Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wikipedia Redefined

wikipediaredefined.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 305 posts

Re: Wikipedia Redefined

#171

Post by robryan »

jarek wrote: post #151
robryan wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has anything that has built on top of wikipedia as the primary product got much traction? I think it is something that would be hard to really get widespread without it. Can a 3rd party even maintain a fully up to date set of wikipedia content? Not sure what their policy on scraping is?

No need to scrape, Wikipedia has full dumps for the articles available for download: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_download#Eng...

Yeah I am aware, but wikipedia changes daily. There would have to be a pretty impressive feature set built on top before many would consider using an out of date wikipedia when they can easily see the latest version.

Re: Wikipedia Redefined

#172

Post by ricardobeat »

tptacek wrote: post #108
thebigshane wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. But I like the highlighting, saving of snippets and history-tracking ideas. I would find that very useful for myself, beyond the "oh sweet I didn't know it could do that" but for real "now where did I once read that?" purposes.

Is it a good idea for a design shop to propose features that would beg huge numbers of otherwise passive consumers of the encyclopedia to register accounts? Because you'd have to do that, to get highlighting and bookmarking.

That could be implemented using localStorage + a simple key-value API, no sign-in required.

Re: Wikipedia Redefined

#173

Post by eps »

tptacek wrote: post #138
eps wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Draw the pretty colored lines after you grok the concept. There is nothing to grok. Imagine Google's landing page being chokeful of "content" including, most notably, the featured articles of random nature. Your comment inadvertently demonstrates the problem with Wikipedia as it exists now. A vast majority of its users has nothing to do with its community. People come, they consume and they leave. Sad, but that's l…

The Wikipedia FA's aren't "random". They're a showcase of the best articles on the site, and are p a i n s t a k i n g l y vetted by the WP community. Getting your article on the front page is a very big deal. The FA process is one of the primary drivers of editorial quality on the site.

> Getting your article on the front page is a very big deal.

I'm sure it is. If I wrote that article that is. If on the other hand I just walked in through a front door it is as useful as a book of the month featured in a local library. It is essentially a random pick.

> The FA process is one of the primary drivers of editorial quality on the site.

Hold on. So you are saying that if it weren't for a carrot of being featured on the front page, the Wikipedia editors would've not been putting as much effort into polishing the articles as they do now. This is simply not true.

Re: Wikipedia Redefined

#174

Post by mehulkar »

J don't really care about Wikipedia looking nice or being more navigatable. J rarely go there to browse. J google a term and append it with 'wiki', click on the first link and 3 minutes later J'm done.

Re: Wikipedia Redefined

#175

Post by thebigshane »

DHowett wrote: post #165
tptacek wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm more worried about their database servers melting, since the overwhelming amount of traffic Wikipedia handles today is passive consumption. If you think highlighting and bookmarking of Wikipedia articles is extremely valuable --- and maybe it is! --- go start a site backed by Wikipedia's content. In the places where it actually counts, Wikipedia has bent over backwards to be helpful to developers.

Well, they're already trying to quell the flames of their database servers by heavyhandedly deleting articles that they find non-notable. The unfortunate truth of the matter is that, given infinite time, they will have to fight all these fires eventually. To delay the inevitable by not actively encouraging user registration is a disservice to the entire editorial platform.

It is also a disservice to the entire editorial platform if they can't pay their own bills and go under. Or if they overload their servers to the point that people complain that "Wikipedia is always down" and migrate to one of the less free alternatives.

Re: Wikipedia Redefined

#176

Post by testdfsg »

> The homepage of current Wikipedia is overcrowded with display of languages, which overshadows the main functionality–the search area.

The main functionality of wikipedia.org is not search, but showing a list of Wikipedia language editions.

> Rolling over the top right corner reveals more options for languages.

What the hell is this? Why would you use JavaScript dropdown? That's not how websites work. Just look at 99% of websites. They don't require putting mouse over something to view hidden content.

> Quote serves as a felt pen. It can be an easy way to highlight the best parts of an article, just like in text books.

This functionality is better done as a web browser plugin. Because then you can save quotes from other websites too, not only Wikipedia.

> http://www.wikipediaredefined.com/img/26.png

Where Research, Edit, Talk buttons disappeared?

> Basically, there are two reasons to visit Wikipedia: to read or to contribute. Reading function is Research and contribution is called Edit.

This layout is bad for reading. Article text starts at half of screen, not at top. On most popular resolutions (1366x768, netbook 1024x600) it's even worse, article text would start at the bottom of screen.

Re: Wikipedia Redefined

#178

Post by zem »

naner wrote: post #98
tptacek wrote: post #27

You'd probably want any redesign of Wikipedia to start with the understanding that the front page of the English Wikipedia isn't WWW.WIKIPEDIA.ORG, it's EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG, and that that page is dominated by content --- most notably the WP Featured Articles, which are a core part of the Wikipedia community. Draw the pretty colored lines after you grok the concept. It goes downhill for me as they try to get more technic…

One of my favorite articles I always share when someone does an unsolicited redesign without putting the requisite analysis into it: http://www.ryanholiday.net/this-is-what-real-analysis-looks-...

nice post, but mildly unfortunate title - the phrase "real analysis" makes me think of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_analysis first.

Re: Wikipedia Redefined

#179

Post by grendelt »

aslewofmice wrote: post #41
vosper wrote: post #29

Typical "creative agency" - not proofing their own copy. I've seen this kind of thing so many times, and it baffles me that it's allowed to slip through to production sites.

The last image of the US Map caught my eye. San Diego is not located directly below San Francisco. Come on guys, show a little bit of effort here and take 5 seconds to look at a map. http://www.wikipediaredefined.com/img/45.png I understand it's a mock-up, but it just shows carelessness. If I can notice it, it's just one less reason for me to care.

I also like how there's no city marked in Louisiana. Of course, to their credit, there really is no civilization in Louisiana anyways.

Re: Wikipedia Redefined

#180

Post by zevyoura »

eps wrote: post #173
tptacek wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Wikipedia FA's aren't "random". They're a showcase of the best articles on the site, and are p a i n s t a k i n g l y vetted by the WP community. Getting your article on the front page is a very big deal. The FA process is one of the primary drivers of editorial quality on the site.

> Getting your article on the front page is a very big deal. I'm sure it is. If I wrote that article that is. If on the other hand I just walked in through a front door it is as useful as a book of the month featured in a local library. It is essentially a random pick. > The FA process is one of the primary drivers of editorial quality on the site. Hold on. So you are saying that if it weren't for a carrot of being f…

I think you're misinterpreting your parent comment; I believe he's referring to the fact that to become a featured article you must go through an extremely rigorous process that definitely improves the article it's applied to (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_crit... ). You end up with a thousand or so articles a year (rough guess, I'm not active on Wikipedia) that have gone through some or all of this process, which makes a surprisingly large dent. Also, after being listed as a featured article, it's theoretically held to that standard in perpetuity (in fact, Wikipedia has a group of people dedicated to maintaining these). Next time you're reading an article that seems exceptionally well written and researched on Wikipedia, check its FA status.
Post reply on HN