Hi!
Here's the conclusion I've come to though. We need to get the software
good enough, and simple enough, that it is firmly in the background.
OK!
Mediawiki is like an old DOS computer that constantly drags you into
programing mode, particularly if you fork.
Yes, especially if you
On 16 August 2011 09:06, Domas Mituzas midom.li...@gmail.com wrote:
Anyway, we should definitely build something like that, just don't pay
attention to suicide rate.
:-) I am quite cognisant that the likely number of people wanting to
build a full fork of Wikipedia may well be *zero*. I
On 16 August 2011 09:18, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
(BTW - we *do* have someone making sure the Internet Archive - or a
similar organisation, if there are any similar organisations - has a
full collection of all our backups, so if Florida was hit by a meteor
tomorrow people would
On 08/16/11 1:20 AM, David Gerard wrote:
On 16 August 2011 09:18, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote
(BTW - we *do* have someone making sure the Internet Archive - or a
similar organisation, if there are any similar organisations - has a
full collection of all our backups, so if Florida was
On 08/15/11 7:52 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
The emphasis needs to
be on content, not on trying to figure out extensions and templates.
A key feature of forks!!!
Ray
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
2011/8/16 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
On 16 August 2011 09:06, Domas Mituzas midom.li...@gmail.com wrote:
Anyway, we should definitely build something like that, just don't pay
attention to suicide rate.
:-) I am quite cognisant that the likely number of people wanting to
build a full
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 6:04 AM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 12/08/11 20:55, David Gerard wrote:
THESIS: Our inadvertent monopoly is *bad*. We need to make it easy to
fork the projects, so as to preserve them.
I must have missed the place where you actually made this case.
2011/8/15 David Richfield davidrichfi...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 6:04 AM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 12/08/11 20:55, David Gerard wrote:
THESIS: Our inadvertent monopoly is *bad*. We need to make it easy to
fork the projects, so as to preserve them.
I must
On 15/08/11 16:30, David Gerard wrote:
2011/8/15 David Richfield davidrichfi...@gmail.com:
It's not just financial collapse. When Sun was acquired by Oracle and
they started messing about with OpenOffice, it was not hard to fork
the project - take the codebase and run with it. It's not that
So you're worried about a policy change? What sort of policy change
specifically would necessitate forking the project? Is there any such
policy change which could plausibly be implemented by the Foundation
while it remains a charity?
Adding ads (for instance, Google ads) to the Wikipedia
On 15 August 2011 07:51, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote:
So you're worried about a policy change? What sort of policy change
specifically would necessitate forking the project? Is there any such
policy change which could plausibly be implemented by the Foundation
while it remains
On 15/08/11 08:16, David Richfield wrote:
It's not just financial collapse. When Sun was acquired by Oracle and
they started messing about with OpenOffice, it was not hard to fork
the project - take the codebase and run with it. It's not that easy
for Wikipedia, and we want to make sure that
On 08/15/11 12:10 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
So you're worried about a policy change? What sort of policy change
specifically would necessitate forking the project? Is there any such
policy change which could plausibly be implemented by the Foundation
while it remains a charity?
Adding
On 15/08/11 16:30, David Gerard wrote:
2011/8/15 David Richfield davidrichfi...@gmail.com:
It's not just financial collapse. When Sun was acquired by Oracle and
they started messing about with OpenOffice, it was not hard to fork
the project - take the codebase and run with it. It's not that
Yes, it's not about the end of the world is neigh type scenario. It's just
a simple matter of, 'If I wanted a complete copy of Wikipedia, how do I get
it?'
There answer is that there are several ways.
First off, there are the DB dumps (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_download).
On 08/14/11 11:51 PM, Tim Starling wrote:
On 15/08/11 16:30, David Gerard wrote:
2011/8/15 David Richfielddavidrichfi...@gmail.com:
It's not just financial collapse. When Sun was acquired by Oracle and
they started messing about with OpenOffice, it was not hard to fork
the project - take the
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 09:38, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
A comprehensive fork would probably need ad revenue more than the WMF
unless it has deep pockets to get it going.
I don't think this is a requirement. Wikipedia have to support
enormous amount of traffic while a fork don't
Just a point: WMF projects have spilt out before, for example was the
September 11 remembrance wiki (sep11.wikipedia) although the fork is
now offline, also one of the other plain language specific projects
(Spanish Wikipedia comes to mind but I can't confirm) but as far as
I'm aware never really
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 08:26, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.rs wrote:
On 15/08/11 08:16, David Richfield wrote:
It's not just financial collapse. When Sun was acquired by Oracle and
they started messing about with OpenOffice, it was not hard to fork
the project - take the codebase and run
treating Group POV as Neutral POV.
