• @Lost_My_Mind
    link
    English
    2234 months ago

    Do not start a headline with “Darkness reigns over Wikipedia”!!!

      • Mia
        link
        fedilink
        English
        74 months ago

        Wikipedia is about to become a really weird place…

        • Pissipissini Johnson 🩵! :D
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -54 months ago

          Yes. Because so many people seem to have changed their belief systems.

          Naturalism is essentially based on the strict adherence to Newton’s laws, which were shown to be slightly wrong in some cases.

              • Mia
                link
                fedilink
                English
                64 months ago

                No I just don’t get what any of that has to do with a joke about Wikipedia becoming weird because it’s being run by a crazy anime girl from Konosuba, that’s all…

      • @Lost_My_Mind
        link
        English
        514 months ago

        No, thats the job hunting website. Wikipedia is the one anyone can edit historical facts.

        • @ummthatguy
          link
          English
          184 months ago

          (Which is apparently a workspace AI company)

  • @Melvin_Ferd
    link
    English
    824 months ago

    The year is 2024, hacker news stands strong as only remaining website to not offer darkmode.

    Thou art forbidden to peruse our content in the dead of night; verily, our content is for the light of day alone.

    • @suction
      link
      English
      34 months ago

      Have you heard of lightbulbs?

    • @cheese_greater
      link
      English
      34 months ago

      Gotta get Hack, its an HN client/front-end. Beautiful and has all that stuff, otherwise the website is very non-addicting to me, I’ll give them that.

      • @Melvin_Ferd
        link
        English
        44 months ago

        Thanks, I ended up getting harmonic. Seems to do the job. It’s baffling that hacker news is like that

  • @chemical_cutthroat
    link
    English
    374 months ago

    If you are on desktop and you aren’t sure how it works, try out this Wiki page and in the top right corner you can see an “eyeglasses” looking icon. Click that and set it to Automatic or Dark.

  • e$tGyr#J2pqM8v
    link
    fedilink
    English
    36
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Wikipedia is such a beauty and I’m so glad and grateful it exists. Surely it’s not perfect, but it’s so inspiring and hopeful to see a collective effort be so successful. I sometimes wonder, what new projects we’ve seen since that are equally inspiring. The Fediverse certainly is beautiful but it’s also still a little bit fringe. I personally really like MusicBrainz, but that started 24 years ago What new collective projects has the internet brought us in recent years? And what collective projects could the future bring us?

    • KillingTimeItself
      link
      fedilink
      English
      24 months ago

      my favorite thing about wikipedia is the information density, there are few things that match it, except for books, and those often cost money.

  • maegul (he/they)
    link
    fedilink
    English
    264 months ago

    Very happy to see it come to wikipedia!!

    But I think it also needs some polish. The contrast is too high and the blue on black of the hyperlinks is too garish for sure.

  • fmstrat
    link
    fedilink
    English
    25
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Hello DarkReader my old friend…

    Which you still need for mobile. Edit: Nope.

    • @GreenEngineering3475
      link
      English
      15
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Nope, its available on mobile too. Just go to

      Sidebar>Settings>Colour

      (Options to choose from)

      • Light

      • Dark

      • Automatic

      • @Psythik
        link
        English
        24 months ago

        Yeah but that requires cookies. Not everybody allows them. I block everything that isn’t a first party cookie, and set them to delete every time I close my browser.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          74 months ago

          To be fair though, “The website doesn’t remember my settings because I don’t let it,” isn’t really a problem the website can solve.

          I just had a thought that I’d like to see a plugin that independently remembers whichever cookie-based settings you want it to on a per-site basis and then re-inserts those settings into fresh cookies whenever you visit using some sort of search & replace or markup interpeter. Basically a way to maintain personal control over what data cookies can hold.

          • @Psythik
            link
            English
            34 months ago

            They could solve it by not using tracking cookies so that I don’t have to do this in a futile attempt to protect my privacy.

          • KillingTimeItself
            link
            fedilink
            English
            24 months ago

            maybe it’d be nice if we just had “config registers” alongside cookies that just allowed us to store a single bytes worth of information in it or something. Would be perfect for things like darkmode.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      84 months ago

      The Wikipedia app has had dark mode for a while. Plus dark mode in Firefox works fine with no extensions.

    • @shneancy
      link
      English
      14 months ago

      pretty sure mobile darkmode for wikipedia has been avaliable for a while now

  • @umbraroze
    link
    English
    244 months ago

    The Washington Post: “Democracy dies in darkness”

    Wikipedia: “Knowledge that is shared in torchlight is fucking awesome

  • @venusaur
    link
    English
    144 months ago

    I thought this was gonna be about Wikipedia finally shutting down because nobody donates

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      33
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      They are actually getting too many donations, many times more than they need to run wikipedia. There was and is a big conflict about the unsustainable growth of donations to the foundation and its questionable use of those funds.

      • @Phoenix3875
        link
        English
        40
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Wikimedia Foundation (the org behind the Wikipedia and similar projects) does get more donations than their operational cost, but that’s expected. The idea is that they’ll invest the extra fund[1] and some day the return alone will be able to sustain Wikipedia forever.

