3 ms·
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 (vi
by 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 agoVideo 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 agoLike 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 agoI 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.