The current toolserver user base is always willing to help. I for one am willing to review and run queries on the database if requested. I also am a very active python programmer and can use that to assist. If you have requests let me know. (Unless Im losing it) there have been accounts that are only created to be used for database queries. But until then feel free to email or contact me. I think that improving and expanding the current TS is the best option as further duplications will result in lower preformance.
Betacommand On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 7:05 PM, Morten Warncke-Wang <mor...@cs.umn.edu>wrote: > Hello everyone. We started the conversation with Phoebe about the > possibility of a "research-oriented toolserver" that could be used by > researchers who wish to explore novel gadgets or other tools for > Wikipedia users. The toolserver could provide back-end support for > these gadgets. > > By the phrase "research-oriented toolserver" we are looking for > similar services to what is available in the existing toolserver > cluster. From what we've heard of the research infrastructures being > developed at Syracuse and Concordia, they will be valuable for > researchers who are in need of full text data access on a large scale. > The research toolserver, by contrast, would be for tools that need > "live" access to Wikipedia databases, but that would only access the > full text on a small scale through the Wikipedia API. > > The major difference from our perspective is how applications for new > accounts would be handled. Our idea is to be able to hand out > accounts based around the likelihood of effective research, rather > than on visibility within Wikipedia, or on the usefulness of the > resulting tool to the larger Wikipedia community. The latter two > cases are already handled well by the existing toolserver and its > application process. Accounts on the research toolserver would be > approved based on the quality of the research ideas, and the ability > of the proposing team to carry out the research. > > The research toolserver would need a more transparent decision-making > process for approving accounts. The basis for decisions should be > clear to applicants so they're able to write better applications, and > denied applications should be returned with feedback about why the > decision was made. > > What do you think? Seem like a useful idea if we can find sufficient > resources, and put together a management plan? > > Morten Warncke-Wang, Research Assistant > John Riedl, Professor > GroupLens Research > www.grouplens.org > > _______________________________________________ > 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
