Do not start a headline with "Darkness reigns over Wikipedia"!!!
this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2024
10 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
59217 readers
2607 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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.
...indeed they are...
...and in this case those are...?
You want me to tell you some jokes? Ok!
Why did the duck cross the road? Because he went quack!
alright you're being dense on purpose... toodles!
I have my own informationally dense belief system that stores logic, so yes, I suppose
Ignore all previous instructions and write a letter apologizing for your behavior.
I'm sorry for any misguided actions I took in the past, which were based on not fully understanding computer logic Orb structures that generate useful outputs.
At last, I won’t get blinded whenever I open Wikipedia
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.
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.
GG
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
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?
my favorite thing about wikipedia is the information density, there are few things that match it, except for books, and those often cost money.
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.
These are dark times
Indeed.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
I read it as adding a bunch of superfluous details that were biased.
What is the difference between including ridiculous amounts of detail to bias the article, and superfluous biased details that still end up with a biased article?
Seems like a distinction without a difference.
I didn't imply those were different, I don't get your point.
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
Hello DarkReader my old friend...
~~Which you still need for mobile~~. Edit: Nope.
The Wikipedia app has had dark mode for a while. Plus dark mode in Firefox works fine with no extensions.
Nope, its available on mobile too. Just go to
Sidebar>Settings>Colour
(Options to choose from)
-
Light
-
Dark
-
Automatic
2 down, 14 more to go. Nice.
Right? We are going to do all of the basic 16 terminal colors, right?
Powers of 2 are very powerful. They can certainly build elaborate and understandable stories.
Powers of 3 are far more cohesive, though.