Why was this developed as browser extension rather than a MediaWiki extension (or gadget)? I could only find mentions about the fact that you chose to do this in the documentation and discussions, not why. I would love to know the reasoning behind this, what things made it unsuitable to make it a MediaWiki extension?
Topic on Talk:Who Wrote That?
WWT uses the WhoColor API, which is a third party tool. If we wanted to develop a gadget/extension with a third party tool, we would need to undergo a likely lengthy and challenging approval process. In addition, we may not have even received general approval. For this reason, we decided to build a browser extension as a first step. We would then be able to deliver a tool in a timely manner. Following its release, we could then consider the possibility of extending WWT into an extension or gadget. The team is now investigating such possibilities, and we hope that we can expand WWT accessibility in the future. TL;DR: We used a third party tool.
How is the current state in 2021? Because using that as an extension for my own private wiki would be incredible! Any ways to use that?
@IFried (WMF), could you please give us an update on this, or refer us to someone who can? This would be much more useful as a gadget than as a browser extension.
@IFried (WMF) Agreed; it would be very nice. Here's a Village Pump discussion relevant to this tool being turned into a widget: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Faciliate_access_to_article_history