3 ms·
I agree that it's not the most elegant way to state what I was saying. What I meant to say was: I'd wager good money that if you gave a random sample of 1000 p
by melvinram 16y ago
I agree that it's not the most elegant way to state what I was saying. What I meant to say was:
I'd wager good money that if you gave a random sample of 1000 people the option of either reading a wikipedia page or watching a qwiki, a majority would choose qwiki. If you don't think that assumption is a safe assumption, than we'll just have agree to disagree.
- msiedlecki 16y agoHow much would you like to wager? I'm game. Most people I've witnessed interacting with Wikipedia went there to use it as a quick reference, or to learn about something they heard somewhere and wanted to learn about. In the first group, speed is key--they're squeezing the learning process into a very brief window of curiosity. Qwiki is a time drain, and it's not competitively entertaining compared to something like television, which it somewhat mimics. In the latter group, Qwiki is also too slow and these users jump around the Wikipedia page looking for the details and specific sections instead of the general idea. Qwiki looks cool because it resembles something that looks like entertainment, perhaps a documentary, but if you release that as a Wikipedia replacement instead of a learning device for the younger crowd, I doubt its competitive potential.
- mike-cardwell 16y agoI'd wager the opposite. People looking up information like to scan well presented text, not watch a slide show.