On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Bence Damokos bdamokos@gmail.com wrote:
As I understand the blog is currently a self-hosted instance of Wordpress and the idea is to move the hosting to somewhere else. (So this is not MediaWiki vs. Wordpress, but self-hosting vs. not self-hosting)
Exactly!
Best regards, Bence
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 7:29 PM, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 10:26 PM, Lodewijk <lodewijk@effeietsanders.org
wrote:
This was definitely mentioned at Wikimania. What I understood is that
it
will be hosted externally for performance and reliability reasons, but
that
the rest should remain the same.
So, A blog for one of the top 10 websites in the world is being hosted externally "for performance and reliability"? - That doesn't sound right. Maybe Mr. Roth & friends can clarify a bit here.
I can chime in as a tech operations person (in my official capacity). Currently the blog is in a partially maintained by Operations state. In ops, we have a few concerns - #1 is security (exemplified by our recent security incident) of having a wordpress instance in our production environment. #2 is support of the blog from a technical standpoint. We are currently all oversubscribed with trying to keep the production sites up and speedy. The blog is low priority for us compared to the wiki's, and therefore is often neglected. When we hire about 5 more ops people, it may be more sustainable, but right now, it's not - so it would actually be a net positive for the Operations team to move the blog onto a dedicated third party, and will also hopefully prevent any future security incidents.
Leslie
Blogs generally don't require a lot of resources, aside from some comment oversight. But it's not like there is a deluge of comments or moderation required in the current blog - they average about 1, maybe 2 comments and from my impression, don't particularly have a high number of regular followers.
This seems like something trivial, perhaps because of familiarity with Wordpress, it is being preferred in this case. But then, why are we willingly and so easily handing the visitors to a third party? especially with so much paranoia about monitoring and privacy issues. Even for the sake of our own impression and opinions - Is there a particular role
there
that Mediawiki can't fill in? (I recall Erik once argued that wiki is the most versatile platform, does he believe that Wordpress is a better alternative? )
Regards Theo
Anyway, I'm not an expert here, just what I understood from Matthew
Roth
&
friends
Lodewijk
2013/9/5 Richard Symonds richard.symonds@wikimedia.org.uk
This is being discussed on-wiki too, at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Privacy_policy#Blog_not_hosted_by_WordP...
.
Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England
and
Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513.
Registered
Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London
EC2A
4LT.
United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation
(who
operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal
control
over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
On 5 September 2013 14:00, Neil Harris neil@tonal.clara.co.uk
wrote:
On 05/09/13 13:37, MZMcBride wrote:
Hi.
The recent draft privacy policy mentions that the Wikimedia blog (https://blog.wikimedia.org) will soon be hosted by
WordPress.com.
Was this discussed anywhere? If so, where?
What is the proposed URL structure of a blog hosted by
WordPress.com?
I
think there's a reasonable expectation that when a user visits *.wikimedia.org, we don't simply send his or her browser info to
a
third
party without his or her consent. This has come up previously with
Jobvite
and iframes. It's also come up with the use of tracking tools such
as
Google Analytics, which not only affect one-time visitors, but aim
to
persist client-side.
How will the blog be backed up? Relying on an external service
means
not
being in control of the data. Will there be regular backups made
to
ensure
that if WordPress.com goes away, we won't lose all of our posts?
MZMcBride
I agree: this does seem to be a curious decision, at odds with the
WMF's
general policy of self-hosting as much as possible in order to
maintain
maximum independence from outside entities, particularly in the
context
of
the recent concerns about privacy. I would have thought that
maintaining
a
WordPress installation would be well within the WMF's capabilities.
Neil
______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org <Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l%3E,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@**lists.wikimedia.org<
wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org>
?subject=**unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe