Wikiwand

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

Wikimedia Belgium Newsletter -...

Fwd: Open call for Individual...

Anders Wennersten

31 Mar 2016 31 Mar '16

2:39 p.m.

What is WMFs position on Wikiwand [1]? is it a complement or a commercial run interface that is better that we can offer? Anders [1] http://www.wikiwand.com/about

Show replies by thread

Gerard Meijssen

31 Mar 31 Mar

3:33 p.m.

Hoi, If anything they provide us a service. Anything they can do, we can do integrated. Anything they can do, we can learn from. Anything they prove works better is often a discussion the others have lost their firm footing. We are very much stuck in fixed thinking modes. It is why Wikisource is only about its editors and not about its readers. For one Wikisource there has been something like Wikiwand and nobody cared. We know we can improve the quality of Wikipedia's links and redlinks in the same way we improved interwiki links, the improvement will be measurable and quick and it is not even considered. There is enough we can do better, it is known by many, particularly by the developers and UI people. We deserve Wikiwand because we could have done better. By making it a company, the people behind Wikiwand put their money where there mouth is. As an argument it is a strong one. NB we are doing better in places. When you have followed the road towards mobile integration you will agree. However, there is still so much that can be done. It starts with reflection of many of our hobby horses and ingrained positions. Thanks, GerardM On 31 March 2016 at 08:39, Anders Wennersten <mail(a)anderswennersten.se> wrote:

...

What is WMFs position on Wikiwand [1]? is it a complement or a commercial run interface that is better that we can offer? Anders [1] http://www.wikiwand.com/about _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Magnus Manske

4:26 p.m.

While this is true, there has been some improvement on Wikipedia. Desktop browsers now have the Wikiwand "media gallery" as the Media Viewer, and Wikivoyage (as a test platform) has the interactive maps. On mobile, things are even better; most of the Wikiwand mobile features are also in the official Wikipedia app, and then some. That multilingual search, though... On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 8:33 AM Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

James Heilman

8:24 p.m.

I am fine with Wikiwand especially with their recent improvements. It is basically a different skin for our content. Not everyone needs to like the same style. The gear at the top gives a bunch of ways you can customize the styling as well. And it does link to use if people want to edit. As an editor I prefer our greater prominence of the edit, history, and talk page buttons. They are customized for reading. We being a working platform need to balance reading and editing. There output of our mainpage however is horrible http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Main_Page James On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 2:26 AM, Magnus Manske <magnusmanske(a)googlemail.com> wrote:

...

wrote:

footing.

> We are very much stuck in fixed thinking modes. It is why Wikisource is > only about its editors and not about its readers. For one Wikisource there

has been something like Wikiwand and nobody cared. We know we can improve the quality of Wikipedia's links and redlinks in the same way we improved interwiki links, the improvement will be measurable and quick and it is

not > even considered. There is enough we can do better, it is known by many, > particularly by the developers and UI people.

> We deserve Wikiwand because we could have done better. By making it a > company, the people behind Wikiwand put their money where there mouth is. > As an argument it is a strong one.

> NB we are doing better in places. When you have followed the road towards > mobile integration you will agree. However, there is still so much that can > be done. It starts with reflection of many of our hobby horses and > ingrained positions. > Thanks, > GerardM

> On 31 March 2016 at 08:39, Anders Wennersten <mail(a)anderswennersten.se> > wrote:

> > What is WMFs position on Wikiwand [1]? >

> > is it a complement or a commercial run interface that is better that we > > can offer? >

> > Anders >

> > [1] http://www.wikiwand.com/about >

> > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine www.opentextbookofmedicine.com

John Mark Vandenberg

11:24 p.m.

On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 7:24 PM, James Heilman <jmh649(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

There output of our mainpage however is horrible http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Main_Page

On my LG L Bello 5.0" mobile phone it is worse than on desktop, with that large language selection box taking over all of the screen and not able to be closed, with only bits of the ugly mess in the background. And it is stale, showing February 25 as the current date for "On this day.." However, that page isnt prominent in their system. Instead they prominently link to http://www.wikiwand.com/news , which is a very nice version of the English Wikipedia main page that looks like it is in sync with the latest version on English Wikiped. -- John Vandenberg

Dan Garry

1 Apr 1 Apr

1:19 a.m.

On 30 March 2016 at 23:39, Anders Wennersten <mail(a)anderswennersten.se> wrote:

...

What is WMFs position on Wikiwand [1]?

