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

[Erik Moeller]

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=WMF but no chapter I am aware of. Legal 
> professionals=WMF and chapter.  Administration of fundraising campaign=WMF 
> and chapters. You will not find any bright lines in reality.

Indeed. And given the magnitude and multitude of problems we are
trying to solve as a movement, I think it's absolutely appropriate and
desirable for chapters to undertake, for example, software engineering
projects (I have reservations about infrastructure-hosting projects).
One of the advantages of our open source model is that we already have
to operate under a standard assumption that others may want to make
significant contributions without centralized management thereof, so
we _should_ be able to accommodate chapter-driven software engineering
work.

The Wikidata project is an example of this. What's notable about
Wikidata is not just that it's a very significant scale project
(>$1.5M in funding), but also that the funding doesn't come from the
classic contribution streams (online donations) but from a network of
funders that Wikimedia Germany brought together. The project would not
have been started or funded without Wikimedia Germany, which really
validates the importance of chapters.

Chapters indeed have the potential to build out a significant presence
to advance engineering and product development, and I'd love to see
more of that in future with regard to underrepresented technical
priorities (e.g. geo-data related functionality, quality management
tools, ProofreadPage style functionality, etc.). In addition to adding
to our overall ability to fund and manage projects, they have the
ability to recruit and build offices in their geographies, potentially
at a much lower salary cost than we do in the SF Bay Area as our
primary HQ.

The one caveat I have is that, if chapters don't contribute, as part
of this process, fully by means of participating in code review and
general MediaWiki development, there's a risk that any such
chapter-driven engineering work contributes to the overall backlog,
and requires adding to a centralized pool of resources. Moreover, a
short term project with limited funding has the potential to also add
to the long term maintenance/improvement burden for WMF.  We're trying
to manage this balance very carefully with the Wikidata project, and
we'll draw a lot of lessons from the project as it continues.

All best,
Erik
-- 
Erik Möller
VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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

[Ray Saintonge]

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? This is an organisation with a $20m annual budget, now
acquiring umpteen paid chapter officials.

The "paid chapter officials" are employees of the chapters themselves.

The money comes from the same pot, as you know. The chapters are funded
from the same donations as the Foundation.

The best way to bring hostility against your own pet projects is by being
hostile towards the projects of others. What makes one project more
deserving than another.

Simplistically, chapters are marketing, while programmers and designers are
product development. Marketing is important, but not more so than product
development. To be fair, the Foundation is hiring product development
staff, and it's not a choice of either/or.

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Job_openings

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=WMF but no chapter I am aware of. Legal professionals=WMF and 
chapter.  Administration of fundraising campaign=WMF and chapters. You will not 
find any bright lines in reality.


To this must be added work with the GLAM community. This is largely 
driven by the chapters. Their ability to contact these institutions is 
likely key to opening up access to large stores of material. It would be 
far more difficult to do this as a foreign organization.


Ray

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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

[Birgitte_sb]

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 a $20m annual budget, now
>>> acquiring umpteen paid chapter officials.
>>> 
>>> The "paid chapter officials" are employees of the chapters themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> The money comes from the same pot, as you know. The chapters are funded
> from the same donations as the Foundation.
> 
> 
> 
>> The best way to bring hostility against your own pet projects is by being
>> hostile towards the projects of others. What makes one project more
>> deserving than another.
> 
> 
> 
> Simplistically, chapters are marketing, while programmers and designers are
> product development. Marketing is important, but not more so than product
> development. To be fair, the Foundation is hiring product development
> staff, and it's not a choice of either/or.
> 
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Job_openings
> 

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=WMF but no chapter I am aware of. Legal professionals=WMF and 
chapter.  Administration of fundraising campaign=WMF and chapters. You will not 
find any bright lines in reality.

Birgitte SB
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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

[Andreas Kolbe]

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 officials.
>>
>>  The "paid chapter officials" are employees of the chapters themselves.



The money comes from the same pot, as you know. The chapters are funded
from the same donations as the Foundation.



> The best way to bring hostility against your own pet projects is by being
> hostile towards the projects of others. What makes one project more
> deserving than another.



Simplistically, chapters are marketing, while programmers and designers are
product development. Marketing is important, but not more so than product
development. To be fair, the Foundation is hiring product development
staff, and it's not a choice of either/or.

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Job_openings
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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

[Ray Saintonge]

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 themselves. 
The best way to bring hostility against your own pet projects is by 
being hostile towards the projects of others. What makes one project 
more deserving than another.


Ray


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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

[Michel Vuijlsteke]

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! 
>
> That's why I still use the classic skin, it's the only skin that
> has serif fonts for body text. :-/
>
>
Serif vs. sans for legiblity: the jury's still out. It's been a contentious
question for ages (see
http://alexpoole.info/blog/which-are-more-legible-serif-or-sans-serif-typefaces/
for
a discussion, with plenty of sources, in 2008).

The one thing we know for sure is that as displays get better and better,
we'll be able to approach paper typography better and better.

Incindentally, you can safely switch to Vector and edit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Yourusername/vector.css to contain
something like

#bodyContent { font-family: Georgia, serif; }

(Change "Georgia" to your favourite serif font or leave it out to have the
browser choose a default).

Michel
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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

[Mike Dupont]

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 by the hand, for example 12 year old kids who
write articles about themselves are deleted instead of being nicely told to
turn the page into their user page for example, the list goes on and on.
mike

-- 
James Michael DuPont
Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org
Saving wikipedia(tm) articles from deletion
http://SpeedyDeletion.wikia.com
Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org
Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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

[Kim Bruning]

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 skin that
has serif fonts for body text. :-/

sincerely,
Kim Bruning

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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

[Kim Bruning]

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 in between? 

A novel thought that!

I think that every person who comes to take something away, also
has something to bring back in. 

Actually, that's pretty much certain, sooner or later.

An encyclopedia is a starting point for research. Once you're even
just halfway researching your topic, you probably know more than the
encyclopedia does.

This is how I sometimes contributed to wikipedia early on. [1]

Rather than giving up and calling people "the average reader", can
we think about how we can get them to give something back?

Sure, we probably can't get 100% of readers to give something back, but we
can definitely do better than the meager fraction-of-1% we have now. 

Our policies/procedures/work-patterns have swung a little too far
encyclopedia-ward. We need to get the pendulum swinging back
wiki-ward for a while.

sincerely,
Kim Bruning


[1] 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lost_functionalities#Using_wikipedia_as_an_.28anonymous.29_research_tool



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

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 you don't get useless fluff to
distract you.


What exactly is the fluff?
Even the most hidden toolbox links are crucial for reading articles and 
understanding them, for instance WhatLinksHere.
I'm more interested in things which try to get some of that "clutter" to 
be understood by and useful for readers, like the "last modified" 
experiment to increase history browsing (despite all the problems, of 
course).


Nemo

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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

[Michel Vuijlsteke]

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 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 you don't get useless fluff to
> distract you.
>
> This all ties back to my view that we don't think of the average reader
> enough :)
>

I totally agree.
With the one caveat that it's both tempting and dangerous to speak of or
design for "the average reader".

The average car driver, as the joke goes, wants a car that's fast and
flashy, and comfortable and safe, with a large trunk and room for kids,
that looks sexy, gets great mileage and does 0-90 in however few seconds is
impressive enough. And then you end up with The Homer (
http://imgur.com/PO22S) -- a car that should in theory be everything for
everyone, but in fact is nothing for no-one. :)

And that's why interaction designers develop personas and write scenarios
of use, do mock-ups and prototypes, etc. etc.

Michel
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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

[Andreas Kolbe]

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 not met
because they get called off their jobs to deal with something else. Things
like that.

If the programming staff (hello?) say there aren't any significant problems
of that sort, and that having their own staff that they could delegate
parts of their work to would not lead to more things getting done, but
would only result in them sitting around playing cards, I'll shut up about
this.

Andreas

On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 8:56 PM, David Gerard  wrote:

> 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 1985.
>
>
> Before you start in the usual fashion of "assume bad faith and
> extrapolate from there", I suggest you do a bit of reading
> (mediawiki.org, wikitech-l and *especially* wikitext-l) and find out
> what the actual problem was and why this is actually a hard problem.
> Here, I'll start you off:
>
> 1. No language definition.
> 2. Huge corpus of existing text in said undefined language that must
> continue to work.
>
> Now how about you stop ranting about how everyone must have just been
> terrible and come back with a description in your own words of the
> actual problem and what you expect would be a good plan of attack on
> it. Who knows, you might come up with something new, good and useful.
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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

[Thomas Morton]

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. But realistically most of them will not - and we could do
> > significantly better in streamlining our anon. front end.
>
>
> I would disagree. We need to make it easy for people to hit "edit",
> and we need to make it easy for them to be able to do something
> useful.
>
> (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 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 you don't get useless fluff to
distract you.

This all ties back to my view that we don't think of the average reader
enough :)

Tom
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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

[David Gerard]

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 do
> significantly better in streamlining our anon. front end.


I would disagree. We need to make it easy for people to hit "edit",
and we need to make it easy for them to be able to do something
useful.

(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.)


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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

[Brandon Harris]

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 they should be 
considered "modes of operation":

1) Reading/Exploring
2) Editing/Uploading
3) Curating/Patrolling

We'll be launching (very soon now, I promise) a "Curation Mode" for new 
page patrolling that starts us down this path.

---
Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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

[David Gerard]

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 1985.


Before you start in the usual fashion of "assume bad faith and
extrapolate from there", I suggest you do a bit of reading
(mediawiki.org, wikitech-l and *especially* wikitext-l) and find out
what the actual problem was and why this is actually a hard problem.
Here, I'll start you off:

1. No language definition.
2. Huge corpus of existing text in said undefined language that must
continue to work.

Now how about you stop ranting about how everyone must have just been
terrible and come back with a description in your own words of the
actual problem and what you expect would be a good plan of attack on
it. Who knows, you might come up with something new, good and useful.


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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

[Andreas Kolbe]

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 paid jobs, don't inflate the chapter
> > > structure, but employ and pay a few programmers and designers.
> >
> > On 25 July 2012 16:41, David Gerard  wrote:
> >
> > "I don't understand it, so it must be simple." This often turns out
> > not to be the case.
>



In the case of the sensible Commons search function Niabot proposed, the
problem did sound rather easy to solve.

>From memory, the answer was: "Everybody is busy with other stuff. Nobody
has time to look into this. We've got so much to do ..."




> > I realised both that it was an incredibly difficult problem, and that WMF
> is really serious about getting on with it, when they decided to hire James
> F. to take charge of the project.
>



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 1985.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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

[Thomas Morton]

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. front end.

Tom

On 25 July 2012 20:33, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:

> 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 the
> different screens helps us share with more people.
>
> Even stupid people deserve to be educated... eh especially stupid people
> deserve to be educated ...
> Thanks,
>   Gerard
>
> On 25 July 2012 17:22, Michel Vuijlsteke  wrote:
>
> > 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 answer is "Most people are stupid and don't *deserve* a better
> > reading experience"… well, sum, yeah. There's that.
> >
> >
> > > * Else If your answer is "Lets make it narrower for everyone (including
> > us
> > > WIMPs
> > >   who *do* know how to use Windows Icons Menus and Pointers) whether
> they
> > >   want to or not."   I KL YOU
> > >
> >
> > It's not about making it "narrower". It's about making it *better*.
> > Analogy: "Let's reduce the amount of words in the lede" <> "Let's make
> the
> > lede better".
> >
> >
> > > * Else If your answer is "better DTPishlayout control in CSS, including
> > > some sane way to
> > >   do proper columnated text": YES YES, 1000 TIMES YES!
> > >
> >
> > Column layout on scrolling web pages doesn't make a lot of sense.
> > Some additional "DTP-ish" layout control in CSS would be nice, sure, but
> > that's not the point.
> >
> >
> > > * Else If other: Ok, go ahead, I'm listening? :-)
> > >
> >
> > Well, see points raised earlier. Making Wikipedia easier to read and use
> is
> > not just mollycoddling lazy users who "should know better".
> >
> > Michel
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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

[Gerard Meijssen]

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 the
different screens helps us share with more people.

Even stupid people deserve to be educated... eh especially stupid people
deserve to be educated ...
Thanks,
  Gerard

On 25 July 2012 17:22, Michel Vuijlsteke  wrote:

> 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 answer is "Most people are stupid and don't *deserve* a better
> reading experience"… well, sum, yeah. There's that.
>
>
> > * Else If your answer is "Lets make it narrower for everyone (including
> us
> > WIMPs
> >   who *do* know how to use Windows Icons Menus and Pointers) whether they
> >   want to or not."   I KL YOU
> >
>
> It's not about making it "narrower". It's about making it *better*.
> Analogy: "Let's reduce the amount of words in the lede" <> "Let's make the
> lede better".
>
>
> > * Else If your answer is "better DTPishlayout control in CSS, including
> > some sane way to
> >   do proper columnated text": YES YES, 1000 TIMES YES!
> >
>
> Column layout on scrolling web pages doesn't make a lot of sense.
> Some additional "DTP-ish" layout control in CSS would be nice, sure, but
> that's not the point.
>
>
> > * Else If other: Ok, go ahead, I'm listening? :-)
> >
>
> Well, see points raised earlier. Making Wikipedia easier to read and use is
> not just mollycoddling lazy users who "should know better".
>
> Michel
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

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 and their community are.


Back to the article, its value is shown by puzzling truisms like this: 
«Facebook -- and Twitter, and Tumblr, and similar sites -- have built 
followings in part because of their exceedingly simple interfaces. They 
are intuitive and, thus, inviting».
Twitter is well known for being one of the websites with the most 
horrible interface ever, whose success relied on third party's apps – no 
need to comment.
Facebook has been proved to be used more by necessity and habit than by 
appreciation, because it has a very low (and decreasing) user 
satisfaction but almost a monopoly (so far): 
.
And frankly, user-friendly? I need more manuals etc. reading for 
Facebook than for our wikis, and I don't even use it.


Nemo

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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

[Deryck Chan]

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 few programmers and designers.
>
> On 25 July 2012 16:41, David Gerard  wrote:
>
> "I don't understand it, so it must be simple." This often turns out
> not to be the case.
>
> I realised both that it was an incredibly difficult problem, and that WMF
is really serious about getting on with it, when they decided to hire James
F. to take charge of the project.

Deryck
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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

[David Gerard]

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 few programmers and designers.


"I don't understand it, so it must be simple." This often turns out
not to be the case.


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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

[Deryck Chan]

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, Michel Vuijlsteke  wrote:

> 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 answer is "Most people are stupid and don't *deserve* a better
> reading experience"… well, sum, yeah. There's that.
>
>
> > * Else If your answer is "Lets make it narrower for everyone (including
> us
> > WIMPs
> >   who *do* know how to use Windows Icons Menus and Pointers) whether they
> >   want to or not."   I KL YOU
> >
>
> It's not about making it "narrower". It's about making it *better*.
> Analogy: "Let's reduce the amount of words in the lede" <> "Let's make the
> lede better".
>
>
> > * Else If your answer is "better DTPishlayout control in CSS, including
> > some sane way to
> >   do proper columnated text": YES YES, 1000 TIMES YES!
> >
>
> Column layout on scrolling web pages doesn't make a lot of sense.
> Some additional "DTP-ish" layout control in CSS would be nice, sure, but
> that's not the point.
>
>
> > * Else If other: Ok, go ahead, I'm listening? :-)
> >
>
> Well, see points raised earlier. Making Wikipedia easier to read and use is
> not just mollycoddling lazy users who "should know better".
>
> Michel
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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

[Michel Vuijlsteke]

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 answer is "Most people are stupid and don't *deserve* a better
reading experience"… well, sum, yeah. There's that.


> * Else If your answer is "Lets make it narrower for everyone (including us
> WIMPs
>   who *do* know how to use Windows Icons Menus and Pointers) whether they
>   want to or not."   I KL YOU
>

It's not about making it "narrower". It's about making it *better*.
Analogy: "Let's reduce the amount of words in the lede" <> "Let's make the
lede better".


> * Else If your answer is "better DTPishlayout control in CSS, including
> some sane way to
>   do proper columnated text": YES YES, 1000 TIMES YES!
>

Column layout on scrolling web pages doesn't make a lot of sense.
Some additional "DTP-ish" layout control in CSS would be nice, sure, but
that's not the point.


> * Else If other: Ok, go ahead, I'm listening? :-)
>

Well, see points raised earlier. Making Wikipedia easier to read and use is
not just mollycoddling lazy users who "should know better".

Michel
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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

[Kim Bruning]

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


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
* Else If your answer is "Lets make it narrower for everyone (including us 
WIMPs 
  who *do* know how to use Windows Icons Menus and Pointers) whether they
  want to or not."   I KL YOU
* Else If your answer is "better DTPishlayout control in CSS, including some 
sane way to
  do proper columnated text": YES YES, 1000 TIMES YES!
* Else If other: Ok, go ahead, I'm listening? :-)

sincerely,
Kim Bruning

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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

[Andreas Kolbe]

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-interface ideology,
> which does it by assuming users are unable to meaningfully control
> computers, and therefore must be fed the correct results by experts who
> know how to operate computers. That way lies just a different version of
> stratification.
>
> I'm somewhat partial to Jeannette Wing's view that "computational
> thinking" should attempt to decouple minutiae of programming (e.g. knowing
> how to debug C, which can be an expert skill) from the idea of being able
> to critically consider and control computers in the sense of executing
> processes (which needs to be widely available). The idea (as Ted Nelson
> also argued earlier) is to devolve as many tools as possible, to whatever
> extent possible, towards as many people as possible, which
> "user-friendliness" paradoxically doesn't really do (Lori Emerson has been
> pushing this argument, fwiw).
>
> How that precisely should operate on Wikipedia is a tricky question, of
> course. I would personally like to see us better enable the "potentially
> programming public", for one thing, where "programming" is taken in a broad
> sense.
>
> -Mark



Mark, you say "knowing how to debug C, which can be an expert skill" ... I
hope you are aware that about half of our overall global target audience
wouldn't even know what C is, let alone know how to write something in it
or debug it. I think I understand what you mean with user-friendliness
being potentially restrictive, and I have nothing against some advanced
functions being available to buffs: but that's really the bells and
whistles, which should come after the basics.

Take application software like MS Word – you can do all the basic stuff
just by clicking, and you don't need to know anything about programming
whatsoever. That's the basics. It's what any product that wants to survive
needs to offer. You *can* also program fairly involved macros in MS Word:
that's the bells and whistles. People who are into macro programming will
consider that a vital function, but 95% of Word users will probably never
program a macro in their lives. (If memory serves, later versions of Word
didn't even include the Developer tab with all the Visual Basic functions
in the default installation.)

User-friendliness that will make the programming-illiterate comfortable is
not a trap but an absolute must.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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

[Mark]

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 to meaningfully 
control computers, and therefore must be fed the correct results by 
experts who know how to operate computers. That way lies just a 
different version of stratification.


I'm somewhat partial to Jeannette Wing's view that "computational 
thinking" should attempt to decouple minutiae of programming (e.g. 
knowing how to debug C, which can be an expert skill) from the idea of 
being able to critically consider and control computers in the sense of 
executing processes (which needs to be widely available). The idea (as 
Ted Nelson also argued earlier) is to devolve as many tools as possible, 
to whatever extent possible, towards as many people as possible, which 
"user-friendliness" paradoxically doesn't really do (Lori Emerson has 
been pushing this argument, fwiw).


How that precisely should operate on Wikipedia is a tricky question, of 
course. I would personally like to see us better enable the "potentially 
programming public", for one thing, where "programming" is taken in a 
broad sense.


-Mark


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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

[geni]

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 direction of being a CMS.


> I honestly don't understand why it is taking so many years to develop a
> WYSIWYG editor, for example,

Because given current mediawiki markup it probably isn't possible even
in theory. Mediawiki markup with ParserFunctions installed is probably
Turing complete and wikipedians have taken advantage of is. As a
result trying to create an WYSIWYG editor that will interact with the
current article set is probably impossible. WYSIWYM may be a better
approach.


> or a new Commons search function.

That largely goes back to mediawiki not really being designed for image hosting.

However even if it wants image searching is a hard problem. Stock
photo agencies do better than most but thats because their
photographers have a direct financial incentive to make their pictures
findable. For any other images archive expect to do a lot of digging.
Of course for most people simply typing what you want pics of into
wikipedia is the best approach. For example typing "Sutton Hoo" into
wikipedia produces a pretty good set of images.

>Honestly,
> people, if you want to create paid jobs, don't inflate the chapter
> structure, but employ and pay a few programmers and designers.

Its more than a few I'm afraid . And in any case you've got the
problem that there isn't much of a pool of people who really know
their way around the mediawiki codebase.

-- 
geni

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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

[Andreas Kolbe]

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 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 few programmers and designers.
>
>
> I'm no great shakes as a programmer (in fact, I'm an exceptionally lazy
> programmer), but I know why it takes so long to develop a WYSIWYG editor:
> because doing it properly is actually kind of a hard problem. And as the
> Mythical Man Month points out, you can't just keep on adding programmers if
> you want it done faster. Software development teams don't actually scale
> that well.
>
> --
> Tom Morris
> 
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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

[Tom Morris]

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 and pay a few programmers and designers.


