Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Wikipedia Rolls Out Mobile Editing For All Users

samzenpus posted about a year ago | from the working-on-the-fly dept.

Wikipedia 55

An anonymous reader writes "Wikipedia today announced it has launched support for editing content on your mobile device. The first version of mobile editing, which requires a Wikimedia account, is available right now. 'For our first release, our primary goal was to create a fast, intuitive editing experience for new users and experienced editors alike, while still sticking with markup editing for now,' Wikimedia's Juliusz Gonera explained. 'We started simple so we could observe our users' needs and expectations.'"

cancel ×

55 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

markup should remain (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44387107)

Their markup language is quite simple to understand, and its existence provides a useful desire and intelligence floor on people editing pages. If people can't even be bothered to read how it works, that's probably well correlated with crap contributions. I'm sure it's not a perfect correlation, but it's a lot better than nothing, and prevents it from descending to AOL levels of stupidity. For whatever problems it has - and it has many, including internal political ones - wikipedia is a pretty damn good resource. Best not to mess too much with the formula on the aspects of it which do more or less work well. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Re:markup should remain (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year ago | (#44387519)

I'm sure the markup language will always remain an option for those who want to use it. It definitely should.

However even if you are proficient with it, editing pages can be hard as it's sometimes simply too hard to see what you are doing. Just browse through the source of page "Linux" [wikipedia.org] for example. Especially due to long citation definitions, some of the chapters are quite jarring to see. Here WYSIWYG comes to rescue.

Just say NO to citations. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44387687)

Markup languages and WYSIWYG editors should be the least of the concerns of anybody involved with Wikipedia.

The biggest threat facing Wikipedia is the so-called RELIGION OF CITATIONS . (Hold off on your "citations, please!" comments, folks. This is Slashdot, not Wikipedia!)

Citations have shown themselves to not only be inherently useless for their supposed purpose, but beyond that they are used as a weapon of intellectual oppression.

Given that a citation can be found to back up any claim, they have no real value. Time and time again we have seen two or more opposing set of "facts" presented, each with so-called "high quality" citations to back them up. All that these citations prove are that all citations are worthless!

Much worse, however, are those people who use demands for citations as a way to silence others. In most cases, those people demanding citations hold a factually incorrect position, and are actually oppressing those who wish for nothing more than to express the absolute truth.

Wikipedia needs to deal with this situation by taking a JUST SAY NO TO CITATIONS stance. Those who demand citations needs to be shunned. They need to be ridiculed! They need to be publicly humiliated. They need to be treated like the fecal matter that they are. Citations are a disease, and should be ruthlessly stamped out.

Re:Just say NO to citations. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44387943)

Completely saying no to citations could be quite hurtful for an encyclopedia and any kind of article really. The ability to reference a source for some fact is quite useful. But you are correct that they can be misused in various ways and we should pay attention when that happens.

Re:Just say NO to citations. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44388165)

Completely saying no to citations could be quite hurtful for an encyclopedia

[citation needed]

Re: Just say NO to citations. (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#44389569)

Citations from 1958 [wikipedia.org] and 1980s [wikipedia.org]

Re:Just say NO to citations. (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year ago | (#44389479)

Given that a citation can be found to back up any claim, they have no real value. Time and time again we have seen two or more opposing set of "facts" presented, each with so-called "high quality" citations to back them up. All that these citations prove are that all citations are worthless!

That's bullshit. Whenever there are, for example, two or more contradictory conjectutes in a scientific field, you end up having two or more "facts" being presented in the respective encyclopedia. Except that, you know, they are not facts, they are claims. It's perfectly valid to say in an encyclopedia that person X in field Y says Z (preferably adding person X's reasons for saying that) if person X is respected in the field.

Re:Just say NO to citations. (1)

David Gerard (12369) | about a year ago | (#44393583)

You need to start a competitor that doesn't require citations. I realise it'll have to start small, but given your obviously correct ideas its superiority will shine through.

Re:markup should remain (1)

David Gerard (12369) | about a year ago | (#44393573)

Wikitext is the most awful thing ever. It is barely computable. It provably can't be put into EBNF. Large chunks of it are literally defined as "whatever the PCRE lib in PHP happens to do". It is so horrible it has literally delayed a proper visual editor for Wikipedia by several years. We now have a visual editor that barely works after a huge amount of money and resources have been poured in. The only reason it hasn't been thrown away is that we have ten billion words of legacy content that has to keep working.

tl;dr a markup language is a nice idea, but MediaWiki wikitext is quite possibly the worst possible example and oh if only we could set it on fucking fire.

