Hello, I'm not sure if this is the place to pose this question, if not could you respond with the proper place.
I'm building out a social networking site centered around an "art" and "arthistory" theme. I would like to display a real time dynamic version of the arthistory section of the wikipedia at my domain. I would like for my users to be able to edit this section at my domain. My domain is arthistory.com. I am hoping to be able to provide a lot of acedemic and specialty users to this section via my site. I think we could both benefit from this relationship. My users have direct access to the arthistory section of wikipedia, the wikipedia gets access to my users who are experts in the field. I understand you can get a feed of the wikipedia, and also a database dump, but I'm looking for a more real time and dynamic connection (without just putting the wikipedia in an iframe.) I'd also prefer if I could use openID or some way of repurposing my user's registration to duel register with my site and with wikipedia, and create a login session for both simultaneously.
I'm in the development stage so right now my efforts are exploratory. Thank you for your time.
Michael
Hoi, This is indeed an interesting question.. I hope that there are ways to accommodate you. Thanks, GerardM
2009/2/19 basedrop basedrop@gmail.com
Hello, I'm not sure if this is the place to pose this question, if not could you respond with the proper place.
I'm building out a social networking site centered around an "art" and "arthistory" theme. I would like to display a real time dynamic version of the arthistory section of the wikipedia at my domain. I would like for my users to be able to edit this section at my domain. My domain is arthistory.com. I am hoping to be able to provide a lot of acedemic and specialty users to this section via my site. I think we could both benefit from this relationship. My users have direct access to the arthistory section of wikipedia, the wikipedia gets access to my users who are experts in the field. I understand you can get a feed of the wikipedia, and also a database dump, but I'm looking for a more real time and dynamic connection (without just putting the wikipedia in an iframe.) I'd also prefer if I could use openID or some way of repurposing my user's registration to duel register with my site and with wikipedia, and create a login session for both simultaneously.
I'm in the development stage so right now my efforts are exploratory. Thank you for your time.
Michael
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 6:36 PM, basedrop basedrop@gmail.com wrote:
Hello, I'm not sure if this is the place to pose this question, if not could you respond with the proper place.
You'd probably get better replies on wikitech-l, but you're here already.
I'm building out a social networking site centered around an "art" and "arthistory" theme. I would like to display a real time dynamic version of the arthistory section of the wikipedia at my domain. I would like for my users to be able to edit this section at my domain. My domain is arthistory.com. I am hoping to be able to provide a lot of acedemic and specialty users to this section via my site.
Sounds cool.
I think we could both benefit from this relationship. My users have direct access to the arthistory section of wikipedia, the wikipedia gets access to my users who are experts in the field. I understand you can get a feed of the wikipedia, and also a database dump, but I'm looking for a more real time and dynamic connection (without just putting the wikipedia in an iframe.)
As a general rule of thumb, live mirrors are not allowed.
I'd also prefer if I could use openID or some way of repurposing my user's registration to duel register with my site and with wikipedia, and create a login session for both simultaneously.
Not really possible. There's an openID extension for MediaWiki, but the WMF doesn't use it (yet?) and there's no way to dual-register with WMF sites and your own.
I'm in the development stage so right now my efforts are exploratory. Thank you for your time.
Michael
Best of luck to you.
-Chad
2009/2/18 basedrop basedrop@gmail.com:
Hello, I'm not sure if this is the place to pose this question, if not could you respond with the proper place.
I'm building out a social networking site centered around an "art" and "arthistory" theme. I would like to display a real time dynamic version of the arthistory section of the wikipedia at my domain.
Possible, but unlikely to happen, I'm afraid. There is little to be gained for us compared to you just sending people to the main site.
I would like for my users to be able to edit this section at my domain.
I don't think that's possible - at best all the edits would be from a single account, and we don't really like group accounts.
My domain is arthistory.com. I am hoping to be able to provide a lot of acedemic and specialty users to this section via my site. I think we could both benefit from this relationship. My users have direct access to the arthistory section of wikipedia, the wikipedia gets access to my users who are experts in the field.
We would very much like to encourage your users to edit Wikipedia, but it really would be much easier for us if they just came to our site. Is there some reason why they particularly need to be doing it from your site?
I understand you can get a feed of the wikipedia, and also a database dump, but I'm looking for a more real time and dynamic connection (without just putting the wikipedia in an iframe.)
I don't know of anything like that being done before. If it's just one section of the site you could probably mirror it pretty well by crawling it once a day or so - we don't like people crawling the whole site, but one section shouldn't be a problem. If you want it completely up-to-date then you need to access the Wikipedia servers for each request, so you might as well just be on wikipedia.org
I'd also prefer if I could use openID or some way of repurposing my user's registration to duel register with my site and with wikipedia, and create a login session for both simultaneously.
I'm sorry, we don't use openID on Wikipedia. It has been suggested, and it's possible we will in the future, but we don't right now.
Hello Thomas and thanks for your response.
I would point out that the foundation created a French version, hosted it on French servers, in the French language because they saw the benefit of delivering something to a specific constituency.
I don't have a particular need to have the art history portion of the wiki editable for my users at my domain. I have the specialized users at my site, I'd like to take advantage of that aggregation of specialized users to the benefit of the wiki. If you guys don't have an API for me, I'm o.k. with that.
Web content is becoming more integrated across multiple platforms and domains. People can post to Facebook from twitter. People can check Gmail from POP3 clients. People can post to a blog, and the data will instantly replicate over multiple blogs around the world. I can pull data from multiple sources and aggregate it with an rss feed reader. This is the direction content and the web is heading.
Bring the users to one domain, and keep the content within that domain can be called the "walled garden" approach. It is not a bad one, when you have a need to control the users (e.g. facebook,) and the content. In the case of the wiki, I'd suggest a more democratic approach of bringing the wiki to the people. You already do that with a push version of the wiki, I'm just suggesting you take it one step further and make it editable. Imagine sections of the wiki, right where the experts are aggregated. Space.com hosting a concurrent version of the astronomy section. Technology at slashdot.org. Law at nolo.com... you get the drift.
