Re: [Wikitech-l] How would you disrupt Wikipedia?
* Neil Kandalgaonkar ne...@wikimedia.org [Wed, 29 Dec 2010 14:40:13 -0800]: Thanks... I know this is a provocative question but I meant it just as it was stated, nothing more, nothing less. For better or worse my history with the foundation is too short to know the answers to these questions. All the assumptions in my question are up for grabs, including the assumption that we're even primarily developing MediaWiki for WMF projects. Maybe we think it's just a good thing for the world and that's that. Anyway, I would question that it doesn't take a lot of effort to keep the core small -- it seems to me that more and more of the things we use to power the big WMF projects are being pushed into extensions and templates and difficult-to-reproduce configuration and even data entered directly into the wiki, commingled indistinguishably with documents. (As you are aware, it takes a lot of knowledge to recreate Wikipedia for a testing environment. ;) Meanwhile, MediaWiki is perhaps too powerful and too complex to administer for the small organization. I work with a small group of artists that run a MediaWiki instance and whenever online collaboration has to happen, nobody in this group says Let's make a wiki page! That used to happen, but nowadays they go straight to Google Docs. And that has a lot of downsides; no version history, complex to auth credentials, lack of formatting power, can't easily transition to a doc published on a website, etc. MediaWIki wasn't always so complex. The first version, I've used in 2007 (1.9.3) was reasonably simpler than current 1.17 / 1.18 revisions. And one might learn it gradually, step by step in many months or even years. Besides of writing extensions for various clients, I do use it for my own small memo / blog, where I do put code samples, useful links (bookmarking) and a lot of various texts (quotations and articles to read later). To me, a standalone MediaWiki on a flash drive sounds like a good idea. However, there are many limitations, although SQLite support have become much better and there is a Nanoweb http server; some computers might already listen to 127.0.0.1:80. I wish it was possible to run a kind of web server with system sockets, or even no sockets at all, however browsers probably do not support this :-( Otherwise, one should pre-run a port scanner (not a very good thing). Dmitriy ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] How would you disrupt Wikipedia?
On 12/29/10 7:26 PM, Tim Starling wrote: OK, if you want a real answer: I think if you could convince admins to be nicer to people, then that would make a bigger impact to Wikipedia's long-term viability than any ease-of-editing feature. Making editing easier will give you a one-off jump in editing statistics, it won't address the trend. We know from interviews and departure messages that the editing interface creates an initial barrier for entry, but for people who get past that barrier, various social factors, such as incivility and bureaucracy, limit the time they spend contributing. For me the usability projects always had the unstated intent of broadening the pool of good editors. More hands to ease the burdens of the beleagured admins, and also fresher blood that wasn't quite as ensconced in wikipolitics. But overall I agree. Making editing easier could actually be counterproductive. If we let more people past the editing interface barrier before we fix our social problems, [...] This is an interesting insight! I have been thinking along these lines too, although in a more haphazard way. At some point, if we believe our community is our greatest asset, we have to think of Wikipedia as infrastructure not only for creating high quality articles, but also for generating and sustaining a high quality editing community. My sense is that the Wiki* communities are down with goal #1, but goal #2 is not on their radar at all. So we probably need an employee dedicated to this. (I think? Arguments?) When the Usability Project closed down, the team was also unhappy with the narrow focus paid to editing. Research showed the most serious problems were elsewhere. We then said we were going to address UX issues in a very broad way, which included social issues. Unfortunately the person in charge of that left the Foundation soon after and in the kerfuffle I'm not sure if we now have anybody whose primary job it is to think about the experience of the user in such broad terms. -- Neil Kandalgaonkar ( ne...@wikimedia.org ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] How would you disrupt Wikipedia?
2010/12/30 Neil Kandalgaonkar ne...@wikimedia.org On 12/29/10 7:26 PM, Tim Starling wrote: Making editing easier could actually be counterproductive. If we let more people past the editing interface barrier before we fix our social problems, [...] This is an interesting insight! Yes it's really interesting and highlighting! I'm following another talk about StringFunctions; and I recently got an account into toolserver (I only hope that my skill is merely sufficient!). In both cases, there's an issue of security by obscurity. I hate it at beginning, but perhaps such an approach is necessary, it's the simplest way to get a very difficult result. So, what's important is, the balance between simplicity and complexity, since this turns out into a contributor filter. At the beginning, wiki markup has been designed to be very simple. A very important feature of markup has been sacrificed: the code is not well formed. There are lots of simple, but ambiguous tags (for bold and italic characters, for lists); tags don't need to be closed; text content and tags/attributes are mixed freely into the template code. This makes simpler their use but causes terrible quizzes for advanced users facing with unusual cases or trying to parse wikitext by scripts or converting wikitext into a formally well formed markup. My question is: can we imagine to move a little bit that balance accepting a little more complexity and to think to a well formed wiki markup? Alex ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] How would you disrupt Wikipedia?
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 9:58 PM, Neil Kandalgaonkar ne...@wikimedia.org wrote: Question: assuming that our primary interest is creating software for Wikipedia and similar WMF projects, do we actually get anything from the Windows PC intranet users that offsets the cost of keeping MediaWiki friendly to both environments? In other words, do we get contributions from them that help us do Wikipedia et al,? Why would I contribute to software that I can't even run? ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] How would you disrupt Wikipedia?
