Simple, please. Only explanation I can find have to do with editing javascript or whatever.
This is a horrible "feature" I do NOT want.
Topic on Talk:Page Previews/Flow
Hello. Thanks for checking. To disable Page Previews, please try one of the following methods:
Method 1: When a preview displays, click the settings "cog". Then click the radio button labeled "Disable". Then click the button labeled "Save".
Method 2: If you are logged in, you may need to use this method. In the top of the page, click on the link labeled "Preferences". Then click on the tab labeled "Appearance". Under "Reading preferences", where it says "Get quick previews of a topic while reading a page", click on the radio button labeled "Disable". Scroll down and click the button labeled "Save".
Thanks for your reply, ABaso.
I'm the anon OP. I may create an account, but even without one I've been a Wikipedia user, contributer, and cash supporter for years.
With method 1, without an account, how would I turn it back on? (since the gear icon is within the popup)
Meanwhile, I found an extension that works nicely: "Quick Javascript Switcher" which does domain level JS on/off.
Another workaround is to add the .m prefix to URL to load the mobile page.
> With method 1, without an account, how would I turn it back on? (since the gear icon is within the popup)
There will be a link at the bottom of the page, as described here: Page_Previews#Logged_Out_Users.
Or diasable all your javascript.
I found "Quick Javascript Switcher" browser extension works nicely. It does domain level JS on/off.
Another workaround is to put the .m prefix to load the mobile page.
Hi, I found this page looking to solve the same problem. All the solutions given here are not practical, as it shouldn't be necessary to log in, retain cookies, or disable JS entirely. In the end the best way I found to get rid of this annoyance is to use uBlock Origin filter like this:
wikipedia.org##.mwe-popupsShould also work with other content blockers. If you're not using a content blocker yet then it's a good excuse to install one now, you can thank me later.
Dear Wikipedia powers that be, please reconsider this "feature."
> Dear Wikipedia powers that be, please reconsider this "feature."
Sorry, but i don't see why we should make this an opt in option for the general public, for the sole reason of a few people who don't like them AND disabled browser capabilities.
One that group is tiny. Two, that group is making choices which have effects, and thus they should live with those effects, and three they tend to be technically capable enough to handle things on their own.
Thanks for the uBlock Origin entry!
Thank you for responding, TheDJ. (The previous comment is mine, it's just that my IP address has changed since.)
I do not know how you concluded that the group of people who do not want the pop-ups is "tiny." Clearly, it appears, in particular from the comments here and elsewhere, that most people "using" previews have not consciously chosen to do so but simply do not know how to get rid of them.
Pop-up previews are a distraction that interferes with reading. Similar techniques are widely implemented by the "attention industry" motivated by other factors but from the user's point of view this is an anti-feature.
Wikipedia is free from advertising and supported by donations. It should then be compelled to act in the best interests of its users only, unburdened by other (e.g. commercial) constraints, and has in fact succeeded in doing so on a number of past occasions. It is no accident that university textbooks, research papers or even any serious journalism are all presented in a linear manner (with just footnotes where truly necessary).
The implementation of pop-up previews suffers from a number of technical issues as well. The pop-up size is too large, it is slow to load, it includes rarely relevant graphics instead of just text, and most importantly, it often shows content from another page the link was redirected to, which is usually unrelated (at least the top of such page, which is used for the preview, as opposed to the particular section targeted by the redirection). The previews also interfere with pop-up dictionaries, which are widely employed by language learners, and an excellent example how pop-ups can genuinely be used productively.
On a broader note, considering that most Wikipedia articles are saturated with hyperlinks, many of which are only tangentially related to the article content, it is hardly beneficial to see all of them suddenly turning into pop-ups. And it is no less concerning how this change affects people on older hardware, slower connections, and those who have to pay for their bandwidth.
It almost feels as if the person that wrote the code behind this does not even use Wikipedia themselves, or at least some part of the above should have been obvious.
And in any case, it would have been much more considerate towards the users if preview pop-ups were first implemented under a separate address, such as http://beta.en.wikipedia.org/, where they could be tested, evaluated and rethought, or at least if they worked by default only with a modifier key such as Alt. There could still be an opt-in setting to switch them on permanently for anyone so inclined.
To recapitulate, previews shouldn't be made opt-in because of "a few people who don't like them" but rather because they are a poorly thought-out and poorly-implemented solution in search of a problem that creates more issues than it supposedly solves, and the way it it is being imposed on the users is completely against what Wikipedia is supposed to be about, in terms of both its goal of building an online encyclopedia accessible to everyone, and the community-driven process it has hitherto employed.
> I do not know how you concluded that the group of people who do not want the pop-ups is "tiny."
I didn't. I said the group that doesn't want them AND doesn't want to use an account AND blocks cookies so the opt-out doesn't work AND doesn't disable their javascript is tiny. But yeah, even if we discount that, it's about 5-10% of the general audience that doesn't like them. That definitely doesn't count as anything more than 'small'.
