Bishakha Datta wrote:
> At its 11 July board meeting, the Board of Trustees passed a resolution
> rescinding its previous direction to implement the personal image hiding
> feature.
>
> The resolution is online at
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:_Personal_Image_Hiding_Feature
Wel
On 15 July 2012 02:40, geni wrote:
> On 15 July 2012 00:52, Michel Vuijlsteke wrote:
> > Maybe if we used some of our millions to pay for a good designer?
> >
>
> Won't work. Aside from the wikipedia forever mess that shows how
> things can go wrong the En main page is firmly under the control o
On 15 July 2012 00:52, Michel Vuijlsteke wrote:
> Maybe if we used some of our millions to pay for a good designer?
>
Won't work. Aside from the wikipedia forever mess that shows how
things can go wrong the En main page is firmly under the control of
the en.wikipedia community and it will change
On Jul 14, 2012, at 7:52 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke wrote:
> Maybe if we used some of our millions to pay for a good designer?
What if, what if.
---
Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
___
I have had it beaten into me by the UK Board that volunteers should be at
the heart of everything ;-)
Richard Symonds
Wikimedia UK
0207 065 0992
Disclaimer viewable at
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia:Email_disclaimer
Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk
On 14 July 2012 19:
(Well obviously not millions for the design, I meant "use some of our
money". =))
On 15 July 2012 01:52, Michel Vuijlsteke wrote:
> Maybe if we used some of our millions to pay for a good designer?
>
> Michel
>
>
> On 15 July 2012 01:46, Richard Symonds
> wrote:
>
>> Maybe if we ran a competiti
Maybe if we used some of our millions to pay for a good designer?
Michel
On 15 July 2012 01:46, Richard Symonds wrote:
> Maybe if we ran a competition for designers to redesign the wikipedia
> mainpage?
>
> Richard Symonds
> Wikimedia UK
> 0207 065 0992
> Disclaimer viewable at
> http://uk.wikim
Maybe if we ran a competition for designers to redesign the wikipedia
mainpage?
Richard Symonds
Wikimedia UK
0207 065 0992
Disclaimer viewable at
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia:Email_disclaimer
Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk
On 14 July 2012 19:24, Andreas Kolbe wro
I do think the Wikimedia sites look dated, and very "male", too.
One example I always think of when this issue comes up is Wikifashion:
http://wikifashion.com/wiki/Main_Page
I would love for Wikipedia to have optional skins like that, made by
graphic designers, just like you can have all sorts o
Dear all,
At its 11 July board meeting, the Board of Trustees passed a resolution
rescinding its previous direction to implement the personal image hiding
feature.
The resolution is online at
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:_Personal_Image_Hiding_Feature
We are working on a Q&A do
On 14 July 2012 23:48, David Richfield wrote:
> I really really don't get all this talk about Wikipedia being ugly.
> To me it's a great example of how text really can move from markup to
> a well-laid-out website with a coherent design philosophy. Wikipedia
> generates results which adapt to win
I really really don't get all this talk about Wikipedia being ugly.
To me it's a great example of how text really can move from markup to
a well-laid-out website with a coherent design philosophy. Wikipedia
generates results which adapt to window size very gracefully without
taking the cop-out of f
On 14 July 2012 19:37, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Svip wrote:
>
>> It is strange to me, that whenever we talk about Wikipedia edit
>> activity being down, we never discuss the fact that most of the basic
>> human knowledge articles have already been written.
>
> I r
On 14 July 2012 19:37, Michel Vuijlsteke wrote:
> On 14 July 2012 19:13, Svip wrote:
>
>> And I don't think Wikipedia is ugly or lacks user friendliness, which
>> is the premise of this article. And I speak from a reader's point of
>> view.
>
> In the words of a far wiser man than you or me: "Y
On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 14:28:36 -0400, Michael Peel wrote:
On 14 Jul 2012, at 14:01, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
This is actually a very good example. The article was started by Dr.
Blofield who is widely known as geostub creator.
