On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 4:41 AM, 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.
> Marketing professionals=
On 07/26/12 4:41 AM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Jul 26, 2012, at 5:33 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 7:42 AM, Ray Saintonge 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? Thi
On Jul 26, 2012, at 5:33 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 7:42 AM, Ray Saintonge 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
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 7:42 AM, Ray Saintonge 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 chapter offici
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 them
On 26 July 2012 02:57, Kim Bruning wrote:
> 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!
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke wrote:
> 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 take new editors
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!
That's why I still use the classic skin, it's the only
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 ... someth
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 the
On 25 July 2012 22:04, Thomas Morton wrote:
> On 25 July 2012 21:01, David Gerard 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.)
> >
> Yes.
>
> We also need to be unders
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 no
On 25 July 2012 21:01, David Gerard wrote:
> On 25 July 2012 20:44, Thomas Morton 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
On 25 July 2012 20:44, Thomas Morton 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 them will not - and we could
On Jul 25, 2012, at 12:44 PM, Thomas Morton wrote:
> One of the key problems with the interface is that it doesn't do a lot to
> seperate editing and reading.
This is actually something I am looking at with a powerful microscope.
There are actually three major activities, and th
On 25 July 2012 20:48, 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.
> Wikipedia is about as user-friendly as Wordstar was in 1
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Deryck Chan wrote:
> On 17 July 2012 00:46, Andreas Kolbe 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
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. fr
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 all
Svip, 14/07/2012 16:04:
I love it when people who have no idea what they are talking about, [...]
I love it when someone starts a thread like this, because we always talk
about how horrible our wikis are and we end up with yet another shiny
Magnus tool which proves how amazing and open they
On 17 July 2012 00:46, Andreas Kolbe 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 employ an
On 17 July 2012 00:46, Andreas Kolbe 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 employ and pay a f
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, Mic
On 25 July 2012 15:57, Kim Bruning wrote:
>
> That's default web behaviour. If you want narrower columns, just make the
> browser window narrower.
>
> * If your answer is "Some people don't know how to use a browser"...
> well...
> ARGH
>
Most people never resize their browser windows.
If your
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 09:11:57AM +0200, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> 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
Tha
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 2:24 AM, Mark 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", invisible-inter
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 17 July 2012 00:46, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> Sounds great. And as we discussed, the Commons front end could really do
> with work too.
Not much point until the backend is sorted out. Basically you need to
turn mediawiki into a true content management system rather than a
wiki moving in the direc
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 wrote:
> On Monday, 16 July 2012 at 19:46, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> > I hone
On Monday, 16 July 2012 at 19:46, Andreas Kolbe 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 employ an
>
> > Thanks Magnus, that looks really great. This is exactly the sort of
> > alternative page design I was thinking of, and that we should enable
> people
> > to select, especially if they have a large screen -- where the lines of
> > text can end up excessively long, pictures become all bunched u
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 6:43 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Magnus Manske
> wrote:
>
>> 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 (pardon the "Leif Ericsson" pun...) :
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Magnus Manske
wrote:
> 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 (pardon the "Leif Ericsson" pun...) :
>
> importScript('MediaWiki:Live EriCSSon.js');
>
> Once that i
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 (pardon the "Leif Ericsson" pun...) :
importScript('MediaWiki:Live EriCSSon.js');
Once that is done, you can use a URL parameter to use any Wikipedia
page with a
On 16 July 2012 07:09, geni wrote:
> On 16 July 2012 02:51, Andreas Kolbe 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 tale
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 wrote:
> On 14 July 2012 18:12, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
On 16 July 2012 02:51, Andreas Kolbe 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 point and click to
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 7:34 PM, geni wrote:
> On 15 July 2012 14:44, Andreas Kolbe 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 Foundation. Surely that's the
On 15 July 2012 14:44, Andreas Kolbe 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 Foundation. Surely that's the sort of thing open
> software is about.
err monobook.c
A proposal to do that has already been started by yours truely. See
talk:main_page
On Jul 15, 2012 6:47 AM, "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
> ht
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 Foundation. Surely that's the sort of thing open
software is about.
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 1:53 AM, Michel Vuijlsteke wrote:
> On 1
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
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
70 matches
Mail list logo