You guys consider this. In the mean time I'll build up my site and my user base. If there is a way to integrate in the future, I'll do that. I'm going to shoot for using openID, so this is just another reason for you guys to consider the use of openID as well.
Michael
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Dalton Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 3:57 PM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] mirroring a portion of the wikipedia
2009/2/18 basedrop basedrop@gmail.com:
Hello, I'm not sure if this is the place to pose this question, if not could you respond with the proper place.
I'm building out a social networking site centered around an "art" and "arthistory" theme. I would like to display a real time dynamic version
of
the arthistory section of the wikipedia at my domain.
Possible, but unlikely to happen, I'm afraid. There is little to be gained for us compared to you just sending people to the main site.
I would like for my users to be able to edit this section at my domain.
I don't think that's possible - at best all the edits would be from a single account, and we don't really like group accounts.
My domain is arthistory.com. I am hoping to be able to provide a lot of acedemic and specialty users to this section via my site. I think we could both
benefit
from this relationship. My users have direct access to the arthistory section of wikipedia, the wikipedia gets access to my users who are
experts
in the field.
We would very much like to encourage your users to edit Wikipedia, but it really would be much easier for us if they just came to our site. Is there some reason why they particularly need to be doing it from your site?
I understand you can get a feed of the wikipedia, and also a database dump, but I'm looking for a more real time and dynamic connection (without just putting the wikipedia in an iframe.)
I don't know of anything like that being done before. If it's just one section of the site you could probably mirror it pretty well by crawling it once a day or so - we don't like people crawling the whole site, but one section shouldn't be a problem. If you want it completely up-to-date then you need to access the Wikipedia servers for each request, so you might as well just be on wikipedia.org
I'd also prefer if I could use openID or some way of repurposing my user's registration to duel register with my site and with wikipedia, and create
a
login session for both simultaneously.
I'm sorry, we don't use openID on Wikipedia. It has been suggested, and it's possible we will in the future, but we don't right now.
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
The French Wikipedia wasn't created by the Foundation.
skype: node.ue
2009/2/18 basedrop basedrop@gmail.com:
Hello Thomas and thanks for your response.
I would point out that the foundation created a French version, hosted it on French servers, in the French language because they saw the benefit of delivering something to a specific constituency.
I don't have a particular need to have the art history portion of the wiki editable for my users at my domain. I have the specialized users at my site, I'd like to take advantage of that aggregation of specialized users to the benefit of the wiki. If you guys don't have an API for me, I'm o.k. with that.
Web content is becoming more integrated across multiple platforms and domains. People can post to Facebook from twitter. People can check Gmail from POP3 clients. People can post to a blog, and the data will instantly replicate over multiple blogs around the world. I can pull data from multiple sources and aggregate it with an rss feed reader. This is the direction content and the web is heading.
Bring the users to one domain, and keep the content within that domain can be called the "walled garden" approach. It is not a bad one, when you have a need to control the users (e.g. facebook,) and the content. In the case of the wiki, I'd suggest a more democratic approach of bringing the wiki to the people. You already do that with a push version of the wiki, I'm just suggesting you take it one step further and make it editable. Imagine sections of the wiki, right where the experts are aggregated. Space.com hosting a concurrent version of the astronomy section. Technology at slashdot.org. Law at nolo.com... you get the drift.
You guys consider this. In the mean time I'll build up my site and my user base. If there is a way to integrate in the future, I'll do that. I'm going to shoot for using openID, so this is just another reason for you guys to consider the use of openID as well.
Michael
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Dalton Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 3:57 PM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] mirroring a portion of the wikipedia
2009/2/18 basedrop basedrop@gmail.com:
Hello, I'm not sure if this is the place to pose this question, if not could you respond with the proper place.
I'm building out a social networking site centered around an "art" and "arthistory" theme. I would like to display a real time dynamic version
of
the arthistory section of the wikipedia at my domain.
Possible, but unlikely to happen, I'm afraid. There is little to be gained for us compared to you just sending people to the main site.
I would like for my users to be able to edit this section at my domain.
I don't think that's possible - at best all the edits would be from a single account, and we don't really like group accounts.
My domain is arthistory.com. I am hoping to be able to provide a lot of acedemic and specialty users to this section via my site. I think we could both
benefit
from this relationship. My users have direct access to the arthistory section of wikipedia, the wikipedia gets access to my users who are
experts
in the field.
We would very much like to encourage your users to edit Wikipedia, but it really would be much easier for us if they just came to our site. Is there some reason why they particularly need to be doing it from your site?
I understand you can get a feed of the wikipedia, and also a database dump, but I'm looking for a more real time and dynamic connection (without just putting the wikipedia in an iframe.)
I don't know of anything like that being done before. If it's just one section of the site you could probably mirror it pretty well by crawling it once a day or so - we don't like people crawling the whole site, but one section shouldn't be a problem. If you want it completely up-to-date then you need to access the Wikipedia servers for each request, so you might as well just be on wikipedia.org
I'd also prefer if I could use openID or some way of repurposing my user's registration to duel register with my site and with wikipedia, and create
a
login session for both simultaneously.
I'm sorry, we don't use openID on Wikipedia. It has been suggested, and it's possible we will in the future, but we don't right now.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, The French Wikipedia may pre-date the WMF but the hosting of the French Wikipedia has always been done by the WMF. So your argument is a bit flaky. Thanks, GerardM
2009/2/19 Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com
The French Wikipedia wasn't created by the Foundation.
skype: node.ue
2009/2/18 basedrop basedrop@gmail.com:
Hello Thomas and thanks for your response.
I would point out that the foundation created a French version, hosted
it
on French servers, in the French language because they saw the benefit of delivering something to a specific constituency.
I don't have a particular need to have the art history portion of the
wiki
editable for my users at my domain. I have the specialized users at my site, I'd like to take advantage of that aggregation of specialized
users
to the benefit of the wiki. If you guys don't have an API for me, I'm o.k. with that.
