DNS for download.wikimedia.org should update in a few hours until then
you can get at yesterday's backup dump here:
http://zwinger.wikimedia.org/
(The en old dump is split on account of the 2GB 32-bit problem.)
Wikistats should be up sometime tonight/tomorrow.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
I've stuck another apache onto isidore, which is otherwise CPU-idle.
This gives us 5 web servers evenly splitting the load. Ahhhhhh, nice.
:)
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
The Thai wikipedia is not accesible. Why is this?
Waerth from nl.wikipedia
___________________________________________________________
BT Yahoo! Broadband - Free modem offer, sign up online today and save £80 http://btyahoo.yahoo.co.uk
test.wikipedia.org seems to be sending compressed data incorrectly, as
both Safari and Firefox just display a bunch of garbage, but it works
fine in Mac IE 5.2.
Sorry, can't test any other browsers as all I have is a Mac.
- David
Okay, I'll admit up front that this idea isn't directly related to
Wikipedia, but I've got this really potentially cool idea, and I'd need
some pointers from you guys to get it working.
In a nutshell, my idea is this: Use FileMaker Pro Developer (probably
version 7 when it comes out in a few months) to create a read-only
offline browser for my Memory Alpha wiki content.
Here's how I was thinking of setting it up: it would use either a
regular database dump, or more likely a customized dump containing only
the necessary tables. In addition, I would probably only include the
current versions of all the articles (although I can definitely
understand why others would want to have past versions as well). Since
rendering the HTML would probably be a bit tricky, it'd be best to just
serve the text straight-up and display the links in a side table, sorta
like how Slashdot displays external links in its articles.
I've had a fair amount of experience working with FileMaker over the
past decade or so -- I first started using it when I was about twelve
or thirteen (making my own personal Trek database with FMP 2.1!). I've
kept up somewhat over the years, although I've never gotten into the
really in-depth tricks and tools, I definitely know my way around (or
can figure out what I need). My problem, *IF* I'm going to try this
project, is that I'm less familiar with the structure of the MediaWiki
database and what kind of information I'll need to relate where in
order to keep everything functioning properly.
Does anyone have any thoughts on how this could be done? Or should I
forget the whole idea? ;-)
Of course, if any one with Wikipedia *is* interested in using this kind
of browser, I'm definitely willing to help out there. I'm just
assuming that that's not the case because FMP is an expensive program
and probably isn't viable for the kind of free software means that
Wikipedia uses. But that's just my assumption.
Thanks,
Dan Carlson
I am not very familiar with the process of arbitration, though I have read
the Wikipedia:dispute resolution and Wikipedia:arbitration policy - so
please pardon me if my remarks are off the target.
Regarding openness:
Partly from my experience, I see the benefit of closed communication.
It may be easier to use closed communication for mediation - for the
involved people to admit failures, etc. It could also be a lot easier when
people have to negotiate wordings of their joint statement, etc. when there
is such a thing (the kind of statement that announces the end of conflict
and their shared understanding of what has happened, and so on.) - who would
apologize on which point, etc. could be negotiated better under non-open
circumstances. So I see benefit of closed communication. That's all because
of the reduced need for saving one's face.
Legally, at least in Japanese context, there is less risk of somebody
causing defamation, etc. when the communication is not public. And after
getting used to wikis, I really understand BBS and email is a bit
inconvenient.
I am not very sure about arbitration, but I suppose there would be similar
reasons.
One way to ensure openness is to have some observers who can monitor what's
going on. They can be, for example, all the admins. They may publicly
comment/report about the process and the outcome.
At Japanese wikipedia, we are preparing a mailinglist for non-public
deletion request. It is for people to request for deletion of pages that
contain possible defamation, privacy and other problematic materials. We may
have some trusted users as "observers" - not that they cannot have a say
regarding if the page should be deleted or the request should be rejected,
but to make sure there are enough who watch what's going on and create
deterence for the abuse of process by admins.
Regarding wiki:
I happen to know that WakkaWiki has a feature called Access Control List.
With that, a page owner can control who can read and write the page you
created or own. (Page ownership is granted to the initial creator of the
page, but is also transferrable). The setting is attached to individual
pages as opposed to the whole site or namespace. And it can list individual
usernames as blocked or permitted. If you happen to have a server and
technical knowledge (I have neither, btw), it may be useful for you guys.
best,
Tomos
_________________________________________________________________
Get some great ideas here for your sweetheart on Valentine's Day - and
beyond. http://special.msn.com/network/celebrateromance.armx
Brion wrote:
>No. If you want to speak secretly amongst yourselves,
>please use e-mail.
And that is exactly what I've been saying on cabal-l for a while now. ;)
This would, IMO, be a really dumb idea for a wiki and would just be a target
for crackers. The idea of a closed wiki is also a bit oxymoronic to me. Best
for us to discuss things among ourselves, come to something close to an
agreement and then work out the details on a public wiki draft (and then offer
the rationale for each of our decisions). All evidence used as the basis for
any remedy should be public.
In short, a closed wiki is a bad, bad, bad idea and it sends the wrong message
as well.
-- mav (all just my opinion - I'm not speaking for the committee)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
The arbitration committee has mostly decided that there will be private
deliberation to some extent for cases brought before the committee.
Is it possible to set up a MediaWiki with read/write access limited just
to arbitrators, so that we can deliberate in Wiki form?
If so, could someone who has permission and knows how please set that up
right away so we can start using the private Wiki?
- Nohat
I have recently seen several pages with many images on them, in a way
that, even thumbnailed, the pages seem cluttered and hard to read.
In (unsaved) experiments, I found that it is possible to align several
thumbnailed images on a single page on the right side by doing this:
{| align=right
|[[image:1.jpg|thumb|right|first image]]
[[image:2.jpg|thumb|right|second image]]
[[image:3.jpg|thumb|right|third image]]
|}
This is best done with thumbnails of similar size, which can be achieved
easily enough.
IMHO this could greatly improve "the flow" on some pages. Any technical
or aesthetic reason *not* to do this?
Magnus
Once again I kindly liek to ask whether someone is working on HTML
improvement? One improvement would removing tricks.
After "== title ==" always start a proper block element even if there is
not an empty line in between the title and the paragraph start:
== title ==
paragraph
paragraph
and
== title ==
paragraph
paragraph
should result in exactly this code (modulo white space):
<h1>title</h1>
<p>paragraph</p>
<p>paragraph</p>
Deprecated are results as follows:
<h1>title</h1>
paragraph
<p>paragraph
<p>
<h1>title</h1>
<p>paragraph
<p>paragraph
<p>
<h1>title</h1>
paragraph
<p>paragraph</p>
--
| ,__o
| _-\_<,
http://www.gnu.franken.de/ke/ | (*)/'(*)