Tim Starling wrote: OK, if you want a real answer: I think if you could convince admins to be nicer to people, then that would make a bigger impact to Wikipedia's long-term viability than any ease-of-editing feature. Making editing easier will give you a one-off jump in editing statistics, it won't address the trend. We know from interviews and departure messages that the editing interface creates an initial barrier for entry, but for people who get past that barrier, various social factors, such as incivility and bureaucracy, limit the time they spend contributing. Is there any evidence to support these claims? From what I understand, a lot of Wikipedia's best new content is added by anonymous users.[1] Thousands more editors are capable of registering and editing without much interaction with the broader Wikimedia community at all. If there's evidence that mean admins are a credible threat to long-term viability, I'd be interested to see it. Given that there are about 770 active administrators[2] on the English Wikipedia and I think you could reasonably say that a good portion are not mean, is it really quite a few people who are having this far-reaching impact that you're suggesting exists? That seems unlikely. Making editing easier could actually be counterproductive. If we let more people past the editing interface barrier before we fix our social problems, then we could burn out the majority of the Internet population before we figure out what's going on. Increasing the number of new editors by a large factor will increase the anxiety level of admins, and thus accelerate this process. I think the growth should be organic. With a better interface in place, a project has a much higher likelihood of successful, healthy growth. One thing we can do is to reduce the sense of urgency. Further deployment of FlaggedRevs (pending changes) is the obvious way to do this. By hiding recent edits, admins can deal with bad edits in their own time, rather reacting in the heat of the moment. Endless backlogs are going to draw people in? Delayed gratification is going to keep people contributing? This proposal seems anti-wiki in a literal and philosophical sense. MZMcBride [1] http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/reports/abstracts/TR2007-606/ [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_administrators ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Does anybody have the 20080726 dump version?
I just asked Dreamhost if they would give me permission to violate their TOS for this one time one file. Barring that, I'd need somewhere to upload or scp it to (any volunteers?), or if you're in the US either an 8 gig (5 gig or more) USB drive and self-addressed stamped envelope, or about $12 or so if you want me to buy an 8 gig USB drive and ship it to you, with the data, uninsured. If all goes smoothly, the upload should take about 19 hours with my cablemodem. Is there any sort of extract of the data that would suffice instead? On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 8:59 PM, Monica shu monicashu...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, I think they are the same! Is there any method to download it? Thanks very much!! On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 10:06 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: You talking about enwiki? I have enwiki-20080724-pages-articles.xml.bz2. Nothing for 20080726. On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 2:54 AM, Monica shu monicashu...@gmail.com wrote: @_...@... Thanks any way:) Anyone else hands up? On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 3:18 PM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 12:16 AM, Monica shu monicashu...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, I have looked through the web for the 20080726 version of the dump file pages-articles.xml.bz2. But I can't find any result. Can anybody provide me a download link? Thank a lot! True story: I used to have a copy of the 20080726 dump. I deleted it like a year ago because I didn't need it anymore and I didn't know it had gone missing at the time. I should ask next time :( -Chad ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Does anybody have the 20080726 dump version?
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 8:38 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: I just asked Dreamhost if they would give me permission to violate their TOS for this one time one file. And the person who responded just told me that he's not authorized to give me permission to do that. So, any volunteers to host this would still be appreciated. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] How would you disrupt Wikipedia?
On 30 December 2010 00:27, Aryeh Gregor simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com wrote: You could even compete by putting up a better editing interface, conceivably, although auth would be tricky to work out. You know, this is something that would be extremely easy to experiment with right now, On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 6:59 PM, Brion Vibber br...@pobox.com wrote: I think this isn't as useful a question as it might be; defining a project in terms of competing with something else leads to stagnation, not innovation. I agree. The correct strategy to take down Wikipedia would involve overcoming the network effect that locks it into its current position of dominance, and that's not something that would be useful for Wikipedia itself to do. To fend off attacks of this sort, what you'd want is to make your content harder to reuse, which we explicitly *don't* want to do. Better to ask: how can we enable more people to contribute who want to but can't be bothered? Making Wikipedia easy to mirror and fork is the best protection I can think of for the content itself. It also keeps the support structures (Foundation) and community good and honest. Comparison: People keep giving Red Hat money; Debian continues despite a prominent and successful fork (Ubuntu), and quite a bit goes back from the fork (both pull and push). - d. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] How would you disrupt Wikipedia?
On 30 December 2010 11:06, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: Tim Starling wrote: OK, if you want a real answer: I think if you could convince admins to be nicer to people, then that would make a bigger impact to Wikipedia's long-term viability than any ease-of-editing feature. Making editing easier will give you a one-off jump in editing statistics, it won't address the trend. Given that there are about 770 active administrators[2] on the English Wikipedia and I think you could reasonably say that a good portion are not mean, is it really quite a few people who are having this far-reaching impact that you're suggesting exists? That seems unlikely. There is some discussion of how the community and ArbCom enable grossly antisocial behaviour on internal-l at present. Admin behaviour is enforced by the ArbCom, and the AC member on internal-l has mostly been evasive. It's not clear what approach would work at this stage; it would probably have to get worse before the Foundation could reasonably step in. - d. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] How would you disrupt Wikipedia?