Web content is becoming more integrated across multiple platforms and domains. People can post to Facebook from twitter. People can check
Gmail
from POP3 clients. People can post to a blog, and the data will
instantly
replicate over multiple blogs around the world. I can pull data from multiple sources and aggregate it with an rss feed reader. This is the direction content and the web is heading.
Bring the users to one domain, and keep the content within that domain
can
be called the "walled garden" approach. It is not a bad one, when you
have
a need to control the users (e.g. facebook,) and the content. In the
case
of the wiki, I'd suggest a more democratic approach of bringing the wiki
to
the people. You already do that with a push version of the wiki, I'm
just
suggesting you take it one step further and make it editable. Imagine sections of the wiki, right where the experts are aggregated.
Space.com
hosting a concurrent version of the astronomy section. Technology at slashdot.org. Law at nolo.com... you get the drift.
You guys consider this. In the mean time I'll build up my site and my
user
base. If there is a way to integrate in the future, I'll do that. I'm going to shoot for using openID, so this is just another reason for you
guys
to consider the use of openID as well.
Michael
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Thomas
Dalton
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 3:57 PM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] mirroring a portion of the wikipedia
2009/2/18 basedrop basedrop@gmail.com:
Hello, I'm not sure if this is the place to pose this question, if not could
you
respond with the proper place.
I'm building out a social networking site centered around an "art" and "arthistory" theme. I would like to display a real time dynamic version
of
the arthistory section of the wikipedia at my domain.
Possible, but unlikely to happen, I'm afraid. There is little to be gained for us compared to you just sending people to the main site.
I would like for my users to be able to edit this section at my domain.
I don't think that's possible - at best all the edits would be from a single account, and we don't really like group accounts.
My domain is arthistory.com. I am hoping to be able to provide a lot of acedemic
and
specialty users to this section via my site. I think we could both
benefit
from this relationship. My users have direct access to the arthistory section of wikipedia, the wikipedia gets access to my users who are
experts
in the field.
We would very much like to encourage your users to edit Wikipedia, but it really would be much easier for us if they just came to our site. Is there some reason why they particularly need to be doing it from your site?
I understand you can get a feed of the wikipedia, and also a database dump, but I'm looking for a more real time and dynamic connection (without just putting the wikipedia in an iframe.)
I don't know of anything like that being done before. If it's just one section of the site you could probably mirror it pretty well by crawling it once a day or so - we don't like people crawling the whole site, but one section shouldn't be a problem. If you want it completely up-to-date then you need to access the Wikipedia servers for each request, so you might as well just be on wikipedia.org
I'd also prefer if I could use openID or some way of repurposing my user's registration to duel register with my site and with wikipedia, and
create
a
login session for both simultaneously.
I'm sorry, we don't use openID on Wikipedia. It has been suggested, and it's possible we will in the future, but we don't right now.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Was it ever on French servers? That aside: the two situations are entirely different. This proposal is effectively outsourcing a section of Wikipedia to some experts in the field. That's entirely unlike the Foundation deciding to add an additional language for Wikipedia to appear in.
Playing devil's advocate here...it could honestly be an interesting idea. Provided the account on their end is attached to an account on our end (with no IPs, so no worries of using as a proxy), it could be entirely do-able. Editing can be done remotely via the API and content can be drawn down to their copies. Other than the live mirroring issue, it's entirely doable.
-Chad
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 2:37 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.comwrote:
Hoi, The French Wikipedia may pre-date the WMF but the hosting of the French Wikipedia has always been done by the WMF. So your argument is a bit flaky. Thanks, GerardM
2009/2/19 Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com
The French Wikipedia wasn't created by the Foundation.
skype: node.ue
2009/2/18 basedrop basedrop@gmail.com:
Hello Thomas and thanks for your response.
I would point out that the foundation created a French version, hosted
it
on French servers, in the French language because they saw the benefit
of
delivering something to a specific constituency.
I don't have a particular need to have the art history portion of the
wiki
editable for my users at my domain. I have the specialized users at my site, I'd like to take advantage of that aggregation of specialized
users
to the benefit of the wiki. If you guys don't have an API for me,
I'm
o.k. with that.
Web content is becoming more integrated across multiple platforms and domains. People can post to Facebook from twitter. People can check
Gmail
from POP3 clients. People can post to a blog, and the data will
instantly
replicate over multiple blogs around the world. I can pull data from multiple sources and aggregate it with an rss feed reader. This is
the
direction content and the web is heading.
Bring the users to one domain, and keep the content within that domain
can
be called the "walled garden" approach. It is not a bad one, when you
have
a need to control the users (e.g. facebook,) and the content. In the
case
of the wiki, I'd suggest a more democratic approach of bringing the
wiki
to
the people. You already do that with a push version of the wiki, I'm
just
suggesting you take it one step further and make it editable. Imagine sections of the wiki, right where the experts are aggregated.
Space.com
hosting a concurrent version of the astronomy section. Technology at slashdot.org. Law at nolo.com... you get the drift.
You guys consider this. In the mean time I'll build up my site and my
user
base. If there is a way to integrate in the future, I'll do that.
I'm
going to shoot for using openID, so this is just another reason for you
guys
to consider the use of openID as well.
Michael
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Thomas
Dalton
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 3:57 PM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] mirroring a portion of the wikipedia
2009/2/18 basedrop basedrop@gmail.com:
Hello, I'm not sure if this is the place to pose this question, if not could
you
respond with the proper place.
I'm building out a social networking site centered around an "art"
and
"arthistory" theme. I would like to display a real time dynamic
version
of
the arthistory section of the wikipedia at my domain.
Possible, but unlikely to happen, I'm afraid. There is little to be gained for us compared to you just sending people to the main site.
I would like for my users to be able to edit this section at my domain.
I don't think that's possible - at best all the edits would be from a single account, and we don't really like group accounts.
