3 ms·

I guess 2018 must be when I blocked wikipedia with noscript. I am sure some people find the feature useful, I did not...and as a bonus I don't get the requests

I guess 2018 must be when I blocked wikipedia with noscript. I am sure some people find the feature useful, I did not...and as a bonus I don't get the requests for money. YMMV.

gwervc 2y ago
Enshitification is slower on Wikipedia than elsewhere, but sadly still happening. I'm still upset about the language button that cause me one additional click instead of the direct links on the left menu.
- bawolff 2y ago
  Fwiw,if you are logged in you can switch your skin in Special:preferences to bring the old look back.
  - dylan604 2y ago
    logged in? do people that are not editors do that?
    - bawolff 2y ago
      I mean, if you hate the new skin enough, seems like a valid reason. Not really any downside. Remember my log in has an expiry of about a year so you don't have to be continously logging in. Banner ads are not shown to logged in users which is nice. Wikimedia doesn't really do tracking of reads, so dont have to worry about that (i mean, i suppose web servers have logs, but that is true if logged out too). I suppose maybe its slightly slower since only logged out views are handled by geolocated servers so there is a bit more latency if you aren't in north america.
  - Izkata 2y ago
    If you don't want to log in you can add ?useskin=vector to any wikipedia URL to get the same. There's a few others as well and they have a bookmarklet you can add to just click on to switch the current page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Skin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Skin
agnishom 2y ago
What is wrong with the requests for money? Wikipedia ads are the least intrusive of ads.
- scoofy 2y ago
  A lot of people are annoyed that the foundation has significant reserves, enough that much of it's budgets is grants, yet puts out messages like they are in dire need for cash. I think it's mostly fine, though annoying, but a lot of people disagree with it in principal. https://archive.is/yg5RW https://archive.is/yg5RW https://wikimediafoundation.org/support/where-your-money-goes/ https://wikimediafoundation.org/support/where-your-money-goe...
  - bawolff 2y ago
    The grants thing is a bit misleading - a lot of the grants are to affiliate organizations in other countries. So for example if Wikimedia germany writes some code for the wikipedia site, it is probably funded by a grant from wikipedia donations. I dont claim everything wikimedia foundation does is useful or that there isn't any wasted money. They are also definitely past the "keep the lights on stage", but you cant do anything useful if you only keep the lights on. Mostly i just think discussing if the budget of a multimillion dollar organization that runs one of the most popular websites in the world is reasonable requires a lot more nuance than most discussons on the internet have.
  - rdfc-xn-uuid 2y ago
    They are also under fire for putting misleading adverts in low-income countries like Brazil and India, sounding like they are going to be sold if they don't get enough donation.
  - wileydragonfly 2y ago
    Didn’t they make all that money off a weird porn site that had nude women posing with cats?
    - bearincar 2y ago
hackernewds 2y ago
you use it anyway for free though right?
- bearincar 2y ago
  [dead]

I guess 2018 must be when I blocked wikipedia with noscript. I am sure some people find the feature useful, I did not...and as a bonus I don't get the requests for money. YMMV.

gwervc 2y ago

Enshitification is slower on Wikipedia than elsewhere, but sadly still happening. I'm still upset about the language button that cause me one additional click instead of the direct links on the left menu.

bawolff 2y ago
Fwiw,if you are logged in you can switch your skin in Special:preferences to bring the old look back.
- dylan604 2y ago
  logged in? do people that are not editors do that?
  - bawolff 2y ago
    I mean, if you hate the new skin enough, seems like a valid reason. Not really any downside. Remember my log in has an expiry of about a year so you don't have to be continously logging in. Banner ads are not shown to logged in users which is nice. Wikimedia doesn't really do tracking of reads, so dont have to worry about that (i mean, i suppose web servers have logs, but that is true if logged out too). I suppose maybe its slightly slower since only logged out views are handled by geolocated servers so there is a bit more latency if you aren't in north america.
- Izkata 2y ago
  If you don't want to log in you can add ?useskin=vector to any wikipedia URL to get the same. There's a few others as well and they have a bookmarklet you can add to just click on to switch the current page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Skin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Skin

agnishom 2y ago

What is wrong with the requests for money? Wikipedia ads are the least intrusive of ads.

scoofy 2y ago
A lot of people are annoyed that the foundation has significant reserves, enough that much of it's budgets is grants, yet puts out messages like they are in dire need for cash. I think it's mostly fine, though annoying, but a lot of people disagree with it in principal. https://archive.is/yg5RW https://archive.is/yg5RW https://wikimediafoundation.org/support/where-your-money-goes/ https://wikimediafoundation.org/support/where-your-money-goe...
- bawolff 2y ago
  The grants thing is a bit misleading - a lot of the grants are to affiliate organizations in other countries. So for example if Wikimedia germany writes some code for the wikipedia site, it is probably funded by a grant from wikipedia donations. I dont claim everything wikimedia foundation does is useful or that there isn't any wasted money. They are also definitely past the "keep the lights on stage", but you cant do anything useful if you only keep the lights on. Mostly i just think discussing if the budget of a multimillion dollar organization that runs one of the most popular websites in the world is reasonable requires a lot more nuance than most discussons on the internet have.
- rdfc-xn-uuid 2y ago
  They are also under fire for putting misleading adverts in low-income countries like Brazil and India, sounding like they are going to be sold if they don't get enough donation.
- wileydragonfly 2y ago
  Didn’t they make all that money off a weird porn site that had nude women posing with cats?
  - bearincar 2y ago

hackernewds 2y ago

you use it anyway for free though right?

bearincar 2y ago
[dead]