John Vandenberg, 16/09/2010 03:00:
English, French, German, Italian, Polish, Portugeuse, Swedish and
Chinese Wikipedia all appear to have some mirrors, but are any of them
reliable enough to be used for disaster recovery?
Obviously not, at least Italian ones.
The smaller projects are easier
Image by FlamingText.com
Hi,
Just thought I'd tell you guys that's there's an upcoming Mozilla Drumbeat
Festival this November in Barcelona whose theme is Learning, Freedom and the
Web. It's a festival that gathers librarians, creative commoners, wikimedians,
hackers, open
just for the record, old ways and old rules refer to the fact they get
published on meta, right?
2010/9/16 Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com
As Karen fixed her anonymity issue, archives of the Language committee
will be public by default starting from September 12th, 2010. We will
continue to
I suggested a similar idea in another thread in this mailing list.
Seriously, I don't know why after 10 years (since Wikipedia creation), we
haven't used a similar mirror system like GNU/Linux ISOs.
Some weeks ago, I wrote a script (I can share it with interested people) to
download every 7z
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 5:40 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
nemow...@gmail.com wrote:
John Vandenberg, 16/09/2010 03:00:
English, French, German, Italian, Polish, Portugeuse, Swedish and
Chinese Wikipedia all appear to have some mirrors, but are any of them
reliable enough to be used for disaster
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 12:58 AM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 5:40 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
nemow...@gmail.com wrote:
John Vandenberg, 16/09/2010 03:00:
English, French, German, Italian, Polish, Portugeuse, Swedish and
Chinese Wikipedia all appear to have
John Vandenberg wrote:
The key would be to allow the mirrors to delete their mirror when they
need to use their excess storage capability. If they let us know in
advance that they are reclaiming the space, another organisation with
excess storage capability can take over.
Surely I don't need
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 6:16 PM, George Herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
Disaster Recovery is not something the Foundation should attempt to
crowdsource.
IIRC, it Greg Maxwell who had (some of?) the images that the
Foundation lost when a bug was rolled into production.
It is lovely that
I want to paste a paragraph by Richard Stallman from his *The Free Universal
Encyclopedia and Learning Resource*[1]. For curious people and for adding
more useful ideas to this thread. I want you see this 'movement of backup
all!' only a wish of protecting this huge wiki treasure that we are
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Aude aude.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Surely there are third parties with such experience and interested in
this. [...] Surely google has or should have copy?
It would be interesting to know what Google has. I recently began a
new article and was stunned to see that
It does indeed. Our archives can be found here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Language_committee_archives
I realize that there is no link to the archives from the main Langcom page
([[m:Language committee]]), and will try and fix this when I get home later
today.
2010/9/16 Lodewijk
May one ask why private personal stuff is even being discussed on this list?
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 16 September 2010 12:09, K. Peachey p858sn...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
May one ask why private personal stuff is even being discussed on this list?
This was discussed on foundation-l in August, check the archive.
(Subject line: Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles)
- d.
On Sep 16, 2010, at 6:44 AM, Bod Notbod bodnot...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Aude aude.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Surely there are third parties with such experience and interested in
this. [...] Surely google has or should have copy?
It would be interesting to know what
Thank you to everybody who had a part in bringing about this increased
transparency. It is a breath of fresh air for me and hopefully for
everybody else who follows language-related developments on Wikimedia.
-m.
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 9:08 PM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
As Karen
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 12:08 AM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
As Karen fixed her anonymity issue, archives of the Language committee
will be public by default starting from September 12th, 2010. We will
continue to use the same method for the list archives, as it allows us
to talk
An'n 16.09.2010 06:08, hett Milos Rancic schreven:
As Karen fixed her anonymity issue, archives of the Language committee
will be public by default starting from September 12th, 2010. We will
continue to use the same method for the list archives, as it allows us
to talk about confidential
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 09:46, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote:
just for the record, old ways and old rules refer to the fact they get
published on meta, right?
Both ways assume archiving on Meta. Old rules assume censoring of
previous Karen's and Gerard's emails.
I entirely agree that full, distributed backups of all content in
Wikimedia projects are a top priority.
This shouldn't only include the publicly available dumps, but also a
regular secure off-site backup of Wikimedia in a box (essentially
everything needed to restore a fully operating network of
On Sep 16, 2010, at 12:58 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I entirely agree that full, distributed backups of all content in
Wikimedia projects are a top priority.
This shouldn't only include the publicly available dumps, but also a
regular secure off-site backup of Wikimedia in a
Putting this in context. If I were to donate, say £1,500 of gross income to
WMF, it would be reasonable to ask what this money was for: how it was
helping. The WMF goal is to collect and developing educational content and
to disseminate it effectively and globally. Wikipedia is the main
How would locking Wikipedia down fulfill the mission to collect all the
educational information known. Information changes constantly, new information
becomes available constantly, and new material gets added to old articles
constantly. I myself just added some new detail to an article within
How would locking Wikipedia down fulfill the mission to collect all the
educational information known.
Information changes constantly, new information becomes available
constantly, and new material gets added to old articles constantly.
