Thanks for the responses, all. Daniel and Bilal: the notes about the possible servers at Syracuse and Concordia are very interesting; it sounds like the researchers interested in such things should team up.
Daniel: I am not sure what type of data is needed -- this is not my project (I'm only the messenger!) but I'll pass along your message and send you private details (and encourage the researcher to reply himself). River: Well, you say that part of the issue with the toolserver is money and time... and this person that I've been talking to is offering to throw money and time at the problem. So, what can they constructively do? All: Like I said, I am unclear on the technical issues involved, but as for why a separate "research toolserver" might be useful... : I see a difference in the type of information a researcher might want to pull (public data, large sets of related page information, full-text mining, ??) and the types of tools that the current toolserver mainly supports (editcount tools, catscan, etc). I also see a difference in how the two groups might be authenticated -- there's a difference between being a trusted Wikipedian or trusted Wikimedia developer and being a trusted technically-competent researcher (for instance, I recognized the affiliation of the person who was trying to apply, because I've read their research papers; but if you were going on wikimedia status alone, they don't have any). -- Phoebe -- * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers <at> gmail.com * _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
