To the founders (Ethan and Daniel?): will you reserve any editorial control? I guess the most obvious factor that could led to the entire site's corruption is bad data (e.g., Han Solo, God, etc.) or particular data that a party may not want public (e.g. Oprah's home phone number). Or has there been some clever thinking done to resolve that problem? I've read the guidelines and they seem quite cogent.
it's safe to assume this will be more prone to vandalism, since each page will have less of an audience (and thus less chance of a vandalized page being fixed) than any given page on wikipedia
I agree. Despite the guidelines, I can see this potentially being used to spread rumors, gossip, lie, or just stuff that's plain unflattering on people. I doubt many people will be actively monitoring their Biographicon profile and this content could go undetected for a while, causing the subjects real harm.
i don't think it'll be particularly harmful. i think in the long term the wiki's reputation as a reliable source information may suffer. when something is well known not to be reliable, it doesn't have much of a way of inflicting harm.
i like both. for example, on the homepage when you click on input 'your name goes here', two new buttons appear.. that's just details, but details are what distinguish great design/interface from an average one.
well, there is no way that people who don't know you can monitor your profile and filter out the fiction from the truth, so a single unified "inner circle" is unlikely to be of much use
I'd like to see a graph of the number of times someone has commented on techcrunch that is the equivalent of "how did this get funding?! no value". I wonder if there are spikes for YC company launches.
Who do these people think they are? Nobody, clearly, as they are usually anonymous.
1) I'm not a big fan of the name, maybe it has subtle meanings that I'm not getting. It just doesn't flow. It sounds like a military term.
2) A lot of space is wasted in this site. The whole left column, which is about 40% of the site, is completely blank. I have mixed feelings about the little feedback bar, which, being a black log and over a yellow background, reminds me of ___.
3) Eventually you'll have to start making money, and thus putting up ads. The nice thing about wikipedia is it is non-profit and doesn't serve ads. If wikipedia did serve ads, I probably wouldn't bother contributing.
4) You should study the usage patterns of wikipedia, and what made it successful. I think there was an essay about that somewhere. The conclusion is that most of the edits come from a small minority of hyper-dedicated users, and the general high quality of writing on wikipedia can be attributed ot them. How are you planning to attract those types of people?
I agree--at minimum make the bio the width of the name header, and put the navigation links above the bio. The "Feedback" link could be made the same color as the backing oak leaf/acorn cluster, or green for more contrast and consistency with the organic theme.
I don't mind the name so much. It's almost like "Biographic Icon." Or perhaps "Biography Con" (just kidding).
35 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 80.9 ms ] threadone thing: what will happen with people who have the same names?
Then again I'm biased since I have a user feedback focused startup and we're hoping to be putting those tabs on a lot of people's websites.
example.uservoice.com
I see the site being popular for people who care about celebrities.
There's somebody named Hairy Beaver linked to from a home-page featured profile listing.
Was it only the visual design that you liked or did you like the workflow/feel of it too?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/04/wikipedia_secret_mai...
I just don't feel like submitting it as a story.
Who do these people think they are? Nobody, clearly, as they are usually anonymous.
Remind me to stop reading the comments there.
2) A lot of space is wasted in this site. The whole left column, which is about 40% of the site, is completely blank. I have mixed feelings about the little feedback bar, which, being a black log and over a yellow background, reminds me of ___.
3) Eventually you'll have to start making money, and thus putting up ads. The nice thing about wikipedia is it is non-profit and doesn't serve ads. If wikipedia did serve ads, I probably wouldn't bother contributing.
4) You should study the usage patterns of wikipedia, and what made it successful. I think there was an essay about that somewhere. The conclusion is that most of the edits come from a small minority of hyper-dedicated users, and the general high quality of writing on wikipedia can be attributed ot them. How are you planning to attract those types of people?
I don't mind the name so much. It's almost like "Biographic Icon." Or perhaps "Biography Con" (just kidding).