subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia teamwork

body:
Bryce (just realized that I had replied just to you rather than the
list): I sympathize, but posting on this list frankly isn't going to
get anything done.  I do only a little work directly on the server;
Jason's the man who will have to do this, if this or something like
it is what we'll end up doing, exactly.  What Jason might not know
(so, I've cc'd him) is how seriously you all take this.  I certainly
would like to see Wikipedia's content easily useable--it will get a
lot of new links back to Wikipedia and it will indeed make the
project more credible, as someone very correctly said.  I have wanted
this to be done for months, but, well--our programmers are very busy
with projects that actually make money.  :-/

Larry

You Wrote:
>I think what people are trying to politely say is that you may be in
>violation of your license...
>
>My suggestion to get around this with a minimum of time expended
would
>be to set up a cron job to tarball the wiki databases once a week.
>
>Login as www-data or nobody or root or whomever
>$ crontab -e
>0 5 * * 0 /usr/local/bin/tarball_wiki  # Weekly Sunday 5am tarball
>
>
>#!/bin/sh
>## tarball_wiki script
>tar cf /tmp/wiki.tar /home/www-data/wiki_db /home/www-data/cgi-
bin/wiki.pl
>gzip /tmp/wiki.tar
>rm -f /home/www-data/html/wiki.tar.gz
>mv /home/www-data/html/wiki.tar.gz /home/www-data/html/wiki-
prev.tar.gz
>mv /tmp/wiki.tar /home/www-data/html/wiki.tar.gz
>
>
>This will keep the current plus previous week's tarball.
>Obviously, you'll have to fiddle the paths to match however your
system
>is organized.  You might need to add some chmod/chown commands if
you do
>this as a user other than the web user.
>
>Anyway, IANAL, but I think this little script would get you off the
hook
>regarding the transparency issue.
>
>Bryce
>
>On Wed, 15 Aug 2001 sanger1 at nupedia.com wrote:
>> I agree completely as well.  You all must realize, though, that
the
>> amount of (expensive) paid programming labor Bomis can devote to
>> useful and even essential features like this is less than we would
>> all like.  It would be ideal if some programmers would step up to
the
>> plate and actually help bring some of these proposals into being.
I
>> for one would be absolutely delighted.
>>
>> Larry
>>
>> You Wrote:
>> >On Tue, Aug 14, 2001 at 09:56:47AM +0200, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
>> >> Jan Hidders <hidders at win.tue.nl> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > Because the GFDL allows you to download everything and start
>> your own
>> >> > server.
>> >>
>> >> Well the GFDL also wants transparent copy to be easily
available. I
>> >> don't consider spidering wikipedia to be an option open to
the "man
>> >> from the street".
>> >
>> >FWIW I certainly agree with that, and there should certainly be
an
>> easy
>> >way to download the complete Wikipedia. So you can also add
>> my "pretty
>> >please" :-)
>> >
>> >-- Jan Hidders
>> >
>> >[Wikipedia-l]
>> >To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
>> >http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>> >0
>
>[Wikipedia-l]
>To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
>http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


list: wikipedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Bryce Harrington

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia teamwork

body:
On Wed, 15 Aug 2001 sanger1 at nupedia.com wrote:
> ... but, well--our programmers are very busy
> with projects that actually make money.  :-/

(And the rest of us programmers are not?)

Wikipedia gains nupedia a good deal of attention.  You also have said
that there may be articles which can go into nupedia.  I further imagine
you will find other ways to profit off wikipedia more directly; I know
you have expended thought in this area.

The reason many people got involved (at the very least, *me*) was the
willingness to hold the content under the GFDL.  As I see it, what folks
are asking is simply to deliver on the promises made at the outset, and
frankly it's rather frightening to encounter any resistance to requests
like these.  (Like a car manufacturer refusing to do warranty work
because their employees are busy making new sales.)

This is NOT going to take anyone more than maybe an hour to do.  It
isn't really even programming, per se; any unix sysadmin should be
comfortable crontabbing tarballs of a website.  And it IS tied up with
being able to continue making money; call it a marketing or legal
requirement if nothing else.

Anyway, I'm a little miffed - you said your programmers were too busy,
and that you'd appreciate it if someone would supply code to do it.  I
responded with some code that would do the minimum needed to comply
(just change the paths).  I was anticipating a thank you, but instead
"It does no good to post it here"?  Well, call me confused.  ;-)


from_name: Larry Sanger

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia teamwork

body:
Bryce, you are quite right to be miffed.  I would be miffed if I were you.
I share your confusion, too.  I had no idea that it was such a small
operation (remember, I'm not a programmer, so you must explain things simply
and clearly to me, if you want me to understand).  There is absolutely no
*resistance* to the request--unless inertia counts as resistance...

Nupedia isn't making any money either.  In fact, Wikipedia is much closer to
the point where it might (somehow) make money for Bomis (and therefore,
potentially, for anyone else who wants to use the content for profit).

Anyway, remember, Wikipedia, like Nupedia, is a volunteer project--so it's
not surprising (though regrettable) that essential features like this should
be rooted-for and planned by volunteers.  Really, we should have done this
long ago.

Larry

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bryce Harrington" <bryce at neptune.net>
To: <wikipedia-l at nupedia.com>
Cc: <jasonr at bomis.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 11:29 AM
Subject: Re: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia teamwork

> On Wed, 15 Aug 2001 sanger1 at nupedia.com wrote:
> > ... but, well--our programmers are very busy
> > with projects that actually make money.  :-/
>
> (And the rest of us programmers are not?)
>
> Wikipedia gains nupedia a good deal of attention.  You also have said
> that there may be articles which can go into nupedia.  I further imagine
> you will find other ways to profit off wikipedia more directly; I know
> you have expended thought in this area.
>
> The reason many people got involved (at the very least, *me*) was the
> willingness to hold the content under the GFDL.  As I see it, what folks
> are asking is simply to deliver on the promises made at the outset, and
> frankly it's rather frightening to encounter any resistance to requests
> like these.  (Like a car manufacturer refusing to do warranty work
> because their employees are busy making new sales.)
>
> This is NOT going to take anyone more than maybe an hour to do.  It
> isn't really even programming, per se; any unix sysadmin should be
> comfortable crontabbing tarballs of a website.  And it IS tied up with
> being able to continue making money; call it a marketing or legal
> requirement if nothing else.
>
> Anyway, I'm a little miffed - you said your programmers were too busy,
> and that you'd appreciate it if someone would supply code to do it.  I
> responded with some code that would do the minimum needed to comply
> (just change the paths).  I was anticipating a thank you, but instead
> "It does no good to post it here"?  Well, call me confused.  ;-)
>
>
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia teamwork

body:
On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Bryce Harrington wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2001 sanger1 at nupedia.com wrote:
> > ... but, well--our programmers are very busy
> > with projects that actually make money.  :-/
>
> (And the rest of us programmers are not?)
>
> The reason many people got involved (at the very least, *me*) was the
> willingness to hold the content under the GFDL.

Another point while I'm in rant mode.  ;-)

There is a disincentive to doing coding work for Wikipedia without
having a transparent copy of the site (i.e., a tarball of the whole
thing) to work on, offline.  Similarly, if there is a feeling that the
whole thing belongs to Bromis and that they are unwilling to share the
underlying code, then there will be a similar unwillingness to assist
with enhancing the underlying code.  Just to pull one example out of the
hat - imagine if I wanted to create a German version of wikipedia by
programmatically running the whole site through Babbelfish.

Furthermore, while none of us have any wish to see Bromis go out of
business, we must admit that these days this is not unheard of.
If Bromis were to go under, and we did not have a backup of the site
that the community could resurrect quickly and easily, then there is a
question whether wikipedia would exist if Bromis did not.  And that is
probably scary to some people when you stop and think about it.

Anyway, my guess is that 99% of the desire for the site backup is for
one or both of the above reasons.  And I should think both of these
reasons are also important to Bromis.

Bryce


from_name: sanger1 at nupedia.com

subject: [Wikipedia-l] (No Subject)

body:
Bryce, no doubt, I would be miffed if I were you. I share your
confusion, too.  I had no idea that it was such a small operation
(remember, I'm not a programmer, so you must explain things simply
and clearly to me, if you want me to understand).  I assure you that
there is absolutely no *resistance* to the request--unless inertia
counts as resistance...

Nupedia isn't making any money either.  In fact, Wikipedia is much
closer to
the point where it might (somehow) make money for Bomis (and
therefore,
potentially, for anyone else who wants to use the content for profit).

Anyway, remember, Wikipedia, like Nupedia, is a volunteer project--so
it's
not surprising (though regrettable) that essential features like this
should
be rooted-for and planned by volunteers.  Really, we should have done
this
long ago.

On the other hand, long ago, we didn't really know that the project
would be so successful so quickly, that this would be so important
and useful so soon!

Larry

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bryce Harrington" <bryce at neptune.net>
To: <wikipedia-l at nupedia.com>
Cc: <jasonr at bomis.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 11:29 AM
Subject: Re: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia teamwork

> On Wed, 15 Aug 2001 sanger1 at nupedia.com wrote:
> > ... but, well--our programmers are very busy
> > with projects that actually make money.  :-/
>
> (And the rest of us programmers are not?)
>
> Wikipedia gains nupedia a good deal of attention.  You also have
said
> that there may be articles which can go into nupedia.  I further
imagine
> you will find other ways to profit off wikipedia more directly; I
know
> you have expended thought in this area.
>
> The reason many people got involved (at the very least, *me*) was
the
> willingness to hold the content under the GFDL.  As I see it, what
folks
> are asking is simply to deliver on the promises made at the outset,
and
> frankly it's rather frightening to encounter any resistance to
requests
> like these.  (Like a car manufacturer refusing to do warranty work
> because their employees are busy making new sales.)
>
> This is NOT going to take anyone more than maybe an hour to do.  It
> isn't really even programming, per se; any unix sysadmin should be
> comfortable crontabbing tarballs of a website.  And it IS tied up
with
> being able to continue making money; call it a marketing or legal
> requirement if nothing else.
>
> Anyway, I'm a little miffed - you said your programmers were too
busy,
> and that you'd appreciate it if someone would supply code to do
it.  I
> responded with some code that would do the minimum needed to comply
> (just change the paths).  I was anticipating a thank you, but
instead
> "It does no good to post it here"?  Well, call me confused.  ;-)
>
>
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


subject: [Wikipedia-l] (No Subject)

body:
On Wed, 15 Aug 2001 sanger1 at nupedia.com wrote:
> Bryce, no doubt, I would be miffed if I were you. I share your
> confusion, too.  I had no idea that it was such a small operation
> (remember, I'm not a programmer, so you must explain things simply
> and clearly to me, if you want me to understand).  I assure you that
> there is absolutely no *resistance* to the request--unless inertia
> counts as resistance...