I'm no great shakes as a programmer (in fact, I'm an exceptionally lazy 
programmer), but I know why it takes so long to develop a WYSIWYG editor: 
because doing it properly is actually kind of a hard problem. And as the 
Mythical Man Month points out, you can't just keep on adding programmers if you 
want it done faster. Software development teams don't actually scale that well. 

-- 
Tom Morris




___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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

[Andreas Kolbe]

>
> > 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 up, and the
> > text flow gets messed up.
> >
> > Of course, ideally users shouldn't have to manually edit a .js file to
> > obtain this result. They should just have to click a button somewhere
> that
> > will do it for them. Editing .js files is clunky. It's like being back in
> > DOS days. A programmer may take something like that in his stride, but
> most
> > people in Wikimedia's target group will baulk at being asked to do
> > something like that, and resent it.
>
> If people generate some more CSS files to use with my little tool, it
> could be loaded by default. Might need some polishing, though.
>


Sounds great. And as we discussed, the Commons front end could really do
with work too.



> There's now a link in the toolbox where you can specify the CSS page
> you want in a dialog box; you can even make it "permanent" (no need
> for the URL parameter anymore).
>
> > In fact, I had to laugh the other day, when I read a Wikimedia
> demographic
> > survey. It literally said, "two-thirds of Wikipedia editors are not
> > programmers". What an odd way of phrasing that!
> >
> >
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AEditor_Survey_Report_-_April_2011.pdf&page=19
> >
> > Surely, the interesting fact here that most people would have reported is
> > the converse, i.e. that one-third of Wikipedia editors *are* programmers.
> > That's far more than in the general population, and a huge demographic
> > bias. In fact, the page says that "only" 36% can be classified as
> techies,
> > and that 39% of male editors can program and create their own
> applications
> > (vs. 18% of female editors).
> >
> > We need to be a lot friendlier to the non-programming public.
>
> I believe we can do a lot in pure CSS/JavaScript, today, not 2015.
> Backend support will, of course, always trump JS hacks in the long
> run, though.



Well, we have to start somewhere, even if it's an improvised solution. But
Wikimedia needs to pull its finger out at some point ... rather than
spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on new bureaucratic jobs,
creating an administrative gravy train to spend the public's donations, the
movement should invest in upgrading its interface, which is the most
visible and important part of what it does.

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 few programmers and designers.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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

[Magnus Manske]

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...) :
>>
>> importScript('MediaWiki:Live EriCSSon.js');
>>
>> Once that is done, you can use a URL parameter to use any Wikipedia
>> page with a CSS stylesheet.
>>
>> I also created a demo stylesheet called "explosion" (as in "exploded
>> view"), which, when used on top of vector on a wide (>1600px) screen,
>> uses a 900px central text column, with "floating" infoboxes,
>> thumbnails, and TOC on the side. With "Live EriCSSon", you can
>> test-drive the stylesheet, like so:
>>
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology?useCSS=User:Magnus_Manske/explosion.css
>>
>> And this is what it will look like:
>>
>>
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CSS_Stylesheet_explosion_demo_Biology.png
>>
>> All links to other wiki pages will automatically be extended with the
>> URL parameter, so you can browse Wikipedia with the stylesheet without
>> having to re-enter it on every page. Note that the original (vector)
>> stylesheet will initially show briefly on every page :-(
>>
>> If this is something people think useful, I'll add a way to select
>> from pre-defined stylesheet catalogs etc.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Magnus
>
>
>
> 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 up, and the
> text flow gets messed up.
>
> Of course, ideally users shouldn't have to manually edit a .js file to
> obtain this result. They should just have to click a button somewhere that
> will do it for them. Editing .js files is clunky. It's like being back in
> DOS days. A programmer may take something like that in his stride, but most
> people in Wikimedia's target group will baulk at being asked to do
> something like that, and resent it.

If people generate some more CSS files to use with my little tool, it
could be loaded by default. Might need some polishing, though.

There's now a link in the toolbox where you can specify the CSS page
you want in a dialog box; you can even make it "permanent" (no need
for the URL parameter anymore).

> In fact, I had to laugh the other day, when I read a Wikimedia demographic
> survey. It literally said, "two-thirds of Wikipedia editors are not
> programmers". What an odd way of phrasing that!
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AEditor_Survey_Report_-_April_2011.pdf&page=19
>
> Surely, the interesting fact here that most people would have reported is
> the converse, i.e. that one-third of Wikipedia editors *are* programmers.
> That's far more than in the general population, and a huge demographic
> bias. In fact, the page says that "only" 36% can be classified as techies,
> and that 39% of male editors can program and create their own applications
> (vs. 18% of female editors).
>
> We need to be a lot friendlier to the non-programming public.

I believe we can do a lot in pure CSS/JavaScript, today, not 2015.
Backend support will, of course, always trump JS hacks in the long
run, though.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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

[Andreas Kolbe]

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 is done, you can use a URL parameter to use any Wikipedia
> page with a CSS stylesheet.
>
> I also created a demo stylesheet called "explosion" (as in "exploded
> view"), which, when used on top of vector on a wide (>1600px) screen,
> uses a 900px central text column, with "floating" infoboxes,
> thumbnails, and TOC on the side. With "Live EriCSSon", you can
> test-drive the stylesheet, like so:
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology?useCSS=User:Magnus_Manske/explosion.css
>
> And this is what it will look like:
>
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CSS_Stylesheet_explosion_demo_Biology.png
>
> All links to other wiki pages will automatically be extended with the
> URL parameter, so you can browse Wikipedia with the stylesheet without
> having to re-enter it on every page. Note that the original (vector)
> stylesheet will initially show briefly on every page :-(
>
> If this is something people think useful, I'll add a way to select
> from pre-defined stylesheet catalogs etc.
>
> Cheers,
> Magnus



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 up, and the
text flow gets messed up.

Of course, ideally users shouldn't have to manually edit a .js file to
obtain this result. They should just have to click a button somewhere that
will do it for them. Editing .js files is clunky. It's like being back in
DOS days. A programmer may take something like that in his stride, but most
people in Wikimedia's target group will baulk at being asked to do
something like that, and resent it.

In fact, I had to laugh the other day, when I read a Wikimedia demographic
survey. It literally said, "two-thirds of Wikipedia editors are not
programmers". What an odd way of phrasing that!

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AEditor_Survey_Report_-_April_2011.pdf&page=19

Surely, the interesting fact here that most people would have reported is
the converse, i.e. that one-third of Wikipedia editors *are* programmers.
That's far more than in the general population, and a huge demographic
bias. In fact, the page says that "only" 36% can be classified as techies,
and that 39% of male editors can program and create their own applications
(vs. 18% of female editors).

We need to be a lot friendlier to the non-programming public.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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

[Magnus Manske]

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 CSS stylesheet.

