Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2017-02-27/Technology report

Discuss this story

Regarding this "Android" business, I have been complaining at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/App lately. There was no intrinsic reason why Android logos should have been banner ads on the Type II diabetes article (they did respond by changing that to a phone), nor was I ready to put up with direct links to the Google Play Store in their proposed sidebar version (which they seem to be responding to). But this article is still continuing an idea that they have, that because they somehow have a version that works "all in one" in some kind of Google format, they should be pushing that company. I say no. It is entirely possible to download Kiwix (which is actually a Firefox knockoff) and view their ZIM archive files, or any ZIM archive from Wikipedia, without reference to Google hardware or software of any kind! There are even said to be other ZIM readers in development, and I see all such options as opportunities that should be pursued to ensure platform independence long term.

Yeah, yeah, they tell me they have 100,000 Google/Android downloads, of which 60,000 are still running (Google keeps track...). They tell me they get rave reviews. They know that Google owns the eyeballs of the captives of its phone, and with a simple sacrifice of earth and water we can have that power behind us. But -- this is Wikipedia! With them and now even with you, whether accidental or well-meaning, I'm getting a strong feeling of encroaching commercialization and control and the loss of the independence we should treasure. I want our site and our content, online or offline, to be a free and independent resource and not an ad or feature for any company. Wnt (talk) 02:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wnt: You seem to be arguing against the WMF even having an Android app (and presumably also an iPhone app, as that too is for a single platform). Surely a problem with this approach is that you would end up with third-party apps to fill the void, and a greater chance of actual "commercialization and [external] control and the loss of the independence", at least for those people using apps to browse Wikipedia. - Evad37 [talk] 10:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Evad37: I think there's a very well established old fashioned way for open source projects to handle the issue, which is a) to think of their project as a stand-alone entity, not a feature of some other company's platform, and b) accordingly to pursue availability on many different operating systems simultaneously. With this particular project I'm not hearing any urgency to say that the "app" is available for other systems or methods of distribution. I feel like it's almost an embarrassment to them that I could load the ZIM file on a Windows laptop using the Windows version of Kiwix - all they seem to want to do is talk about Google and Android. I'm not saying they can't have distribution via that outlet, just that I don't like that this project seems to be about that outlet. Wnt (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well let me clarify that misconception. It is not an embarrassment that it works for other systems. We are actually all very happy that it does. The reality is that those we are trying hardest to reach (people in the developing world) mostly use android. You will also notice that WP:MED/App already discusses other plateforms and we have a grant to develop an iOS app. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While fair goals, it also somewhat ignores a reality in which most people in the world (97%) use Android and iOS commercial platforms for their smartphones. As someone who has been active for 10 years in both open source, but also in commercial app development (yes feature phones had apps), I can tell you how hard it is to do more than just iOS and Android right now. More than iTunes and Google Play stores, more than mobile phones (ie. tablets, watch and TV apps). The code sharing possibilities are very limited and the procedural overhead is GIGANTIC and this is the primary reason why most of those other things are not really a success story yet. In the real world, the human effort (and let's not even talk about commercial aspects) of veering off into those alternate worlds is not really sustainable, for anything other than a pet-project or very specific niche solutions. This is not a problem that 'we' alone can fix, an ecosystem requires significant support before it becomes viable. The Wikipedia Android app is available through something like f-droid, and that is probably as far as we can go at this time for lots of these kinds of projects.

And the point that Evad is making is indeed substantial. To NOT venture into these areas, is to basically give away the 'narrative' to other parties, potentially commercial ones. Now we at least get SOME control to push our own interests, like pushing open source libraries, OSM maps, content attribution etc. While it might be less than ideal, we also need to think about where we can have the most impact. That doesn't mean we have to push commercial logos into people's faces of course, but at the same time, when directing people to download from a store, there is UX value in using recognisable badges that people understand..

When it comes to the medical app, the problem is not that people don't want a Windows app, but that it's not their job to make one by extension of their interest in an Android app. As a former VLC media player developer, I can assure you that each platform version of that software required the full commitment of a single developer to the existence of that app on that platform. If there was no committed BeOS developer, that meant that the BeOS platform version either didn't exist, or if it did exist, would become very buggy very quickly, until the point where it would eventually be dropped. If you want a Windows version, you make one, you don't tell others to make one. THAT is how open source works. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDJ: I know you know what you're talking about and are a sensible person, but I can't make any sense out of what you're saying here at all! I mean, I wasn't wishing for a Windows version - I took about five minutes and was browsing away through a Ray Charles article archive using Kiwix. (It's smaller than the medical download). There's a list of Kiwix versions to download here - includes precompiled Windows, OS X, Android, iOS, GNU/Linux versions. There's a list of a whole bunch of ZIM files here - I think we can have a line like that on Commons, and link to different ZIM archives from different articles without having an "app" for each one. I can't see any reason why anyone should care "phone", "app", "one-click", "standalone" or whatever, except in a negative way. Even Kiwix smells funny to me because it's just some kind of Firefox knockoff and I feel like there ought to be a way to just distribute large saved webpage archives for Firefox, even decompressing them from archives on the fly, with at most a mini browser plugin. Your comment leaves me confused as a eunuch in a strip joint. Wnt (talk) 02:00, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDJ: @Wnt: I had the same doubt, but one thing the apps handle is search. Not just article title but full text search. Especially useful given the number of articles in some of these ZIM files. Pj quil (talk) 09:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Our goal is not perfection, it is good enough. If we required perfection before doing anything Wikipedia would not exist. This app is not perfect either. We would love to see app versions for all systems. We; however, have limited numbers of volunteers and programmers (we would love more people to join us). We have thus prioritizing the biggest bang for the effort with the priority being those who need this content most (ie those in the developing world). This is why iOS was less of a priority.

Our work was also a proof of concept. The two step solution has existed for a much longer time than the one step solution; however, uptake of the two step solution was much lower. A one step solution has resulted in much greater up take which provides evidence that a one step solution is important. You say you "can't see any reason why anyone should care", I have evidence that they do.

By the way a number of offline medical apps based on Wikipedia content existed on the google play store before we created ours. People who wanted the app had to either pay for it or the app was full of adverting. The apps had very old versions of WP and did not contain pictures. Our apps are completely free, do not contain advertising, and are open source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]