I Redesigned Wikipedia JUST to MAKE IT MONEY
Vložit
- čas přidán 19. 04. 2024
- Watch me redesign Wikipedia solely to make it MONEY! 😈
// Check out the redesign on Figma:
www.figma.com/community/file/...
Try Mobbin to get design inspiration in your next project (affiliate):
mobbin.com/?via=juxtopposed
// ✨ Let's connect:
Twitter: / juxtopposed
CodePen: codepen.io/Juxtopposed
---------
#redesign #wikipedia - Zábava
This was mostly for the lolz, but... would you pay for it?...
i definitely would
i think id be more likely to buy it if it were a one time payment "supporter" set of features :3
I would go so far as to pay 300$ for it!
Maybe! But for a lower price, like $3-$4/month.
Yeah this was a W, wikipedia should pay you to make this reality
a designer’s dream is a developer’s nightmare.
FACX 😂😂😂😂
i would rip off my skin designing an AI for all those mid map creation, semantic searches and chatbot that not just summarizes topics but creates a mini version af the entire page
bruh
I'm both these people and we hate each other
@@Oxytocin_NA you don't have to make a chatbot, you just use the ChatGPT API and if it doesn't work don't worry about it. That's what every company is doing rn
came for the nice designs, stayed for the marketing masterclass
thanks for sticking around 🐈
@@juxtopposed The cat memes were the cherry on top
dont ever attempt to let user customise the screen lol, its hell to maintain, you will need to charge your users a kidney to make it profitable. its a materclass in business if you live in a theoretical world
@@boccobadz yes it might be there, but you can't expose that to your users, how much are those framework charging you to use it? you can't just expose it directly to your own users without paying that framework
is it a marketing masterclass or an enshittification masterclass tbh idk what the difference is lol
Wow, as an employee, I can say that this video was shared around internally when it was first released. Loved seeing how some of the designs suggested in this video are things that we’ve already made or have plans to make. Also how some of the design decisions are really difficult because of how the thing is architected. And of course we’re not going to paywall anything lol
I think people wouldn't be mad about some monetization if it was done like this. At least I wouldn't
@@vanessastraube Wikipedia has $250 million in net assets. Even that makes some people mad.
@@vanessastraube people get mad that I get paid a living wage so I don’t have any confidence that anything to do with monetization won’t lead to a PR disaster. As long as people donate enough that I can keep keep my job building cool things then I’m happy. Dark mode is slowly being rolled out btw and with that the technology to more easily do custom theming
@@tchin25 ok, that's really sad to hear. Wasn't expecting that. You guys are doing a great job and deserve every cent you earn!
And now that I have one of you on hand, why does German Wikipedia still look so old?
@@vanessastraube Each wikipedia is actually an entirely different website administered by their respective volunteers. IIRC when the new UI came out, each language community voted to decide if they wanted it to be the default for their language (some had really valid reasons to not use the new UI). If you want the new look for every wiki, you would have to make an account and then under global preferences you can set the skin to be the new one which is Vector 2022
I'd rather just donate. I think there's something unbelievably depressing about having the cornerstone of the internet have a fucking subscription model.
Thanks for the comment! Yes, just donate if you can/want.
I hate the game, not the player. Google's AdWords are what turned the internet into a mall of mediocrity. I do donate to Wiki, but I also wouldn't mind a subscription service. The price I'd be willing to pay, though would be something like < $3/month. Since I pay monthly for every damn thing in my life, Wiki is low on the priority list. But if everyone had to pay a buck a month? I think most people would be down with that.
so... donate😐
I'd probably lower the Pro subscription to 3.99 a month in that case
A one time purchase own it forever would fix that
"I let users optimise their own experience"
Developer reading the design brief: ***throws computer at juxtopposed*** "leT uSErs OPtiMIsE"
ahahah
Yeah, that gave me a panic attack. How do you implement that responsively? Is that absolute, fixed pixel positions????!
I almost choked on my tea 😂
@@jwr6796Are you sure we won't just consider farming after this? 😂
And now the website turned into a website builder. Designer: so that's too hard ?
There’s something about that gold “Go Pro” button and that price tag of 9.99 per MONTH that makes my skin crawl.
