Wikitech-l June 2008

wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org

86 participants
91 discussions

Re: [Wikitech-l] [Foundation-l] iPhone Application
by Casey Brown 12 Jun '08

12 Jun '08

On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Deni Symonds <symode09(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Hey everyone! > > > > I was just wondering how you think we could try and get an iPhone application developed. I think the best way would be > to hold a competition and, then try and get apple to donate a macbook > or iPod touch or something to the winner. Apple has incorporated > Wikipedia's incorporation into OSX in the past and I think it would have a similar position with the iPhone. What do you think? > > cheers > > brown_cat > > See <http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Mobile_browser_testing> and I think Wikitech-l (CC'ed) would probably be more help than Foundation-l in this. -- Casey Brown Cbrown1023 --- Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to this address will probably get lost.

2 1

having trouble building off-line mirror of Wiktionary, can't download all images w/ wikix
by Bryan Berry 12 Jun '08

12 Jun '08

Can anyone tell me an easy way to download all of the images and audio files for Wiktionary? I am trying to set up an off-line english wiktionary for an OLPC pilot school in Nepal. I have used wikix so far but it doesn't catch everything. suggestions? any help would be very much appreciated. thank -- Bryan W. Berry Systems Engineer OLE Nepal, http://www.olenepal.org

1 0

Protocol relative URLs
by Gregory Maxwell 11 Jun '08

11 Jun '08

Anyone here have any experience with protocol relative URLs, that is URLs of the form "//some.domain.org/file.ext"? URLs of this form are uncommon but appear compliant with RFC 1808. A possible application of protocol relative URLs for MediaWiki is that they could be used remove the problem of needing duplicate parsings of pages containing external (and cross-domain) links in order to support HTTPS. With that issue out of the way the only impediment to high performance SSL is connection setup which can be addressed with dedicated crypto cards or crypto enhanced CPUs like Ultrasparc T1/T2. I've confirmed protocol relatives they work in the browsers I have ready access to. Googling around I found http://nedbatchelder.com/blog/200710/httphttps_transitions_and_relative_url… which claims "The HTML 2 spec references RFC 1808 which describes this behavior, and was written in 1995. I know this syntax works in IE6, IE7, FF2, and Safari 2 and 3. I don't know of any browsers in which it doesn't work." Anyone here have practical experience with URLs of this form?

2 3

Re: [Wikitech-l] TorBlock extension enabled
by Thatcher131 Wikipedia 11 Jun '08

11 Jun '08

>From: David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> >Date: 2008/6/5 >Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] TorBlock extension enabled >To: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> > > >2008/6/5 Tim Starling <tstarling(a)wikimedia.org>: >> Andrew Garrett wrote: > >>> The TorBlock extension will override local IP blocks to provide a >>> consistent treatment of tor. > >> I've disabled this behaviour for now, so that we can have a more orderly >> phase-in period with community discussion. Admin blocks of Tor exit nodes >> will continue to work. The new protections which have been introduced will >> also work, and so Tor anonymous users on the English Wikipedia will >> typically see two block messages. > > >Thanks for holding off on this :-) > >I've asked the other checkusers concerned about this to post useful >information to wikitech-l about what we actually see in practice on >en:wp (buckets of toxic waste through Tor, the fabulously illustrative >case of Runcorn concerning softblocks, etc), so as to supply the devs >with good info. I don't have the records to do a statistically valid analysis of the use of Tor by sockpuppets and vandals as compared to other types of proxies. I'm sure that the new extension, which amounts to global "firm" blocking of Tor exits (more than a soft block but less than a hard block) will cut down on the use of Tor by casual or lazy vandals. However, the firm block would not address the problem of determined abusive users using proxies to conceal their activities. The two most prominent cases that come to mind are Poetlister (whose sock Runcorn downgraded blocks on Tor exits so that her other socks could use them) and Mantanmoreland, who created a second account that exclusively used proxies in order to avoid checkuser confirmation. Or see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Fantevd, where a nominally good user with 6000 edits was found to be running a sock farm via open proxies, ultimately involving 24 accounts with 3000 edits to Both of these accounts caused significant disruption and drama. Blocking all proxies that exit to Wikipedia could potentially prevent similar future situations, but not if all the puppetmaster has to do is to keep a low profile for 90 days. And at least on enwiki, the "moral" reason for softblocking Tor exits (to allow people to edit from repressive locations, etc) has been voided by the enabling of the IP block exemption. Gmaxwell correctly pointed out in an email to checkuser-L that if Tor exits are hardblocked, smart puppetmasters will use other proxies. True, but we can block those proxies. We *can't* block Tor exits, at least if the override behavior is in place. In fact, with the override enabled, the new extension will actually *encourage* sockpuppeteers to use Tor, because it will guarantee they will always be able to edit as long as they have the patience to wait for their socks to be autoconfirmed. They will no longer run the risk of enrolling in a commercial anonymizing service only to discover that we have blocked it. I think this extension is a great idea and I thank all the volunteers who worked on it, but I think the override is a very bad idea. Thatcher

15 37

Re: [Wikitech-l] [MediaWiki-CVS] SVN: [36018] trunk/extensions/TorBlock
by Simetrical 11 Jun '08

11 Jun '08

On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 6:48 AM, <werdna(a)svn.wikimedia.org> wrote: > +// Define new autopromote condition > +define('APCOND_TOR', 'tor'); // Numbers won't work, we'll get collisions Speaking of which, is there any reason for us to ever use named constants like APCOND_TOR rather than just strings? This isn't C, after all. I think it would be wise to deprecate such things for the future and just use strings, arrays of them if necessary, as with wfMsgExt() and similar. (Although in this particular case a named constant might be better, to be consistent with the already-established core conditions.)

