[Foundation-l] Fwd: Copyright problems of images from India
Dear All, I am forwarding the below mail on behalf of a Malayalam wikipedian who is very active in Wikimedia Commons. Of late it is becoming very difficult for many Wikimedians from India to contribute to Wikimedia Commons especially if they are uploading historical images which are in PD. We are facing lot of issues (and many a times unnecessary controversies also) with the historic images in PD, images of wall paintings and statues, and so on. Please see the below mail in which Sreejith citing various examples. It is almost impossible for the uploaders from India to show proof of the century old images of Hindu Gods and Goddesses. The current policies of Commons are not permitting many of the PD images from India citing all sorts of policies which might be relevant only in the western world. With these type of policies we are going to have serious issues when we try to go for GLAM type events. But I also do not know the solution for this issue. Requesting constructive discussion. Shiju Alex -- Forwarded message -- From: Sreejith K. sreejithk2...@gmail.com Date: Thu, May 5, 2011 at 12:03 PM Subject: Copyright problems of images from India To: Shiju Alex shijualexonl...@gmail.com Shiju, As you might be aware already, we are having trouble keeping historical images about India in Wikimedia commons. This pertains mostly to images about Hindu gods and people who died before 1947. Please see the below examples: - File:Narayana Guru.jpghttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Narayana_Guru.jpg - This is the image of Sree Narayana Guruhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narayana_Guru, a Hindu saint, social reformer and is even considered a god by certain castes in Kerala. This image has been tagged as an image with No source. Narayana Guru expired in 1928 and considering the conditions in which India was in during that period and before, it is very difficult to get an image source online. Most active Wikipedians does not have access or information on how old the image is or where a source of it can be found. Any photograph published before 1941 in India is in public domain as per Indian copyright act. Common sense says that this image meets this criteria because the person was long lead before 1941, but we still need proof of the first publishing date. Deleting this image on grounds that no source could be found will only reduce the informative values of all the articles which this image is included in. - File:Aravana.JPG: This image has already been deleted, but you can see the amount of discussion that went in before deleting it. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aravana.JPGhttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Aravana.JPG. (An almost similar image can be found herehttp://www.flickr.com/photos/anoopp/5706721852/in/photostream/.)This image as put for deletion because it had the image of Swami Ayyappanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swami_Ayyappanin it. Ayyappan, a popular god of Kerala, has his image circulated everywhere on the plant with no proof of copyrights. It makes sense to believe that this image is not eligible for copyright because Hindu deities are all common property, but again, Commons need proof that the image is in public domain. This is the same case with all Hindu gods/goddesses. The images can only be kept in Commons if the uploader can provide proof that the images are in public domain. - File:Kottarathil sankunni.jpghttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kottarathil_sankunni.jpg: This is a picture of Kottarathil Sankunnihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kottarathil_Sankunni, the author of the famous book Aithiyamaalahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aithihyamala. Kottarathil Sankunni died in 1937 and so it makes sense to believe that this image was created on or before 1937 and thus falls in Public Domain. But some people in Commons is refusing to believe that and is asking for proof. Now it becomes the responsibility of the uploader to show proof that this image was published 60 years before today. The editor who nominated the image for deletion is on the safer side because it is not his responsibility to prove that the image is a copyright violation. So long story short, anyone can nominate any image for copyright violation and it becomes the uploaders responsibility to prove that its not. The deletion nomination need not be accompanied with a reason for disbelief. - File:Anoop Menon.jpghttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anoop_Menon.jpg: This is the picture of Anoop Menonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anoop_Menon, a popular actor from Kerala. A discussion is going on about the uploaders credibility whether he is the original photographer of this image. Please see File talk:Anoop Menon.jpghttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Anoop_Menon.jpg. The reason for doubting the uploader is simple. This image has
[Foundation-l] Fwd: [Wikimediaindia-l] PDF rendering of Indian language wiki pages
Dear All, The following mail is about a PDF rendering solution for non-Latin scripts which is under development. One of the main reason for developing this tool is that the current *Download to PDF* option (available in the sidebar of wiki) is useless for Indic language scripts (current Download to PDF solution might not be useful for all the non-Latin scripts) I am sharing this here since the below PDF rendering solution is applicable to all the scripts (not only Indic langauge/non-latin scripts). Please mail your feedback/comment to santhosh.thottin...@gmail.com. The solution is not limited to wiki. But surely wiki users will be one of the major cosumers. Please see the below mail thread for details. Thanks Shiju -- Forwarded message -- From: Santhosh Thottingal santhosh.thottin...@gmail.com Date: Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 10:36 PM Subject: [Wikimediaindia-l] PDF rendering of Indian language wiki pages To: Discussion list on Indian language projects of Wikimedia. wikimediaindi...@lists.wikimedia.org Hi, We are working on a Complex script PDF rendering library named PyPDFLib(https://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/pypdflib/). One of its test case (or use case) is to render a wiki page in complex script(any Indian Language) to PDF. Currently PDF export feature is not available(not working) for Indian language wiki projects because of technical incapability of Python Reportlab library. Just wanted to give an early preview of this software library through an online interface : http://silpa.smc.org.in/Render You can try with a Wikipedia page in your language and verify the generated PDF. You can also access this using this URL http://silpa.smc.org.in/Render?wiki=http://ta.wikipedia.org/wiki/இலங்கை (replace that wiki URL with other page addresses too - any Ianguage - not limited to Indian languages) There are lot of items not implemented, but your feedback is requested on the current version. The library uses Pango for text rendering and Cairo for graphics and PDF features. ps: Don't get surprised if you get a 500 Error page for the random page you are trying. Just try another wiki page ;) Thanks Santhosh Thottingal http://thottingal.in ___ Wikimediaindia-l mailing list wikimediaindi...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] External links to PHP scripts
On 10/11/2010 12:48 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: I stumbled upon a link on the Talk Page of Henry Fonda (which I removed) which directs the reader to a page that contains a PHP script. That idea disturbs me, I think it should be, but I'm not sure it is, against policy. Do we have a policy that forbids or at least discourages the use of links to pages with embedded scripts? Such a policy would prohibit linking to most of the internet. PHP is a very common language to make websites with; its what MediaWiki is written in. PHP is executed server-side, so its not inherently more dangerous than plain HTML, at least not significantly so to the extent that we should avoid linking to a page on the sole basis that it uses PHP. Its files that are executed client-side, outside of the browser like exe and zip files that we need to be concerned about. -- Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Increasing the number of new accounts who actually edit
On 9/22/2010 3:55 AM, Lennart Guldbrandsson wrote: Hello, Did you know that less than a third of the users who create an account on English Wikipedia make even *one* edit afterwards? Two-thirds of all new accounts never edit! Interestingly, this percentage vary very much from language version to language version. Now, the question is not: what can we do about it? We know plenty of things that we *could* do. The question is this: what are the easiest levers to push that increase the numbers? We have a couple of ideas (they are presented on the Outreach wiki, at http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Account_Creation_Improvement_Project), but we need your help! Here are three easy things that you can do: 1. Offer ideas 2. Sign up to help with the project 3. Spread the word. Do you know anybody who would want to be interested in helping out? Pass this message on. Personally, I think you're starting too far back on the issue. We have plenty of people who create accounts, edit, then stop almost immediately. Among people who do make an edit, the enwiki retention rate a few months later is 1-2%. I think we should try to improve that first. One concern on the English Wikipedia is the rather impersonal way that new users are handled - everything is bots and template messages. Simply increasing the volume of new accounts will only exacerbate that problem. Just very recently, for a completely unrelated discussion, I complied some statistics for the English Wikipedia (though it could be run for any project) about users' first edits and editor retention. The full results are at [1], the summary is: * Users who create an article are much more likely to leave the project if their article is deleted. 1 in ~160 will stay if their article is deleted while 1 in ~22 will stay otherwise * Our main source of regular users is not users who start by creating an article. * Users who start by editing an existing page outnumber article creators by 3:1 * Users who start by editing an existing article are far less likely to have their first edits deleted (and therefore are far more likely to stay) * From the users analyzed, we got fewer than 200 regular users from those who created articles (1.3% retention), we got more than 900 from users who edited existing pages (2.5% retention) * A significant number of regular users (24%) get their start outside of mainspace. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mr.Z-man/newusers -- Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Is Google translation is good for Wikipedias?
