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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

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.

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(a)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(a)gmail.com>om>: of 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 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. benefit experts 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 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 a 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2009/2/19 Robert Rohde <rarohde(a)gmail.com>om>: No, because I can't see the benefit over a hyperlink. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)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(a)gmail.com> of I'm the wiki I'm and version _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)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(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote: flaky. hosted benefit my check domain you the I'm Imagine at my you Thomas could acedemic arthistory but one whole https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hoi, Thomas OTHER people can see this benefit.. It is not that hard.. even I can.

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.

David Goodman wrote: 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

If articles can be shared, surely talk pages can be shared too ?

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?

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(a)gmail.com> _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2009/2/19 Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com>om>: 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.

2009/2/19 Robert Rohde <rarohde(a)gmail.com>om>: 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