On 30 December 2010 09:07, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 30 December 2010 11:06, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: Tim Starling wrote: OK, if you want a real answer: I think if you could convince admins to be nicer to people, then that would make a bigger impact to Wikipedia's long-term viability than any ease-of-editing feature. Making editing easier will give you a one-off jump in editing statistics, it won't address the trend. Given that there are about 770 active administrators[2] on the English Wikipedia and I think you could reasonably say that a good portion are not mean, is it really quite a few people who are having this far-reaching impact that you're suggesting exists? That seems unlikely. There is some discussion of how the community and ArbCom enable grossly antisocial behaviour on internal-l at present. Admin behaviour is enforced by the ArbCom, and the AC member on internal-l has mostly been evasive. It's not clear what approach would work at this stage; it would probably have to get worse before the Foundation could reasonably step in. Perhaps if communication actually took place with Arbcom itself, rather than on a list in which there is no Arbcom representative, there might be a better understanding of the concerns you have mentioned. There's no Arbcom representative on internal-L, and in fact this is something of a bone of contention. Nonetheless, I think the most useful post in this entire thread has been Tim Starling's, and I thank him for it. Risker (who is coincidentally an enwp Arbitration Committee member but is in no way an Arbcom representative on this list) ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Does anybody have the 20080726 dump version?
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 8:53 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 8:38 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: I just asked Dreamhost if they would give me permission to violate their TOS for this one time one file. And the person who responded just told me that he's not authorized to give me permission to do that. So, any volunteers to host this would still be appreciated. If nobody steps forward before this weekend, I can do it. -Chad ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] How would you disrupt Wikipedia?
Neil Kandalgaonkar wrote: I have been thinking along these lines too, although in a more haphazard way. At some point, if we believe our community is our greatest asset, we have to think of Wikipedia as infrastructure not only for creating high quality articles, but also for generating and sustaining a high quality editing community. My sense is that the Wiki* communities are down with goal #1, but goal #2 is not on their radar at all. So we probably need an employee dedicated to this. (I think? Arguments?) He would be quite busy (and polyglot!) to keep an eye over the community of +800 projects. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] How would you disrupt Wikipedia?
Ryan Kaldari wrote: Actually, I would implement hot articles per WikiProject. So, for example, you could see the 5 articles under WikiProject Arthropods that had been edited the most in the past week. That should scale well. In fact, I would probably redesign Wikipedia to be WikiProject-based from the ground up, rather than as an afterthought. Like when you first sign up for an account it asks you which WikiProjects you want to join, etc. and there are cool extensions for earning points and awards within WikiProjects (that don't require learning how to use templates). Ryan Kaldari Well, that's an interesting point. People ask for things like a chat per article without realising what that would mean. Grouping communication in bigger wikiproject channels could work. Although some tree-like structure would be needed to manually split / magically join depending on the amount of people there. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] How would you disrupt Wikipedia?
On 12/30/10 10:24 AM, Platonides wrote: Neil Kandalgaonkar wrote: At some point, if we believe our community is our greatest asset, we have to think of Wikipedia as infrastructure not only for creating high quality articles, but also for generating and sustaining a high quality editing community. So we probably need an employee dedicated to this. (I think? Arguments?) He would be quite busy (and polyglot!) to keep an eye over the community of +800 projects. Why is this a requirement? If you think about the sum total of user-hours spent on Wikipedia, the vast majority of them are spent in just three or four interface flows. But you're right; they can't be everywhere, so maybe there should be a guidelines page on design principles. We have WP:CIVILITY, do we have similar guidelines for software developers, on how to make it easy for the community to be civil? Frankly I don't think I'm qualified to do this. I know of a few people are brilliant at this, and who do this sort of thing for a living, but they are consultants. Fostering community on the web is generally considered a sort of black art... does anybody know of any less mystified way of dealing with the problem? -- Neil Kandalgaonkar ( ne...@wikimedia.org ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] How would you disrupt Wikipedia?
Blog post on this topic: http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2010/12/30/how-does-a-project-bite-only-the-proper-number-of-newbies/ - d. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] How would you disrupt Wikipedia?
