[Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia redefined -- typography and UX and such

Strainu strainu10 at gmail.com
Fri Aug 17 12:38:22 UTC 2012

Trying to respond to your "wiki is not..." statement from this awful
gmail mobile website...

While technically correct, from the user's pov, which is the one the
websites's creators have, wiki is often used as a synonim for
wikipedia. I hear more often „did you search on wiki?” than „did you
search wikipedia?”. I find this distinction is nowadays a little


2012/8/8, Peter Gervai <grinapo at gmail.com>:
> On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 11:47 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke <wikipedia at zog.org>
> 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), and mentioned some
> thoughts of mine, which I share here:
> - the design fails without javascript [why javascript often bad or
> non-applicable is a long thread itself]
> - it (often) wastes screen space
> - "wiki" is ***NOT*** wikipedia, nor is it wikimedia, nor is it a
> brand or a trademark or a name of one entity. it's like saying
> "webpage"
> - it did not seem to touch one of the most important part deserving
> more professional attention: typography.
> --
>  byte-byte,
>     grin
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

More information about the Wikimedia-l mailing list