On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 4:41 AM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
You must live in a very simplistic world, but I am afraid it does resemble
reality very well. Here are how some various types of things and people are
funded. Tool server=chapter. Developers= Mostly WMF but some chapter.
On 07/25/12 12:48 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
So there were how many years of faffing about before they hired *one guy*
for this project? This is an organisation with a $20m annual budget, now
acquiring umpteen paid chapter officials.
The paid chapter officials are employees of the chapters
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 7:42 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
On 07/25/12 12:48 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
So there were how many years of faffing about before they hired *one guy*
for this project? This is an organisation with a $20m annual budget, now
acquiring umpteen paid
On Jul 26, 2012, at 5:33 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 7:42 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
On 07/25/12 12:48 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
So there were how many years of faffing about before they hired *one guy*
for this project? This
On 07/26/12 4:41 AM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Jul 26, 2012, at 5:33 AM, Andreas Kolbejayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 7:42 AM, Ray Saintongesainto...@telus.net wrote:
On 07/25/12 12:48 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
So there were how many years of faffing about before they
I think the clear moral of this story is that, as accommodating and
reader-friendly you can be, you just can't make everyone happy.
We should listen to all opinions and suggestions, but expect to decide most
of the time that the suggestions are simply dumb or unhelpful.
On 25 July 2012 16:22,
On 17 July 2012 00:46, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
I honestly don't understand why it is taking so many years to develop a
WYSIWYG editor, for example, or a new Commons search function. Honestly,
people, if you want to create paid jobs, don't inflate the chapter
structure, but
Hoi,
Most people are stupid and they still deserve a great reading experience..
Our aim is to share in the sum of all knowledge with everyone. When people
fail to read Wikipedia.. and they do.. there is a reason to do better for
them. Any effective measure that provides a better experience for
One of the key problems with the interface is that it doesn't do a lot to
seperate editing and reading.
I know the point is to make editing easy - and to encourage readers to
become editors. But realistically most of them will not - and we could do
significantly better in streamlining our anon.
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Deryck Chan deryckc...@wikimedia.hkwrote:
On 17 July 2012 00:46, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
I honestly don't understand why it is taking so many years to develop a
WYSIWYG editor, for example, or a new Commons search function.
Honestly,
On 25 July 2012 20:48, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
So there were how many years of faffing about before they hired *one guy*
for this project? This is an organisation with a $20m annual budget, now
acquiring umpteen paid chapter officials.
Wikipedia is about as user-friendly as
On 25 July 2012 20:44, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
One of the key problems with the interface is that it doesn't do a lot to
seperate editing and reading.
I know the point is to make editing easy - and to encourage readers to
become editors. But realistically most of
On 25 July 2012 21:01, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 25 July 2012 20:44, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
One of the key problems with the interface is that it doesn't do a lot to
seperate editing and reading.
I know the point is to make editing easy - and to
David,
Here is a different approach. Ask the Foundation's paid programming staff
if there is ever so much for them to do that other things they know should
be done, or that other people have asked them to do, fall by the wayside;
or how often it happens that project dates slip and deadlines are
On 25 July 2012 22:04, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 25 July 2012 21:01, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
(This is why I'm so disappointed the mobile app doesn't do editing,
for example. Or, indeed, some way to take a photo and quickly add it
to an article.)
Thomas Morton, 25/07/2012 22:04:
We also need to be understanding of the 99% - the ones who just want to
read.
Our interface should suit the reader - with a prominent prompt to edit.
Which once clicked opens things up into the world of editing Wikipedia.
But if you don't click that prompt then
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 09:04:46PM +0100, Thomas Morton wrote:
This all ties back to my view that we don't think of the average reader
enough :)
What do we want the average reader to do? Who do we want them to be.
Do we want them to be an encyclopedia reader, a wiki editor,
or ... something
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 09:48:50PM +0200, Svip wrote:
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
typeface.
See, I'm *not* crazy to think that! phew
That's why I still use the classic skin, it's the
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipe...@zog.orgwrote:
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 would say this is a theme that I have seen on the wikipedia. People dont
have time to
Hoi,
It was not a small laptop screen, the screen was big enough...
I blogged about it and included screenshots.
Thanks,
GerardM
http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2012/07/can-everybody-read-wikipedia.html
On 14 July 2012 19:21, Svip svi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 July 2012 18:12, Gerard
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 6:43 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Magnus Manske
magnusman...@googlemail.comwrote:
Well, you asked for volunteers... ;-)
I started a tool that would let you change the CSS easily. Edit your
common.js user page and add
It shouldn't take five years though, should it? And there are dozens
(hundreds?) of jobs in queues, waiting to be done, which can't be done
because nobody is free to do them.
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:50 AM, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote:
On Monday, 16 July 2012 at 19:46, Andreas Kolbe
On 7/16/12 7:43 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
We need to be a lot friendlier to the non-programming public.
I agree that's true, but I'd also be curious how we can do that without
falling into the trap of the user-friendly, invisible-interface
ideology, which does it by assuming users are unable
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 2:24 AM, Mark delir...@hackish.org wrote:
On 7/16/12 7:43 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
We need to be a lot friendlier to the non-programming public.
I agree that's true, but I'd also be curious how we can do that without
falling into the trap of the user-friendly,
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 7:34 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 July 2012 14:44, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
The way to solve the design issue is to enable third parties to create
alternative skins that users can install in preference over the default
ones offered by the
On 16 July 2012 02:51, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
Gee. I'd want a webpage that shows me hundreds of different ways Wikipedia
can look – pink, green, yellow, pastel; serious, snazzy, fun or weird;
sidebar left, right, top, or bottom – created by talented designers, where
I can
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
2012/7/14 Svip svi...@gmail.com:
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
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Paul Becherer p...@wmnederland.nl 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
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
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,
On 14 July 2012 18:12, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com 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
On 14 July 2012 19:05, Audrey Abeyta audrey.abe...@gmail.com 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
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 19:13, Svip svi...@gmail.com 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
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Svip svi...@gmail.com 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
On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 13:37:57 -0400, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Svip svi...@gmail.com 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
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 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
On 14 July 2012 19:37, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipe...@zog.org wrote:
On 14 July 2012 19:13, Svip svi...@gmail.com 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
On 14 July 2012 19:37, Kirill Lokshin kirill.loks...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Svip svi...@gmail.com 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
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
On 14 July 2012 23:48, David Richfield davidrichfi...@gmail.com 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
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 of
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
Maybe if we used some of our millions to pay for a good designer?
Michel
On 15 July 2012 01:46, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.ukwrote:
Maybe if we ran a competition for designers to redesign the wikipedia
mainpage?
Richard Symonds
Wikimedia UK
0207 065 0992
Disclaimer
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
On 15 July 2012 00:52, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipe...@zog.org 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
48 matches
Mail list logo