On 12/29/2010 2:31 AM, Neil Kandalgaonkar wrote: Let's imagine you wanted to start a rival to Wikipedia. Assume that you are motivated by money, and that venture capitalists promise you can be paid gazillions of dollars if you can do one, or many, of the following: Ok, first of all you need a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Let's assume it's a real business model and not that you know a few folks who have $1B burning a hole in their pocket. Let's also assume that it's a business model basic on getting a lot of traffic... Secondly, if you want to go up against 'Wikipedia as a whole', that's a very difficult problem. Wikipedia is one of the strongest sites on the internet in terms of S.E.O., not because of any nasty stuff, but because so many people link to Wikipedia articles from all over the web. Wikipedia ranks highly for many terms and that's a situation that Google Bing don't mind, since Wikipedia has something halfway decent to say about most topics... It makes search engines seem smart. To overturn Wikipedia on the conventional web, you'd really need to beat it at S.E.O. Sneaky-peet tricks won't help you that much when you're working at this scale, because if you're able to make enough phony links to challenge one of the most-linked sites on Earth, you're probably going to set off alarm bells up and down the West coast. Thus, the challenge of a two-sided market faces anybody who wants to 'beat' Wikipedia, and I think it's just too hard a nut to crack, even if you've got software that's way better and if you've got a monster marketing budget. I think there are three ways you can 'beat' Wikipedia in a smaller sense. (i) in another medium, (ii) by targeting very specific verticals, or (iii) by creating derivative products that add a very specific kind of value (that is, targeting a horizontal) In (i) I think of companies like Foursquare and Fotopedia that follow a mobile-first strategy. If mobile apps got really big and eclipsed the 'web as we know it', I can see a space for a Wikipedia successor. This could entirely bypass the S.E.O. problem, but couldn't Wikipedia fight back with a mobile app of it's own? On the other hand, this might not be so plausible: the better mobile devices do an O.K. job with 'HTML 5' and with improvements in hardware, networking and in HTML-related specifications, so there might be no real advantage in having 'an app for that'. Already people are complaining that a collection of apps on your device creates a number of 'walled gardens' that can't be searched in aggregate, and these kinds of pressures may erode the progress of apps. For (ii) I think of Wikia, which hosts things like http://mario.wikia.com/wiki/MarioWiki Stuff like this drives deletionists nuts on Wikipedia, but having a place for them to live in Wikia makes everybody happy. Here's a place where the Notability policy means that Wikipedia isn't competitive. Now, in general, Wikia is trying to do this for thousands of subjects (which might compete with Wikipedia overall) and they've had some success, but not an overwhelming amount. Speaking of notability, another direction is to make something that's more comprehensive than Wikipedia. Consider Freebase, which accepts Person records for any non-fictional person and has detailed records of millions of TV episodes, music tracks, books, etc. If Wikipedia refuses to go someplace, they create opportunities. As for (iii) you're more likely to have a complementary relationship with Wikipedia. You can take advantage of Wikipedia's success and get some income to pay for people and machines. There wouldn't be any possibility of 'replacing' Wikipedia except in a crazy long-term scenario where, say, we can convert Wikipedia into a knowledge base that can grow and update itself with limited human intervention. (Personally I think this is 10-25 years off) Anyhow, I could talk your ear off about (iii) but I'd make you sign an N.D.A. first. ;-) ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] How would you disrupt Wikipedia?
With open source software, there are people who think “that’s dumb,” there are people who think “I want to see it fixed” and there are people who think “I can do something about it.” The people at the intersection of all three power open source. A lot of people in the open source project Y will not see a problem with X, being X a huge usability problem that stop a lot of people from using Y. So what you have is a lot of people I don't see the problem with that ( realistically, a lot of people that will talk about a lot of things, and not about X ), and maybe some of the people that have problems with X that don't know how to communicate his problem, or don't care enough. Any open source project work like a club. The club work for the people that is part of the club, and does the things that the people of the club enjoy. If you like chess, you will not join the basket club, and probably the basket club will never run a chess competition. Or the chess club a basket competition. If anything, the Problem with open source, is that any change is incremental, and there's a lot of endogamy. Also user suggestions are not much better. Users often ask for things that are too hard, or incremental enhancements that will result on bloat on the long term. So really, what you may need is one person that can see the problems of the newbies, of the devs, of the people with a huge investment on the project, and make long term decisions, and have a lot of influence on the people, while working on the shadows towards that goal. -- -- ℱin del ℳensaje. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] How would you disrupt Wikipedia?
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 10:26 PM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote: I think there are things we can do in software to help de-escalate this conflict between established editors and new editors. One thing we can do is to reduce the sense of urgency. Further deployment of FlaggedRevs (pending changes) is the obvious way to do this. By hiding recent edits, admins can deal with bad edits in their own time, rather reacting in the heat of the moment. Another thing we could do is to improve the means of communication. Better communication often helps to de-escalate a conflict. We could replace the terrible user talk page interface with an easy-to-use real-time messaging framework. We could integrate polite template responses with the UI. And we could provide a centralised forum-like view of such messages, to encourage mediators to review and de-escalate emotion-charged conversations. We could also try to work out ways to make adminship less important. If protection, blocking, and deletion could be made less necessary and important in day-to-day editing, that would reduce the importance of admins and reduce the difference between established and new contributors. You could often make do with much softer versions of these three things, which could be given out much more liberally. For instance, to replace blocking, you could have a system whereby any reasonably established editor ( X edits/Y days) can place another editor or IP address in moderation, so that their edits have to be approved before going live, in Flagged Revs style. As with blocking, any established editor could also reverse such a block. Abuse would thus be easily reversed and fairly harmless (since the edits could go through automatically when it's lifted, barring conflicts). Sysops would only be necessary if people with established accounts abuse their rights. Likewise, most deletion doesn't really need to make anything private. Reasonably established editors could be given the right to soft-delete a page such that any other such editor could read or undelete it. This would be fine for the vast majority of deletions, like vanity pages and spam. Sysops would only have to get involved for copyright infringement, privacy issues, and so on. As for protection, we already have Flagged Revs. Lower levels of flagging should be imposable by people other than sysops, and since those largely supersede semiprotection, sysops would again only be needed to adjudicate disputes between established editors (like full-protecting an edit-warred page). Obviously, all these rights would be revocable by sysops in the event of abuse. Unfortunately, I don't think that technical solutions are going to fix the problem on enwiki. I think the only thing that will do it is if Wikimedia adopts more explicit policies about creating a friendly editing environment, and enforces them in the same vein as it does copyright policies. But that's easier said than done for a number of reasons. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] How would you disrupt Wikipedia?
