If you want something like this, but more generic than Wikipedia-only, have a look at PersonalBrain (http://www.thebrain.com/, no iPad version?). To be honest, I could never make it work for my main intended use (academic papers & citations), but I really think it is a cool app with lots of potential.
A Wikipedia Reader for iOS that visualizes the connections between articles
41–47 of 47 posts
Re: A Wikipedia Reader for iOS that visualizes the connections between articles
#42As nobody said it yet. I'm always very wary of phrases like "a portion of all proceeds will be donated...", and in this case it caused me to stop looking.
The reason is that we don't know how generous or not that portion is, and what the definition of Proceeds is.
Better to state that clearly as in "20% of the price".
It doesn't have to be a large percentage, but we do need to see it as fair.
Re: A Wikipedia Reader for iOS that visualizes the connections between articles
#43As nobody said it yet. I'm always very wary of phrases like "a portion of all proceeds will be donated...", and in this case it caused me to stop looking. The reason is that we don't know how generous or not that portion is, and what the definition of Proceeds is. Better to state that clearly as in "20% of the price". It doesn't have to be a large percentage, but we do need to see it as fair.
I'm glad you brought this up, Lance. Frankly, I'm surprised that no one else has.
Due to tax complications, the percentage of money we're going to be able to give is going to vary drastically depending on how many overall copies of the app we're able to sell. We were advised by our lawyer to use the term proceeds as opposed to profits or revenue as a small means of protection.
Additionally, I would challenge your expectation that we should give a "fair" amount to the Wikimedia foundation. We're the only one of the many paid Wikipedia apps that chooses to give any money back to Wikimedia (as far as I know, at least) and we certainly don't feel as though we have any obligation to do so. We CHOOSE to give back because we want to support Wikipedia and free, open knowledge.
We're committed to giving back, we just don't want to back ourselves into an unsustainable corner or make promises we can't keep.
Re: A Wikipedia Reader for iOS that visualizes the connections between articles
#44i prefered the physical wall with paper and string. just the way my brain works i guess
Re: A Wikipedia Reader for iOS that visualizes the connections between articles
#45Force-directed graphs (as in the WikiWeb "node view") tend to fascinate but then frustrate me. They seem to show so much, in the relative placement/distances/angles of nodes and edges. But when you get right down to it, almost all that eye-catching detail is random noise. The same "spokes" could be in any radial order. The relative above/below/right/left positioning could be reversed with no loss of meaning. Often dr…
Thanks for taking the time to write this out, Gordon. One of our biggest concerns with the node view was that it would imply more significance than is actually present, as you mention. Like you point out, the radial order of the nodes, their relative proximity, and which nodes are actually shown are completely arbitrary. At the end of the day, you're right: it is far more aesthetic than it is informative. However, we…
Couple the nodes with AI that learns what the user is interested in, however, and the user can create meaning for themselves. No 'authoritative source' has ever created -that- kind of freedom.
Re: A Wikipedia Reader for iOS that visualizes the connections between articles
#46Any thoughts for other targets? I'd love to see this for TV Tropes.
Re: A Wikipedia Reader for iOS that visualizes the connections between articles
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reminds me that if you keep clicking the first link (ignoring anything in brackets) of the article on a wikipedia page you will eventually hit philosophy and then get in a 3-4 page loop. edit: Having just checked, the loop is now a 2 page loop between reality and philosophy.
I just tried it beginning with the article on HN and ended up in a 9 article loop beginning with science.
Hacker news -> Social News -> Website -> Web page -> Document -> WordNet -> Lexical database -> Lexical resource -> Lexicon -> Linguistics -> Science -> Knowledge -> Fact -> Proof (truth) -> Argument -> Philosophy -> Reality -> Philosophy
How did you get stuck in science? That's actually quite a long route to philosophy, when I've done this before it's usually a lot faster.