Slashdot Mirror
Why Is Wikipedia So Ugly?
Hugh Pickens writes "Megan Garber writes in the Atlantic that aesthetically, Wikipedia is remarkably unattractive. 'The gridded layout! The disregard for mind-calming images! The vaguely Geocities-esque environment! Whether it's ironic or fitting, it is undeniable: The Sum of All Human Knowledge, when actually summed up, is pretty ugly.' But Wikipedians consider the site's homeliness as a feature rather than a bug. 'Wikipedia has always been kind of a homely, awkward, handcrafted-looking site,' says Sue Gardner, executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation, adding that the homeliness 'is part of its awkward charm.' Facebook, Twitter, and Tumblr have built followings in part because of their exceedingly simple interfaces. Everything about their design says, 'Come on, guys. Participate. It's easy,' while Wikipedia, so far, has been pretty much the opposite of that. 'The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit' might more properly be nicknamed 'the free encyclopedia that any geek can edit.' This is particularly problematic because one of the Wikimedia Foundation's broad strategic goals is to expand its base of editors. While the editing interface is friendly to the site's super-users who tend to be so committed to Wikipedia's mission that they're willing to do a lot to contribute to it, if Wikipedia wants to make itself more attractive to users, a superficial makeover may be just the thing Wikipedia needs to begin growing in a more meaningful way."
"There's one thing Wikipedia could learn from Facebook, which is less about attractiveness and more about user-friendliness. Facebook -- and Twitter, and Tumblr, and similar sites -- have built followings in part because of their exceedingly simple interfaces"
Yes, but at what cost?
An appeal from slashdot.org - get some hot employees to pose for the photos
I think it's telling that both TFAs linked in the post are by women. Please keep the creeping feminisation of the media out of Wikipedia!
"I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
If Wikipedia is ugly, what does that make Slashdot?
By her measure we should all be running away screaming instead of reading useless comments like this one.
No sig today...
How is that an empirical truth?
It's an exact comparison learned by observing Wikipedia from more beautiful websites. Too bad it's a subjective comparison.
Then again, if that person finds a Wiki page ugly, then he's more than free to use CSS or other stuff to make it look beautiful. perhaps floating elements (already in use), rounded corners, etc. If it remains ugly, then it's obvious that presentation isn't an issue.
Wikipedia's certainly more functional and less bug-ridden.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Ah! Another candidate for Editor then.
May the Maths Be with you!