My domain is arthistory.com. I am hoping to be able to provide a lot of acedemic
and
specialty users to this section via my site. I think we could both
benefit
from this relationship. My users have direct access to the arthistory section of wikipedia, the wikipedia gets access to my users who are
experts
in the field.
We would very much like to encourage your users to edit Wikipedia, but it really would be much easier for us if they just came to our site. Is there some reason why they particularly need to be doing it from your site?
I understand you can get a feed of the wikipedia, and also a database dump, but I'm looking for a more real time and dynamic connection (without just putting the wikipedia in an iframe.)
I don't know of anything like that being done before. If it's just one section of the site you could probably mirror it pretty well by crawling it once a day or so - we don't like people crawling the whole site, but one section shouldn't be a problem. If you want it completely up-to-date then you need to access the Wikipedia servers for each request, so you might as well just be on wikipedia.org
I'd also prefer if I could use openID or some way of repurposing my user's registration to duel register with my site and with wikipedia, and
create
a
login session for both simultaneously.
I'm sorry, we don't use openID on Wikipedia. It has been suggested, and it's possible we will in the future, but we don't right now.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, It is not outsourcing at all. Quite the contrary, it would be people from elsewhere, people who are likely to be trusted from elsewhere editing our content from somewhere else as well. In essence it would be an ultimate mash up. Thanks, GerardM
2009/2/19 Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com
Was it ever on French servers? That aside: the two situations are entirely different. This proposal is effectively outsourcing a section of Wikipedia to some experts in the field. That's entirely unlike the Foundation deciding to add an additional language for Wikipedia to appear in.
Playing devil's advocate here...it could honestly be an interesting idea. Provided the account on their end is attached to an account on our end (with no IPs, so no worries of using as a proxy), it could be entirely do-able. Editing can be done remotely via the API and content can be drawn down to their copies. Other than the live mirroring issue, it's entirely doable.
-Chad
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 2:37 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.comwrote:
Hoi, The French Wikipedia may pre-date the WMF but the hosting of the French Wikipedia has always been done by the WMF. So your argument is a bit
flaky.
Thanks, GerardM
2009/2/19 Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com
The French Wikipedia wasn't created by the Foundation.
skype: node.ue
2009/2/18 basedrop basedrop@gmail.com:
Hello Thomas and thanks for your response.
I would point out that the foundation created a French version,
hosted
it
on French servers, in the French language because they saw the
benefit
of
delivering something to a specific constituency.
I don't have a particular need to have the art history portion of the
wiki
editable for my users at my domain. I have the specialized users at
my
site, I'd like to take advantage of that aggregation of specialized
users
to the benefit of the wiki. If you guys don't have an API for me,
I'm
o.k. with that.
Web content is becoming more integrated across multiple platforms and domains. People can post to Facebook from twitter. People can
check
Gmail
from POP3 clients. People can post to a blog, and the data will
instantly
replicate over multiple blogs around the world. I can pull data from multiple sources and aggregate it with an rss feed reader. This is
the
direction content and the web is heading.
Bring the users to one domain, and keep the content within that
domain
can
be called the "walled garden" approach. It is not a bad one, when
you
have
a need to control the users (e.g. facebook,) and the content. In
the
case
of the wiki, I'd suggest a more democratic approach of bringing the
wiki
to
the people. You already do that with a push version of the wiki,
I'm
just
suggesting you take it one step further and make it editable.
Imagine
sections of the wiki, right where the experts are aggregated.
Space.com
hosting a concurrent version of the astronomy section. Technology
at
slashdot.org. Law at nolo.com... you get the drift.
You guys consider this. In the mean time I'll build up my site and
my
user
base. If there is a way to integrate in the future, I'll do that.
I'm
going to shoot for using openID, so this is just another reason for
you
guys
to consider the use of openID as well.
Michael
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
Thomas
Dalton
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 3:57 PM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] mirroring a portion of the wikipedia
2009/2/18 basedrop basedrop@gmail.com:
Hello, I'm not sure if this is the place to pose this question, if not
could
you
respond with the proper place.
I'm building out a social networking site centered around an "art"
and
"arthistory" theme. I would like to display a real time dynamic
version
of
the arthistory section of the wikipedia at my domain.
Possible, but unlikely to happen, I'm afraid. There is little to be gained for us compared to you just sending people to the main site.
I would like for my users to be able to edit this section at my domain.
I don't think that's possible - at best all the edits would be from a single account, and we don't really like group accounts.
My domain is arthistory.com. I am hoping to be able to provide a lot of
acedemic
and
specialty users to this section via my site. I think we could both
benefit
from this relationship. My users have direct access to the
arthistory
section of wikipedia, the wikipedia gets access to my users who are
experts
in the field.
We would very much like to encourage your users to edit Wikipedia,
but
it really would be much easier for us if they just came to our site. Is there some reason why they particularly need to be doing it from your site?
I understand you can get a feed of the wikipedia, and also a database dump, but I'm looking for a more real time and dynamic connection (without just putting the wikipedia in an iframe.)
I don't know of anything like that being done before. If it's just
one
section of the site you could probably mirror it pretty well by crawling it once a day or so - we don't like people crawling the
whole
site, but one section shouldn't be a problem. If you want it completely up-to-date then you need to access the Wikipedia servers for each request, so you might as well just be on wikipedia.org
I'd also prefer if I could use openID or some way of repurposing my user's registration to duel register with my site and with wikipedia, and
create
a
login session for both simultaneously.
I'm sorry, we don't use openID on Wikipedia. It has been suggested, and it's possible we will in the future, but we don't right now.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Isn't that what outsourcing is...
skype: node.ue
2009/2/19 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, It is not outsourcing at all. Quite the contrary, it would be people from elsewhere, people who are likely to be trusted from elsewhere editing our content from somewhere else as well. In essence it would be an ultimate mash up. Thanks, GerardM
2009/2/19 Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com
Was it ever on French servers? That aside: the two situations are entirely different. This proposal is effectively outsourcing a section of Wikipedia to some experts in the field. That's entirely unlike the Foundation deciding to add an additional language for Wikipedia to appear in.