There is no "official WMF position" on Wikiwand. The Wikimedia Foundation is quite a diverse collection of individuals with a range of different opinions. :-) Personally, I like Wikiwand. I think there's some things they do really well, like their table of contents on desktop, and some things that they could improve, like the clutter of the interface on mobile devices. The performance of their website used to be incredibly poor, so much so that it took over a minute to load on my iPhone 4. They seem to have made quite some strides in that area though, because I don't have this problem at all on my Nexus 5. I've tried contacting them a few times to share knowledge and see how we could collaborate, but I never received any response from them. I hope they keep improving their interface. I think it's a worthwhile project. Thanks, Dan -- Dan Garry Lead Product Manager, Discovery Wikimedia Foundation

Anders Wennersten

1:27 a.m.

Thanks Dan. Besides the interface as such, where several have given, for me, interesting feedback, I wonder over the funding banner. Would not a widespread use of Wikiwand mean that readers no longer get the "begging" banner. And would that not mean a risk of decreasing funding? Anders Den 2016-03-31 kl. 19:19, skrev Dan Garry:

...

On 30 March 2016 at 23:39, Anders Wennersten <mail(a)anderswennersten.se> wrote:

What is WMFs position on Wikiwand [1]?

Adam Wight

1:56 a.m.

To second what others have said, I personally love the idea that a reading interface should include less editor clutter, until it is requested. There's a task for this, if anyone would like to help push that investigation forward: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T106439 There's also some history behind the idea of making the Edit button more prominent... According to legend, there was one an experiment in which the edit tab was rendered with a green background, and it succeeded in drawing more new editors in, BUT... The editing interface was hostile enough at that point that we decided to not go with the more prominent button, because we were driving people towards a broken experience. I'm far removed from this work, so I don't know if this is still the consensus at the Wikimedia Foundation, I'd like to hear more either way from people who are more involved. Thanks, Adam [[mw:User:Adamw]] Den 2016-03-31 kl. 19:19, skrev Dan Garry:

...

> On 30 March 2016 at 23:39, Anders Wennersten <mail(a)anderswennersten.se

...

> wrote:

...

> What is WMFs position on Wikiwand [1]?

...

> There is no "official WMF position" on Wikiwand. The Wikimedia Foundation > is quite a diverse collection of individuals with a range of different > opinions. :-)

...

> Personally, I like Wikiwand. I think there's some things they do really > well, like their table of contents on desktop, and some things that they > could improve, like the clutter of the interface on mobile devices. The > performance of their website used to be incredibly poor, so much so that it > took over a minute to load on my iPhone 4. They seem to have made quite > some strides in that area though, because I don't have this problem at all > on my Nexus 5.

...

> I've tried contacting them a few times to share knowledge and see how we > could collaborate, but I never received any response from them.

...

> I hope they keep improving their interface. I think it's a worthwhile > project.

...

> Thanks, > Dan

...

Dan Garry

2 a.m.

On 31 March 2016 at 10:27, Anders Wennersten <mail(a)anderswennersten.se> wrote:

...

Besides the interface as such, where several have given, for me, interesting feedback, I wonder over the funding banner. Would not a widespread use of Wikiwand mean that readers no longer get the "begging" banner. And would that not mean a risk of decreasing funding?

My responsibility is product development; I leave such questions to the Advancement Department <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Staff_and_contractors#Advancement>, as their responsibility. Dan -- Dan Garry Lead Product Manager, Discovery Wikimedia Foundation

Keegan Peterzell

2:39 a.m.

On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 12:56 PM, Adam Wight <awight(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

...

Perhaps that would be better flipped: if you want a cleaner interface, one is available, but we intentionally want/need/must keep "editor clutter" out front. Communities are quite proud of that so-called clutter and actively want to put it in front of people. The clutter got people in and built our projects, removing it undoubtedly means less editors. Generally speaking, everyone is a reader and an editor is a reader that clicks edit. They're not, and should not be, distinct classes of users. The fact of the matter is that people just want the content, no matter how great or awful the skin is, and they will go where ever makes it easiest to get it. This doesn't mean that we have to be the destination to read the content, that's not in our mission statement. We're to disseminate it. -- ~Keegan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email address is in a personal capacity.

Gerard Meijssen

4:16 a.m.

Hoi, I think you have missed the point badly. Wikiwand is not about the communities and their pride. It is about what the Wikimedia Foundation stands for. It is sharing the sum of all knowledge. When we do a piss poor job and let Wikiwand steal the cake we have our priorities fatally wrong. The notion that "people just want the content no matter how great of awful the skin is" is awful. Really, The notion that the only thing we are there for is to disseminate it is plain awful because it reads as if we should give up and hand it all over to Wikiwand. If that is your opinion why have people concentrate on our User Interface? You must be kidding. Thanks, GerardM On 31 March 2016 at 20:39, Keegan Peterzell <keegan.wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 12:56 PM, Adam Wight <awight(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

To second what others have said, I personally love the idea that a

reading

interface should include less editor clutter, until it is requested. There's a task for this, if anyone would like to help push that investigation forward: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T106439

Adam Wight

4:50 a.m.

