Splitting out the table was just a wild guess on how it could be done on
another computer.
If you come up with working ideas it is no problem for me how you do it
as long as it is a viable solution for use on Wikipedia.
Note also that it is _some_ interest in this at no.wp, not a huge
_we_want_this_ -type of choir! ;)
I think it is one of several interesting tools to check edits. The most
interesting part is perhaps that it can be used to show to the general
public whats trustworthy and whats not. Perhaps an article can be set in
a state (stable versions) where additions that is not within a given
limit will be visible. Then it can be added handles to those specific
additions that let users easilly change them. Thus, we enable the common
reader to interact easilly with vandalized content while the correct
content are only available through ordinary editing, thereby exposing
the vandals to an even more harsh environment than before.
John
Luca de Alfaro skrev:
Hi John,
1) Splitting the tables to another database: this can be done. But
note that when I compute the coloring, I need access also to the
standard tables (e.g. to read the revision text to analyze). Do you
think this is high priority for you? We can certainly done it in, I
guess, a couple of hours of coding.
2) Splitting the computation altogether to another server. Let me
consider what "computation" is. There are three kinds of computation.
a) The computation to "catch up with the past" i.e. color the existing
revisions of a wiki. This is by far the heaviest load. This can (and
I argue should) be done on a separate machine provided of course the
machine has access to the db(s). I can add some way of throttling
down the computation, so that the db access does not become too much.
b) The computation to analyze an edit. This is proportional to the n.
of edits, not hits, so unless you get at least 1 edit / second, you
don't need to worry.
c) The computation to serve a trust-colored page. This is a bit
difficult to split to another server, as this is done via php hooks
that are supposed to run on the same machine. The coloring is
performed by reading a different version of a page (from a different
db table), and doing a bit of html processing to it. I don't think
the load is much larger than serving a normal page; we need some testing.
So I propose that I add some way of avoiding the db being accessed too
often while "catching up with the past". Let me know if I should
separate the wikitrust tables in a different db. Would you think
these two measures are enough?
Luca
2008/8/27 John Erling Blad <john.erling.blad(a)jeb.no
<mailto:john.erling.blad@jeb.no>>
Anyhow, it seems like there are some interest at
no.wikipedia.org
<http://no.wikipedia.org>, but
we do have a traffic load even if its not one of the main wikis. Its
about 10-100 000 hits each hour.
Is it possible to split out the tables to another database? That
way it
isn't going to impact the overall performance. Also, is it possible to
completly split out the preprocessing?
John
mike.lifeguard skrev:
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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
<mailto:wikiquality-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org>
[mailto: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(a)gmail.com <mailto:wknight8111@gmail.com>
<mailto:wknight8111@gmail.com <mailto:wknight8111@gmail.com>>> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 9:42 PM, mike.lifeguard
<mike.lifeguard(a)gmail.com <mailto:mike.lifeguard@gmail.com>
<mailto:mike.lifeguard@gmail.com
<mailto: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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
<mailto:Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
<mailto:Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org
<mailto:Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Wikiquality-l mailing list
Wikiquality-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
<mailto:Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
_______________________________________________
Wikiquality-l mailing list
Wikiquality-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
<mailto:Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Wikiquality-l mailing list
Wikiquality-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l