content on wikipedia. We'd rather stay small and hand-craft than allow an experimental tool and unskilled paid translators creating a big mess. Thanks Ragib (User:Ragib on en and bn) -- Ragib Hasan, Ph.D NSF Computing Innovation Fellow and Assistant Research Scientist Dept of Computer Science Johns Hopkins University 3400 N Charles Street Baltimore, MD 21218 Website: http://www.ragibhasan.com On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 2:12 AM, Shiju Alex shijualexonl...@gmail.com wrote: Hello All, Recently there are lot of discussions (in this list also) regarding the translation project by Google for some of the big language wikipedias. The foundation also seems like approved the efforts of Google. But I am not sure whether any one is interested to consult the respective language community to know their views. As far as I know only Tamil, Bengali, and Swahili Wikipedians have raised their concerns about Google's project. But, does this means that other communities are happy about Google efforts? If there is no active community in a wikipedia how can we expect response from communities? If there is no response from a community, does that mean that Google can hire some native speakers and use machine translation to create articles for that wikipedia? Now let us go back to a basic question. Does WMF require a wiki community to create wikipedia in any language? Or can they utilize the services of companies like Google to create wikipedias in N number of languages? One of the main point raised by the supporters of Google translation is that, Google's project is good *for the online version of the language*.That might be true. But no body is cared to verify whether it is good for Wikipedia. As pointed out by Ravi in his presentation in Wikimania, ( http://docs.google.com/present/view?id=ddpg3qwc_279ghm7kbhs), the Google translation of wikipedia articles: - will affect the biological growth of a Wikipedia article - will create copy of English wikipedia article in local wikis - it is against some of the basic philosophies of wikipedia The people outside wiki will definitely benefit from this tool, if Google translation tool is developed for each language. I saw the working example of this in Poland during Wikimania, when some people who are not good in English used google translator to communicate with us. :) Apart from the points raised by Ravi in his presentation, this will affect the community growth.If there is no active wiki community, how can we expect them to look after all these junk articles uploaded to wiki every day. When all the important article links are already turned blue, how we can expect any future potential editors. So according to me, Google's project is killing the growth of an active wiki community. Of course, Tamil Wikipedia is trying to use Google project effectively. But only Tamil is doing that since they have an active wiki community*. Many Wiki communities are not even aware that such a project is happening in their wiki*. I do not want to point out specific language wikipedas to prove my point. But visit the wikipedias (especially wikipedias* that use non-latin scripts*) to view the status of google translation project. Loads of junk articles are uploaded to wiki every day. Most of the time the only edit in these articles is the edit by its creator and the inter language wiki bots. This effort will definitely affect community growth. Kindly see the points raised by a Swahali Wikipedian http://muddybtz.blog.com/2010/07/16/what-happened-on-the-google-challenge-the-swahili-wikipedia/ . Many Swahali users (and other language users) now expect a laptop or some other monitory benefits to write in their wikipedia. That affects the community growth. So what is the solution for this? Can we take lessons from Tamil/Bengali/Swahili wikipedias and find methods to use this service effectively or continue with the current article creation process. One last question. Is this tool that is developing by Google is an open source tool? If not, we need to answer so many questions that may follow. Regards Shiju Alex http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shijualex ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Push translation
Google Translator Toolkit is particularly problematic because it messes up the existing article formatting (one example, it messes up internal links by putting punctuation marks before double brackets when they should be after) and it includes incompatible formatting such as redlinked templates. It also doesn't help that many editors don't stick around to fix their articles afterwards. Yes this is one of the main issue of *Google Translator Tool Kit* (GTTK). There are many points raised by Ravi regarding GTTK in his presentation at WikiMania. http://docs.google.com/present/view?id=ddpg3qwc_279ghm7kbhs Not all wikipedias work/create articles in the same way as English Wikipedia or some other big wikipedias does. Many of the active wiki communities does not like the word-to-word translation of the English Wikipedia articles. But that doesn't mean that while developing an article, they won't refer English Wikipedia. English wikipedia article is their first point of reference most of the time. The problem starts when some one start forcing English Wikipedia articles in a language wikipedia. Here it is Google, using the Google Translate Tool Kit (GTTK) . Most of the active wiki communities (especially non-Latin wikis) are not interested in the word-to-word translation of the English Wikipedia articles. Also many of them are not willing to to go through the big articles (with lot of issues) created using GTTK and rewrite the entire article to bring it to the wiki style. They will better prefer to start the article from the scratch. One of the main issue is that the Google/Google translators are not communicating with the wiki community (of each language) before they start the project in a wikipedia. For example, Tamil wikipedia community came to know about Google efforts only 6 months after they started the project in that wiki. Wiki communities like the biological growth of the wikipedia articles in their wiki. Why English Wikipedia did not start building wikipedia articles using *Encyclopedia Britannica 1911* edition which was available in the public domain? Personally, I am not against GTTK or against Google. At least this effort is good for the online version of a language (even if some argue that it is not good for wikipedia). But this effort needs to be executed in a different way so that wikipedia of that language will benefit from it. Some of the solutions that are coming to my mind: 1. Ban the project of Google as done by the Bengali wiki community (Bad solution, and I am personally against this solution) 2. Ask Google to engage wiki community (As happened in the case of Tamil) to find out a working solution. But if there is no active wiki community what Google can do. But does this mean that Google can continue with the project as they want? (Very difficult solution if there is no active wiki community) 3. Find some other solution. For example, Is it possible to upload the translated articles in a separate name space, for example, Google: Let the community decides what needs to be taken to the main/article namespace. 4. . If some solution is not found soon, Google's effort is going to create problem in many language wikipedias. The worst result of this effort would be the rift between the wiki community and the Google translators (speakers of the same language) :( Shiju On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 8:39 AM, Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com wrote: Shiju Alex, Stevertigo is just one en.wikipedian. As far as using exact copies goes, I don't know about the policy at your home wiki, but in many Wikipedias this sort of back-and-forth translation and trading and sharing of articles has been going on since day one, not just with English but with other languages as well. If I see a good article on any Wikipedia in a language I understand that is lacking in another, I'll happily translate it. I have never seen this cause problems provided I use proper spelling and grammar and do not use templates or images that leave red links. I started out at en.wp in 2001, so I don't think it's unreasonable to call myself an English Wikipedian (although I'd prefer to think of myself as an international Wikipedian, with lots of edits at wikis such as Serbo-Croatian, Spanish, Navajo, Haitian and Moldovan). I am not at all in favor of pushing any sort of articles on anybody, if a community discusses and reaches consensus to disallow translations (even ones made by humans, including professionals), that is absolutely their right, although I don't think it's wise to disallow people from using material from other Wikipedias. Google Translator Toolkit is particularly problematic because it messes up the existing article formatting (one example, it messes up internal links by putting punctuation marks before double brackets when they should be after) and it includes incompatible formatting such as redlinked templates. It also doesn't help that many
Re: [Foundation-l] Push translation
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com wrote: 4) Include a list of most needed articles for people to create, rather than random articles that will be of little use to local readers. Some articles, such as those on local topics, have the added benefit of encouraging more edits and community participation since they tend to generate more interest from speakers of a language in my experience. This list will automatically come if Google engage the wiki community for their project for a particular language. But for some wikipedias there is no active wiki community. So how this issue can be solved? Selection of the articles for translation is an important part for this project. Definitely http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vital_articles is a good choice for this. Community might also be interested in some other important articles (important with respect to the social/ cultural/geography of the speakers of that language). So engaging local wiki community is most important ~Shiju ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Push translation