GerardM, I liked the way you said it the first time,

...

Readers in turn do not need all the tools of editors but we do want to

convert them to editors. It does not follow that they will be enticed to become one by all the clutter.

...

The objective is therefore to invite them in a less cluttered way and

give them the option to enable the "clutter" an editor needs. That's a much stronger statement without the hyperbole and invective. Anyway, I appreciated your original statement, and also Keegan's point that part of our mission should be to highlight the fact that our content is written by individuals and not sponsored hacks like so much of the rest of the world's media. Keegan, what do you think about a feature flag which would control which use cases the interface is optimized for? We could, for example, make the editor interface much richer if it wasn't also supporting pure reading.\ -Adam On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 12:56 PM, Adam Wight <awight(a)wikimedia.org>

wrote:

To second what others have said, I personally love the idea that a

reading

interface should include less editor clutter, until it is requested. There's a task for this, if anyone would like to help push that investigation forward: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T106439

Perhaps that would be better flipped: if you want a cleaner interface,

one

is available, but we intentionally want/need/must keep "editor clutter"

out

front. Communities are quite proud of that so-called clutter and actively want to put it in front of people. The clutter got people in and built

our

projects, removing it undoubtedly means less editors. Generally speaking, everyone is a reader and an editor is a reader that clicks edit. They're not, and should not be, distinct classes of users. The fact of the matter is that people just want the content, no matter

how

great or awful the skin is, and they will go where ever makes it easiest

get it. This doesn't mean that we have to be the destination to read the content, that's not in our mission statement. We're to disseminate it. -- ~Keegan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email

address

is in a personal capacity. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Keegan Peterzell

5:03 a.m.

Hey Gerard, I think you might have missed *my* point? Please note that I was nuancing something that Adam said that caught my eye. I broadly agree with your (Gerard's) position. You say: The notion that "people just want the content no matter how great of awful the skin is" is awful. I agree it's an awful notion, but often times facts of the matter are awful. Wikimedia content turns up in all kinds of curious places, in all kinds of formats and design far beyond our control - because we make the information free for people to do so, because that's what we want. We can and should concentrate on our user interface, but I think removing/slimming down/hiding editing tools in the interest of displaying content does a disservice to what we do. The Wikiwands of the world should be welcomed to rethink how to display content, we should learn from them, but I do not think we should emulate them. Let them do their thing with our content, and we can do ours. I don't see it as a competition, we should continue to do what we can to create and curate more content for both our own use as well as reuse, that's our end of the bargain. On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Adam Wight <awight(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

...

Keegan, what do you think about a feature flag which would control which use cases the interface is optimized for? We could, for example, make the editor interface much richer if it wasn't also supporting pure reading.\ -Adam

I like this idea. -- ~Keegan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email address is in a personal capacity.

Ruslan Takayev

3 Apr 3 Apr

7:49 p.m.

Wikiwand states: "Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license" WMF projects are available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license. Correct me if I am wrong, but these licenses are not interchangeable and therefore the entire Wikiwand site is a copyright violation? Warm regards, Ruslan Takayev On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 2:39 PM, Anders Wennersten <mail(a)anderswennersten.se

...

wrote:

...

James Heilman

10:27 p.m.

...

From what I understand we are moving to the CC BY-SA 4.0 license ourselves

eventually. I have been in discussions with the World Health Organization for the last few years about them licensing more stuff under a CC BY SA license. The original road block was that the 3.0 license tied them to a national jurisdiction while their set up does not allow this. The 4.0 license was designed to address this. I am hoping to meet with WHO again this fall so hopefully we will have moved by than. Stephen is there a timeline for this? James On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 5:49 AM, Ruslan Takayev <ruslan.takayev(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

wrote:

-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine www.opentextbookofmedicine.com

Tim Landscheidt

4 Apr 4 Apr

3:17 a.m.

Ruslan Takayev <ruslan.takayev(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Wikiwand states: "Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license"

...

WMF projects are available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license.

...

Correct me if I am wrong, but these licenses are not interchangeable and therefore the entire Wikiwand site is a copyright violation?

...

[…]

You can incorporate content licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 in CC-BY-SA 4.0 works; cf. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode, "4. Restrictions", b). You cannot go the other way. Tim

2944

days inactive

2947

days old

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

15 comments

10 participants

tags (0)

participants (10)

Adam Wight
Anders Wennersten
Dan Garry
Gerard Meijssen
James Heilman
John Mark Vandenberg
Keegan Peterzell
Magnus Manske
Ruslan Takayev
Tim Landscheidt