The whole redesign seems to deeply misunderstand how Wikipedia is put together and how it is used. I don't love the current design but, like Craigslist, it better suits the asset. Many think Wikipedia, Craigslist, et al, are successful despite the "lousy" design. I would say "because".
There's also something to be said for timelessness. Not everything in this redesign is on-trend or dates itself, but the front-page grid design would be just as at home on Slate or Vox. Wikipedia is going to exist 50 years from now. It's likely that gridded-out magazine cover pages won't.
Comments
The whole redesign seems to deeply misunderstand how Wikipedia is put together and how it is used. I don't love the current design but, like Craigslist, it better suits the asset. Many think Wikipedia, Craigslist, et al, are successful despite the "lousy" design. I would say "because".
There's also something to be said for timelessness. Not everything in this redesign is on-trend or dates itself, but the front-page grid design would be just as at home on Slate or Vox. Wikipedia is going to exist 50 years from now. It's likely that gridded-out magazine cover pages won't.