Playing devil's advocate here...it could honestly be an interesting idea. Provided the account on their end is attached to an account on our end (with no IPs, so no worries of using as a proxy), it could be entirely do-able. Editing can be done remotely via the API and content can be drawn down to their copies. Other than the live mirroring issue, it's entirely doable.
-Chad
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 2:37 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.comwrote:
Hoi, The French Wikipedia may pre-date the WMF but the hosting of the French Wikipedia has always been done by the WMF. So your argument is a bit
flaky.
Thanks, GerardM
2009/2/19 Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com
The French Wikipedia wasn't created by the Foundation.
skype: node.ue
2009/2/18 basedrop basedrop@gmail.com:
Hello Thomas and thanks for your response.
I would point out that the foundation created a French version,
hosted
it
on French servers, in the French language because they saw the
benefit
of
delivering something to a specific constituency.
I don't have a particular need to have the art history portion of the
wiki
editable for my users at my domain. I have the specialized users at
my
site, I'd like to take advantage of that aggregation of specialized
users
to the benefit of the wiki. If you guys don't have an API for me,
I'm
o.k. with that.
Web content is becoming more integrated across multiple platforms and domains. People can post to Facebook from twitter. People can
check
Gmail
from POP3 clients. People can post to a blog, and the data will
instantly
replicate over multiple blogs around the world. I can pull data from multiple sources and aggregate it with an rss feed reader. This is
the
direction content and the web is heading.
Bring the users to one domain, and keep the content within that
domain
can
be called the "walled garden" approach. It is not a bad one, when
you
have
a need to control the users (e.g. facebook,) and the content. In
the
case
of the wiki, I'd suggest a more democratic approach of bringing the
wiki
to
the people. You already do that with a push version of the wiki,
I'm
just
suggesting you take it one step further and make it editable.
Imagine
sections of the wiki, right where the experts are aggregated.
Space.com
hosting a concurrent version of the astronomy section. Technology
at
slashdot.org. Law at nolo.com... you get the drift.
You guys consider this. In the mean time I'll build up my site and
my
user
base. If there is a way to integrate in the future, I'll do that.
I'm
going to shoot for using openID, so this is just another reason for
you
guys
to consider the use of openID as well.
Michael
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
Thomas
Dalton
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 3:57 PM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] mirroring a portion of the wikipedia
2009/2/18 basedrop basedrop@gmail.com:
Hello, I'm not sure if this is the place to pose this question, if not
could
you
respond with the proper place.
I'm building out a social networking site centered around an "art"
and
"arthistory" theme. I would like to display a real time dynamic
version
of
the arthistory section of the wikipedia at my domain.
Possible, but unlikely to happen, I'm afraid. There is little to be gained for us compared to you just sending people to the main site.
I would like for my users to be able to edit this section at my domain.
I don't think that's possible - at best all the edits would be from a single account, and we don't really like group accounts.
My domain is arthistory.com. I am hoping to be able to provide a lot of
acedemic
and
specialty users to this section via my site. I think we could both
benefit
from this relationship. My users have direct access to the
arthistory
section of wikipedia, the wikipedia gets access to my users who are
experts
in the field.
We would very much like to encourage your users to edit Wikipedia,
but
it really would be much easier for us if they just came to our site. Is there some reason why they particularly need to be doing it from your site?
I understand you can get a feed of the wikipedia, and also a database dump, but I'm looking for a more real time and dynamic connection (without just putting the wikipedia in an iframe.)
I don't know of anything like that being done before. If it's just
one
section of the site you could probably mirror it pretty well by crawling it once a day or so - we don't like people crawling the
whole
site, but one section shouldn't be a problem. If you want it completely up-to-date then you need to access the Wikipedia servers for each request, so you might as well just be on wikipedia.org
I'd also prefer if I could use openID or some way of repurposing my user's registration to duel register with my site and with wikipedia, and
create
a
login session for both simultaneously.
I'm sorry, we don't use openID on Wikipedia. It has been suggested, and it's possible we will in the future, but we don't right now.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:51 AM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
That aside: the two situations are entirely different. This proposal is effectively outsourcing a section of Wikipedia to some experts in the field. That's entirely unlike the Foundation deciding to add an additional language for Wikipedia to appear in.
I think this perfectly fits with the spirit of copyleft, so it's a great idea. Under copyleft, you're free to use some content and modify it, provided that it stays free. In this way, we both benefit. Up to now, there hasn't been that much emphasis on the fact that wiki* content can be improved offsite and then re-imported back. So, if there is an efficient way to do it, let's go for it.
Cruccone
I hope you realize that doesn't make any sense. If the WMF didn't exist, how could it host anything at all?
skype: node.ue
2009/2/19 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, The French Wikipedia may pre-date the WMF but the hosting of the French Wikipedia has always been done by the WMF. So your argument is a bit flaky. Thanks, GerardM
2009/2/19 Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com
The French Wikipedia wasn't created by the Foundation.
skype: node.ue
2009/2/18 basedrop basedrop@gmail.com:
Hello Thomas and thanks for your response.
I would point out that the foundation created a French version, hosted
it
on French servers, in the French language because they saw the benefit of delivering something to a specific constituency.
I don't have a particular need to have the art history portion of the
wiki
editable for my users at my domain. I have the specialized users at my site, I'd like to take advantage of that aggregation of specialized
users
to the benefit of the wiki. If you guys don't have an API for me, I'm o.k. with that.
Web content is becoming more integrated across multiple platforms and domains. People can post to Facebook from twitter. People can check
Gmail
from POP3 clients. People can post to a blog, and the data will
instantly
replicate over multiple blogs around the world. I can pull data from multiple sources and aggregate it with an rss feed reader. This is the direction content and the web is heading.