To me wikipedia is like relic of the past where the internet is more of a communal space where people share their knowledge/interests and wiki (being free) is the biggest middle finger to the big corps out there
absolutely, this may have been a "joke" but it feel sacrilegious...
I would have changed the "Go Pro" to something more akin to "Contributor+" and I would provide all paid features to existing Contributors yearly for approved/verified contributions or something like that. Having that said, this is really an hypothetical as it does sound really odd to even consider this. Wikipedia, Internet Archive, and any other service that exists thanks to contributions of content and/or financial support from its users would feel like a corruption of its ethos to do something like this. But if framed as an alternative method of donating to support it's infrastructure then it wouldn't feel as weird (to me at least).
So that is why you donate to them every year, right?
……right….?
@@melody3741 Big corps do
its a WHAT IF video, wikipedia isnt gonna add a paid subscription like this dw
This is half a horror movie for me ngl
bit same. A lot of the ideas are really nice, but the monetization required to make them possible may entrap Wikipedia in a development environment that requires a lot more computation, remove the floor from under them if they ever wanted to ask for donations, and potentially make a lot of users upset if anything changes
@@oteragard8077 I... Disagree... To an extent, I simplify think this easily can be done. But, business often tend to over-complicate things, or get carried with adding more and more monetization features. So, I entirely agree, but Wikipedia needs to implement this "correctly".
They need money for the maintenance somehow
Good to see I am Not the only one thinking this is a shit load of work
@@GabRap Wikimedia Foundation is sitting on top of between a shit ton and a fuck ton of cash inside their endowment (200+ million dollars to be exact). And Wikipedia in its current form isn't that costly to run (around 3 million for the hosting). Heck, the vast majorities of expenses paid for by Wikipedia donations are funneled to Wikimedia execs, not Wikipedia itself or its contributors.
I think this is cool, but I think if I opened Wikipedia and saw a bunch of options held behind a yellow pro paywall I might throw myself off of a bridge /hyp
What if it’s red if you’re not a PRO user, and green if you are a PRO user? Would that be better?
Brokie
I think every time a website makes significant changes to their layout, they need to produce videos like this explaining what has changed and why. I'm sure many users will still scream "DO NOT LIKE CHANGE IT BACK IMMEDIATELY" but at least there's a video that isolates what the problems were, how they were addressed and *why* they were addressed that way.
Ok that's all very fair but have you considered that I DO NOT LIKE CHANGE IT BACK IMMEDIATELY
Why videos? Wouldnt an article suffice?
I even wish Fortnite did that with their latest UX redesign xD
Just cause reasons are given, doesn't mean it's right. This redesign in the video, already removed an important feature, made the website slower on lower end and slower network systems, and also put old layout behind paywall. Ain't nothing justifying that.
there are like 1 or 2 websites/applications that have allowed me to use an old layout instead of the new one, and it made me slowly realize how much better the new layout actually was. if using an old layout wasn't an option, it would just leave me with a bitter taste for a couple months instead.
seeing that "GO PRO" on a wikipedia page scares me 😰
😈😈😈
Me too, but is ok... is all just a nightmare.
Let's go back to see how long it takes to go to the philosophy article again.
What I have learned today is that 80 characters per line is the "ideal" width, which is why news articles and blogs and such that I read take up this tiny little narrow bit of the middle of my screen instead of being a normal page width. I agree with the wikipedia default on this one, I think it's a great width.
what's a normal page width?
There was a lot of blood shed over the line width (I can link if you're interested).
@@maxsurman7838 color me interested.
I think it was a great width in the 70s and 80s when we used CRTs with fonts that stretched half way across the screen, but on modern 4k monitors I'd rather have the text occupy 75% of the screen space instead of being a sliver which fits like 5 words per line...
@@maxsurman7838 Please give me the link(s). I genuinely cannot understand why over 80 is seen as bad.
everytime i see a "redesign" or "making X app better" it just ends up looking like every other generic page. Wikipedia having that 2006 look is excellent. it still feels vintage, just like picking up a book
Personally I find navigating Wikipedia much easier than many modern websites, but I suppose I might just be getting old
I don't think the exact look of the ui has to match what this person has made, she just suggested some layout alternatives, which actually could benefit the website.