I also created a demo stylesheet called "explosion" (as in "exploded
view"), which, when used on top of vector on a wide (>1600px) screen,
uses a 900px central text column, with "floating" infoboxes,
thumbnails, and TOC on the side. With "Live EriCSSon", you can
test-drive the stylesheet, like so:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology?useCSS=User:Magnus_Manske/explosion.css

And this is what it will look like:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CSS_Stylesheet_explosion_demo_Biology.png

All links to other wiki pages will automatically be extended with the
URL parameter, so you can browse Wikipedia with the stylesheet without
having to re-enter it on every page. Note that the original (vector)
stylesheet will initially show briefly on every page :-(

If this is something people think useful, I'll add a way to select
from pre-defined stylesheet catalogs etc.

Cheers,
Magnus

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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

[Michel Vuijlsteke]

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 talented designers,
> where
> > I can point and click to install the one I like in less than a minute.
> >
> > Something ... you know ... user-friendly, for non-programmers.
>
>
> You appear to be confused as to what open software is all about.
>
> In any case the need to fit around the stuff Wikipedians put in
> articles limits the amount of customisation that is possible in a
> practical skin.


And this is exactly why the Foundation should tackle this issue. And have
it done by people who know what they're doing -- typographers,
newspaper/magazine designers, information architects, whatever it takes.

The possible benefits are huge. A better reading experience and better
reader comprehension alone would be worth it, but a better layout can also
lead to more interaction, more editors, and ultimately better and more
content.

Making Wikipedia easier to read is a problem many orders of magnitude
simpler and cheaper than writing a new parser or making media uploads
easier.

There are people around the world who do this for a living, I can't see why
some budget could not be set aside for it.

Michel
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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

[Gerard Meijssen]

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:
>
> > 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
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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

[geni]

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 install the one I like in less than a minute.
>
> Something ... you know ... user-friendly, for non-programmers.


You appear to be confused as to what open software is all about.

In any case the need to fit around the stuff Wikipedians put in
articles limits the amount of customisation that is possible in a
practical skin.


-- 
geni

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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

[Andreas Kolbe]

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 sort of thing open
> > software is about.
>
> err monobook.css and monobook.js or whatever they are called these days.
>


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 install the one I like in less than a minute.

Something ... you know ... user-friendly, for non-programmers.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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

[geni]

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.css and monobook.js or whatever they are called these days.


-- 
geni

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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

[John Vandenberg]

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
> http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia:Email_disclaimer
> Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk
>
>
>
> On 14 July 2012 19:24, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
> > 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 bells and whistles
> > for your browser.
> >
> > Commons is another project that has a very clunky look. I mean, look at
> > that main page. This is an image hosting project, for Christ's sake. I
> > discussed this with Magnus Manske a few weeks ago at a meet-up, and he
> > showed me how Flickr offers people ways to explore their new content,
> like
> > this for example, showcasing recent uploads:
> >
> > http://www.flickr.com/explore/interesting/7days/
> > http://www.flickr.com/explore/interesting/2012/07/
> >
> > Here is Pinterest, which also has a real-time format visualising a flow
> of
> > images:
> >
> > http://pinterest.com/
> >
> > These sites are beautiful to look at. If Commons were properly designed,
> > its front end would not have hundreds of text hyperlinks, but would show
> > off its new images.
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 11:42 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke  > >wrote:
> >
> > > 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 window size very gracefully without
> > > > taking the cop-out of forcing all the content to run down the center
> > > > of the page in a fixed size.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Okay, "ugly" was a poor choice of words. Ugly is subjective.
> > >
> > > Bad typography and poor layout objectively hinders readers. It slows
> > > reading speed and reduces comprehension -- not in some vague "well
> yeah,
> > > that's your word against mine" way, but in an objectively
> scientifically
> > > measurable way.
> > >
> > > What Wikipedia does is not really "adapting gracefully". It's adding a
> > > padding of 1.5em to the left and right of a block of text that spans
> the
> > > entire width of any available window (minus the 11em of the left
> panel).
> > >
> > > There's a limit to the amount of text you can put on a line before it
> > > becomes hard to read.
> > >
> > > What you're calling a "cop-out" is not a cop-out at all. The ads, well,
> > > they need to be there for The Atlantic to be able to pay the bills, but
> > > increasing the number of characters per line in the text column would
> > *not*
> > > make the better. To the contrary: the amount of words per line is about
> > > just right. Here, take the test yourself.
> > >
> > > This is the article in Wikipedia layout: http://imgur.com/xinFW
> > > This is the article as seen on The Atlantic: http://imgur.com/WH1WT
> > > And this is the article run through Evernote Clearly:
> > > http://imgur.com/sH3HJ
> > >
> > > Anyone can see, I hope, that the Clearly (http://evernote.com/clearly/
> )
> > > version is by far the easiest and most comfortable to read. Bigger
> font.
> > *
> > > Different* font. Contrast less harsh. Fewer characters per line.
> Margins.
> > > Leading. Kerning.
> > >
> > > It's almost funny there's no article about macrotypography on
> Wikipedia.
> > :)
> > >
> > > Michel
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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

[Andreas Kolbe]

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 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 of
> > the en.wikipedia community and it will change it when it is ready and
> > not before. Try the ang.wikipedia.org instead.
> >
>
> Ah, erm... *interesting* choice of design choices on ang.wikipedia.org. :)
>
> Of course, design by committee (and a fortiori by community) doesn't really
> work. Would it not be possible for at least a style guide to be agreed
> upon? A couple of good fonts to be licensed? A showcase wiki to be set up?
>
> Another annoying aspect of the lack of good graphic design / typography, I
> think, is that the presentation side of things is being taken care of by
> third parties (I like http://sophiestication.com/articles/ipad.html,
> http://www.wikiwebapp.com/ was in the news this week) -- and that they''re
> not at all interested in the editing/adding content side of Wikipedia.
>
> Michel
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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

[Michel Vuijlsteke]

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 of
> the en.wikipedia community and it will change it when it is ready and
> not before. Try the ang.wikipedia.org instead.
>

Ah, erm... *interesting* choice of design choices on ang.wikipedia.org. :)

Of course, design by committee (and a fortiori by community) doesn't really
work. Would it not be possible for at least a style guide to be agreed
upon? A couple of good fonts to be licensed? A showcase wiki to be set up?

Another annoying aspect of the lack of good graphic design / typography, I
think, is that the presentation side of things is being taken care of by
third parties (I like http://sophiestication.com/articles/ipad.html,
http://www.wikiwebapp.com/ was in the news this week) -- and that they''re
not at all interested in the editing/adding content side of Wikipedia.

Michel
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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

[geni]

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 it when it is ready and
not before. Try the ang.wikipedia.org instead.

Common on the other hand is pretty much a lost cause pending a major
rewrite of mediawiki to allow it to act as a more conventional form of
image hosting software.

