There are cases where an infobox has been rejected as being an eyesore or distraction for human readers. What advantage does an infobox have over a (properly implemented, perhaps improved) hidden record (like PersonData)?
The term "eyesore" implies a personal aesthetic preference rather than a substantive argument. The only
scientific study I've seen shows that people do indeed look at infoboxes; but seems to suggest that's an aid to their understanding, not a "distraction". I address the deficiencies of the of persondata model as an alternative for metadata in infoboxes in
this essay, which is still in draft, but nearing completion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits21:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Other infoboxes distract readers from the prose in other articles, particularly their ledes: See {{Infobox economist}}.
Many of your concerns actually suggest improving PersonData. Your argument that editors fail to update PersonData is more substantive; nonetheless, BLPs could easily generate a reminder to editors to update the PersonData fields.
Increasing the value of Wikipedia for Google and other corporations is not high on the list of priorities for many editors, particularly those who do not consult on the exploitation of WP's microformats. Kiefer.Wolfowitz22:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Yes, we could improve Persondata. We could make it more granular, just like our infobox metadata. We could align it with international standards for metadata exchange (
vCard for people and organisations, for example;
iCalendar for events), just like our infobox metadata. We could make it visible, to overcome the hidden metadata problem, and then we could style it to appear at a position supported by the Wikipedia community - top right on the page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits18:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Indeed it's a screen issue. Those boxes are pleasant on my big computer but less pleasant on my new 10 inch (25 cm) tablet and I bet they're yes, downright obnoxious on a seven inch (17 cm) screen. Since sales growth rates nowadays are higher for small portable screens than large ones that sit on a desk, Wikipedia should try to cater to readers using them.
Jim.henderson (
talk)
14:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia does; it has a mobile interface, and an app. That said, the examples given are no larger than other infoboxes, viewed in the non-mobile web version on the 4.3-inch screen of my
HTC Desire HD. I use a 10" netbook as my primary device, BTW. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits16:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)reply
← Back to WikiProject report