<whisper>a search for Commons that doesn't suck!</whisper> - d.

Thomas Dalton wrote:

>I would assume WMF has off-site backups... I wouldn't worry about >natural disasters too much, they should only result in a few days of >downtime, and maybe a day's lost data.

Although I would be inclined to make the same assumption, I also know that it's never safe to assume such things.

> See also http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2007/04/10/disaster-recovery-planning/ > - what do we do in the event the Foundation fails? > (answer: anyone who wants to wipe Wikipedia from the face of the earth > only has until the next good en:wp history dump.)

en.wikipedia would survive. I'm more afraid of the little wikis. They have full dumps, right, but how many copies of them are out there? And not so many people will download the full dump and share it if something breaks here. Jeff Merkey, and some statistics studies would, but ihaveanemptydomainandwanttoleechcontent.com won't.

I guess that if a hurricane broke the tampa cluster now we could get the content back from the feed subscriptions :/ -Who are you? As you know the user table is secret because it's what is used to identify users. A centralized system is the easier. With OpenID you would need to store the user url. And on that url there would be a user table stored (maybe even by WMF, too). Not an improvement for a general breakage.

I was going to suggest we could publish some user db data with yet another hashing layer, but we can't. We sure have too many users with a one-letter password. But don't worry. Users table are so small that Brion can save them under his pillow ;-)

About the forks Wikimedia projects have something more than the database. They have a great userbase. As long as WMF accomplishes what users want, WMF will have the supremacy over db copiers. Many people copy our articles, but so long, only citizendium has been a threat, and that because it takes a different approach (and had a lot of publicity).

If WMF defrauds its userbase, there will be forks anyway, as there were on the past, like the [[Enciclopedia Libre]], which is still being developed in paralell. If data is destroyed by a natural disaster, WMF will need to hold firm to avoid that disperssion.

On 18/04/07, Platonides &lt;Platonides(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: If the need for archived dumps is popularised - and made easy - it might be more plausible. Outboard 400GB USB disk: £70. Plug that in, BitTorrent dumps to it, have something which updates the dumps when there's a new one ... there should be enough people who can afford that to do it. At the moment I'm quite worried about Commons. The image dump is HUGE and I don't think there's been a good dump of it for a while. And 300-400GB of images is quite a lot for people to keep around casually.

Let's assume Brion is 100% trustworthy with personal information (I think we can actually assume this is true). The WMF is eaten by invading Martian badgers. * How much work to verify any person is who they say they are? * Who does he give the results to? In the second case, a public list of "this old-userID is this OpenID" would be something that wouldn't violate a confidence - if each person made the match by logging in and submitting the OpenID they wanted to correlate and publicise for credit.

I think multiple forks would actually be the best way to preserve things. One will accumulate more weight. Wiki encyclopedias aren't going away. They're the only reasonable model for the 21st century, in fact ... and we did that. We just have to make sure our work is preserved in case of disaster.

On 18/04/07, Ray Saintonge &lt;saintonge(a)telus.net&gt; wrote: We could set up a page on meta to catalog who is keeping copies of what (seperate it by database) so we can know how safe each database is and users can volunteer to regularly download a copy of the one they choose. If say five or ten people (from different countries) had a copy of each (preferably long term users) we would probably be safe even as a result of a continent wide genocide.

On 4/18/07, Ray Saintonge &lt;saintonge(a)telus.net&gt; wrote: If Wikipedia has to be rebuilt from such distributed backups, we goofed - There should be warm-standby content copies in geographical distributed regions and a real offsite backups (tape, or lugged disk) rotation mechanism in place. There's nothing wrong with giving key project members (or anyone else who wants it) the whole dataset to take home, but as noted above, most people would have a hard time re-launching the site given a hard disk and a request to do so. If we truly do have a civilization-ending event, restoring Wikipedia to full live production status is probably not the number one priority. A more credible scenario is that power goes out in St Petersburg for long enough to be a problem, and the datacenter can't get enough diesel to keep going forever (or the upstream net connectivity fails). This is the type of scenario for which major organizations keep a geographically diverse systems set going. -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Does anyone have an idea of how many GB the complete dump of Wikimedia wikis is when saved as a bittorrent?

We could set up a page on meta to catalog who is keeping copies of what (seperate it by database) so we can know how safe each database is and users can volunteer to regularly download a copy of the one they choose. If say five or ten people (from different countries) had a copy of each (preferably long term users) we would probably be safe even as a result of a continent wide genocide.

On 18/04/07, Platonides &lt;Platonides(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: I suppose the devs could come up with something suitable - dumping one subfolder at a time, torrent the lot. I'll buy a couple of 400GB outboard disks and keep the files up for torrenting! Anyone else? - d.

_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

For the kind of back up we are talking about image dumps anyone can download are not the ideal solution.

