It would be most fitting to note that, truth be told, Wikipedia IS marvelous as it is... for what it is, or, at the very least, can be quite fairly defined as democracy was referred to by Winston Churchill “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” True enough, such statement of the matter leaves a seemingly vast space for improvement, but ostensibly, it will take not thorough analysis and planning, but serendipity to get there. So, naturally, no revolutionary suggestions are to follow - just a few tweaks here and there, which could possibly make Wikipedia even more user-friendly and helpful.
Interface
The claim, being as superficial as it is, really is the most desired enhancement I could name. Even though the recent redesign did significantly improve the overall look, there still remains ground to be covered until the eye can truly rest on Wikipedia pages - it doesn't have to be overly complex, of course, as it would detract from the main idea of the page, but Apple's website can be drawn as a good example of providing minimalistic, yet vastly enjoyable design. Wikipedia can still go even sleeker, more modern, more gradient and even less angular.
More Links to Relevant Web Resources
One of the things Wikipedia's helpfulness could benefit from is encouragement of providing more links to relevant and trustworthy resources on the web on the subject matter that could provide more detailed, more frequently updated and more diverse information and richer means of interaction - for example, various fan community websites under a wiki article which implies having a fan society. Wikipedia policy strife to maintain the neutral and unbiased tone can often lead to such links being omitted or edited out.
One of the things Wikipedia's helpfulness could benefit from is encouragement of providing more links to relevant and trustworthy resources on the web on the subject matter that could provide more detailed, more frequently updated and more diverse information and richer means of interaction - for example, various fan community websites under a wiki article which implies having a fan society. Wikipedia policy strife to maintain the neutral and unbiased tone can often lead to such links being omitted or edited out.
Pop-up Links as Citations
As a matter of fact, should a wish occur to view citation's details or even follow the link to cited material one by all means has to navigate away from the read text, which can be potentially frustrating in case of long articles. One possible solution to that would be the introduction of a smooth smart pop-up with information on citation and a navigable link, which would open in the new tab and would leave the position of the current reading intact. The usefullness of such a feature may seem debatable, but, after all, the benefits of tabbed browsing wasn't apparent for a very, very, very long time.
As a matter of fact, should a wish occur to view citation's details or even follow the link to cited material one by all means has to navigate away from the read text, which can be potentially frustrating in case of long articles. One possible solution to that would be the introduction of a smooth smart pop-up with information on citation and a navigable link, which would open in the new tab and would leave the position of the current reading intact. The usefullness of such a feature may seem debatable, but, after all, the benefits of tabbed browsing wasn't apparent for a very, very, very long time.
Better Visualization of Contributors
Wikipedia now has a fairly serviceable change tracking view, though it's still not as self-evident as it presumably would benefit from being. As of now, it's virtually impossible to have a real overview of authorship - which author exactly is responsible for which section of text, whereas this could possibly be quite beneficial if combined with next suggestion. That would allow for better-founded skepticism and possibility heightened credibility of information encountered on Wikipedia. This could be realized either as another integrated smart pop-up section solution or as a separate view, similar to Edit and History tabs.
Wikipedia, remaining open, could provide ground for establishment of more trustworthy accounts of varying "weight" - for example, simple verified accounts, where a person , though registered under some alias or pseudonym, does provide his/hers real data to the administration, through, perhaps, those smart identification cards which are getting widespread use and acclaim. A more persuasive level of such account would be a specialist status - providing proof of degree and/or other academic acclaims in certain field the user would be considered an expert at. However, this sounds like a troublesome procedure, but, as it would be optional, it seems that such an option could be explored. Another solution to diversifying validity of specified article data is rating the author - hence information entered by a submitter could be assessed by readers in regard to its trustworthiness on the account of submitters rating. It is worth noting that rating articles won't do as they are ever-changing and evolving.
0 comments:
Post a Comment