Having the process run in the background (part of the job queue? Not sure if that’s a good idea or not; grab a developer for that perhaps.) seems fine to me. We have pages which sit for a long time without being touched, so having old measures of trust is not a great idea. Perhaps it should be recalculated when the cache is purged? (or rather, every time the page is served not-from-cache) But that might be too much load.

I suppose I should point out I am not a programmer, so technical details are far beyond me for the most part.

Mike

From: wikiquality-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikiquality-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Luca de Alfaro
Sent: August 27, 2008 3:39 PM
To: Wikimedia Quality Discussions
Subject: Re: [Wikiquality-l] WikiTrust v2 released: reputationandtrustforyour wiki in real-time!

Regarding the issue of long-untouched pages:

1) are there some statistics, in mediawiki, that allow a process to check how many times a page has been accessed? I can of course add a new hook and a db table, but it may not work due to caching, and as this would run for every hit, I don't want to increase load.

2) The best way to add this reconsideration of long-unchanged pages is to implement it as a batch process, i.e., not run from apache. This would mean that the job can be run as a cron job, or as a daemon, or something like that, in the background, at low enough rate not to cause trouble. Does this approach sound satisfactory to you?

Oh, and what is en.labs?

Luca

On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 2:42 AM, mike.lifeguard <mike.lifeguard@gmail.com> wrote:

Well, en.labs would be best, as it is a site for testing :D But yes, English Wikibooks is a good candidate once we have explored the issue of long-untouched pages (ie the trust should be recalculated, I think)

Mike

From: wikiquality-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikiquality-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Luca de Alfaro
Sent: August 26, 2008 10:59 PM
To: Wikimedia Quality Discussions
Subject: Re: [Wikiquality-l] WikiTrust v2 released: reputation andtrustforyour wiki in real-time!

Yes, I fully agree.
We should start on a small project where people are interested.
We can consider the bigger wikis later, once we are confident that we like it and it works the way we want.
I was citing Enwiki just to discuss potential performance.
Ian and I can help with advice etc anyone who wants to try this out.
Luca

On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 6:54 PM, Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 9:42 PM, mike.lifeguard

<mike.lifeguard@gmail.com> wrote:

>>even on the English Wikipedia (5 edits / second at most?) a single CPU
>> would suffice

But why start so large? Pick a smaller test wiki first like, say,
en.wikibooks? We can throw that into the queue of things we want
installed down at WB.

--Andrew Whitworth

_______________________________________________
Wikiquality-l mailing list
Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l