On 16/08/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
How much do the combined Wikimedia servers serve? What would happen if all the Wikimedia sites were redirected to the BBC for a day?
I don't think the new colo has a traffic meter, but before the June 7 move peak was about 120Mb/s, around 1/100th of the BBC's peak, so we'd have no effect whatsoever. (In terms of traffic, we get about half: http://traffic.alexa.com/graph?w=640&h=480&r=6m&y=r&u=wikipe... . Bear in mind the BBC has much more multimedia on their site than us, hence the disproportionally high data flow for them.)
It's like [[WP:BEANS]] - now that someone has tried, everyone else will too.
I don't know. One incident is news worthy. A second is "Already been done. Goodbye" from the point of view of the media.
They are abusing our site for corporate gain! Surely we have every right to block them! They at least owe us an apology for misusing our resources like this.
Our top priority has to be coming away from this without harming our - or Jimbo's personal - reputation. Making big claims which could hit the media without a high level of proof wouldn't be a Good Thing.
Well, if they want to violate [[WP:POINT]], we can disrupt them back. To quote [[meta:Bash]]: You can, however, disrupt Encarta to make a point. I don't see why the same shouldn't hold for anyone who corporate entities who do the same to us.
Besides, if the BBC has 20,000+ employees on their side, how many more users do we have on *our* side? With the powers of Wikipedia and Slashdot combined...
Remember we only have a few hundred active editors on any one day. The BBC's web infrastructure is extremely powerful - our is nothing in comparison, and in turn /. is nothing compared to us!
Anyway two wrongs don't make a right.
Dan