Explore Wikipedia Like a Windows XP Desktop
explorer.samismith.com
explorer.samismith.com
And so The Microsoft Network wasn't a program you loaded like CompuServe. It was part of the OS, with folder icons that looked just like real folders. It was a kind of version of the Web where you could browse online data the same way you browsed your file system. This is what made it cool.
It was as if the data was suddenly free of the shackles of being displayed in a program. Data wasn't just a web page, or a program showing its own internal databases. The Microsoft Network made it look like the data was right there, and you could click it and drag it around! For a brief time, back in 1995, it felt like we were on the verge of the true object-oriented web, a world filled with open data and free from the tyranny of the walled gardens.[1]
It also reminded me what an excellent job Wikipedia does with their hierarchical classification which you don't see when you're often only searching by article name.
[1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20260129143542/https://www.coder...
This stuff probably seemed moderately innovative if you didn't grow up with it, seemed blindingly obvious if you did grow up with it, and somehow, like idiots, we've managed to lose it again!
To this day there exist office workers—ones old enough that no, it's not because the were introduced to computers via smartphones—who use a computer for hours every single weekday day but get totally turned around in a file manager, and don't know even the extreme basics like how to copy and move files.
There are offices full of such folks, in non-tech offices, where the person who knows how to sort-of use a GUI file manager is the "computer whiz" they go to with questions.
While many did pick up on the idea, where were the shortcomings? Were the early graphics not enough to build the mental link. Was it the common grid view of icons. Was it the icon being an abstract thing you needed to open to see the contents instead of looking at it directly (as previews on the icon which came later), was it things opening in separate windows. It's not as though other more visually 'rich' methods to show a file system such as 3D or animated took off.
There's also the modern version that gets brought up occasionally where people who are using devices with mobile instead of desktop OSes apparently don't know how to work with file systems to manage data, and presumably they'd have even less exposure to the physical paper concept that inspired it.
Once you understand how that works, then additionally understanding the new/save/open buttons is trivial, but if you started with the new/save/open buttons you might not get how they work because you'd have to lose your existing wrong understanding. Learning is path-dependent.
As someone who once tried to use that supposedly hierarchical classification for data organization, it is unfortunately not excellent at all.
It is rather arbitrary, inconsistent, extremely incomplete, and not infrequently circular. Think of it more like a bunch of haphazardly applied tags that make perfect sense in the context of a single page, but quite frequently make very little sense when you look at the actual pages and sub categories that belong to a category. Category membership is just not something visible enough for it to wind up being organized and curated in any kind of systematically accurate way.
On the other hand, the presence of an infobox of a certain type is extremely reliable for categorizing many types of articles.
Nowadays we call those APIs. They are REST based rather than file-based to make them distributed, the main difference is that you don't get a common user interface that all providers adjust to; you need to choose your own client to read them and write into them.
And because they're created by programmers for programmers, they're not what you'd call user-friendly. Usually the only efficient way to use them is programmatically, so that you need to create a specific user interface for each API. Somehow, I doubt that Cairo would have come to be anything much different from that in the end.
There was also this submission from 9 years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13361523 - and probably not the only one of such ideas
It seems a bit of a missed opportunity really. If they had more agressively pursued alliances, it could potentially have been a solid (pun only semi intended) foundation for Mastadon and Bluesky.
The name is unfortunate as well, it is really difficult to search for.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_(web_decentralization_pr...
That's actually not far off. It was an old-fashioned BBS like Compuserve in a Windows Explorer-like window. The topic-specific icons you see in this mockup are actually very on-point, though on the Microsoft Network they would be for general BBS sections not encyclopedic articles or media.
Language is an imperfect means to convey knowledge, and people store that knowledge in subjective and highly personal ways.
You may mentally recall balloons within “entertainment” or “party”, whereas I might store that knowledge under “horror”.
Add onto that the massive focus on using graph theory to scale social networking technologically, and you effectively lose any motivation for rigid hierarchy.
For example, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Paintings_of_cas... contains the subcategories "Paintings of castles by country" (nested hierarchy), "Frescos of castles" (a medium), "Paintings of Château de Chillon" (a subject), and "Young Knight in a Landscape by Carpaccio" (multiple views onto a specific item). Each item may appear in multiple subcategories. As far as I can tell, the UI won't let you search for frescos of Italian castles (unless somebody's made a subcategory for that), or view all paintings of castles regardless of their subcategory.
I'm not very fond of this approach. I'd prefer for each item to have an unstructured set of tags ("fresco", "depiction of a castle", "depiction of Italy"), with automatic derivation of parent tags ("fresco" implies "painting") and the option to search by multiple tags. It should be possible to automatically discover tags which best refine a search, so that the UI can still suggest them to the user, as it does today.
