Grants talk:IdeaLab/Make Wikipedia pretty!

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Where's the research that says "As a female I chose not to edit because it looked so boring?" Josh Parris (talk) 14:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I think Wikimedia might already be working on this problem. They hired a new designer who made this back in 2014: https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/51acdf853e84334c1b0005f8/52f9c6debcbc380178a3f8a3/986b8f8da869a487feecb36d5c95439c/Tangram_motion.m4v. If we like it, we should push Wikimedia to take it out of their "freezer" section of their workflow and maybe more into https://trello.com/b/EXtVTJxJ/mediawiki-ui Frances Soong (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The best thing about Wikipedia is that it has not changed. Whenever things change people complain look at Facebook or Windows 8 for example.

Collaboration[edit]

You may want to consider collaborating with https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Aesthetic.--Mssemantics (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia redesign process[edit]

Hi Merry Kay. Thanks for submitting your idea! Giving Wikipedia a new look that is more interesting to women is definitely an interesting idea. Have you looked at the Wikipedia page on unsolicited redesigns? It has a lot of good information on the pros/cons of redesigns and tips for making a redesign as successful as possible. Once you've checked out the page, I'd love to know how you would refine and update your proposal. Please let me know if you have questions. Cheers, Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Aggregated feedback from the committee for Make Wikipedia Pretty![edit]

Scoring rubric Score
(A) Impact potential
  • Does it have the potential to increase gender diversity in Wikimedia projects, either in terms of content, contributors, or both?
  • Does it have the potential for online impact?
  • Can it be sustained, scaled, or adapted elsewhere after the grant ends?
4.7
(B) Community engagement
  • Does it have a specific target community and plan to engage it often?
  • Does it have community support?
3.7
(C) Ability to execute
  • Can the scope be accomplished in the proposed timeframe?
  • Is the budget realistic/efficient ?
  • Do the participants have the necessary skills/experience?
3.0
(D) Measures of success
  • Are there both quantitative and qualitative measures of success?
  • Are they realistic?
  • Can they be measured?
2.9
Additional comments from the Committee:
  • I like the idea of presenting Wikipedia in two colors.
  • Is there evidence that women don't edit Wikipedia because the interface is not pretty/needs more bright colours? Without supporting evidence, the idea may perpetuate gender stereotypes rather than improving recruitment of women.
  • The current design of the website is not aesthetically appealing to many people, but a full overhaul of the sites design may be beyond the scope of this proposal. It might be more likely to succeed if initiated and supported by WMF across all sites.
  • The Community tends to resist redesign proposals, so community engagement and feedback would be critical before implementation.
  • Would like more information about the project team
  • Would like to see more community notifications and engagement on the discussion page.
  • Not sure that a new skin (especially as the new default) could be launched with the timeframe of the project.
  • Would like to see quantitative measures targeting the impact on gender diversity.
  • In addition to the reception/reviews from the press, attention to the community’s reaction is very important.
  • This project is very large in scope and probably beyond the capacity of the proposed plan.
  • Suggest working with a smaller budget (~$1000-$2000) and starting by creating mock-ups, surveying editors and non-editors, and following recommendations on Unsolicited Redesigns page (e.g. focusing on a particular problem).

Inspire funding decision[edit]

Inspire astrocat aqua.png

This project has not been selected for an Inspire Grant at this time.

We love that you took the chance to creatively improve the Wikimedia movement. The committee has reviewed this proposal and not recommended it for funding, but we hope you'll continue to engage in the program. Please drop by the IdeaLab to share and refine future ideas!


Next steps:

  1. Review the feedback provided on your proposal and to ask for any clarifications you need using this talk page.
  2. Visit the IdeaLab to continue developing this idea and share any new ideas you may have.
  3. To reapply with this project in the future, please make updates based on the feedback provided in this round before resubmitting it for review in a new round.
  4. Check the Individual Engagement Grant schedule for the next open call to submit proposals or the Project and Event Grant pages if your idea is to support expenses for offline events - we look forward to helping you apply for a grant in the future.

Questions? Contact us at grants(_AT_)wikimedia.org



Hell no[edit]

Vector is better than Geoshitties-esque or "Web 2.0" (see the Oatmeal comic about that) design. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 03:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC)