Wikipedia website new design

[tom66]

I absolutely understand the reasons behind having encryption on the internet, what I don't understand is why anyone would care about wikipedia traffic. If somebody wants to intercept what I'm reading about on wikipedia they can go right ahead, if we're talking about my email or banking that's another matter.

Imagine you're in China and are looking up the behaviour of your government.   Would you not want encryption to stop the Chinese government from seeing what you are looking at?

Okay,  you are probably not so worried about your government,  but there are 'free' governments that have done dodgy things with the internet, too.

For instance in the UK, there was a proposal to ban all adult content from the internet,  unless the user opted in with their ISP or could prove via an active credit card that they were over 18 years old.  This would be performed at the ISP and not on the router itself for reasons never justified by the government.  Their proposal for doing this would be via deep packet inspection.  Who knows what the government would do with that data if it were available to them - I highly doubt it would be exclusively used to stop people looking at nudity.

Thankfully, the technical complexity of this,  and industry reluctance,  plus some press scandals over how it would work, led to it being dropped, but it was very close to getting thoroughly implemented (less than a month away before it was scrapped for good.)

Encrypted HTTPS connections, and later, encrypted DNS (DNS-over-HTTPS or some other technology) will prevent any ISP or government from seeing what you are doing without having a direct exploit on your device.  This is a good move for the internet,  even if you live in a fairly free country like the USA.  It's a good move for privacy and it has benefits for people living in countries with totalitarian governments.

[SilverSolder]

I absolutely understand the reasons behind having encryption on the internet, what I don't understand is why anyone would care about wikipedia traffic. If somebody wants to intercept what I'm reading about on wikipedia they can go right ahead, if we're talking about my email or banking that's another matter.

Imagine you're in China and are looking up the behaviour of your government.   Would you not want encryption to stop the Chinese government from seeing what you are looking at?

Okay,  you are probably not so worried about your government,  but there are 'free' governments that have done dodgy things with the internet, too.

For instance in the UK, there was a proposal to ban all adult content from the internet,  unless the user opted in with their ISP or could prove via an active credit card that they were over 18 years old.  This would be performed at the ISP and not on the router itself for reasons never justified by the government.  Their proposal for doing this would be via deep packet inspection.  Who knows what the government would do with that data if it were available to them - I highly doubt it would be exclusively used to stop people looking at nudity.

Thankfully, the technical complexity of this,  and industry reluctance,  plus some press scandals over how it would work, led to it being dropped, but it was very close to getting thoroughly implemented (less than a month away before it was scrapped for good.)

Encrypted HTTPS connections, and later, encrypted DNS (DNS-over-HTTPS or some other technology) will prevent any ISP or government from seeing what you are doing without having a direct exploit on your device.  This is a good move for the internet,  even if you live in a fairly free country like the USA.  It's a good move for privacy and it has benefits for people living in countries with totalitarian governments.

This is all assuming that HTTPS is 100% safe...  -  I believe it is safe against "ordinary" hackers, but is it also safe against well resourced snoopers e.g. governments and the like?

[amyk]

When I saw wikipedia start messing with the style I went to the archive.org, fetched the old stylesheets, and replaced it on the pages using my proxy server. A lot of wasted effort on their part, they must've run out of actually useful things to do...

[james_s]

Imagine you're in China and are looking up the behaviour of your government.   Would you not want encryption to stop the Chinese government from seeing what you are looking at?

Yes, and I'd use an encrypted VPN to somewhere else as I already do any time I'm interested in any sort of actual privacy.

That still doesn't explain the benefit of mandatory encryption. So scenario 1, there's an encrypted path and an unencrypted path, users can connect to either one, user who cares about encryption connects to the encrypted path. Big evil totalitarian government doesn't want people using the encrypted path so they block it, unencrypted path is still available to those willing to take chances, and for those in places where there is nothing to worry about.

Or scenario 2, only encrypted path is available. Big evil totalitarian government doesn't want people using the encrypted path (which is the only connection available) so they block it and those citizens are locked out, as is anyone else who can't use the encryption for one reason or another. So much better I guess?

Either way I don't care one bit what the Chinese government does internally. It's their country and their business, none of mine. If the Chinese citizens don't like it then it's up to them to rise up and do something about it. My country has a long history of meddling in the affairs of others and crusading around pushing our culture and values and it has brought us trouble to no end.

[james_s]

This is all assuming that HTTPS is 100% safe...  -  I believe it is safe against "ordinary" hackers, but is it also safe against well resourced snoopers e.g. governments and the like?

I would bet money that it's not. There are all kinds of back doors for the US government at least and I can only assume that the governments of other developed nations have talent and infrastructure available to make short work of cracking just about any encryption available to the masses. Prism or whatever that was called was exposed but I think it's safe to assume that was only the tip of the iceberg.

[Ed.Kloonk]

I absolutely understand the reasons behind having encryption on the internet, what I don't understand is why anyone would care about wikipedia traffic. If somebody wants to intercept what I'm reading about on wikipedia they can go right ahead, if we're talking about my email or banking that's another matter.

I can give you one very good reason. Malicious code injection in scripts and images.

[AntiProtonBoy]

Injection and attacks aside, there is the fundamental concept of "what I read is none of your fucking business". I fail to see the distinction between my traffic being intercepted for scrutiny vs. walking up to a stranger on the bus, bending the book they are reading towards you and say "I want to see what you are reading". It's super intrusive, and in fact the former situation is a lot worse, because electronic information can be easily scrutinised by arbitrary number of faceless people and retained forever.

[tom66]

Or scenario 2, only encrypted path is available. Big evil totalitarian government doesn't want people using the encrypted path (which is the only connection available) so they block it and those citizens are locked out, as is anyone else who can't use the encryption for one reason or another. So much better I guess?

Well exactly.  The totalitarian government can no longer pretend they are not blocking the free exchange of information.
There is no pretending to be the good guy any more.

Either way I don't care one bit what the Chinese government does internally. It's their country and their business, none of mine. If the Chinese citizens don't like it then it's up to them to rise up and do something about it. My country has a long history of meddling in the affairs of others and crusading around pushing our culture and values and it has brought us trouble to no end.

How exactly is mandatory encryption "messing in the affairs" of others? 

It has benefits for US ISP customers too because it means that net neutrality is effectively preserved, when it is no longer possible to determine who is prepared to pay for a given packet.  And, it'll stop that bullshit where Comcast, et al., inject ads into error pages (and in some cases, actual *frickin* pages, to entice you to buy a new modem...)

You can have a view of the world that includes people beyond those living in the luxury of free countries like us.

This is all assuming that HTTPS is 100% safe...  -  I believe it is safe against "ordinary" hackers, but is it also safe against well resourced snoopers e.g. governments and the like?

I would bet money that it's not. There are all kinds of back doors for the US government at least and I can only assume that the governments of other developed nations have talent and infrastructure available to make short work of cracking just about any encryption available to the masses. Prism or whatever that was called was exposed but I think it's safe to assume that was only the tip of the iceberg.

If you have an exploit that can break RSA, then you will be an incredibly rich man.
There are vulnerabilities in very specific implementations (for instance OpenSSL) but RSA itself appears to be unbreakable - without solving the prime factorisation problem.

[duckduck]

I absolutely understand the reasons behind having encryption on the internet, what I don't understand is why anyone would care about wikipedia traffic. If somebody wants to intercept what I'm reading about on wikipedia they can go right ahead, if we're talking about my email or banking that's another matter.

The issue is not "I don't care if people can see what I'm reading on Wikipedia", the issue is that when you connect to a web site without using encryption (http vs https), there is no guarantee of integrity. This means that you can't tell if someone (your ISP or the CIA/NSA/FBI/DOD/LOL) between you and that site has changed the site, possibly removing parts of it (censorship) or adding some malicious javascript to run in your browser. If the bad guys exploit a flaw in your browser, they actually could get banking information from another tab in your browser by messing with the code in Wikipedia. Encryption protects against this.

I wanted a rude username and Ed.Kloonk already addressed this.

