Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-02-19/News and notes

Redesign
I'm sure someone will complain about "too much whitespace", but I absolutely love 1910's redesign of Wikipedia. It's definitely needing a better design, considering myself (and most other users) have simply become accustomed to ignoring the vast majority of space Wikipedia uses, e.g. the sidebar, copyright notifications, the footer, and smaller text underneath the edit box. Removing all the extras could improve Wikipedia a lot.

Their simplification of the most common tools from the sidebar and other parts of the interface is welcomed and looks fantastic, in my opinion. While I would support a sidebar extension for the "power users", the casual user simply doesn't need those tools. Analytics would undoubtedly support the idea that most actions remain unused by the vast majority of users, especially those who are simply browsing rather than editing.

I also wanted to compliment their choices of coloring. The shades of gray/white are vastly improved over those of the current Wikipedia. The web is moving away from gradients, and Wikipedia is a perfect candidate for a simplistic gray color scheme which focuses primarily on the content.

Great article this week! I'd love some more mentions of design in the future, even if they're just "In brief" like this one. --Nicereddy (talk) 02:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Failed at the first hurdle: fairness. For the current look, they take a page with a very long first section, "plot". In all the later, "improved" versions, that section is suddenly gone, only showing sections which have an accompanying image or infobox on the right side, not showing how the plot section would become twice as long (vertically) with a huge chunk of empty whitespace to the right (a bit like the current Flow version). It suddenly wouldn't look so attractive anymore... No matter what merits the proposal might have, if you present it using such methods, you lose all credibility. Fram (talk) 12:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As a Monobook user, I think those 'new' ideas look ghastly. I hate books or brochures with a little bit of text in the middle of a vast white or pale blue (don't mention pale pink...) space. I always think it's designed to cover up a lack of communication (or information...) along with a desire to be 'modern' at all costs. Having said this, I also don't like cramming, and avoidance of any white space on a colour page (people who say "We're paying for colour, so we're going to have colour!" need countering with the brightly coloured tiger and zebra disappearing into their backgrounds...). Peridon (talk) 15:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I like the overall redesign. Its simple. Its focus is on the content. It give prominence to the search bar. The sidebar is embedded in the header. I think it could be improved, e.g. have the text flow into the other columns when there is no picture, and not have quite so much whitespace inbetween sections... But other than that its an enormous improvement. Someone should make this happen. Int21h (talk) 17:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't fix what's not broken. The current design is timeless and doesn't need changed. I cringe every time a site announces a design change now, as most site-design changes in the last five years have been for the worse. This "1910 look" is typical of the designs that I don't care for. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "stuck in the 90s" - but Wikipedia didn't even start until the 00s! 75.41.109.190 (talk) 23:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "The current design is timeless". Regarding this, I would say that it's an inherently impossible for anything to be truly timeless. If you mean to say that you would reject any redesign of Wikipedia, I think that would simply invite stagnation, which I would think is hard to argue as a positive attribute of any website. I vehemently oppose the phrase "Don't fix what's not broken", as it implies that usability and efficiency are inherent qualities of functionality. Imagine if we remained complacent in the early 1900s and refused to adopt cars because "horses work fine"? Imagine if we said the same of cars with regards to the invention of planes, telegrams with regards to the telephone, or candles with regards to the lightbulb! While I can hardly draw definite parallels between such obvious improvements to technologies and the redesigning of a website, I don't think the comparison is wholly unreasonable.
 * We are not suggesting that we "fix" the home page, nor are we suggesting that it is in any way dysfunctional. At the same time, however, that is not to say that the design is perfect or has reached perceived "pinnacle" which we may never again reach, let alone surpass. A redesign would not be for the simple sake of change, but rather for the overall good of Wikipedia's usability and therefore longevity. What isn't broken, I hope you would agree, can still be improved upon, regardless of the form and functionality of the predecessor it attempts to overcome.
 * We must not remain stagnant. We can provide the world with an encyclopedia encapsulating the whole of human knowledge, but if the world finds its navigation difficult or its design an eye sore, the knowledge held within is rendered useless. And what's the point of an encyclopedia no one wants to read? --Nicereddy (talk) 02:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong. Wikipedia shouldn't remain stagnant and there are many areas where improvement is needed:
 * Better design for integrating all orphaned articles into the encyclopedia
 * Better design for keeping Wikipedia from being overrun with low-quality articles about marginally notable people and organizations
 * Better design for ensuring that articles don't have too many—or too few—images in the right and left margins (keep in mind that anyone can add or remove an image on pages that aren't protected)
 * Better design for ensuring articles are reliably sourced
 * Better design for helping novice editors (Visual Editor 2.0)
 * I'd rather focus on real improvements and not new front grilles and tailfins. Regards, Wbm1058 (talk) 03:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There are different Skins readers and editors may choose to use, though I've never felt the need to use anything but the default skin. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

See also Redesign proof of concepts. --Atlasowa (talk) 08:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Leave Wikipedia the way it is. If I am at a library or it has been 30 days since I last signed in, I don't like the way it looks. When I sign in, I do. So please keep this option.— Vchimpanzee  ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 18:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Compensated editing
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the Swedish and German policies described in this article actually involve disclosure of the compensatory arrangement? I mean, surely de:Benutzer:Coca-Cola De wouldn't fall under the proposed change to the Terms of Use, since that change only requires disclosure? Powers T 03:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You're quite correct—in trying to make a more interesting segue, I was very inaccurate. Thank you for your attention to detail! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The top section on paid editing is very biased. It only covers folks who are opposed to the change in the Terms of Use, folks who seem to say that it is a major problem if paid editors disclose their paid status.

The real situation on the talk page m:Talk:Terms of use/Paid contributions amendment is that the proposed change is overwhelmingly supported. There is a "voting section" at the top of the page, and as of now the vote is 135 in favor to 39 opposed. I do think that covering some of those (78%) in favor would reflect better on the the Signpost's neutrality. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 20:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I view it a bit differently. The Signpost's job is not to agree with popular consensus, but to offer critical reporting of anything from wildly popular initiatives to critical failures. As a side note, since when have there been Wikimedia votes without signatures? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but the job you have taken on here is to provide neutral reporting on issues of concern to Wikipedians. Ignoring the 78% who favor the ToU change of requiring paid editors to disclose, and concentrating on the 22% who are not in favor is a major bias.  Frankly, you owe an abject apology to the readers of Signpost for this biased coverage.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 22:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, that's correct—I believe we're misunderstanding each other. We certainly aim to be a neutral news outlet, and while I'm not convinced that this is a biased treatment of the topic, I've added a sentence to note the numbers in support. Note, though, that I haven't added figures as the sentence is referring to "as of publishing time", and I felt obligated to note the unusual number of unsigned votes. While I think there would still be a majority, it's not a small number (only two of the first 22 have a relatively normal Wikimedia signature). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Greek suing action
“is likely to receive a heavy criminal sentence if convicted”

Like what ?

--Nnemo (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Status Labs
Jeff here-- I run Status Labs Inc. out of Ch and SF. Totally different company from your Wikipedia stuff. Friends where I work keep asking me about it and I have no idea... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.11.11 (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Jeff, there appear to be two companies at work here. We're referring to the renamed Wiki-PR, a public relations firm now run out of Austin, New York, and São Paolo. That said, in an effor tto avoid any confusion, I've added a [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikipedia_Signpost%2F2014-02-12%2FNews_and_notes&diff=643413052&oldid=595641672 clarification] to the original article; I am certainly not looking to disparage your company. Best, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)