[Foundation-l] [Wiki-research-l] Wikipedia dumps downloader

Platonides platonides at gmail.com
Tue Jun 28 20:28:24 UTC 2011

emijrp wrote:
> Hi;
> @Derrick: I don't trust Amazon.

I disagree. Note that we only need them to keep a redundant copy of a 
file. If they tried to tamper the file we could detect it with the 
hashes (which should be properly secured, that's no problem).

I'd like having the hashes for the xml dumps content instead of the 
compressed one, though, so it could be easily stored with better 
compression without weakening the integrity check.

> Really, I don't trust Wikimedia
> Foundation either. They can't and/or they don't want to provide image
> dumps (what is worst?).

Wikimedia Foundation has provided image dumps several times in the past, 
and also rsync3 access to some individuals so that they could clone it.
It's like the enwiki history dump. An image dump is complex, and even 
less useful.

> Community donates images to Commons, community
> donates money every year, and now community needs to develop a software
> to extract all the images and packed them,

There's no *need* for that. In fact, such script would be trivial from 
the toolserver.

> and of course, host them in a permanent way. Crazy, right?

WMF also tries hard to not lose images. We want to provide some 
redundance on our own. That's perfectly fine, but it's not a 
requirement. Consider that WMF could be automatically deleting page 
history older than a month, or images not used on any article. *That* 
would be a real problem.

> @Milos: Instead of spliting image dump using the first letter of
> filenames, I thought about spliting using the upload date (YYYY-MM-DD).
> So, first chunks (2005-01-01) will be tiny, and recent ones of several
> GB (a single day).
> Regards,
> emijrp

I like that idea since it means the dumps are static. They could be 
placed in tape inside a safe and not needed to be taken out unless data 
loss arises.

More information about the foundation-l mailing list