really? It's a) not particularly well-written, mostly and b) referenced overwhelmingly to English-language sources, most of which are, you guessed it.. Western in nature. Very much true. Now English Wikipedians want some one to translate and use the exact copy of en:wp in all other language wikipedias. And they have the support of Google for that. On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 5:52 AM, Oliver Keyes scire.fac...@gmail.comwrote: The idea is that most of en.wp's articles are well-enough written, and written in accord with NPOV to a sufficient degree to overcome any such criticism of 'imperial encyclopedism.' - really? It's a) not particularly well-written, mostly and b) referenced overwhelmingly to English-language sources, most of which are, you guessed it.. Western in nature. On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 3:43 AM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote: Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com wrote: I would like to add to this that I think the worst part of this idea is the assumption that other languages should take articles from en.wp. The idea is that most of en.wp's articles are well-enough written, and written in accord with NPOV to a sufficient degree to overcome any such criticism of 'imperial encyclopedism.' Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com wrote: Nobody's arguing here that language and culture have no relationship. What I'm saying is that language does not equal culture. Many people speak French who are not part of the culture of France, for example the cities of Libreville and Abidjan in Africa. Africa is an unusual case given that it was so linguistically diverse to begin with, and that its even moreso in the post-colonial era, when Arabic, French, English, and Dutch remain prominent marks of imperialistic influence. Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: This is well suited for the dustbin of terrible ideas. It ranks right up there with the notion that the European colonization of Africa was for the sole purpose of civilizing the savages. This is the 'encyclopedic imperialism' counterargument. I thought I'd throw it out there. As Bendt noted above, Google has already been working on it for two years and has had both success and failure. It bears mentioning that their tools have been improving quite steadily. A simple test such as /English - Arabic - English/ will show that. Note that colonialism isnt the issue. It still remains for example a high priority to teach English in Africa, for the simple reason that language is almost entirely a tool for communication, and English is quite good for that purpose. Its notable that the smaller colonial powers such as the French were never going to be successful at linguistic imperialism in Africa, for the simple reason that French has not actually been the lingua franca for a long time now. Key to the growth of Wikipedias in minority languages is respect for the cultures that they encompass, not flooding them with the First-World Point of View. What might be a Neutral Point of View on the English Wikipedia is limited by the contributions of English writers. Those who do not understand English may arrive at a different neutrality. We have not yet arrived at a Metapedia that would synthesize a single neutrality from all projects. I strongly disagree. Neutral point of view has worked on en.wp because its a universalist concept. The cases where other language wikis reject English content appear to come due to POV, and thus a violation of NPOV, not because - as you seem to suggest - the POV in such countries must be considered NPOV. Casey Brown li...@caseybrown.org wrote: I'm surprised to hear that coming from someone who I thought to be a student of languages. I think you might want to read an article from today's Wall Street Journal, about how language influences culture (and, one would extrapolate, Wikipedia articles). I had just a few days ago read Boroditsky's piece in Edge, and it covers a lot of interesting little bits of evidence. As Mark was saying, linguistic relativity (or the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis) has been around for most of a century, and its wider conjectures were strongly contradicted by Chomsky et al. Yes there is compelling evidence that language does channel certain kinds of thought, but this should not be overstated. Like in other sciences, linguistics can sometimes make the mistake of making *qualitative judgments based on a field of *quantitative evidence. This was essentially important back in the 40s and 50s when people were still putting down certain quasi-scientific conjectures from the late 1800s. Still there are cultures which claim their languages to be superior in certain ways simply because they are more sonorous or emotive, or otherwise expressive, and that's the essential paradigm that some linguists are working in. -SC
[Foundation-l] Is Google translation is good for Wikipedias?
Hello All, Recently there are lot of discussions (in this list also) regarding the translation project by Google for some of the big language wikipedias. The foundation also seems like approved the efforts of Google. But I am not sure whether any one is interested to consult the respective language community to know their views. As far as I know only Tamil, Bengali, and Swahili Wikipedians have raised their concerns about Google's project. But, does this means that other communities are happy about Google efforts? If there is no active community in a wikipedia how can we expect response from communities? If there is no response from a community, does that mean that Google can hire some native speakers and use machine translation to create articles for that wikipedia? Now let us go back to a basic question. Does WMF require a wiki community to create wikipedia in any language? Or can they utilize the services of companies like Google to create wikipedias in N number of languages? One of the main point raised by the supporters of Google translation is that, Google's project is good *for the online version of the language*.That might be true. But no body is cared to verify whether it is good for Wikipedia. As pointed out by Ravi in his presentation in Wikimania, ( http://docs.google.com/present/view?id=ddpg3qwc_279ghm7kbhs), the Google translation of wikipedia articles: - will affect the biological growth of a Wikipedia article - will create copy of English wikipedia article in local wikis - it is against some of the basic philosophies of wikipedia The people outside wiki will definitely benefit from this tool, if Google translation tool is developed for each language. I saw the working example of this in Poland during Wikimania, when some people who are not good in English used google translator to communicate with us. :) Apart from the points raised by Ravi in his presentation, this will affect the community growth.If there is no active wiki community, how can we expect them to look after all these junk articles uploaded to wiki every day. When all the important article links are already turned blue, how we can expect any future potential editors. So according to me, Google's project is killing the growth of an active wiki community. Of course, Tamil Wikipedia is trying to use Google project effectively. But only Tamil is doing that since they have an active wiki community*. Many Wiki communities are not even aware that such a project is happening in their wiki*. I do not want to point out specific language wikipedas to prove my point. But visit the wikipedias (especially wikipedias* that use non-latin scripts*) to view the status of google translation project. Loads of junk articles are uploaded to wiki every day. Most of the time the only edit in these articles is the edit by its creator and the inter language wiki bots. This effort will definitely affect community growth. Kindly see the points raised by a Swahali Wikipedianhttp://muddybtz.blog.com/2010/07/16/what-happened-on-the-google-challenge-the-swahili-wikipedia/. Many Swahali users (and other language users) now expect a laptop or some other monitory benefits to write in their wikipedia. That affects the community growth. So what is the solution for this? Can we take lessons from Tamil/Bengali/Swahili wikipedias and find methods to use this service effectively or continue with the current article creation process. One last question. Is this tool that is developing by Google is an open source tool? If not, we need to answer so many questions that may follow. Regards Shiju Alex http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shijualex ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Gmail - List messages flagged as spam
Yes. This is true. Many messages are marked as spam during the past few days. I got this message also from the SPAM folder. On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 10:51 PM, Daniel ~ Leinad danny.lei...@gmail.comwrote: 2010/6/17 Ryan Lomonaco wiki.ral...@gmail.com: A housekeeping note: Gmail has been marking some list messages as spam for the past five days or so. It sounds like this is affecting other Wikimedia I've noticed the same problem with Gmail ;/ In last days I have to check very carefully spam folder. -- Leinad ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Creating articles in small wikipedias based on user requirement
Recently I had a discussion with one of my fellow Malayalam wikipedian ( http://ml.wikipedia.org) about the creation of new articles in small wikipedias like ours. He is one the few users who is keen on creating new articles *based on the requirement of our readers*. (Of course we have many people who only reads our wiki) During discussion he raised this interesting point: Some feature is required in the MediaWiki software that enable us to see a list of keywords used most frequently by the users to search for non-exist articles. If we get such a list then some users like him can concentrate on creating articles using that key words. Of course, I know that this feature may not be helpful for big wikis like English. But for small wikis (especially small non-Latin language wikis), this will be of great help. It is almost like* creating wiki articles based on user requirement*. I would like to know your opinion regarding the same. Shiju ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Creating articles in small wikipedias based on user requirement