Right. it's ok if she thinks she could improve it but, the hell, she doesn't need to be so arrogant about it
What a low encephalic cell take.
The "generic page" layout exist for a reason... its just easier to navigate and far more intuitive
3:52 loses so much information though, I really would not want to miss that amount of directly visible links. Gives such a great overview.
Especially with how some pages and groups use that information, having it on the side would actually make navigation more inconvenient in that case too
agreed
I agree, I didn't like that change, that would be a bad idea. I already made a comment about it and I said as examples it's useful when you are reading about an artist to see down there the whole discography, films or whatever. Or if you are reading about a game, you have down there a quick list of all the sequels, systems it came out on, or the other games made by the same developer.
As a wiki scoundrel I really love seeing long-ass wiki "see also" bars, but it's REALLY hurting on the eyes. I think it just needs a "view cozy" and "view compact" preference
Ya honestly the table is better than the sidebar
no because I really like the way wikipedia is not reacting to „modern“ design and just works, functional easy and simple. especially as its an Open Source community project, and we dont want to also bother centering a div whilst giving free information out to everyone.
++
@@subminorthreatthis argument means nothing unless you donate to them at least every year.
the worst change is removing the box down there with all the links. maybe she doesn't use it but it's so useful!. when you are reading about an artist you have down there a quick list of the discography to go control clicking and open in new tabs, or just to see a list. or when you are reading about a game you see down there all the games in the franchise, the systems it came on, or more games from the same developer. that box down there full of links is one of the best things of wikipedia.
It could work a hell of a lot better
@@melody3741 I agree, and I donate to them
Only problem with “top-level articles” is that articles can go in multiple categories, theoretically staying separate all the way to the top level categories.
lol they have zero idea about that
Wikipedia knows how to make money. They choose not to because they have principles.
My brother in Christ, the Wikimedia Foundation literally has $255 million in net assets and an annual revenue of $180 million. They are definitely making money. Source: wikipedia
So why they annoyingly asking for the donos?
@@6Pope9because more money
@@ivanmalinovski7807 what about expenses?
@@6Pope9 This is why they have the money.
as a wikipedia editor, you can freely customize any page layout and theme, including your profile, using custom css and js. also, the purple navigation bar at the bottom is created by users, unlike "related articles". and the “notes” thing can be achieved by creating a wikipedia plugin. although, you've got pretty nice ideas and design work, i wonder if we'll see these on wikipedia. thank you so much for your effort! ^^
thank you for your insights! ✨
@@juxtopposed you're very welcomeow! ≽^•⩊•^≼
There's also things like Wikiwand.
I think that in and of itself is the problem. Having to modify css and js isn't user friendly to like 99% of Wikipedia users.
@@CleeeeeLeee Its crazy! sometimes you have to learn how things work if you want to modify them! Who'd've thought.
i actually prefer the wider width to make use of all my screen space. it helps as i super quickly skim through the page and grasp info.
Same. I've never heard of the "ideal reading width" thing mentioned at 5:06 and I'd much prefer width over having to constantly scroll.
@@user-hu5uz7oh1u It's part of the material at places where web design is taught. Not gonna look it up now, but I think it is backed by studies and stuff.
@@user-hu5uz7oh1u yeah i hate all these "modern blogs" and other websites which have content in a 60/70% center window and NOTHING on the sides. Horrendous utilization of screen space and ends up increasing # of interactions to get to something
@@user-hu5uz7oh1u also fyi the 80 chars thing was a thing from early (pre 2000s) coding as a result of hardware limitations. And "old" style code still adheres to that, for example the google python style guide. I hate having to wrap every function in 80 characters and nothing is on the same line anymore, that is also a huge waste of space now that we keep variable names to be longer and intuiutive.
exactly and i hate websites that have started doing this, it always feels like some shitty mobile version ported to desktop which it probably is
Wikipedia is perfect as is. It’s one the last places untouched by enshitification, it’s pure content with no filler
Wikipedia is a prime candidate for the next thing to enshitify.
