It is worse now than it was during the Slashdotting especially with Konqueror.
Sometimes all I get for hours are timeouts.
Does this have anything to do with the new table structures Brion installed a
few days ago? Everything was working fine before then.
I hope this mail won't get more nerve.
>Generally, give higher exposure to the open source side of
>Most people who come to the Wikipedia project simply don't
do so from a
>software development perspective, so we need to highlight
more that this
>side exists as well.
I agree. If you remember, isn't it good idea to rename
wikipedia software *or* set up a independent wiki for it?
>We need to make the Wikipedia-code Wikipedia-independent.
That is exactly what I meant before (but not all though). If
wikipedia software becomes more independent, it makes more
sense to seprate development process from meta-wikipedia.
But it is not necessary to prohibit discussion in meta-
wikipedia about the development. I am imagining of UseMod.
(I bet no one advocates all of my ideas are wrong because I
am ignorant, which I admit)
>The fact that with OpenFacts there will soon be another
>specifically for open source documentation should also help
>attracting new developers.
What are OpenFacts?
I don't aim to discuss which one is better CVS or wiki.
First of all, again I am not so sure developing in wiki
works. Some think it won't work and some (including me, only
me?) think it might.
But think of the reality. Don't we need better mechanism for
development? Wiki might not work I know that. But I am not
Why don't we try? Is there any technical trouble to publish
wikipedia software sourcecode? It seems to me that it is
possible to publish sourcecode and some sysops apply them
regularly. If it didn't yield good result, it doesn't hurt
Oh, maybe am I only one who believes development in wiki
might work? If so, I should do that in my own.
>> Probably. If meta is the place only for those who are
>> interested in development and administration, I would
>> to participate in meta.
>The best place for discussion of development and
>technical aspects, is right here on wikitech-l.
What about the rest of stuff? Like documentation, testing,
bug reports and so on. Sourceforge?
I understand CVS seems better than wiki. Does anyone give
the opinion that the bug reports system of sourceforge is
better than meta-wikipedia. If I remember, there is none. I
would like to move bug reports in sourceforge to meta-wiki
I probably am going to post more detailed documents to meta-
wikipedia. (and hopefully more people will help
I know my proposal is not good enough, what else we can do
to encourage more people to partipicate development?
>> I agree. If you remember, isn't it good idea to rename
>> wikipedia software *or* set up a independent wiki for it?
>Rename - ... But please, no endless name debate on
wikitech. This is
>exactly what meta is for.
I will post a question to meta-wikipedia. Or how about the
main wikipedia maining list? I would like to conduct
discussion in the place other than meta-wikipedia (Yeah,
consider this is my preference)
>One advantage of the Wikipedia name is that it might make
>willing to participate. "Oh, the Wikipedia wiki? Sure, I'd
love to help
>with that." But I don't know how strong that argument is.
I'm not opposed
>to a name change.
Is there any objection to rename the wikipedia software so
>Independent wiki - I don't really see the point. Meta
works, we just need
>to define it properly (for the record, I absolutely
encourage you to clean
>it up, and I don't think it should be used for personal
I don't think either we need an independt wiki as long as
meta is dedicated to its meta purpose.
I will post a proposal to the main wikipedia regarding this.
>If you can't convince people to clean up Meta, ask me for
>> What are OpenFacts?
>Wikipedia-like wiki specifically for open source
>maintenance. Will probably be officially launched next
week. There will
>also be Wikipedia-based wikis for two other projects I'm
Why don't we add some hooks in our CVS setup to post a message to this
list whenever something is committed? Honestly, I don't care about
what is committed, but it seems that plenty of people are upset that
changes are occuring without them knowing.
Do we have that sort of CVS access at sourceforge? We had something
sort of like that set up back in the day at Nupedia (all commits were
written to a page that Larry, who started it all, could look at and
decide whether or not he could run his "install all this stuff" script
to update the site).
Just a thought, feel free to ignore it.
"Jason C. Richey" <jasonr(a)bomis.com>
>I understand that you want to see if it works. That's
>reasonable. However, you are asking other volunteers, who
>busy with other important things, to do something that, for
>part, they are not willing to do.
Don't you think of the possibility other people who are not
involed now are possibly willing to do?
Anyway, it seems to me that no one wants to do this kind of
debate, so just forget it.
>These pages do not disturb anyone but you. As long as
>Jimbo has room on his server, what would you remove
>pages that *you* think are personals ? Why does it
>disturb you so much that we are offered a tiny
>personal space ?
I am not sure what makes you think so. I don't remember
saying because I don't like those pages, we should delete
them. But I said we need more concrete mission about meta-
wikipedia. I think the difference is apparent.
>I don't think the encyclopedic wikis it is the right
>place really to put pov stuff on, for these are public
>places. There are no limits to povs, and I don't think
>proper that these pov positions coexist with
>supposingly neutral articles. For readers could find
>them pretty easily and wonder over them.
I too do think some people need to put their pov stuff. Then
again why do we have to put pov stuff and other totally
different materials (like documentation about wikipedia
software) togehter? And if I remember, no one answered such
a question. Those stuff are not pov but only I think they
are? I doubt it.
That is for sure that the current policy of meta-wikipedia
makes nothing but chaos. I said I would like to propose we
should put more order.
>> Yes, and doesn't it mean chaning the policy of meta-wiki?
>Hmm, it seems everything is on topic, including software
>and administration :-)
I meant if I deleted contents that are personal and not
related to development and administration, doesn't it mean I
am against the policy of meta-wiki, which says everything is
acceptable as the name meta implies?
>I guess we don't need dev.wikipedia.org but
>things people don't dare to delete completely from
wikipedia. Be bolder!
Again, if meat becomes anything but trashcan I would love to
contribute to meta. But can we do that without the
agreement? Actually, I am not only talking to Kurl but just
asking anyone who objects to clean up meta-wikipedia.