On 12/28/06, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 28/12/06, Anthony <wikilegal(a)inbox.org>
wrote:
On 12/28/06, Gregory Maxwell
<gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/28/06, Anthony <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote:
> > You shouldn't buy another 300
servers in the first place.
> What a great idea.
> When will you have your implementation of "distributed mediawiki"
completed?
It's already completed. I just need you to
transfer over the domain names.
whuh??? Project page?
Sorry, that was sarcasm :). Seriously though, I understand a
distributed mediawiki wouldn't occur overnight, but that's no excuse
to just throw up your hands and say "oh well, let's just put up ads
and make millions".
Your post actually started me thinking on this. A
Freenet (for
encryption and to avoid a [[:en:trusted client]] problem) or
BitTorrent (for convenient distribution with a program lots of people
have) method of distributing Wikipedia. A peer-to-peer network with
WMF as the only body supplying content files. The downsides that
spring to mind are (a) doesn't work through any old web browser (this
is a big one) (b) trusted client problem (how to ensure rogue clients
don't redistribute corrupted content in our name).
I was thinking something a la freenet without the anonymity (which is
what slows it down), and with digital signatures to ensure content
doesn't get corrupted. Wikimedia servers would still have to do a
tiny bit of work, basically sign stuff and boostrap the peer lists.
It could be built, and for a lot less than 1.5 million.
Anthony