I redid this whole area from scratch in the new codebase. Let
me know if my changes address your concerns. It allows deletion
of files, revision histories, lists what pages link to which images
(the database is a bit out-of date on that--but the features work
in the software). Currently it warns about, but does not restrict,
the uploading of files other than PNG, JPEG, and GIF. I can easily
be talked into eliminating GIF from that list and adding OGG, and
we might want to add a feature for being able to include sounds,
especially for things like pronunciations of words.
As always, I welcome bug reports and suggestions.
http://www.piclab.com/newwiki/wiki.phtml
0
Expanding on my previous post, what I'd like to see would be a two-line entry for each file, something like:
On 2002-06-08 15:45:15, Koyaanis Qatsi uploaded file moebius_strip.jpg [smaller .jpg of .png already up]
*[[moebius_strip.jpg]] is linked to from page(s) [[moebius strip]]. [[remove this file?]]
On 2002-06-08 23:11:48, NapsterPimp uploaded file metallica -- enter sandman.mp3 ['''no comment''']
*[[metallica -- enter sandman.mp3]] is not linked to from any pages. [[remove this file?]]
For ease of loading, I imagine the page would have to be fairly short. Deletions might be logged on a different page, and only uploads that haven't been deleted would be logged on the uploads page (no need to delete files that aren't there any more).
Is this a practical suggestion?
cheers,
kq
0
Can we revisit the subject of file uploading? I'm currently seeing a lot of irrelevant, poorly named, and/or copyright-infringing files uploaded (and frequently not even in optimal formats!) Tracking down who uploaded what, when, is difficult, and finding where it's linked from and why it's relevant is nearly impossible. A few examples:
test.svg == what is this? how do you use it? why do we need it?
thumbs.db == db file for thumbs on someone else's computer. It's probably irrelevant, but I'm not sure and I can't see where it's linked to so I've left it.
eschera02lg.jpg == copyright violation, removed
squids.jpg == an image of kites shaped like squids. who would have guessed? accidental overwrite in the future? probably.
1k-1_1k.wav == ok, this is a small one, but usually some compression is to be desired. as an ogg it would be even smaller.
I like the uploads page as it is (e.g. On 2002-06-08 15:45:15, Koyaanis Qatsi uploaded file moebius_strip.jpg [smaller .jpg of .png already up]), but it would be even better if the page showed what articles use the files uploaded, and indicated which files aren't being used anywhere. That would make it easier to go through and delete unused files in good conscience after a reasonable amount of time has passed.
I'd like to propose also that we limit which file types we allow to be uploaded. I know we've discussed this before but I can't remember what conclusion we reached. I don't think it's useful to have .bmps uploaded, or .wavs, or *.exe and usually not .gifs or .mp3s either (even of uncopyrighted files, because of patent difficulties). The most commonly useful files will be *.png, *.jpg, and *.ogg. What do you think?
Thanks,
KQ
0
Why are the years 803 through 809 stuck at the top of the Orphans page?
They each have a dozen or so links to them, so it's not because they are
orphans....
--
Sean Barrett | Help! I've morally fallen, and
sean(a)epoptic.com | I don't want to get back up!
A new logo, differing substantially from the community-established
standards, has been installed on the French wikipedia. The person who
created the logo felt that Jason's asking the community was
inappropriate, and threatened to lead a fork of the project so that
the French wikipedia would be under the complete control of
Francophones.
His remarks included such phrases as "my frensh friends are angry" and
"you want the war?"
Well, no, I don't want the war.
So, the new logo is installed for now. If a consensus develops among
the speakers of French that it would be better to pursue a more
harmonious logo with the world community, that'll be fine. I really
don't care about the logo one way or the other.
Again, I am deeply saddened when I find the globally neutral spirit of
our pursuit of knowledge without regard to barriers of any kind
becomes entangled in what can only be called nationalism. But, I do
not wish to fight. I only wish that the project move forward. It is
the articles that matter, not us.
--Jimbo
> Is this currently enacted yet? As it is, at least non-logged
> in users (possibly regular users too) can't see who has what
> status on the user list, and there is no indication on sysops'
> user pages that they are sysops (same for developers).
I'm talking about the new codebase. Check it out for youself
at http://www.piclab.com/newwiki/wiki.phtml
0
On Thursday 06 June 2002 11:53 am, lcrocker wrote:
> I am also persuaded by Cunc that they should remain on the user list.
> It's clear that we must have the feature--we tried living without it,
> and it didn't work. So all comfy anti-elitism aside, the feature is
> needed, so it stays. Given that, I think secrecy is a far greater
> sin than elitism. If we have the feature, we should not be ashamed
> of it or downplay it. Showing those settings on the user page will
> also encourage newcomers to ask about them, which is a good thing--it
> gets people involved and interacting with the community, even if that
> interaction might initially be a complaint.
Is this currently enacted yet? As it is, at least non-logged in users
(possibly regular users too) can't see who has what status on the user list,
and there is no indication on sysops' user pages that they are sysops (same
for developers).
I guess I could live with this if it is OK with Jimbo and Larry and so long
as any mention of this is a link to a strong statement saying that sysop
status isn't anything really special.
Also, before anybody thinks of the idea, please don't display sysops' user
names differently on RecentChanges -- we don't want vandals to know just when
and when not sysops are working on the wiki.
Cheers!
mav
>> ...my take on that is that sysops ought to able to grant
>> and revoke sysop status, and developers should be able to
>> grant and revoke developer status, and Jimbo resolves any
>> disputes that may occur.
> I think that sounds right. As a social custom, it should be
> that sysop status should be granted to pretty much anyone who
> we know, even if we don't like them, unless they are a total
> jerk. And developer status should be restricted to just people
> who really are developing.
Allow me to suggest entrance exams: a sysop should someone with
a working email address who reads the wikipedia-l list. A developer
is someone who has submitted a patch that was checked in by a
previous developer, and who can figure out how to use CVS. I don't
think those are hard-and-fast rules, just the rules I'd be likely
to use if I did it.
> In all cases, we should treat roles as sysops/developers as
> being completelyseparate from our roles as contributors.
Absolutely. Although I have to admit I started rewriting the
code because I needed some features to make good Poker articles,
and I've fallen behind in contributing. Kind of like the way
Knuth took 10 years off to reinvent typesetting rather than
finishing his books. :-)
> It might be neat to have a link "What is this?" beside the note
> on the user list. People can click and there we have our anti-
> elitist propaganda assuring people that sysop status and
> developer status is just a technical thing, very much open to
> them for the asking.
Will do.
0
I am swayed by Rose's suggestion that "editor" is not the best term
for the "can edit protected pages" user status, so I've changed it
back to "sysop". The "can make arbitrary SQL queries" status will be
called "developer". A still open question is who can grant these--my
take on that is that sysops ought to able to grant and revoke sysop
status, and developers should be able to grant and revoke developer
status, and Jimbo resolves any disputes that may occur.
I am also persuaded by Cunc that they should remain on the user list.
It's clear that we must have the feature--we tried living without it,
and it didn't work. So all comfy anti-elitism aside, the feature is
needed, so it stays. Given that, I think secrecy is a far greater
sin than elitism. If we have the feature, we should not be ashamed
of it or downplay it. Showing those settings on the user page will
also encourage newcomers to ask about them, which is a good thing--it
gets people involved and interacting with the community, even if that
interaction might initially be a complaint.
0
In the present software, text inside a <pre> section is not scanned
for wiki markup--i.e., <pre> implies <nowiki>. I think this is the
wrong behavior. If you want <nowiki>, you can still use it, but I
think <pre> sections should just output a pre-formatted (i.e., line
breaks not ignored) section of text; if that section has [[links]]
and ''quotes'', they should be rendered.
HTML 4.01 is kind of odd on this matter: things like <em> and
<b> are allowed inside <pre> and interpreted, but it specifically
excludes a few things like <img> and <small>.
I seek opinions.