This topic came up while we were discussing about Google's translation effort. Google/Google employees are using Google tool kit to translate English Wikipedia articles to many of the Indic language Wikipedias. We are definitely more interested if Google translates these user required articles than translating the English wiki articles about all the american pop stars (For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Gaga). Now the issue is, we don't have such list to give to Google/Google employees. On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 5:56 AM, Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com wrote: +1. This would be a SUPER useful tool for all Wikis. -m. On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 3:54 AM, Shiju Alex shijualexonl...@gmail.com wrote: Recently I had a discussion with one of my fellow Malayalam wikipedian ( http://ml.wikipedia.org) about the creation of new articles in small wikipedias like ours. He is one the few users who is keen on creating new articles *based on the requirement of our readers*. (Of course we have many people who only reads our wiki) During discussion he raised this interesting point: Some feature is required in the MediaWiki software that enable us to see a list of keywords used most frequently by the users to search for non-exist articles. If we get such a list then some users like him can concentrate on creating articles using that key words. Of course, I know that this feature may not be helpful for big wikis like English. But for small wikis (especially small non-Latin language wikis), this will be of great help. It is almost like* creating wiki articles based on user requirement*. I would like to know your opinion regarding the same. Shiju ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: change of registered TMs in Persian wikipedia
The best option according to us (Malayalam Wikipedians - http://ml.wikipedia.org) is to use the second option for the article titles . That is, transliterate the keyword to your language. There is no copyright issue attached with that, I suppose. We do that throughout our daily life. For example, local language News Paper, TV reports, and so on. According to me translating (third option) the book name,film name, or company name and so on is a bad idea from Encyclopedic point of view. You can have translated articlke titels if there is a translated version of the book/film available in your language. For example, in malayalam wikipedia we have an article about Imitation of the Christ http://ml.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Imitation_of_Christ_%28book%29. In this article, the information about the original book is provided. Please note that the article title is the transliteration of the original title of the book. We also have another article for the translated version of this book ( ക്രിസ്തുദേവാനുകരണംhttp://ml.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B4%95%E0%B5%8D%E0%B4%B0%E0%B4%BF%E0%B4%B8%E0%B5%8D%E0%B4%A4%E0%B5%81%E0%B4%A6%E0%B5%87%E0%B4%B5%E0%B4%BE%E0%B4%A8%E0%B5%81%E0%B4%95%E0%B4%B0%E0%B4%A3%E0%B4%82) to Malayalam. This article provides information about the translated version of the original book. Hope this helps. Shiju On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Ryan Lomonaco wiki.ral...@gmail.comwrote: Forwarded on behalf of a non-list-member. The question pertains to translation of trademarks within articles; to my knowledge, there's nothing wrong with us doing so, and I think this is done in many Wikipedias. But I'll defer to the list on this question. -- Forwarded message -- From: Amir sarabadani ladsgr...@gmail.com Date: Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 3:58 PM Subject: change of registered TMs in Persian wikipedia To: foundation-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org Hello, I'm one of Persian wikipedia users.for making pages same name of trademarks (e.g. films ,games.etc.) we have several choices: 1-we use same name and same alphabetical with trademark(e.g. Google--Google) 2-we same name but Persian Script(e.g. Call of duty--کال آو دیوتی/KAL AV DIUTI/) 3-we translate it(Prince of Persian--شاهزاده ایرانی /SHAHZADE IRANI means Prince of Persia) Users of Persian wikipedia (with consequence) use third way usually but I think change of trademarks is crime and maybe create legal problem for the Foundation Please tell us what we do or maybe i think wrong please tell me. Thanks and best wishes -- Amir ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Renaming Flagged Protections
On 5/23/2010 1:58 PM, Philippe Beaudette wrote: tbh, I'm very fond of Double check. It seems to imply exactly what we want: the edit isn't being accepted automatically, nor rejected, but simply getting a second look. It's fairly neutral in tone, and understandable to the average person. Except unless we consider the initial edit to be the first check, its not correct. Only one person independent from the editor is reviewing each edit. -- Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Renaming Flagged Protections
On 5/23/2010 8:40 PM, William Pietri wrote: On 05/23/2010 02:13 PM, David Levy wrote: James Alexander wrote: That is basically exactly how I see it, most times you double check something you are only the 2nd person because the first check is done by the original author. We assume good faith, we assume that they are putting legitimate and correct information into the article and checked to make sure it didn't break any policies, it's just that because of problems on that page we wanted to have someone double check. That's a good attitude, but such an interpretation is far from intuitive. Our goal is to select a name that stands on its own as an unambiguous description, not one that requires background knowledge of our philosophies. I'll also point out that one of the English Wikipedia's most important policies is ignore all rules, a major component of which is the principle that users needn't familiarize themselves with our policies (let alone check to make sure they aren't breaking them) before editing. Allow me to quote the whole policy: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. That implies, in my view correctly, that the person editing is presumed to set out with the intention of making the encyclopedia better. I think that fits in nicely with James Alexander's view: we can and should assume that most editors have already checked their work. Not against the minutiae of our rules, but against their own intent, and their understanding of what constitutes an improvement to Wikipedia. Given that, I think double-check fits in fine, both in a very literal sense and in the colloquial one. I ask people to double-check my work all the time, with the implied first check always being my own. We can assume most, but we cannot assume all. It is the ones that don't that we're especially concerned about. So, the revisions that get double checked are mostly the ones that don't actually need it. The intentionally bad edits are only getting a single check. And of course, this raises the question, if we're assuming that most editors are checking their work and are trying to improve the encyclopedia, why do we need to double check their work? We wouldn't call the system Second guess, but that's kind of what this explanation sounds like. -- Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] New project proposal: wiki-based troubleshooting
On 5/4/2010 5:16 PM, Yao Ziyuan wrote: Thomas Dalton wrote: We definitely do not want to be giving medical advice to people. If you get that wrong, people die. Medical advice should be got by going to the doctors. Can you give another example of what your idea could Yes, medical troubleshooting is both extremely useful and extremely sensitive, and that's why I said Like Wikipedia, WikiTroubleshooting should cite credible references. We could put a warning and a disclaimer on every medical troubleshooting page telling the visitor to check cited references and other sources before adopting any advice. A disclaimer would probably shield us from lawsuits, but there would still be a lot of ethical issues in the free medical advice anyone can edit (since we know most people won't check sources, especially print sources). Setting aside the issues of vandalism, even a good intentioned edit by someone who doesn't have adequate medical training could cause problems if they misread a source or use a source that isn't as reliable as they think. A lot higher standard for reliable would be needed for something like that. How can a wiki implement a troubleshooting wizard? A wizard is a set of pages. Each page assumes you have specified certain symptoms (e.g. symptom1, symptom3, symptom5) of your problem and asks you a question to specify a new symptom (e.g. symptom10); then it redirects you to a next page that assumes you have specified symptoms 1, 3, 5 and 10 and asks you yet another question or shows you possible causes and solutions for the symptoms you have specified so far (1, 3, 5, 10). Therefore they're just static HTML pages where each page can link to one or more next pages. This is exactly what a wiki can do. The main issue I can see (other than that for medical advice and the like), is that troubleshooters don't lend themselves as well to incremental building. A Wikipedia article with only a few sentences or a Wikibook with only a couple chapters are still slightly useful. A troubleshooter with only a couple steps is much less so. Say you have a troubleshooter for a printer not working: 1. Is the printer plugged in and on? Yes 2. Is there paper loaded? Yes 3. Sorry, that's all this troubleshooter can help you with for now. -- Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Where things stand now
On 5/8/2010 9:08 AM, Jimmy Wales wrote: Much of the cleanup is done, although there was so much hardcore pornography on commons that there's still some left in nooks and crannies. I'm taking the day off from deleting, both today and tomorrow, but I do encourage people to continue deleting the most extreme stuff. But as the immediate crisis has passed (successfully!) there is not nearly the time pressure that there was. I'm shifting into a slower mode. We were about to be smeared in all media as hosting hardcore pornography and doing nothing about it. Now, the correct storyline is that we are cleaning up. I'm proud to have made sure that storyline broke the way it did, and I'm sorry I had to step on some toes to make it happen. Now, the key is: let's continue to move forward with a responsible policy discussion. The correct story line now is that Wikimedia is purging historical works by notable artists and bending due to pressure from American conservative media. Outside of Fox news, I've yet to see any pickup of this by any significant media outlet.[1] The way I see it, with the rushed and ham-fisted way this was done, we'll be lucky if it doesn't completely backfire on us and the non-conservative media doesn't make it look like we're burning books or that they misconstrue it and assume we've adopted some sort of outright no-nudity policy. [1] http://bit.ly/d8y5vy -- Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Chris Clayton
http://www.roulette-casino-en-ligne.com/home.php ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] �lliam Pietri: Where is Flagge dRevisions?