2 2

Re: [Wikitech-l] [Toolserver-l] A blog comment.
by Platonides 11 Jun '08

11 Jun '08

I'm Ccing Wikitech, i suggest we follow this thread there. Nikola Smolenski wrote: > (thread about interwiki bots at toolserver) > > Coincidentally, yesterday I released a MediaWiki extension which, if > accepted on Wikimedia projects, may make interwiki bots much less busy. > See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/A_newer_look_at_the_interwiki_link It also works by manual writing of the interwikis. I don't think it's the good way. *You're not taking into account page moves. What will you do when a page is moved? (by a low tech user which knows nothing about the global wiki) *The articles will still have a 'preferred' title at the interwiki wiki. That means discussing about article titles, "Move to English name", "No, that's not", "Interwikis with pages on Chinese are ugly!"... IMHO it should be a shared table referencing the wiki and page ids. Then you provide a Special page showing all pages on that group. You'd reference it as 'include this page into the group XX:sometitle is on'. You can also provide some space for free-form commenting (such as explaining the difference with another page). Obviously, all of that must be properly logged, which with SUL should be much easier.

1 0

On message output format types
by Brion Vibber 11 Jun '08

11 Jun '08

As is well known, we're still a bit inconsistent and confusing about what format various localized messages come in. Some are to be formatted as plain text; some as wiki text; some as raw HTML. Some are plain text, but get wiki constructs tossed in as a preprocess step to support the plural-alternate function. But what we do know is that things get ugly when messages *change* format -- customized messages in use on live sites break. One that's been changed back and forth several times lately has been 'linkstoimage', used in the file links section on Image: description pages. English Wikipedia uses a customized <div> wrapper with an id in there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Linkstoimage but it's been broken several times on the assumption that the message should be output as plaintext because the default text has no markup in it. The most recent breakage was in r36139, changing it from wikitext to plaintext with wikitext preprocessing, apparently in order to support {{PLURAL}}.... which shouldn't even be necessary at all; it should work fine with $wgOut->addWikiMsg as is! :) The change caused the "<div>" tag to be literally displayed in page output as plain text. I've reverted the change temporarily so things will work as before until a proper update to the message and the message calls can be done. At a minimum, one should check what format is really being used by the current code. When considering changing it, doing a quick survey of existing usage is strongly recommended. Wikipedians are notorious for using software facilities in ways we didn't expect! ;) If it's *really* necessary to change formats in a way that could likely break (for instance, from HTML to wikitext or plaintext, or wikitext to plaintext, etc), the message key name should be changed. This prevents incompatible customizations from being incorrectly displayed. The same goes when changing parameters or the places a message gets used; if the old version or a reasonably customized version of it doesn't make sense in the new system, it has to be changed. In this case, the message doesn't need to change format in order to gain the extra capability (this is already built in to the wikitext display) and the extra parameters used for the {{PLURAL:}} won't have any negative effect on an old customized version in wikitext, so it doesn't need to be renamed as long as the code retains the format. -- brion

2 3

Parser cache corruption - FlaggedRevs vs DumpHTML
by Brion Vibber 10 Jun '08

10 Jun '08

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Just a quick note -- we encountered an interesting bit of cache pollution today, where an article on de.wikipedia.org was reported as having bogus article links URLs in the form used by the DumpHTML static dumps. This was unexpected, as DumpHTML disables $wgEnableParserCache while it's working; it thus shouldn't save anything to the parser cache. This may have been caused by some overaggressive parser-cache work in FlaggedRevisions, which Aaron has fixed by adding a $wgEnableParserCache check to FlaggedRevs::updatePageCache(). It's possible some bad pages remain in cache; they can be flushed with an ?action=purge or null edit. (If it's safe to do an epoch update or something to force them all out, we could try to do that just in case, but we've had only one report of a bad entry so far.) - -- brion -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkhPFrIACgkQwRnhpk1wk47ysACcD5FxH2GM95l1HFRLPYibkUAD OngAoK7kNZj9j04rW+lCozCPnZdbdHo6 =qXXH -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 1

Bug 14443
by Max Semenik 09 Jun '08

09 Jun '08

(https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14443) I tried to ask on #wikimedia-tech, but received no reply. Can someone look up server logs for indication what's failing? Thanks. -- Max Semenik ([[User:MaxSem]])

1 0

loading of extensions in 1.12 slow?
by Travis (wikiHow) 09 Jun '08

09 Jun '08

Hi, We're in the process of upgrading from 1.9 to 1.12 (I know I know I know...), and it seems that the including of extensions is taking a long time. Profile from 1.9: 26.449 WebStart.php-conf 24.659 Setup.php 1.362 Setup.php-includes 2.117 Setup.php-misc1 1.020 Setup.php-memcached 0.570 Setup.php-SetupSession 0.117 Setup.php-globals 0.052 Setup.php-User 0.017 Setup.php-misc2 18.543 Setup.php-extensions Seems fast, but 1.12: 594.761 WebStart.php-conf 0.012 WebStart.php-ob_start 207.409 Setup.php 50.838 Setup.php-includes 8.691 Setup.php-misc1 6.780 __autoload 9.632 Setup.php-memcached 0.685 __autoload 0.564 Setup.php-SetupSession 0.197 Setup.php-globals 0.046 Setup.php-User 0.023 Setup.php-misc2 128.051 Setup.php-extensions This is pretty slow. It seems like for WebStart, having multiple inclusions like this: require_once('extensions/wikihow/SpecialThankAuthors.php'); slows things down. Has something changed, or did we miss flipping a switch in the upgrade? What about Setup.php, does that have the same issue? Thanks, Travis

4 9

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Older →

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

Wikitech-l June 2008