On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 8:50 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
I can picture a model in which lots of other people write what turn
out to be feeder wikis for Wikipedia. But I can't see what's really in
it for the volunteers on those wikis.
Are you serious? What's in it for them is the
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 10:50 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 8:50 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
I can picture a model in which lots of other people write what turn
out to be feeder wikis for Wikipedia. But I can't see what's really in
it for
I was looking through some old files in our SourceForge project. I
opened a file called wiki.tar.gz, and inside were three complete
backups of the text of Wikipedia, from February, March and August 2001!
This is exciting, because there is lots of article history in here
which was assumed to be
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 10:54 AM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I was looking through some old files in our SourceForge project. I
opened a file called wiki.tar.gz, and inside were three complete
backups of the text of Wikipedia, from February, March and August 2001!
This is
On 12/14/2010 7:54 AM, Tim Starling wrote:
I was looking through some old files in our SourceForge project. I
opened a file called wiki.tar.gz, and inside were three complete
backups of the text of Wikipedia, from February, March and August 2001!
I guess producing database dumps was easier in
Can these edits be imported into wikipedia in time for the tenth anniversary?
I'm assuming some will relate to pages that have since been moved or
deleted so I appreciate this won't be an easy project.
WereSpielChequers
On 14 December 2010 16:16, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com wrote:
On
Deferring to tech views but I'd have thought almost certainly not. There
may well be gaps after August 2001 for one thing; importing earlier records
would incorrectly imply a complete history was shown of user and page edits.
We probably could make a museum piece of them by creating
Hi;
Thanks Tim. Congratulations.
Is Wikipedia:UuU[1] now out-of-date?
Regards,
emijrp
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:UuU
2010/12/14 Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org
I was looking through some old files in our SourceForge project. I
opened a file called wiki.tar.gz, and
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 7:54 AM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I was looking through some old files in our SourceForge project. I
opened a file called wiki.tar.gz, and inside were three complete
backups of the text of Wikipedia, from February, March and August 2001!
This is
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 7:54 AM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I was looking through some old files in our SourceForge project. I
opened a file called wiki.tar.gz, and inside were three complete
backups of the text of Wikipedia, from February, March and August 2001!
This is
Would prefer on its own wiki as this is comprehensive up to a given date.
Maybe January2001.wikipedia.org -- immediate impact.
(DNS software cannot handle 2001.wikipedia.org)
FT2
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 6:04 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 7:54 AM, Tim
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 11:49 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 December 2010 19:19, Daniel R. Tobias d...@tobias.name wrote:
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 10:49:28 +, Charles Matthews wrote:
Two or three years ago I was much more in the thick of things, and I
remember telling a
On 14/12/2010 19:40, George Herbert wrote:
I think Charles is describing groupings as of 2 years ago rather than
current. They've changed.
Oh, quite. What I described was history.
Charles
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To
On 15/12/10 04:17, emijrp wrote:
Hi;
Thanks Tim. Congratulations.
Is Wikipedia:UuU[1] now out-of-date?
Yes, the earliest surviving edit is now This is the new WikiPedia!,
made to HomePage by office.bomis.com, presumably Jimmy. Larry signed a
comment a short time later from a different IP
I knew little about Web 3.0 (WP and Facebook and don't care having shown
Web 2.0 to be something rather than nothing) until I talked to Andrew
Turvey and Mike Peel of WMUK in a Starbucks one day. And I later
realised that some of what I had heard made sense. I floated this at the
London meetup
I appreciate the challenge in getting old versions posted again. But I'm
also interested in the folks, rather more than in CamelCase and UseMod.
As I asked somewhere else recently, where are they now? I don't mean
outing people; just what do we really know about the Old Bolsheviks,
shot or
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 11:02 PM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote:
HomePage
* WikiPedia
* PhilosophyAndLogic
* UnitedStates
* PopularMusic
* SportS
* MathematicsAndStatistics
* CountriesOfTheWorld
* AaA
* AfghanistaN
* UuU
* TechnologY
* ComputinG
* ComputerSoftware
*
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 16:13, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Yahoo is to WP as Google is to ???
Charles can you rephrase this part about sourcing, and how it relates
to the Deep Web? It sounds interesting but I don't understand it.
Tim Berners-Lee wants us to be
On 14 December 2010 22:02, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote:
him. Articles were created in the following order:
* HomePage
* WikiPedia
* PhilosophyAndLogic
It's interesting to note our early priorities!
http://grey.colorado.edu/wikipedia_2001/979602227.txt
Two months later...
This is essentially a concept called the Semantic Web. Unfortunately
our article on the topic hasn't yet attracted many Wikipedians who can
describe it without resorting to gobbledygook.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To
20 matches
Mail list logo
