Standardistas, Help Fix Wikipedia

Jens O. Meiert, April 13, 2008.

This entry is filed under Web Development, Accessibility, Usability, Design.

When it comes to professional web design and web development, not only the English Wikipedia is in questionable condition. And considering the value Wikipedia has as a contact point for rubbernecks and novices, it should be in our best interest to take care of the contentual and didactic quality of entries affecting our industry.

Thus I don’t only promise myself to watch for related Wikipedia articles and eventually fix and/or extend them, I ask you to contribute in your spare time as well. Let us all have a look at professional Wikipedia entries from time to time, probably starting with optimization of documentation like

Enjoy the most popular posts, probably including:

Comments

On April 13, 2008, 19:38 CEST, Nihiltres said:

It’s truly somewhat ironic that Wikipedia is lacking in this respect; Wikipedia itself is reasonably well designed and the great majority of all pages pass a World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) formal check as XHTML 1.0 Transitional. Of the few that don’t pass, the error is usually caused by trivial issues such as duplicate id’s.
On April 14, 2008, 16:27 CEST, mary said:

I have come across in the past so much information on wiki that I disagree with I have normally neglected to adjust and take the few minutes to make the much needed changes in some cases.

You make a terrific list of “professional entries” and I must say that I find “usability” to be a work of art.

How often do you find yourself referencing wiki for something and making adjustments to often times completely erroneous information
On April 14, 2008, 17:48 CEST, Duluoz said:

With all due respect Nihiltres - it’s not trivial for ID’s to be duplicated, nor is it acceptable to remain in a state of transitional mark-up. Code to strict standards or go home - I hate it when people get excited their sites pass a validation under a transitional doctype. Thats like getting excited about getting a C in math class. “Hey I passed.” Rrrrrr! - wrong attitude, but thanks for playing our game!

Very ambitious efforts Jens! I like it! What other sites might benefit from such actions?
On April 14, 2008, 22:17 CEST, Jens Meiert said:

Nihiltres, thanks for coming by! And from the perspective you mention the gap concerning content that touches our industry is indeed interesting though probably not too surprising, as Wikipedia is basically open and their users’/authors’ average expertise in the areas I mentioned will eventually be below current quality level. (I do love long sentences.)

Mary, yes, some articles will certainly mean some work, and reaching “consensus” will probably be the bonus level. And well, assuming that this has been an actual question, I tend to use Wikipedia for some references, but I also try/tried to keep away from possible “conflicts of interest” ~~[…]~~.

David, awesome comparison, like the “C in math class” I “currently” have no other sites in mind, the problem’s probably that few sites have such an impact since perceived credibility like Wikipedia. Mmh.
On September 8, 2008, 19:42 CEST, Richard said:

Duluoz:

I always code websites to transitional standards. Why? Cause I still can’t find a valid reason to go strict and spend that extra time when I could be coding the guts of my program.

It’s not a case of being lazy, it’s a case of being efficant. I realize that this is a site heavily focused on web standards but I do belive in some cases it could be concidered overkill.

All of the sites I code work in all major browsers and will do for many years to come so I see no problem.

I even use conditional comments *gasp* cause it saves me a LOT of time thats how I work. If trying to find a valid solution to a minor markup error (such as getting IE 6.0 min-height to work) takes longer than 1/2 hour then it’s not worth it, I could be doing more important things. I take not and if I get some spare time at the end of the project I go back and fix ‘em.

Sorry standards advocates, but thats how I roll.
On November 4, 2008, 17:14 CET, coffeeguy said:

I find it so disgruntling when I come across a blatantly biased or false article in wikipedia. It certainly is too easy to manipulate the content on that site, and too many people rely on wikipedia for factual information. The certainly does need to be some professional oversite, and revisions.
On November 27, 2008, 14:49 CET, Christophe Strobbe said:

Is anyone tracking progress?

Wikipedia articles related to web accessibility are also in a poor state. The article on WAI-ARIA contains very little detail; the article on Web Content Accessibility Guidelines isn’t very informative either. On the plus side: the article on the Web Accessibility Initiative was completely rewritten in September, but may need some work to make it more accessible to novices.
On November 28, 2008, 9:22 CET, Jens Meiert said:

Christophe, I fear there isn’t much progress yet. However it looks like we should just do it, so one thing I’ll assign to myself is grabbing at least another web dev article and go for it.
On November 20, 2009, 13:56 CET, Steven Black said:

Did you know… when you edit a Wikipedia article, it automatically appears on your “watch” list.

This means that once you’ve edited an article, by default you become an article watchdog.
On November 20, 2009, 14:01 CET, Steven Black said:

… The above only applies if you sign-in to Wikipedia.

Wikipedia’s “My Watchlist” is always the first thing I check whenever I surf to that site.

“My watchlist” makes watching hundreds of articles easy.

(Sorry for posting twice. I meant to hit “preview” but hit “post”.

Jens Meiert

Standardistas, Help Fix Wikipedia

Read More

Comments

Leave a Comment