Hi all,
I would like to post a request to bugzilla at #8319 bug:
http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8319 ,
but I would like to ask you a question before:
*What can be ''imported'' (by special:import) at English wikipedia by admins?
The point is that robot such as 'pagefromfile.py' indeed work for creating pages from a text file, but they are rather slow and a bit instable. They can happen to stop for instance, so they almost have to be driven manually. Of course this has the advantage to filter mistakes. Nevertheless, at Lombard Wikipedia, we have the need of reaching some kind of 'critical mass' for the number of articles. According to most recent socio-linguistic theories, this would give the language (and, as far as wikimedia is concerned, the project itself) to develop further: so some kind of 'import' (by admins) would probably work much better.
Thank you.
Bests,
Claudi
---------------------------------
Découvrez une nouvelle façon d'obtenir des réponses à toutes vos questions ! Profitez des connaissances, des opinions et des expériences des internautes sur Yahoo! Questions/Réponses.
Hello all -
as part of our discussions around the feature set of MediaWiki for
educators which took place from April 11-13 in Vancouver, we realized
that several groups & companies that are currently using MediaWiki
(including some who were present) have identical needs. Sometimes,
work is done in parallel and redundantly.
For example, Wikia has done work around WYSIWYG editing. WikiEducator
has a strong need for it, and the folks at CK-12 are also
investigating the possibilities. Should we launch a development effort
together, it needs to be coordinated.
The wikitech-l and mediawiki-l lists are very busy with day-to-day
work, so we felt it makes sense to have a focused place for
coordination of "next generation" MediaWiki development projects,
small and large, that (may) involve multiple partners. Hence, there is
now a MediaWiki NG (next generation) mailing list. We can also use it
to think about funding strategies, though the list archives are at
this point public.
It is emphatically not a "blue sky" list for wild ideas; those belong
on wikitech-l and Meta. It's about: We want feature set X - we are
willing to contribute an amount/join a funding proposal/add a
developer to a team working on it. It's about figuring out specs,
timetables & roadmaps.
The list is at:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-ng-l
Right now it's set to moderator approval for new subscription. If you
want on, drop Brion a line about your organization & needs and how you
could contribute to dev activities, and he'll add you to the list. If
you're a dev who just wants to follow what's going on, provide advice
& participate, you're also welcome of course. But I suggested making
it initially mod-approved to ensure that people read a long email like
this one that explains the purpose of the list, and that it remains
focused on getting things done. ;-) It would be easy to confuse this
with a "brainstorming list", which it is not.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open,
free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic
Hi All,
There's a very rough draft diagram of MediaWiki 1.10's DB schema at:
http://files.nickj.org/MediaWiki/mediawiki-db-schema-v1-cropped.png
Very high chance of errors / omissions / stuff-ups, so comments and
corrections and suggestions welcome.
Quick questions:
* Can the validate table be safely deleted? (I'm assuming it's cruft left over after schema updates)
* Can the ipblocks_old table be safely deleted? (I'm assuming it's cruft left over after schema updates)
* A one line description of the trackbacks table? (e.g. "Stores trackbacks from external sites which link to the wiki")
-- All the best,
Nick.
I understand that this is a planned feature for the MediaWiki software.
I heard recently that a co-founder of Wikipedia has become highly
dissatisfied with it on account of it containing so many factual errors that
it was useless (and beyond repair), and he's quite right - this is a major
issue that needs to be addressed. Obviously, the ability to mark
revisions is the perfect solution. If there was a way to pick out a revision
as being error-free (I assume, synonymous with "stable"), Wikipedia could
potentially progress towards being an academically-citable encyclopedia.
I was just wondering who would feasibly *do* the marking as a stable
revision? Obviously if this can be done by any users then there will be no
advantage to it (as just the same liability toward inserting errors will
transfer into a liability towards marking stable revisions which aren't
actually stable). If you restrict it to registered users then there will
still be no advantage, as even long-time registered users often vandalise
and get things wrong. If you restrict it to admins then there will be too
few of them.
The real problem is that it will take proper peer-reviewing - by experts -
to really mark an article as "stable" in the sense of containing none of the
errors and mistakes that caused the aforementioned co-founder to give up on
Wikipedia. Obviously this is because any average editor (even an admin) is
not necessarily qualified to declare an article error-free. Certainly, if
nothing else, it will take expert-reviewing to bring an article up to
"citable" standards.
So how do we currently suppose this will all work? Will the Foundation hire
experts to check articles? Will we rely on expert volunteers contacting the
Foundation so that they can be given "expert" accounts that can mark stable
revisions? Or will we just allow long-time trusted editors to mark versions
as stable, which leaves us in the same position of not knowing whether the
article is *mistakenly* stable or not?
