Let the way-too-late nights researching each Beach Boys album in order commence.
  • Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.worldEnglish
    831·
    3 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.

  • chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.worldEnglish
    37·
    3 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@feddit.nlEnglish
    393·
    3 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@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      2·
      3 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)@lemmy.mlEnglish
    26·
    3 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.

    • GreenEngineering3475@lemmy.worldEnglish
      171·
      3 months ago

      Nope, its available on mobile too. Just go to

      Sidebar>Settings>Colour

      (Options to choose from)

      • Light

      • Dark

      • Automatic

      • Psythik@lemmy.worldEnglish
        42·
        3 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.

        • Excrubulent@slrpnk.netEnglish
          71·
          3 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@lemmy.worldEnglish
            3·
            3 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@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
            2·
            3 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.

    • janNatan@lemmy.mlEnglish
      8·
      3 months ago

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

  • umbraroze@lemmy.worldEnglish
    24·
    3 months ago

    The Washington Post: “Democracy dies in darkness”

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

  • venusaur@lemmy.worldEnglish
    184·
    3 months ago

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

    • unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
      352·
      3 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@lemmy.worldEnglish
        39·
        3 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 ↩︎

      • aidan@lemmy.worldEnglish
        8·
        3 months ago

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

      • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        1·
        3 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.

      • schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
        118·
        3 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@lemmy.worldEnglish
          11·
          3 months ago

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

          • schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
            115·
            3 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@lemmy.worldEnglish
              27·
              3 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.

              • 0x0@programming.devEnglish
                2·
                3 months ago

                the ridiculously detailed

                An encyclopedia calling an article ridiculously detailed is… interesting.

                • Passerby6497@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  5·
                  3 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@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  2·
                  3 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@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
                  2·
                  3 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@lemmy.worldEnglish
              8·
              3 months ago

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

            • weststadtgesicht@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
              41·
              3 months ago

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

              • JackbyDev@programming.devEnglish
                2·
                3 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.

      • dubyakay@lemmy.caEnglish
        6·
        3 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.

  • netvor@lemmy.worldEnglish
    11·
    3 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”.