Okay, thanks.  Good to hear.

> Nupedia isn't making any money either.  In fact, Wikipedia is much
> closer to the point where it might (somehow) make money for Bomis (and
> therefore, potentially, for anyone else who wants to use the content
> for profit).

Isn't that ironic?  ;-)  (And cool too)

Here is my philosophy on this:  Wikipedia, when it is far enough along
to actually be used as our community wishes it to be, will require
stable, supported, reliable hardware and a decent bandwidth.  These
things are not free.  Thus it is in wikipedia's best interest that it at
least make enough $$ to break even, and maybe even a little better to
give a reward to the folks who have to deal with annoying users like
me.  ;-)

(The caveat being, as long as the pursuit of money does not impinge on
the freedom of the community, as it has in so many other areas so often
in the past.  But you know this.)

> Anyway, remember, Wikipedia, like Nupedia, is a volunteer project--so
> it's not surprising (though regrettable) that essential features like
> this should be rooted-for and planned by volunteers.  Really, we
> should have done this long ago.

*Nod*  Providing tarballs of the site is a first step towards opening it
to further volunteer participation.

In order for volunteer programmers to do their "thang", they often like
to snag the whole potato and put a copy of it on their computer so they
can poke and prod, test and break, and gnaw and digest.  And plus it's
safer for you to have them do this than allow them a logon to your
webserver to muck about on the live site.  ;-)

Now, I'm not saying programmers *will* jump in and help by having this
available, but just that they *can't* (practically) without it.  (They
could still get usemodwiki and mock up a new site and play, but what fun
is that?)

(FWIW, the step after this would be to set up CVS for the cgi's and
tools people will be writing specifically for wikipedia that wouldn't be
integrated into usemodwiki directly.)

> On the other hand, long ago, we didn't really know that the project
> would be so successful so quickly, that this would be so important
> and useful so soon!

Yes it's amazed me at its success too!

I had originally been involved with Gnupedia, but recognized that
wikipedia had "something" (or a set of somethings) that would make it
more successful, sooner, and came here.  Still, I was blown away to
learn that other sites are now using wikipedia as a legit encyclopdia!
:-)

Bryce

P.S. I misspelled Bomis as Bromis in my previous email...  apologies.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Further caveat

body:
Just by the way, I have it from an excellent source that there really is no
appreciable likelihood that Wikipedia will die because Bomis goes under,
barring acts of God and such.  It is great to be able to say, truly, that
Bomis has very nicely weathered the great Internet bubble-burst.

Larry


subject: [Wikipedia-l] archiving the Wikipedia

body:
On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Tim Chambers wrote:
> I'd like to have access to a tarball of the Wikipedia. Larry mentioned Jason
> as being the one to set up the cron jobs, so I'm copying him FWIW.
>
> A couple details haven't been discussed:
>
> 1. When the tarball becomes available, I assume it'll be a link from the
> appropriate Wikpedia page? I'd propose at least HomePage. Maybe
> Wikipedia_FAQ. And how about a page devoted to the tarball. Say, [[Wikipedia
> Snapshot]]? See

ditto

> 2. It wasn't discussed whether all versions would be archived or not. That,
> of course, is ideal. But it will grow ''ad infiniutum.'' (''ad nauseum''?
> :-) I think it's essential for the historical record to archive all
> revisions, but I think there should also be a "snapshot" tarball of only the
> latest version of each article. It would be considerably smaller and
> wouldn't grow as fast as the full archive. If that was done, then there
> could be a page called [[Wikipedia Archives]] that had links to both
> tarballs.

Well the way wiki is implemented is that each page's file actually
contains the prior revisions of itself within it.  So we'll only be able
to browse it with wiki (afaik).  It would actually be *harder* (I think)
to provide only the latest HTML snapshot (actually not *that* hard: wiki
has a capability to produce cached HTML versions of pages, and one could
set it up to build that cache and snag it; but that's more work for
Bomis, and any one of us can produce the snapshots once we have the
original, if we really needed it.)

Maybe we'll find there is an easy way to generate a snapshot of just the
HTML pages.  I scanned through the wiki.pl file and didn't see such a
routine, however the "raw material" exists to create such a thing.

One obvious exercise I can think of is running a DocBook or Latex
converter over the source to produce a printable version of Wikipedia.
The trick would be figuring out how to filter out stuff inappropriate
for printing (e.g., user pages or discussion).  That would kick ass.
:-) (The filter would be handy for creating sanitized distros of the
pedia for inclusion in linux distros too, if someone had the druthers to
do that some day.)

Bryce


from_name: Tim Chambers

subject: [Wikipedia-l] archiving the Wikipedia

body:
I'd like to have access to a tarball of the Wikipedia. Larry mentioned Jason
as being the one to set up the cron jobs, so I'm copying him FWIW.

A couple details haven't been discussed:

1. When the tarball becomes available, I assume it'll be a link from the
appropriate Wikpedia page? I'd propose at least HomePage. Maybe
Wikipedia_FAQ. And how about a page devoted to the tarball. Say, [[Wikipedia
Snapshot]]? See

2. It wasn't discussed whether all versions would be archived or not. That,
of course, is ideal. But it will grow ''ad infiniutum.'' (''ad nauseum''?
:-) I think it's essential for the historical record to archive all
revisions, but I think there should also be a "snapshot" tarball of only the
latest version of each article. It would be considerably smaller and
wouldn't grow as fast as the full archive. If that was done, then there
could be a page called [[Wikipedia Archives]] that had links to both
tarballs.

<>< [[Tbc]]


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia teamwork

body:
Thanks very much, Jason!

Larry

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jason Richey" <jasonr at bomis.com>
To: <wikipedia-l at nupedia.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 2:44 PM
Subject: Re: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia teamwork

> There is now a tarball of each of the wiki sites that are running as
> "Wikipedia".  Go to the homepage http://www.wikipedia.com to find the
> link, or go to the downloads directly at
> http://www.wikipedia.com/tarballs.  These are just tarballs of the
> entire directory that the sites are served from.
>
> Jason
>
> sanger1 at nupedia.com wrote:
>
> > Bryce (just realized that I had replied just to you rather than the
> > list): I sympathize, but posting on this list frankly isn't going to
> > get anything done.  I do only a little work directly on the server;
> > Jason's the man who will have to do this, if this or something like
> > it is what we'll end up doing, exactly.  What Jason might not know
> > (so, I've cc'd him) is how seriously you all take this.  I certainly
> > would like to see Wikipedia's content easily useable--it will get a
> > lot of new links back to Wikipedia and it will indeed make the
> > project more credible, as someone very correctly said.  I have wanted
> > this to be done for months, but, well--our programmers are very busy
> > with projects that actually make money.  :-/
> >
> > Larry
> >
> > You Wrote:
> > >I think what people are trying to politely say is that you may be in
> > >violation of your license...
> > >
> > >My suggestion to get around this with a minimum of time expended
> > would
> > >be to set up a cron job to tarball the wiki databases once a week.
> > >
> > >Login as www-data or nobody or root or whomever
> > >$ crontab -e
> > >0 5 * * 0 /usr/local/bin/tarball_wiki  # Weekly Sunday 5am tarball
> > >
> > >
> > >#!/bin/sh
> > >## tarball_wiki script
> > >tar cf /tmp/wiki.tar /home/www-data/wiki_db /home/www-data/cgi-
> > bin/wiki.pl
> > >gzip /tmp/wiki.tar
> > >rm -f /home/www-data/html/wiki.tar.gz
> > >mv /home/www-data/html/wiki.tar.gz /home/www-data/html/wiki-
> > prev.tar.gz
> > >mv /tmp/wiki.tar /home/www-data/html/wiki.tar.gz
> > >
> > >
> > >This will keep the current plus previous week's tarball.
> > >Obviously, you'll have to fiddle the paths to match however your
> > system
> > >is organized.  You might need to add some chmod/chown commands if
> > you do
> > >this as a user other than the web user.
> > >
> > >Anyway, IANAL, but I think this little script would get you off the
> > hook
> > >regarding the transparency issue.
> > >
> > >Bryce
> > >
> > >On Wed, 15 Aug 2001 sanger1 at nupedia.com wrote:
> > >> I agree completely as well.  You all must realize, though, that
> > the
> > >> amount of (expensive) paid programming labor Bomis can devote to
> > >> useful and even essential features like this is less than we would
> > >> all like.  It would be ideal if some programmers would step up to
> > the
> > >> plate and actually help bring some of these proposals into being.
> > I
> > >> for one would be absolutely delighted.
> > >>
> > >> Larry
> > >>
> > >> You Wrote:
> > >> >On Tue, Aug 14, 2001 at 09:56:47AM +0200, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
> > >> >> Jan Hidders <hidders at win.tue.nl> writes:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> > Because the GFDL allows you to download everything and start
> > >> your own
> > >> >> > server.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Well the GFDL also wants transparent copy to be easily
> > available. I
> > >> >> don't consider spidering wikipedia to be an option open to
> > the "man
> > >> >> from the street".
> > >> >
> > >> >FWIW I certainly agree with that, and there should certainly be
> > an
> > >> easy
> > >> >way to download the complete Wikipedia. So you can also add
> > >> my "pretty
> > >> >please" :-)
> > >> >
> > >> >-- Jan Hidders
> > >> >
> > >> >[Wikipedia-l]
> > >> >To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> > >> >http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > >> >0
> > >
> > >[Wikipedia-l]
> > >To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> > >http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> "Jason C. Richey" <jasonr at bomis.com>
>
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia teamwork

body:
Cool!  (/me gets downloading)

On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Larry Sanger wrote:
> Thanks very much, Jason!
>
> Larry
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jason Richey" <jasonr at bomis.com>
> To: <wikipedia-l at nupedia.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 2:44 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia teamwork
>
>
> > There is now a tarball of each of the wiki sites that are running as
> > "Wikipedia".  Go to the homepage http://www.wikipedia.com to find the
> > link, or go to the downloads directly at
> > http://www.wikipedia.com/tarballs.  These are just tarballs of the
> > entire directory that the sites are served from.
> >


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia teamwork

body:
On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Larry Olin Horn wrote:
> > This is NOT going to take anyone more than maybe an hour to do.  It
>
> This is one of those "code phrases" that immediately puts any programmer /
> sysadmin / manager on the defensive, regardless of its truth or the current
> workload.

*grin*  'tis true.  My bad.  Sorry jason.  (Tho I bet he did get it done
within an hour.)

