-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
geni wrote:
On 11/9/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
geni wrote:
<snip>
Actually, given the number of customisations that have been carried out to our wikis, I'm not entirely sure that the results would be valid. We need the exact same conditions with only 1 variable changed (the presence of the validation feature) for the results to be valid in any way.
If we were looking at wether it would be a bulk server hog I think we could get away with that. Hardwear setups would be more of an issue but even limited data is better than none
I was thinking more in terms of "given the number of extensions that have already been applied, will adding validation break them, be broken by them, or cause the whole thing to crash?" However I am reasonably certain that the devs have made sure this is not the case.
What I'm not convinced about is the complex server structure...
Given that Commons has traditionally been a place of innovation and trying out new features, why not start there?
Because rateing the kind of material they have there doesn't make a hudge amount of sense. If we wanted to test it on a smaller wikimedia project then one of the non english wikipedias would be most logical. Which one would depend on the size of test you wanted to carry out.
Actually that was a pretty stupid statement of me to make. Commons has done quite a few things wrt. multilingualism (cf. Babel) but in terms of actually getting content out there and available, de: has been the leader (cf. the DVD and such).
So: should we ask the de: community what they think? Try it out over there?
- -- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales