I hadn't seen the post you mentioned, but the whole thing was so dripping in arrogance and a complete disdain for Wikipedia and its international users and contributors it is begging to get panned.
Basically, it is the original post that is not constructive to the point of being hostile. There is very little "polite" about it.
Maybe it should have been ignored rather than reacted to, but this kind of thing would provoke a negative response anywhere.
Also, I suspect the whole scenario of arrogant designers presenting a design that completely ignores the needs and identity of the client and the audience, interspersed with arrogant statement declaring their own superiority is not entirely unfamiliar to many here. At least my first reaction was "oh great, that again".
This is not a way to start an friendly open discussion or get constructive criticism. It's a provocation, which is also a perfectly valid way to start a debate, but it does set the tone.
I love wikipedia, but it is poorly designed. In fact, there has recently been speculation that the decline in new editors is due to wikipedia being too arcane, particularly on the edit side. Despite its popularity, I can't see how that basic notion is even controversial.
Meanwhile, somebody comes up with a redesign mockup and it's the end of the world because 1 page (out of ~ a dozen) doesn't make it easy enough for people to switch to the right language version?
Anyway, I'm not sure about 'all the hostility,' but I agree that thread was a little weird. I expected HN types to maybe not be thrilled with that redesign, but at least agree that wikipedia needs one.
None of the criticism was of the flavor "Wikipedia must not be redesigned." The hate was directed toward the actual redesign presented there, not the general idea of a different design.
I hadn't seen the post you mentioned, but the whole thing was so dripping in arrogance and a complete disdain for Wikipedia and its international users and contributors it is begging to get panned.
Basically, it is the original post that is not constructive to the point of being hostile. There is very little "polite" about it.
Maybe it should have been ignored rather than reacted to, but this kind of thing would provoke a negative response anywhere.
Also, I suspect the whole scenario of arrogant designers presenting a design that completely ignores the needs and identity of the client and the audience, interspersed with arrogant statement declaring their own superiority is not entirely unfamiliar to many here. At least my first reaction was "oh great, that again".
This is not a way to start an friendly open discussion or get constructive criticism. It's a provocation, which is also a perfectly valid way to start a debate, but it does set the tone.