> So, I repaired the broken table, and recent changes looks good
> again. There may have been data loss, but I don't think so.
> I don't know what happened or why. The documentation suggests
> that if this happens often we should try to find the reason for it.
One of the new codebase tasks I have on the back burner is to
tighten up some of the database error checking; maybe I'll move
that to the front burner. Another thing I might do is when the
system detects a serious error such as a corrupted table, I could
have the software automatically switch into read-only mode and
send mail to the maintainers (and my mail will even page me if I
tell it to).
0
So, I repaired the broken table, and recent changes looks good again.
There may have been data loss, but I don't think so.
I don't know what happened or why. The documentation suggests that if
this happens often we should try to find the reason for it.
--Jimbo
I'm running the command to repair the broken table. The documents
seem very reassuring that everything will be o.k. in a situation like
this.
But the command is taking a long time to run. As a precautionary
measure, I've turned off the website completely during the rebuild, so
that we don't spook the database while I'm repairing the table.
It's a big table. I guess it makes sense for the command to take a long time.
--Jimbo
In addition to a talk: page, an editable image description page would
be nice. The author could describe the image's copyright there, and
also how the image was acquired/generated. (If some automated script
was used to generate a picture, the GFDL arguably requires that the
source code of the script be available, since that is the "preferred
form of the work for making modifications to it.") This description
page would also show the current version of the image and uneditable
meta information (when uploaded, by whom etc.), and have a talk page
attached. You would access it by clicking on an image.
If at all possible, the history of the image description page should
show older versions of the image.
Like Brion said, we'd need another namespace:
image: for the image
image description: for the description
image description talk: for talking
Axel
The next thing to tackle in the new codebase is the image directory.
The current implementation is hard to maintain and clearly not
scaleable, so I'll outline my proposed implementation here and ask
for feedback.
Also, I'd like it if there were some convenient way for me do grab a
tarball of Wikipedia's image directory--maybe an FTP logon?
Anyway, here's the implementation: First, I've already implemented
[[image:name.jpg]] links, so that users won't have to know about the
internal image directory structure, and so that wikitext will be more
transportable.
I think the internal directory structure should be de-flattened at
least one level. We can't count on all installations using ReiserFS,
so a single directory with hundreds of files is a performance
problem. It might even pay to go two levels. This means that images
will be placed under directories based on the first letter or two of
their name, e.g., "/upload/c/chessboard.png" or
even "/upload/c/ch/chessboard.png".
The database conversion tool will have to add a function to find all
the existing image links and convert them.
I've added a database table which contains for each image its name,
size, the time it was uploaded, and by whom. So we'll be able to get
a listing of images sorted by name to make maintenance possible.
The upload function should enforce some reasonable file name
conventions, and it should warn the user who tries to unsupported
file formats or very large files (though perhaps the user should be
able to override these warnings).
It would be _very_ nice to have a feature to search for pages that
use a particular image. I can't think of any way to do that but a
fulltext search, but possibly that could be made reasonable by
enforcing naming conventions (for example, requiring a minimum
length, forbidding problematic characters).
Any other issues I haven't thought of?
0
I don't know anything about Max and so I don't know whether he
deserves an article, but the underlying question is important and
interesting: should anything that somebody bothered to write up be
accepted into Wikipedia, assuming it is NPOV?
I say no. The item has to be of relevance in some way. It would be
fruitless to try to define "of relevance" on many policy pages. It is
implicitly defined by the overriding goal of writing an
*encyclopedia*. Reasonable people will usually agree, and if not, it
can be resolved the wiki way.
Lists of phone numbers, a description of my dream of last Tuesday, a
biography of my father are all irrelevant and don't belong in
Wikipedia. Imagine Encyclopedia Britannica was completely freed of
their space and money constraints: they still wouldn't include a
biography of my father.
Now, Simpson characters on the other hand are relevant: a very popular
show in the largest consumer market of the world. Simpson shows are
being analyzed in literature departments, and no doubt EB would
include an extensive treatment if they could.