Bring the users to one domain, and keep the content within that domain
can
be called the "walled garden" approach. It is not a bad one, when you
have
a need to control the users (e.g. facebook,) and the content. In the
case
of the wiki, I'd suggest a more democratic approach of bringing the wiki
to
the people. You already do that with a push version of the wiki, I'm
just
suggesting you take it one step further and make it editable. Imagine sections of the wiki, right where the experts are aggregated.
Space.com
hosting a concurrent version of the astronomy section. Technology at slashdot.org. Law at nolo.com... you get the drift.
You guys consider this. In the mean time I'll build up my site and my
user
base. If there is a way to integrate in the future, I'll do that. I'm going to shoot for using openID, so this is just another reason for you
guys
to consider the use of openID as well.
Michael
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Thomas
Dalton
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 3:57 PM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] mirroring a portion of the wikipedia
2009/2/18 basedrop basedrop@gmail.com:
Hello, I'm not sure if this is the place to pose this question, if not could
you
respond with the proper place.
I'm building out a social networking site centered around an "art" and "arthistory" theme. I would like to display a real time dynamic version
of
the arthistory section of the wikipedia at my domain.
Possible, but unlikely to happen, I'm afraid. There is little to be gained for us compared to you just sending people to the main site.
I would like for my users to be able to edit this section at my domain.
I don't think that's possible - at best all the edits would be from a single account, and we don't really like group accounts.
My domain is arthistory.com. I am hoping to be able to provide a lot of acedemic
and
specialty users to this section via my site. I think we could both
benefit
from this relationship. My users have direct access to the arthistory section of wikipedia, the wikipedia gets access to my users who are
experts
in the field.
We would very much like to encourage your users to edit Wikipedia, but it really would be much easier for us if they just came to our site. Is there some reason why they particularly need to be doing it from your site?
I understand you can get a feed of the wikipedia, and also a database dump, but I'm looking for a more real time and dynamic connection (without just putting the wikipedia in an iframe.)
I don't know of anything like that being done before. If it's just one section of the site you could probably mirror it pretty well by crawling it once a day or so - we don't like people crawling the whole site, but one section shouldn't be a problem. If you want it completely up-to-date then you need to access the Wikipedia servers for each request, so you might as well just be on wikipedia.org
I'd also prefer if I could use openID or some way of repurposing my user's registration to duel register with my site and with wikipedia, and
create
a
login session for both simultaneously.
I'm sorry, we don't use openID on Wikipedia. It has been suggested, and it's possible we will in the future, but we don't right now.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2009/2/19 basedrop basedrop@gmail.com:
Hello Thomas and thanks for your response.
I would point out that the foundation created a French version, hosted it on French servers, in the French language because they saw the benefit of delivering something to a specific constituency.
Delivering something to a specific constituency **which they couldn't otherwise get**. Your users can access wikipedia.org (in whatever language they like) perfectly well. It's not at all comparable.
I don't have a particular need to have the art history portion of the wiki editable for my users at my domain. I have the specialized users at my site, I'd like to take advantage of that aggregation of specialized users to the benefit of the wiki. If you guys don't have an API for me, I'm o.k. with that.
Put a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Visual_arts on your site and encourage your users to follow it - that will do the same thing much easier.
Web content is becoming more integrated across multiple platforms and domains. People can post to Facebook from twitter. People can check Gmail from POP3 clients. People can post to a blog, and the data will instantly replicate over multiple blogs around the world. I can pull data from multiple sources and aggregate it with an rss feed reader. This is the direction content and the web is heading.
None of those forms of content are collaborative (to the same extent as a wiki, anyway), which makes a big difference.
Bring the users to one domain, and keep the content within that domain can be called the "walled garden" approach. It is not a bad one, when you have a need to control the users (e.g. facebook,) and the content. In the case of the wiki, I'd suggest a more democratic approach of bringing the wiki to the people. You already do that with a push version of the wiki, I'm just suggesting you take it one step further and make it editable. Imagine sections of the wiki, right where the experts are aggregated. Space.com hosting a concurrent version of the astronomy section. Technology at slashdot.org. Law at nolo.com... you get the drift.
You guys consider this. In the mean time I'll build up my site and my user base. If there is a way to integrate in the future, I'll do that. I'm going to shoot for using openID, so this is just another reason for you guys to consider the use of openID as well.
I really don't see the benefit. Wikipedia isn't a walled garden - we link to other sites, other sites link to us. Links are what makes the web so great. There is no need to duplicate content between sites with all the confusion and replication issues that causes, you can link from one site to the other.
I find the suggestion in this discussion fascinating.
Suppose we did allow fully functional wikipages to be loaded from WMF servers and embedded in external sites in roughly the same way that something like Google Maps can be embedded in third party sites.
I can see some practical problems (e.g. registration, server load), but assumming the practical issues could be overcome, I think philosophically this is actually in line with the free content goals of the Foundation. Obviously we already allow our content to be copied and used far and wide, so allowing others to host the content would not be unusual. It is simply a matter of whether live content is achievable rather than static versions. Provided the server load problem could be managed in a reasonable way, I don't see any reason we shouldn't want site owners to display the most up-to-date content available. And once you have live content, there is no particular reason not to include edit links (either locally live or as a link back into wikipedia.org).
Do other people agree that supporting live mirrors, if it could be done in a practical manner, would be a natural extension of the Foundation's free content goals?
-Robert Rohde
2009/2/19 Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com:
Do other people agree that supporting live mirrors, if it could be done in a practical manner, would be a natural extension of the Foundation's free content goals?
No, because I can't see the benefit over a hyperlink.
Hoi, Thomas OTHER people can see this benefit.. It is not that hard.. even I can. Thanks, GerardM
2009/2/19 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com
2009/2/19 Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com:
Do other people agree that supporting live mirrors, if it could be done in a practical manner, would be a natural extension of the Foundation's free content goals?
No, because I can't see the benefit over a hyperlink.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2009/2/19 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, Thomas OTHER people can see this benefit.. It is not that hard.. even I can.
