This is a smart idea by these folks, it's generating buzz for their firm and likely helped them improve their branding chops as they thought through this.
I found the way they presented it deferential and respectful enough, why trash their effort? Of course these fantasy redesigns are naive and mostly impractical, but there may also be some decent/helpful ideas being suggested. Do you think Wikipedia is worse off for all of us discussing how it might be improved?
I like unsolicited redesigns so long as the people behind them aren't snide or arrogant in the way they present them (I can see why the NY Times redesign irked people).
But if you're going to conceptualise a change to one of the most popular websites that is backed by an intelligent and active community you're going to have to expect some critical feedback.
I actually think there is a bit of arrogance implicit in the redesign, as the designers haven't solicited feedback from the wider wiki community and made big assumptions about the original design.
I found the way they presented it deferential and respectful enough, why trash their effort? Of course these fantasy redesigns are naive and mostly impractical, but there may also be some decent/helpful ideas being suggested. Do you think Wikipedia is worse off for all of us discussing how it might be improved?
I like unsolicited redesigns so long as the people behind them aren't snide or arrogant in the way they present them (I can see why the NY Times redesign irked people).