"What do you mean your code can't do <insert something that seems simple
but isn't>?  Just use <insert irrelevant bit of tech they've heard of
but never used>.  Next problem!"

"When I said we needed it ASAP before, you were able to do it in
a week, so this time you ought to be able to do it in half a week,
right?"

"No, we will never need to <insert feature they'll need next month>"

"If you can't do it in the given time, then let's find someone to help
you."  Uhhnnngg.

"I don't care if it isn't done, we're screwed if it isn't delivered
NOW."

> I worked in a college computing services area (typically underfunded and
> understaffed) for years, and the line of faculty, staff, and students who
> each wanted their "only a few minutes to do" project handed "right now"
> would like like the infinite regression of images in two facing mirrors.
>
> This is *not* an argument for procrastination or other delay -- I have no
> idea what Jason's work load is -- this is just a sympathizing note for him
> (grin).

Yup, apologies again.  I guess I was just trying to address the concern
that it would take a significant amount of time.  I could have chosen
better phrasing, though.

Btw, browsing through the distro, I see that static versions of the
pages *are* available:  /wiki/lib-http/db/wiki/html/    Cool!  :-)

Bryce


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia teamwork

body:
On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Tim Chambers wrote:
> > Cool!  (/me gets downloading)
>
> I thought I'd do it now, too, but 55Mb is a big tarball to download. Gulp.
>
> But thanks for the blazingly fast response, Jason!

If you want *just* the html files and can deal with bzip2, I've created
a tarball of just that, here:
    http://www.osdlab.org/~bryce/wikipedia_html.tar.bz2  (4.3M)

Bryce


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia teamwork

body:
> Cool!  (/me gets downloading)

I thought I'd do it now, too, but 55Mb is a big tarball to download. Gulp.

But thanks for the blazingly fast response, Jason!


from_name: Larry Olin Horn

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia teamwork

body:
> This is NOT going to take anyone more than maybe an hour to do.  It

Alert: this is meant somewhat tongue-in-cheek....

This is one of those "code phrases" that immediately puts any programmer /
sysadmin / manager on the defensive, regardless of its truth or the current
workload.

I worked in a college computing services area (typically underfunded and
understaffed) for years, and the line of faculty, staff, and students who
each wanted their "only a few minutes to do" project handed "right now"
would like like the infinite regression of images in two facing mirrors.

This is *not* an argument for procrastination or other delay -- I have no
idea what Jason's work load is -- this is just a sympathizing note for him
(grin).

loh


from_name: Jason Richey

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia teamwork

body:
There is now a tarball of each of the wiki sites that are running as
"Wikipedia".  Go to the homepage http://www.wikipedia.com to find the
link, or go to the downloads directly at
http://www.wikipedia.com/tarballs.  These are just tarballs of the
entire directory that the sites are served from.

Jason

sanger1 at nupedia.com wrote:

> Bryce (just realized that I had replied just to you rather than the
> list): I sympathize, but posting on this list frankly isn't going to
> get anything done.  I do only a little work directly on the server;
> Jason's the man who will have to do this, if this or something like
> it is what we'll end up doing, exactly.  What Jason might not know
> (so, I've cc'd him) is how seriously you all take this.  I certainly
> would like to see Wikipedia's content easily useable--it will get a
> lot of new links back to Wikipedia and it will indeed make the
> project more credible, as someone very correctly said.  I have wanted
> this to be done for months, but, well--our programmers are very busy
> with projects that actually make money.  :-/
>
> Larry
>
> You Wrote:
> >I think what people are trying to politely say is that you may be in
> >violation of your license...
> >
> >My suggestion to get around this with a minimum of time expended
> would
> >be to set up a cron job to tarball the wiki databases once a week.
> >
> >Login as www-data or nobody or root or whomever
> >$ crontab -e
> >0 5 * * 0 /usr/local/bin/tarball_wiki  # Weekly Sunday 5am tarball
> >
> >
> >#!/bin/sh
> >## tarball_wiki script
> >tar cf /tmp/wiki.tar /home/www-data/wiki_db /home/www-data/cgi-
> bin/wiki.pl
> >gzip /tmp/wiki.tar
> >rm -f /home/www-data/html/wiki.tar.gz
> >mv /home/www-data/html/wiki.tar.gz /home/www-data/html/wiki-
> prev.tar.gz
> >mv /tmp/wiki.tar /home/www-data/html/wiki.tar.gz
> >
> >
> >This will keep the current plus previous week's tarball.
> >Obviously, you'll have to fiddle the paths to match however your
> system
> >is organized.  You might need to add some chmod/chown commands if
> you do
> >this as a user other than the web user.
> >
> >Anyway, IANAL, but I think this little script would get you off the
> hook
> >regarding the transparency issue.
> >
> >Bryce
> >
> >On Wed, 15 Aug 2001 sanger1 at nupedia.com wrote:
> >> I agree completely as well.  You all must realize, though, that
> the
> >> amount of (expensive) paid programming labor Bomis can devote to
> >> useful and even essential features like this is less than we would
> >> all like.  It would be ideal if some programmers would step up to
> the
> >> plate and actually help bring some of these proposals into being.
> I
> >> for one would be absolutely delighted.
> >>
> >> Larry
> >>
> >> You Wrote:
> >> >On Tue, Aug 14, 2001 at 09:56:47AM +0200, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
> >> >> Jan Hidders <hidders at win.tue.nl> writes:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Because the GFDL allows you to download everything and start
> >> your own
> >> >> > server.
> >> >>
> >> >> Well the GFDL also wants transparent copy to be easily
> available. I
> >> >> don't consider spidering wikipedia to be an option open to
> the "man
> >> >> from the street".
> >> >
> >> >FWIW I certainly agree with that, and there should certainly be
> an
> >> easy
> >> >way to download the complete Wikipedia. So you can also add
> >> my "pretty
> >> >please" :-)
> >> >
> >> >-- Jan Hidders
> >> >
> >> >[Wikipedia-l]
> >> >To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> >> >http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >> >0
> >
> >[Wikipedia-l]
> >To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> >http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>
>
>

--
"Jason C. Richey" <jasonr at bomis.com>


subject: [Wikipedia-l] bzip2

body:
> If you want *just* the html files and can deal with bzip2, I've created
> a tarball of just that, here:
>     http://www.osdlab.org/~bryce/wikipedia_html.tar.bz2  (4.3M)

Thanks, Bryce!

BTW -- other list readers, the bzip2 home page is
http://sources.redhat.com/bzip2

I downloaded the executable to my PC and it worked fine.

<>< [[tbc]]


from_name: Clifford A. Adams

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wiki tarballs: exclude user dir

body:
	I've been rather overwhelmed with non-wiki work recently, so
I'm way behind on my mail.  I noticed the tarball announcement, and I think
you'll want to modify the tarballs slightly to remove the user subdirectory.

	The reason to remove the user subdirectory is that it contains
the user cookie data, including the "randkey" value which validates the
user cookies.  With these files users could impersonate other users and
have the same UserID number.  This probably isn't a big deal, since I don't
think too many people are looking at the UserID numbers (which appear in the
popup when you move the mouse over a username in RecentChanges).

	Probably the easiest way is to use the tar option to exclude the user
directory.  Another approach would be to move the user dir and change the
$UserDir variable in the wiki.

	I hope to get less busy in the next few weeks, and help out more
with wiki issues.  Wikipedia has definitely exceeded my expectations--thanks
to you and all the other people at Wikipedia/Bomis.

			--Cliff

> There is now a tarball of each of the wiki sites that are running as
> "Wikipedia".  Go to the homepage http://www.wikipedia.com to find the
> link, or go to the downloads directly at
> http://www.wikipedia.com/tarballs.  These are just tarballs of the
> entire directory that the sites are served from.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] (No Subject)

body:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz wrote:
> > > Nupedia isn't making any money either.  In fact, Wikipedia is much
> > > closer to the point where it might (somehow) make money for Bomis (and
> > > therefore, potentially, for anyone else who wants to use the content
> > > for profit).
> It is a little confusing. The FSF started Gnupedia and then they gave up
> and joined Nupedia. Maybe if there is a commercial problem with the
> expansion, bandwidth and maintainace we should either :
> * move back to the FSF
> * or start Wikipedia2 one way or the other

*Nod*  Obviously what we don't want is a fork, nor to offend Bomis
(well, not much *grin*).  My guess is that Bomis has things WELL under
control in the backup department and that they may never have
significant financial or maintenance problems.

But, if we're just talking extreme contingency here ("What if Bomis were
hit by a tonado"), it might be a good idea to have an alternate
organization able to fill in until Bomis gets back on their feet.  I'm
not sure the FSF is the best choice; they're awfully busy with other
matters.  One organization that springs to mind is SEUL - Simple End
User Linux - who are also hosted out of MIT.  Their focus is on end user
applications, science, and education, and I suspect they'd be willing to
serve as a temporary backup.  I'm sure there are also other
organizations, too.

As long as Bomis continues to provide tarballs periodically, and as long
as at least one of us downloads them each time, I think we'll be able to
recover from even a bad catastrophy.

Bryce


subject: [Wikipedia-l] The future of Wikipedia

body:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> The same article was put on a Wikipedia page.

I just have a few random, not-worth keeping comments so will reply here
rather than on the wiki site.  (Btw, good idea to post it there.)

> I think that we have grown a Wikipedia community. Wikipedia is a
> volunteer project that was made possible by Bomis. However, we have
> invested in our favourite project a lot of enthusiasm, time and (in
> some cases) money. It is quite natural that we want Wikipedia to
> prosper.
> In my opinion it is a time to stop and discuss. Discuss the future of
> Wikipedia.
> How does Bomis see it ?
> How does Nupedia see it ?
> How do we ?

Personally, as long as Bomis is providing tarballs and enough to
*potentially* allow for forking, we've zero incentive to do it at all.
Sort of, the more control they're willing to give away, the more control
we can all trust them to have, I guess.

> Reliability
>
> The other side of the free writing style in Wikipedia is quite
> possible lack of reliability.
> This lack of reliability would in the end undermine Wikipedia's
> credibility and ultimately her success.

No one in the world expects credibility from Wikipedia.  And Wikipedia
requires nothing from the world at large to be successful.  Thus to me
it seems like there is only a tenuous connection - at best - between
credibility and success, regarding Wikipedia.  If Wikipedia were *only*
intended to be a literal replacement for a traditional encyclopedia,
sure.  But it's something a tad less, and something a tad more.

That said, I do not think that the lack of credibility is as clear cut
as would appear at first glance.  Yes, logic says one should expect to
see a distinct lack of credibility in Wikipedia.  However, the evidence
we're seeing is that many articles actually *are* reliable and credible.
In a small but growing number of cases, the articles are actually
*better* than you'd find in a traditional encyclopedia.

