On your story regarding new Wikipedia offices in Armenia, you mention "[Armenian Wikipedia] is currently the 40th largest Wikipedia, with over 170,000 articles. Yet its listing is glaringly absent from our lead page that lists language Wikipedias that have even 50,000 article, but yet fails to mention the Armenian Wikipedia with its 170k plus articles. werldwayd (talk) 22:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if that has to do with AW's recent acceleration of article creation. I think they've jumped quite a bit in the rankings just in the last two years. Gamaliel (talk) 03:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would be a lot happier without the F-word and other profanity in some articles. I don't think even if someone used the F-word when talking about Taylor Swift that the quote should be in her article. After all, she's G-rated when she performs or at least her fans are in the age group that expect that.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between censorship & editorial sense. I honestly can't think of a reason to use the F-word in any article in Wikipedia -- except, of course, for this one -- which is editorial sense. On the other hand, being denied completely to have that linked article in Wikipedia is censorship, plain & simple. -- llywrch (talk) 17:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of other articles where it's necessary to use the word "fuck", or another profanity. Alternatives such as "f---" cause more problems than they solve. PowersT02:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe if the WMF wanted more mobile editors, they'd create a non-crappy mobile editing interface. Having the talk page link at the bottom of the page makes it tedious to navigate to on longer articles, and the lack of any real anti-vandalism abilities hinders those who work on that sort of thing. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess(talk) Ping when replying 01:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have a hard time seeing this as an issue that is significantly defined by an absence of the right software; even with brilliant and dedicated innovation in this area, mobile editing is always going to be more limited and time-consuming. I agree that the current options don't exactly do us any favours in mitigating the complications, but even if we had scaled-down or reformatted versions of basically the exact same interface and toolsets as are available in conventional editing, there would still always remain a decreased likelihood (and a significant decrease, I have to think) that a user is going to hit the edit button while on a mobile device, compared against inclination for users on PC. Snowlet's rap04:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The simple fact of the matter is that mobile users with modern smart phones can edit at will without problems on the misnamed "desktop site". Billions of social media users confirm that typing with one finger is not that big a deal. I am making this edit on an Android HTC H-1 smart phone, and have made well over 10,000 edits on Android smart phones in recent years. The mobile site is a failure for collaborative editing, while the misnamed "desktop" site works just fine. Let's stop redirecting mobile users to a failed mobile site, and instead rename the desktop site to something accurate, like the "useful site that anyone can edit. Cullen328Let's discuss it05:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree that there's an argument to be made for that approach. But even with the same basic interface, I still think that the assumption that mobile editing plays a part in our declining editor recruitment rate is essentially accurate. I'm thinking specifically here of that crucial moment when a user first decides to click on the edit or talk button of an article for the very first time. I just don't think that's as likely to happen for a reander on the go with a smartphone as it is if they happen to be sitting at a desktop. Snowlet's rap10:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We make mobile editing far less likely when we redirect mobile users by default from the site that is useful for mobile editing to the site that impedes mobile editing.Cullen328Let's discuss it00:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I do not disagree that improving on the UI for mobile editing is desirable -- indeed, I think that goes without saying. The point I am trying to stress is that, even controlling for that factor through development of an identical or equally utilitarian interface for mobile users, it is my belief that mobile editing will still yield weaker numbers of recruited first-time editors (relative to overall numbers of users utilizing this mode of access), simply owing to the context and complications of that form of usage. My comment was never meant to decry your position on the current UI or endorse the current state of affairs with regard to the mobile access architecture. I'm saying even if that UI were as ideal as we could make it, I still don't think it would be enough to cause the recruitment of new editors to be as high amongst mobile users as desktop users. For better or worse, there's currently a bit of a barrier of entry for first time users, and I don't think as many users are likely to take that plunge for the first time when browsing on their smartphones as they would if sitting at a desktop, for a lot of different reasons, of which the UI is just one. Snowlet's rap01:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mobile editing on the main site may work on phones with 7- or 8-inch screens, but a 4- or 5-inch screen is much more limited. PowersT02:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between your 5-inch and my 3.7-inch may be enough to account for different experiences. I find just typing on a mobile phone to take at least three times longer than on a computer keyboard. I couldn't imagine writing any significant amount of prose. The limited screen real estate also makes writing template code tedious at best. The absence of keyboard shortcuts for finding text and copy+paste; the inability to easily manage multiple tabs for cross-referencing and bulk editing; and the clear disadvantage of being unable able to preview how layout and image edits will appear on a large screen all would seem to limit the utility of mobile phones for editing. I'm curious how you compensate for these limitations. PowersT21:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@LtPowers: There are mini keyboards which may be plugged into smartphones. They may be used to make typing easier. Also I think the WMF should encourage editors to use tablets, which have larger screens, in case they are unable to use a laptop or desktop. It may assist editors who are frustrated with small screens on regular smartphones. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you are interested in comfort then it depends on which mini keyboard you use. Are you interested in using one with a tablet or smartphone? I haven't tried any myself but I can imagine the comfort level may differ between manufacturers and models. I would not be surprised if people are making full sized keyboards for use with smartphones too... As for viewing the material the WMF can encourage editors to use tablets with larger screens if they wish to edit Wikipedia from a mobile device @LtPowers:WhisperToMe (talk) 00:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
← Back to In the media