3 ms·

... which is almost 15 years old and simply not suited to the demands of the modern web. What are the demands of the modern web?

setpatchaddress 11y ago
Insatiable lust for cat/kitten videos, probably.
sparkzilla 11y ago
How about video and document embedding for a start. Wikipedia has almost zero embedding, which is kind of useful when you want to see more about news events (video and document embedding directly in the page), or even see an actor's performance, or a trailer, or a music clip. Wikipedia looks and acts like a textbook on the web, instead of a purpose-designed site that includes all relevant media about a topic. People have just got so used to it that they can't imagine doing things another way.
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  Video and audio embedding can certainly be done (if not because of MediaWiki directly, through virtue of HTML5 alone... though I believe MW has plenty of its own scaffolding), and is present where necessary for things like pronunciation, song samples, speech excerpts and so on. Not sure exactly what you mean by "document embedding". Is that some Xanadu-grade transclusion thing? If so, can't blame the WWW much for the lack of it.
  - sparkzilla 11y ago
    Like Scribd or even including PDFs of source material. There's also a policy issue in that Wikipedia does not like primary sources, and prefers secondary sources.
    - cdcarter 11y ago
      I don't think that that's so much a policy "issue" as just the policy of an encyclopedia. They're made of editors, not researchers.
cdcarter 11y ago
I'm particularly interested in how the MediaWiki software is the cause of harassment and gender inequity. I think there may be a good argument for it, but I'd love to hear what GP thinks.
- DanBC 11y ago
  One theory is that the wp interface is off-putting to most women and some men, which leads to a gender imbalance. That gender imbalance leads to odd situations. Many wp arguments are won by the people who have the time to outlast their opponents. So, for a long time some rape scenes in films were described as sex scenes, and the rape word was being removed. That's pretty hostile.
- sparkzilla 11y ago
  I wrote a blog post on how Wikipedia's software choices cause the Gender Gap [1]. In short, the MediaWiki software gave power to the initial users of the software, who were mainly men. As the site grew, the software was not updated to devolve power to other groups, such as women and minorities, in part because the dominant group thought they were/are doing good work. In Wikipedia might is right and the end justifies the means. It's not just women, men find themselves routinely harassed on Wikipedia, and that's IMHO a fault of software, that doesn't have enough checks and balances on its various power structures. I came to realize this empirically because my site, which also crowdsources news and biographies, has up to 80% female participation. [1] http://newslines.org/blog/the-sexists-at-the-top-of-wikipedia/ http://newslines.org/blog/the-sexists-at-the-top-of-wikipedi...

setpatchaddress 11y ago

Insatiable lust for cat/kitten videos, probably.

sparkzilla 11y ago

How about video and document embedding for a start. Wikipedia has almost zero embedding, which is kind of useful when you want to see more about news events (video and document embedding directly in the page), or even see an actor's performance, or a trailer, or a music clip. Wikipedia looks and acts like a textbook on the web, instead of a purpose-designed site that includes all relevant media about a topic. People have just got so used to it that they can't imagine doing things another way.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago
Video and audio embedding can certainly be done (if not because of MediaWiki directly, through virtue of HTML5 alone... though I believe MW has plenty of its own scaffolding), and is present where necessary for things like pronunciation, song samples, speech excerpts and so on. Not sure exactly what you mean by "document embedding". Is that some Xanadu-grade transclusion thing? If so, can't blame the WWW much for the lack of it.
- sparkzilla 11y ago
  Like Scribd or even including PDFs of source material. There's also a policy issue in that Wikipedia does not like primary sources, and prefers secondary sources.
  - cdcarter 11y ago
    I don't think that that's so much a policy "issue" as just the policy of an encyclopedia. They're made of editors, not researchers.

cdcarter 11y ago

I'm particularly interested in how the MediaWiki software is the cause of harassment and gender inequity. I think there may be a good argument for it, but I'd love to hear what GP thinks.

DanBC 11y ago
One theory is that the wp interface is off-putting to most women and some men, which leads to a gender imbalance. That gender imbalance leads to odd situations. Many wp arguments are won by the people who have the time to outlast their opponents. So, for a long time some rape scenes in films were described as sex scenes, and the rape word was being removed. That's pretty hostile.
sparkzilla 11y ago
I wrote a blog post on how Wikipedia's software choices cause the Gender Gap [1]. In short, the MediaWiki software gave power to the initial users of the software, who were mainly men. As the site grew, the software was not updated to devolve power to other groups, such as women and minorities, in part because the dominant group thought they were/are doing good work. In Wikipedia might is right and the end justifies the means. It's not just women, men find themselves routinely harassed on Wikipedia, and that's IMHO a fault of software, that doesn't have enough checks and balances on its various power structures. I came to realize this empirically because my site, which also crowdsources news and biographies, has up to 80% female participation. [1] http://newslines.org/blog/the-sexists-at-the-top-of-wikipedia/ http://newslines.org/blog/the-sexists-at-the-top-of-wikipedi...