Needs and expectations (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44387137)

1. A list of watched pages
2. A big red button marked 'Revert edits'

Re:Needs and expectations (0)

Moryath (553296) | about a year ago | (#44388215)

Nah, it has the same flaws it always had - broken system, corrupt admins, and no chance that good edits will ever survive.

Re:Needs and expectations (1)

Russ1642 (1087959) | about a year ago | (#44390261)

Watched pages - so you can declare ownership and instantly revert any changes made.

Well erm (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44387157)

Considering trying to shillpedia is a waste of time to begin with, i cant recall a single edit on any one article i ever attempt to add to or correct mistake that wasnt reverted in 12 seconds by one guy who has claimed sole ownership of every article about a particular subject.

For example the article for creedence clearwater revival has a list of all their concerts, the problem? one of their biggest european concert dates and the location was not there. So i add it, 2 minutes later, its gone. Matter of fact on any article for this artist any information you try add will be removed by whoever has taken it upon themselves to 'own' the said article and not allow anyone else to touch it.

So yeah mobile editing will be oh so useful on an encyclopedia that only the privileged and or those who have an agenda can edit or alter to suit their agenda.

Wikipedia is part of all the misinformation in the world. sigh, i use it for looking up stuff im pretty sure i already know is correct, otherwise dont count on it for any kind of historic usefulness or information on certain people.

To quote ferris bueller's day off: "I weep for the future".

Re:Well erm (4, Insightful)

dugancent (2616577) | about a year ago | (#44387231)

I had an edit revoked when I removed some info about the small town I live in. It said it was devastated by fire in the 1927, but there was never a fire of any kind. I was told I need a citation. A citation of something that didn't happen, nice..

Re:Well erm (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44387293)

The first, and last, Wikipedia page I made in good faith was deleted by...forgot the username...some Wiki-tenured liberal cunt from Berkeley with Arabic calligraphy and some new-agey generic feel-good bullshit phrase for a signature. I imagined her in real-life as the woman on the Valtrex commercial doing yoga poses in the sunset in between looking directly at the camera and saying, "I have genital herpes."

Not to mention that, if she things Arabs are so beautiful, she should go move to Saudi Arabia or Paikistan and see how beautiful it is to be disfigured by an ugly fat husband who mixes his other wives' juices inside you.

And that's why I hate Wikipedia admins.

This is my story. There are many others like it but this one is mine...
-- Ethanol-fueled

Re:Well erm (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44387437)

Disregard that, I suck cocks.

This is my story. There are many others like it but this one is mine...
-- Ethanol-fueled

Re:Well erm (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year ago | (#44387613)

I had an edit revoked when I removed some info about the small town I live in. It said it was devastated by fire in the 1927, but there was never a fire of any kind. I was told I need a citation. A citation of something that didn't happen, nice..

Or being asked to find a citation for the claim "most of the compact fluorescents sold on the retail market have a color temperature of 2700K". I mean... it's not that I can find a research publication tailored to just address a common daily fact like that.

Re:Well erm (1)

_merlin (160982) | about a year ago | (#44388137)

There probably isn't specific research on it, but you could get sales figures from a major retailer of these lamps. Anyway I don't think that's true. It's actually relatively hard to get warm 2700K CFLs, at least here in Australia. The 4200K "cool white" and 5000K "day white" lamps are far easier to find on shelves.

Re:Well erm (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year ago | (#44388635)

Interesting. :O Cause here in Finlandia you really have to dig deep to find 4000K+ stuff.

Re:Well erm (1)

_merlin (160982) | about a year ago | (#44388931)

I think we need to commission a study on global sales patterns for different CFL colour temperatures. Think we can get a government grant with travel allowance to to conduct the research?

Re:Well erm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44390729)

It's a US thing -- our consumers are so dumb they associate high CCT (as found in early fluorescent tubes and in high-efficiency phosphor-based LEDs) with lousy spectral quality (as found in early fluorescent tubes and in high-efficiency phosphor-based LEDs), so now they'd rather buy a 2700K lamp with 80 CRI than a 4300K lamp with >90 CRI, and will then look at their makeup in a mirror, notice the lousy color rendering, and pronounce that every CFL is horrible,

Re:Well erm (1)

SeaFox (739806) | about a year ago | (#44388625)

I had an edit revoked when I removed some info about the small town I live in. It said it was devastated by fire in the 1927, but there was never a fire of any kind. I was told I need a citation. A citation of something that didn't happen, nice..

Couldn't you have just in turn asked for a citation of the fire happening?

Re:Well erm (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year ago | (#44389211)

What is the name of the town? I'd like to look at the article. Usually if a citation is required for claims that something didn't happen it's because there is already a supposedly reliable citation saying that it did happen. You might have better luck busting the original citation.

