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

261–270 of 305 posts

Re: Wikipedia Redefined

#261

Post by suhastech »

vacri wrote: post #161
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…

It's hilarious from the start - first thing they do is throw out the logo that incorporates multiple languages and says 'fuck you, we're going English for Wiki'. They compound this by then making all the various logos English-derived, so these guys have basically shouted to the world that they don't grasp the basics of their client. They even propose a feature that shows everyone how much English dominates the other…

Extend the same argument. They probably said 'fuck you, we're going English for Wikipedia' instead of Enzyklopädie or whatever like every other recognizable brand worldwide.

Let's face it, English is the universal language.

Re: Wikipedia Redefined

#262

Post by mibbitier »

rushone2009 wrote: post #183
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…

Google is a search engine designed to be fully functional in its simplicity. Wikipedia is a community. If you use Wikipedia only as a search engine, you are missing out.

I'm not. I only ever use wikipedia the same way I would use an encyclopedia - to look up facts. I'm entirely uninterested in the community, just as I'm uninterested in the individual contributors to an encyclopedia.

The article makes some silly points, but it also makes some good ones. The front page of wikipedia shouldn't be mainly comprised of a list of languages - that's useless to most people. It should mainly be about search.

I've also never seen a "featured article" and am not really interested in using wikipedia like that.

Re: Wikipedia Redefined

#263

Post by mibbitier »

bjornsing wrote: post #82
pbreit wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe what was meant was that, of those who go to Wikipedia directly, not through Google, they usually go through www.wikipeida.org or wikipedia.org, not en.wikipedia.org. I would agree with that assessment.

Me too, but let me add that I think it is also worth considering that they may not be there to search. For that reason it feels a bit weird to make www.wikipedia.org a crappy version of www.google.com...

My own use-case, and that of others I see using it:

  * Go to wikipedia.org
  * Try to ignore the glut of language names and find the tiny search box
  * Search

Re: Wikipedia Redefined

#264

Post by apgwoz »

chris_wot wrote: post #255
Torn wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ugh thanks for pointing that out -- I read the whole article and was assuming 'Jts' was some technology I'd not heard of yet.

Not just that - they redefine the word "history", which is a core component of the site for article revisions. And they changed where the contents are placed (do you know how many holy wars this started?!?!), they wipe to the community chosen logos, they change the templating system of the English main page (with one that is poorly laid out - check out the featured picture of the day section!), they associate number…

> Not just that - they redefine the word "history"

Despite the historical use of "history" on WikiPedia, I'd rather it be called "Revisions." Revisions is much clearer as a concept.

> Not sure how well they thought this out. They seem o have taken their own design brief, bu not consulted with Wikipedians!

I'm not a Wikipedian (I assume that's what contributors refer to themselves as?), but I'd welcome some more personalization into the site. It'd be wonderful for me to be able to easily see the pages I've viewed, and be able to highlight and keep track of things in much the same way that I could in a real set of encyclopedias. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean it has to be within WikiPedia itself--at least not for me, but I'm sure the masses would like the same sort of features, and they'd be more willing to just create an account on WikiPedia than to install some third party app/plugin/etc.

Re: Wikipedia Redefined

#266

Post by apgwoz »

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...

This dump is updated once a month, though the API is live.

One problem I've found with the dump is that you still need to render it (unless someone knows of another dump) which has caused us a few problems with the current thing I'm working on.

Re: Wikipedia Redefined

#268

Post by hellerbarde »

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…

The homepage of _Wikipedia_ is WWW.wikipedia.org. They never said they only want to target the english Wikipedia. The Frontpage of the _German_ Wikipedia is DE.wikipedia.org, but that has nothing to do with the article.

The individual language front pages are still here. With loads of information density and featured articles and everything.

The beautiful front page for searches in different languages is very nice and certainly provides better overview over the different languages available.

The overhaul of the Editor is also a nice addition, although it should probably be coded in a way as to enforce adherence to templates. A challenge you say? Maybe. But most things worth doing are.

The highlighting is a nice touch, certainly useful for doing research, which is what WP is often used for.

They did not confuse wikipedia with wikimedia. They very clearly proposed a specific logo for both Wikimedia and Wikipedia. They were aware of the connections and relationships between the organisations and concepts in question. The title can be construed as misleading, "Wikipedia redesigned" vs. "Wikimedia redesigned", I guess. But most people using WP are not acutely aware of the difference and relationship between the two. So they decided to hook the article on "Wikipedia" because it's the more recognized name. I have no problem with that.

I don't like that "organic living logo" idea either, I'll side with you on that one.

Yes, the capital J is a bit annoying :)

Your criticism seems mostly superficial and I don't quite understand why. A better branding does not water down the content. "Doing something bigger than that", (which i completely agree with) is not diagonally opposed to beautiful design.

Re: Wikipedia Redefined

#269

Post by hellerbarde »

ZoFreX wrote: post #249
briandear wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good grief. Is everything you've ever made absolutely perfect? You build something beautiful and then you can dogpile on a grammar mistake.

I think if you're going to put so much focus on visuals, and make it your clear aim to get as much attention from the world as possible, it would probably be a good idea to: * Check that your font doesn't do anything crazy, like make "I" look like "J" - come on, the sixth word on the page looks like it has a spelling mistake * Check your grammar. I know it's pernickety but if I'm hiring a designer I expect attention…

The whole J - I thing is something rather European I think. Here in Europe some consider it distinguished and hip... It's of course debatable whether that validates the decision, but it might be an explanation. Kind of a back to the (typographic) roots thing.

Personally, I don't care for it...

The rest, yeah, I agree with you. Get someone that speaks the language to spell and grammar check.

Re: Wikipedia Redefined

#270

Post by [deleted] »

shock3naw wrote: post #237
wyclif wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, there's a grammatical error: "We check our mail dozen times a day." No. We check our mail a dozen times a day.

So they check it exactly one dozen times per day? Your correction also doesn't seem valid. Perhaps they meant to write that "We check our mail dozens of time per day." First impressions are very important; I too find copy errors an indication of an inadequate effort to communicate effectively. However, that doesn't validate a malicious attempt to bash the writer(s) when a simple correction would have sufficed.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN