I don't know how, I don't know why, but the main page is
giving me "describe the new page here" at the moment.
Doesn't appear to be in the Recent Changes, so I assume
there's some other breakage gone on.
--
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Merkel rgmerk(a)mira.net
Go You Big Red Fire Engine
-- Unknown Audience Member at Adam Hills standup gig
------------------------------------------------------------
lcrocker(a)nupedia.com wrote:
> Yes, new _features_ or major changes in features should be
> discussed on the list at large. Again, this one situation was
> an emergency and I'm glad that Jim was able to take unilateral
> action to rescue the project when it was needed, and I wouldn't
> want his ability to do that overly burdened with discussion.
I agree. I don't oppose unilateral action by Jimmy in dire situations, and Wikipedia was grinding to a halt looked pretty dire to me. My only request is that when such action is taken, some sort of general notice is given, either via Wikipedia-L or Wikipedia Announcements.
> I also think programmers ought to have some discretion on minor
> features and changes. But generally I agree that any changes
> in the interface should be discussed on the general list.
Absolutely. It would be terrible if programmers felt they were being micromanaged and had to run every code change by a mass of non-programmers.
-- Stephen Gilbert
________________________________
Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia
http://www.wikipedia.com
--
Powered by Outblaze
"d.n.mckee" <d.n.mckee(a)durham.ac.uk> wrote:
> In light of the current difficulties, discussion on the wiki would have
> been difficult at best, and impossible at worst!
>
> However, a page devoted to technical issues (eg: scheduled downtimes,
> current difficulties, fixes implemented) with a brief non-technical
> explanation of the problems would probably be of use...
>
> ... if there is one, it's not used enough!
Yes, that's exactly what I'm looking for. Jimmy, would it be possible to have a page for notices of planned downtime, emergency situations and the like? Maybe a static web page that isn't on the wiki would be best.
> And guys: don't give up the hard work! :D
Indeed!
-- Stephen Gilbert
________________________________
Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia
http://www.wikipedia.com
--
Powered by Outblaze
In light of the current difficulties, discussion on the wiki would have
been difficult at best, and impossible at worst!
However, a page devoted to technical issues (eg: scheduled downtimes,
current difficulties, fixes implemented) with a brief non-technical
explanation of the problems would probably be of use...
... if there is one, it's not used enough!
In terms of the status of the system, even having just the base
functionality is a Good Thing: if people can read, type and edit, then
the Wikipedia will continue. Even if that's not possible for some
reason, just letting people read (and letting them know they can't
write, today) is a Good Thing, too.
And guys: don't give up the hard work! :D
Dragon Dave.
I know wikitech-l is probably working on this, but I want to express my
dismay at the fact that the most recently saved version of my user page
(and lots of other page) is something from back in February. That's kind
of scary.
Larry
Lars Aronsson <lars(a)aronsson.se> wrote
> The technical discussion is taking place on wikitech-l(a)nupedia.com.
> This is a short summary and unofficial status report.
>
> In the last few weeks, the Wikipedia webserver has been very slow,
> depending on new functions being added without enough concern about
> their performance under high load.
>
> At 5 pm on Thursday May 9, Jimmy disabled some of the functions that
> consumed too much time, and there was an instant improvement in
> response time. The removed functionality include the "talk" links.
Why didn't anyone tell us this? (If this was discussed somewhere, my appologies; I missed it). Several people have pointed out the missing Talk links, but this is the first time I've seen any explanation. I'm also concerned that this action was taken without general discussion. I personally consider the Talk pages to be vital in the everyday operation of the project, as they are used to work out disputes one what should be done with various articles.
BTW, the Talk links are still present in the Collogne Blue skin, and they can still be used by typing in the URL manually.
> The implementation is studied right now, and an improved version will
> probably be installed in the next few days. At this point, I don't
> think more programmers are needed, but if you want to stay informed,
> you can join the wikitech-l to follow the reports and discussions.
I'm a worried that that software dicisions are becoming isolated from the main Wikipedia community. Before major changes and new features are implemented on the live Wikipedia server, there should be some kind of general discussion where everyone can come to an agreement. Wikitech-l is only of interest to the programmers; I would like such discussions to take place on the wiki itself.