The English Wikipedia isn't asking for a total rewrite of the extension. FlaggedRevs was always (at least since it was first deployed) highly customizable. I believe the Flagged Protection feature was able to be implemented, or very close to it, at the time the proposal was finalized. Supposedly the changes being made now are mostly UI and workflow changes to make it easier to use or something like that. (Why this wasn't done before it was deployed on dewiki or anywhere else, I don't know) Its not like enwiki deciding to use FlaggedRevs was a total surprise. Erik had always assumed that enwiki would get it eventually, why did the foundation wait until 6 months /after/ enwiki requested it to hire people to work on this? -- Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man) On 3/1/2010 7:58 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: Hoi, One of the things developers are not necessarily good at is communication as in keeping everyone up to date. With the many channels secret and not so secret. With the ferocity that many say typify the mailing lists, it is no wonder that we hear few if any updates. In my opinion the reason why the English language Wikipedia does not have Flagged Revisions already is because they did not want the fully functional Flagged Revisions that is used for some years now on the German language Wikipedia. Wanting something different is its prerogative but it does not follow that it is easy or quick. Remember the 80/20 rule and remember that the special wishes makes the software more complicated. The English language Wikipedia is also spoiled because it gets the things programmed. When you consider that many of the issues with RTL languages and font issues like with the Malayalam language get hardly the attention they require, it is rather obvious that tantrums prevent information becoming available on the public mailinglists. Thanks, GerardM On 1 March 2010 13:18, Casey Brown li...@caseybrown.org wrote: On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 11:18 PM, Aphaia aph...@gmail.com wrote: Not a sarcasm, but I would like to point out SUL, single user login took years to implement to the project wikis, and we even called once it Godot. FlaggedRevs implementation also - it took years to realize. Months are relatively shorter, and I hope you guys could wait for in a less pain. Yes, but no one was contracted for work on SUL. People are being paid to work on *just* FlaggedRevs, it's not something that the tech team has to fit into their time to develop. -- Casey Brown Cbrown1023 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sue Gardner, Erik Möller , Wi lliam Pietri: Where is FlaggedRevisions?
On 2/28/2010 10:32 PM, MZMcBride wrote: William Pietri wrote: As soon as that's ready, I will be very excited to put up test versions of both the English Wikipedia and the German one, so that the community can test, give feedback, and opine on whether it's ready to go. When might that be? Is there a specific deadline? If not, why? And if there is a deadline and it slips by yet again, what's the consequence to those running the project? I second this. Are William and Howie just under contract indefinitely until FlaggedRevs is finally ready? Who are they responsible to, and why is that person apparently not giving them any sort of priorities (like, creating a plan or a deadline)? Why is there such little transparency in this whole process? Rather than use the normal bug tracker that all other MediaWiki developers use and that the community is used to, they're using some entirely separate one, hosted on a 3rd party website. As far as I can tell, there's only been one unprompted communication with the community regarding this - the techblog post in January that had little new information. Its been more than 4 months, and we haven't been able to get even a vague timeline yet. IMO, setting a deadline, missing it, and explaining why it was missed is better than not setting a deadline until you know you can meet it (which kind of defeats the purpose of setting it). -- Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] I'm here to request a new Wikimedia project
I wonder which would be harder, trying to start the first new project in years, or trying to get the English Wikipedia to make a significant policy change? -- Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man) On 2/27/2010 12:40 PM, David Goodman wrote: WP contains many of the essential elements of an almanac already, and could very easily cover all the rest-- it doesn't take a new project, just a relaxation of some of the self-imposed strictures. Relaxing, without eliminating , NOT NEWS , NOT DIRECTORY, and NOT INDISCRIMINATE . there's only one point that would need actual removal: NOT INDISCRIMINATE point 3, Excessive listing of statistics. The basic change could be accomplished by doing just that one deletion--there is not need for another project, or even another space for data. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Casey Brown li...@caseybrown.org wrote: On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 11:02 AM, Tyler programmer...@comcast.net wrote: I was just wondering, how would you like to start an almanac, guys? That would be neat, a wiki almanac. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_new_projects :-) -- Casey Brown Cbrown1023 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Frequency of Seeing Bad Versions - now with traffic data
Anthony wrote: On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote: I would put money on a significant majority of reverts being reverts of vandalism rather than BRD reverts, it may not be an overwhelming majority, though. I don't know about that, though I won't take the other end of the bet. Have you done much editing while not logged in? If so, I think you have to admit that it's quite common to find yourself reverted for things which are not properly classified as vandalism. Just going through recent changes looking for rv (which is not the only thing detected by Robert's software, and is probably the most likely to be actual vandalism)... Most vandalism reversion on enwiki (I believe) is done with automated tools and/or rollback rather than manual reversion. They typically leave more detailed summaries: Reverted N edits by X identified as vandalism to last revision by Y Reverted edits by X (talk) to last version by Y -- Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] How much of Wikipedia is vandalized? 0.4% of Articles
Robert Rohde wrote: Does anyone have a nice comprehensive set of page traffic aggregated at say a month level? The raw data used by stats.grok.se, etc. is binned hourly which opens one up to issues of short-term fluctuations, but I'm not at all interested in downloading 35 GB of hourly files just to construct my own long-term averages. I don't have every article, but I have the data for July 09 for ~600,000 pages on enwiki (mostly articles). It also has the hit counts for redirects aggregated with the article, not sure if that would be more or less useful for you. Let me know if you want it, its in a MySQL table on the toolserver right now. -- Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Proposal for Wikimedia Weather
Tris Thomas wrote: Dear All, I don't know whether this has been discussed before, apologies if it has. I'm interested in people's thoughts on a new Wikimedia project-maybe WikiWeather, which basically would do what it says on the tin. Along with importing national weather from other sources(especially to begin with), contributors could then put their weather where they are. This could evolve into many contributors giving very localised weather forecasts worldwide, which could be used by many of the other projects and anybody else. Would people be interested in this proposal/have any thoughts on it? Thanks! Wikinews User Page http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/User:Tristan%20Thomas Except for forecasts (though it might be interesting to see how wiki users compare to professional meteorologists), weather is mostly just data, so computers can generally provide it better than people. The only way I could see this as possibly being better than existing services would be if it was set up so that people who had home weather stations that could connect to a computer could automatically update the site. But A) that kind of equipment is expensive (at minimum ~$100 USD for something that only records temperature) and B) it wouldn't really be a wiki as the majority of the content would be automatically updated. Only the forecasts would be human-produced. Though you'd start to run into the principle of diminishing returns with that - how much better is a weather report from 2 miles away versus 5 miles away? After a point, it just becomes redundant. And of course we'd still have to rely on the weather services for things like radar and satellite images. -- Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia tracks user behaviour via third party companies
John at Darkstar wrote:
Alex skrev:
John at Darkstar wrote:
Hmm? There's no reason to do anything like that. The AbuseFilter would
just prevent sitewide JS pages from being saved with the particular URLs
or a particular code block in them. It'll stop the well-meaning but
misguided admins. Short of restricting site JS to the point of
uselessness, you'll never be able to stop determined abusers.