Axel
So I'm looking at this latest thread, and
wondering...why is this an issue? I seem to remember
that "is sysop" used to appear on the wikipedians
page. Seeing that I had sysop rights made me ask what
they were and guidelines for use, which forced me to
ask via this list. Not a bad thing, and a path that I
think other truly interested new wikipedians might
also follow -- can this be bad? There is enough
information out there that shows that most wikipedians
don't want a cabal. IF this is an issue, than I would
frankly rather see us all lose our sysop rights.
On that subject, I have yet to use mine (except to
delete misspelled pages, and even then, I try to
follow Brion's advice). Despite the fact that I have
very strong feelings on what I consider legitimate
use, etc., and often would love to block IPs, I have
avoided the temptation because I think it's too easy a
privilege to abuse. I'm not sure that everyone else
with those privileges is as able to make the
differentiation. Would it be possible to have a
system where it took two sysops to block a
contributor? This might help to provoide some of the
checks and balances that I think the site will need
more and more as it grows...
Jules
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
</lurk>
> From: Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)bomis.com>
> Daniel Mayer wrote:
> > Anybody of good intentions can be a sysop if they want to be. I don't think
> > we should label people as having a particular status and thus imply that this
> > status is anything particularly special.
>
> I agree.
>
> The ability for any random person to show up and edit any page at any
> time, on an equal footing with oldtimers, is the most frightening and
> appalling way to run a website that I can imagine. It's the secret of
> our success.
I agree totally as well. There's going to continue to be a tendency on
the part of a few people (and, by the way, I certainly wouldn't accuse Lee
of having this tendency) to want to designate a Wikipedia elite and an
underclass. Ultimately, this would undermine the process, and I hope
we'll keep nipping it in the bud whenever we see it.
By *highlighting* differences, we would *create* the impression of a
political elite, when in fact none really exists. This would politicize
Wikipedia--something I hope we can unite in opposing. But Wikipedia is an
encyclopedia project that thrives on freedom and the common understanding
that everyone is on the same footing, as Jimbo says. To remove this
freedom and this common understanding is to undermine the very thing that
has made the project work so well this far.
Larry
<lurk>
Like most features of the software, it will be decided by
programmer fiat unless we get specific direction. I'm
quite happy to remove any mention of user rights from the
user list, I'm happy to call them whatever you like. You
make good arguments, so I'll take those suggestions unless
I hear otherwise.
Also, please use the Sourceforge tracker tools. Neither
a mailing list nor the Wiki are adequate for the task.
0
On Sunday 02 June 2002 12:01 pm, Ruth wrote:
> Another issue is whether we want to identify
> members' functions, at all, on the user page. There are
> many other ways to identify developers and sysops on
> Wikipedia and they should be considered too. There could
> be a sysops page and a developers page with a list of
> such people.
> Frankly, I like the site as it is. Developers are
> identified by going to Source Forge, usually, and if a
> developer has not been included on this site, I think
> they can simply ask. Sysops know who they are by the
> sidebar on their view of the Wikipedia pages.
I agree with Ruth here and don't think it is necessary to label anyones
"status" as a matter of policy. If a sysop or developer wants his or her
status known, then they will say so on their user page.
Contributors are already able to get a good idea who is a sysop, developer or
whatever by either digging a little, paying attention to RecentChanges for a
few weeks or by asking.
I kinda like the fact that potential vandals don't know who is a sysop and
who isn't or even if a sysop is online at a particular moment.
Anybody of good intentions can be a sysop if they want to be. I don't think
we should label people as having a particular status and thus imply that this
status is anything particularly special. Having different user's labeled as
having particular status would only enforce a sense that a cabal exists here
-- which it doesn't. It might also lead to confusion when there are valid
disagreements about an article between a non-sysop party and a sysop. The
non-sysop would be able to see that a particular person is a sysop and this
knowledge might imply that the sysop is acting in some type of official
capacity -- which they seldom are in these cases.
I for one don't want that weight constantly on my shoulders.
But, that's just me.
--maveric149