Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-07-16/News and notes
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Carrite in topic Discuss this story
Discuss this story
re: Wikiweb, I just wish someone would design an app meant for editing Wikipedia. It's an absolute pain on my iPad, and I shudder to think what it must be like on a smartphone. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 11:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- I believe that the devs are currently developing just that. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 11:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- It's almost completely impossible on an iPhone- there's no easy way to scroll the editing window down, and it tends to scroll back to the top at the slightest mis-touch. --PresN 14:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Also RE: Wikiweb, according to the website linked above, the app was developed and released by Friends Of The Web, not Apple. —DoRD (talk) 12:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for the comment. I've corrected this. There was confusion over "released" when it is currently in the Apple Store. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 13:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hasn't Gibraltar been the subject of nationalist edit wars between English and Spanish editors? Not that that would cause problems with the QR codes, but is there a connection? 75.166.200.250 (talk) 18:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- It's quite interesting how it is proposed to turn Wikipedia into a social media mesh. Obviously the foundation should review the Wikipedia principles and take into mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedy. If the Mediawiki would be turned into some kind of Facebook 2.0 I fear that more serious writers are out than new readers in. --Matthiasb (talk) 05:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
That Atlantic article about the "Ugliness of Wikipedia" has been comprehensively trashed in its comments section as a load of cobblers and its author as an ignorant sensationalist. "Empirical truth" indeed!. It's particularly amusing given how ugly Atlantic is. Why it should have "sparked" anything is rather tragic. Leave this site as it is, rather than tinkering. It works fine. Ericoides (talk) 05:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Is Sue Gardner single-handedly out to ruin to the reputation of Wikipedia? First she practically spearheads an effort that ends up getting to think the Wikipedia is sexist and exclusive towards women, even though it turned out not to be true. Now she's talking about the "ugliness" of Wikipedia as if it were a God-given truth. Wikipedia's style is quite nice looking and acceptable, why is she pandering to some obscure viewpoint about its looks that could give Wikipedia another black eye? She should resign. She doesn't understand Wikipedia deeply enough. As if to prove that comment, she says in the same article that, "Our top goal [at Wikipedia] is to increase the number of people who edit". NO! No it's not! Our top goal is to build a great encyclopedia. Jason Quinn (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- While Wikimedia (not Wikipedia) tends to follow the strategic plan quite closely. 3 out of 5 goals in that plan are getting more people to edit/keeping existing people editing (Even the improve quality goal is very much framed in terms of more editors). Hence foundation seems to be very pre-occupied with editor retension goals. (Personally I think this comes across a lot in which things the paid devs focus on). Bawolff (talk) 19:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- I followed, and partly participated in, the discussion on the development of the Strategic Plan. Already back then I saw indications that convince me the WMF is simply too large and has become a bureaucracy focused on self-preservation. The idea that revenue could decrease is no longer a viable option for WMF. This is why the emphasis on growth and expansion is so strong. It is also why the notion that "editor decline" has been caused by the maturation of the Encyclopedia itself has been understudied, if not ignored. The WMF has to find things to do otherwise there's no future projects with which to lure donors. Items like the WYSISYG editor and the AFT tools are pushed so hard because they satisfy donors like the Stanton Foundation, which explains the lack of community involvement and the lack of proper response to AFT feedback: it doesn't matter if they are good or bad ideas now, it only matters that they are implemented. I can easily see Ms. Gardner having slides for prospective donor presentations bemoaning the "ugly" design of Wikipedia and how it will require X dollars of donations to research a new one. Common sense has left the building in the way WMF interacts with the Encyclopedia a long time ago. The almighty dollar and political correctness typical of large bureaucracies, as with the WMF comments that there was a "sexist" "anti-female" editor environment that later turned into a red herring, drives much of the thinking now. The idea that our interface is somehow exclusive of new editors has become the poster boy of the last few years. The funny thing is that I'm not opposed to the ideas and sometimes think they should be tried (like with the WYSIWYG editor). It's just that I prefer the process think of them as experiments worth testing rather than foregone improvements. It's the WMF attitude and unilateral approach I am complaining against. Jason Quinn (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- I don't edit much anymore. But I still read a bit, and WP has really declined as far as reading goes. Stephen Gough is in the news, so I went to check out the article. It received a few edits because of recent media attention, but basically WP doesn't have enough editors anymore to keep the article up to date. The see saw of inclusiveness vs. quality has slowly decreased both. Still, I love that little thing that pops up when I hover over a reference number. All is not lost, maybe. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- With regards to "As if to prove that comment, she says in the same article that, "Our top goal [at Wikipedia] is to increase the number of people who edit". NO! No it's not! Our top goal is to build a great encyclopedia.", I'd imagine her first thought is that without enough editors, the overarching goal of a better encyclopedia can't be obtained. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- I don't edit much anymore. But I still read a bit, and WP has really declined as far as reading goes. Stephen Gough is in the news, so I went to check out the article. It received a few edits because of recent media attention, but basically WP doesn't have enough editors anymore to keep the article up to date. The see saw of inclusiveness vs. quality has slowly decreased both. Still, I love that little thing that pops up when I hover over a reference number. All is not lost, maybe. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- I followed, and partly participated in, the discussion on the development of the Strategic Plan. Already back then I saw indications that convince me the WMF is simply too large and has become a bureaucracy focused on self-preservation. The idea that revenue could decrease is no longer a viable option for WMF. This is why the emphasis on growth and expansion is so strong. It is also why the notion that "editor decline" has been caused by the maturation of the Encyclopedia itself has been understudied, if not ignored. The WMF has to find things to do otherwise there's no future projects with which to lure donors. Items like the WYSISYG editor and the AFT tools are pushed so hard because they satisfy donors like the Stanton Foundation, which explains the lack of community involvement and the lack of proper response to AFT feedback: it doesn't matter if they are good or bad ideas now, it only matters that they are implemented. I can easily see Ms. Gardner having slides for prospective donor presentations bemoaning the "ugly" design of Wikipedia and how it will require X dollars of donations to research a new one. Common sense has left the building in the way WMF interacts with the Encyclopedia a long time ago. The almighty dollar and political correctness typical of large bureaucracies, as with the WMF comments that there was a "sexist" "anti-female" editor environment that later turned into a red herring, drives much of the thinking now. The idea that our interface is somehow exclusive of new editors has become the poster boy of the last few years. The funny thing is that I'm not opposed to the ideas and sometimes think they should be tried (like with the WYSIWYG editor). It's just that I prefer the process think of them as experiments worth testing rather than foregone improvements. It's the WMF attitude and unilateral approach I am complaining against. Jason Quinn (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- While Wikimedia (not Wikipedia) tends to follow the strategic plan quite closely. 3 out of 5 goals in that plan are getting more people to edit/keeping existing people editing (Even the improve quality goal is very much framed in terms of more editors). Hence foundation seems to be very pre-occupied with editor retension goals. (Personally I think this comes across a lot in which things the paid devs focus on). Bawolff (talk) 19:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)