A very typical code fragment to make a stat url is something like
document.write('img scr=' + server + digest + '');
- server is some kind of external url
- digest is just some random garbage to bypass caching
This kind of code exists in so many variants that it is very difficult
to say anything about how it may be implemented. Often it will not use a
document.write on systems like Wikipedia but instead use createElement()
Very often someone claims that the definition of server will be
complete and may be used to identify the external server sufficiently.
That is not a valid claim as many such sites can be referred for other
purposes.
Other purposes that have valid uses loading 3rd party content on a
Wikimedia wiki? Like what?
If you don't trust other sites you also has to accept that you can't
trust ant kind of «toolserver» where you don't have complete control.
That opens a lot of problems
Its not just a matter of trust, its a matter of use. Why would people be
loading content from or linking to servers used to collect website stats
in the sitewide JS on a Wikimedia wiki?
Note also that the number of urls will be huge as this type of
service is very popular, not to say that anyone that want may set up a
special stat aggregator on an otherwise unknown domain.
Basically, simple regexps are not sufficient for detecting this kind of
code.
I don't think I said it would be perfect, the idea isn't to 100% prevent
it, just to try to stop the most obvious cases like Google analytics.
Its not that it won't be perfect, it simply will not work.
And anything more complex would likely be too complicated and/or too
inefficient to be worthwhile.
John
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
--
Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man)
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia tracks user behaviour via third party companies #2
effe iets anders wrote: 2009/6/5 Peter Gervai grin...@gmail.com snip The stats (which have, by surprise, a dedicated domain under th hu wikipedia domain) runs on a dedicated server, with nothing else on it. Its sole purpose to gather and publish the stats. Basically nobody have permission to log in the servers but me, and I since I happen to be checkuser as well it wouldn't even be ntertaining to read it, even if it wasn't big enough making this useless. I happen to be the one who have created the Hungarian checkuser policy, which is, as far as I know, the strictest one in WMF projects, and it's no joke, and I intend to follow it. (And those who are unfamiliar with me, I happen to be the founder of huwp as well, apart from my job in computer security.) snip Just a remark on the checkuser argument. Checkuser actions and checks are logged, and can be double checked by other checkusers and stewards. This server can not. I can imagine that this would pose a problem. Checkuser also only stores the data for a known period of time (3 months) and, with the fairly recent exception of user-user email, only records actions that are publicly logged by MediaWiki (edits and other logged actions), not individual pageviews. -- Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia tracks user behaviour via third party companies
Dan Rosenthal wrote: Installing Google Analytics, even for our own purposes, is a bad idea. For one, it creates a link to google that is not necessarily what we want; it would be a big target for people to try and hack, and it presents tempting security risks on Google's end. Not to mention, as far as I know the program is proprietary. If we're going to do something like this, it should be open source, and it should something that we can internally install and monitor without external options. That is, again, assuming we do something like that. That's not a foregone presumption. I'm not convinced that we need to be tracking user behavior at this point in time, or that the tradeoffs for doing so are worth any benefits, or that doing so is in furtherance of our mission. The plain pageview stats are already available. Erik Zachte has been doing some work on other stats. http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/VisitorsSampledLogRequests.htm If I were to compile a wishlist of stats things: 1. stats.grok.se data for non-Wikipedia projects 2. A better interface for stats.wikimedia.org - There's a lot of data there, but it can be hard to find it and its not very publicized. The only reason I knew about the link above is because someone pointed it out to me once and I bookmarked it. 3. Pageview stats at http://dammit.lt/wikistats/ in files based on projects. It would be a lot easier for people at the West Flemish Wikipedia to analyze statistics themselves if they didn't have to download tons of data they don't need. -- Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia tracks user behaviour via third party companies
John at Darkstar wrote: One idea is the proposal to install the AbuseFilter in a global mode, i.e. rules loaded at Meta that apply everywhere. If that were done (and there are some arguments about whether it is a good idea), then it could be used to block these types of URLs from being installed, even by admins. Identifying client side generated urls from server side opens up a whole lot of problems of its own. Basically you need a script that runs in a hostile environment and reports back to a server when a whole series of urls are injected from code loaded from some sources (mediawiki-space) but not from other sources user space), still code loaded from user space through call to mediawiki space should be allowed. Add to this that your url identifying code has to run after a script has generated the url and before it do any cleanup. The url verification can't just say that a url is hostile, it has to check it somehow, and that leads to reporting of the url - if the reporting code still executes at that moment. Urk... Hmm? There's no reason to do anything like that. The AbuseFilter would just prevent sitewide JS pages from being saved with the particular URLs or a particular code block in them. It'll stop the well-meaning but misguided admins. Short of restricting site JS to the point of uselessness, you'll never be able to stop determined abusers. -- Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia tracks user behaviour via third party companies
John at Darkstar wrote:
Hmm? There's no reason to do anything like that. The AbuseFilter would
just prevent sitewide JS pages from being saved with the particular URLs
or a particular code block in them. It'll stop the well-meaning but
misguided admins. Short of restricting site JS to the point of
uselessness, you'll never be able to stop determined abusers.
A very typical code fragment to make a stat url is something like
document.write('img scr=' + server + digest + '');
- server is some kind of external url
- digest is just some random garbage to bypass caching
This kind of code exists in so many variants that it is very difficult
to say anything about how it may be implemented. Often it will not use a
document.write on systems like Wikipedia but instead use createElement()
Very often someone claims that the definition of server will be
complete and may be used to identify the external server sufficiently.
That is not a valid claim as many such sites can be referred for other
purposes.
Other purposes that have valid uses loading 3rd party content on a
Wikimedia wiki? Like what?
Note also that the number of urls will be huge as this type of
service is very popular, not to say that anyone that want may set up a
special stat aggregator on an otherwise unknown domain.
Basically, simple regexps are not sufficient for detecting this kind of
code.
I don't think I said it would be perfect, the idea isn't to 100% prevent
it, just to try to stop the most obvious cases like Google analytics.
Otherwise, take a look at Simetricals earlier post.
