point where post revisions no longer have the same performance impact they once did. Queries can be optimized, and revisions can be excluded where necessary. Therefore, I don’t view WP Engine’s decision as a critical issue. It’s worth noting that users can easily re-enable post revisions by contacting WP Engine support, so this isn’t a permanent removal, but rather a configurable setting.
Comparing Core Functionality: Post Revisions vs. File Editor
What I find most perplexing about Matt Mullenweg’s critique of WP Engine is the singular focus on post revisions. If disabling post revisions is considered damaging to WordPress, then what about the many hosting companies that disable the WordPress file editor? The file editor is often one of the first functionalities removed by experienced users and hosting providers alike because of the risk it poses to site stability.
When I first started with WordPress, using the file editor was often recommended to make minor changes to theme templates or plugin files. However, it quickly became apparent that this practice could easily result in breaking a website. As a result, many hosting companies now disable this feature by default.
Yet, I don’t see anyone accusing these hosts of being detrimental to the WordPress ecosystem. If anything, disabling the file editor is widely viewed as a safeguard for users.
One of the other core functionalities I discuss with my WordPress support clients includes the Capital P Dangit function. There is a core function inside of WordPress that specifically looks for the misspelling of the WordPress name and corrects it. From “Wordpress” to “WordPress”. That’s right, this function specifically searches for the word spelled with a lowercase p and applies a fix. I ask my clients how many times they believe they will ever include “WordPress” in their content. The answer is always never. So I remove the function. Does this mean I’m also a cancer to the WordPress community? I don’t think so.
The Issue of Clarity: WordPress vs. WP Engine
One of Matt Mullenweg’s claims is that even his own mother finds it difficult to differentiate between WordPress and WP Engine. While I don’t dispute the importance of brand clarity, this argument seems a bit disingenuous. Many users—especially those new to the platform—may struggle to understand the distinction between a hosting provider and the software itself. However, this challenge is not unique to WordPress and WP Engine. It’s an issue that exists across various CMS and hosting platforms.
Participation in the Five for the Future Initiative
Another point of contention raised by Mullenweg is that WP Engine allegedly does not contribute adequately to the “Five for the Future” initiative—a program encouraging companies that profit from WordPress to contribute 5% of their resources to its development.
While the concept behind Five for the Future is admirable, it’s important to recognize that not every company actively participates to the same extent. In my experience, only a select few companies make a concerted effort to ensure employees dedicate time to this initiative. WP Engine may not be contributing at the level expected by some, but they are certainly not alone in this regard.
My Stance
As someone who has been deeply involved with both the WordPress and WP Engine communities, my perspective leans in favor of WP Engine. They have the right to adjust core functionality as they see fit, especially when the changes are easily reversible and don’t impede the overall user experience.
Having worked with WP Engine since 2011, I’ve experienced firsthand the company’s dedication to the WordPress community. Over the years, I’ve met numerous WP Engine employees at WordCamps and other industry events, and I’ve always been impressed by their professionalism and enthusiasm for the platform. WP Engine has consistently represented itself as what it is: a WordPress hosting provider. Nothing more, nothing less.
Conclusion
At the end of the day, WP Engine’s adjustments to WordPress core functionality do not warrant the level of scrutiny they’ve received. These changes are neither permanent nor harmful, and in many cases, they align with common practices within the WordPress hosting space.
While I support the idea of contributing to WordPress’s development, we must be cautious about singling out companies for not participating in initiatives like Five for the Future to the degree some may expect. Instead, we should foster an environment where all participants feel encouraged to contribute, rather than compelled.
The WordPress community has always thrived on collaboration, and it’s essential that we maintain that spirit moving forward.