Then would you care to explain it to me?
The benefit is in getting users who would not be comfortable on Wikipedia because of the perceived and real behavior problems on that site--even if this is no worse ultimately than in the academic world, the mode of interaction is certainly very different. Why do we assume the present editing environment can serve everyone's purposes optimally?
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:34 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2009/2/19 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, Thomas OTHER people can see this benefit.. It is not that hard.. even I can.
Then would you care to explain it to me?
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
David Goodman wrote:
The benefit is in getting users who would not be comfortable on Wikipedia because of the perceived and real behavior problems on that site--even if this is no worse ultimately than in the academic world, the mode of interaction is certainly very different.
In other words, users of the other websiite would modify Wikipedia's content without interacting with the Wikipedia-side users editing the same articles. They would be isolated from concerns raised on talk pages and unable to discuss disagreements with Wikipedians. In the case of a reversion or other contrary revision on Wikiepdia's end, they would be left to guess the rationale and either allow the changes to stand or revert them without knowledge of the reasons behind them or pertinent discussion/consensus among Wikipedians. Edit wars would arise between two sets of users lacking insight into each other's ideas and the ability to cross-communicate.
Please correct me if I've misunderstood something.
2009/2/19 David Levy lifeisunfair@gmail.com:
David Goodman wrote:
The benefit is in getting users who would not be comfortable on Wikipedia because of the perceived and real behavior problems on that site--even if this is no worse ultimately than in the academic world, the mode of interaction is certainly very different.
In other words, users of the other websiite would modify Wikipedia's content without interacting with the Wikipedia-side users editing the same articles. They would be isolated from concerns raised on talk pages and unable to discuss disagreements with Wikipedians. In the case of a reversion or other contrary revision on Wikiepdia's end, they would be left to guess the rationale and either allow the changes to stand or revert them without knowledge of the reasons behind them or pertinent discussion/consensus among Wikipedians. Edit wars would arise between two sets of users lacking insight into each other's ideas and the ability to cross-communicate.
Please correct me if I've misunderstood something.
Yes, that's one of the problems I foresee. Either the site is mirrored to such an extent that they can interact properly with the community, in which case they might as well just be using the site itself, or it isn't, in which case the whole thing won't work.
Hoi, If articles can be shared, surely talk pages can be shared too ? Thanks, GerardM
2009/2/19 David Levy lifeisunfair@gmail.com
David Goodman wrote:
The benefit is in getting users who would not be comfortable on Wikipedia because of the perceived and real behavior problems on that site--even if this is no worse ultimately than in the academic world, the mode of interaction is certainly very different.
In other words, users of the other websiite would modify Wikipedia's content without interacting with the Wikipedia-side users editing the same articles. They would be isolated from concerns raised on talk pages and unable to discuss disagreements with Wikipedians. In the case of a reversion or other contrary revision on Wikiepdia's end, they would be left to guess the rationale and either allow the changes to stand or revert them without knowledge of the reasons behind them or pertinent discussion/consensus among Wikipedians. Edit wars would arise between two sets of users lacking insight into each other's ideas and the ability to cross-communicate.
Please correct me if I've misunderstood something.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
This sounds like a very interesting idea to me. None of the potential problems are obvious dealbreakers to me. It isn't outsourcing, the talkpage can be shared as easily as anything else, we would really like to take advantage of concentrated groups of expert users, and the more editors we get (wherever we get them from) the better off the projects are.
Basedrop, keep in mind that the posters to this list are (a) often argumentative (b) frequently posting rashly ahead of due consideration and (c) generally interested people with no decision making authority. You might want to track down Brion Vibber, Tim Starling or Erik Moeller to discuss the technical and relational aspects with them directly. (Chief technology officer, developer and deputy executive director respectively).
Nathan
Nathan wrote:
This sounds like a very interesting idea to me. None of the potential problems are obvious dealbreakers to me. It isn't outsourcing, the talkpage can be shared as easily as anything else, we would really like to take advantage of concentrated groups of expert users, and the more editors we get (wherever we get them from) the better off the projects are.
But what's the point of duplicating the entire structure (including talk pages) instead of simply referring these experts to Wikipedia? Even if everything could be made seamless, what would be the advantage?
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 1:30 PM, David Levy lifeisunfair@gmail.com wrote:
But what's the point of duplicating the entire structure (including talk pages) instead of simply referring these experts to Wikipedia? Even if everything could be made seamless, what would be the advantage?
It's simple, really. First, there are a number of beneficial interface changes that could be made when dealing with a group of experts in a specific field - embedded tools to common references, additional methods of communication, etc. It might encourage field experts to contribute if they can do so through a site they already use, particularly if they don't have to leave most of the elements of that site behind.
Also, of course, it would be possible for these people to generate free content while also benefiting the referring site. I understand that having anyone draw any benefit from anything related to Wikimedia is something that a number of people reflectively object to, but such is life and I find its easier to ignore that line of thinking entirely. Such benefits encourage referrers or partners to encourage contributions to our projects, which is obviously what we want.
Plus, and particularly if the experts on arthistory (or sites with arrangements similar to those contemplated by the original poster) are academic... We always gain when we increase our penetration among content experts.
So the question really should be, what of this would be to our disadvantage?
Nathan
2009/2/19 Nathan nawrich@gmail.com:
So the question really should be, what of this would be to our disadvantage?
It's very difficult to set up technically, for a start. Live mirroring of existing content isn't too hard, but sorting out editing would be a nightmare. We presumably wouldn't want everyone editing under the same account (we are generally opposed to role accounts, so I would imagine we would be opposed to this kind of group account as well), which means we need some way for the mirror site to authenticate accounts with the Wikimedia servers, which is a security nightmare (I expect it can be done, but it would require some effort). We would need to deal with edit conflicts caused by delays in the mirroring (which would be sure to happen from time to time), again, not impossible, but it requires effort.