On 12/29/2010 10:26 PM, Tim Starling wrote: On 29/12/10 18:31, Neil Kandalgaonkar wrote: I've been inspired by the discussion David Gerard and Brion Vibber kicked off, and I think they are headed in the right direction. But I just want to ask a separate, but related question. Let's imagine you wanted to start a rival to Wikipedia. Assume that you are motivated by money, and that venture capitalists promise you can be paid gazillions of dollars if you can do one, or many, of the following: 1 - Become a more attractive home to the WP editors. Get them to work on your content. 2 - Take the free content from WP, and use it in this new system. But make it much better, in a way Wikipedia can't match. This has been done before: Wikinfo, Citizendium, etc. 3 - Attract even more readers, or perhaps a niche group of super-passionate readers that you can use to build a new community. This is basically Wikia's business model. I think you need to think outside the box. I would make it more like World of Warcraft. We should incentivise people to set up wiki sweatshops in Indonesia, paying local people to grind all day, cleaning up articles, in order to build up a level 10 admin character that can then be sold for thousands of dollars on the open market. Also it should have cool graphics. OK, if you want a real answer: I think if you could convince admins to be nicer to people, then that would make a bigger impact to Wikipedia's long-term viability than any ease-of-editing feature. Making editing easier will give you a one-off jump in editing statistics, it won't address the trend. We know from interviews and departure messages that the editing interface creates an initial barrier for entry, but for people who get past that barrier, various social factors, such as incivility and bureaucracy, limit the time they spend contributing. Once you burn someone out, they don't come back for a long time, maybe not ever. So you introduce a downwards trend which extends over decades, until the rate at which we burn people out meets the rate at which new editors are born. Active, established editors have a battlefront mentality. They feel as if they are fighting for the survival of Wikipedia against a constant stream of newbies who don't understand or don't care about our policies. As the stream of newbies increases, they become more desperate, and resort to more desperate (and less civil) measures for controlling the flood. Making editing easier could actually be counterproductive. If we let more people past the editing interface barrier before we fix our social problems, then we could burn out the majority of the Internet population before we figure out what's going on. Increasing the number of new editors by a large factor will increase the anxiety level of admins, and thus accelerate this process. One thing that I think could help, at least on the English Wikipedia, would be to further restrict new article creation. Right now, any registered user can create a new article, and according to some statistics I gathered a few months ago[1], almost 25% of new users make their first edit creating an article. 81% of those users had their article deleted and 0.1% of them were still editing a few (6-7) months later, compared to 4% for the 19% whose articles were kept, giving a total retention rate of 1.3%. However, for the 75% of users who started by editing an existing article, the overall retention rate was 2.5%. Still a small number, but almost double the rate for the article creation route. The English Wikipedia, with 3.5 million articles, has been scraping the bottom of the notability barrel for a while. Creating a proper new article is not an especially easy task in terms of editing, yet the project practically encourages new users to do it. We're dropping new users into the deep end of the pool, then getting angry at them when they start to drown. What we should be doing instead is suggesting that users add their information to an existing article somewhere (with various tools to help them find it). And if they can't find anything remotely related in 3.5 million articles, ask themselves whether they still think its an appropriate topic. This is an area where the foundation potentially could step in to change things. Its never going to happen through the community, since there's too many people (or at least too many loud people) with a more is better mentality. (Part of the reason I gathered the stats was to prove that most new users don't start by creating an article). They'll scream and moan for a while about how we're being anti-wiki, but in the end, most probably won't really care that much. -- Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man) ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] How would you disrupt Wikipedia?