> This issue must be tackled, and as soon as possible. I don't agree
> here with [[Larry Sanger]] and his view "self-healing". It is an
> example of elated wishful thinking that is misleading us.

Well I have disagreed with Larry on many things, but on this particular
one I think he is correct.  I've been involved with Wikipedia since the
start, and have watched the evolution of many articles.  I think this
"self-healing" is not an expression of an idealistic wish of his but a
characterization of a real thing that we have been observing again and
again.

I don't know that I would go so far as to say that self-healing will
ensure that at some tangible point wikipedia will be 100% correct.
Actually I'm fairly confident that will never happen.  But then, does
that matter?  No encyclopedia is 100% correct, and probably not even 75%
correct, when you consider how much is unknown or incorrectly known in
the world.

I would like to analogize to science here.  Scientists 300 years ago did
not say, "Let's make sure we have everything completely and reliably
figured out as soon as possible, and record it."  Instead they came up
with a process that allows for establishing what they believed true,
with processes for testing and validating and adjusting as we go.  A
self-correcting approach to accumulating knowledge.  With Wikipedia we
are using a similar approach - we record what we believe to be true, and
then it is challenged and tested, and hopefully replaced with something
better.

> Why not create two parallel Wikipedias one public Wikipedia that is almost
> frozen (apart from Talk pages, Feature requests pages and the like).  And the
> working Wikipedia for contributors. Forseeing your criticisms of the proposal
> that it would hamper netizen involvement - Edit this page could lead into the
> working Wikipedia.

I agree.  However, to me it seems like this describes what Nupedia's
role has become, and I think it already serves this purpose very well.

> Scalability
>
> There are two ways of Wikipedia growth - global or niche.
> If we decide in favour of global growth - being slashdotted only first
> symptom of a serious problem.
> I'll give you my ([[Kpjas]]) idea : :Nowadays distributed software
> solutions are the height of fashion. Why not devise a distributed
> Wikipedia ? Programmers ?

The wiki cgi is actually pretty light on resource usage.  The format of
the html pages are very simple and so bandwidth is probably not a major
concern.  We seem to have weathered the slashdotting extremely well.
So distribution for purposes of resource distribution isn't going to buy
too much, IMHO.  Larry and Jason and etc. can let us know if it becomes
a problem and we can seek out a solution then.

A second reason for distribution is to make it harder to "kill" the
service, ala Napster.  But as long as tarballs of the site are available
periodically, this is not a major concern.

A third reason would be for caching purposes.  If a large site like
google is the source of many frequent accesses of the site, there might
be benefit to establishing read-only caches.  Again, though, I think
this is Bomis' domain to worry about.  If it ain't a problem for them,
it ain't a problem for us.

> Multimedia
>
> A picture can say more than, say, several Wikipedia articles.
> It is rather trivial.
> I think that Wikipedia without pictures, video, and audio is not a
> real encyclopedia.
> I wonder if you think my propositions worthwhile :
> AudioWikipedia, PhotoWikipedia, VideoWikipedia - pages that can be
> linked from the real Wikipedias but having only a title and Talk
> pages.

Agreed, agreed, agreed.  What we need, essentially, is an upload tool
that lets us post images onto the wikipedia site.  This opens many
benefits but also some cans of worms, so this is not a trivial request.

I've written file upload systems several times over the years, and I'm
about to need to do yet another one at work.  I will *tentatively* offer
to volunteer to provide something that can be plugged into wikipedia to
do file uploads, if Larry and Jason give the go ahead for it.  It may be
a few months, if at all, before I can have it ready, though.

> Editorial process
>
> Much has been said about it but not much done.
> We have an excellent and hard-working editor-in-chief - [[Larry
> Sanger]] but I think Wikipedia in current form needs several such
> editors and when it reaches 100,000 pages 1000 Larrys.
> My idea ([[Kpjas]] is :
> Create editor teams online that would cross national Wikipedias
> borders. The teams would need tools to work effectively. One, the
> simplest, in terms of setting it up are separate mailing-list devoted
> to editorial groups like [[Architecture]], [[Philosophy]] and so on.

I think this is a good idea.  Many pages require editing attention.
This is a topic I've heard Larry and others discuss many times.  The
issue is just finding a way to incentivize folks to do this.  I think we
are still searching for the solution here.

> Software
>
> Like any other open software project the software behind it should be
> free and open to all.
> The same applies to Wikipedia software. As I said above wikipedia
> software (usemod wiki) is a revolutionary and of very good quality but
> needs of Wikipedia as a global encyclopedia of unrestrained growth go
> beyond that kind of software. See also above Internal data format.
> On the Wikipedia mailing list [[BryceHarrington]] proposed making the
> Wikipedia software publicly available on [[CVS]] for further
> collaboration on its development.

I think we're ok on this one now.

usemodwiki is available openly and has been for a long time.  (In fact,
I'm using usemodwiki on half a dozen other sites right now.)

Also, the recent tarball includes the usemodwiki software, and all of
the associated scripts and such.

Bryce


from_name: koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com

subject: [Wikipedia-l] The future of Wikipedia

body:
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Url: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20010816/a0f00875/attachment.diff


from_name: Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz

subject: [Wikipedia-l] archiving the Wikipedia

body:
On 15-08-2001, Bryce Harrington wrote thusly :
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Tim Chambers wrote:
> > I'd like to have access to a tarball of the Wikipedia. Larry mentioned Jason
> > as being the one to set up the cron jobs, so I'm copying him FWIW.
> > A couple details haven't been discussed:
> > 1. When the tarball becomes available, I assume it'll be a link from the
> > appropriate Wikpedia page? I'd propose at least HomePage. Maybe
> > Wikipedia_FAQ. And how about a page devoted to the tarball. Say, [[Wikipedia
> > Snapshot]]? See
> ditto
Agreed. I wonder how is it possible that such tarball and page have not
been created so far. It good that the original poster pointed that out.
> > 2. It wasn't discussed whether all versions would be archived or not. That,
> > of course, is ideal. But it will grow ''ad infiniutum.'' (''ad nauseum''?
> > :-) I think it's essential for the historical record to archive all
> > revisions, but I think there should also be a "snapshot" tarball of only the
> > latest version of each article. It would be considerably smaller and
> > wouldn't grow as fast as the full archive. If that was done, then there
> > could be a page called [[Wikipedia Archives]] that had links to both
> > tarballs.
> Well the way wiki is implemented is that each page's file actually
> contains the prior revisions of itself within it.  So we'll only be able
> to browse it with wiki (afaik).  It would actually be *harder* (I think)
> to provide only the latest HTML snapshot (actually not *that* hard: wiki
> has a capability to produce cached HTML versions of pages, and one could
> set it up to build that cache and snag it; but that's more work for
> Bomis, and any one of us can produce the snapshots once we have the
> original, if we really needed it.)
IMO there should be 2 kinds of tarballs - one with the usemod source so
that I could grab it and install it right away and the other kind in
human readable format. I think it is too soon for some articles to be
rendered in printable form - today [[Siouxie and the Banshees]] article
would give a blank page.
> Maybe we'll find there is an easy way to generate a snapshot of just the
> HTML pages.  I scanned through the wiki.pl file and didn't see such a
> routine, however the "raw material" exists to create such a thing.
> One obvious exercise I can think of is running a DocBook or Latex
> converter over the source to produce a printable version of Wikipedia.
> The trick would be figuring out how to filter out stuff inappropriate
> for printing (e.g., user pages or discussion).  That would kick ass.
> :-) (The filter would be handy for creating sanitized distros of the
> pedia for inclusion in linux distros too, if someone had the druthers to
> do that some day.)
Thanks for this thread.
kpj.
--
Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz, M.D | Dwa czarne charaktery, a jak odmiennej barwy.
Czestochowa, Poland ...       | Stanis?aw Jerzy Lec
Wi?cej cytat?w : http://www.cytaty.phg.pl


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Further caveat

in_reply_to: <00ad01c125c0$a44ad240$7be3aaac@laptop>; from lsanger@nupedia.com on Wed, Aug 15, 2001 at 12:24:52PM -0700

body:
On 15-08-2001, Larry Sanger wrote thusly :
> Just by the way, I have it from an excellent source that there really is no
> appreciable likelihood that Wikipedia will die because Bomis goes under,
> barring acts of God and such.  It is great to be able to say, truly, that
> Bomis has very nicely weathered the great Internet bubble-burst.
Glad to hear it. I wish Bomis all the best.
BTW I hope Bomis does routinely a proper backup.
kpj.
--
Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz, M.D | Lustro ma zgag?, wszystko mu si? odbija. Jan
Czestochowa, Poland ...       | Sztaudynger
Wi?cej cytat?w : http://www.cytaty.phg.pl


subject: [Wikipedia-l] (No Subject)

body:
On 15-08-2001, Bryce Harrington wrote thusly :
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2001 sanger1 at nupedia.com wrote:

First. I am glad that I stirred something up that has brought positive
results.
> > Bryce, no doubt, I would be miffed if I were you. I share your
> > confusion, too.  I had no idea that it was such a small operation
> > (remember, I'm not a programmer, so you must explain things simply
> > and clearly to me, if you want me to understand).  I assure you that
> > there is absolutely no *resistance* to the request--unless inertia
> > counts as resistance...
> Okay, thanks.  Good to hear.
> > Nupedia isn't making any money either.  In fact, Wikipedia is much
> > closer to the point where it might (somehow) make money for Bomis (and
> > therefore, potentially, for anyone else who wants to use the content
> > for profit).
It is a little confusing. The FSF started Gnupedia and then they gave up
and joined Nupedia. Maybe if there is a commercial problem with the
expansion, bandwidth and maintainace we should either :
* move back to the FSF
* or start Wikipedia2 one way or the other
> Isn't that ironic?  ;-)  (And cool too)
> Here is my philosophy on this:  Wikipedia, when it is far enough along
> to actually be used as our community wishes it to be, will require
> stable, supported, reliable hardware and a decent bandwidth.  These
> things are not free.  Thus it is in wikipedia's best interest that it at
> least make enough $$ to break even, and maybe even a little better to
> give a reward to the folks who have to deal with annoying users like
> me.  ;-)
> (The caveat being, as long as the pursuit of money does not impinge on
> the freedom of the community, as it has in so many other areas so often
> in the past.  But you know this.)
> > Anyway, remember, Wikipedia, like Nupedia, is a volunteer project--so
> > it's not surprising (though regrettable) that essential features like
> > this should be rooted-for and planned by volunteers.  Really, we
> > should have done this long ago.
see above
>
> *Nod*  Providing tarballs of the site is a first step towards opening it
> to further volunteer participation.
>
> In order for volunteer programmers to do their "thang", they often like
> to snag the whole potato and put a copy of it on their computer so they
> can poke and prod, test and break, and gnaw and digest.  And plus it's
> safer for you to have them do this than allow them a logon to your
> webserver to muck about on the live site.  ;-)
> Now, I'm not saying programmers *will* jump in and help by having this
> available, but just that they *can't* (practically) without it.  (They
> could still get usemodwiki and mock up a new site and play, but what fun
> is that?)
> (FWIW, the step after this would be to set up CVS for the cgi's and
> tools people will be writing specifically for wikipedia that wouldn't be
> integrated into usemodwiki directly.)
> > On the other hand, long ago, we didn't really know that the project
> > would be so successful so quickly, that this would be so important
> > and useful so soon!
> Yes it's amazed me at its success too!
> I had originally been involved with Gnupedia, but recognized that
> wikipedia had "something" (or a set of somethings) that would make it
> more successful, sooner, and came here.  Still, I was blown away to
> learn that other sites are now using wikipedia as a legit encyclopdia!
> :-)
I agree with Bryce. I will explain my view in another post.