Handing out hard drives containing the complete commons image set (and anything else that can be fitted on) to chapter representatives and wikimania would have certain advantages since the image dumps would get to those who need them without the bandwidth cost and server load.

Why lug drives around? We can torrent the stuff easily enough. The hard part is generating the first dump. - d.

On 19/04/07, Jeff V. Merkey &lt;jmerkey(a)wolfmountaingroup.com&gt; wrote: I'm just waiting till next paypacket to buy a spare outboard drive ;-)

- d. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

David Gerard wrote: >At the moment I'm quite worried about Commons. The image dump is HUGE >and I don't think there's been a good dump of it for a while. And >300-400GB of images is quite a lot for people to keep around casually. > >

>Citizendium is not a threat - it's validation of our model and of open >content in general. > > >

On 18/04/07, Jeff V. Merkey &lt;jmerkey(a)wolfmountaingroup.com&gt; wrote: I'd question that, actually - the community is quite sincere and hard-working, and if they can keep at their present rate for six months I'd say CZ has a lot of life in it. There's got to be more than one way to do this, after all.

- d. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 4/18/07, Platonides &lt;Platonides(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Let's assume, for a moment, that WMF does not suddenly turn evil but instead that it gets sued out of existence by some other entity with very deep pockets (software patents, libel, submarine copyright infringements, what have you). Perhaps it would make sense for the organization to have an open bidding process where other non-profits can apply to be the "designated successor organization". The DSO would have to be written into the privacy policy as regards transfer of private data, and perhaps should also be given a certain amount of seed funding that it can only access in the event that WMF ceases to serve Wikimedia project content. Naturally, the DSO would have to make local backups of all data in regular intervals. This DSO status alone would hopefully ensure that there wouldn't be much of a fight among competing "next Wikipedias", but that users would instead flock to the new organization, even if that one could not be up to speed immediately to host all the content. As for the "turning evil" scenario, even here, such a DSO might be a good idea, as users who campaign for a fork would have a clear rallying point -- the only problem here is that it's hard for an external organization to objectively decide when the time has come to switch. I would not consider serving ads necessarily "evil", for example. I think this would be a good topic to get some lawyers to brainstorm about. :-) -- Peace & Love, Erik DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees. "An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open, free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Perhaps it would make sense for the organization to have an open bidding process where other non-profits can apply to be the "designated successor organization". The DSO would have to be written into the privacy policy as regards transfer of private data, and perhaps should also be given a certain amount of seed funding that it can only access in the event that WMF ceases to serve Wikimedia project content. Naturally, the DSO would have to make local backups of all data in regular intervals.

On 4/18/07, Delphine Ménard &lt;notafishz(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: None of our current chapters is close to being able to carry the load. I agree we should try to get there, but that might take us years. Organizations like the Internet Archive or Creative Commons are in a better position right now.

On 4/18/07, Delphine Ménard &lt;notafishz(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: None of our current chapters is close to being able to carry the load. I agree we should try to get there, but that might take us years. Organizations like the Internet Archive or Creative Commons are in a better position right now.

What an interesting question and how glad I feel to be asked it. :) Glad that Wikimedia is the way it is. I don't know if I have five things, but a few come to mind. The first thing I would like to see (long term) is major expansion of MediaWiki development. The starting of mediawiki.org has been a great move for this. I am not totally sure this kind of goal is appropriate for WMF, or if large healthy open source development communities have to happen by themselves, but I suspect a bit of benevolent dictator-like prodding doesn't go astray. The second (also long term) is I believe WMF should lobby and publicise for "copyleft", "share alike" and "open content" movements, so that governments, organisations and individuals have a better understanding (or at the moment, even an inkling) of what they mean and imply. (Our libraries, custodians of a lot of knowledge, have some way to go.) "Free" (shareware) is not good enough. NC and ND especially is not good enough. WMF, with Wikipedia behind it, is in the most powerful position to explain to the world why. The third, another long term, is that WMF should keep searching for innovative ways to provide information to people worldwide *in their own language*. Whether that be pushing for more stable internet access in some parts of the world, or negotiating with governments who block our content, or getting involved with printed material, or working on improving access by phone[1], or ... whatever the next technology turns out to be. I would be pushing it to think of any more. Looking forward to reading some more responses :) cheers, Brianna user:pfctdayelise ---- [1] According to http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/04/13/1175971346787.html "Between 2000 and 2006, the proportion of Japanese 20-year-olds using home PCs to access the internet plummeted from 23.6 per cent to 11.9 per cent..." ... I wonder how most Japanese users access ja.wp? On 16/04/07, Florence Devouard &lt;Anthere9(a)yahoo.com&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Anthony wrote: Nod. This is on the same level than the idea expressed by Yann. My problem with this one though is that it is hard to measure afterwards. How do you know a project has improved ? You may measure "number of languages" or "number of articles", but how do you measure "higher quality". If we tell the staff, your END is to improve the quality of Wikinews, how do we afterwards assess whether there was an improvement or not ? What is an improvement ? Practically ?

