Wikipedia was inaccessible from about 11:20 to 19:00 UTC this
evening/morning/whatever it is where you are.
The problem seems to have been triggered by a runaway database query on
the francophone wikipedia; unfortunately coming during our busiest time
of day everything just ground to a halt.
I'll try to rig up some better protection from accidents of this sort in
the future (automatic timeouts/kills for slow manual queries); in the
meantime, sysops always be careful with your queries! Treat our server
gentle, and she'll be good to you in return.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Is there any way that non-English Wikipedias could be
on a seperate server than the English one, so we
wouldn't have to feel the effects of the massive
English-language traffic killing us?
Chuck
=====
Learn Esperanto! - http://www.lernu.net/
Enciklopedio: http://eo.wikipedia.org/
___________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en français !
Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com
> > Is it possible if someone types the name of an article
> > which doesn't yet have any text that that person could
> > be sent to a search page for that topic. Thus, if I
> > type http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen, instead
> > of getting a page saying that this page doesn't exist,
> > I would instead get the search results page? Would
> > anyone else want this?
>
> I would not like it. I use this method (creating the URL of the page by
> hand) sometimes when I want to create a page and there are no links to it,
> or I am not sure.
I do this too and I would find the proposed change frustrating.
m
On Sat, 2003-03-22 at 03:34, I wrote in wikitech-l:
> Okay, experimental code is in CVS and running on test.wikipedia.org,
> please give it a thorough tryout!
>
> Caching is now enabled for all browsers except for Internet Explorer 5.0
> and earlier (which apparently have some other dreadful problems, and
> I've no means to test them).
Well, I've gotten no feedback, so either no one checked or no one had
any problems....
I've put the new client-side caching code on http://meta.wikipedia.org ,
which attracts at least some small traffic. Try it out and report any
problems, 'cause I'm going to install this soon on all languages, and if
your browser can't read any pages at all I'd prefer to hear about it
beforehand. :)
In summary:
* Should eliminate problems with red links continuing to appear after
the page is created (or blue links after the page is deleted)
* Should eliminate problems with page layout not changing to reflect
logging in or changing display preferences
* Should, *I think*, fix "reload doesn't actually reload without also
holding down control" problem with Internet Explorer
* Client-side caching should now work on other browsers than IE. Early
versions of IE (5.0 and before) are still blacklisted, as we had all
kinds of trouble trying to accommodate 5.0 and I don't want to mess it
up. ;)
Some things this update does *not* do:
* Cache pages on the server; this is only to allow your web browser to
cache a page once it's been generated for you (but still be able to
refetch automatically if it's changed when you revisit it). The
invalidation mechanisms will help make server-side page caching work
properly once it's added in the future, though.
* Allow for caching of anything other than viewing pages, history lists,
or the Recentchanges list. (Other things could be cached, though,
they're just not yet keyed for it.)
* Invalidate cached pages when you log out.
* Make a distinction between preference changes that will and won't
alter page display. (Overly aggressive in invalidating caches.)
See http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cache_strategy for more confusing
prose.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Bonjour,
Wikipedia performance are worse and worse... :o(
(I suppose that mean we are growing)
It's now lagging too much on the french Wikipedia !
It can be not a problem, but I recently lost a 30 lines articles due of a
server time-out.
I got a error message and it was impossible to comeback to my page to
retrieve my text.
I want an option to have a article insertion process in a popup windows (for
exemple selectable on the preference page).
Like this, if the server is dead or lagging a much I will got an error on
the popup windows and I keep my text on the other windows (I can save it to
a next attempt).
Please consider the problem.
Aoineko
I've been contributing to the Wikipedia with great enthusiasm for a
year now, but it is time for a break. See you later and my best to
everyone.
Tom Parmenter
Ortolan88
> http://eo.wikipedia.org/stats/
>
> Unfortunately, I haven't yet put the eo stats into
> the update queue, so
> they only go up to january at the moment. I'll get
> those updated...
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Thanks! Your rock! This is awesome...
Chuck
=====
Learn Esperanto! - http://www.lernu.net/
Enciklopedio: http://eo.wikipedia.org/
___________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en français !
Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com
On Friday 21 March 2003 10:51 am Axel wrote:
> That is a noble project, and if you stick to public domain or GFDL
> pictures, it will be much nobler still. Please familiarize yourself
> with the wealth of image resources listed under
>
> http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain_image_resources
>
> I think Jimbo's suggestion of a free photo resource site is great. It
> could work pretty much like the GIMP photo archive
>
> http://gimp-savvy.com/PHOTO-ARCHIVE/
>
> with a wiki-edited set of keywords for each photo, except it should
> allow uploading of course, and needs to keep track of the license (or
> lack thereof) and origin of each photo. Initially, we could seed the
> database with all the photos from the public domain sources. Could be a
> bit resource hungry though.
>
> Axel
This is a most excellent idea. In addition to being a home to the Foundation,
Wikimedia.org could also be the central repository of all types of resource
media files (images, sounds, videos, GIS-based maps, maybe even indexed
read-only source text documents ...) that could be used by all Wikipedia
languages, Wiktionary, "WikiTextbooks", "WikiFiction" and whatever else we
think-up. This project could be covered by the GNU-FDL by default, but IMO
the GNU-FDL is poorly suited for media files...
We can have a more extensive license discussion later but either way I would
support a license (or several licenses) that has/have the same type of
restrictions and protections as the GNU-FDL but is better-suited to media
files. And, like Wikipedia pages the license(s) could be compulsory by
default for all materials created by project contributors and uploaded to the
website.
"Fair use" media would be discouraged and could be allowed only on an interim
basis for things we could potentially produce ourselves (such as an image of
a famous building that still exists or person who is still alive). But some
things we could not obtain a new copyright to (something for which we do not
have a free media file for nor could obtain for practical reasons).
These things would have to be clearly marked as "fair use" so that any
downstream licensee for whom the use would not be fair, could easily exclude
those media files from any Wikipedia-derivative work that might make use of
the media (exact attribution would be absolutely required in order to
discourage the copying of non-free media files and to make it as easy as
possible for downstream licensees to ask the copyright holder for
permission). But the general goal of the project should be to have the
maximum amount of media under a free license.
IMO this proposed project shouldn't necessarily be limited to media files that
are already used by a Wikipedia or Wikiwhatever article. It could be a
project onto itself that Wikipedia articles could use as its media resource
(using the image and media namespaces just as we do now). This could also be
a good place to figure out some better way to more intelligently index and
add metadata to the content in order to facilitate media searches (even human
made lists would work here but we've already tried that with Wikipedia with
limited success).
And of course, if there isn't a Wikipedia/Wiktionary article that makes use of
a media file, then we would have no "fair use" claim to have that file on our
server (even then we might be on shaky ground since many people will find the
image first and not the article that makes use of the image - "fair use"
media may have to be excluded from Google indexing for this reason).
This should encourage a community of media producers to form whose goal would
be to create a "free as in libre" media resource. The only problem I see is
that it would be difficult to check for copyright violations (this may be a
very important point - esp with some newly proposed legislation and the
general insane paranoia in the media industry about file sharing). Come to
think of it, our sever may also be abused by teenage garage rock bands
looking for a distribution medium...
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
WikiKarma
The usual at [[March 17]]
PS if this project really takes off as "Wikimedia.org" then we might have to
think up yet another name for the as-yet-to-be-named Foundation in order to
avoid confusion. Sigh... I thought I had it nailed with Wikimedia. But we
could still simply think of the media file repository as a shared resource
for all Wikimedia projects (such as Wikipedia, Wiktionary...).
I've just been asked for the visitor statistics to the
Esperanto Wikipedia for an article about Esperanto
webpages. Can someone please pass this information on
to me? I asked for it several months ago and from
what I remember, no one replied.
Thanks,
Chuck
=====
Learn Esperanto! - http://www.lernu.net/
Enciklopedio: http://eo.wikipedia.org/
___________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en français !
Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com
I just did a search on Google for "Okhrana" and came up with
www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Okhrana&action=edit as the 10th hit.
But that's a link to an edit page (and for some reason one without the
"You've followed a link to a page that doesn't exist.." explanation.)
If edit pages show up in Google like this, that must really increase the
number of confused nonsense edits. (It was looking for information for a
stub to replace one of these that made me do the search in the first place.)
Isn't there some way excluding edit pages from being seen by Google?
sannse