Hello DarkReader my old friend…
Which you still need for mobile. Edit: Nope.Dark Reader on Firefox mobile works well for me!
Nope, its available on mobile too. Just go to
Sidebar>Settings>Colour
(Options to choose from)
-
Light
-
Dark
-
Automatic
Oh look at that. It was hiding from me.
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.
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.
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.
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.
-
pretty sure mobile darkmode for wikipedia has been avaliable for a while now
The Wikipedia app has had dark mode for a while. Plus dark mode in Firefox works fine with no extensions.
These are dark times
Indeed.
No, thats the job hunting website. Wikipedia is the one anyone can edit historical facts.
(Which is apparently a workspace AI company)
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.
At last, I won’t get blinded whenever I open Wikipedia
I thought this was gonna be about Wikipedia finally shutting down because nobody donates
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.
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.
Similar to Mozilla (but not from donations but instead of its millions paid to it by Google)
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.
Huh, now that is a truly interesting bit of information.
An interesting bit of information without any sources at all…
As is good and proper on Lemmy
Providing sources is probably a lot more common on Lemmy than anywhere else
idk man, i’d probably bet money on scientific papers,
Lol obviously I meant places where random users post content
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.
deleted by creator
Who’s trying to making useful contributions but got banned, and what were they banned for?
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.
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.
the ridiculously detailed
An encyclopedia calling an article ridiculously detailed is… interesting.
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.
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
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
Great. Making generalizing statements based on ONE case from over 10 years ago, which was - at best - debatable (see other response).
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.
You could have just said you’re upset that a Russian propagandist was banned. Would have been quicker and more honest lol.
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.
LOL took 'em long enough.
Praise Cthulhu!
Finally I don’t need to have an account just to have dark mode
People were making accounts?!
Ive been using browser extensions.
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.
It doesn’t seem to work on the German Wikipedia. Super weird decision to tie display settings to a language.
It does not work with spanish either
Edit: moreover, if you configure it by accessing an english article and then switch languages, darkess mode goes off
IIRC the wikipedia for each language is pseudo independent. This feature will eventually make it to all, I hope.
Wiki “Darkmode” which can seeming be bought by anyone with money, to remove content makes WIKI a total lie.
They do not deserve or will earn our money. They are scammers and cheaters.
HACK THE PLANET - FUCK THE LIARS.
I’m confused about what you’re referring to. I’m reading this as people being able to pay for dark mode which somehow allows them to remove content? Maybe this is because I just woke up but I’m curious what you mean.
Long awake, didn’t get a thing
deleted by creator
i’m moderately awake and this makes equally little sense to me.
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.
deleted by creator
“Getting paid is weird and sometimes hard” Wtf…
Just hacker things
spoken by a true philosophy major
Get on my level.
How long were you searching for “worse than Comic Sans” before you landed on that one?
That purp though, fully behind it
I believe it’s a more dyslexia friendly font
I take it back @[email protected] !!
Open Dyslexic browser extension and the Dracula theme! :) I am not Dyslexic but I find it helps when I am tired.
You know what also helps when you’re tired? Sleep.
Yeah they usually have that extra heavy weight on parts of some characters, especially curves around the bottom
Have you heard of lightbulbs?
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.
Thanks, I ended up getting harmonic. Seems to do the job. It’s baffling that hacker news is like that
Do not start a headline with “Darkness reigns over Wikipedia”!!!
What’s wrong with Darkness?
Wikipedia is about to become a really weird place…
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.
whut
What part do you want me to repeat or explain differently?
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…
Jokes are often about word associations and patterns.
Wikipedia has needed a plugin to be usable for a very long time. That Plugin gives you dark mode, on top of a bunch of other necessary features.
Your definition of necessary and what most people consider the word necessary to mean seem to contradict each other. Here you seem to mean it as ‘nice to have’ whereas the actual definition is ‘required to be done, achieved or present; needed; essential’
:p
