Re: [Wikimedia-l] The Old Wikipedia logo is still widely used - what can we do?

2013-12-20 Thread Svip
On 20 December 2013 22:02, Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
 Can we do anything about it? My SEO skills are about non-existent. A
 Facebook friend suggested changing the title of the Commons file
 File:Wikipedia-logo.png to File:Wikipedia-logo-v1.png and
 File:Wikipedia-logo-v2.svg to File:Wikipedia_logo.svg. This sounds
 reasonable, though it may have considerable technical implications.

But File:Wikipedia-logo.png now uses the new version of the logo, so
what would that help?

Looking at the Google results, the first two are from Wikipedia (and
these are the old logo), but from the articles [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia
logos]] and [[Logo of Wikipedia]].  Both of which still includes the
old logo.

I think the article(s) in question might be key to this, and not what
the file names are.

Wikimedia-l mailing list

[Wikimedia-l] Apparently, Wikipedia is ugly

2012-07-14 Thread 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.

Person of ignorance in question:

Megan Garber believes Wikipedia's apparently extreme ugliness to be
scaring away people.  Because, we all know what Wikipedia is about,
it's not about content, it is about layout.  Less text and more

In any case, I just thought I should let you know not to change the
layout of Wikipedia because of this article.  And if any of her
recommendations is taken into account, I may get mad.  I am looking
for a Facebook-Wikipedia hybrid.

Wikimedia-l mailing list

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Apparently, Wikipedia is ugly

2012-07-14 Thread Svip
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 the problems with the lay-out as presented on the screen
 of a laptop.

That must be a tiny laptop screen.  I really have not experienced
Wikipedia being difficult to read, and I have read it in _any_
browser; on phones (both smartphones and non-smartphones); text-based
browsers; through obscure terminals, and yes laptops and desktops.
Wikipedia is one of the few websites that actually puts its content
above its clutter.  Essentially; if you have trouble reading
Wikipedia, you are going have a lot of trouble browsing the web.

 Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia everyone can edit. Not everybody does read.
 It is like the issues with Wikibooks and Wikisource, we care about editing
 and the reading is largely a by product.

Well, I personally think that is the wrong philosophy.  Wikipedia -
and wikis in general - should be about the readers first, and the
editors first.  Why?  Because essentially all editors are readers as
well, and the whole reason we are all here to edit is for someone else
to read it.

Wikimedia-l mailing list

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Apparently, Wikipedia is ugly

2012-07-14 Thread Svip
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, No, it's the way the site looks.

Really?  Most people I know think the exact opposite.  Wikipedia's old
web style makes it seem like a credible source, rather than websites
with all sorts of useless features, that usually contain equally
useless content.

In short; I don't think there is a problem, at least not a problem
that can be fixed.  I think it is just the natural evolution of the
web and Wikipedia.  I mean, once you have written articles on Stones
and Paper, what more is there really to cover?

Wikimedia-l mailing list

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Apparently, Wikipedia is ugly

2012-07-14 Thread Svip
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

 In the words of a far wiser man than you or me: Yeah, well, you know,
 that's just, like, your opinion, man. :)

 For one thing, Wikipedia is *objectively* ugly, typography and design wise.
 It is hard to read -- and that's not talking about the content, it's just
 about the form. Sue, you'll get people saying that it's all a matter of
 opinion, but the thing is: it's not.

 We've been at this laying things out and making readable pages thing
 for a couple of centuries now, and there's no dark magic involved.

 (Quite apart from the main point, that we make it hard for people to engage
 with the content, i.e. edit pages and add stuff.)

I am still not convinced that Wikipedia is any harder to read than any
other website with information.  I find Ars Technica hard to read at
times, same goes for Slashdot or Facebook, for that matter.

I try usually to fix it by enforcing narrow text for the content with
my browser window alone, but I doubt that is the main problem.  Is it
the choice of font?  Is it the font size?  Is it the usage of links in
text and footnotes everywhere?  All I hear is; it's ugly, from a
typography and design perspective, but I have yet to see some concrete

Furthermore; Wikipedia is not suppose to be a showcase of what CSS can
do with beautiful websites.  It certainly shouldn't contain more
gradients, round corners or other nonsense stuff.

 And we may want to consider if it is really _everyone_ we want
 to edit our articles.

 I don't believe you actually said this.

I did say that, and I stand by it.  There are editors out there,
although well intended, who will create more damage than good.  They
are likely to be people who are limited in technical knowledge
regarding how to edit wikis.  And those who wish to become better,
will certainly be worth it, but they are not everyone.

And let's be honest, I don't think every newcomer is looking forward
to taking an edit war with an established editor.

Fortunately, a lot are already scared away by the Manual of Style and
the wikicode itself.  There are plenty of things to scare people away
from editing Wikipedia before we get to the interface itself.

Wikimedia-l mailing list

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Apparently, Wikipedia is ugly

2012-07-14 Thread Svip
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 remember this claim being made when we had 2 million articles, and again
 when we had 3 million, and again now that we have 4 million.  It wasn't
 correct then, and it isn't correct now -- there are millions of perfectly
 basic articles that still need to be written.

 Consider, for example, article number 4 million:  It's a city of some 70,000
 people -- is anyone really going to claim that this is a specialized

I still stand by my statement, because I did not rule out that there
could be more general articles missing, but they would still be far
more specialised than an article on Stone or any capital city in the
world (which by the way is more specialised to begin than an article
on Stone).

And furthermore, while it was quite coincidental that it was article
number 4 million, how often do new articles of this sort occur?  And
how do we convince people that they can still write an article about a
subject we haven't written about?

I don't think we can, because it is hardly excited for most people to
write an article about Izbat Al Burj.  I mean no offence, but that's
how it is.  There are far more people interested in writing on the
Stone article.  Or an article, one might consider to be more
specialised than Izbat Al Burj, such as OR Gates.

Again; I don't believe there is a problem with the amount of editors
on Wikipedia, or at least not a problem we can fix.  It's like the
natural evolution in everything, sooner or later people were going to
stop using telegraphs, because something better arrived.  Not that
something has arrived to replace Wikipedia in purpose, but probably in
interest.  And you can't do anything about that.

But if there is a problem about people being unable to read articles
probably, then we _should_ do something about that.

Oh and here is a fun fact I have discovered over the years; reading
large texts of a serif typeface is a lot easier than a sans-serif

Wikimedia-l mailing list

Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!

2012-07-04 Thread Svip
On 4 July 2012 01:38, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:

 Well, if I were suddenly named dictator of Wikipedia, I'd probably suggest
 that a recent event namespace be created, where popular media were
 acceptable sources, and make them verbotten in mainspace.  Mainspace
 articles might have a hatnote with a link to the other namespace along the
 lines of for recent, less authoritative coverage.

You could avoid the whole namespace issue by simply highlighting
articles or parts of article that are based on popular media.  Like
non-canon stuff on fiction wikis.  Highlight its background in blue or

Wikimedia-l mailing list

Re: [Wikimedia-l] There's a wikipedia dress now! ;-)

2012-04-20 Thread Svip
On 19 April 2012 17:35, Kim Bruning wrote:


 I wonder if someone could make and wear that for real? (Also, we need 
 wikipe-tan in that dress, of course!)

Credit, where credit is due, here is the artist:

Wikimedia-l mailing list