The WMF provides the essential infrastructure and an organizational framework for the support and development of multilingual wiki projects. Wikimedia wikis must be able to technically adapt in an individual manner to succeed. Needs to be met? Local extension requests must be evaluated by a developer with the ability to implement them within three months. For whom? Wikimedia communities At what cost? Not sure; at the cost of other bugs I suppose. On the waiting side, three months seems like a long time to find out if an extension is acceptable or needs more work. But if it is not realistic to people on the developer side, please adjust to any set time period. Birgitte SB --- Florence Devouard &lt;Anthere9(a)yahoo.com&gt; wrote: > Dear all, > > In the past few days, I have explored more > systematically the policy > governance model, and how it could be implemented.By > the way, I found a > short article about it on the english wikipedia : > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy_Governance > > > One of the things the board has to design is what is > called the ENDS. > In each ends, the board defines which needs are to > be met, for whom, and > at what cost. > > Let me give you two examples of ends. > ******************************* > > > The WMF is the host provider of several websites, > referred to as > Wikimedia project. Wikimedia websites must be up > and running > efficiently, 24/24 hours, 7 days a week. That is the > priority of WMF. > > Needs to be met ? > Information must be accessible anytime. > > For whom ? > Any person with internet access > > At what cost ? > Well, within limits reasonable with the revenue we > have. If we had > figures to mention, we could say max 1 million per > year. > ******************************* > > > Another example > > The WMF is the organiser of an annual conference, > Wikimania. > > Needs to be met ? > Both a scientific conference and a community event, > Wikimania brings > together members of various Wikimedia projects in > order to exchange > ideas, build relationships, and report on research > and project efforts. > It also provides an opportunity for Wikimedians and > the general public > alike to meet and share ideas about free and open > source software, free > knowledge initiatives, and wiki projects worldwide. > > For whom ? > Primarily for Wikimedians. Secondarily for the > general public > > At what cost ? > No cost. WMF should find sponsors to cover Wikimania > costs by large. > ******************************* > > Now, these are two easy ends to define. > What I would like to ask you help on, is to define > more ends, which > describe what you think the WMF is about. The two > ends I mentionned > above a "long term" ends, they would be listed this > year, and then next > year and probably the year after. Not all ends are > this way. We could > also have an end valid only one year, or only 3 > months. > Let us say we want a BIG technical meeting around > Mediawiki to occur in > the next 6 months, it would be one END. > Or we want to produce a DVD of the english high > quality content, it > could be another END. > Actually, hiring an ED could also be an end :-) > > Now, before you tell me "eh, we elected you guys to > think of that for > us", my answer will be "no, you elected us to > represent your dreams > about WMF, and to make sure your dreams happen". > So, what I am currently asking you is > > "What do you want Wikimedia Foundation to focus its > attention on in the > next few months, few years or more". > > Whether you are members on the "paper" (bylaws) or > not, morally, you are > the owners of the organization. I do not think the > editors represent the > only owners, but the editors definitly are part of > the owners. So, I ask > you your opinion as owners. > > What do you think we should achieve ? If you had 5 > points to list, what > would they be ? > > > ant

I think you misunderstand me. I am not talking about developers writing code for extentions, but simply a developer "turning on" an existing extension or else saying they will not turn on that extension unitil some specified problem is fixed. Birgitte SB --- Gerard Meijssen &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Often and On time the wrote: : what websites, up is conference, in open two around guys happen". had

__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org

From what I understand implementation is only done

Hoi, Cool. When an extension is developed, implementation is part of the project. Not to do so would be daft. When an extension is developed elsewhere, we have a "not invented here" situation. I would suggest that one function of the WMF could be to perform maintenance checks on all the software that is included in SVN. This means that having software in the MediaWiki SVN will have specific benefits. One of these maintenance checks would be to indicate and or maintain compatibility with the main branch of MediaWiki. Another is that the software developed will be truly open source; it will be this because of the general availability that the MediaWiki SVN implies. With such a framework in place, it does not need to take three months to install an extension. It does however not imply that any extension available in SVN will be installed. There is more to that. Thanks, GerardM On 4/17/07, Birgitte SB &lt;birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com&gt; wrote: grants have the extention Wikimedia If on tell (not try the been actual simply a else unitil extension. shared infrastructure an by a suppose. needs on time wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy_Governance is are be That revenue million community projects Wikimedians and the The listed ends only 3 high :-) to focus (bylaws) think part you _______________________________________________

__________________________________________________

protection around

_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org