[MrMobodies]

I was looking at the article again and noticed this:

https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Reading/Web/Desktop_Improvements#What_features_will_be_added

Currently, the interface…
…doesn't match the expectations. …is cluttered and not intuitive.  …doesn't highlight the community side. …isn't consistent with the mobile version.

The desktop interface does not match the expectations created by the modern web platforms. It feels disorienting and disconnected. Navigation and interface links are organized haphazardly.
There is clutter that distracts users from focusing on what they came for. It is challenging for readers to focus on the content . It is not possible for them to intuitively switch languages, search for content, or adjust reading settings. New editors are unable to use their intuition to set up their account, open the editor, or learn how to use non-article pages for moderation purposes.
A very small percentage of readers understand how Wikimedia wikis function. Many readers are not aware that the content they are reading is written by volunteers and updated frequently, or that they can potentially contribute as well. The large difference in experiences among our desktop interface, apps, and the mobile web, makes it difficult for readers to connect our products. There is a lack of unity in the concept of Wikimedia sites.

It feels disorienting and disconnected:
It feels To whom and what? The users, volunateers or the person/editors writing that?

Navigation and interface links are organized haphazardly?
It looks fine to me.

Search for content:
Well I have never had any problems reading stuff on there.

Many readers are not aware that the content they are reading is written by volunteers and updated frequently:
I simply click on talk history to see the changes.

New editors are unable to use their intuition to set up their account?
I never really edit things from Wikipedia but I was able to set one up quickly to add to the feedback.

A very small percentage of readers understand how Wikimedia wikis function.
Is this true? I go there to read stuff, sometimes I see things are added or removed and see who changes the articles and so on.

Not consistent with mobe apps?
No I don't want it to look like a mobile version on my desktop with a big blooming toolbar stuck over the contents and the white spaces.
I use desktop version to avoid what I think I am seeing as bloat.

How the changes will be made
Principles

We will not touch the content. We will not remove any functionality. We are inspired by the existing gadgets. We will not make major changes in single steps. We will not touch other skins than Vector.

We are working on the interface only. No work will be done in terms of styling templates, the structure of page contents, map support, or cross-wiki templates.
Elements of the interface might move around, but all navigational items and other functionality currently available by default will remain.
We have analysed many wikis and have noticed many useful gadgets. Some of them definitely deserve to be surfaced and be a part of default experience.
Though our changes are easily noticeable, we are taking an evolutionary approach and want the site to continue feeling familiar to readers and editors. Each feature is discussed, developed, and deployed separately. Skins other than Vector are out of the scope of our adjustments. We have frozen Vector to Legacy Vector, and begun deploying our features as parts of the new default Vector.

So they have looked at other wiki's, found what they think is useful and want to make it the default experience whilst altering the interface. A certain skin or might not have stuff on it like other wiki's but the interface may include those unwanted things. Is that that they want to change the interface and force me to to see something for a mobile version?

Is this contradicting the first sentences about skins an vectors when changing the interface?


It is challenging for readers to focus on the content
Never had ANY PROBLEMS with it ever.

is cluttered and not intuitive.
Cluttered? Are they joking? Joke: Cluttered with what? Useful text relevant to the content (as it is now) and no with bloated UI graphics, fixed headers and widgets, white spaces and other crap I don't want stuck over it as an increasing rise I am seeing with modern websites.

If this was the case why didn't I hear complaints about this over the past two decades.
Maybe I am not looking in the right places.

What do you think of that?

I don't know, some of it sounds like bulshit to me like that the readers finding it difficult to read articles despite their being skins and templates they can choose from but correct me if you think I am wrong.

[tooki]

I was looking at the article again and noticed this:

https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Reading/Web/Desktop_Improvements#What_features_will_be_added

Currently, the interface…
…doesn't match the expectations. …is cluttered and not intuitive.  …doesn't highlight the community side. …isn't consistent with the mobile version.