Regards,
kpj.
--
Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz, M.D | M?odo?? by?aby doskona?a, gdyby przytrafia?a
Czestochowa, Poland ...       | si? pod koniec ?ycia. Herbert Henry Asquith
Wi?cej cytat?w : http://www.cytaty.phg.pl


subject: [Wikipedia-l] The future of Wikipedia

body:
Hello all,

The same article was put on a Wikipedia page.

I think that we have grown a Wikipedia community. Wikipedia is a
volunteer project that was made possible by Bomis. However, we have
invested in our favourite project a lot of enthusiasm, time and (in
some cases) money. It is quite natural that we want Wikipedia to
prosper.
In my opinion it is a time to stop and discuss. Discuss the future of
Wikipedia.
How does Bomis see it ?
How does Nupedia see it ?
How do we ?
The future might be or might not as bright as our imagination whispers
into our ears.
Wikipedia is a great idea combined with a new, revolutionary software
and it has a lot of brilliant committed authors. Her growth is
explosive. But there are also weaknesses (Wikinesses ?) brought into
light be some of us.

Reliability

The other side of the free writing style in Wikipedia is quite
possible lack of reliability.
This lack of reliability would in the end undermine Wikipedia's
credibility and ultimately her success.
This issue must be tackled, and as soon as possible. I don't agree
here with [[Larry Sanger]] and his view "self-healing". It is an
example of elated wishful thinking that is misleading us.
I'd rather agree with [[Piotr Wozniak]]. His ideal of reliability is
EB and he is anxious about the potential lack of it in Wikipedia.
I am very interested in other people views. To start the creative
process of discussion I'll give you my ([[Kpjas]]) idea :
Why not create two parallel Wikipedias one public Wikipedia that is almost
frozen (apart from Talk pages, Feature requests pages and the like).  And the
working Wikipedia for contributors. Forseeing your criticisms of the proposal
that it would hamper netizen involvement - Edit this page could lead into the
working Wikipedia.

Scalability

There are two ways of Wikipedia growth - global or niche.
If we decide in favour of global growth - being slashdotted only first
symptom of a serious problem.
I'll give you my ([[Kpjas]]) idea : :Nowadays distributed software
solutions are the height of fashion. Why not devise a distributed
Wikipedia ? Programmers ?

Multimedia

A picture can say more than, say, several Wikipedia articles.
It is rather trivial.
I think that Wikipedia without pictures, video, and audio is not a
real encyclopedia.
I wonder if you think my propositions worthwhile :
AudioWikipedia, PhotoWikipedia, VideoWikipedia - pages that can be
linked from the real Wikipedias but having only a title and Talk
pages.

Internal data format

This point is connected with Software issue below.  Current data format is
otherwise an example of excellent software solution. But understandably the
creator of it did not envision the scale of Wikipedia. It poses numerous
problems like searching through Wikipedia and others. My ([[Kpjas]]) thoughts
wander around [[XML]] data format in connection with a free [[database]] like
[[MySQL]]. And your thoughts ?

Editorial process

Much has been said about it but not much done.
We have an excellent and hard-working editor-in-chief - [[Larry
Sanger]] but I think Wikipedia in current form needs several such
editors and when it reaches 100,000 pages 1000 Larrys.
My idea ([[Kpjas]] is :
Create editor teams online that would cross national Wikipedias
borders. The teams would need tools to work effectively. One, the
simplest, in terms of setting it up are separate mailing-list devoted
to editorial groups like [[Architecture]], [[Philosophy]] and so on.

Software

Like any other open software project the software behind it should be
free and open to all.
The same applies to Wikipedia software. As I said above wikipedia
software (usemod wiki) is a revolutionary and of very good quality but
needs of Wikipedia as a global encyclopedia of unrestrained growth go
beyond that kind of software. See also above Internal data format.
On the Wikipedia mailing list [[BryceHarrington]] proposed making the
Wikipedia software publicly available on [[CVS]] for further
collaboration on its development.

Commercial and organizational issues

I'm no good at it. But to me it seems to be one of the most important
issues, second to wide netizen involvement.
Please, share your feelings and opinions here.

Best wishes to everyone,
kpj.
--
Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz, M.D | Nic w przyrodzie nie ginie, jedynie spe?nione
Czestochowa, Poland ...       | nadzieje. Stanis?aw Jerzy Lec
Wi?cej cytat?w : http://www.cytaty.prv.pl


subject: [Wikipedia-l] The future of Wikipedia

body:
I think Wikipedia is doing remarkably well, and while considerations about
the future are certainly understandable just now when we're experiencing
unprecedented growth, I don't see any necessity for any *radical* change.
This is not at all to deny, of course, that there are some features we
desperately need, that we have been requesting for months, such as a file
uploader.  There are a few replies I'd like to make, too.

From: "Bryce Harrington" <bryce at neptune.net>
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz wrote:
> > The other side of the free writing style in Wikipedia is quite
> > possible lack of reliability.
> > This lack of reliability would in the end undermine Wikipedia's
> > credibility and ultimately her success.
>
> No one in the world expects credibility from Wikipedia.  And Wikipedia
> requires nothing from the world at large to be successful.  Thus to me
> it seems like there is only a tenuous connection - at best - between
> credibility and success, regarding Wikipedia.  If Wikipedia were *only*
> intended to be a literal replacement for a traditional encyclopedia,
> sure.  But it's something a tad less, and something a tad more.

That's close to how I would answer.  I would say that it *is* going to be a
replacement (or a competitor) for traditional encyclopedias, precisely
because it *will* be remarkably reliable--as well as more massive than any
traditional encyclopedia.  It already is remarkably reliable given that
there is no peer review process at present.  I think it's a very long time
indeed before we'll institute anything like a peer review process.  That
would stymie development.

What we might want to do in the nearer term, particularly if there is
programming support for it out there, is some manner of voting system about
articles (good articles get high votes, e.g.).  But, frankly, I think that's
a complete and utter waste of time, precisely because we don't know who's
voting--but if we were to have a huge panel of *experts* voting on Wikipedia
articles, that'd be something else.  Of course, we aren't going to get any
such huge panel anytime soon, so...

> That said, I do not think that the lack of credibility is as clear cut
> as would appear at first glance.  Yes, logic says one should expect to
> see a distinct lack of credibility in Wikipedia.  However, the evidence
> we're seeing is that many articles actually *are* reliable and credible.
> In a small but growing number of cases, the articles are actually
> *better* than you'd find in a traditional encyclopedia.

Another important point, well stated.  (Of course, strictly speaking, logic,
or logical application of straightforward principles derived from common
experience, doesn't apply here: Wikipedia is really a *new thing*!

Re: "Reliability"
> > This issue must be tackled, and as soon as possible. I don't agree
> > here with [[Larry Sanger]] and his view "self-healing". It is an
> > example of elated wishful thinking that is misleading us.

Excuse me, Krzysztof, but this isn't just *my* view.  As far as I can tell,
it is the view of *most* people who have been actively working on Wikipedia
for more than a month or two--more importantly, it's common knowledge just
how robust wikis are.  You make it sound as if it were something that were a
matter of serious dispute.  Well, notwithstanding your view, and that of a
few very new people who lack experience with wikis--it isn't!  Not at all!
It's pretty much self-evident to old hands here that articles *do* tend
constantly to be improved, repaired (when, as sometimes occurs, a
disadvantageous edit is made), etc.  I think you simply have yet to fully
appreciate this.

I think you could stand to stop talking *about* Wikipedia and use your time
to do some actual work on it.  I think this might help you understand some
things you don't seem yet to understand fully.

> Well I have disagreed with Larry on many things, but on this particular
> one I think he is correct.  I've been involved with Wikipedia since the
> start, and have watched the evolution of many articles.  I think this
> "self-healing" is not an expression of an idealistic wish of his but a
> characterization of a real thing that we have been observing again and
> again.

Very well stated.  In other words, it's practically self-evident, to someone
with adequate experience with wikis.

> I don't know that I would go so far as to say that self-healing will
> ensure that at some tangible point wikipedia will be 100% correct.
> Actually I'm fairly confident that will never happen.  But then, does
> that matter?  No encyclopedia is 100% correct, and probably not even 75%
> correct, when you consider how much is unknown or incorrectly known in
> the world.

When it is much more mature than it is now, I think there will be some
benefit to be gained, *perhaps*, in setting up some sort of
professional-level review system.  But setting up such a system now would be
extremely counterproductive.  So, I counsel patience!

> > Why not create two parallel Wikipedias one public Wikipedia that is
almost
> > frozen (apart from Talk pages, Feature requests pages and the like).
And the
> > working Wikipedia for contributors. Forseeing your criticisms of the
proposal
> > that it would hamper netizen involvement - Edit this page could lead
into the
> > working Wikipedia.
>
> I agree.  However, to me it seems like this describes what Nupedia's
> role has become, and I think it already serves this purpose very well.

More to the point, this is what the Chalkboard does.  Krzysztof, maybe you
should just devote your efforts to the Chalkboard.  I think you'll find it
*much* more to your liking, and your active participation may be just the
extra little push we need to get that project really moving.  Have a look at
the Chalkboard policy statement
http://chalkboard.nupedia.com/wiki.cgi?Chalkboard/Policy
and I think you'll find a few of your suggestions already implemented there.

