The Scotland vs. UK debate has reminded me that we're using uk.wikimedia.org which is, strictly speaking, the Ukrainian sub-domain; and should be using gb.wikimedia.org
Is this something we should rectify sooner, rather than later, choosing some pain now over more pain later?
I don't see what gb.wikimedia.org has to do with anything, to be honest. We are very definitely not Wikimedia Great Britain.
Ideally we would make greater use of wikimedia.org.uk but we have promoted uk.wikimedia.org well enough that we should probably deflect uk.wikimedia.org to wikimedia.org.uk when we make the move.
Chris
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 10:40 PM, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.ukwrote:
The Scotland vs. UK debate has reminded me that we're using uk.wikimedia.org which is, strictly speaking, the Ukrainian sub-domain; and should be using gb.wikimedia.org
Is this something we should rectify sooner, rather than later, choosing some pain now over more pain later?
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On 14 Sep 2011, at 22:49, Chris Keating wrote:
I don't see what gb.wikimedia.org has to do with anything, to be honest. We are very definitely not Wikimedia Great Britain.
Actually… we could be. ;-) See: http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapter_Agreement#Name "Irrespective of their locally incorporated names, the Chapter is authorized to assume and operate under the titles “Wikimedia England”, “Wikimedia Scotland”, “Wikimedia Wales”, “Wikimedia Northern Ireland”, “Wikimedia Britain”, “Wikimedia Great Britain”, “Wikimedia GB”, “Wikimedia United Kingdom” and “Wikimedia UK” and translations of these titles into other languages, for all operations as a Wikimedia chapter."
Ideally we would make greater use of wikimedia.org.uk but we have promoted uk.wikimedia.org well enough that we should probably deflect uk.wikimedia.org to wikimedia.org.uk when we make the move.
The downside of moving to wikimedia.org.uk is that we use access to the Single User Login system (we'd have the site on our own server, and I don't believe it's possible to use SUL from outside the WMF's server farm). I'm never sure how useful SUL is to visitors, though... There are a number of upsides to moving, e.g. in terms of being able to easily reconfigure things and add extensions, and reinforcing our independence from the WMF (I've always been a bit uneasy that they host our main site.)
Mike
On 15/09/2011 07:34, Michael Peel wrote:
The downside of moving to wikimedia.org.uk is that we use access to the Single User Login system (we'd have the site on our own server, and I don't believe it's possible to use SUL from outside the WMF's server farm). I'm never sure how useful SUL is to visitors, though... There are a number of upsides to moving, e.g. in terms of being able to easily reconfigure things and add extensions, and reinforcing our independence from the WMF (I've always been a bit uneasy that they host our main site.)
Mike
Most organisation & individuals do not host their website on servers owned by them, but by paying somebody else to host it, or in some case getting it free from the server owner/operator. If you really feel the need to reinforce independence, you can always pay WMF to host the chapter website as if they were a web hosting company.
Personally, I don't see a problem WMF willing to host the chapter website for free. The chapter is a non-profit after all, let's not spend money it doesn't need to.
If you're worrying about independence, I'll worry more about the (proposed) changes to the annual fundraiser to some kind of grants system if and when it applies to the chapter.
In terms of SUL, well it's one less login to remember (for the majority of Chapter wiki editors who already have an account on a WMF wiki). Similar to OpenID.
KTC
On 15 Sep 2011, at 14:57, Katie Chan wrote:
On 15/09/2011 07:34, Michael Peel wrote:
The downside of moving to wikimedia.org.uk is that we use access to the Single User Login system (we'd have the site on our own server, and I don't believe it's possible to use SUL from outside the WMF's server farm). I'm never sure how useful SUL is to visitors, though... There are a number of upsides to moving, e.g. in terms of being able to easily reconfigure things and add extensions, and reinforcing our independence from the WMF (I've always been a bit uneasy that they host our main site.)
Mike
Most organisation & individuals do not host their website on servers owned by them, but by paying somebody else to host it, or in some case getting it free from the server owner/operator. If you really feel the need to reinforce independence, you can always pay WMF to host the chapter website as if they were a web hosting company.
The thing that worries me is that the WMF isn't a web hosting company (in contrast to e.g. Wikia) - us being able to have a wiki hosted by them is special.
Personally, I don't see a problem WMF willing to host the chapter website for free. The chapter is a non-profit after all, let's not spend money it doesn't need to.
We already have webspace that hosts our blog, donation site, emails, etc. So there's no difference in cost as to whether it's hosted by us or the WMF. (note that the hosting and its management is actually provided to WMUK for free, by myself.)
If you're worrying about independence, I'll worry more about the (proposed) changes to the annual fundraiser to some kind of grants system if and when it applies to the chapter.
Oh, we're doing an awful lot of worrying about that… if only there was a way to pass on a charge for premature grey hairs to the Foundation. ;-)
In terms of SUL, well it's one less login to remember (for the majority of Chapter wiki editors who already have an account on a WMF wiki). Similar to OpenID.
Indeed. It's a shame that SUL doesn't act as an OpenID that others can connect to.
Mike
On 15/09/2011 14:57, Katie Chan wrote:
Most organisation& individuals do not host their website on servers owned by them, but by paying somebody else to host it, or in some case getting it free from the server owner/operator.