Nope. Take a look in the article history - it was created manually
On 14 Jul 2012, at 14:01, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
> This is actually a very good example. The article was started by Dr. Blofield
> who is widely known as geostub creator.
Nope. Take a look in the article history - it was created manually by
User:Mono25.
Thanks,
Mike
On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 13:37:57 -0400, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Svip wrote:
Consider, for example, article number 4 million:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izbat_Al_Burj. It's a city of some
70,000
people -- is anyone really going to claim that this is a
"special
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Svip wrote:
> It is strange to me, that whenever we talk about Wikipedia edit
> activity being down, we never discuss the fact that most of the basic
> human knowledge articles have already been written.
I remember this claim being made when we had 2 million art
On 14 July 2012 19:13, Svip wrote:
>
> And I don't think Wikipedia is ugly or lacks user friendliness, which
> is the premise of this article. And I speak from a reader's point of
> view.
In the words of a far wiser man than you or me: "Yeah, well, you know,
that's just, like, your opinion, ma
On 7/14/12 7:05 PM, Audrey Abeyta wrote:
Appearance does affect perceptions of credibility, which should be of
interest to Wikipedia. Recently, I was talking to someone who doubted
Wikipedia's validity. When I asked her if it was because the content can be
edited by anyone, she replied, "No, it's
On 14 July 2012 19:05, Audrey Abeyta wrote:
> Appearance does affect perceptions of credibility, which should be of
> interest to Wikipedia. Recently, I was talking to someone who doubted
> Wikipedia's validity. When I asked her if it was because the content can be
> edited by anyone, she replied
On 14 July 2012 18:12, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Yesterday I wanted to make a point to a friend. I tried to do it by having
> the facts that are sourced in the Wikipedia article read by the person who
> did not have the information available. Reading the article did not really
> happen because of
On 14 July 2012 17:34, Michel Vuijlsteke wrote:
> For me the most important part of the article is this right here:
>
>>So the real ugliness of the site, Gardner notes, isn't cosmetic. It's that
>>Wikipedia has "a built-in bias against design and user-friendliness."
>
> This *is* a real problem,
On 14 July 2012 17:14, Milos Rancic wrote:
> True. BTW, I see strong connection between sentences "Wikipedia is
> not, and has no interest in being, Facebook." and "Britannica is not,
> and has no interest in being, a website" -- having in mind that
> Facebook is another name for "social networki
On 14 July 2012 16:25, Paul Becherer wrote:
> 2012/7/14 Svip :
>
>> Person of ignorance in question:
>> http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/07/on-the-ugliness-of-wikipedia/259747/
>
> The article was an interesting read, and wasn't just about layout; it
> had more to say more about
Appearance does affect perceptions of credibility, which should be of
interest to Wikipedia. Recently, I was talking to someone who doubted
Wikipedia's validity. When I asked her if it was because the content can be
edited by anyone, she replied, "No, it's the way the site looks."
On Sat, Jul 14,
Hoi,
Yesterday I wanted to make a point to a friend. I tried to do it by having
the facts that are sourced in the Wikipedia article read by the person who
did not have the information available. Reading the article did not really
happen because of the problems with the lay-out as presented on the s
On 14 July 2012 16:04, Svip wrote:
> I love it when people who have no idea what they are talking about,
> pretend to know what they are talking about, and then even worse, gets
> submitted to Slashdot, because apparently they might know what they
> are talking about. But they don't know what th
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Paul Becherer wrote:
> The article was an interesting read, and wasn't just about layout; it
> had more to say more about *interface*, which is a more general
> concept. If there's anything that can be done to increase meaningful
> participation by making the inter
2012/7/14 Svip :
> I love it when people who have no idea what they are talking about,
> pretend to know what they are talking about, and then even worse, gets
> submitted to Slashdot, because apparently they might know what they
> are talking about. But they don't know what they are talking about
I love it when people who have no idea what they are talking about,
pretend to know what they are talking about, and then even worse, gets
submitted to Slashdot, because apparently they might know what they
are talking about. But they don't know what they are talking about.
Person of ignorance in
31 matches
Mail list logo
