I often google for the wikipedia entry on things even when I know other sources are better, because I've become very efficient at parsing wikipedia pages and extracting what I want to know. Anyone else do this? Is there a UX word for this? It's a kind of imprinting or something
Conversation
Show replies
Replying to
I do it too. The benefit of familiar format outweighs the cost (and you can always use that info to subsequently influence the rest of the search). Feels like there’s a musical instrument analogy. Can be useful to go to “home base” even if it’s not the best instrument for the job
2
15
Replying to
something deep here about the nature of form (nonfiction & maybe other) - a shared structure (with varying content) that audience has optimized to extract information from
1
8
Replying to
I do this too, because: comparatively clear and unbiased content, quickest disambiguation, familiar ui, loads fast, no distracting ads. Plus a small thing: I feel good about paying, and I remember paying them, unlike myriad Atlantic or guardian or nyt or wired or whatever.
1
Replying to
how bout this? i relate so i googled "using a suboptimal tool due to familiarity" which led here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere-expo
1
1