I myself just added some new detail to an article within
Anyone who is interested in supporting a specialist work should give money to
that work. Wikipedia is a general work however. There are those who would
rather support a general work, which has one set of rules, navigation and
procedures across the project, rather than fifteen specialized
Well, Peter, it all depends on what metrics you wish to use when deciding
where to spend your money. In 2005, the English Wikipedia had less than
half the number of articles it has now. Dozens of projects in existence
today weren't even started in 2005; in some cases, they are the only online
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Peter Damian
peter.dam...@btinternet.com wrote:
Putting this in context. If I were to donate, say £1,500 of gross income to
WMF, it would be reasonable to ask what this money was for: how it was
helping. The WMF goal is to collect and developing educational
I'm hoping I'm not understanding this criticism:
' that it is unduly oriented to topics of interest to
the masses,'
Are you stating that Peter is stating that a general encyclopedia should not be
oriented to topics of interest to the masses?
Who exactly is the audience if not the masses?
Risker In 2005, the English Wikipedia had less than half the number of
articles it has now.
Hs anyone made a serious study of what these articles actually contain?
Only a tiny number of articles were considered of high enough quality to
be
featured in 2005; that number has grown exponentially
Are you stating that Peter is stating that a general encyclopedia should
not be oriented to topics of interest to the masses?
Who exactly is the audience if not the masses?
I don't know what Nathan means here. I believe that an encyclopedia should
be of popular interest, and be presented in
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Peter Damian
peter.dam...@btinternet.com wrote:
Risker In 2005, the English Wikipedia had less than half the number of
articles it has now.
Hs anyone made a serious study of what these articles actually contain?
Only a tiny number of articles were considered
Can you give an example of what appeal to the popular means in the context of
our project and how those appeals as you say are not educational? For
example just today, at work, a question came up about exactly what a certain
divorce proceeding said about a certain politician and why that
- Original Message -
From: Nathan nawr...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 9:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
It's always been my impression that you fundamentally
I dont understand how information about pornography, computer games, tv
shows... is not educational.
If I want to know whether Berle Ives was ever a guest star on Bewitched, why
wouldn't we fulfill a request like that in project ?
-Original Message-
From: Peter Damian
- Original Message -
From: Wjhonson wjhon...@aol.com
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 9:25 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
Can you give an example of what appeal to the popular means in the
context of our project
- Original Message -
From: Wjhonson wjhon...@aol.com
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 9:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
I dont understand how information about pornography, computer games, tv
shows... is not
- Original Message -
From: Wjhonson wjhon...@aol.com
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 9:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
I dont understand how information about pornography, computer games, tv
shows... is not
Quote: Then you are misunderstanding the meaning of the word 'educational' I
think.
Perhaps the word you want is academic. I'm sure a university might look down
upon an encyclopedia of Petticoat Junction but that doesn't mean that
Wikipedia should. That our work is popular and
- Original Message -
From: Wjhonson wjhon...@aol.com
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 9:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
Quote: Then you are misunderstanding the meaning of the word
'educational' I think.
On 16 September 2010 17:58, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
For privacy reasons, we can't back up all data everywhere (e.g. user
account information) -- it might be worth thinking about longer term
strategies for portability of that data (e.g. a group of unaffiliated
entrusted
2010/9/16 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
Surely dumps would be a natural for the Internet Archive and the
Library of Congress.
As Tomasz noted in [1], we're already talking to the LOC about keeping
mirrors. But lots of copies keep stuff safe, and it's something that
the community can easily
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 4:53 PM, Peter Damian
peter.dam...@btinternet.com wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Wjhonson wjhon...@aol.com
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 9:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
Quote:
On 16 September 2010 22:16, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
2010/9/16 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
Surely dumps would be a natural for the Internet Archive and the
Library of Congress.
As Tomasz noted in [1], we're already talking to the LOC about keeping
mirrors. But lots of
As promised, the draft report on our study of Controversial Content on
Wikimedia projects is now available at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content.
We're actually planning to release the study on that page in three segments,
with a day or two in
On 16 September 2010 22:35, R M Harris rmhar...@sympatico.ca wrote:
As promised, the draft report on our study of Controversial Content on
Wikimedia projects is now available at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content.
We're actually planning to
David,
Not quite sure what you mean by ratcheted up? Could you clarify?
Thanks,
Steven Walling
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 2:51 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 September 2010 22:35, R M Harris rmhar...@sympatico.ca wrote:
As promised, the draft report on our study of
On 16 September 2010 23:11, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com wrote:
Not quite sure what you mean by ratcheted up? Could you clarify?
I thought it was pretty clear. What, if anything, is in place to make
sure the planned filtering will not be increased?
- d.
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 3:59 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
People who donate to Wikimedia do so for a number of reasons, chief
among them (I suspect) is to support keeping the lights on. That is,
the ongoing maintenance of the project in its current form. Most
donors are probably aware
There are no concrete plans to filter anything. The only thing we have
is the preamble to a draft set of recommendations. Those
recommendations will eventually be handed over to the Board, but only
after time for comment and revision based on those comments.
If you think something important is
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 1:10 PM, Peter Damian
peter.dam...@btinternet.com wrote:
Risker In 2005, the English Wikipedia had less than half the number of
articles it has now.
Hs anyone made a serious study of what these articles actually contain?
Yes. But not across all articles. Anyone can
Hi all,
Danese Cooper, the open source diva, and Wikimedia's very own Chief
Technology Officer, will be our guest at office hours on Wednesday, 22
September at 23:00UTC (16:00 Pacific, 19:00 Eastern, 01:00 Thursday
CET). This is a great opportunity to spend time with Danese and talk
50 matches
Mail list logo
