What is Digg?47 Comments
- JakeMcMahon, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19I'm sorry, are you twelve?
- thegreat59, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Eh this new homepage dosn't look much changed I almost couldn't tell what had changed, but I would agree that it has less of a blocky look that was beginning to grate my nerves everytime I went to Wikipedia.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16I seriously can't tell anything has changed. To me it looks exactly the same.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16Yes, an absolutely hilarious joke for those who have never seen a vagina before.
- Str1der, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10its changed ... where ?? was expecting something more revolutionary .. or evolutionary ..
- Thorpe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Look, here's the difference (using the wiki History):
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&oldid=43969581
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
Being an admin at Wikipedia you just know these changes like the back of your hand. - mrnephilim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I agree, had someone not told me that it was changed i don't think i would have even noticed.
- kevinmoore, on 06/13/2009, -0/+6I, for one, welcome our new slight-change Wiki overlords!
They're just like the old overlords, but just slightly different. - NeilM, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5What can I say? Firefox is better than Internet Explorer and Wikimedia favors more-up-to-datedness (and features). If it wasn't for Firefox, Microsoft wouldn't even consider releasing an updated browser as early as they did. Competition is vital to progress. It keeps us on the move. So the more people like you complain that your broken browser won't display that one god forsaken page, the more Microsoft gets nervous. I'm glad Wikipedia's homepage displays 90% properly on IE. Just think, it could have been worse. :)
- NeilM, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I don't think it really matters. It's like earlier versions of Firefox displaying a random page improperly, yet, you're still able to read it and navigate it. Take your paragraph, replace all references to "Internet Explorer" with "Firefox" (and vice versa) and imagine posting your paragraph in regard to an early version of Firefox. It's still just bitching. Both browsers will display the main page in a mostly legible fashion--so who cares?
- brushen, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e7/Flaming_cocktails.jpg
- nroose, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Ya. Not much of a change. You can change much more with a skin:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&useskin=cologneblue - Jams, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Take me back.. way back.. http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://wikipedia.org
- MichaelStanton, on 10/12/2007, -11/+15Profancity filters are fancy.
- super_duper, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I wouldn't say "brand new" main page. It's a considerable improvement, but it remains roughly the same.
- NeilM, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I would have voted in favor of the new page, except, I couldn't f*cking figure out how. Glad to see it made it. :)
- chriswm, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8Neat design, but too bad they only tested it in Firefox. The text that should be next to the flaming coctails image is instead overlapping the image in Internet Explorer. Anti-IE'ers, hold your fire (no pun intended) ...Wikimedia has no excuse for this mistake, especially considering that current IE deployment stands at around 90%. You can fanboy for Firefox all you want, but the numbers clearly show that only 1 out of every 10 visitors is going to see this page as it was intended. That's just plain shoddy design.
- brushen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3If you look on the talk page of the main page of Unyclopedia, they changed their main page while we were voting on the draft, so that if we chose the new main page, they could joke that we plagiarized them.
- mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2awesome, i voted for the change, MUCH better design. glad to see it came through. (check the "discussion" page to see how things went down, it was pretty hectic)
- chriswm, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@NeilM:
There is a huge difference between the case of "earlier versions of Firefox displaying a random page improperly" and that of a multi-million visitor a day website failing to design their site such that it displays properly in the predominant browser, in addition to Firefox and any other less-used browsers that they choose to support. - sheik, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2There isn't as much change as I was expecting, but it does look a lot cleaner
- mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3..honestly i cant understand how anyone could possibly like the old one better. ..unless you have an unorganized-clutter fetish. maybe.
- unitedstatians, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8"The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" WTF?
- TWiThead, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I assure you that we tested the page in every major browser. The IE display bug in question resulted from a change that someone made to one of the templates after the new design was implemented.
- ghelton, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Now i see the changes. It looks a lot better.
- Discourses, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"Anti-anti-semitism? I hate to see wikipedia become politicized."
A little late for that. There are political edit wars boiling underneath the surface all over wikipedia. - PayneX, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I think wikipedia should add a "digg it" button to every article.
Hehe. - tijer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I liked the old one better...
- MalDON, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2It's just some new css. not really that special. Nobody comments when yahoo changes the colors slightly. Geesh.
- bladespirit, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3about a week ago you missed it
- Elsan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I still don't think it's better than the french one. But it sure is an improvement!
- Ryosen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2When did Yahoo buy Wikipedia?
- linuxpunk81, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Looks the same to me.
- nroose, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Looks fine in IE for me.
- gwax, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1It looks to me like they just ripped off the new Uncyclopedia Main Page that got put up a few weeks ago.
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Main_Page - fabiopsousa, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1i thought it was about some kind of overall redesign...
nothing to see here, moving next... - sublimethinker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0A little bit of progress is much better than a lot of regression.
- Xalorous, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3A review of a seminal work of anti-semitism on the first article of the day. And the article goes on to discuss "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" as one of the first conspiracy theory books out there. It remarks that it has been debunked, accused of containing sections plagiarized from political satire, and even quoted by anti-semites.
Anti-anti-semitism? I hate to see wikipedia become politicized. - Ilyanep, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2We should just go retro and make the main page as it was back in 2003
- Crossing, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Meh, the new version is good and all, but there's really not ALL that much of a difference.
- gaoshan, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Opposing bigotry and prejudice by highlighting a historically significant and infamous hoax text is politicizing an issue? You must be an American young person. Am I correct?
- raniya, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2it looks the same to me.....I was expecting something else.
- Empyrean, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1I designate this as the "12 year old section".
- bladespirit, on 10/12/2007, -13/+3dude i was watchin sonic on the tv and i saw '"-18 diggs" and I wanted to know why and then I see the image link.jpg and I'm like haha sucks
- gamerzworld, on 10/12/2007, -30/+4it was a joke
- gamerzworld, on 10/12/2007, -43/+6im a noob a wikipedia but can some one nomiate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vaginal_opening.jpg
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