John
--
Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man)
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Long-term archiving of Wikimedia content
David Goodman wrote: That is like saying, . Why should i backup my computer now, when there will be high capacity media in a few years, or when the next version of the OS will do it automatically. or, more closely, why should a books scanning project even be bothered with now. In future generation we might well have scanners that will do it much more efficiently without opening the books. Because hard drive failure is far more likely than civilization collapsing or all computers ceasing to work or exist at the same time. Wikimedia has backups and redundancy; just not in a non-electronic form designed to survive 1000 years/nuclear war/asteroid impact/etc. This is somewhat the opposite of book scanning. With book scanning, you're taking something that may only be available to a handful of people and allowing many more people to access it by creating distributable electronic copies. With the proposals here, we'd be taking something that's already available to everyone electronically and etching it onto metal plates, engraving in stone, etc. and presumably locking it in a bomb shelter somewhere, so the benefits/costs aren't the same. -- Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Cross-wiki articles
Yoni Weiden wrote: The question is - shouldn't there be one set of standards for all Wikipedias? I think it is unfair that I can read about Simpsons episodes in the English Wikipedia, while those how speak Hebrew cannot. Such a policy would have had to be decided several years ago. At this point, even the best compromise proposal would likely mean major changes for some projects. And on the largest projects, even a small change to the primary inclusion guideline would likely have a big impact. -- Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board statement regarding biographies of living people
Anthony wrote: On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Domas Mituzas midom.li...@gmail.comwrote: Actually, I'd be happy if you were right (and you probably are!) - it shows, that lots of people had the motivation to come to this excursion. But yet you can't classify it as leisure? It may not be for the board members, but I imagine for the volunteer developers and other community members who had few or no real commitments it was. -- Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board statement regarding biographies of living people
Michael Bimmler wrote: On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Alex mrzmanw...@gmail.com wrote: Anthony wrote: On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Domas Mituzas midom.li...@gmail.comwrote: Actually, I'd be happy if you were right (and you probably are!) - it shows, that lots of people had the motivation to come to this excursion. But yet you can't classify it as leisure? It may not be for the board members, but I imagine for the volunteer developers and other community members who had few or no real commitments it was. I'm not sure why you regard the commitments a chapter board member has towards his/her chapter as less real or less serious than the commitments a WMF board member or staff employee has towards the WMF. Really, this was not a wiki-meetup... I'm not sure why you feel the need to read more into my comment than was there. It was a short comment, so I thought a short reply would be adequate. My apologies for not researching and specifically mentioning every group that was at the event. -- Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [WikiEN-l] Flagged revs poll take 2
Nathan wrote: CC'd this to Foundation-l. There is a poll currently on the English Wikipedia to implement a version of FlaggedRevisions. The poll was introduced left into the vacuum which remained after the first poll failed to result in concrete action. At the close of poll #1, Jimmy indicated that he thought it had passed and should result in an FR implementation. When he received some protest, he announced that he would shortly unveil a new compromise proposal. While I'm sure he had the best of intentions, this proposal hasn't materialized and the result has been limbo. Into the limbo rides another proposal, this one masquerading as the hoped for compromise. Unfortunately, it isn't - at least, not in the sense that it is a middle ground between those who want FR implemented and those who oppose it. What it does do is compromise, as in fundamentally weaken, the concept of FR and the effort to improve our handling of BLPs. The proposed implementation introduces all the bureaucracy and effort of FlaggedRevisions, with few of the benefits. FlaggedProtection, similar to semi-protection, can be placed on any article. In some instances, FlaggedProtection is identical to normal full protection - only, it still allows edit wars on unsighted versions (woohoo). Patrolled revisions are passive - you can patrol them, but doing so won't impact what the general reader will see. It gives us the huge and useless backlog which is exactly what we should not want, and exactly what the opposition has predicted. The only likely result is that inertia will prevent any further FR implementation, and we'll be stuck with a substitute that grants no real benefit. What I would like to see, and what I have been hoping to see, is either implementation of the prior proposal (taking a form similar to that used by de.wp) or actual proposal of a true compromise version. The current poll asks us to just give up. How is it not a compromise? Its a version that most of the supporters still support and that many of the opposers now support. Compromise involves both sides making concessions, not repeatedly proposing the same thing in hopes of a different outcome. So far it has far more community support than the previous proposed version (which had what? 60% support?). I'm getting really mad at the people opposing every version of FlaggedRevs that doesn't provide some ultimate level of protection for BLPs. If you want something that helps BLPs, PROPOSE SOMETHING! Sitting around and opposing everything in favor of some non-existent system is unhelpful and basically saying that articles are worthless unless they are BLPs. The proposed system can potentially help some articles, while this un-proposed system that will be a magic bullet for the BLP problem currently helps nothing, because it doesn't exist. I agree that patrolled revisions have a high likelihood of failing. Its too bad we aren't proposing to use it as a trial instead, so if they don't work, we can come up with a different system. Oh, wait... If FlaggedProtection results in a manageable system, then we can consider expanding it to more articles than the current policy would allow. Enwiki is big and slow; expecting it to do some massive, visible change over hundreds of thousands of articles all at once is rather unrealistic. Several months ago, I told Erik on this list that enwiki would never be able to get consensus for FR, it looks like I'm wrong about that. Perhaps there's some hope left after all. -- Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Abuse filter
Bence Damokos wrote: On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote: Just so everyone is clear: 1) The abuse log is public. Anyone, including completely anonymous IPs, can read the log. 2) The information in the log is either a) already publicly available by other means, or b) would have been made public had the edit been completed. So abuse logging doesn't release any new information that wouldn't have been available had the edit been completed. (Some of the information it does release, such as User ID number and time of email address confirmation, is extremely obscure though. While public in the sense that it could be located by the public, some of the things in the log would be challenging to find otherwise.) Is it a wild assumption on the part of an editor, that after he has been warned for an abuse and not pursued it (by forcing a save if the save button is available) to assume that his action was lost, and thus possibly surprising to see it publicly logged? In my opinion pressing the preview button and then not saving is a similar use case as being warned by the abuse filter and not saving -- you should not expect the lost edit in either case to be publicly available. I think at the least the abuse warning should make it clear that the action and *x,y,z data of the user * were publicly logged. Except his assumption when clicking save, before ever seeing the abuse filter warning, was that his edit would be publicly viewable immediately. Unless the user was purposely intending to do something that he knew would be disallowed by the abuse filter, he was fully intending for whatever he wrote to be made public. -- Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people
Chad wrote: While working with OTRS, I actually sent several articles through AfD. And I typically didn't announce that it was an OTRS thing, so as to let the community judge the article on its own merits. This would actually be a decent policy to follow: encourage OTRS respondents to send the marginally notable through the normal AfD process (like any other) and allow those in the community more equipped to deal with deletion/BLP issues handle it. This assumes that both of those groups are the same. Many people involved in the deletion processes are rather unconcerned with BLP issues (or things like sourcing and NPOV, as long as its notable), and many people concerned about BLPs don't involve themselves in the deletion process. -- Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikia leasing office space to WMF
Brian wrote: If the CIA were to hand you a improved-mediawiki binary, sure PHP is an interpreted language. Surely you wouldn't use someone elses byte code. On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 8:32 AM, Platonides platoni...@gmail.com wrote: Nikola Smolenski wrote: Given that we know that NSA conducts massive illegal spying operations, there is possibility that selinux is altered in a fashion that will make it easier for NSA to spy on selinux' users. I don't know what are CIA's contributions to MediaWiki, but unless it is trivial to review them, I would not accept them. If the CIA were to hand you a improved-mediawiki binary, sure. You could very well be suspicious about it. But we're talking about open source. They would be providing the changes, which are to be reviewed, like any other code, or perhaps even more, due to coming from the CIA. Take into account that CIA and NSA need good software, too. So if they add a backdoor, they would need to add it *and* at the same time make it easy to protect from it, as they wouldn't want their own systems spied by their own rootkit (and someone will end up forgetting to apply it). Instead, contributing good fixes, make everything easier. OTOH I encourage you to review selinux. That would make a great heading 'Nikola Smolenski discovers NSA backdoor on Linux code' This is getting rather off-topic, especially for this thread, and possibly for the list as well. -- Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikia leasing office space to WMF
I'm criticizing the switch from Wikia leasing office space to WMF to Is the CIA evil? I just responded to the most recent email in my inbox; I thought that would be more appropriate than responding to all 17 CIA/NSA-related emails. I was not criticizing you in particular. The topic of this thread is Wikia leasing office space to WMF, that should be rather clear from the subject. And the topic of the list is Wikimedia related issues. Its almost on topic for the list (MediaWiki is at least mentioned occasionally), its certainly not at all related to the topic of the thread. Brian wrote: It was a clear factual error which I corrected. If you aren't going to criticize the original comment you have no basis for criticizing the correction. At any rate, what exactly is the topic of this thread, in your opinion? On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Alex mrzmanw...@gmail.com wrote: Brian wrote: If the CIA were to hand you a improved-mediawiki binary, sure PHP is an interpreted language. Surely you wouldn't use someone elses byte code. On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 8:32 AM, Platonides platoni...@gmail.com wrote: Nikola Smolenski wrote: Given that we know that NSA conducts massive illegal spying operations, there is possibility that selinux is altered in a fashion that will make it easier for NSA to spy on selinux' users. I don't know what are CIA's contributions to MediaWiki, but unless it is trivial to review them, I would not accept them. If the CIA were to hand you a improved-mediawiki binary, sure. You could very well be suspicious about it. But we're talking about open source. They would be providing the changes, which are to be reviewed, like any other code, or perhaps even more, due to coming from the CIA. Take into account that CIA and NSA need good software, too. So if they add a backdoor, they would need to add it *and* at the same time make it easy to protect from it, as they wouldn't want their own systems spied by their own rootkit (and someone will end up forgetting to apply it). Instead, contributing good fixes, make everything easier. OTOH I encourage you to review selinux. That would make a great heading 'Nikola Smolenski discovers NSA backdoor on Linux code' This is getting rather off-topic, especially for this thread, and possibly for the list as well. -- Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] transparency or translucency?
