Two weeks ago I turned on WikiMiniAtlas in the Swedish Wikipedia. This means Common.js was updated so each geographic coordinate now has a little icon, which makes a map pop-up. This map shows the names of other articles that have geo coordinates. Many other languages have already done this long ago. The WikiMiniAtlas is documented on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiMiniAtlas
However, the names on the map are now out of date and they are not updated if I update the geo coordinates of a page. In order to spark enthusiasm from the Swedish Wikipedia community, I need improvements of articles to be shown as improvements on the map. This feedback doesn't work now.
I asked around and user:Dschwen told me that user:Kolossos was going to update the list. But nothing has happened. I asked Kolossos, but got no response. Not even "I don't have time".
I am a programmer. Even though I don't have a toolserver account, I understand that much of this relies on individual efforts, and I applaud this. But features like this WikiMiniAtlas (or all the services that rely on s3 replication) are too impressive and useful to rely completely on the voluntary efforts of single individuals. In this case, it doesn't help if I offer my help, because I don't get any response at all. That is harmful for all projects. Now I feel I can't trust anything to work.
We need to reorganize this, so that each task can be performed by more than one individual. Individual projects must be banned.
Instead, we need to form groups with group access to make updates and respond to questions. This might sound harsh, but it's actually very easy to implement. Just assign a second person to all of your individual projects, and keep the door open for more to join. Use the Linux group permissions (chmod g+w) for access, and use the user ID only for identity.
DaB. wrote:
the wikiminiatlas is allready a stable-project with more then 1 programmer.
What good is that if I can't find out who these people are, or how to get answers from them?
The page https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Stable_server doesn't indicate these details, and neither does the page that it links to, http://stable.toolserver.org/wma/
The page http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiMiniAtlas mentions Kolossos and Stefan Kühn, but doesn't detail if these are "responsible" (as in "response").
Hello,
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 10:51 AM, Lars Aronsson lars@aronsson.se wrote:
I am a programmer. Even though I don't have a toolserver account, I understand that much of this relies on individual efforts, and I applaud this. But features like this WikiMiniAtlas (or all the services that rely on s3 replication) are too impressive and useful to rely completely on the voluntary efforts of single individuals. In this case, it doesn't help if I offer my help, because I don't get any response at all. That is harmful for all projects. Now I feel I can't trust anything to work.
We need to reorganize this, so that each task can be performed by more than one individual. Individual projects must be banned.
I think this is a bit harsh.
Instead, we need to form groups with group access to make updates and respond to questions. This might sound harsh, but it's actually very easy to implement. Just assign a second person to all of your individual projects, and keep the door open for more to join. Use the Linux group permissions (chmod g+w) for access, and use the user ID only for identity.
There is a recognition that group effort can be helpful on some projects, and the toolserver admin team have set up a system where more mature and used projects are placed on a "stable" server. I even think this mechanism allows for more then one user to "own" the project, so what you are asking for already exists.
I'm not a toolserver admin, and I can't speak for the project you mention. I do understand it can be frustrating when you can help but you are prevented from doing so, but keep in mind that many, if not all of the projects on the toolserver are done with volunteer time. Volunteers have different amounts of free time, and different priorities.
If you have time to contribute, it might be more effective to ask if you can be given access, rather then demand things be a certain way. I'm sure we all have the common goal that we want to see the community grow and get better, so let's pursue things in that spirit.
Thanks, Gerald.
Hello Lars,
I am the programmer of the scripts which extract the data for the project like Wikipedia-World
User:Kolossos and User:Dschwen use the data for projects like this cool WikiMiniAtlas.
At the moment I redesign my scripts for better support of more languages.
I have create the project Check Wikipedia. Now I will include the project Templatetiger in this project "Check Wikipedia". So we can fix very easy all problems in templates with this page. For this I programm a new part of the script, which can better detect the templates.
After this I will use the detection of the templates in all languages for my new detection of geocoordinates. I hope at this weekend I have finish the detection of templates. So next week I can begin with the new part of the script for geocoordinates.
After this complete restart I can support all languages and can create a new list of geocoordinates only 24 hours after the last dump (automatic). I can also create a new list with errors in templates and coordinates and ...
Also at the moment I write my doctor thesis and have a full-time-job. Sorry I am a busy man.
I hope you can wait this days. Then it will be better. If you can not wait here the scripts : http://toolserver.org/~sk/geo/download.zip This image shows how it works: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Wikipedia_Geodata_Workflow.svg
Best regards Stefan
See: Check Wikipedia http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Projekt_wikifiering/Syntaxfel
Templatetiger http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProjekt_Vorlagenauswertung/en
Wikipedia-World http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProjekt_Georeferenzierung/Wikiped...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Lars Aronsson:
Instead, we need to form groups with group access to make updates and respond to questions. This might sound harsh, but it's actually very easy to implement. Just assign a second person to all of your individual projects, and keep the door open for more to join. Use the Linux group permissions (chmod g+w) for access, and use the user ID only for identity.
we already have this, although using a slightly more sophisticated permissions scheme than that:
https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Stable_server
in fact, people leaving for RL reasons / got bored / whatever, and leaving their tools unmaintained was one of the main reasons the stable server was created.
the problem is that having the infrastructure doesn't make people use it. i've been trying to encourage people to move popular projects to stable and decouple them from a single maintainer, but i can't force people to do it, and most people don't have the time or inclination.
i don't think "banning" single-maintainer projects will accomplish anything. most popular tools started off as something small written by one person, and if we don't allow people to write things themselves, how will these tools develop? if we were to do this, all that would happen is there would be no tools left.
- river.
Hi River,
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 7:37 AM, River Tarnell < river@loreley.flyingparchment.org.uk> wrote:
the problem is that having the infrastructure doesn't make people use it. i've been trying to encourage people to move popular projects to stable and decouple them from a single maintainer, but i can't force people to do it, and most people don't have the time or inclination.
i don't think "banning" single-maintainer projects will accomplish anything. most popular tools started off as something small written by one person, and if we don't allow people to write things themselves, how will these tools develop? if we were to do this, all that would happen is there would be no tools left.
I agree with you on both counts, but I have a suggestion.
Do you think it might be possible to encourage people to use the infrastructure more? My thinking here is to make it easier for multi-user projects and make it slightly more annoying for single user ones. This could be something like a longer waiting time for (one week vs. couple days) to get migrated to the stable server. Or it could be something in the STABLE signup form, where it says "if I don't respond within 30 days, my project can have a maintainer added at the discretion of the toolserver admins". (30 days here was just arbitrary ... the important thing is there is some limit to the loss of contact).
Just putting an idea out there, as I do see both sides of the equation. Comments?
Gerald
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 7:37 AM, River Tarnell river@loreley.flyingparchment.org.uk wrote:
we already have this, although using a slightly more sophisticated permissions scheme than that:
https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Stable_server
. . . what permissions scheme *does* it use?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Aryeh Gregor:
. . . what permissions scheme *does* it use?
each tool has a "role" account (a sort of special user account that isn't allowed to log in). each developer is a member of the role and can 'su' to it. the tool runs under the role account, not under the individual developer's account.
there's also a seperate "project" for each tool, which allows us to do more granular resource limits than ulimit would allow.
- river.
toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org