> We should consider doing some strategizing to make
> sure another fork doesnt happen (I hear members of
> the French wikipedia threatened a fork in the past).
> Specifically, we might want to revisit the idea of
> wikipedia becoming a non-profit (preferably a European
> one). That way, anti-Americanism and distrust of
> Boomis (which is both an American company and, /gasp/,
> for-profit) wouldn't weigh on anybody's mind.
That's on the back burner too--I really want to get
things running well before we start that process, but it's
definitely still on my mind and Larry's, and I'm pretty
sure Jimbo's as well.
But even so, I'm not sure a fork is such a bad thing (or to
be clear, I don't think it's bad if some other group owns one
of the foreign Wikis--I do think it's bad to have to separate
ones). I'll be happy to give them my software, and yes, we can
make the language links go there instead of to Bomis, and just
hand the job over to them if they think they can do it better.
When they grow enough to have the problems that we've had,
they might give up, in which case we'd just take over again
with their content. Or they might really do a better job, in
which case we can learn from their experience.
0
You Wrote:
>At 07:08 AM 7/9/02 -0700, kq wrote:
>
>>I'm in the clear as long as I don't set foot on private property.
>
>That goes back to the original question about MOBY in the tea room, and
>applies at many concerts, malls, etc.
eh, yeh, well my original question about Moby was not the best one because I was thinking of the issue of ads more than public/private. In TeaNY, Moby is on private property in a business he owns himself, and I'd respect his wishes. In public, anyway--on the sidewalk or at the courthouse or town square or in parks, etc. if I can see it without a zoom lens, it's fair game.
kq0
It just occurred to me that another option might be to let the user specify which links show in the side bar. I don't know how practicable that is, but I for one wouldn't mind if I could "turn off" the links to short and long pages, among others. (though I know others would).
kq
You Wrote:
>The primary problem mentioned about the new layout was that the
>quickbar is too tall on some smaller screens. One possible solution to
>that is that I added two more sidebar options to user preferences: now
>there is not only "none", "left", and "right", but also "fixed left"
>and "fixed right"; in these latter two, the sidebar is scrollable with
>the page.
>
>We may also want to experiment with the fonts a bit, and decide which
>of the now five options is the best default.
>
>Also, it is my intention that "none" should be a useful option, in
>that there shouldn't be enything on the quickbar that isn't also
>accessible elsewhere (for example, the special pages list which isn't
>done yet).00
>And even if it's a documentary, I wouldn't be able to use it--the bigger film festivals, HBO, PBS, etc. all wanted signed releases from every person with screen time in a documentary--and you have to provide the same paper trail for pictures and footage used.
Sit-down interviews, that is. If I go up to him with a camer and he walks away and I follow him, I'm in the clear as long as I don't set foot on private property.
About the HBO thing--you now have to provide documentation you have the right even to use music in the background, so if you're making a film on, say, wikipedia, and Jimmy's wife turns on the radio and the viewer can make out even the slightest bit of Metallica, you have to pay the record company to use that footage. Which means that, more often than not, you'll be cutting that footage from the film.
kq
0
>Good point, You do have the right to say, take a picture of Paul Newman if
>you encounter him walking on the beach. He doesn't have the right to punch
>you in the nose, but he may.
Yes, I know. :-)
>If you take a short movie of him and enter it at Sundance maybe there is a
>legal problem or maybe not.
Yeh--Robert Redford is still his friend and will find what hotel I'm at so he can come punch me in the nose again.
Also, there would be the problem that if Newman's a main character and it's a fiction film instead of a documentary about how I found Paul Newman wandering about on a beach, then I would have used Newman as a character in a film he didn't sign up for. Kind of an interesting legal precedent set by one of the actors who played in Back to the Future--his footage was being reused in a sequel and he wasn't being paid again; he sued and won.
And even if it's a documentary, I wouldn't be able to use it--the bigger film festivals, HBO, PBS, etc. all wanted signed releases from every person with screen time in a documentary--and you have to provide the same paper trail for pictures and footage used.
kq
0
Oh no, not the p-word. :-) I would never invade privacy or be confrontational when taking a picture--just if it's in public then I have a right to take the picture the same as any journalist, because I'm under the same 1st amendment laws that they are. Jesse Jackson came through recently, too, now that I think of it... and somewhere around here I've got video I could extract a frame from (he spoke at the courthouse).
But anyway, yes, the GNUFDL pics would be great. :-)
Cheers,
kq
>I think it'd be great if there were a large community of GNU FDL paparazzi.
>Individual little people fan sites are constantly harassed, and rightly so under
>the copyright laws, for stealing pictures. It'd be neat if there were a repository
>of GNU FDL photos that fans could use without permission.
>
>
>--Jimbo
0
Suppose I were in New York and went to TeaNY and took a picture of Moby waiting tables (he does sometimes; he owns the place). I would then own the copyright to that picture. /But/ could it ever be released under the GNU FDL? See, there are limitations on what can be done with pictures of living (or even recently deceased) people--they can't, for instance, be used to advertise anything without the permission of that person or the estate. These conditions seem more restrictive than those of the GNU FDL. So is it at all possible to release a picture like that onto wikipedia? Who knows anything about this?
I ask this not as a /completely/ rhetorical question--my town is somewhat active politically, and we have had several famous & controversial people come speak--e.g. Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, and Bobby Seales within the last few years. And I could easily enough get a picture of them myself; a few months back Seales spoke in a room barely bigger than my living room.
regards,
kq
0
> There's two things I don't understand here. At the test site
> this query now seems to take around 7 seconds. So did you already
> implement this there?
Yes, it's in place already. I tested it on my own server first as
always, but this and other bug fixes that I'm judging either non-
risky or important enough to justify some risk I'm putting on the
live server as well so they can get hit with Neil's bots.
> Secondly, I don't see why counting links should be easier
> unless you are doing something really weird like allowing
> duplicates in the table 'brokenlinks'. You are still using
> this table, are you?
There is no unique keys in the links or brokenlinks tables, so yes,
there are "duplicates" if you want to call them that--but they
represent real info, in that if page A links to non-existent page B
twice, there will be exactly two records "A -> B" in the table. And
of course there are lots and lots of duplicates of the
individual "from" and "to" fields, because there has to be.
I could easily enough add a unique key with a combination of
the "from" and "to" fields. Is there a good reason to do that? I
never access the table by that--I only access it by the individual
fields *i.e., there's never any query in which both fields appear in
the where clause or an order by or group by).
>Temp file? Are you now doing the sorting yourself?
MySQL is doing it, but it uses a temp file ("explain" on the query
says so, anyway). And the error we were getting before was the size
of the tempfile bumping into a disk quota.
0
lcrocker(a)nupedia.com writes:
> I may be 39, but I'm also a Extropian cryonicist (Alcor #A-1701),
> so I'll see you at the centennial in 2101.
Can you bring Ted Williams along?
--
Gareth Owen
"Wikipedia does rock. By the count on the "brilliant prose" page, there
are 14 not-bad articles so far" -- Larry Sanger (12 Jan 2001)