Of course it's equally like that it's just an asshat editor. Without knowing which article you are talking about it's impossible to know.

Re:Well erm (1)

bluegutang (2814641) | about a year ago | (#44391219)

You should have just added a "citation needed" tag. That would have alerted readers to be skeptical of the assertion.

Re:Well erm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44391787)

If you're talking about Ocean City, New Jersey, then there are multiple reliable sources which confirm the fire.

This comment being highly modded tells me something - that many Slashdot moderators have been wrong about Wikipedia topics, and got angry when they lost an argument and blamed Wikipedia. It's similar to how everyone agrees "there is heavy bias", but every actual example they provide usually indicates bias only in the complaining reader.

Re:Well erm (2)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year ago | (#44387561)

Considering trying to shillpedia is a waste of time to begin with, i cant recall a single edit on any one article i ever attempt to add to or correct mistake that wasnt reverted in 12 seconds by one guy who has claimed sole ownership of every article about a particular subject.

Actually I've found the English Wikipedia to be much more relaxed than my native Finnish edition, on which the snipers seem to be always on watch. Don't know how it is in other languages.

But you are right that the general atmosphere of Wikipedia gives a bit of a unwelcoming taste to some random guy trying contributing for the first time.

Re:Well erm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44389907)

Being an AC since the late 90's and an IP address editor on English Wikipedia since early on I feel like there is no longer a point in creating a login just to look like a noob after 15 years. Early on when wikipedia was no-cite-pedia most of my factual edits stood only to be [citation needed] tagged years later. Most of my edits now on wikipedia remain unreverted as I always include at least one good cite, doesn't help for /. though.

Re:Well erm (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year ago | (#44390113)

Most of my edits now on wikipedia remain unreverted as I always include at least one good cite, doesn't help for /. though.

Indeed, for /. it is quite the opposite. ;) The more crazy, completely unverified facts you can pull, the better.

Diffs please (3, Interesting)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#44387743)

A lot of people complain on Slashdot about perceived violations of the WP:OWN policy on Wikipedia. Yet I rarely if ever see links to diffs of edits that got reverted by an editor accused of exerting undue control over an article's text.

Re:Diffs please (1)

dpf_donovan (1201839) | about a year ago | (#44388007)

A lot of people complain on Slashdot about perceived violations of the WP:OWN policy on Wikipedia. Yet I rarely if ever see links to diffs of edits that got reverted by an editor accused of exerting undue control over an article's text.

Diffs, or it didn't unhappen?

Re:Diffs please (1)

Moryath (553296) | about a year ago | (#44388227)

Try finding out that Roger Schlafly, white supremacist, and his white supremacist friends are practicing ownership of the articles on Phyllis Schlafly and Eagle Forum (white supremacist website).

Roger Schlafly is Phyllis Schlafly's son; his brother founded "conservapedia."

Look it up. User:Schlafly on Wikipedia.

And they let this go on.

Re:Diffs please (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44388911)

Technical writing 101: when using an acronym for the first time,
spell the fucking thing out. wtf is WP:OWN? And no, I shouldn't have to
lmgtfy, the author should do the work once so thousands of others don't
have to waste their cumulative time figuring it out individually.

For the record
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles [wikipedia.org]


All Wikipedia content is edited collaboratively. No one, no matter how skilled, or of how high standing in the community, has the right to act as though he or she is the owner of a particular article.

Re: Diffs please (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#44389589)

I would have linked it myself, but Slashdot's "mobile version" lacks preview.

Re:Diffs please (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year ago | (#44389225)

Take a look at the article on nuclear power. Massive edit wars with industry shills who are determined to put their spin on the article.

Re:Well erm (1)

Bearhouse (1034238) | about a year ago | (#44389337)

It depends. There are certainly people with an agenda, or the just deranged, on wikipedia as indeed there are here on /.
They need something more robust to deal with the problem, like voting or moderation, not just a 'talk' page.

Having said that, I've contributed a little, mostly on obscure technical subjects that I know about, and have not been too bothered.

Biggist gripe is the editing system for citations and stuff, especially for the kind of non-expert user that wiki needs to grow.

Re: Well erm (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#44389611)

Wikipedia offers various forms of dispute resolution if another editor appears to repeatedly violate policies and guidelines despite discussion on talk pages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution [wikipedia.org]

Re: Well erm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44397045)

anyways why would i bother going through a drawn out diplomatic process to add 7 words to an article? my one example shows how fundamentally broken wikipedia is, basically the big kids rule the playground as usual, even if they are wrong, they got power so they can be wrong all day long. They are root!

