http://xkcd.com/547/
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 2/23/09 5:31 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
Copying the Commons list.
I am interested in hosting (and running some scripts on) copies of the
commons media dump on offline regional servers for offline-reading
purposes. This is difficult without an image dump.
Awesome -- can you work with an
Its not at all clear why the english wikipedia dump or other large
dumps need to be compressed. It is far more absurd to spend hundreds
of days compressing a file than it is to spend tens of days
downloading one.
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Brion Vibber br...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On
We should all try the xkcd cure for a while : stick to short words on
this list for a week and see where it gets us. (kat, is this curt's
law? what sorts of threads are star-crossed to end this way?)SJ.
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 11:09 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
I am of the understanding that the WMF's bandwidth is very cheap.
If you want to consider costs, I think its appropriate to consider the
costs not only to the WMF but to the user. Different compression
algorithms have different encode/decode ratios but if it takes a
cluster to compress a file
David Gerard wrote:
http://xkcd.com/547/
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Love it !
___
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
I am of the understanding that the WMF's bandwidth is very cheap.
Compared to what?
If you want to consider costs, I think its appropriate to consider the
costs not only to the WMF but to the user. Different compression
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
It may in fact be much more user friendly to
simply offer an enormous text file for download because users don't
have to unpack it.
Another point, which I forgot to mention. If you have the bandwidth to kill
and just
2009/2/24 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
It may in fact be much more user friendly to
simply offer an enormous text file for download because users don't
have to unpack it.
Another point, which I forgot to mention. If
On Feb 24, 2009, at 12:52 PM, Al Tally wrote:
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 4:09 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
wrote:
http://xkcd.com/547/
- d.
Eh I'm sure this was discussed somewhere already... anyway, it
brought a ton
of new editors in, which was both good and bad (we
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/2/24 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu
wrote:
It may in fact be much more user friendly to
simply offer an enormous text file for download because
Just to be clear, your suggesting that, in lieu of a compressed dump,
people who want the full history of the english wikipedia should use
Special:Export to download it, article by article?
Its a truly awful idea.
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Feb
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
Just to be clear, your suggesting that, in lieu of a compressed dump,
people who want the full history of the english wikipedia should use
Special:Export to download it, article by article?
No, I wasn't suggesting it as
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
Just to be clear, your suggesting that, in lieu of a compressed dump,
people who want the full history of the english wikipedia should use
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 2:55 PM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu
wrote:
Just to be clear, your suggesting that, in lieu of a compressed dump,
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 2:55 PM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu
wrote:
Just to
In community draft, there is a proposal of an alternative language policy.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy/Community_draft
And there is a section of Simple English projects at the discussion page:
2009/2/24 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
What's the average ratio of CPU-seconds to download seconds for an article?
Surely a single machine could handle thousands of simultaneous
screen-scrapers doing this 24/7. I don't buy it.
I don't know, but people are asked not to crawl the entire site
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 2:55 PM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Feb 24,
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 3:12 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 2:55 PM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 3:17 PM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
Afaik, it's fully open on all the wikis except enwiki (according to the
admin log).
However, I've yet to find any place in CommonSettings or InitialiseSettings
that
changes it from the default. It's no so much a bug as it
since that is the most recent xkcd, you may be thinking of the recent
http://xkcd.com/545/ Neutrality Schmeutrality
or http://xkcd.com/214/ The Problem with Wikipedia
or http://xkcd.com/446/ in Popular Culture
not to mention the classic http://xkcd.com/285/ Wikipedian protestor
On Tue, Feb
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
Its not at all clear why the english wikipedia dump or other large
dumps need to be compressed. It is far more absurd to spend hundreds
of days compressing a file than it is to spend tens of days
downloading one.
Faulty
Hoi,
When the use case of the Simple Wikipedia is better understood, it may even
make room for more simple projects as in simple projects in the biggest
languages.
Thanks.,
GerardM
2009/2/25 Cary Bass c...@wikimedia.org
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Brian Salter-Duke wrote:
However my central
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Gerard Meijssen
gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi,
When the use case of the Simple Wikipedia is better understood, it may even
make room for more simple projects as in simple projects in the biggest
languages.
Thanks.,
GerardM
If anyone is
Why not make the uncompressed dump available as an Amazon Public
Dataset? http://aws.amazon.com/publicdatasets/
You can already find DBPedia and FreeBase there. Its true that the
uncompressed dump won't fit on a commercial drive (the largest is a
4-platter 500GB = 2TB drive). Cloud computing
Brian wrote:
Why not make the uncompressed dump available as an Amazon Public
Dataset? http://aws.amazon.com/publicdatasets/
You can already find DBPedia and FreeBase there. Its true that the
uncompressed dump won't fit on a commercial drive (the largest is a
4-platter 500GB = 2TB drive).
A dump with just the article namespace would be grossly incomplete.
Much important information about the validity of the contents is on the
discussion pages. But not only there. Other discussions on articles have
been held on user talk pages. Missing these out would greatly hamper any
judgement
28 matches
Mail list logo
