One of the things I found was that the present query for Wanted pages
counts only the distinct pages with a broken link to the wanted page,
even if that page has two or more broken links to the same title. It
seems to me that's not important--I'd just as soon have it count all
links so I know how many to fix, and that's just as good a metric
of "wantedness", I think. And it's not very different in any case--
multiple broken links to the same title on one page are rare.
Changing it to count all links speeds it up quite a bit (from 30-40
seconds to 6-7). Also, I'm throwing away all wanted pages with only
a single link--that reduces the size of the temp file needed for
sorting by number of links. If we ever get to the point where those
will be useful, we'll make a feature for them.
At any rate, tell me if you either of those changes is a real problem.
> Some of us are approaching 40, so truly long-term planning is
> not feasible anymore...
> I propose a Grand Wikipedia Reunion, to be held in San Diego on
> the weekend of January 3-5, 2031, to celebrate the thirty year
> anniversary of Wikipedia.
> A planning committee should be appointed in due time.
I may be 39, but I'm also a Extropian cryonicist (Alcor #A-1701),
so I'll see you at the centennial in 2101. Or at least some instance
of my consciousness in whatever VR world we end up in...
> 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?
It's not quite as bad as that--using the picture, displaying
it, even for profit, is fine, and the GFDL only grants to others
the rights you have under your copyright. You can't use it for
advertising for two reasons, neither of which is copyright. One,
that's making an implicit endorsement claim--you are saying, in
effect, that "Moby likes this product", and you can't do that
unless he actually does (or at least has given you permission to
say he does). It's not a matter of copyright, but commercial
fraud. The other problem is trademark: you can't use the image to
/identify/ something, just like you can't call your garage band
"Moby" or call your burger joint "MacDonald's", even if your name
really is Moby or MacDonald, because they have names with value
and reputation, and you can't legally trade on someone else's
reputation. Many people confuse copyrights and trademarks, but
the two have nothing at all to do with each other.
So we'd have no problem at all if you took a picture of Moby
and used it to illustrate his article--just like the New York
Times would have no trouble using one to illustrate an article
about music. And you further have the right to disclaim your
own copyright in the picture, and anyone else could thereby use
the picture in any way that wasn't constrained by those other
problems. We just can't call our site "Moby Encyclopedia" with
his face on the front page, and neither could anyone else,
copyright or none.
Some of us are approaching 40, so truly long-term planning is not
I propose a Grand Wikipedia Reunion, to be held in San Diego on the
weekend of January 3-5, 2031, to celebrate the thirty year anniversary
A planning committee should be appointed in due time.
They're all stubs with no content, so apparantly somebody made a blank
template and put it on these pages, but there is no explanation as to
what it actually means. If someone knows anything about it maybe they
should write a short general explanation that can be pasted into each
entry to at least make it make SOME sense? Either that or delete them if
they're not needed. At present they're just as bad as a blank page
because that's essentially what they are.
Karen AKA Kajikit
You can take the dragon out of Alfandra, but you can never take Alfandra
out of the dragon (or the Kitty)...
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:
Love and huggles to all!
Does anyone have a complete genus list of Fabaceae? I'd like to taxonomize
it, but Delta (my usual mainstay when it comes to listing of genera of
flowering plants) has only a few, and Itis is incomplete (it lists Lablab,
but not Lablab lablab, nor Dolichos, which is where the lablab was moved).
Neither lists which genera are in which subfamily, which I'd like to include.
user:Kadandaly just blotted out Koyaanis Qatsi's sunflower picture with a
text file named "sunflower.jpg" because KQ had previously deleted one of
Kadandaly's illegal uploads.
It would be nice if I had the ability to determine this person IP so that I
could block it. PLEASE make this possible in the new software version.
No, I started the sunflower article myself & I'm the only one that's uploaded a pic for it--in fact I sarted the article /because/ I had a picture for it.
>And block the user too. There is no record of Kadandaly previously uploading
>a sunflower, so he's not complaining about his sunflower being overwritten
>(unless the record of K uploading a sunflower didn't get recorded; such
interesting. Well, I kept the original and the scans. :-)
I miss that feature too, where you could hover over the username and see the IP address.
>user:Kadandaly just blotted out Koyaanis Qatsi's sunflower picture with a
>text file named "sunflower.jpg" because KQ had previously deleted one of
>Kadandaly's illegal uploads.
>It would be nice if I had the ability to determine this person IP so that I
>could block it. PLEASE make this possible in the new software version.