I've wrote a little thing for mediawiki. I need an open wiki where an
anonymous user can read all pages but a few ones.
I've seen there is an array called $wgWhitelistRead where you can say
what pages can be viewed when an anonymous user can not view all pages.
Thus, this is exactle tne inverse I need.
I've made a patch for includes/Title.php, that allows to view all pages
to an anonymous user but the few ones called in $wgBlacklistRead.
(the patch is from mediawiki-1.4.5, but it's easy to port, I suppose)
The diff -u outputs, if anyone thinks it may be interesting:
--- /root/paquetes/mediawiki-1.4.5/includes/Title.php 2005-05-06
05:25:43.000000000 +0200
+++ ./includes/Title.php 2005-07-28 19:13:52.000000000 +0200
@@ -858,6 +858,14 @@
global $wgUser;
if( $wgUser->isAllowed('read') ) {
+ global $wgBlacklistRead;
+
+ /** some pages are explicitly disallowed */
+ $name = $this->getPrefixedText();
+ if( in_array( $name, $wgBlacklistRead ) ) {
+ return false;
+ }
+
return true;
} else {
global $wgWhitelistRead;
and includes/DefaultSettings.php:
--- /root/paquetes/mediawiki-1.4.5/includes/DefaultSettings.php
2005-06-03 16:51:06.000000000 +0200
+++ ./includes/DefaultSettings.php 2005-07-28 19:25:21.000000000 +0200
@@ -452,6 +452,7 @@
$wgWhitelistEdit = false; # true = user must login to edit.
$wgWhitelistRead = false; # Pages anonymous user may see, like: =
array ( "Main Page", "Special:Userlogin", "Wikipedia:Help");
+$wgBlacklistRead = false; # Pages anonymous users shouldn't see
$wgWhitelistAccount = array ( 'user' => 1, 'sysop' => 1, 'developer'
=> 1 );
$wgAllowAnonymousMinor = false; # Allow anonymous users to mark
changes as 'minor'
Remember this is for mediawiki-1.4.5, and this is the first time I send
code to an open-source project
I wanted to ask for creation of pl.wikimedia.org, a Wiki which would
help the Poles to organize the work of the Polish local chapter.
Basicly, it would serve the same purpose as nl.wikimedia.org.
--
Best regards,
Dariusz "Datrio" Siedlecki
Hello,
Apologies for this being a repeat; I was just informed that the original ended
up being read as part of an existing thread.
I'd like to make a request to obtain access to anonymized apache logs for
wikipedia user data.
I am creating a browsing interface for wikipedia that requires clustered user
data
(in that sense it is akin to finding articles using the amazon recommendation
system or the earlier movielens recommendation system).
For this I need access to user page requests over time- preferably stored in a
database. I can provide a script that will translate users' ip addresses to a
unique signature so that the users themselves remain anonymous, stuff the data
into a reasonably size efficient mysql table, etc.
I was told that I might need to talk to Kate about the feasibility of doing
this. Are there any existing objections to retaining anonymized apache log data
for research purposes?
Tony Pryor
I have my MySQL database hosted with XO, and as such the user that is given
admin access to the database is not "root". I would like to know what file
I need to modify to specify a user aside from "root" when the installation
script runs.
Thank you,
Mateo E. Nares
Technical Manger
Hot Studio
415.284.7250 ext. 33
mateo(a)hotstudio.com
Salvatore writes:
>>Awesome. When you edit a verified page, do you edit the verified
>>version, or the latest version? This could be a user preference.
>
>I preferred to make the user edit the latest revision by default (that is,
>when $oldid is empty).
>This is because I wanted the verify feature not to interfere with the
>article editing (but just with article viewing).
>Of course this may be changed, and the user can still view and edit any
>version from the history.
This sounds cool; I'd envision that the "verified" version would simply be a flag set pointing at one of the versions ("oldid=") that is older than the most current, and the page would be set up to show that by default instead of the most recent change. This would show up in a page history and perhaps a user could set whether they wanted to default to the verified page or the most recent page.
