On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 4:05 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 October 2011 13:48, Peter Gervai grinapo@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 04:05, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
as I did. We both spend a lot of time making sure Wikipedia is always up and available for people to read, so it's painful to see a small proportion of a wiki's users decide to take a whole wiki offline for everyone.
But let's not forget that no matter how stable a cluster is the site could be brought down by a single paper from the law enforcement, politicians and alike. Life is not always as simple as "make backups and you'll be safe for ever".
Which is why, even though forks aren't good, forkability is essential backup hygiene.
Has anyone tried to duplicate a running Wikipedia lately?
(I'd try myself if I had a PC to had with sufficient disk space ...)
- d.
How much money do you need, and can we get enough competent coders to help us? I can't code for shit. I still remember the Stormfront incident, and I am sure Tim Starling does too. If we had to do it, we would have to be prepared to put in a whole lot more computing power than the Stormfront 'idiots did.... Maybe a whole Big Mama or two... But on the other hand, if all the editors drained out of the wikipedia site, it would all turn the other way. A wikipedia like site can not survive without a surplus of folks doing the whole shitty thing (pardon my french) and alienating them is a *BIG* no-no. Really, Not kidding. Don't worry about the small stuff like small donors. Think about the fact that they are doing free work for you, and you treat them like are shit you can walk all over by a board decision that seems to have spawned from somebody in bedlam. That is what you have to worry about. Sorrry again if my "tone" isn't to your liking. But be realistic and face the facts. There would be no wikipedia without the people whose traditions you are shitting down on from a great height.