Fandom already took care of that for all the other wikis out there. But for what it's worth, it was literally created to be a wiki platform run on ads.
Honestly if it’s followed EXACTLY like this video (apart from the videos’s end design change as a lot of old people will be lost), Wikipedia is the only site that would actually deserve a pro version bc they are running it themselves off of donations
Make it big tech, add semantic search, collapsable menues, cryptic icons, lot's of blank space, and lots things that shrink when you zoom in. Don't forget to make it unnevagable to keyboard andclipboard., and please add really shitty aspx obscuring real locations, and javascript to obscure it from console clients. Also always lock scrolling by arrow keys becouse we love mouses!
@@arianelcoleNot sure blind/deafblind people using Wikipedia via braille display or screen readers would be happy
Next MrWhosTheBoss video topic, Wikipedia
i personally absolutely despise modern web design with all the rounded edges, use of logos in place of text, overall shrinking of the content on the screen, etc. despite that, i have to commend you on how well this video is produced and how well made your redesign is. even though i would personally never prefer the modified design to the original, there was clearly a lot of effort, experience, and thought that went into it (and the video as well), and it had some features i could definitely see wanting in the current design (like the topic map and built-in page layout customization).
They actually implemented the appearance section! that's crazy.
Your design decisions are not only super thoughtful, but I also enjoy your narration and editing style so much. I just hope that one day all those companies hire you for their redesigns!
They do not hire cats.
@@IvanNedostal
The companies that hire cats:
Stonks
The narrative tone is deceitful and sinister. I genuinely believe that if Wikipedia were to make these changes the world would significantly worsen. Wikipedia simplicity and “out dated” design is what makes it approachable and democratic. I could go on and on about design… but the problem is in the title. Redesign anything JUST to make money; you might as well sell Wikipedia to Amazon. There are more important things than money.
especially Valve 👀
@@bpavuk Why so negative, both of you JC ! It is just experiment.
this was legit pretty cool. some of it went too hard for real wikipedia, but those custom colour schemes for pro members??? oooooohhhh I'd pay for that
+1 for wikipedia
Or you can get an add-on for your browser that does it for free. Never forget, the internet is free. If it isn't, you haven't found the free option yet.
@@ForckySpoonLive by this
you can do it for free if you know CSS. 😉
i red the end part with the voice of david tennant... ok thats it
What I learned from this video is that wikipedia has merch and I need some
The reason wikipedia's UI has not changed much, is because that format works.
Something in me died when you killed the navbox.
It went from a large world of discovery, to bland unknowns.
Sometimes, clutter is good.
I know! There is so much I hate about this.
Am really impressed, the fact that Wikipedia does not have a giant buy Wikipedia a coffee button in the homepage I don’t know, gives user a chance to contribute every time they find an article useful. Thank you
if you like an article you should give money to the volunteers not wikipedia
@@StaRiToRe Stateactors already get paid to spread misinformation on wikipedia, don't have to pay them yourself....
No srsly, everyone contributing to wikipedia already does not want any money in return.
They only ones needing money are wikimedia, since they are LOSING money, by hosting wikipedia, wikibooks etc etc.
They are just trying to recoup their loss.
Not trying to profit.
Wikipedia needs money to run though... Servers are expensive when you're the 6th largest website
I think Wiki Pro would benefit from a $0.99/month price tag. It’s useful, but not useful enough to justify $10 a month. It can be one of those subscriptions where you don’t mind getting because it’s less than a dollar going out and that would mean people keep the subscription as opposed to to getting rid of it when they don’t need it anymore.
15% is considered a decent conversion rate if you can get people to switch to pro. And of the 4.4 billion users that would translate to $653.4 million A MONTH in revenue. Not bad considering in 2021 they only made $162.8 million from donations the entire year.
EDIT: you’re also missing huge revenue from institutions. Many of the 4.4 Billion unique users would be students (probably as much as 1/4 at least) so you could offer institution licensing where schools can pay say $100 a month for up to say 500 students. Or universities can pay $2,500 a month for say 10,000 student users. And allows students to generate quizzes, worksheets, revision notes, etc through WikiMate. Just a thought?
and it will also keep it accessible to people in poorer countries
$0.99 is not a suitable option for any company, the majority of it will just go towards processing fees. Even the companies that offer you $2.99 options are simply burning money in hope to hook you up on their subscription and hopefully convert to a higher tier.
This ai shiz alone exceeds 0.99 for a weeks usage even if using a trasher old model, maybe 4.99 is the nice middle ground idk
15% is insane, youd be lucky for 5
15% is veeeery unrealistic. Something between 1% and 3% is more factual
Wow, as someone who has used Wikipedia before, I hate this redesign a lot! Impressive!
I never stopped to think about it, but the reason article/talk are next to each other is simply because visitors are more likely to click the talk page as it discusses changes in an article, while only editors check the edit and history pages. It's a design that suits both user stories.
Right! It's fine that she can think she can improve it, but she doesn't need to be so arrogant about it
So the solution is just switch article for talk as default?
Honestly loved the general rework of the visual presentation of wikipedia - it legitimately could use an update. But then at the same time how sneakily you brought in those paid features, making them also seem legitimate really shows how grateful we should be that wikipedia is NOT a for profit company.
Usually I'm behind these redesigns, but Wikipedia is so functionally beautiful and feels like a gem in the age of modern web design. This is why we can't have nice things!!
as a dyslexic individual, 100% disagree on "wide = unreadable". it's already hard enough to keep track of what line i'm on, but also more jumps disrupts line of thought
Interesting. I thought dyslexic people generally read better on narrower columns of text (and more vertical line spacing)
@@nikilragav i do think vertical line spacing is a large factor in readability, yeah. that's not something as easy to adjust with a browser's settings, however
paywalling the topic map feels criminal
It's an unspoken rule that you can only charge for features that increase company costs, which a topic map does not.
@@jason_v12345 I'd feel fine with having only light and dark theme (dark is needed for accessibility, e.g. in macular degeneration) but other themes are just vanity so would be cool paying for them, and would actually pay to support wikipedia knowing I don't really need them and can just edit the css
There could be more ways to charge the vanity way
it would be cool if these hypothetical features were temporarily available to everyone each month if they met some donation threshold. Combine that with business models such as publicly ranking top contributors and being able to pay any price for subscription like they do for many open source programs and I think most people will be open to paid subscriptions.
yeah definitely, good ideas
I think this is also a good marketing strategy. Because you get to try the full experience some of the time instead of only part of the features all of the time and can decide if it is for you. My main issue with the whole monetizing wikipedia thing is any locking of useful features behind paywalls. My reasoning is that it limits access for people with little to no disposable income, who may be those who (potentially could) benefit the most from the site
Ranking top contributors is encouraging low-quality articles.
@@Syuvinya Ranking top contributors by upvotes maybe? Might incentivize bot voting though...
@@helmetboyHD whatever you do to incentivize effort the effort goes into maximizing the prize rather than the quality of work... the best you should do is create no incentive structure and let the people who want to help, help... this is why forums such as reddit are better for finding info than most websites even though redditors don't earn. creating incentive structures kills the joy in most things
The designs tickled my brain. Great insight into marketing. As a developer, the features and changes might seem very steep but are actually surprisingly doable. Also, it's wikipedia, it deserves some love. Not the drag-and-drop layout though 😅. That would be a nightmare.
Kudos for creating such an amazing masterpiece.
5:22 it is worth noting that you can switch back to any past Wikipedia design at any time (you just have to be logged in)
These design changes are great for ease of use, but... Wikipedia is clunky for a reason. It's not trying to keep users in the app, so it doesn't need a smooth user experience. It serves better as an overwhelming wall of text that you have to actually give your full attention to, rather than being able to easily jump to what you need and ignore the context. Clear Hierarchy of design prioritizes one piece of information over another and increases bias.
"Good" design isn't a neutral thing that should be applied everywhere. It has built in biases and ideologies that need to be recognized and understood.
I’m very intrigued by your last sentence, do you have any resources expanding on this?
what the hell, that actually makes alot of sense
@@cireuropa not really. I would just look on google scholar for ideology embedded design, or value sensitive design. That was what I found on a quick search
@@sofiaatomo5175 ??
they listened to you
They actually changed the look of Wikipedia
“Wikipedia has a confusing design” Uhh… what? Compared to rendering that blank page that you call ‘modern’ ?