This is beginnning to sound more and more like a business type "document management system" with a released version and several possible unreleased revisions... :-)
Also, this sounds like a different means to the same ends as "page validation" - not that that's a bad thing, flexibility is good! But it might make sense to take a "big picture view" and pursue these features with an eye on redundant code, what should be configurable by site and by user, and so on (sorry, much as I love the feature I haven't had time to help with the page validation code - new "real job" taking up lots of time...).
Best Regards,
Aerik
Hoi,
I had an interesting conversation with Brion. We do not agree on
everything. One of the things we do not agree on are redirects.
In my opinion, Wiktionary should not have redirects. A word is either
spelled correctly and it will have its lemma or it is not and there will
not be a lemma with the incorrect spelling.
In Brions opinion there are links to lemmas and as we need to ensure
that these links remain ok, we need redirects to make this possible.
In a Wikipedia context I am 100% with Brion. In a Wiktionary context it
is a different matter. As only correctly spelled words should be in a
Wiktionary, errors should be deleted. Some of our Wiktionaries for
historical reasons are capitalising their articles. In essence this
means that from a spelling point of view the name of the lemmas are
irrelevant. However, many people assume that the name of the article
indicates that a word is spelled correctly. To remedy this, more and
more wiktionaries are moving away from first character capitalisation
and make it possible to have correctly spelled words as a lemma.
When a wiktionary has made this move away from first character
capitalisation, the interwiki and interproject links within the
Wikimedia projects need to be fixed. After this, the redirects can in my
opinion be removed. I think this is appropriate because users expect
that an application behaves in certain ways. When new content is added
to a non-capitalised Wiktionary, the word foo will not have a redirect
in Foo and consequently it behaves differently from the content
predating the move to non-capitalisation. Also words like Kinder and
kinder are not related at all. The redirect at Kinder will be replaced
at some stage breaking the existing redirect and consequently not
providing the continuance that Brion holds dear.
For the Ultimate Wiktionary I have documented some of the design
criteria. It can be found here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_Wiktionary_decisions_on_its_usage
The Data design can be found here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_Wiktionary_data_design
One crucial decision is that only correct spelling is allowed. This
means that all incorrect spelling will be amended or deleted. As
Ultimate Wiktionary is a database, it does not cater for things like
redirects. I urge you to have a look at both the design criteria and the
design itself because this is the time when it is relatively easy to
make changes. Once Erik starts coding the UW database, having finished
Wikidata and the GEMET implementation, the moment has passed us by.
Thanks,
GerardM
Hi, I'm a newcomer to the developers group. I uploaded in the branch
SHOW_VERIFIED a modified version of MediaWiki where I added a new feature.
This wants to be an alternative to the page protection. I added a
verify/unverify button: 'verify' sets the current revision (or the one
indexed by oldid) as the verified one for that page. This means that any
user can edit the page, but the new revisions are not shown (though they can
be accessed through the hystory, where the currently 'verified' revision is
shown in bold characters) until a sysop 'verifies' it again. 'unverify', of
course, removes this protection.
If anyone wants to test it, after setting the wiki up, it's sufficient to
add "$wgEnableVerify = true;" to LocalSettings.php.
Any suggestion is welcome.
Regards,
Salvatore Ingala
Hi,
There is enough support at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages#Ladino
to make the following request:
I'd like to request the set up
of the Ladino wikis for subdomains
http://lad.wikipedia.org
and
http://lad.wiktionary.org
For this we will need the
help of the developers.
Could someone help set this
up? Last time I requested this
on the tech list there was no
response. Is there another
forum where this should be
handled? Or could we get
an idea of a due date where
we could have it ready and
available for contributions.
With sincere regards,
Jay B.
en:User:ILVI
ia:Usator:ILVI