Some open questions I still have. Thoughts welcome:

Instead of the source text, we should display a note about the user not being eligible for The Wikipedia Library.

I just wrote an example sentence in the mockup, but I wonder if it's worth documenting further what the EDS integration is / how you can become eligible for the library somewhere and linking out to that, or just having a more verbose note here?

In terms of the specifics of how this integration should work - would we add another checkbox here for EDS? What would we label it? "Wikipedia Library search"? I wonder if we should specifically name EBSCO Discovery Service somewhere. We don't in the library before you search, but once you get to the search results there's EBSCO/EDS branding.

What would happen if a user selected EDS, logged in, and wasn't eligible - should we display a notice somewhere that their search isn't being performed with EDS, only the other options? What about if they only select EDS?

In T378077#10258366, @Samwalton9-WMF wrote:

I just wrote an example sentence in the mockup, but I wonder if it's worth documenting further what the EDS integration is / how you can become eligible for the library somewhere and linking out to that, or just having a more verbose note here

Linking to the main The Wikipedia Library site should suffice.

In terms of the specifics of how this integration should work - would we add another checkbox here for EDS? What would we label it? "Wikipedia Library search"? I wonder if we should specifically name EBSCO Discovery Service somewhere. We don't in the library before you search, but once you get to the search results there's EBSCO/EDS branding.

Another checkbox, yeah. The label should probably be "Use Wikipedia Library search", using the most recognizable name to editors (and the actual prerequisite for access the feature). I guess the only barrier here is if EBSCO wants us to name them specifically.

What would happen if a user selected EDS, logged in, and wasn't eligible - should we display a notice somewhere that their search isn't being performed with EDS, only the other options? What about if they only select EDS?

I'm assuming whatever endpoint or check used in T372853 probably won't be too expensive to call. In this case, we can probably just run a check on every page load (or cache and then revalidate when stale, TTL to be determined) and then change the disabled state of the checkbox based on that. If the user does not have access (or isn't logged in), we'd keep the checkbox disabled. If the user has access, the checkbox will be enabled (but unchecked by default). This essentially restricts all EDS searches to people who have access to TWL. Any attempt to bypass the disabled checkbox (such as with a (hypothetical) ?use_eds=1 query parameter) should show an error, much like how the 429 errors appeared to the user.

In T378077#10259184, @Chlod wrote:

In T378077#10258366, @Samwalton9-WMF wrote:

What would happen if a user selected EDS, logged in, and wasn't eligible - should we display a notice somewhere that their search isn't being performed with EDS, only the other options? What about if they only select EDS?

I'm assuming whatever endpoint or check used in T372853 probably won't be too expensive to call. In this case, we can probably just run a check on every page load (or cache and then revalidate when stale, TTL to be determined) and then change the disabled state of the checkbox based on that. If the user does not have access (or isn't logged in), we'd keep the checkbox disabled. If the user has access, the checkbox will be enabled (but unchecked by default). This essentially restricts all EDS searches to people who have access to TWL. Any attempt to bypass the disabled checkbox (such as with a (hypothetical) ?use_eds=1 query parameter) should show an error, much like how the 429 errors appeared to the user.

It occurs to me, actually, that in the mock above this wouldn't matter - I proposed a system where anyone can use the Wikipedia Library search, we just only show links and excerpts if the user is TWL-eligible.

Ah, good point! In that case, we'll just need the link to the main TWL site (and perhaps include a bit of explanation).

Also, just to confirm, did we make it clear to EBSCO that anonymous users (logged out) can also use Copyvios? And if so, are they okay with us allowing search requests while a user is logged out or should we also put this behind the login wall (like with Google searches)?

In T378077#10262562, @Chlod wrote:

Also, just to confirm, did we make it clear to EBSCO that anonymous users (logged out) can also use Copyvios? And if so, are they okay with us allowing search requests while a user is logged out or should we also put this behind the login wall (like with Google searches)?

Not sure I understand - isn't OAuth login required to do a search? Or is it only required for the Google search?

In T378077#10262598, @Samwalton9-WMF wrote:

In T378077#10262562, @Chlod wrote:

Also, just to confirm, did we make it clear to EBSCO that anonymous users (logged out) can also use Copyvios? And if so, are they okay with us allowing search requests while a user is logged out or should we also put this behind the login wall (like with Google searches)?

Not sure I understand - isn't OAuth login required to do a search? Or is it only required for the Google search?

OAuth is only required for Google search. Anyone can use the comparison or Copyvio bot matches to the Turnitin API.

The Wikipedia Library eligibility component of this is now unblocked - you can use the api at https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/api/v0/users/eligibility/<USERNAME> to retrieve the status of a given user via the boolean wp_bundle_authorized value.