"that black text at the left it's distracting me I'm confuseeeeeeed"
they've listened to you that's crazy
That's why we have wikiwand. Completely free and looks gorgeous
Damn I didn't know about it. Looks awesome! That seems to be the right place for pretty design. Wikipedia itself should always remain in the most simple, plain text, old internet format to stand above the test of time and current trends / designs.
Woah. It looks a lot of like the version in the video! Thanks for this!
if wikipedia changes their search algorithm im killing myself
Stop being sexist to cats.
Crazy part is someone from Wikipedia’s team must’ve seen your videos because they’ve actually filled in right side with appearance options. No premium mode though!
my favourite part is that it's just a big ugly gap if you have javascript disabled
Alternative title: I enshittified Wikipedia
Juxt just multiclassed into a lvl 13 Product Manager
8:25
What I hate is having semantic search outright replace classic search-and-find, because sometimes I genuinely want a page that only has those keywords, and that isn't possible anymore. I wish more places would enable semantic search separately.
It is possible (in google). Just use quotations, for example, "the word you want to search specifically". You can even do multiple key words in one searching
the "go pro" button especially in gold literally goes against everything i think of as wikipedia
If you actually want some of these features theres a wikipedia reader out there called wikiwand, its pretty neat!
Shit plugin made specifically to steal your info, don’t use it
I get that this was made in the best faith way possible, but genuinely it just mostly made me a bit angry with how non-wikipedia it all feels. Also ,FYI, custom themes with custom CSS and such already exist and you can save and share them and such
I was thinking that exact same thing too. But if every consumer out there cared enough about researching technologically superior options that require any amount of effort to set up, pretty much no monetisation features for any platform would exist. Considering things like custom Wikipedia themes aren't things that can harm accessibility, this is one of the lesser evil things to monetise.
Designer keep adding features and developer be like, wait bro I need some time to figure out how to center this div 😂😂😅😅
You made it: now i'm having an urge to donate just because i'm so happy that wikipedia uses that basic and functional design of MediaWiki instead of simplified and pro-ux one that you demonstrated that would change all the time just to add some new features to it.
You should really look into the fact that Wikipedia does in fact, not need your money! Look it up!
I know, crazy, it's questionable greed by the Wikimedia foundation wanting more resources for other projects and more reserves, fact is that they have reserves enough to cover the next couple decades. Keep the coffee money unless you have lots to spare, and if you do, donate to better non profits.
Yeah actually you're right, I'm going to donate right now I felt chills down my spine just watching this video
I don't even know what I'm more impressed with the editing, the idea, the finished design or how entertaining all of it was, but this is great content.
Hope the algorithm picks this one up.
I love your keen eye, such attention to detail, giving importance to small things, figuring out what is where and how to reach it. Beautiful UI rework, and on top of that, marketing lessons? With hints on functionality? That's a whole 'nother level. Words can't describe this.
Just like the steam and imdb redesigns, this one is also flawless. Congrats and thank you!
Title should be "The Potential Enshitification of Wikipedia"
you've effectively enshittified wikipedia, well done; I didn't know that was even possible
What about Wikipedia's greedy sister - Fandom?
I'm upset that navbox at the bottom of some pages got removed. I love that thing.
Yeah, instead it got replaced by Topic Maps
"because accessibility"
> immediately turns it into a paid option
its always funny how often this argument gets thrown for paid features that were free before.
The font size was free
You completely glossed over most extra customizations was a paid feature, the text sizing is free in her concept.
Wikipedia as a webpage aka hyperlink media, SHOULD NOT have ANY opinion on how your device and browser renders it.
Your browser decides the theme (background and text color), the font and text size you are reading at.
ANY website that implements these "features" will break compatibility with ANY AND ALL BROWSERS.
And they are BREAKING webstandards that we had for over 50 YEARS!
That's why the Internet is going to shit.
“Simple English” already exists as a translation for basically any generally useful article
This kind of content takes time. Great work. 👏
Definitely looks more modern.
Definitely looks more shit.
