On 8/8/12 6:07 PM, Victor Grigas wrote:
Labas!
The designers should post mock-ups of their work here if they are serious
about making a change:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:2012_main_page_redesign_proposal
And that is after we pay them lots of money to do the redesign for "us" ;)
Labas!
My 2 cents:
Overall the team at http://www.newisnew.lt/lt have some very good ideas to
share, however:
If you are colorblind, the rainbow thing wont make any sense, and I
strongly dislike the idea of burying smaller languages under a mouse. I
think that Lithuanians (this re-design has bee
Perfectly sound remarks, Amir.
I would be a little bit more lenient about their grades. The problems
linked to this proposal are smaller than the achievements.
One could consider the "W" an abbreviation of "Wikimedia", or take
"WM". WM Commons, WM Source, WM News, WM Wikipedia. If in your
language
Dear all,
our department for education and knowledge is looking for a contact
person in Latvia or Lithuania who is active within the field of
"Wikipedia and Education". We are planning a Wikipedia workshop with a
German partner organisation there and would be glad to find someone to
share experien
Things I would change, I think that all pages have to have the main objective
of the Movement, and a comprehension of the project is part of something
bigger.
And this proposed segmentation is archaic, there are several items that fit
into more than one segment, and knowledge should not be typifie
On 8 August 2012 09:06, Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
> In the Hebrew Wikipedia the "View
> history" tab is called "Previous versions", which makes a lot more
> sense.)
That would be an *excellent* thing to do in MediaWiki in general.
- d.
___
Wikimedia-l
I think they would consider it a vast improvement over what we have, and a
10-year leap forward. :) So, all I can say is: Yes, please, Brandon.
However, the Signpost Op-Ed contains one statement I can't let pass without
comment:
"... featured articles are so good precisely because they are edited
2012/8/8 Michel Vuijlsteke
>
> Well, it's certainly a possible starting point for discussion:
> http://www.wikipediaredefined.com/
TL;DR:
* It's so-so for a mid-term design school project: It shows that they
can draw mock-ups, but I doubt that they would get high grades for
typography, logo desig
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 11:47 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke wrote:
> Well, it's certainly a possible starting point for discussion:
> http://www.wikipediaredefined.com/
Yes, interesting.
I asked them about whether they intend to keep it "teling us" instead
of "discussing it" (no email list but an email),