-- 
geni

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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

[Brandon Harris]

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


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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

[Richard Symonds]

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 19:53, Michel Vuijlsteke  wrote:

> (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 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  wrote:
> >>
> >> > 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 bells and
> >> whistles
> >> > for your browser.
> >> >
> >> > Commons is another project that has a very clunky look. I mean, look
> at
> >> > that main page. This is an image hosting project, for Christ's sake. I
> >> > discussed this with Magnus Manske a few weeks ago at a meet-up, and he
> >> > showed me how Flickr offers people ways to explore their new content,
> >> like
> >> > this for example, showcasing recent uploads:
> >> >
> >> > http://www.flickr.com/explore/interesting/7days/
> >> > http://www.flickr.com/explore/interesting/2012/07/
> >> >
> >> > Here is Pinterest, which also has a real-time format visualising a
> flow
> >> of
> >> > images:
> >> >
> >> > http://pinterest.com/
> >> >
> >> > These sites are beautiful to look at. If Commons were properly
> designed,
> >> > its front end would not have hundreds of text hyperlinks, but would
> show
> >> > off its new images.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 11:42 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke <
> wikipe...@zog.org
> >> > >wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > 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 window size very gracefully
> without
> >> > > > taking the cop-out of forcing all the content to run down the
> center
> >> > > > of the page in a fixed size.
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Okay, "ugly" was a poor choice of words. Ugly is subjective.
> >> > >
> >> > > Bad typography and poor layout objectively hinders readers. It slows
> >> > > reading speed and reduces comprehension -- not in some vague "well
> >> yeah,
> >> > > that's your word against mine" way, but in an objectively
> >> scientifically
> >> > > measurable way.
> >> > >
> >> > > What Wikipedia does is not really "adapting gracefully". It's
> adding a
> >> > > padding of 1.5em to the left and right of a block of text that spans
> >> the
> >> > > entire width of any available window (minus the 11em of the left
> >> panel).
> >> > >
> >> > > There's a limit to the amount of text you can put on a line before
> it
> >> > > becomes hard to read.
> >> > >
> >> > > What you're calling a "cop-out" is not a cop-out at all. The ads,
> >> well,
> >> > > they need to be there for The Atlantic to be able to pay the bills,
> >> but
> >> > > increasing the number of characters per line in the text column
> would
> >> > *not*
> >> > > make the better. To the contrary: the amount of words per line is
> >> about
> >> > > just right. Here, take the test yourself.
> >> > >
> >> > > This is the article in Wikipedia layout: http://imgur.com/xinFW
> >> > > This is the article as seen on The Atlantic: http://imgur.com/WH1WT
> >> > > And this is the article run through Evernote Clearly:
> >> > > http://imgur.com/sH3HJ
> >> > >
> >> > > Anyone can see, I hope, that the Clearly (
> >> http://evernote.com/clearly/)
> >> > > version is by far the easiest and most comfortable to read. Bigger
> >> font.
> >> > *
> >> > > Different* font. Contrast less harsh. Fewer characters per line.
> >> Margins.
> >> > > Leading. Kerning.
> >> > >
> >> > > It's almost funny there's no article about macrotypography on
> >> Wikipedia.
> >> > :)
> >> > >
> >> > > Michel
> >> > > ___
> >> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> >> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >> > >
> >> > ___

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

[Michel Vuijlsteke]

(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 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  wrote:
>>
>> > 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 bells and
>> whistles
>> > for your browser.
>> >
>> > Commons is another project that has a very clunky look. I mean, look at
>> > that main page. This is an image hosting project, for Christ's sake. I
>> > discussed this with Magnus Manske a few weeks ago at a meet-up, and he
>> > showed me how Flickr offers people ways to explore their new content,
>> like
>> > this for example, showcasing recent uploads:
>> >
>> > http://www.flickr.com/explore/interesting/7days/
>> > http://www.flickr.com/explore/interesting/2012/07/
>> >
>> > Here is Pinterest, which also has a real-time format visualising a flow
>> of
>> > images:
>> >
>> > http://pinterest.com/
>> >
>> > These sites are beautiful to look at. If Commons were properly designed,
>> > its front end would not have hundreds of text hyperlinks, but would show
>> > off its new images.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 11:42 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke > > >wrote:
>> >
>> > > 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 window size very gracefully without
>> > > > taking the cop-out of forcing all the content to run down the center
>> > > > of the page in a fixed size.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > Okay, "ugly" was a poor choice of words. Ugly is subjective.
>> > >
>> > > Bad typography and poor layout objectively hinders readers. It slows
>> > > reading speed and reduces comprehension -- not in some vague "well
>> yeah,
>> > > that's your word against mine" way, but in an objectively
>> scientifically
>> > > measurable way.
>> > >
>> > > What Wikipedia does is not really "adapting gracefully". It's adding a
>> > > padding of 1.5em to the left and right of a block of text that spans
>> the
>> > > entire width of any available window (minus the 11em of the left
>> panel).
>> > >
>> > > There's a limit to the amount of text you can put on a line before it
>> > > becomes hard to read.
>> > >
>> > > What you're calling a "cop-out" is not a cop-out at all. The ads,
>> well,
>> > > they need to be there for The Atlantic to be able to pay the bills,
>> but
>> > > increasing the number of characters per line in the text column would
>> > *not*
>> > > make the better. To the contrary: the amount of words per line is
>> about
>> > > just right. Here, take the test yourself.
>> > >
>> > > This is the article in Wikipedia layout: http://imgur.com/xinFW
>> > > This is the article as seen on The Atlantic: http://imgur.com/WH1WT
>> > > And this is the article run through Evernote Clearly:
>> > > http://imgur.com/sH3HJ
>> > >
>> > > Anyone can see, I hope, that the Clearly (
>> http://evernote.com/clearly/)
>> > > version is by far the easiest and most comfortable to read. Bigger
>> font.
>> > *
>> > > Different* font. Contrast less harsh. Fewer characters per line.
>> Margins.
>> > > Leading. Kerning.
>> > >
>> > > It's almost funny there's no article about macrotypography on
>> Wikipedia.
>> > :)
>> > >
>> > > Michel
>> > > ___
>> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>> > >
>> > ___
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>> >
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>>
>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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

[Michel Vuijlsteke]

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.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia:Email_disclaimer
> Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk
>
>
>
> On 14 July 2012 19:24, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
> > 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 bells and whistles
> > for your browser.
> >
> > Commons is another project that has a very clunky look. I mean, look at
> > that main page. This is an image hosting project, for Christ's sake. I
> > discussed this with Magnus Manske a few weeks ago at a meet-up, and he
> > showed me how Flickr offers people ways to explore their new content,
> like
> > this for example, showcasing recent uploads:
> >
> > http://www.flickr.com/explore/interesting/7days/
> > http://www.flickr.com/explore/interesting/2012/07/
> >
> > Here is Pinterest, which also has a real-time format visualising a flow
> of
> > images:
> >
> > http://pinterest.com/
> >
> > These sites are beautiful to look at. If Commons were properly designed,
> > its front end would not have hundreds of text hyperlinks, but would show
> > off its new images.
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 11:42 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke  > >wrote:
> >
> > > 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 window size very gracefully without
> > > > taking the cop-out of forcing all the content to run down the center
> > > > of the page in a fixed size.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Okay, "ugly" was a poor choice of words. Ugly is subjective.
> > >
> > > Bad typography and poor layout objectively hinders readers. It slows
> > > reading speed and reduces comprehension -- not in some vague "well
> yeah,
> > > that's your word against mine" way, but in an objectively
> scientifically
> > > measurable way.
> > >
> > > What Wikipedia does is not really "adapting gracefully". It's adding a
> > > padding of 1.5em to the left and right of a block of text that spans
> the
> > > entire width of any available window (minus the 11em of the left
> panel).
> > >
> > > There's a limit to the amount of text you can put on a line before it
> > > becomes hard to read.
> > >
> > > What you're calling a "cop-out" is not a cop-out at all. The ads, well,
> > > they need to be there for The Atlantic to be able to pay the bills, but
> > > increasing the number of characters per line in the text column would
> > *not*
> > > make the better. To the contrary: the amount of words per line is about
> > > just right. Here, take the test yourself.
> > >
> > > This is the article in Wikipedia layout: http://imgur.com/xinFW
> > > This is the article as seen on The Atlantic: http://imgur.com/WH1WT
> > > And this is the article run through Evernote Clearly:
> > > http://imgur.com/sH3HJ
> > >
> > > Anyone can see, I hope, that the Clearly (http://evernote.com/clearly/
> )
> > > version is by far the easiest and most comfortable to read. Bigger
> font.
> > *
> > > Different* font. Contrast less harsh. Fewer characters per line.
> Margins.
> > > Leading. Kerning.
> > >
> > > It's almost funny there's no article about macrotypography on
> Wikipedia.
> > :)
> > >
> > > Michel
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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