It reminds me of the garbo look that all the social media nowadays gravitates towards and its just so soulless...
Web design isn't about art it's about efficiency, hope that helps
No matter what you think looks bland or dull as long as it gets people where they need to be will always be better
@@reyalfa18I guess you're right, it hopefully gets people off computers and into the real world, because 90% of internet media now looks like complete dogshit. Leave it to "artsy" idiotic millenials to not only value form over function, but to ruin all the function there once was.
You're a wizard. Love your works and redesigns, thoughtful and entertaining at the same time. Keep it up!
this is high quality Content, Even an orange cat is not crazy enough to redesign wikipedia
girl is back againn! your redesigns are just beautiful✨✨
0:40 I highly prefer the website over the mobile app, modernization/simplification isn't always good
nvm
@@astrovation3281
Why?
@NewLightning1 Well, in this case, she just made a very great redesign. in general I dont like simplification still
Your explanation, redesign, and reasoning are truly exceptional. I find them remarkably unique and easy to comprehend.
The narrower line width option that is supposed to be "ideal for reading" actually just drive me crazy- I hate when websites use it and i will literally sometimes go through the HTML inspector to try and widen the line width if i plan on reading a long article. Is this just me??
it just screams "this website was designed for mobile with no thought put forth for desktop users".. it frustrates me and makes me want to stop using a website
Probably yeah, from watching the people around me 1. They don't care 2. If they do they seem happier with the shorter width.
I'm a little indifferent. My biggest gripe is if there isn't enough margins to separate text from edges
I prefer 50-70ch. It’s much more readable
The way I gasped when I when I saw the article map feature, oh my goodness. Fantastic video!
they actually added an appearance settings, similar to this one
Awesome video! Your ideas and solutions are really cool and legit. It really shows that a lot of thought went into the redesign.
i can't even imagine how much work you put in all this,
the examples, the coding, the video editing and the thought behind everything,
for real, your content is golden and i'm can only be thankfull for you sharing it with us
4:40 You can actually already change the Wikipedia fonts by changing the default browser fonts or the system fonts
Not easiest for the average user
Too much hassle
@@aliruiz6457That’s sad
That is not really the ideal answer.
@@ayoubthegreatThen the average user is technologically incompetent. You're already on an internet browser; just open a new tab and take a couple of minutes to find out how to do it. It's literally just changing some settings, maybe installing a font at most. It's not hard.
The internet shouldn't be designed around people who don't care to learn how to use it.
0:36 the fact that you called Wikipedia's design outdated almost guarantees a dislike. The design is gorgeous and extremely well laid-out.
I'm pretty sure that this is just what the average meeting at Discord HQ is like
"it has outdated design" - literally shows the awful design wikipedia switched **into** "to be modern"
I so hate this for-mobile style
Mobile is the Web. The personal computer is dead
@@007i1 no
@@backhdlp This is not a subjective matter
@@007i1 I'm literally -using a computer- coping
@@backhdlp That changes nothing
You really went down THE wikipedia-rabbithole!
😭
This channel is so freaking good, I just love the Redesigned websites results, keep posting PLS!!
Wow... im flabberghasted with your skills
I was ok with your changes until you touched the box at the bottom. Leave that as it is, it's very useful to have it on plain sight, if you are looking at something about an artist you have down there the whole discography, filmography or whatever. if you are reading about a game, you have down there all the sequels, the other games made by the company or related stuff.
80 char width is a relic of past technology that we must now live with, it's not some ideal
Wikipedia actually updated their layout alot and it's very close to this. The tab content to the side, the appearance tab and so on -- it seems like they took alot from this
I love your videos, I swear you nail the user interface so well
Wikipedias design is beautiful as is. It’s a time capsule from a time when the internet was a more optimistic place
crazy amazing video, the editing, the humour and the design is just flawless. The WikiPro ad at the end caught me by surprise and it was astounding.
This is the most entertaining UI/UX content i've everr seen! never thought content like this could be this much fun, but it makes so much sense looking back. Thanks for the awesome work!
Thanks, I hate it.
I love juxtopposed content. it makes me happy.
this comment made me happy
Wow, that's an amazing redesign! Great job!