> It is good to see that so many are concerned to have Wikipedia back in
> full operation, with all the necessary functionality. However, it
> does surprise me that so few were complaining about the absurdly slow
> response times in the week before.
There were many complaints about the speed for the past couple weeks.
I don't mean any of this as a personal attack against the people working on the software and running the server. I really appreciate all the hard work you're putting in. I'm simply concerned that major software changes are being made without input from us non-programming Wikipedians.
-- Stephen Gilbert
--
Powered by Outblaze
> Why didn't anyone tell us this? (If this was discussed somewhere,
> my appologies; I missed it). Several people have pointed out the
> missing Talk links, but this is the first time I've seen any
> explanation.
It wasn't intentional; rest assured that we, too, see "talk" as
a vital part of Wikipedia's functionality that we have no
intention of removing (though some of us might consider it less
vital than others :)
This was an emergency situation. Wikipedia was becoming
totally unusable, and was losing its more valuable resource:
users. Drastic action had to be taken, and Jim did that, to
make the site usable. It had an unfortunate side-effect,
and I think that's fixed now.
> I'm a worried that that software dicisions are becoming isolated
> from the main Wikipedia community. Before major changes and new
> features are implemented on the live Wikipedia server, there
> should be some kind of general discussion where everyone can come
> to an agreement. Wikitech-l is only of interest to the programmers;
Yes, new _features_ or major changes in features should be
discussed on the list at large. Again, this one situation was
an emergency and I'm glad that Jim was able to take unilateral
action to rescue the project when it was needed, and I wouldn't
want his ability to do that overly burdened with discussion.
I also think programmers ought to have some discretion on minor
features and changes. But generally I agree that any changes
in the interface should be discussed on the general list.
0
We need an upload space where people who care & have the time can test new features on an active (but unpublicized) site before the features go live. Wikipedia is crippled at the moment, and has been almost every time I've visited it in the last several months. When I go to a site on my broadband line at work and it takes 5 minutes to bring up a page, that is IMO a crippled site. We can't expect the casual user to have any patience for it, and also can't expect new users to want to come back.
kq
You Wrote:
>Another grrr...
>
>We seem to have lost the 'talk' page links from the pedia entirely, but
>I'm sure everyone's noticed it by now!
>
>And I noticed some requests on the recent changes pages for people NOT
>to make 'fill in text here' the contents of a page... I just did it by
>accident and then I couldn't get the page to load to re-edit it.
>Apparantly when you create a new page by redirecting it creates the
>page, but instead of sending you to the edit screen it dumped me into
>the pageview.
>
>The coding for the pedia seems to have suddenly gotten extremely buggy
>this week - maybe people should be requested to stop playing and adding
>info until some of these bugs can be fixed? It can't be easy to work on
>the coding when it keeps getting changed...
>
>--
>
>Karen AKA Kajikit
>
>Come and visit my part of the web:
>Kajikit's Corner: http://Kajikit.netfirms.com/
>Aussie Support Mailing List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AussieSupport
>Allergyfree Eating Recipe Swap:
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Allergyfree_Eating
>
>Love and huggles to all!
>[Wikipedia-l]
>To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
>http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>0
Yes. the "vote for" is also undocumented. It takes you to a place where you vote for the page to be rewritten, deleted, made article of the day, some other things. there's a box for comments. that feature is (slightly) buggy too; one of the options logs the vote on a page named simply [[wikipedia:]].
kq
You Wrote:
>>Speaking of which, can we get rid of the "auto-wikification" button?
>
>>It's definitely featuritis: very prominent, highly confusing, and of
>>minimal utility.
>
>...and undocumented. I agree, this button should go. At best, it could
>be a user preference option (default: off).
>
>Axel
>[Wikipedia-l]
>To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
>http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>0
awesome. thanks, Lee.
You Wrote:
>> We need an upload space where people who care & have the time
>> can test new features on an active (but unpublicized) site before
>> the features go live...
>
>I have the wikipedia software (and my in-progress reorg of it)
>running on my own site; the few changes I made I tested myself,
>but before I do anything major I'm sure I will point everyone
>to my site and let them bang on it. I'm also open to the idea
>of using my server as a general test area, and I'm willing to
>give accounts to some of the developers if that would help.
>00