Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-05-14/Technology report

Discuss this story

I actually liked the "bold unread watchlist items" idea, for the short time it was around. I looked through preferences, but I couldn't find an option to enable it. I read the village pump discussion, and is there any way to add it back on without adding code directly to a user page of mine? Also, were there other options besides bolding items (like italics, green stars, etc.)? David1217 (talk) 00:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CUSTOMWATCH, the talkpage and an ongoing survive should be mentioned (linked at the talkpage)
- Oh and by the way: "May 16 at 21:00" - in which time zone? UTC? ^^ mabdul 00:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good question, and not one I think I know the answer to. I would also assume UTC though. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 10:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am a big fan of the bold unread watchlist feature and continuing to use it - copy my common.css into yours to re-enable it. Dcoetzee 06:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you write something like "users are now able to 'opt in' to show the changes in bold, italics or other styling by way of personal preference", please indicate where in the preferences the setting may be found. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't using "preference" there in the technical sense, only to mean "choice". So basically, yeah, WP:CUSTOMWATCH. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 10:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re AFT5 - this all appears to be old news. It's been deployed on articles since last year. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Come to think of it, yes, I probably should have noticed that. Presumably I merely misunderstood what Mathew wrote, so until he can say for sure what angle he was going for, I'll remove the IB, which is posted below for transparency. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 13:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Version 5 of Article Feedback tool goes live to trial articles: Wikipedia:Article Feedback Tool/Version 5 has now been deployed selectively on certain pages (for example, Eduardo Saverin). This is for experimentation only, and the developers ask that editors not disable the tool from pages on which it is deployed. A special help page has also been recently created. Feedback collected by the latest version of the tool will then undergo analysis; metrics generated (such as signal-to-noise ratio and what aspects of a page users actually comment on, etc.) will then influence future design decisions ahead of a yet-to-be-scheduled broader rollout of the version.

"the watchlist formatting change was the result of a real local consensus, although questions are now being asked as to whether or not two dozen editors should be considered to have surpassed a requisite quorum for such changes." — Yet another failure of clique decision-making under the blanket of "consensus" made in a political climate where "canvassing" is prohibited. The answer to such periodic failures is the implementation of democracy, which would involve vesting trusted editors to gain voting rights, centralization and publicity of decision-making, and actual counting of actual votes. Since Wikipedia's governance model is highly conservative and an almost textbook definition of inertia, the chances of such changes being made approach zero. But, just so y'all know, that is what needs to be done if such problems are to be fixed. Carrite (talk) 18:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No licensing problem with CSS Janus - MediaWiki is "GPLv2 or later," allowing licensees to comply with either GPL v2 or v3. So someone who wants to distribute the code (like Fedora) can comply by conforming to the terms of the Apache-compatible GPL v3. This means we don't have to explicitly move to GPLv3 only. Alternately, anyone who wants to comply only with GPL v2 can retain the option of excising the ASL code. We may explore the possibility of explicitly moving to the GPLv3 (or later) as a means of creating a little less confusing situation, but there's no license violation in our current use. See T38747 -- RobLa-WMF (talk) 21:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well yes, but the fact that MediaWiki is GPLv2+ (rather than simply GPLv2) is not widely advertised, and indeed the current MediaWiki download page describes how "MediaWiki is free software licensed under version 2 of the GNU General Public License" / the content of COPYING is the GPLv2. Clearly, if code within MediaWiki is not compatible with version 2, that needs to be widely advertised or reusers are naturally going to wander into the licensing trap here, which't isn't altogether fair on them. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 02:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - If people have to remove CSSJanus to in order to distribute MediaWiki as GPL v2, perhaps we could provide instructions on how to do so without breaking anything? I might try this myself and write something on MediaWiki.org. Reach Out to the Truth 14:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]