It's definitely possible to do this. IMSLP (a large repository of freely available sheet music, which differs by cross-cutting features such as genre, historical period, contributors (composers and others), instrumentation etc.) is MediaWiki based and has a plugin that does exactly that. These days the would probably want to host all the tags on Wikidata so that they can be multilingual and queryable out of the box, though.
The cataloguing system uses a hierarchical classification, based on one originally developed by Thomas Jefferson, on whose initial donation the Library of Congress is based. This is known as the Library of Congress Classification, and is used to specifically locate a given title or work within the stacks, that is, each item has one and only one location.
There are also subject headings which are more tag-based, though also on a controlled vocabulary. A given work is given a (relatively small number) of subjects to which it's associated. These are not hierarchical, though of course the listing of subject headings itself follows a sequence. Unlike the classification, which assigns a single location to each work, the headings are a search aid to patrons searching for a set of related works within a subject heading, or facilitate branching of a search to possibly related subjects.
Tagging systems, especially ad hoc tags supplied by untrained users, are popular but tend to produce numerous issues over time. Not that formal systems (as with the LoC systems mentioned here) are immune to same. One feature of the LoC systems is that they've evolved processes for managing change over time. Examples would be terminology or classifications which are now deprecated, or of regions and polities which have changed or no longer exist (e.g., the Austro-Hungarian empire, the USSR), or of changes in underlying classifications (e.g., of chemical elements or of biological classifications, both of which have evolved significantly over the life of the Library of Congress).
The history of hierarchical information classifications is long and IMO fascinating, dating at least to Aristotle and his Categories, as well as numerous variants used in classifications of knowledge (such as Francis Bacon's) or encyclopedias, including Diderot's and Britannica.
The category tree being displayed comes directly fron wikipedia. E.g. Wikipedia has pages like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Art
Since this is so terribly impossible most systems almost immediately make it possible for things to show up in more than one place, which means it's actually hierarchial tagging, whether or not the organizer(s) realize it.
You could also make a distinction based on how many tags things end up with; if it's almost always one, you could call it a nested hierachy with some exceptions, but if it's almost always more than one, and often much, much more than one, it's a tagging system. Even by that criterion that creates a spectrum rather than a binary distinction, Wikipedia is very much organized by tags and not hierarchies. I don't know what the average is but every Wikipedia page I've ever looked at the tags for has quite a few.
We let go of the the manual index somewhere along the way since it doesn’t scale like search, obviously, but for the same reason I keep a library and enjoy traversing others’ private ones and visiting public ones, I keep coming back to browse.
This has become a forgotten art: we focus so much on CONTENT these days that we forget that people want to use the mouse to scroll, and use the mouse to resize windows.
I've never seen wikipedia from this categorized vantage point. If we're being real their UX is kinda crap outside the usual search->article->link flow and could use a complete rework.
Three tricks if you didn't already know:
1: you'll find categories at the bottom of regular mediawiki pages
2: if you click one, you'll end up on a page like eg. this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Computers
3: the tree style tabs plugin in combination with middle-click is criminally underrated for navigating hierarchical data. (middleclick open-in-new-tab is only mildly handy, tree style tabs seems tepid by itself without it)
The little arrows next to the subcategories can be clicked to open up trees, so you have hierarchical data in there as well. Try click open eg Classes of Computers (With 41 direct subcategories, and 91 pages directly in the top level category, that's a big tree!)
Categories are criminally under-used.
Unlike Wikipedia these days.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=More_milk.&redire...
The "Windows XP" website displays the same article when you click on "More milk" there
> After several hours and several drug injections, Jackson was still unable to fall asleep, and, according to Murray, was repeatedly asking him for "milk", a nickname for the powerful surgical general anesthetic propofol, which Jackson had used in the past as a sleep aid. At 10:40 a.m., with Jackson still not asleep, Murray relented to his requests and injected him with 25 milligrams of propofol diluted with lidocaine. With Jackson finally asleep, Murray testified that he left his bedside to go to the bathroom, and after returning two minutes later, discovered that Jackson was not breathing and had a weak pulse.
He calls taking propofol for sleep as Having chemotherapy because you're tired of shaving your head
The main CSS comes from XP.css [0], but the AI additions [1] have definitely messed it up in some way.
The whole thing is pure JS which is nice but the comments give a good impression isn't not hand written IMO [2]
[0]: https://github.com/botoxparty/XP.css/
But my biggest gripe is, why represent it as a file system with WordPad displaying HTML? I get the idea for media, but not for the articles.
It's pretty obvious that Wikipedia should be a single CHM file. That would be nice and much more immersive.
Should put a shortcut to it on the desktop as well, so that users who experience significant lag can defrag at will.
Generally you can delete your comment if its relatively soon after you posted it and nobody replied.