I do not trust any information on wikipedia unless its something that no one cares about like specifications for my 30 year old engine on my truck, though i have a factory service manual for that so erm.

whats it matter anyways, 60% of people are one step shy from being a diaper filler anyways, if they use their brains any less then they do now, might as well hook up a feeding tube, strap on a pair of depends and park them in front of their (insert electronic device here that sucks your life away)

the sky could be falling and no one would notice anyways tills it 24 hours too late, since they never look up and it would likely take that long for the 2 survivors to upload the youtube video of it happening from their bunkers (basements..).

Re: Well erm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44397049)

to paraphrase tron: wont that be grand? the computers will be thinking and the people will stop.

If they had any idea how right they were.

Misbehavior in multiple articles (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#44398777)

anyways why would i bother going through a drawn out diplomatic process to add 7 words to an article?

Consider that these misbehaving editors are likely misbehaving just as much on other articles. If "going through a drawn out diplomatic process" stops these editors from camping articles, they'll stop camping not only the article that you're editing but also other articles that they had been camping. Then edits to the other articles that these editors had been camping will be more likely to go through.

First Edit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44387187)

The New York City Subway is a rapid transit system owned by the City of New York and leased to the New York City Transit Authority,[4] a subsidiary agency of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority which is full of incompotent tools. It is the most extensive public transportation system in the world by number of stations, with 468 stations in operation (421, if stations connected by transfers are counted as single stations),[1] every surface of which is covered with chewing gum [2] and wino urine [3].

Great.... (2)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about a year ago | (#44387279)

Now wikipedia will be loaded with broken tags, autocorrect problems, and misplaced text. Mobile devices suck for editing text.

Keyboards are blue in the tooth (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#44387761)

How does a mobile device paired to a Bluetooth keyboard suck for editing text? (Without such a keyboard, I agree with you.)

Re:Keyboards are blue in the tooth (1)

sonamchauhan (587356) | about a year ago | (#44388075)

> (Without such a keyboard, I agree with you.)

So you agree with him 99% !

Re:Keyboards are blue in the tooth (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year ago | (#44388667)

How does a mobile device paired to a Bluetooth keyboard suck for editing text?

At that point we might as well using a small laptop, and have no need to specialized mobile editing tools.

Re: Keyboards are blue in the tooth (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#44389627)

People buy a tablet and keyboard when they discover that 10" laptops have been discontinued. http://m.slashdot.org/story/179921 [slashdot.org]

Re: Keyboards are blue in the tooth (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year ago | (#44389797)

That is true and sad. :/

Re:Great.... (1)

timeOday (582209) | about a year ago | (#44387963)

Mobile content authoring only makes sense for Facebook, where posting selfies is the whole point.

Re:Great.... (1)

slacka (713188) | about a year ago | (#44388249)

Agreed. All the important edits that I've made, were from a desktop where I could properly research and cite my changes. I could only see this being useful for minor edits and for people in poorer countries that only have smartphones. However, people that can only afford to get online with a smartphone, will probably have more urgent issues than editing Wikipedia. I've also seen quite a bit of vandalism from highschool addresses. Making it easier for bored teenagers in class to graffiti Wikipedia may not be the best idea.

Re:Great.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44390827)

I've also seen quite a bit of vandalism from highschool addresses. Making it easier for bored teenagers in class to graffiti Wikipedia may not be the best idea.

Yeah, but using this means you have to register an account, so there's that anyhow.

OTOH, that's probably half the point -- everybody on the internet is disabling anonymous commenting and such (two sites that I routinely commented on have done this in the last 3 years)*, and if Wikipedia can get everyone on mobiles accustomed to the idea of no anonymous edits, they'll face less opposition when they want to turn off anonymous editing through the regular web interface.

*Yeah, this is why I refuse to create a /. account -- the more non-troll ACs are engaged in discussions, the less likely /. is to go down that same path.

Re:Great.... (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year ago | (#44389203)

Editors will be able to continue edit wars 24/7 from any location. For an MMORPG where the goal is to control as many articles as possible and mould them to your design this is a great improvement.

LOL (1)

wbr1 (2538558) | about a year ago | (#44387459)

Now spotted in wikipedia entries:

OMG WTF?!?!? :-D [citatin ndded]

Re:LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44387811)

Correction:

OMG WTF?!?!? :-D [flirtation kneaded]

Great. (0)

HotNeedleOfInquiry (598897) | about a year ago | (#44387953)

Now I can see my changes reverted when I'm on the road.

Say hello to more drunken updates (2)

flargleblarg (685368) | about a year ago | (#44388457)

I, for one, welcome our new drunken mobile-editing overlords.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>