Just another Wikipedia ‘Redesign’..?
A project that looks at ‘Redesigning Wikipedia’ — focusing heavily on research. Further, the aim of this project wasn’t to be simply another aesthetic redesign, but rather a more technical design changing a piece or section of Wikipedia as, later, we would find out why it looks as simple as it does. Simply, being “to get a free encyclopedia to every single person on the planet”. Therefore, it’s purposely designed with accessibilities and constraints in mind that are within the digital divide.
Research into the Mundane
I initially started looking into the history behind Wikipedia and why it was created, as mentioned above the Founder of Wikipedia — Jimmy Wales set out with a goal “to get a free encyclopedia to every single person on the planet”. As it was an entirely voluntary contribution, it needed to have tools to be able to collaborate, self-organise, self-correct and expand and most importantly be multilingual and accessible globally.
When working with a group of peers to analyse the components of a printed-out Wikipedia page — we explored the sections of content, the navigation and how their content was displayed. When presenting our findings back we noted that one of the crux of making any changes to the website — it would make the design less accessible — which goes against the original aims and core principles of Wikipedia. A factor that I took into consideration in exploring how Wikipedia was managed and organised.
“We’re really interested in all the issues of the digital divide, poverty worldwide, empowering people everywhere to have the information that they need to make good decisions. And so we’re going to have to do a lot of work that goes beyond just the Internet. And so that’s a big part of why we’ve chosen the free licensing model, because that empowers local entrepreneurs or anyone who wants to — they can take our content and do anything they like with it — you can copy it, redistribute it — and you can do it commercially or non-commercially.”
Wikipedia Copycat’s (Competitor Analysis)
Veropedia — was a free advertising-supported internet encyclopedia launched in October 2007 and later taken down in January 2009. It was started by a group of Wikipedia editors, the community was far smaller than Wikipedia’s focusing on articles that met the site’s reliability standards. Information was then scraped, or chosen by an automatic process, and thereafter a stable version of the article was posted on Veropedia.
Citizendium — This is an English-language encyclopedia launched by Larry Sanger, who had previously co-founded Wikipedia in 2001. It required contributors to use their real names, by strictly moderating the project for unprofessional behaviour. Approved articles are then undergone a form of peer review by topic experts with credentials.
Encyclopedia Britannica — This is the oldest English-Language encyclopedia still in production.
Key Research Insights — The Talk Pages
One of the key features they’ve added allows people to change and edit the pages, as well as ‘Talk Pages’ they use to discuss changes and edits to pages.
One active page I came across while researching its policies, was from their ‘Village Pump’ Which is a set of pages used to discuss the technical issues, policies, and operations of Wikipedia and is divided into five village pump sections. These are heavily being used and discussions are being shown and removed daily. In particular, regarding their policies disputes and edits regarding them.
Ideation
From researching how changes and edits are made through these Talk Pages and discussion Boards, I wanted to explore and uncover the discussions that go behind each page. Further, allowing those wanting to review or fact-check a better way to view these changes.
The outcome was a “Review tab” I created and coded as an example of what this concept could be. This would entail seeing updates to sections of a page, seeing what was edited, its prior and current state, and who edited it and when. This would help be a check to make sure it’s accurate or for someone who wants to see the changes a simplified view for people reading the pages.
Based on my research I thought up a variety of alternate ways to create this review section with the aim of making it “scannable” as possible to get access to see who changed what and when to fact check — as before the dialogue and discussions behind the changes where hidden on a separate ‘talk page’. An example format that I liked was Githubs use of showcasing any amendments made to the code shown below, it would be highlighted in red the old code and then the new code would be highlighted in green.
Taking inspiration from GitHub — I created a mockup wire-frame of the interaction and how it would work for a Wikipedia page showcasing two alternative versions for how the display would reveal.
After I then set about creating an interactive prototype using a page from Wikipedia — which meant cloning the site, reorganising the structure code and implementing this ‘review-tab’ hover to showcase how the interaction would work in practice.
Reflection and Takeaway
‘Redesigning’ Wikipedia allowed me to develop the foundation of my practice as a UX Designer as it gave me that insight and critical thinking behind how and why things are designed and created. Looking deeper into the boring and mundane appearance of Wikipedia and asking why it looks that way and exploring the lengths made to create the most easily accessible encyclopedia on the web. This lead me to research accessibility in general and accessibility standards when applied to web design — and some of the practices we as designers must take when creating content and web experiences.
