On 16/08/05, Alphax <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote:
How much do the combined Wikimedia servers serve? What
would happen if
all the Wikimedia sites were redirected to the BBC for a day?
I don't think the new colo has a traffic meter, but before the June 7
move peak was about 120Mb/s, around 1/100th of the BBC's peak, so we'd
have no effect whatsoever. (In terms of traffic, we get about half:
http://traffic.alexa.com/graph?w=640&h=480&r=6m&y=r&u=wikip…
. Bear in mind the BBC has much more multimedia on their site than us,
hence the disproportionally high data flow for them.)
It's like [[WP:BEANS]] - now that someone has
tried, everyone else will too.
I don't know. One incident is news worthy. A second is "Already been
done. Goodbye" from the point of view of the media.
They are abusing our site for corporate gain! Surely
we have every right
to block them! They at least owe us an apology for misusing our
resources like this.
Our top priority has to be coming away from this without harming our -
or Jimbo's personal - reputation. Making big claims which could hit
the media without a high level of proof wouldn't be a Good Thing.
Well, if they want to violate [[WP:POINT]], we can
disrupt them back. To
quote [[meta:Bash]]: You can, however, disrupt Encarta to make a point.
I don't see why the same shouldn't hold for anyone who corporate
entities who do the same to us.
Besides, if the BBC has 20,000+ employees on their side, how many more
users do we have on *our* side? With the powers of Wikipedia and
Slashdot combined...
Remember we only have a few hundred active editors on any one day. The
BBC's web infrastructure is extremely powerful - our is nothing in
comparison, and in turn /. is nothing compared to us!
Anyway two wrongs don't make a right.
Dan