        Although, some have criticized that the actual situation is not clearly conveyed in their asking for donation message. It gives people an impression that Wikipedia is going under if you don’t donate.

        Others also criticized that the feature development is slow compared to the funding, or that not enough portion is allocated to the feature development. See how many years it takes to get dark mode! I don’t know how it’s decided or what’s their target, so I can’t really comment on this.

        They publish their annual financial auditions[2] and you can have a read if you’re interested. There are some interesting things. For example, in 2022-2023, processing donations actually costs twice as much as internet hosting, which one would expect to be the major expense.


        1. https://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Policy:Wikimedia_Foundation_Investment_Policy ↩︎

        2. https://wikimediafoundation.org/annualreports/2022-2023-annual-report/#toc-by-the-numbers ↩︎

      • @systemglitch
        link
        English
        8
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Huh, now that is a truly interesting bit of information.

            • @TrickDacy
              link
              English
              14 months ago

              Providing sources is probably a lot more common on Lemmy than anywhere else

                • @TrickDacy
                  link
                  English
                  14 months ago

                  Lol obviously I meant places where random users post content

      • @aidan
        link
        English
        84 months ago

        Similar to Mozilla (but not from donations but instead of its millions paid to it by Google)

      • KillingTimeItself
        link
        fedilink
        English
        14 months ago

        they’re a non profit, so their either banking money in a proverbial “war chest” or they’re just nabbing donations to be used in the future, for large expansions or what not.

        It’s an interesting problem to have, being a non profit entity.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -174 months ago

        Remember, if you donate to the WMF, they will use that money to enforce “WMF global bans” against users trying to make useful contributions but who once looked at the wrong people funny.

        • @tabular
          link
          English
          114 months ago

          Who’s trying to making useful contributions but got banned, and what were they banned for?

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -144 months ago

            One of the earliest global bans was against user “russavia” - research him and you’ll know what I’m talking about. After that I stopped following Wikimedia internals because it was 100% clear that they were now just completely arbitrarily banning people.

            • @TheGrandNagus
              link
              English
              274 months ago

              Banned user Russavia edited two of the oligarch articles. He was a very active administrator on Wikimedia Commons, who specialized in promoting the Russian aviation industry, and in disrupting the English-language Wikipedia.

              After finally being banned on the English Wikipedia, he created dozens of sockpuppets. Russavia, by almost all accounts, is not a citizen or resident of Russia, but his edits raise some concern and show some patterns.

              In 2010, he boasted, on his userpage at Commons, that he had obtained permission from the official Kremlin.ru site for all photos there to be uploaded to Commons under Creative Commons licenses. He also made 148 edits at Russo-Georgian War, and 321 edits on the ridiculously detailed International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Both of these articles were, at one time, strongly biased in favor of Russia.

              Idk, when you’re using Wikipedia as a tool to push Russian propaganda, it seems fair that you’d be banned. That’s not what Wikipedia is for. He’s free to start russopedia.ru or whatever if he wants to do that.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                24 months ago

                the ridiculously detailed

                An encyclopedia calling an article ridiculously detailed is… interesting.

                • @Passerby6497
                  link
                  English
                  5
                  edit-2
                  4 months ago

                  Kinda burying the lede on that complaint…

                  and 321 edits on the ridiculously detailed International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Both of these articles were, at one time, strongly biased in favor of Russia.

                  Wikipedia cares more about bias than* ridiculous details, especially when the ridiculous detail is there to put bias into the article

                • @TheGrandNagus
                  link
                  English
                  24 months ago

                  I think their point was that since he got Russian government permission to use Russian gov media, and he wrote a very detailed (although very biased in favour of Russia) article, then they think he is receiving assistance from the russian government to push Russian propaganda.

                • KillingTimeItself
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  24 months ago

                  reads almost like it’s talking about the situation at hand having been extensively and thoroughly documented to the point of it being impossible to “be wrong” to me

            • @Passerby6497
              link
              English
              84 months ago

              You could have just said you’re upset that a Russian propagandist was banned. Would have been quicker and more honest lol.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              34 months ago

              Great. Making generalizing statements based on ONE case from over 10 years ago, which was - at best - debatable (see other response).

              • JackbyDev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                24 months ago

                To be fair, they were asked for an example and they gave one. I’m not saying I agree with them but this feels unfair to say.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        64 months ago

        It was an experimental gadget setting under your profile.

        I’ve been using userstyles, but nothing seems to have worked as well as the built in feature for me.

  • @suction
    link
    English
    124 months ago

    Finally the l33t hax0rz from Anonymous can browse Wikipedia in peace

  • @netvor
    link
    English
    114 months ago

    Dark mode, night mode, light-on-dark design, or whatever you want to call the version of computer content that doesn’t feel blindingly bright at night…

    Don’t wanna be that guy, but these template news-article openings always make my brain hurt. Come on, as if everyone has ever called it anything else than “Dark mode”.