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

Platonides platonides at gmail.com
Tue Jun 28 22:23:32 UTC 2011

emijrp wrote:
> I didn't mean security problems. I meant just deleted files by weird
> terms of service. Commons hosts a lot of images which can be
> problematic, like nudes or copyrighted materials in some jurisdictions.
> They can deleted what they want and close every account they want, and
> we will lost the backups. Period.

Good point.

> And we don't only need to keep a copy of every file. We need several
> copies everywhere, not only in the Amazon coolcloud.

Sure. Relying *just* on Amazon would be very bad.

>     Wikimedia Foundation has provided image dumps several times in the
>     past, and also rsync3 access to some individuals so that they could
>     clone it.
> Ah, OK, that is enough (?). Then, you are OK with old-and-broken XML
> dumps, because people can slurp all the pages using an API scrapper.

If all people that wants it can get it, then it's enough. Not so much in 
a timely manner, though, but that could be fixed. I'm quite confident 
that if rediris rang me tomorrow offering 20Tb for hosting commosns 
image dumps, that could be managed without too much problems.

>     It's like the enwiki history dump. An image dump is complex, and
>     even less useful.
> It is not complex, just resources consuming. If they need to buy another
> 10 TB of space and more CPU, they can. $16M were donated last year. They
> just need to put resources in relevant stuff. WMF always says "we host
> the 5th website in the world", I say that they need to act like that.
> Less useful? I hope they don't need such a useless dump for recovering
> images, just like happened in the past.

Yes, that seems sensible. You just need to convince them :)
But note that they are already making another datacenter and developing 
a system with which they would keep a copy of every upload on both of 
them. They are not so mean.

>         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.
> Ah, OK, only people with toolserver account may have access to an image
> dump. And you say it is trivial from Toolserver and very complex from
> Wikimedia main servers.

Come on. Making a script to dowload all images is trivial from the 
toolserver. It's just not so easy using the api.
The complexity is for making a dump that *anyone* can download. And it's 
just resources, not technical.

>         and of course, host them in a permanent way. Crazy, right?
>     WMF also tries hard to not lose images.
> I hope that, but we remember a case of lost images.

Yes. That's a reason for making copies, and I support that. But there's 
a difference between "failures happen" and "WMF is not trying to keep 

>     We want to provide some redundance on our own. That's perfectly
>     fine, but it's not a requirement.
> That _is_ a requirement. We can't trust Wikimedia Foundation. They lost
> images. They have problems to generate English Wikipedia dumps and image
> dumps. They had a hardware failure some months ago in the RAID which
> hosts the XML dumps, and they didn't offer those dumps during months,
> while trying to fix the crash.

> You just don't understand how dangerous is the current status (and it
> was worst in the past).

The big problem is its huge size. If it was 2MB everyone and his 
grandmother would keep a copy.

More information about the foundation-l mailing list