> > Multimedia
> >
> > A picture can say more than, say, several Wikipedia articles.
> > It is rather trivial.
> > I think that Wikipedia without pictures, video, and audio is not a
> > real encyclopedia.
> > I wonder if you think my propositions worthwhile :
> > AudioWikipedia, PhotoWikipedia, VideoWikipedia - pages that can be
> > linked from the real Wikipedias but having only a title and Talk
> > pages.
>
> Agreed, agreed, agreed.  What we need, essentially, is an upload tool
> that lets us post images onto the wikipedia site.  This opens many
> benefits but also some cans of worms, so this is not a trivial request.

Well, I've asked our guys *repeatedly* for an upload tool.  Maybe that's the
next thing they'll give us.

> I've written file upload systems several times over the years, and I'm
> about to need to do yet another one at work.  I will *tentatively* offer
> to volunteer to provide something that can be plugged into wikipedia to
> do file uploads, if Larry and Jason give the go ahead for it.  It may be
> a few months, if at all, before I can have it ready, though.

Please do--there's really no need to ask permission to write obviously
useful tools for the project.  If you show the initiative of writing complex
code, I'm pretty sure Jason and others will want to take the time of
uploading and using it.

But bear in mind Nupedia has an upload tool too...that could be adapted,
perhaps.  I do think we need some sort of approval system for Wikipedia's
upload tool, though--if we don't, it *will* be used to try to crash the
server, upload porn, and otherwise cause problems, of that I'm sure.

> > Editorial process
> >
> > Much has been said about it but not much done.

That's because, frankly, most of what's been said reflects a failure to
understand ***WHY*** Wikipedia has been so successful so far.

> > My idea ([[Kpjas]] is :
> > Create editor teams online that would cross national Wikipedias
> > borders. The teams would need tools to work effectively. One, the
> > simplest, in terms of setting it up are separate mailing-list devoted
> > to editorial groups like [[Architecture]], [[Philosophy]] and so on.
>
> I think this is a good idea.  Many pages require editing attention.
> This is a topic I've heard Larry and others discuss many times.  The
> issue is just finding a way to incentivize folks to do this.  I think we
> are still searching for the solution here.

I'll bite: what would the editor teams be *for*, and what would they *do*,
and, to be consistent with what does make Wikipedia work, how could they
possibly be anything other than a bunch of pompous blowhards who want to
control what everyone else is doing?  I wouldn't *want* to be on an
editorial team for philosophy, myself; Krzysztof, would you want to be on
one for your field?  How would you try to control what people do on the
wiki, and do you really think that it would be for the best?

I have a better idea.  Let's encourage every person who might possibly be a
member of an editorial team to go in and work directly on the articles that
would be in the purview of their editorial team.  That way, all the energy
that goes into the silly politics of an "editorial team" is channelled in a
positive direction, viz., working on articles.

Larry, who would much rather be working on the wiki than writing this


from_name: Stephen Gilbert

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Multimedia and file uploads

body:
>> Multimedia
>>
>> A picture can say more than, say, several Wikipedia articles.
>> It is rather trivial.
>> I think that Wikipedia without pictures, video, and audio is not a
>> real encyclopedia.
>> I wonder if you think my propositions worthwhile :
>> AudioWikipedia, PhotoWikipedia, VideoWikipedia - pages that can be
>> linked from the real Wikipedias but having only a title and Talk
>> pages.
>
>Agreed, agreed, agreed.  What we need, essentially, is an upload tool
>that lets us post images onto the wikipedia site.  This opens many
>benefits but also some cans of worms, so this is not a trivial request.
>
>I've written file upload systems several times over the years, and I'm
>about to need to do yet another one at work.  I will *tentatively* offer
>to volunteer to provide something that can be plugged into wikipedia to
>do file uploads, if Larry and Jason give the go ahead for it.  It may be
>a few months, if at all, before I can have it ready, though.
>

Until then, is there any reason why we couldn't use FTP to upload images?
An anonymous FTP account allowing us to upload to, say,
www.wikipedia.com/images would do the trick, and we could simply link the
pictures from there.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] The future of Wikipedia

body:
Rather than bothering you all further with this, I'm answering Krzysztof
privately...

Larry


subject: [Wikipedia-l] The future of Wikipedia

body:
I've read with interest the comments by Krzysztof, Larry, and Bryce. I'd
like to summarize how I view the relationship between Wikipedia, the Nupedia
chalkboard, and Nupedia.

I have perused the list of contributors to Nupedia and am impressed by their
credentials. But it is unlikely that I will every achieve the level of
authority in any subject that would enable me to be counted among their
ranks. Having said that, I will add that as an amateur intellectual with
eclectic interests, I find Wikipedia to be a refreshing outlet for my
interest in sharing the smattering of facts that I ''have'' mastered.

Getting to the point, I do not appreciate the direction suggested by
Krzysztof to attempt to "improve" the reputation of Wikipedia. For one
thing, let's see some concrete examples of existing [[patent nonsense]]
''today'' in the Wikipedia so we can gauge the actual extent of the problem
to which Krzysztof alludes.

As long as the Internet is crawling with [[induhvidual]]s who spread hoax
e-mail [1], misinformation will ''not'' be stamped out. ''Caveat lector'', I
say! I agree with Larry that those who are uncomfortable with the potential
for dubious information on Wikipedia should concentrate on Nupedia and its
wiki chalkboard.

What hasn't been mentioned here is the value Wikipedia has in adding a new
dimension to discourse and knowledge transfer. I first discovered it at the
original [[WikiWiki]], whose purpose has rightly remained relatively narrow
and focused on subjects of interest to computer scientists. That dimension
evolves from the fundamental concepts that wiki embodies -- the ability to
add hyperlinks with extreme ease. No other Web site offers anywhere close to
the potential for interconnecting human concepts so easily.

Sorry if this seems rambling. I don't have any more time for editing. But
I'll close with this. Remember the plot device popular in fish-out-of-water
movies and TV shows about how the extraterrestrial/mermaid/caveman learns
about American culture by watching television? Well, all you Singularity
fans out there -- think about what we're creating at the Wikipedia. It --
more than any other World Wide Web site -- has the potential to become the
ultimate storehouse of human knowledge, ready-made for absorption by the
first artificial consciousness that some expect will eventually somehow
emerge on the 'Net. Maybe Wikipedia will be the grounds for its adolescent
development. Then it will graduate to the Nupedia and get ''really'' smart.
:-) Or maybe before that, the extraterrestrials will get ahold of this
knowledge, infiltrate our society, and have us for dinner. :-)

<>< Tim

---

[1] see http://www.geocities.com/tbchambers/vaccine.htm


subject: [Wikipedia-l] The future of Wikipedia

body:
On 16-08-2001, Bryce Harrington wrote thusly :

I snipped some parts of Bryce's post that are not relevant to my
answers.
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz wrote:
> > Hello all,
> > The same article was put on a Wikipedia page.
> I just have a few random, not-worth keeping comments so will reply here
> rather than on the wiki site.  (Btw, good idea to post it there.)
> > I think that we have grown a Wikipedia community. Wikipedia is a
> > volunteer project that was made possible by Bomis. However, we have
> > invested in our favourite project a lot of enthusiasm, time and (in
> > some cases) money. It is quite natural that we want Wikipedia to
> > prosper.
> > In my opinion it is a time to stop and discuss. Discuss the future of
> > Wikipedia.
> > How does Bomis see it ?
> > How does Nupedia see it ?
> > How do we ?
> Personally, as long as Bomis is providing tarballs and enough to
> *potentially* allow for forking, we've zero incentive to do it at all.
> Sort of, the more control they're willing to give away, the more control
> we can all trust them to have, I guess.
> > Reliability
> > The other side of the free writing style in Wikipedia is quite
> > possible lack of reliability.
> > This lack of reliability would in the end undermine Wikipedia's
> > credibility and ultimately her success.
> No one in the world expects credibility from Wikipedia.  And Wikipedia
> requires nothing from the world at large to be successful.  Thus to me
> it seems like there is only a tenuous connection - at best - between
> credibility and success, regarding Wikipedia.  If Wikipedia were *only*
> intended to be a literal replacement for a traditional encyclopedia,
> sure.  But it's something a tad less, and something a tad more.
I'd like to write an article for Wikipedia about it but maybe later
today.
> That said, I do not think that the lack of credibility is as clear cut
> as would appear at first glance.  Yes, logic says one should expect to
> see a distinct lack of credibility in Wikipedia.  However, the evidence
> we're seeing is that many articles actually *are* reliable and credible.
> In a small but growing number of cases, the articles are actually
> *better* than you'd find in a traditional encyclopedia.
I agree and this is a Wikipedia magic but a casual reader might not know
the difference. You say that judging articles in your area of expertise.
> > This issue must be tackled, and as soon as possible. I don't agree
> > here with [[Larry Sanger]] and his view "self-healing". It is an
> > example of elated wishful thinking that is misleading us.
> Well I have disagreed with Larry on many things, but on this particular
> one I think he is correct.  I've been involved with Wikipedia since the
> start, and have watched the evolution of many articles.  I think this
> "self-healing" is not an expression of an idealistic wish of his but a
> characterization of a real thing that we have been observing again and
> again.
> I don't know that I would go so far as to say that self-healing will
> ensure that at some tangible point wikipedia will be 100% correct.
> Actually I'm fairly confident that will never happen.  But then, does
> that matter?  No encyclopedia is 100% correct, and probably not even 75%
> correct, when you consider how much is unknown or incorrectly known in
> the world.
To be really self-healing we need dozens of such enthusiasts as we are
otherwise someone might put some nonsense pretending to be valid in an
article none of us is competent enough.
I think we should strive for a better kind of credibility than
"this article can be right or wrong, but it is not totally wrong".
> I would like to analogize to science here.  Scientists 300 years ago did
> not say, "Let's make sure we have everything completely and reliably
> figured out as soon as possible, and record it."  Instead they came up
> with a process that allows for establishing what they believed true,
> with processes for testing and validating and adjusting as we go.  A
> self-correcting approach to accumulating knowledge.  With Wikipedia we
> are using a similar approach - we record what we believe to be true, and
> then it is challenged and tested, and hopefully replaced with something
> better.
OK I take your point. I am just afraid that we are losing what
Wikipedia _could be_ ?
So in your opinion Wikipedia is a discussion forum rather than a
reference source.
[big snip]