James Rigg wrote: This 'principle': The mailing list will remain open, well-advertised, and will be regarded as the place for meta-discussions about the nature of Wikipedia. does seem to be referring to not just content, but also the running of Wikipedia. But the 'private' mailing lists which now exist seem to be a departure from this. As has been said, certain things require privacy, if not by law, by common sense or courtesy. Obviously things like CheckUser data can't be discussed in public and making things like emails to OTRS and oversight-l public would greatly reduce their usefulness to the projects. The biggest departure from that principle is that most of the day-to-day running isn't done on the mailing lists, mostly everything at the project-level is done on-wiki on discussion pages. -- Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Why is the software out of reach of the community?
Brian wrote: Mark, Keep in mind regarding my Semantic drum beating that I am not a developer of Semantic Mediawiki or Semantic Forms. I am just a user, and as Erik put it, an advocate. That said, I believe these two extensions together solve the problem you are talking about. And for whatever reason, the developers of MediaWiki are willing to create new complicated syntax, but not new interfaces. In your assessment, do these extensions solve the interface extensibility problem you describe? To the list, Regarding development process, why weren't a variety of sophisticated solutions, in addition to ParserFunctions, thoroughly considered before they were enabled on the English Wikipedia? Should ParserFunctions be reverted (a simple procedure by my estimate, which is a good thing) based solely on the fact that they are the most clear violation of Jimbo's principle that I am aware of? A simple procedure? Yes, disabling the extension would be rather simple, repairing the thousands of templates that would be broken in the process, not so much. -- Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL QA update and question
geni wrote: 2009/1/10 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org: It isn't clear what it means. There seems to be a belief that it can be interpreted to only require attribution of 5 authors, and I don't like that at all. The word five doesn't appear in the license and 5 only appears in a section name and one reference to the section. There might be a way to use one of the clauses to do this but it would be darn hard and the foundation has made statements that it won't use the relevant clause. Its actually the GFDL that has the 5 principle authors thing, section 4. -- Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL QA update and question
Anthony wrote: There are very few offline reusers of Wikipedia content. I know of none that are using more than de minimis portions of my content without attributing me. If you know of any, please, tell me who they are, and I'll send a cease and desist to them. This switch to CC-BY-SA is clearly going to open the door for offline reusers to use Wikipedia content without attributing authors beyond listing one or more URLs. In fact, it's quite clear from discussions which have taken place on this list that this is the main point of making the switch. The WMF condoning and facilitating such behavior is absolutely unacceptable, no matter how many people vote to do so. This is a bad thing? Whatever happened to that spreading free content goal we had? Or does that only apply on the internet? There probably aren't many offline reusers because they're either entirely non-compliant and we have no idea that they exist or they want to be compliant, read the terms of the GFDL, and decide not to bother with our content. -- Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Remembering the People (was Fundraiser update)
Marc Riddell wrote: on 1/8/09 9:20 PM, Erik Moeller at e...@wikimedia.org wrote: 2009/1/8 Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net: This is pure unsubstantiated rhetoric. There are real-life, real-time problems - serious problems - that directly involve the people occurring in the English Wikipedia for example. Where is your help? Marc, can you give examples of what kind of help you'd like to see? Yes, Erik, I can. Just two for now, it's been a long day for me and I still have tomorrow's sessions to prepare for. * A person at the Foundation level who has true, sensitive inter-personal as well a inter-group skills, and who would keep a close eye on the Project looking for impasses when they arise. The person would need to be objective and lobby-resistant ;-). This would be the person of absolute last resort in settling community-confounding problems. Why are local ArbComs insufficient for this? If the community is unable to resolve the dispute, I highly doubt someone who's a relative outsider stepping in the middle would be able to unless they just issue an official, non-negotiable edict. *This is more of a cultural issue: I would like to see the more established members of the community be more open to criticism and dissent from within the community. As it is now that tolerance is extremely low. I'm not talking about me; I'm an old Berkeley war horse and have been called things I had to look up :-). But I have gotten private emails from persons in the community with legitimate beefs, along with some good ideas for change, but are very reluctant to voice them because of how they believe they will be received. And how is the foundation supposed to resolve this? Counsel people into changing their opinions? Ban people who appear to be suppressing criticism? Forcibly change policies? Act as proxies for people afraid of criticism? I'm struggling to think of anything that could be done on a foundation level that would be effective here. Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Remembering the People (was Fundraiser update)
Marc Riddell wrote: on 1/8/09 11:02 PM, Alex at mrzmanw...@gmail.com wrote: And how is the foundation supposed to resolve this? Counsel people into changing their opinions? Ban people who appear to be suppressing criticism? Forcibly change policies? Act as proxies for people afraid of criticism? I'm struggling to think of anything that could be done on a foundation level that would be effective here. Alex, your hostile attitude in both your responses prove my second point. You, and attitudes like this, are a part of the problem. And your attitude illustrates the problem with many (not all) of the critics and dissenters. Rather than reply to my points or explain your ideas further when questioned, you choose to attack me. Those weren't rhetorical questions. I really was curious as to what you were suggesting. -- Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Site notice suggestion needed.
Brion Vibber wrote: Gregory Maxwell wrote: On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 2:52 PM, effe iets anders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesPageViewsMonthly.htm More then 10 billion page views per month... (or 3900 page views per second) 24 hour average HTTP request rate is 46347. So thats 120,131,424,000 HTTP requests per month. I have a hard time believing that we're averaging more than 12 HTTP requests per page view on average. I think something is inaccurate, and I think the HTTP request rate the more trustworthy number. Sounds on the right order of magnitude to me. I just tried a full-reload on a random short article with no images: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_J._Harlan which totaled 25 HTTP requests (including the fundraiser notice banner): 1 HTML page 3 static style sheets 3 dynamic style sheets 4 static JavaScripts 2 dynamic JavaScripts 1 fundraising banner JS 3 fundraising banner images 8 UI images (logo, background, icons) If you hit multiple pages, more of those will be cached, but you'll end up loading additional images as well. At some point we'll probably do some more consolidation on the CSS and JS files that get loaded most frequently to reduce the number of server round-trips on a first hit. -- brion Based on Domas's pageview stats[1] for the past 14 days (11/21 - 12/04) we get an average of 4112 pageviews per second, 4.9 billion total views for the 2 week period. The results per day are available at [2]. Out of curiosity, I also checked the 3 days around the recent US election day (11/03 - 11/05), the average views per second was 4599, an additional 42 million pageviews per day on average (though that's somewhat misleading, as that range is only weekdays and the number of pageviews tends to decrease significantly on weekends) [1] http://dammit.lt/wikistats/ Caution: fairly large page [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mr.Z-man/views -- Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