[Richard Symonds]

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  wrote:

> 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 bells and whistles
> for your browser.
>
> Commons is another project that has a very clunky look. I mean, look at
> that main page. This is an image hosting project, for Christ's sake. I
> discussed this with Magnus Manske a few weeks ago at a meet-up, and he
> showed me how Flickr offers people ways to explore their new content, like
> this for example, showcasing recent uploads:
>
> http://www.flickr.com/explore/interesting/7days/
> http://www.flickr.com/explore/interesting/2012/07/
>
> Here is Pinterest, which also has a real-time format visualising a flow of
> images:
>
> http://pinterest.com/
>
> These sites are beautiful to look at. If Commons were properly designed,
> its front end would not have hundreds of text hyperlinks, but would show
> off its new images.
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 11:42 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke  >wrote:
>
> > 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 window size very gracefully without
> > > taking the cop-out of forcing all the content to run down the center
> > > of the page in a fixed size.
> > >
> >
> > Okay, "ugly" was a poor choice of words. Ugly is subjective.
> >
> > Bad typography and poor layout objectively hinders readers. It slows
> > reading speed and reduces comprehension -- not in some vague "well yeah,
> > that's your word against mine" way, but in an objectively scientifically
> > measurable way.
> >
> > What Wikipedia does is not really "adapting gracefully". It's adding a
> > padding of 1.5em to the left and right of a block of text that spans the
> > entire width of any available window (minus the 11em of the left panel).
> >
> > There's a limit to the amount of text you can put on a line before it
> > becomes hard to read.
> >
> > What you're calling a "cop-out" is not a cop-out at all. The ads, well,
> > they need to be there for The Atlantic to be able to pay the bills, but
> > increasing the number of characters per line in the text column would
> *not*
> > make the better. To the contrary: the amount of words per line is about
> > just right. Here, take the test yourself.
> >
> > This is the article in Wikipedia layout: http://imgur.com/xinFW
> > This is the article as seen on The Atlantic: http://imgur.com/WH1WT
> > And this is the article run through Evernote Clearly:
> > http://imgur.com/sH3HJ
> >
> > Anyone can see, I hope, that the Clearly (http://evernote.com/clearly/)
> > version is by far the easiest and most comfortable to read. Bigger font.
> *
> > Different* font. Contrast less harsh. Fewer characters per line. Margins.
> > Leading. Kerning.
> >
> > It's almost funny there's no article about macrotypography on Wikipedia.
> :)
> >
> > Michel
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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

[Andreas Kolbe]

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 bells and whistles
for your browser.

Commons is another project that has a very clunky look. I mean, look at
that main page. This is an image hosting project, for Christ's sake. I
discussed this with Magnus Manske a few weeks ago at a meet-up, and he
showed me how Flickr offers people ways to explore their new content, like
this for example, showcasing recent uploads:

http://www.flickr.com/explore/interesting/7days/
http://www.flickr.com/explore/interesting/2012/07/

Here is Pinterest, which also has a real-time format visualising a flow of
images:

http://pinterest.com/

These sites are beautiful to look at. If Commons were properly designed,
its front end would not have hundreds of text hyperlinks, but would show
off its new images.


On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 11:42 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke wrote:

> 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 window size very gracefully without
> > taking the cop-out of forcing all the content to run down the center
> > of the page in a fixed size.
> >
>
> Okay, "ugly" was a poor choice of words. Ugly is subjective.
>
> Bad typography and poor layout objectively hinders readers. It slows
> reading speed and reduces comprehension -- not in some vague "well yeah,
> that's your word against mine" way, but in an objectively scientifically
> measurable way.
>
> What Wikipedia does is not really "adapting gracefully". It's adding a
> padding of 1.5em to the left and right of a block of text that spans the
> entire width of any available window (minus the 11em of the left panel).
>
> There's a limit to the amount of text you can put on a line before it
> becomes hard to read.
>
> What you're calling a "cop-out" is not a cop-out at all. The ads, well,
> they need to be there for The Atlantic to be able to pay the bills, but
> increasing the number of characters per line in the text column would *not*
> make the better. To the contrary: the amount of words per line is about
> just right. Here, take the test yourself.
>
> This is the article in Wikipedia layout: http://imgur.com/xinFW
> This is the article as seen on The Atlantic: http://imgur.com/WH1WT
> And this is the article run through Evernote Clearly:
> http://imgur.com/sH3HJ
>
> Anyone can see, I hope, that the Clearly (http://evernote.com/clearly/)
> version is by far the easiest and most comfortable to read. Bigger font. *
> Different* font. Contrast less harsh. Fewer characters per line. Margins.
> Leading. Kerning.
>
> It's almost funny there's no article about macrotypography on Wikipedia. :)
>
> Michel
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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

[Michel Vuijlsteke]

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 window size very gracefully without
> taking the cop-out of forcing all the content to run down the center
> of the page in a fixed size.
>

Okay, "ugly" was a poor choice of words. Ugly is subjective.

Bad typography and poor layout objectively hinders readers. It slows
reading speed and reduces comprehension -- not in some vague "well yeah,
that's your word against mine" way, but in an objectively scientifically
measurable way.

What Wikipedia does is not really "adapting gracefully". It's adding a
padding of 1.5em to the left and right of a block of text that spans the
entire width of any available window (minus the 11em of the left panel).

There's a limit to the amount of text you can put on a line before it
becomes hard to read.

What you're calling a "cop-out" is not a cop-out at all. The ads, well,
they need to be there for The Atlantic to be able to pay the bills, but
increasing the number of characters per line in the text column would *not*
make the better. To the contrary: the amount of words per line is about
just right. Here, take the test yourself.

This is the article in Wikipedia layout: http://imgur.com/xinFW
This is the article as seen on The Atlantic: http://imgur.com/WH1WT
And this is the article run through Evernote Clearly: http://imgur.com/sH3HJ

Anyone can see, I hope, that the Clearly (http://evernote.com/clearly/)
version is by far the easiest and most comfortable to read. Bigger font. *
Different* font. Contrast less harsh. Fewer characters per line. Margins.
Leading. Kerning.

