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 <mill...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Paul Becherer <p...@wmnederland.nl>
> wrote:
> > The article was an interesting read, and wasn't just about layout; it
> > had more to say more about *interface*, which is a more general
> > concept. If there's anything that can be done to increase meaningful
> > participation by 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