Neil Kandalgaonkar wrote: On 12/30/10 10:24 AM, Platonides wrote: Neil Kandalgaonkar wrote: At some point, if we believe our community is our greatest asset, we have to think of Wikipedia as infrastructure not only for creating high quality articles, but also for generating and sustaining a high quality editing community. So we probably need an employee dedicated to this. (I think? Arguments?) He would be quite busy (and polyglot!) to keep an eye over the community of +800 projects. Why is this a requirement? The point is, there's no one community to watch. Most people think in enwiki, for being the biggest project, and most probably the base project of those people. But one must not forget that there are many WMF projects out there. It doesn't end in enwp. They have similar problems, but cannot be generalised either. There's a risk of contracting someone as an injerence on the project (seems the role for a facilitator, but I'd only place people that were already in the community -the otrs folks seem a good fishing pool-, if doing such thing). Plus, there's the view on how it may be perceived (WMF trying to impose its views over the community, WMF really having power on the project and thus being liable...). If you think about the sum total of user-hours spent on Wikipedia, the vast majority of them are spent in just three or four interface flows. What are you thinking about? Things such as talk page messages. There are shortcuts for those interfaces. Several gadgets/scripts provide a tab for adding a template to a page + leave a predefined message to the author talk page. That's good in a sense as the users *get* messages (eg. when listing images for deletion), they are also quite full and translated (relevant just for commons). But it also means that it's a generic message, so not as appropiate for everyone. We can make the flow faster, but we lose precision. But you're right; they can't be everywhere, so maybe there should be a guidelines page on design principles. We have WP:CIVILITY, do we have similar guidelines for software developers, on how to make it easy for the community to be civil? I'm lost here. Are you calling uncivil the developer community for this thread? You mean that WP:CIVILITY should be enforced by mediawiki? Developers should be more helopful when dealing bug reports? What do you mean? Frankly I don't think I'm qualified to do this. I know of a few people are brilliant at this, and who do this sort of thing for a living, but they are consultants. Fostering community on the web is generally considered a sort of black art... does anybody know of any less mystified way of dealing with the problem? ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] [Foundation-l] Big problem to solve: good WYSIWYG on WMF wikis
That is true - We can't do away with Wikitext always been the intermediate conclusion (in between My god, we need to do something about this problem and This is hopeless, we give up again). between wikitext and WYSISWYG is a simple solution of colourizing text like for hundreds of programing (and otehr) languages formats in a simple text editor. This is not a rocket science but we still do not have it :( masti ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] How would you disrupt Wikipedia?
Aryeh Gregor wrote: We could also try to work out ways to make adminship less important. If protection, blocking, and deletion could be made less necessary and important in day-to-day editing, that would reduce the importance of admins and reduce the difference between established and new contributors. You could often make do with much softer versions of these three things, which could be given out much more liberally. For instance, to replace blocking, you could have a system whereby any reasonably established editor ( X edits/Y days) can place another editor or IP address in moderation, so that their edits have to be approved before going live, in Flagged Revs style. As with blocking, any established editor could also reverse such a block. Abuse would thus be easily reversed and fairly harmless (since the edits could go through automatically when it's lifted, barring conflicts). Sysops would only be necessary if people with established accounts abuse their rights. Likewise, most deletion doesn't really need to make anything private. Reasonably established editors could be given the right to soft-delete a page such that any other such editor could read or undelete it. This would be fine for the vast majority of deletions, like vanity pages and spam. Sysops would only have to get involved for copyright infringement, privacy issues, and so on. As for protection, we already have Flagged Revs. Lower levels of flagging should be imposable by people other than sysops, and since those largely supersede semiprotection, sysops would again only be needed to adjudicate disputes between established editors (like full-protecting an edit-warred page). Obviously, all these rights would be revocable by sysops in the event of abuse. There's an extension to 'delete' pages by blanking. I find that approach much more wiki. We should also work on allowing more protection levels. Fixing problems with the if you can protect, you can edit anything behavior and such. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] How would you disrupt Wikipedia?
Alex wrote: One thing that I think could help, at least on the English Wikipedia, would be to further restrict new article creation. Right now, any registered user can create a new article, and according to some statistics I gathered a few months ago[1], almost 25% of new users make their first edit creating an article. 81% of those users had their article deleted and 0.1% of them were still editing a few (6-7) months later, compared to 4% for the 19% whose articles were kept, giving a total retention rate of 1.3%. However, for the 75% of users who started by editing an existing article, the overall retention rate was 2.5%. Still a small number, but almost double the rate for the article creation route. This is significant, but I'm not convinced about the reason. There is surely an attacking factor. You make them go through hoops, having to register an account, then destroy its work. It's normal that some potentially good contributors leave. But many of those are single purpose accounts which would only be interested in adding its myspace band, ever. We should support the first type users, but we don't want even its register for the second type. The English Wikipedia, with 3.5 million articles, has been scraping the bottom of the notability barrel for a while. Creating a proper new article is not an especially easy task in terms of editing, yet the project practically encourages new users to do it. We're dropping new users into the deep end of the pool, then getting angry at them when they start to drown. Completely. This mentality should be changed. What we should be doing instead is suggesting that users add their information to an existing article somewhere (with various tools to help them find it). And if they can't find anything remotely related in 3.5 million articles, ask themselves whether they still think its an appropriate topic. That's a good point, but not suitable for all topics. If I want to create an article that would have been considered relevant you shouldn't make me wander in circles. Some people shouldn't be treated as babies, while others should. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] [Foundation-l] Big problem to solve: good WYSIWYG on WMF wikis
masti wrote: That is true - We can't do away with Wikitext always been the intermediate conclusion (in between My god, we need to do something about this problem and This is hopeless, we give up again). between wikitext and WYSISWYG is a simple solution of colourizing text like for hundreds of programing (and otehr) languages formats in a simple text editor. This is not a rocket science but we still do not have it :( masti Have you tried wikiEd ? ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] [Foundation-l] Big problem to solve: good WYSIWYG on WMF wikis
masti wrote: That is true - We can't do away with Wikitext always been the intermediate conclusion (in between My god, we need to do something about this problem and This is hopeless, we give up again). between wikitext and WYSISWYG is a simple solution of colourizing text like for hundreds of programing (and otehr) languages formats in a simple text editor. This is not a rocket science but we still do not have it :( masti Have you tried wikiEd ? ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] How would you disrupt Wikipedia?