The desktop interface does not match the expectations created by the modern web platforms. It feels disorienting and disconnected. Navigation and interface links are organized haphazardly.
There is clutter that distracts users from focusing on what they came for. It is challenging for readers to focus on the content . It is not possible for them to intuitively switch languages, search for content, or adjust reading settings. New editors are unable to use their intuition to set up their account, open the editor, or learn how to use non-article pages for moderation purposes.
A very small percentage of readers understand how Wikimedia wikis function. Many readers are not aware that the content they are reading is written by volunteers and updated frequently, or that they can potentially contribute as well. The large difference in experiences among our desktop interface, apps, and the mobile web, makes it difficult for readers to connect our products. There is a lack of unity in the concept of Wikimedia sites.

It feels disorienting and disconnected:
It feels To whom and what? The users, volunateers or the person/editors writing that?

Navigation and interface links are organized haphazardly?
It looks fine to me.

Search for content:
Well I have never had any problems reading stuff on there.

Many readers are not aware that the content they are reading is written by volunteers and updated frequently:
I simply click on talk history to see the changes.

New editors are unable to use their intuition to set up their account?
I never really edit things from Wikipedia but I was able to set one up quickly to add to the feedback.

A very small percentage of readers understand how Wikimedia wikis function.
Is this true? I go there to read stuff, sometimes I see things are added or removed and see who changes the articles and so on.

Not consistent with mobe apps?
No I don't want it to look like a mobile version on my desktop with a big blooming toolbar stuck over the contents and the white spaces.
I use desktop version to avoid what I think I am seeing as bloat.

How the changes will be made
Principles

We will not touch the content. We will not remove any functionality. We are inspired by the existing gadgets. We will not make major changes in single steps. We will not touch other skins than Vector.

We are working on the interface only. No work will be done in terms of styling templates, the structure of page contents, map support, or cross-wiki templates.
Elements of the interface might move around, but all navigational items and other functionality currently available by default will remain.
We have analysed many wikis and have noticed many useful gadgets. Some of them definitely deserve to be surfaced and be a part of default experience.
Though our changes are easily noticeable, we are taking an evolutionary approach and want the site to continue feeling familiar to readers and editors. Each feature is discussed, developed, and deployed separately. Skins other than Vector are out of the scope of our adjustments. We have frozen Vector to Legacy Vector, and begun deploying our features as parts of the new default Vector.

So they have looked at other wiki's, found what they think is useful and want to make it the default experience whilst altering the interface. A certain skin or might not have stuff on it like other wiki's but the interface may include those unwanted things. Is that that they want to change the interface and force me to to see something for a mobile version?

Is this contradicting the first sentences about skins an vectors when changing the interface?


It is challenging for readers to focus on the content
Never had ANY PROBLEMS with it ever.

is cluttered and not intuitive.
Cluttered? Are they joking? Joke: Cluttered with what? Useful text relevant to the content (as it is now) and no with bloated UI graphics, fixed headers and widgets, white spaces and other crap I don't want stuck over it as an increasing rise I am seeing with modern websites.

If this was the case why didn't I hear complaints about this over the past two decades.
Maybe I am not looking in the right places.

What do you think of that?

I don't know, some of it sounds like bulshit to me like that the readers finding it difficult to read articles despite their being skins and templates they can choose from but correct me if you think I am wrong.

I worked as a professional interface designer for a few years (and have been interested in UX for forever), and I agree with you. I perused the design experiments on the page you linked, and I think most of them make it worse.

[Mr. Scram]

This is all assuming that HTTPS is 100% safe...  -  I believe it is safe against "ordinary" hackers, but is it also safe against well resourced snoopers e.g. governments and the like?

Governments issue certificates, so no. But that doesn't mean it's a bad idea, just that there are important  caveats.

[I wanted a rude username]

Governments issue certificates

You may be referring to the DigiNotar attack, which spurred the development of Certificate Transparency, a distributed system to detect such fraudulent certificates. You are right though, there is still a caveat: they would not be detected immediately, providing an attacker a window of time in which to learn everything about their target before the trickery was revealed ...