One feasible way I can see this as working is defining an arbitrary amount,
say 100, that has to be reached for an article to become stable. If one
person marks a revision as stable, it gets +1, and if they are a more
trusted editor (been around for longer, done more major non-reverted edits)
then it may get +5. If someone marks it as unstable it gets -5 (weighting
towards holding back). And so on. Then if the article reaches 100 it becomes
stable. This method roughly solves the problem of there being vandal or
mistaken stable articles, but assumes that one revision of an article will
stick around for long enough to be evaluated in this manner. Will we have to
freeze the page after an admin puts it into "evaluation mode", or perhaps
set it aside into a subsidiary page where it is evaluated, after that
revision has been nominated for Stable Revision Evaluation? Obviously this
is all a very tricky issue because we're dealing with a wiki!
I was just wondering what people thought of these issues, and what plans
there are, if there are any.
Hello.
I've tried to get the latest completed dump (pages-meta-history) of dewiki, and I've found only two prior dumps available, neither of them valid.
On every page http://download.wikimedia.org/your_language_here/ I've found only two links for prior versions (valid for some languages, damaged for others, for example, dewiki and, of course, enwiki).
Is this a temporal failure? In the latest pages I've found new links for RSS sindication (please excuse me if I missed some announcement about this). What is that all about?
Thank you.
Regards,
Felipe Ortega.
---------------------------------
LLama Gratis a cualquier PC del Mundo.
Llamadas a fijos y móviles desde 1 céntimo por minuto.
http://es.voice.yahoo.com
Hi, I noticed on http://download.wikimedia.org/enwiki/20070402/ that
the ETA for the next history dump is May 19 and I have no reason to
suspect this is wrong. Once the bz2 dump is finished, the 7zip dump
will begin, and this is usually much faster. Last time, it took about
ten days to complete after the bz2 dump had finished.
Is the 7zip dump generated from the bz2 dump or from the database? If
it's generated from the database, I'd propose generating the 7z dump
first, and then the bz2. That way, we'd all have new English data to
play with a whole month earlier.
Thanks,
- Dan
Hi, everybody. I'm writing to invite _everyone_ on this list (who hasn't
already received a personal invitation) to come to RecentChangesCamp
Montreal the 18th through the 20th of May, 2007.
RecentChangesCamp is a world-wide "unconference" for wiki technologists,
wiki users and wiki practitioners. We also invite people from related
technology and community practices, looking for common ground on
community, collaboration, and self-organizing behavior. The event is
free of charge for all participants.
http://www.recentchangescamp.org/http://www.rocococamp.info/
RecentChangesCamp Montreal ("RoCoCoCamp") will be held in Montreal,
Quebec in May. It will be a three-day conference with the agenda set by
the participants, using [[Open Space Technology]]. No keynotes, no
hours-long slide presentations, no conference tracks: the emphasis of
RecentChangesCamp is on bringing together smart, talented people for
productive, peer-to-peer talks. That means hackpits, group design
sessions, other hands-on stuff: we set the agenda together, so we do
what we want to do.
It's great. It's the conference you always wanted to go to.
If you would like to attend, please sign up on our wiki:
http://www.rocococamp.info/Participants
We're arranging lodging for a variety of budgets (from couch-surfing to
the Hyatt). Travel to Montreal can be inexpensive; Europeans are
encouraged to look at discount Transatlantic flyer Zoom Airlines.
Please check out our wiki if you have any questions; also feel free to
contact anyone in our all-volunteer organizing group. You can write to
me directly or call my cell phone (+1-514-554-3826). This is going to be
a great event and you're going to be bummed if you miss it.
Thanks,
-Evan
________________________________________________________________________
Evan Prodromou <evan(a)prodromou.name>
http://evan.prodromou.name/
I'm interested in what it would take to transwiki eligible (free
content) images from en:wp to Commons. Is this just a matter of
switching on the ability and having the person doing the transwiki
being an admin on both wikis? How is the history preserved, in these
dark days before SUL? Etc., etc.
- d.
Hi,
I'm just looking at the most recent 1.9 releases, is there any idea
when 1.9.4 is going to be released? Or should we wait for 1.10? What
would be most stable?
Thanks,
Travis
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Just fair warning:
We're still not quite done with the database schema updates on the live
Wikimedia servers which has pushed us a couple weeks behind on the full
code updates, and I'd prefer a couple more weeks to shake down the
latest code before putting out a release.
As a consequence, the MediaWiki 1.10 snapshot will come a couple weeks
later than originally scheduled; it will be out by the end of April.
(Running updates in the background takes longer, but minimizes downtime
for our large sites. Wikipedia being offline for two days for a minor
upgrade would likely not be considered too cool. ;)
- -- brion vibber (brion @ wikimedia.org)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFGG6Q5wRnhpk1wk44RAlWtAJ9oG84NPyRVesLMNR0G/0FrwO7PFwCff13j
hMeZ7YYs0cTBvaBGIzgOUJk=
=0JHS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
