On Talk:Main Page there is a comment about giving modification rights on the main page to more people, now that Larry's participation is sporadic (and Jimbo's always was). It is getting rather out of date, and I'm sure there are a few other folks we can trust not to screw it up too badly.
If there are no objections, I propose that we give it out on the same basis as we did on the old software -- pretty much anybody who asks gets access to the admin features, with a promise not to use it for ill, which means basically don't delete page histories.
--Jimbo
lcrocker@nupedia.com wrote:
On Talk:Main Page there is a comment about giving modification rights on the main page to more people, now that Larry's participation is sporadic (and Jimbo's always was). It is getting rather out of date, and I'm sure there are a few other folks we can trust not to screw it up too badly.
[Wikipedia-l] To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
At 01:55 PM 3/20/02 -0800, lcrocker@nupedia.com wrote:
On Talk:Main Page there is a comment about giving modification rights on the main page to more people, now that Larry's participation is sporadic (and Jimbo's always was). It is getting rather out of date, and I'm sure there are a few other folks we can trust not to screw it up too badly.
In a related subject, I'm also wondering about the "page titles to be deleted" listing. When was the last time someone with admin access went through the ones listed and cleaned out the derserving?
And when is the page link database going to get updated, so that the Orphans, Pages That Link Here, and Most Wanted pages will again be useful? Last I saw on the bug report page: "We introduced new separate tables for the linking information, but they were only filled with a tiny fraction of the actual links. This is mainly due to me not telling Jimbo clearly enough what he should do. I've given him new instructions now and hopefully Jimbo gets around soon to redo the procedure soon. Apologies for the inconvenience. --Jan Hidders 2002 Feb 27 "
Not meaning to sound demanding, of course, but that particular bit of housekeeping is starting to get in the way of some of the stuff I've been doing.
-- "Let there be light." - Last words of Bomb #20, "Dark Star"
Bryan Derksen wrote:
In a related subject, I'm also wondering about the "page titles to be deleted" listing. When was the last time someone with admin access went through the ones listed and cleaned out the derserving?
A while, I'm sure! I don't have time to do it.
This is one of those potentially controversial areas... we've had people get into fights about it, in the past, and I don't like fighting. The idea was bandied about, and I like it, that deleting a page might not need to delete the history, so that although deleting a page IS a big deal, it isn't irreversible.
So we could let admins delete pages on the page titles to be deleted page, but we'd want to set strong (social) policy that this is to be used only as a technical housekeeping function, not as a tool for battle. :-)
Last I saw on the bug report page: "We introduced new separate tables for the linking information, but they were only filled with a tiny fraction of the actual links. This is mainly due to me not telling Jimbo clearly enough what he should do. I've given him new instructions now and hopefully Jimbo gets around soon to redo the procedure soon. Apologies for the inconvenience. --Jan Hidders 2002 Feb 27 "
Not meaning to sound demanding, of course, but that particular bit of housekeeping is starting to get in the way of some of the stuff I've been doing.
Well, I'm not sure what the status is on this. :-(
One problem was that there was a script that needed to be run zillions of times over and over from the web. A commandline tool would be a lot better, because I could just open a window, run it, and come back hours later when it is done.
On mer, 2002-03-20 at 13:57, Jimmy Wales wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Last I saw on the bug report page: "We introduced new separate tables for the linking information, but they were only filled with a tiny fraction of the actual links. This is mainly due to me not telling Jimbo clearly enough what he should do. I've given him new instructions now and hopefully Jimbo gets around soon to redo the procedure soon. Apologies for the inconvenience. --Jan Hidders 2002 Feb 27 "
Not meaning to sound demanding, of course, but that particular bit of housekeeping is starting to get in the way of some of the stuff I've been doing.
Well, I'm not sure what the status is on this. :-(
One problem was that there was a script that needed to be run zillions of times over and over from the web. A commandline tool would be a lot better, because I could just open a window, run it, and come back hours later when it is done.
Run as "php rebuildLinks.php". I've just checked in a fix to CVS that disables the execution time limit and goes for all entries by default, so it'll take as long as it needs without timing out.
I'll try tweaking the wiki conversion script to import the old usemod article histories similarly painlessly.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org