Regards,
kpj.
--
Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz, M.D | B??dzi cz?owiek, p?ki d??y. Johann Wolfgang
Czestochowa, Poland ...       | Goethe
Wi?cej cytat?w : http://www.cytatowo.prv.pl


subject: [Wikipedia-l] (No Subject)

body:
On 16-08-2001, Bryce Harrington wrote thusly :
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz wrote:
> > > > Nupedia isn't making any money either.  In fact, Wikipedia is much
> > > > closer to the point where it might (somehow) make money for Bomis (and
> > > > therefore, potentially, for anyone else who wants to use the content
> > > > for profit).
> > It is a little confusing. The FSF started Gnupedia and then they gave up
> > and joined Nupedia. Maybe if there is a commercial problem with the
> > expansion, bandwidth and maintainace we should either :
> > * move back to the FSF
> > * or start Wikipedia2 one way or the other
> *Nod*  Obviously what we don't want is a fork, nor to offend Bomis
> (well, not much *grin*).  My guess is that Bomis has things WELL under
> control in the backup department and that they may never have
> significant financial or maintenance problems.
> But, if we're just talking extreme contingency here ("What if Bomis were
> hit by a tonado"), it might be a good idea to have an alternate
> organization able to fill in until Bomis gets back on their feet.  I'm
> not sure the FSF is the best choice; they're awfully busy with other
> matters.  One organization that springs to mind is SEUL - Simple End
> User Linux - who are also hosted out of MIT.  Their focus is on end user
> applications, science, and education, and I suspect they'd be willing to
> serve as a temporary backup.  I'm sure there are also other
> organizations, too.
> As long as Bomis continues to provide tarballs periodically, and as long
> as at least one of us downloads them each time, I think we'll be able to
> recover from even a bad catastrophy.
Please don't take me wrong I have nothing against Bomis. I think they so
far have been serving Wikipedia reasonably well.
But if something hampers the growth or endangers the freedom...
Regards,
kpj.
--
Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz, M.D | Odpowiedzialno?? jest wygodna, spoczywa ch?tnie
Czestochowa, Poland ...       | na takich, co s? nietykalni. Stanis?aw Jerzy
Wi?cej cytat?w : http://www.cytatowo.prv.pl


subject: [Wikipedia-l] The future of Wikipedia

body:
On 16-08-2001, Larry Sanger wrote thusly :
> I think Wikipedia is doing remarkably well, and while considerations about
> the future are certainly understandable just now when we're experiencing
> unprecedented growth, I don't see any necessity for any *radical* change.
> This is not at all to deny, of course, that there are some features we
> desperately need, that we have been requesting for months, such as a file
> uploader.  There are a few replies I'd like to make, too.
> From: "Bryce Harrington" <bryce at neptune.net>
> > On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz wrote:
> > > The other side of the free writing style in Wikipedia is quite
> > > possible lack of reliability.
> > > This lack of reliability would in the end undermine Wikipedia's
> > > credibility and ultimately her success.
> > No one in the world expects credibility from Wikipedia.  And Wikipedia
> > requires nothing from the world at large to be successful.  Thus to me
> > it seems like there is only a tenuous connection - at best - between
> > credibility and success, regarding Wikipedia.  If Wikipedia were *only*
> > intended to be a literal replacement for a traditional encyclopedia,
> > sure.  But it's something a tad less, and something a tad more.
> That's close to how I would answer.  I would say that it *is* going to be a
> replacement (or a competitor) for traditional encyclopedias, precisely
> because it *will* be remarkably reliable--as well as more massive than any
> traditional encyclopedia.  It already is remarkably reliable given that
> there is no peer review process at present.  I think it's a very long time
> indeed before we'll institute anything like a peer review process.  That
> would stymie development.
> What we might want to do in the nearer term, particularly if there is
> programming support for it out there, is some manner of voting system about
> articles (good articles get high votes, e.g.).  But, frankly, I think that's
> a complete and utter waste of time, precisely because we don't know who's
> voting--but if we were to have a huge panel of *experts* voting on Wikipedia
> articles, that'd be something else.  Of course, we aren't going to get any
> such huge panel anytime soon, so...
> > That said, I do not think that the lack of credibility is as clear cut
> > as would appear at first glance.  Yes, logic says one should expect to
> > see a distinct lack of credibility in Wikipedia.  However, the evidence
> > we're seeing is that many articles actually *are* reliable and credible.
> > In a small but growing number of cases, the articles are actually
> > *better* than you'd find in a traditional encyclopedia.
> Another important point, well stated.  (Of course, strictly speaking, logic,
> or logical application of straightforward principles derived from common
> experience, doesn't apply here: Wikipedia is really a *new thing*!
> Re: "Reliability"
> > > This issue must be tackled, and as soon as possible. I don't agree
> > > here with [[Larry Sanger]] and his view "self-healing". It is an
> > > example of elated wishful thinking that is misleading us.
> Excuse me, Krzysztof, but this isn't just *my* view.  As far as I can tell,
> it is the view of *most* people who have been actively working on Wikipedia
> for more than a month or two--more importantly, it's common knowledge just
> how robust wikis are.  You make it sound as if it were something that were a
> matter of serious dispute.  Well, notwithstanding your view, and that of a
> few very new people who lack experience with wikis--it isn't!  Not at all!
> It's pretty much self-evident to old hands here that articles *do* tend
> constantly to be improved, repaired (when, as sometimes occurs, a
> disadvantageous edit is made), etc.  I think you simply have yet to fully
> appreciate this.
> I think you could stand to stop talking *about* Wikipedia and use your time
> to do some actual work on it.  I think this might help you understand some
> things you don't seem yet to understand fully.
Your sarcasm is quite unecessary. Do we want arguments like
'I have a bigger say in Wikipedia matters because...'
Looking just a week ahead and taking only one aspect into consideration
is not a good thing. In my opinion.
I feel I am putting a lot of effort and enthusiasm in Wikipedia project. So
far I have written as many pages as my time allowed. So it is unfair to
bring up that matter as an argument for me to sit silent.
I have already said many times that I acknowledge that wiki software
is absolutely revolutionary but it doesn't mean it is perfect for a
particular application of it and it can not be improved.
> > Well I have disagreed with Larry on many things, but on this particular
> > one I think he is correct.  I've been involved with Wikipedia since the
> > start, and have watched the evolution of many articles.  I think this
> > "self-healing" is not an expression of an idealistic wish of his but a
> > characterization of a real thing that we have been observing again and
> > again.
> Very well stated.  In other words, it's practically self-evident, to someone
> with adequate experience with wikis.
> > I don't know that I would go so far as to say that self-healing will
> > ensure that at some tangible point wikipedia will be 100% correct.
> > Actually I'm fairly confident that will never happen.  But then, does
> > that matter?  No encyclopedia is 100% correct, and probably not even 75%
> > correct, when you consider how much is unknown or incorrectly known in
> > the world.
A question arises about Wikipedia audience. Now and then I hear it is
very well that it is for the fun of the authors. I enjoy Wikipedia very
much myself but I think that the ultimate goal is global web audience.
Why, if Wikipedia is such a great idea, keep it to ourselves ?
If we are not prepared to share Wikipedia with the rest of the world why
publicise its existence ?
> When it is much more mature than it is now, I think there will be some
> benefit to be gained, *perhaps*, in setting up some sort of
> professional-level review system.  But setting up such a system now would be
> extremely counterproductive.  So, I counsel patience!
I suppose that there are more prospective authors than reviewers.
If there are 100,000 pages how long will it take to review it professionally.
> > > Why not create two parallel Wikipedias one public Wikipedia that is
> almost
> > > frozen (apart from Talk pages, Feature requests pages and the like).
> And the
> > > working Wikipedia for contributors. Forseeing your criticisms of the
> proposal
> > > that it would hamper netizen involvement - Edit this page could lead
> into the
> > > working Wikipedia.
> >
> > I agree.  However, to me it seems like this describes what Nupedia's
> > role has become, and I think it already serves this purpose very well.
> More to the point, this is what the Chalkboard does.  Krzysztof, maybe you
> should just devote your efforts to the Chalkboard.  I think you'll find it
> *much* more to your liking, and your active participation may be just the
> extra little push we need to get that project really moving.  Have a look at
> the Chalkboard policy statement
> http://chalkboard.nupedia.com/wiki.cgi?Chalkboard/Policy
> and I think you'll find a few of your suggestions already implemented there.
Surely I must look at the Chalkboard.
> > > Multimedia
> > > A picture can say more than, say, several Wikipedia articles.
> > > It is rather trivial.
> > > I think that Wikipedia without pictures, video, and audio is not a
> > > real encyclopedia.
> > > I wonder if you think my propositions worthwhile :
> > > AudioWikipedia, PhotoWikipedia, VideoWikipedia - pages that can be
> > > linked from the real Wikipedias but having only a title and Talk
> > > pages.
> > Agreed, agreed, agreed.  What we need, essentially, is an upload tool
> > that lets us post images onto the wikipedia site.  This opens many
> > benefits but also some cans of worms, so this is not a trivial request.
> Well, I've asked our guys *repeatedly* for an upload tool.  Maybe that's the
> next thing they'll give us.
Keep fingers crossed.
> > I've written file upload systems several times over the years, and I'm
> > about to need to do yet another one at work.  I will *tentatively* offer
> > to volunteer to provide something that can be plugged into wikipedia to
> > do file uploads, if Larry and Jason give the go ahead for it.  It may be
> > a few months, if at all, before I can have it ready, though.
> Please do--there's really no need to ask permission to write obviously
> useful tools for the project.  If you show the initiative of writing complex
> code, I'm pretty sure Jason and others will want to take the time of
> uploading and using it.
> But bear in mind Nupedia has an upload tool too...that could be adapted,
> perhaps.  I do think we need some sort of approval system for Wikipedia's
> upload tool, though--if we don't, it *will* be used to try to crash the
> server, upload porn, and otherwise cause problems, of that I'm sure.
Upload process needs some careful planning that anyone could link to any
image (or the like) as easy as he/she makes a wiki link.
I think we will need 'Recent Changes' for images uploaded as well.
> > > Editorial process
> > > Much has been said about it but not much done.
> That's because, frankly, most of what's been said reflects a failure to
> understand ***WHY*** Wikipedia has been so successful so far.
> > > My idea ([[Kpjas]] is :
> > > Create editor teams online that would cross national Wikipedias
> > > borders. The teams would need tools to work effectively. One, the
> > > simplest, in terms of setting it up are separate mailing-list devoted
> > > to editorial groups like [[Architecture]], [[Philosophy]] and so on.
> > I think this is a good idea.  Many pages require editing attention.
> > This is a topic I've heard Larry and others discuss many times.  The
> > issue is just finding a way to incentivize folks to do this.  I think we
> > are still searching for the solution here.
> I'll bite: what would the editor teams be *for*, and what would they *do*,
> and, to be consistent with what does make Wikipedia work, how could they
> possibly be anything other than a bunch of pompous blowhards who want to
> control what everyone else is doing?  I wouldn't *want* to be on an
> editorial team for philosophy, myself; Krzysztof, would you want to be on
> one for your field?  How would you try to control what people do on the
> wiki, and do you really think that it would be for the best?
I see editorial boards like a discussion forum for possibly different
people from different areas.
This editorial boards would be supplied with information on current changes,
state of the affairs, and specific needs that must be done now plus plans and
changes for the future.
For example:
1. I have contributed most of the material for Insulin but I know practically
nothing about Insulins in other animals.
2. I have contributed most of the material for Sagrada familia, someone
form the Catalan Wikipedia could give additional info or interesting
insights. Moreover someone actually living in Barcelona could go take a few
photos with a digital camera and upload them to Wikipedia.
> I have a better idea.  Let's encourage every person who might possibly be a
> member of an editorial team to go in and work directly on the articles that
> would be in the purview of their editorial team.  That way, all the energy
> that goes into the silly politics of an "editorial team" is channelled in a
> positive direction, viz., working on articles.
Larry I am not proposing this to be a president of an editorial board
but to foster productivity and collaboration.
> Larry, who would much rather be working on the wiki than writing this
Answering to posts on this mailing list is not compulsory.
Without such discussion we would have had tarballs, upload mechanism and
(I hope) many future enhancements. If this is petty...

