Talk:Wikiwand

Non WP

Does it similarly handle other Wikimedia sites such as Wikidata, Commons, and Voyage? Jim.henderson (talk) 00:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Commons, yes, Wikivoyage I haven't been able, and haven't tried Wikiata. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Safari version isn't available for download?

The article states that the Safari version isn't available for download. Well, I was able to download the Safari extension which is now sitting in the Extension folder of Safari subfolder of ~/Library. 78.60.44.32 (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey, developers, remove a pornography from it. 92.245.52.129 (talk) 13:09, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

what? JanSowan (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Updating the UI

"[Wikipedia] has an interface that hasn’t been updated in over a decade" Maybe wikimedia and the admins should think of updating the UI, just a thought 72.138.62.94 (talk) 13:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

You can change the UI in your settings - there are a few options or you can make your own CSS. It probably isn't what you wanted, but still something. 1Mmarek (talk) 10:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Contrary to the quote, the interface is being updated. If you have an account, check the "Appearance" and "Beta features" tabs in Preferences. --AVRS (talk) 02:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

The UI’s just fine to me. It’s got somewhat of a charming feel to it, and I think wikiwand’s UI is the one that’s cluttered. It’s nostalgic and serves as a retreat from the frenzy of “modernised” websites out there. It just works, and changing it I think without any option to go back would upset a lot of veteran users. 174.211.107.18 (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Is Wikiwand still donating any portion of advertising revenue to Wikipedia?

I'm having a little trouble finding whether the 30% revenue contribution which was stated is still being made.

Checking on the wayback machine, the statement was removed from their info page the year after the site went up, and it's the only statement that has been altered there. I wasn't able to find any new updates or statements from them, I wouldn't like to presume, but I doubt they would be removing this statement if they were still making that contribution. If anyone knows more about this it would be great if they could add that info to the page. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 14:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi @MasterTriangle12:, regarding the removal and reinstatement, I still see that sentence as original research. Yes technically it's correct and it's highly relevant, but without a third party source I don't think we are allowed to directly compare archived - especially primary source - pages to come to a conclusion. As stated on the wp:or page: "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." I've tried to rewrite the non-synthesized material to make it clear that they only intended to donate 7 years ago. It might be a good idea to contact some outlet like TechCrunch to get them to write a follow up. But if you still disagree with my edits, feel free to revert and we can get some dispute resolution going. Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 20:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I probably should have just put something in the talk page like this and pinged you. This may just be down to interpretation but I think WP:V, specifically WP:ABOUTSELF, is the most relevant to this since it describes when you can use a primary source for information on itself. WP:OR is rather broad and imprecise but Verifiability contains a lot of things that add detail to where the lines are, I feel like it gets neglected quite often though. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 05:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I removed the claim - it's a self-attributed promotional claim about something they say they'll do in the future, in TechCrunch, a source that's yellow-rated on WP:RSP for promotional churnalism and boosterism, i.e., repeating company claims uncritically. I'm not sure it's a claim we should be including as-is, unless there's evidence this ever actually happened - David Gerard (talk) 09:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Huh, yeah. That actually makes the most sense, cheers. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 19:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

As of Oct 2023, https://wikimediafoundation.org/support/benefactors/#section-2 includes Wikiwand among the "leading donors", who contributed between $5000 USD and $15000 - 1 USD. (It's not clear to me whether that's a lifetime contribution or since July 1st, 2022.)

Wikiwand themselves link to this information in their FAQ under "How does Wikiwand make money?". They also say in the same section that they accept donations and share 30% with Wikipedia, but if their annual contribution is less than $15k, I'm not impressed.

We're allowed to editorialize in the Talk pages, right? :)

Crag (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)