This is a straight up nightmare, a horror movie!
Actually genius ways for Wikipedia to make money without trying to guilt trip and annoy all their users. 10/10
this would annoy more users
wikipedia has the god granted right to annoy and guilt trip everyone who visits the site. you see that giant wall of text begging you to donate? you donate. but what if you dont donate and feel guilty? good. you should feel guilty, the guilt should be dragging you down like the slain albatross
@@kouko6677 Wikipedia can run with current donation for over 5 decades
I'm sorry, I do not like this redesign. Wikipedia has more than enough money to run its operating costs and it should not be ran for profit, at all. Its point is to be a free encyclopedia, not to be a money machine. Although I must say, some of the stuff could be useful, but anything that had to do with paying money for it ain't it.
wikipedia is just about the last site on the internet that isn't torturous to use and if you put your hands on it i will cry.
the languages selection should be in the side tho you have that right.
This is like watching a horror movie.
You do great work, this is just an aside.
The idea of "monetizing" Wikipedia is appalling and terrifying. Imagine if public libraries weren't free. Limiting access to critically important information, for better accessibility features, to those that can afford it, is a recurring flaw with American greed and capitalism. There are things to love about wikipedias quaint and traditional interface, that the less capable could do with appreciating more. It's an encyclopedia, not a social media site. Maybe it's best that it requires more skill than your average social media user to update content, to reduce perverse changes being made to content that really matters. The fact that it is always in the top ten websites, tells me that it doesn't require any changes.
There's also the significant matter that people who give their hard earned intellectual property away for free, don't take kindly to others getting rich out of it.
Did you even watch the video? The content would still be free, and she didn't put any currently existing feature behind a paywall... I don't see how OPTIONAL pro features which would pay for a site currently financially depending om donations would be a bad thing.
Also, public libraries are not free. Borrowing books costs money.
@@petra_png optional pro features would be a bad thing because of how in your face it is, also paid features is just a way to disrespect freeloaders, and freeloaders must be respected (i know this sounds like sarcasm but it isnt , you should respect everyone and provide them with equal service, that is how we improve the world, look at how nice open source projects have gotten because they respect the user)
@@ritvikjahagirdarthe truth is that at this rate Wikipedia won't exist since it never makes any profits whatsoever with it's current ideology
@@reyalfa18The Wikipedia Foundation is super rich and receives tons of donations. They’ll be fine.
@@reyalfa18 stored donation money can keep Wikipedia running for 5 decades
Yes, replace the space on the right that is being used right now with... nothing. And let's take away horizontal space instead and make you remember what the icons mean... Why?
This is design for narrow screens applied to widescreens. Makes absolutely zero sense. The design would be ok I guess for narrow screens but that is mostly phones and then you can't even hover the icons to find out what they mean.
And similar with the other changes. This is complete satire right? You're not actually suggesting these design changes (the features are fine of course) as good changes?
But according to the comments, people seem to view it as good changes... I actually can't believe it...
80 character width has been proven to be the best width for reading, and that applies to both narrow and wide screens. Remember that wide screens aren’t supposed to stretch web content across the whole thing, most websites will stop widening after a certain point, usually less than a standard 1920p screen.
And I don’t really understand your confusion over these features? Most of them both look better and are better for accessibility.
@@Thirrekcould you provide a source for 80 characters being ideal? I personally much prefer the wider lines, I find the new "standard" width on Wikipedia incredibly awkward.
@@29..47 The Web Accessibility Initiative says 80 characters or even less is recommended for ideal reading width. But if you go from very wide to 80 characters, it can indeed look a bit off the first minutes.
"wikipedia: the *free* encyclopedia"
this person: enshittifies wikipedia
How to foster inequality by giving yet another boost to people who can afford an extra subscription.
Someone really has to code this website. Especially, the notes section would have been soooooo helpful in researching.
have you considered downloading an app
@@ritvikjahagirdar I mean, I'm using apps like obsidian. But it would have been cool to have it on Wikipedia itself
ctrl c ctrl v
seems like you are missing a good text editor in your life, replace notepad and word and this feature will no longer be required
@@ritvikjahagirdarim using obsidian