Regards,
kpj.
--
Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz, M.D | Grubosk?rnych dra?ni najcie?sza aluzja.
Czestochowa, Poland ...       | Stanis?aw Jerzy Lec
Wi?cej cytat?w : http://www.cytatowo.prv.pl


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [Wikipedia-l] wikipedia.org

body:
On Monday 19 August 2002 03:41 pm, you wrote:
> also .info, .net
>
> That these are safe is not bad but to buy every possibel wikipedia.*
> seems a waste to me.
>
> giskart

Wouldn't be cheaper and more sensible to trademark the word "wikipedia" in
order to prevent somebody from actually using wikipedia.info/.org/.ca or
.whatever? At 30 bucks US a year per TLD that could get expensive.

I think it would be far better to eventually asign each language their own
.org URL that is their languages' version of the word "wikipedia"
(Vikipedio.org for Esperanto or Wikipedia.org for English for example).

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


subject: [Wikipedia-l] wikipedia.org

body:
On Monday 19 August 2002 03:41 pm, you wrote:
> Can still be done later. The problem is the lack of time. If you wait to
> long there are to many links to the new location of the english
> wikipedia that can not be broken. If there is no fundamental objection
> to put the English wikipedia at en.wikipedia.org then that must be done.
> What to do whit www.wikipedia.org can wait (a littel.)
>
> giskart

This is just silly -- we are building an encyclopedia here not an
organization. There is nothing at all wrong with having the English wikipedia
at wikipedia.org and have all the pages that are about the English language
project be in the wikipedia namespace (or in the other languages project
namespaces). As each language figures out what to call their wikipedia we can
buy them domain names for that and make sure the xx.wikipedia.com domain
names still work.

Other than being a one-page portal to all the different language wikipedias
(which the Main Page already does -- as do most of the other language main
pages) I don't see any logic in using wikipedia.org for anything other than
the English language wikipedia.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Where to put acknowledgements

body:
What's wrong with simply placing any attrib or URL in the edit summary that
places the text in the article? The history isn't editable and will
(hopefully) be a permanent part of the article. That, combinded with another
notice at the top of talk will be more than enough. As for others using our
material; we already require a link-back to the original article so others
can access the talk and history.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Bibliography:namespace

body:
On Wednesday 21 August 2002 04:41 pm, Enchanter wrote:
> I don't think [using history and the top of talk pages] is enough. ?
> If others were using wikipedia articles, we
> would want a prominent clickable link back to our article, not something
> buried in the edit history or the talk page. ?Simple fairness and courtesy
> would require that we do the same and link prominently to others, as we do
> with FOLDOC.

Most sites simply have a link to their copyrights page and/or to a
bibliography, that's all we should have (see below). Do we really want to
have all the source info contained at
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Magnesium in the main part of the article?

As more and more info is added the article will begin to look more and more
messy. Having this type of info in the article will also only encourage
newbies to sign articles they create. This stuff needs to go somplace else
that is obvious and doesn't clutter the article.

On Wednesday 21 August 2002 04:41 pm, --April wrote:
> Would it be possible to add a Credits: namespace that, like the Talk:
> namespace would track a given article? ?That way we could put credits,
> links-back, links to any invariant texts, et cetera ad nauseum. ?We could
> even put in hardcopy references, which would be useful and keep 'em from
> cluttering a document. ?Best of all, it's unobtrusive but easily
> accessible.

Yes, I think this would be a great idea. Having attiribs at the top of  a
page called talk is non-obvious while having them in a credits:, sources: or
better yet bibliography: namespace would be very initiative. This should be
linked from the article's page in the same way as talk is and should have
special features available only to sources (or whatever) namespaces.

Some features might be; some text explanation in the non-editable part of
each page briefly explaining what that page is, how it augments the standard
history for large external adds and how to use it with a link to a longer
explanation and to wikipedia:copyrights. Another thing worth considering is
somehow using Lee's jump-to feature along with clickable footnote numbers --
clicking on footnote 5 takes you to that footnote on the bibliography: page
for that article (and/or mouse over text of that footnote is displayed).

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia teamwork

body:
Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz wrote:
> That's another point. Maybe I am a little paranoid but I feel that
> while wikipedia is doing so great I'm anxious what will it be in the future.
> How can we be sure that they won't shut down the server or make it payable.
> This is a commercial company after all, not the FSF.

Just so you know... at the present time, I see no really promising
way to make a lot of money from wikipedia, but at the same time the
expenses are quite low.  If wikipedia were to become wildly successful,
in terms of web traffic, then it would be easy to introduce just enough
(and hopefully non-intrusive) advertising to continue to cover expenses.
If wikipedia were to continue as a thriving small community, it doesn't
really cost anything substantial to keep it running.

So, although this is a commercial company, you should really think of
it more as my own personal project.

There are plans afoot to spin off Nupedia and Wikipedia into a non-profit
organization.  This is by no means certain, but I think that there is much
to recommend it.

--
*************************************************
*            http://www.nupedia.com/            *
*      The Ever Expanding Free Encyclopedia     *
*************************************************


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia teamwork

body:
Jan Hidders wrote:
> Because the GFDL allows you to download everything and start your own
> server. With some Perl magic you could request all edit-pages and dowload
> the pre-formatted text, you could even use the same Wiki software, and I'm
> sure we can trust Bomis enough to warn us in advance.

Absolutely.  It's really me, personally, who would make any decision of
any kind, and at the present time, I have no reason to want to change
anything.  :-)

> The success of Wikipedia is due to the cloud of enthusiasts and
> volunteers that hangs around it. Larry has worked very hard to
> create that cloud, and I'm sure he knows that if he would "come in
> and ..." the cloud might dissapear or move to an alternative server.
> However, Larry is doing an excellent job and I see no sign that this
> is going to change. So setting up an alternative server would not
> only be a bit silly, but also higly unthankful, considering the
> wonderful opportunity they have given us.

I agree with all of this!  :-)  I do encourage anyone who likes to do
so to mirror the data, but I encourage people to do so in a "read only"
way, to keep the central community working here on the main server.

If Larry did anything that was contrary to the wishes of the community
at large, I trust that you would all start screaming loudly.  My own
personal view is that I have a vision for this project (it's an
encyclopedia, not a joke book or collection of antique texts, for
example), and so long as the community agrees with that very broad
vision, well, everything that happens is up to us all, through our
usual process of friendly consensus.

--
*************************************************
*            http://www.nupedia.com/            *
*      The Ever Expanding Free Encyclopedia     *
*************************************************


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia teamwork

in_reply_to: <8766brcbwg.fsf@orcus.priv.at>; from robbe@orcus.priv.at on Tue, Aug 14, 2001 at 09:56:47AM +0200

body:
Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
> So someone at wikipedia.com should /really/ implement periodic snapshots
> of the wiki database. Technicalities can't be a problem, just add
> something like
>
>   18 04 * * * tar czf /webspace/wikipedia-`date +%Y%m%d`.tar.gz /wikidir
>   16 04 * * * find /webspace -maxdepth 1 -name wikipedia-\* -mtime +7 | xargs rm
>
> (2 lines) to an appropriate crontab. Pretty please?

Yes, this can be done, or something similar.

The main thing a person should be able to do is download all the data,
untar it, and launch their own competing site.

What we'd *really* like, though, of course, and I think I'm not just
speaking for myself but for the consensus of the community, is for people
who are unhappy with our work to talk about it within the community.  So
far, we've been pretty good about working on accomodation, at least for
those who agree with the central concept of an 'encyclopedia'.

So what we should probably do is distribute an easy-to-download database
(which is, ironically, a more transparent format than raw ascii, although
we could distribute that too, I suppose) AND we should distribute a
version of the wiki software that is "read only".  That is, we make
it easy for people to set up mirrors that point back to here for edit
purposes.

In this way, we let other people mirror the data (for example, wouldn't
it be sweet if Yahoo or Google did so?) but we also encourage them not
to establish a competing community.  (Though we can't stop them if they
really want to do that.)

> Sure, and perhaps I'll do that some day. But it puts much more
> workload on the server than providing a snapshot, so I'd rather avoid
> it. And if more people exercise their rights in this manner, it will
> only get worse. A snapshot is much lighter on bandwidth and CPU, can
> be mirrored via standard software.

Oh, yes, absolutely.  Indeed, if someone started spidering the whole site
to provide a mirror, I'd ask them to stop and to work with me on something
more sensible!  Spidering is very inelegant, when I've got the data files
right here for the asking.  :-)

> For me its not so much a question about trusting Bomis than of
> convenience and "taking your own license seriously".

Right!

> Setting up a read-only mirror would certainly be useful, and not in
> the least unthankful in my mind. Free licenses are about the *freedom*
> to route around the original originators/maintainers/creators of a
> piece of work. Witness that in the free software scene, such forks are
> quite rare. Maintaining something is work, and nobody takes that
> likely on themselves (and if they do, they usually give up pretty
> quickly).

Yes!

--
*************************************************
*            http://www.nupedia.com/            *
*      The Ever Expanding Free Encyclopedia     *
*************************************************


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia teamwork

body:
Bryce Harrington wrote:
> I think what people are trying to politely say is that you may be in
> violation of your license...

Gosh, I hope no one thinks that.  This is the first time this
issue has come up.  I was on vacation last week.  I'll see to
it that this gets done immediately.

--
*************************************************
*            http://www.nupedia.com/            *
*      The Ever Expanding Free Encyclopedia     *
*************************************************