Memset offer a basic package free for charities.
http://www.memset.com/charities.php
Gordo
On 16 September 2011 12:27, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
On 15/09/2011 14:57, Katie Chan wrote:
Most organisation& individuals do not host their website on servers owned by them, but by paying somebody else to host it, or in some case getting it free from the server owner/operator.
Memset offer a basic package free for charities.
I haven't followed the link, but I doubt a basic package would be sufficient for our needs.
On 16/09/2011 17:35, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 16 September 2011 12:27, Gordon Jolygordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
On 15/09/2011 14:57, Katie Chan wrote:
Most organisation& individuals do not host their website on servers owned by them, but by paying somebody else to host it, or in some case getting it free from the server owner/operator.
Memset offer a basic package free for charities.
I haven't followed the link, but I doubt a basic package would be sufficient for our needs.
Growing sites
If you are a small charity with big aspirations, that is fine too. We are very used to helping organisations grow their hosting requirements, and all our solutions are very scalable. Also, as you grow we will continue to give you discounted services.
Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com http://www.joly.org.uk/ Don't Leave Space To The Professionals!
On 14 September 2011 22:40, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
The Scotland vs. UK debate has reminded me that we're using uk.wikimedia.org which is, strictly speaking, the Ukrainian sub-domain; and should be using gb.wikimedia.org
Is this something we should rectify sooner, rather than later, choosing some pain now over more pain later?
It is correct.
x.wikimedia.org subdomains use country codes (ISO 3166). x.wikipedia.org subdomains use language codes (ISO 639). "uk" is the language code for Ukrainian. In country codes, it is a recognised alternative code for the UK [1].
We prefer "uk" to "gb" since it is actually an abbreviation for the name of our country, rather than being an abbreviation for the name of an island that makes up part of our country.
1. http://www.iso.org/iso/support/country_codes/iso_3166_code_lists/iso-3166-1_...
On 14 September 2011 22:50, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 September 2011 22:40, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
The Scotland vs. UK debate has reminded me that we're using uk.wikimedia.org which is, strictly speaking, the Ukrainian sub-domain; and should be using gb.wikimedia.org
Is this something we should rectify sooner, rather than later, choosing some pain now over more pain later?
It is correct.
x.wikimedia.org subdomains use country codes (ISO 3166). x.wikipedia.org subdomains use language codes (ISO 639). "uk" is the language code for Ukrainian. In country codes, it is a recognised alternative code for the UK [1].
We prefer "uk" to "gb" since it is actually an abbreviation for the name of our country, rather than being an abbreviation for the name of an island that makes up part of our country.
There's an FAQ entry here explaining why the primary code is "gb" if anyone is interesting: http://www.iso.org/iso/country_codes/iso_3166-faqs/iso_3166_faqs_specific.ht...
On 14 September 2011 22:50, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
x.wikimedia.org subdomains use country codes (ISO 3166). x.wikipedia.org subdomains use language codes (ISO 639). "uk" is the language code for Ukrainian. In country codes, it is a recognised alternative code for the UK [1].
That's not quite true. "uk" has been "exceptionally reserved" at the request of the United Kingdom, as it is "required in order to support a particular application, as specified by the requesting body and limited to such use; any further use of such code elements is subject to approval by the ISO 3166/MA". Therefore it should not be used in applications of ISO 3166, and is not a recognised alternative code -- "gb" is the only official country code for the "United Kingdom". Nevertheless, the use of ISO 3166 country codes for wikimedia subdomains is just a wikimedia convention, and there is no law against us squatting on Ukraine's country code.
Andrew BabelStone
On Sep 15, 2011 12:11 AM, "Andrew West" andrewcwest@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 September 2011 22:50, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
x.wikimedia.org subdomains use country codes (ISO 3166). x.wikipedia.org subdomains use language codes (ISO 639). "uk" is the language code for Ukrainian. In country codes, it is a recognised alternative code for the UK [1].
That's not quite true. "uk" has been "exceptionally reserved" at the request of the United Kingdom, as it is "required in order to support a particular application, as specified by the requesting body and limited to such use; any further use of such code elements is subject to approval by the ISO 3166/MA". Therefore it should not be used in applications of ISO 3166, and is not a recognised alternative code -- "gb" is the only official country code for the "United Kingdom". Nevertheless, the use of ISO 3166 country codes for wikimedia subdomains is just a wikimedia convention, and there is no law against us squatting on Ukraine's country code.
While you may be right that it isn't strictly accurate to call uk an alternative country code for the UK, it is definitely incorrect to call it Ukraine's country code. That is ua. uk is Ukrainian's language code, but that it a completely different standard.
On 15 September 2011 00:37, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
While you may be right that it isn't strictly accurate to call uk an alternative country code for the UK, it is definitely incorrect to call it Ukraine's country code. That is ua. uk is Ukrainian's language code, but that it a completely different standard.
Of course, thanks for pointing that out -- I must have confused myself half way through writing that.
Andrew
In answer to Andy's original question: I'd rather sort it out later, after the fundraiser. There is quite enough on our collective plate at present, and perhaps this should wait until after the CEO is in position and the fundraiser is comfortably set up.
-----Original Message----- From: wikimediauk-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimediauk-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Andy Mabbett Sent: 14 September 2011 22:40 To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikimediauk-l] uk. or gb.
The Scotland vs. UK debate has reminded me that we're using uk.wikimedia.org which is, strictly speaking, the Ukrainian sub-domain; and should be using gb.wikimedia.org
Is this something we should rectify sooner, rather than later, choosing some pain now over more pain later?
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org