You'd probably want any redesign of Wikipedia to start with the understanding that the front page of the English Wikipedia isn't WWW.WIKIPEDIA.ORG, it's EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG, and that that page is dominated by content --- most notably the WP Featured Articles, which are a core part of the Wikipedia community.

Draw the pretty colored lines after you grok the concept.

It goes downhill for me as they try to get more technical, redefining the way the encyclopedia is edited and organized. Drag and drop reformatting of article layouts? Really? Don't the best Wikipedia articles tend to be conformant to template layouts?

Wikipedia is not Digg. It does not have, as its primary goal, the delight of random web users. They are doing something bigger than that.

I'm also not a fan of the branding idea. First, they've confused Wikipedia with The Wikimedia Foundation. The two aren't the same thing. The branding they propose makes sense only for the latter. Second, they're trying to do that organic living logo thing that has become ultra-trendy lately (just read Brand New Blog to see it done well); "as Wikimedia evolves, the little lines in the logo will change". Well, maybe, but the relationship between Wikimedia top-level properties doesn't change all that regularly, nor does it meaningfully change depending on the context. Nor does the aggregate set of lines between properties draw an appealing or meaningful picture.

Also the capital "I" in the font they're using is killing me.

For the people that want to turn on two-factor authentication on their Gmail account, here's how to do it: http://support.google.com/accounts/bin/answer.py?hl=en&t... I highly recommend it.

Some of the common misperceptions I see:

Myth: But what if my cell phone doesn't have SMS/signal?

Reality: You can install a standalone program called Google Authenticator, so your cell phone doesn't need a signal.

Myth: Okay, but what about if my cell phone runs out of power (added: or my phone is stolen)?

Reality: You can print out a small piece of paper with 10 one-time rescue codes and put that in your wallet.

Myth: Don't I have to fiddle with an extra PIN every time I log in?

Reality: You can tell Google to trust your computer for 30 days and maybe even longer.

Myth: I heard two-factor authentication doesn't work with POP and IMAP?

Reality: You can still use two-factor authentication even with POP and IMAP. You create a special "application-specific password" that your mail client can use instead of your regular password. You can revoke application-specific passwords at any time.

Myth: Okay, but what if I want to verify how secure Google Authenticator is?

Reality: Google Authenticator is open-source: http://code.google.com/p/google-authenticator/

Hmm. Maybe I should throw this up on my blog too.

J don't understand why you have such a problem with it. Jt seems fine to me.