On 12/31/2010 01:02 AM, Platonides wrote: There's an extension to 'delete' pages by blanking. I find that approach much more wiki. if you like to be blocked for blanking ... masti ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] How would you disrupt Wikipedia?
On 31 December 2010 00:02, Platonides platoni...@gmail.com wrote: There's an extension to 'delete' pages by blanking. I find that approach much more wiki. Pure wiki deletion is a perennial proposal. One problem is that there doesn't appear to be a wiki anywhere that actually uses it, or ever have been one. (I've asked for examples before - does anyone have any?) This suggests that the biggest wiki in the world might not be the greatest place to be the very first. - d. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] How would you disrupt Wikipedia?
Looking over the thread, there are lots of good ideas. Its really important to have some plan towards cleaning up abstractions between structured data, procedures in representation, visual representation and tools for participation. But, I think its correct to identify the social aspects of the projects as more critical than purity of abstractions within wikitext. Tools, bots and scripts and clever ui components can abstract away some of the pain of the underlining platform as long as people are willing to accept a bit of abstraction leakage / lack of coverage in some areas as part of moving to something better. One area that I did not see much mention of in this thread is automated systems for reputation. Reputation systems would be useful both for user interactions and for gauging expertise within particular knowledge domains. Social capital within wikikmedia projects is presently stored in incredibly unstructured ways and has little bearing on user privileges or how the actions of others are represented to you, and how your actions are represented to others. Its presently based on traditional small scale capacities of individuals to gauge social standing within their social networks and or to read user pages. We can see automatic reputation system emerging anytime you want to share anything online be it making a small loan to trading used DVDs. Sharing information should adopt some similar principals. There has been some good work done in this area with wikitrust system ( and other user moderation / karma systems ). Tying that data into smart interface flows that reward positive social behaviour and productive contributions, should make it more fun to participate in the projects and result in more fluid higher quality information sharing. peace, --michael On 12/29/2010 01:31 AM, Neil Kandalgaonkar wrote: I've been inspired by the discussion David Gerard and Brion Vibber kicked off, and I think they are headed in the right direction. But I just want to ask a separate, but related question. Let's imagine you wanted to start a rival to Wikipedia. Assume that you are motivated by money, and that venture capitalists promise you can be paid gazillions of dollars if you can do one, or many, of the following: 1 - Become a more attractive home to the WP editors. Get them to work on your content. 2 - Take the free content from WP, and use it in this new system. But make it much better, in a way Wikipedia can't match. 3 - Attract even more readers, or perhaps a niche group of super-passionate readers that you can use to build a new community. In other words, if you had no legacy, and just wanted to build something from zero, how would you go about creating an innovation that was disruptive to Wikipedia, in fact something that made Wikipedia look like Friendster or Myspace compared to Facebook? And there's a followup question to this -- but you're all smart people and can guess what it is. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] How would you disrupt Wikipedia?
On 12/30/10 3:33 PM, Platonides wrote: But you're right; they can't be everywhere, so maybe there should be a guidelines page on design principles. We have WP:CIVILITY, do we have similar guidelines for software developers, on how to make it easy for the community to be civil? I'm lost here. Are you calling uncivil the developer community for this thread? You mean that WP:CIVILITY should be enforced by mediawiki? Developers should be more helopful when dealing bug reports? What do you mean? I guess I have not been clear... I was picking up on what Tim said, that we have to work on making WP and other projects into places where people feel more welcome. Telling people to be nicer may help, but I actually think that people are more shaped by their environment. If you go from a party at a friend's warm apartment to an anonymous street your mood and receptiveness to others changes instantly. The point is to make MediaWiki more like the friend's apartment, and less like the anonymous street. If we have interfaces that make it easy for admins to be rude to new editors, they will be more rude. If we make it easy to be nice, then maybe they'll also be nicer. This isn't a radical new idea. Tim already noted that he hopes Pending Changes (nee FlaggedRevs) would help people be less brusque with one another. Polite template responses, things like that. Users are influenced by very subtle cues. Understanding how they work is a very rare ability. So I was suggesting we collect rules of thumb for people who are making interfaces. Not policies to bash each other with. -- Neil Kandalgaonkar ( ne...@wikimedia.org ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] How would you disrupt Wikipedia?
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 1:07 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: There is some discussion of how the community and ArbCom enable grossly antisocial behaviour on internal-l at present. Admin behaviour is enforced by the ArbCom, and the AC member on internal-l has mostly been evasive. Wtf? ArbCom members are expected to be responsive to discussions about English Wikipedia occurring on internal-l? Could you please clarify who are you're obliquely attacking here? -- John Vandenberg ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Does anybody have the 20080726 dump version?