It's almost funny there's no article about macrotypography on Wikipedia. :)

Michel
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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

[David Richfield]

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 forcing all the content to run down the center
of the page in a fixed size. In fact,
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/07/on-the-ugliness-of-wikipedia/259747/
wastes half the page real-estate on my browser, and with the river of
content that's left in the middle, what does it do?  It reserves about
a third of it for ads.  Quite horrible really.

-- 
David Richfield
[[:User:Slashme]]

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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

[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:
> 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 "specialized"
> topic?

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
typeface.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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

[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
>> view.
>
> 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
examples.

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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

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 by
User:Mono25.

Thanks,
Mike



Oops, indeed, I failed to get the whole history. Sorry for that.

But this only reinforces my point, as Meno25 is a native speaker of 
Arabic.


Cheers
Yaroslav

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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

[Michael Peel]

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


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

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 
"specialized"

topic?

Kirill


This is actually a very good example. The article was started by Dr. 
Blofield who is widely known as geostub creator. I am not going to 
discuss now whether mass creation of geostubs is good or not (this is a 
separate issue where people sometimes express strong opinions), but the 
fact is that most of his articles remain two-line stubs for years unil 
(if ever) they attract somebody's attention. Most of my own activity on 
English Wikipedia is about writing and expanding geoarticles related to 
Russia. In particular, in 2010 Dr. Blofield created one-line stubs of 
all districts of Russia (over a thousand). Those which Ezhiki and me 
worked on are in a relatively good shape, others are just waiting for us 
- it can easily take a decade until this work has been completed. But 
both Ezhiki and I are native Russian speakers and have interest in the 
subject - and in a sense this is a special skill. There is much more 
things to do in English Wikipedia for me, a Russin native speaker, a 
speaker of several other languages, an academic, somebody with a broad 
range of interests - than for a teenager who does not have any special 
skills but feels underappreciated and needs attention. And there are 
many more underappreciated teenagers around than people with my profile.


Returning to Izbat_Al_Burj article - usually a 4Mth article would get 
an enormous attention and a huge number of hits. The fact that it is 
only three paragraphs long at the time I am writing this means - I guess 
- that all information easily available in English is scarce and is 
still there. We are waiting either for a native Arabic speaker with 
access to Arabic literature, or someone who by chance has skiils in 
history, in climatology, in human geography of Egypt - in case there is 
smth special about this city which is not yet in the article. And all 
this, including knowledge of Arabic, I would call special skills.


Cheers
Yaroslav

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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

[Kirill Lokshin]

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:
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 "specialized"
topic?

Kirill
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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

[Michel Vuijlsteke]

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, 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.)

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.

Michel Vuijlsteke
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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

[Delirium]

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 the way the site looks."



I've run into this also, but I suspect part of it is self-referential: 
Wikipedia looks like a default install of MediaWiki, and therefore looks 
like many half-assed/uncustomized MediaWiki installs out there. But 
that's because we are (close to) a default install of MediaWiki! Or 
rather, the reverse: the default MediaWiki skin was borrowed from the 
one designed for Wikimedia sites.


I wonder if we'd gain a modest boost in perceptions of our design if we 
just made sure the skin used on Wikimedia sites, and the default skin 
shipped with MediaWiki, were fairly dissimilar in style.


-Mark


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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

[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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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

[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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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

[Svip]

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, and it's most emphatically something that does
> need to be tackled.

How?  I don't know what the quote means.  What in particular is the
problem with Wikipedia?  The tabs?  The lack of images?  The font?

Most people I talk to, who do not edit Wikipedia, are not doing it
because they are scared away by lack of user friendliness, they simply
have no interest in editing it.  There are a horde of reasons, out
there, but none of them are anything you can fix with Wikipedia's
mission and structure.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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

[Svip]

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 networking service".

That may be right, but that is probably also how it should be.  I
don't mind the fact that Wikipedia is the only top 10 website (in
terms of visitors), that has not adopted Web 2.0.  And hell, if you
look at other information gathering sites, like archive.org, then
Wikipedia is miles ahead in terms of appearance.

I do not think it is fair to call Wikipedia Geocities-esque, because
it is way beyond that.  That or she cannot remember how Geocities
website looked like.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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

[Svip]

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 *interface*, which is a more general
> concept. If there's anything that can be done to increase meaningful
> participation by making the interface simpler to use or
> better-looking, then why should we not do that? Because we'd rather be
> left alone in our own tech-savvy we-know-what's-good-for-you bubble?
> Having a simpler, more user-friendly interface doesn't change us into
> Facebook overnight. And if it increases actual participation, then I'd
> be in favor of it.

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.  Most new articles
are either new stuff happening or specialisations.  I don't think an
interface change is going to change that.  I think the crisis
regarding editor participation is overblown.

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

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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

[Audrey Abeyta]

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, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Gerard Meijssen
wrote:

> 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 screen
> of a laptop.
>
> 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.
> Thanks,
>   Gerard
>
> On 14 July 2012 17:14, Milos Rancic  wrote:
>
> > 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 interface simpler to use or
> > > better-looking, then why should we not do that? Because we'd rather be
> > > left alone in our own tech-savvy we-know-what's-good-for-you bubble?
> > > Having a simpler, more user-friendly interface doesn't change us into
> > > Facebook overnight. And if it increases actual participation, then I'd
> > > be in favor of it.
> >
> > 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 networking service".
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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

[Gerard Meijssen]

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 screen
of a laptop.

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.
Thanks,
  Gerard

On 14 July 2012 17:14, Milos Rancic  wrote:

> 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 interface simpler to use or
> > better-looking, then why should we not do that? Because we'd rather be
> > left alone in our own tech-savvy we-know-what's-good-for-you bubble?
> > Having a simpler, more user-friendly interface doesn't change us into
> > Facebook overnight. And if it increases actual participation, then I'd
> > be in favor of it.
>
> 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 networking service".
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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

[Michel Vuijlsteke]

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 they are talking about.
>
> Person of ignorance in question:
>
> http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/07/on-the-ugliness-of-wikipedia/259747/


I love it too, when people who have no idea what they're talking about
pretend to know what they are talking about.

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, and it's most emphatically something that does
need to be tackled.

Michel Vuijlsteke
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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

[Milos Rancic]

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 interface simpler to use or
> better-looking, then why should we not do that? Because we'd rather be
> left alone in our own tech-savvy we-know-what's-good-for-you bubble?
> Having a simpler, more user-friendly interface doesn't change us into
> Facebook overnight. And if it increases actual participation, then I'd
> be in favor of it.

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 networking service".

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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

[Paul Becherer]

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.
>
> Person of ignorance in question:
> http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/07/on-the-ugliness-of-wikipedia/259747/
>
> 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
> images.
>
> 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.
>
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 interface simpler to use or
better-looking, then why should we not do that? Because we'd rather be
left alone in our own tech-savvy we-know-what's-good-for-you bubble?
Having a simpler, more user-friendly interface doesn't change us into
Facebook overnight. And if it increases actual participation, then I'd
be in favor of it.

Paul Becherer.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l