Brion,
Thanks for discovering the link cache bug. It's not everyone who has the humility to admit the existence of a mistake, but you have consistently shown the willingness to speak frankly to the Wikipedia community about the true state of the software which fuels the world's largest wikiwiki.
I have no doubt that you and the other developers will be able to straighten out this snag. Just call it a worm and sic that "brilliant" early bird, Tim Starling on it!
Ed Poor
Well, just to be clear, I have to confess that brion this time admitted to one of my bugs. What can I say, "it worked in testing".
As brion said, however, I'm working on a better way to rebuild the link tables. I believe this approach to rebuilding the tables will allow us to iteratively repair it article by article over the course of several days, without any down time.
/E23
Poor, Edmund W Edmund.W.Poor-at-abc.com |wikipedia| wrote:
Brion,
Thanks for discovering the link cache bug. It's not everyone who has the humility to admit the existence of a mistake [...]
On Nov 25, 2003, at 11:39, E23 wrote:
Well, just to be clear, I have to confess that brion this time admitted to one of my bugs. What can I say, "it worked in testing".
My bug, your bug... They're all _our_ bugs, comrade! :D
As brion said, however, I'm working on a better way to rebuild the link tables. I believe this approach to rebuilding the tables will allow us to iteratively repair it article by article over the course of several days, without any down time.
Which would be totally awesome.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003, E23 wrote:
As brion said, however, I'm working on a better way to rebuild the link tables. I believe this approach to rebuilding the tables will allow us to iteratively repair it article by article over the course of several days, without any down time.
That would be doubleplusgood also for converting the wikipedias still on the old UseModWiki to the PhaseIII software - there are quite a lot of them, and some are getting quite large. Unless I'm totally misunderstanding the way wiki software works :-)
Ciao, Alfio
Hi all,
Can you please reactivate external pictures for "user", "talk" and "meta" namespaces?
I fully agree the deactivation of external pictures for articles, but it was very useful especially for talk pages to show a picture and discuss it. The fact only local pictures can be rendering stimulate people to copy non encyclopaedic pictures on the servers. This is a problem for me.
If you don't reactivate external pictures, please give the reason.
Aoineko
On Nov 26, 2003, at 06:15, Guillaume Blanchard wrote:
I fully agree the deactivation of external pictures for articles, but it was very useful especially for talk pages to show a picture and discuss it. The fact only local pictures can be rendering stimulate people to copy non encyclopaedic pictures on the servers. This is a problem for me.
If you don't reactivate external pictures, please give the reason.
Well, I'll just point out that you can _link_ to a picture just fine. People can click the link and look at it, so I don't think it really harms _discussion_.
On the other hand, we do end up with people uploading pictures of their cats/buddies/etc to stick on their user pages, which clutters things up. On the other other hand, many people don't have (or don't know how to use) a web-accessible space where they can upload pictures and then link to them, and they'd likely continue using the wiki's upload space for this stuff.
Enabling external pictures pose the slight privacy risk of exposing people to 'web bugs' so an external site can track which IP addresses have visited a certain page, though perhaps this is minor.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Well, I'll just point out that you can _link_ to a picture just fine. People can click the link and look at it, so I don't think it really harms _discussion_.
I can't imagine the logo contest discussion we had on the French Wikipedia without the possibility to show pictures on discuss pages (unless copying all files on server).
On the other hand, we do end up with people uploading pictures of their cats/buddies/etc to stick on their user pages, which clutters things up. On the other other hand, many people don't have (or don't know how to use) a web-accessible space where they can upload pictures and then link to them, and they'd likely continue using the wiki's upload space for this stuff.
So what to do?
If copying non encyclopedic pictures on the server is not a problem we effectively don't need to be able to show external pictures on talk/user/meta pages. In fact, I suppose it is not really difficult to only add to a static version (ex: DVD) only files linked in articles.
Enabling external pictures pose the slight privacy risk of exposing people to 'web bugs' so an external site can track which IP addresses have visited a certain page, though perhaps this is minor.
Good point. Personally I don't care to be tracked, but if you think it's important, I agree.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Thank to your answer.
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org