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 9:38 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: I just asked Dreamhost if they would give me permission to violate their TOS for this one time one file. Barring that, I'd need somewhere to upload or scp it to (any volunteers?), or if you're in the US either an 8 gig (5 gig or more) USB drive and self-addressed stamped envelope, or about $12 or so if you want me to buy an 8 gig USB drive and ship it to you, with the data, uninsured. I'm in China...So still upload to some where is better... If all goes smoothly, the upload should take about 19 hours with my cablemodem. Is there any sort of extract of the data that would suffice instead? I'm using a Tookit which provide parsed link result of this version, but with out page content... And I tried to extract links in other dump version using this tookit, failed :( Some bugs are reported, so now I think the fastest way is to find this original dump. On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 8:59 PM, Monica shu monicashu...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, I think they are the same! Is there any method to download it? Thanks very much!! On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 10:06 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: You talking about enwiki? I have enwiki-20080724-pages-articles.xml.bz2. Nothing for 20080726. On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 2:54 AM, Monica shu monicashu...@gmail.com wrote: @_...@... Thanks any way:) Anyone else hands up? On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 3:18 PM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 12:16 AM, Monica shu monicashu...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, I have looked through the web for the 20080726 version of the dump file pages-articles.xml.bz2. But I can't find any result. Can anybody provide me a download link? Thank a lot! True story: I used to have a copy of the 20080726 dump. I deleted it like a year ago because I didn't need it anymore and I didn't know it had gone missing at the time. I should ask next time :( -Chad ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Does anybody have the 20080726 dump version?
You are so nice, thank you very much!! On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 1:09 AM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 8:53 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 8:38 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: I just asked Dreamhost if they would give me permission to violate their TOS for this one time one file. And the person who responded just told me that he's not authorized to give me permission to do that. So, any volunteers to host this would still be appreciated. If nobody steps forward before this weekend, I can do it. -Chad ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] How would you disrupt Wikipedia?
On 31 December 2010 00:08, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 31 December 2010 00:02, Platonides platoni...@gmail.com wrote: There's an extension to 'delete' pages by blanking. I find that approach much more wiki. Pure wiki deletion is a perennial proposal. One problem is that there doesn't appear to be a wiki anywhere that actually uses it, or ever have been one. (I've asked for examples before - does anyone have any?) This suggests that the biggest wiki in the world might not be the greatest place to be the very first. If you want to being the biggest wiki in the world to mean anything, you need to innovate. Wikipedia will continue to stagnate if everyone is too scared to try out new stuff. This is in my mind the biggest problem facing Wikimedia — it's suffering from complete feature-freeze because everyone is so scared of making a mistake. On all fronts, encyclopedic, social, technical, nothing has really moved forward at all for the last year or two. Sure, we've optimized a few workflows, tightened a few procedures, and added some content — but there's no innovation, nothing exciting and new. Evolution is the best model we have for how to build something, the way to keep progress going is to continually try new things; if they fail, meh, if they succeed — yay! There are no planning meetings, no months of deliberation about exactly what shape a finger should be. Sure, nothing built by evolution is perfect, but that's fine, it will continue to get better in ways not even imaginable from this point in time (everyone knows you can't see into the future, so stop wasting time trying). One reason that wikis are such a good way of creating content is that they use the same process — anyone can make a random change. If it is good, it is kept; if not it isn't. The same model is appearing in other places too. Github allows random people to change software, and only the good stuff gets merged. Google does the same: Wave was a fun idea, it turns out it was also useless — oh well, lesson learnt, move on. There is no Wikipedia-killer in a concrete sense. The world will continue to evolve. Wikipedia has a simple choice: evolve or get left behind. Conrad ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
[Wikitech-l] Missing Section Headings
Hello, I have been a WP editor since 2006. I hope you can help me. For some reason I no longer have Section Heading titles showing in the Articles. This is true of all Headings including the one that carries the Article subject's name. When there is a Table of Contents, it appears fine and, when I click on a particular Section, it goes to that Section, but all that is there is a straight line separating the Sections. There is also no button to edit a Section. If I edit the page and remove the == == markers from the Section Titles, the Title then shows up, but not as a Section Heading. Also, I don't have any Date separators on my Want List. This started 2 days ago. Any thoughts? Thanks, Marc Riddell [[User:Michael David]] ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Does anybody have the 20080726 dump version?
You can place it on my server, will give you the details inn private 2010/12/30, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org: On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 8:38 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: I just asked Dreamhost if they would give me permission to violate their TOS for this one time one file. And the person who responded just told me that he's not authorized to give me permission to do that. So, any volunteers to host this would still be appreciated. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l -- Verzonden vanaf mijn mobiele apparaat Regards, Huib Abigor Laurens Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Does anybody have the 20080726 dump version?
Okay, I emailed to Anthony how he can upload it. after he is done the content will be at: http://dump.huiblaurens.nl When the date is online I will make sure I have a copy of it somewhere else on a server so it won't get lost. Best, Huib ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Does anybody have the 20080726 dump version?
OK, I'll continuously check it :） Thanks all!! Happy new year to all!! On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Huib Laurens sterke...@gmail.com wrote: Okay, I emailed to Anthony how he can upload it. after he is done the content will be at: http://dump.huiblaurens.nl When the date is online I will make sure I have a copy of it somewhere else on a server so it won't get lost. Best, Huib ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