Ray
Bingo
Fred
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I'm sure I
could easily fork enwp with just one machine, and handle a few hundred
visitors a day, or even in an hour. I believe Fred Bauder have made a
fork of a kind (yes I know it used a different method) and I guess he
do see the traffic stats and resource requirements to do that. ;-)
Good point - risk management isn't just about technical disaster -
geopolitical issues are actually a much greater long term risk
On 8/15/2011 2:04 AM, foundation-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
The primary value of a fork(s) is not financial or technical, but
epistemological. We are the
Feedback: Approval based systems only work on a tiny subset of articles as they
disenfranchise the vast majority of contributors who don't have a multi-tiered
content approach at all.
-Original Message-
From: Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
On 15/08/11 18:14, Fred Bauder wrote:
I'm just trying to evaluate the scale of the risk here. The amount of
resources that we need to spend on this should be proportional to the
risk.
-- Tim Starling
That technical staff have effective power to decide whether a fork is
justified is reason
On 15/08/11 18:14, Fred Bauder wrote:
I'm just trying to evaluate the scale of the risk here. The amount of
resources that we need to spend on this should be proportional to the
risk.
-- Tim Starling
That technical staff have effective power to decide whether a fork is
justified is reason
On 12/08/11 20:55, David Gerard wrote:
THESIS: Our inadvertent monopoly is *bad*. We need to make it easy to
fork the projects, so as to preserve them.
I must have missed the place where you actually made this case. I
tried reading your blog posts but I didn't see it there.
In 2005 you said
+1 for the need to make it easy to fork (I suggested this back
in 2010 in Gdansk during the barcamp session.)
Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru writes:
I do agree that the monopoly, at least in this case, is a bad thing, but I
do not see why stimulating creation of the forks would be the
On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 4:53 AM, emijrp emi...@gmail.com wrote:
Man, Gerard is thinking about new methods to fork (in an easy way) single
articles, sets of articles or complete wikipedias, and people reply about
setting up servers/mediawiki/importing_databases and other geeky weekend
parties.
Yes, that tool looks similar to the idea I wrote. Other approaches may be
possible too.
2011/8/13 John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com
On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 4:53 AM, emijrp emi...@gmail.com wrote:
Man, Gerard is thinking about new methods to fork (in an easy way) single
articles, sets of
[posted to foundation-l and wikitech-l, thread fork of a discussion elsewhere]
THESIS: Our inadvertent monopoly is *bad*. We need to make it easy to
fork the projects, so as to preserve them.
This is the single point of failure problem. The reasons for it having
happened are obvious, but it's
On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 11:55:47 +0100, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
wrote:
[posted to foundation-l and wikitech-l, thread fork of a discussion
elsewhere]
THESIS: Our inadvertent monopoly is *bad*. We need to make it easy to
fork the projects, so as to preserve them.
This is the single
On 12 August 2011 13:07, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru wrote:
I do agree that the monopoly, at least in this case, is a bad thing, but I
do not see why stimulating creation of the forks would be the best way to
create competition. As far as I am concerned, the only real competition to
On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 13:32:43 +0100, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 12 August 2011 13:07, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru wrote:
I do agree that the monopoly, at least in this case, is a bad thing,
but
I
do not see why stimulating creation of the forks would be the best way
to
On 12 August 2011 13:37, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru wrote:
My point is that making it easy to fork does not create good competitors.
Good competitors come from elsewhere. And they will come, if we do not
deploy WISIWIG, not lower the entrance barrier for novices, not make it
harder
Man, Gerard is thinking about new methods to fork (in an easy way) single
articles, sets of articles or complete wikipedias, and people reply about
setting up servers/mediawiki/importing_databases and other geeky weekend
parties. That is why there is no successful forks. Forking Wikipedia is
On 12 August 2011 13:47, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 August 2011 13:37, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru wrote:
My point is that making it easy to fork does not create good competitors.
Good competitors come from elsewhere. And they will come, if we do not
deploy WISIWIG,
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 12:16 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 August 2011 13:47, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 August 2011 13:37, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru wrote:
My point is that making it easy to fork does not create good competitors.
Good competitors come
On 12 August 2011 20:24, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
We still have wide gaps in knowledge coverage. Not in the most common
areas, but in many specialized areas, where they're not heavily
geek-populated.
Yes but those don't have much to do with normal applications of
On 12 August 2011 20:59, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 12:53 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 August 2011 20:24, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
We still have wide gaps in knowledge coverage. Not in the most common
areas, but in
On 12 August 2011 20:53, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 August 2011 20:24, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
We still have wide gaps in knowledge coverage. Not in the most common
areas, but in many specialized areas, where they're not heavily
geek-populated.
Yes but those
40 matches
Mail list logo