> Clearly, it appears, in particular from the comments here and elsewhere, that most people "using" previews have not consciously chosen to do so but simply do not know how to get rid of them.
There are analytics, surveys and then you can just go to Twitter, search for 'wikipedia popup' or 'wikipedia hover' (can't link, because spammers caused twitter to be blocked on this page) and find that the people who like it far outweigh those who don't like it. The people that complain are always much more visible in fora like this, because people who are happy have no reason for posting. That is why high-barrier fora like this tend to be a very bad representation of real life.
> Pop-up previews are a distraction that interferes with reading. Similar techniques are widely implemented by the "attention industry" motivated by other factors but from the user's point of view this is an anti-feature.
Every technology can be used for good and evil, + opinion
> Wikipedia is free from advertising and supported by donations. It should then be compelled to act in the best interests of its users only
We do, but we can't satisfy everyone and you happen to be in that small group.
> The pop-up size is too large, it is slow to load, it includes rarely relevant graphics instead of just text, and most importantly, it often shows content from another page the link was redirected to, which is usually unrelated (at least the top of such page, which is used for the preview, as opposed to the particular section targeted by the redirection). The previews also interfere with pop-up dictionaries, which are widely employed by language learners, and an excellent example how pop-ups can genuinely be used productively.
There is an opt-out. Also, you are using another popup yet complain about popups ?
> On a broader note, considering that most Wikipedia articles are saturated with hyperlinks, many of which are only tangentially related to the article content, it is hardly beneficial to see all of them suddenly turning into pop-ups. And it is no less concerning how this change affects people on older hardware, slower connections, and those who have to pay for their bandwidth.
Well that's why you can turn it off. Unless you break your browser.
> It almost feels as if the person that wrote the code behind this does not even use Wikipedia themselves, or at least some part of the above should have been obvious.
Again, you are inferring things from your own preferences.
> And in any case, it would have been much more considerate towards the users if preview pop-ups were first implemented under a separate address, such as http://beta.en.wikipedia.org/, where they could be tested, evaluated and rethought, or at least if they worked by default only with a modifier key such as Alt. There could still be an opt-in setting to switch them on permanently for anyone so inclined.
They had been active on our pre deployment website https://en.wikipedia.beta.wmflabs.org for years, and had been available as a beta option for registered users for 4 years. They were also deployed on multiple of our other wiki's for sometimes over a year.
> To recapitulate, previews shouldn't be made opt-in because of "a few people who don't like them" but rather because they are a poorly thought-out and poorly-implemented solution in search of a problem that creates more issues than it supposedly solves, and the way it it is being imposed on the users is completely against what Wikipedia is supposed to be about, in terms of both its goal of building an online encyclopedia accessible to everyone, and the community-driven process it has hitherto employed.
Again: opinion, opinion, opinion.
Greetings, a volunteer editor.
TheDJ. Wait, you just used Twitter as a defense? That's your analytics? Twitter responses?
5 to 10%? Yeah, you're going to need to do better than just type it out. It's on you to prove your claims, not on us to go running off to verify them. You know, logic 101.
"There is an opt-out. Also, you are using another popup yet complain about popups ?"
Oh dear me. You do know that there are popup options? And dictionaries are one of them? Why, that's the entire point. Choosing it as opposed to it being forced on you? Apparently that just went right over your head.
> you just used Twitter as a defense?
@Shanklin land yes, I did, because its very very real and totally matches the earlier analytics and survey.
> It's on you to prove your claims, not on us to go running off to verify them. You know, logic 101.
Ehm. I don't see why it's on me. First of all, I have no responsibility to even give you an answer in the first place, I'd much rather spent my volunteer time on other stuff. Second, the Page Previews-page (you know the one that this forum is linked to) already provides this information.
> Choosing it as opposed to it being forced on you? Apparently that just went right over your head.
I just thought it was quite ironic. Anyway. I appreciate that people go out of their way to make their point. But as far as I'm concerned this discussion was over when people said they do not want to use the opt-out methods provided to them.
We can't satisfy everyone, you are clearly not satisfied, for which i'm sorry, but neither of us can have it all.
It is on you if you're the representative and you make a claim. The page previews page does not compare hover cards to click to activate. Why is there no study on this? Why is there no information on a preference between the two? Where's the study that compares them? Where's the "twitter" responses to click to activate?
POPUPS. It's a frickin' popup in your face. It does not matter how many Twitter people you say like this. It does not matter how many metrics you use for the ONE option. Without a complete study it's useless. It's a loaded study.
It's bad UX design. It's a known bad design. Again, POPUPS. It's been discussed for decades. Studies have been done. Real ones. And you ignore them. All of them. Every single one of them.
Ironic? I don't think that means what you think it means.
"but neither of us can have it all."
No. Click to activate wasn't even considered as an option that I can see. No studies, no user tests... The perfect answer but you went with hover ads, the bane of the internet, from the very beginning.
"I have no responsibility to even give you an answer...". Well then don't reply. Pretty simple stuff, pumpkin.