>
> Well, en.labs would be best, as it is a site for testing :D But yes,
> English Wikibooks is a good candidate once we have explored the issue
> of long-untouched pages (ie the trust should be recalculated, I think)
>
>
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:*
wikiquality-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org
> [mailto:
wikiquality-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] *On Behalf Of *Luca
> de Alfaro
> *Sent:* August 26, 2008 10:59 PM
> *To:* Wikimedia Quality Discussions
> *Subject:* Re: [Wikiquality-l] WikiTrust v2 released: reputation
> andtrustforyour wiki in real-time!
>
>
>
> Yes, I fully agree.
> We should start on a small project where people are interested.
> We can consider the bigger wikis later, once we are confident that we
> like it and it works the way we want.
> I was citing Enwiki just to discuss potential performance.
> Ian and I can help with advice etc anyone who wants to try this out.
> Luca
>
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 6:54 PM, Andrew Whitworth
> <
mike.lifeguard@gmail.com <mailto:
mike.lifeguard@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> >>even on the English Wikipedia (5 edits / second at most?) a single CPU
> >> would suffice
>
> But why start so large? Pick a smaller test wiki first like, say,
> en.wikibooks? We can throw that into the queue of things we want
> installed down at WB.
>
> --Andrew Whitworth
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikiquality-l mailing list
>
Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> <mailto: