Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Google Custom Search

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was:  keep. ‑Scottywong | [express] || 03:40, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Google Custom Search

 * – (View MfD)
 * — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 11:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Barely used script. Also, the gadget would pose problems on its own because Google Custom Search is not open source. The main issue is that when we are making API calls to non-Wikimedia projects, we are subjecting the client to that site's privacy policy. I remember proposing reCAPTCHA on Phabricator and WMF was not super happy with that. I'd suggest that this page be marked as historical and the pages with the gadgets, including User:Csewiki/monobook.js, User:Csewiki/vector.js, User:Csewiki/monobook.css, and User:Csewiki/vector.css be deleted. These are all mostly being used by users only wanting to use Google Custom Search to search Wikipedia. We are not anti-Google, but we should not be pushing these scripts and subjecting users to proprietary, non-free websites if it has no encyclopedic purpose. Aasim 08:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * T174861 is the Phabricator where I was made aware that subjecting users to non-WMF services would be a violation of privacy policy AFAIK. Aasim 08:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia should not host stuff designed to expose users to external websites, and particularly not those operated by companies reliant on extracting as much personal information as possible. There could be a help page (if there isn't one already) saying to add  in a Google search, if wanted. Johnuniq (talk) 10:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep There is a significant difference in privacy issues between a service which anyone might be required to use to complete an edit, such as the CAPTCHA, and an optional search, which any user must know uses Google and is thus exposed to Google's knowledge. That the script is not often used is not a good reason to delete it. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. it's a minor convenience. Everyone who is conceivably likely to come here knows Google does not maintain any real privacy, and it is nonetheless used in its various form almost universally in WP.  DGG ( talk ) 21:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: I just tested the script on my account and it does not seem to work AFAIK. I will probably have to do more testing to try to get it to work/not work. Aasim 23:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * And... it doesn't work. Probably uses some old APIs or Google locked down the search API or something like that. Aasim 23:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 11:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - First, I don't think that it can be said to be little used, if I understand what it is doing and how its use is being measured. It was referenced 1408 times in calendar year 2019, which is an average of 4 times a day.  Please correct me if I am mistaken, but I think those are times that users viewed the page, and not used the script.  I don't think that the page view metrics are counting use of the script, but are counting the one time that the user installed the script.  So it might be used moderately often by a few users, or even by more than a few users.  Second, if anyone is concerned about Google and privacy, they can edit the information page to provide a warning that Google is privacy-unfriendly.  Robert McClenon (talk) 05:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * @Robert McClenon If you look at my above comment, you will see that I was unable to get the script to work. Does someone else want to try? Aasim 22:19, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Robert McClenon's rationale initially convinced me to keep. But I am troubled that Awesome Aasim cannot get it to work, no improvements since 2009 (11 years) lead me to believe it is abandoned and perhaps should be deleted. Lightburst (talk) 02:58, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.