There needs to be a significant advantage for it to be worth all that effort, and I don't see one. If people want easy access to references, etc. they can use custom skins and scripts - they are far easier to write than live mirroring software. You could even make a skin that looks just like the other site if you really wanted to.
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2009/2/19 Nathan nawrich@gmail.com:
So the question really should be, what of this would be to our disadvantage?
It's very difficult to set up technically, for a start. Live mirroring of existing content isn't too hard, but sorting out editing would be a nightmare. We presumably wouldn't want everyone editing under the same account (we are generally opposed to role accounts, so I would imagine we would be opposed to this kind of group account as well), which means we need some way for the mirror site to authenticate accounts with the Wikimedia servers, which is a security nightmare (I expect it can be done, but it would require some effort). We would need to deal with edit conflicts caused by delays in the mirroring (which would be sure to happen from time to time), again, not impossible, but it requires effort.
There needs to be a significant advantage for it to be worth all that effort, and I don't see one. If people want easy access to references, etc. they can use custom skins and scripts - they are far easier to write than live mirroring software. You could even make a skin that looks just like the other site if you really wanted to.
I think you are significantly overestimating the difficulty. We already have an API [1] and similar tools that allow one to accomplish many similar tasks. For example, calling ?action=render will give you a llive HTML version of any current page that could be wrapped in a external site's own framing and stylesheets (though one would need to rewrite the url roots in most cases). The API already has tools for logging in and out while authenticating against WMF servers. And there is even a write API, though I believe that is currently disabled on the main sites.
The API isn't really designed for what we are talking about, but in my opinion the changes that one would want to make to support live mirroring would all be straight-forward.
-Robert Rohde
2009/2/19 Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com:
I think you are significantly overestimating the difficulty. We already have an API [1] and similar tools that allow one to accomplish many similar tasks. For example, calling ?action=render will give you a llive HTML version of any current page that could be wrapped in a external site's own framing and stylesheets (though one would need to rewrite the url roots in most cases). The API already has tools for logging in and out while authenticating against WMF servers. And there is even a write API, though I believe that is currently disabled on the main sites.
Ideally, you would want to authenticate in a way that doesn't give the middle-man access to plaintext Wikimedia passwords.
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2009/2/19 Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com:
I think you are significantly overestimating the difficulty. We already have an API [1] and similar tools that allow one to accomplish many similar tasks. For example, calling ?action=render will give you a llive HTML version of any current page that could be wrapped in a external site's own framing and stylesheets (though one would need to rewrite the url roots in most cases). The API already has tools for logging in and out while authenticating against WMF servers. And there is even a write API, though I believe that is currently disabled on the main sites.
Ideally, you would want to authenticate in a way that doesn't give the middle-man access to plaintext Wikimedia passwords.
True, though under the current system a middle man in position of a user authentication token could do exactly the same things to Wikimedia as someone with the plaintext password. Which is a short way of saying our system has never been built with much security in mind.
-Robert Rohde
Robert Rohde wrote:
True, though under the current system a middle man in position of a user authentication token could do exactly the same things to Wikimedia as someone with the plaintext password. Which is a short way of saying our system has never been built with much security in mind.
-Robert Rohde
You could make them authenticate against wikipedia and send edits directly to wikipedia (eg. AJAX). With no password handling from the other site*. However, it still places the remote site in a place where it is able to automatically revert a page or perform an edit on wikipedia without the (wikipedia logged-in) visitor even noticing it.
basedrop: My advice is to just include the content, making the edit link point to wikipedia instead of trying to integrate edition into your site.
*If you integrate wikipedia login with the external site, how would you prevent the external site to change to a 'grab password' system?
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 2:52 PM, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2009/2/19 Nathan nawrich@gmail.com:
So the question really should be, what of this would be to our
disadvantage?
It's very difficult to set up technically, for a start. Live mirroring of existing content isn't too hard, but sorting out editing would be a nightmare. We presumably wouldn't want everyone editing under the same account (we are generally opposed to role accounts, so I would imagine we would be opposed to this kind of group account as well), which means we need some way for the mirror site to authenticate accounts with the Wikimedia servers, which is a security nightmare (I expect it can be done, but it would require some effort). We would need to deal with edit conflicts caused by delays in the mirroring (which would be sure to happen from time to time), again, not impossible, but it requires effort.
There needs to be a significant advantage for it to be worth all that effort, and I don't see one. If people want easy access to references, etc. they can use custom skins and scripts - they are far easier to write than live mirroring software. You could even make a skin that looks just like the other site if you really wanted to.
I think you are significantly overestimating the difficulty. We already have an API [1] and similar tools that allow one to accomplish many similar tasks. For example, calling ?action=render will give you a llive HTML version of any current page that could be wrapped in a external site's own framing and stylesheets (though one would need to rewrite the url roots in most cases). The API already has tools for logging in and out while authenticating against WMF servers. And there is even a write API, though I believe that is currently disabled on the main sites.
The API isn't really designed for what we are talking about, but in my opinion the changes that one would want to make to support live mirroring would all be straight-forward.
-Robert Rohde
Just to clarify on one point here: the write API is enabled on all sites.
-Chad
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
If articles can be shared, surely talk pages can be shared too ?
Yes, but this eliminates the avoidance of interaction that David Goodman cited as a benefit.
And if that's the case, what *is* the benefit? Why dedicate effort and resources toward duplicating the normal editing experience instead of simply sending the users to Wikipedia?
Various contributors to this discussion seem to have different ideas in mind, but as Thomas said, I don't see how any setup wouldn't result in either problematic isolation or pointless redundancy.
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 12:47 PM, basedrop basedrop@gmail.com wrote:
I don't have a particular need to have the art history portion of the wiki editable for my users at my domain. I have the specialized users at my site, I'd like to take advantage of that aggregation of specialized users to the benefit of the wiki. If you guys don't have an API for me, I'm o.k. with that.
There is an API which lets you edit pages.
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/API:Edit_-_Create%26Edit_pages
The mailing list for this is at https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-api
Angela
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org