💾 Archived View for hyperborea.org › log › 2007-01-25-clickipedia.gmi captured on 2024-05-26 at 15:05:23. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2022-01-08)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
by Kelson Vibber, 2007-01-25
I’ve been meaning to post on this subject for quite a while now, and it turns out someone has gone and said it more succinctly than I ever could have:
XKCD Cartoon on The "Problem" With Wikipedia.
As XKCD puts it: You start to read one article, say on the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, and after "three hours of fascinated clicking" you end up having read dozens of articles on wildly different topics.
Now, where were we?
When I first discovered what we called the World Wide Web back in 1994 (upon arriving at college), the web was really a web: lots of pages that linked to each other. I could spend hours clicking links from page to page finding all kinds of stuff (including the IMDB before it was bought by Amazon).
These days, the web (note it’s down to one word, and has lost the capitals) is more or less a multi-layer star topology. Start with a search engine or bookmark, take it to a site. Navigate around inside that site, usually through an index page. Maybe follow a link to another site. Go back to the search engine, take it to another site. Repeat. As a result, I rarely spend much time jumping between topics.
I’ve found that I surf Wikipedia today much like I surfed those interlinked pages back in 1994. I jump from article to article to article, and end up miles from where I started at the end of a long train of connections. It’s fascinating.
So what makes Wikipedia different? It uses actual hyperlinks, not just navigation structures and search. The whole idea behind hypertext is that it would more closely model the way the human mind makes connections between ideas, instead of forcing it through an abstraction like an index. While HTML was built with that use in mind, it’s mostly been ignored in favor of a separation of content and navigation.
Jakob Nielsen: "Wikipedia's most exciting aspect is that it's a highly interlinked hypertext"
Hypertext article on Wikipedia (of course!)
I feel like this is one of the things missing from the structure of Gemini: It discourages the use of true in-content hypertext linking in favor of a more regimented separation between content and navigation (not as strict as Gopher of course), taking a common failure mode of web design and making it a requirement.
Though thinking a bit, you do get a similar approach with TVTropes as with Wikipedia, and that's mostly lists rather than inline. So perhaps the document-to-document links in Gemtext are still, if less hyper than HTML, hyper enough?
Originally posted at K-Squared Ramblings