[Mr. Scram]

You may be referring to the DigiNotar attack, which spurred the development of Certificate Transparency, a distributed system to detect such fraudulent certificates. You are right though, there is still a caveat: they would not be detected immediately, providing an attacker a window of time in which to learn everything about their target before the trickery was revealed ...

I was referring to Kazakhstan's somewhat hamfisted attempt to abuse certificates to listen in on people. The main issue is that certificate authority trust is almost absolute, which means that the ability to issue certificates or exert power over issuing parties in the wrong hands leads to all kinds of unpleasant consequences. Even when the technology is safe, it doesn't always mean your data is.

https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/what-is-root-certificate/

[I wanted a rude username]

The main issue is that certificate authority trust is almost absolute

Yes. And none of the proposed alteratives (chain of trust, blockchain, etc.) have worked out ... we only have mitigations (and many of those turn out also to be unacceptable ... look at certificate pinning).

It's much like with state-issued ID ... it becomes more important and pervasive each year, and acquiring it becomes more onerous.

[voltsandjolts]

What do you think of the proposed redesign?

Hmm.
I guess with 450 staff on an average salary of 120KUSD, you need to refresh the website at least once a decade, in some vain attempt to look like you are worth the donated money.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_salaries

[tooki]

What do you think of the proposed redesign?

Hmm.
I guess with 450 staff on an average salary of 120KUSD, you need to refresh the website at least once a decade, in some vain attempt to look like you are worth the donated money.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_salaries

Given the sheer scale at which Wikipedia operates, I think their budget is fairly modest. I don't agree with any of the malfeasance you insinuate.

[Mark]

Given the sheer scale at which Wikipedia operates, I think their budget is fairly modest. I don't agree with any of the malfeasance you insinuate.

Mental right-click and "add to dictionary".   

[MrMobodies]

Just checking out Wikimedia and I find I got a reply a year late from 2021.

https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Topic:Wiqquepvymt169bu&topic_showPostId=wj5z6jebkk6dgh46&fromnotif=1#flow-post-wj5z6jebkk6dgh46

MrMobodies (talkcontribs)
With the new design please be aware that not everybody wants things stuck to the page or over the contents. I find that very distracting and annoying. I class it as spammy behaviour when they are in the way and can't be closed. I find i can't concentrate on the article. I would like to see an option to hide it like a slider, Google maps have one for the side pane. DuckDucko has a setting and Archive.org has a close button which gives me a choice. I have to rely browser extensions to hide/show these things and they don't always restore properly.


Will there be a setting?

Reply a year ago
SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talkcontribs)
Overall, we:

Are aware that in such a diverse and tech-savvy group as Wikipedians, there will always be people who dislike a particular feature
* Will build this in MediaWiki which is highly customizable/adjustable anyway.  One "only" needs to know how to adjust something. How to change CSS, or to write a user script, etc.
So I suspect the question isn't really "whether this would be possible" but "how easy this would be for individual users". I'll ask my colleagues

* Good.

I find nothing diverse about forcing users to have their viewing bombarded by unwanted things that get in the way and serve as a distraction.

I take the same offense as to what malware use to do to my customers back over a decade ago with installing browser toolbars and injecting things over whatever webpage they were looking at.

I hope they keep their word contrary to what I find here:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Reading/Web/Desktop_Improvements/Features/Sticky_Header

Sticky header

Editing button in the Vector 2022 sticky header.png
We have added an edit button to the sticky header to make access to editing the full page easier (*without requiring scrolling to the top of the page). After testing across a number of wikis, we concluded the following: People were more likely to complete the edits  they start using the sticky header in comparison to the edits initiated using other edit buttons on the page.
The edits people started by clicking the edit button in the sticky header, and ultimately published, were reverted less often than those initiated using other edit buttons on the page.
What is our objective?

I think this sums it up:

Hypothetically: If you went into a shop on the high street and everytime you go in there you have something stuck in a fixed part of your vision, with the store's logo, and toolbar in the way and distracting and no matter where you look you can't get rid of it until you leave. Now how would you feel? Wouldn't that put you off?

People were more likely to complete the edits

I wonder are they calling their users lazy? that need something stuck constantly whether they want or not.

What do you think?