2009/2/22 River Tarnell :
> currently the dump process is a bit broken. what is the Foundation's position
> on this?
Making the full history dump process scale to en.wp, and dumps more
reliable in general, is a high priority project. It was assigned to
Ariel, but due to escalating tech support pr
Copying the Commons list.
I am interested in hosting (and running some scripts on) copies of the
commons media dump on offline regional servers for offline-reading
purposes. This is difficult without an image dump.
The last time I looked, I was able to find an image dump from 2007?
Now I have a
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 2:44 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> It's too easy for a nominally "open" project to effectively be
> proprietised by just not providing the data/code/etc.
Sure. That's not the issue here, but more people indicating how much
they care about good dumps (I do! also full commons
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 10:01:11AM -0800, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Brian Salter-Duke wrote:
>> However my central point that a discussion of something as important as
>> closing one of our most important projects in a way that few know about
>> it remains. The !vote is 42:102. We get more at en:WP on
2009/2/23 Chad :
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 2:44 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>> The value of providing good dumps is forkability, in case WMF is hit
>> by a meteor, hit by a legal meteor, goes collectively insane, etc.
>> Imagine trying to fork Wikipedia without being able to take the
>> project spaces
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 2:44 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/2/23 Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) :
>
> > However, one question that I have is whether the dump includes, or should
> > conclude, all namespaces, or only articles. In the past, there have
> > allegedly been instances in which database dumps
Actually, I was thinking primarily of userspace.
Newyorkbrad
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 2:44 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/2/23 Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) :
>
> > However, one question that I have is whether the dump includes, or should
> > conclude, all namespaces, or only articles. In the past, t
2009/2/23 Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) :
> However, one question that I have is whether the dump includes, or should
> conclude, all namespaces, or only articles. In the past, there have
> allegedly been instances in which database dumps have been utilized for
> purposes such as harvesting oversighted
2009/2/23 Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) :
> I'm not familiar with the details of the data dump process, so I can't
> comment on whether it's broken or not.
It's broken, I don't think there is any dispute there.
> However, one question that I have is whether the dump includes, or should
> conclude, all
I'm not familiar with the details of the data dump process, so I can't
comment on whether it's broken or not.
However, one question that I have is whether the dump includes, or should
conclude, all namespaces, or only articles. In the past, there have
allegedly been instances in which database du
I have refrained from commenting on this post in the interest of lessening the
impact on people's inboxes. However, I feel that after a cursory inspection of
my own, I should probably make a few points. One is that in the year or so I
have been subscribed to this list, I cannot think of any majo
2009/2/23 Al Tally :
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Nathan wrote:
>
>> The question of how such a discussion would be closed is what concerns me
>> the most - I can't see allowing a meta bureaucrat to close such a poll
>> (which is what we would do in en.wp), and since the Foundation would hav
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Nathan wrote:
> The question of how such a discussion would be closed is what concerns me
> the most - I can't see allowing a meta bureaucrat to close such a poll
> (which is what we would do in en.wp), and since the Foundation would have
> to
> make the changes a
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> A further argument against having this principally discussed on Meta is
> that those who are best served by Simple do not have the language skills
> to participate fully in a discussion where there is unlimited use of
> language.
>
> Ec
>
M
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 1:01 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>
> A further argument against having this principally discussed on Meta is
> that those who are best served by Simple do not have the language skills
> to participate fully in a discussion where there is unlimited use of
> language.
>
> Ec
Brian Salter-Duke wrote:
> However my central point that a discussion of something as important as
> closing one of our most important projects in a way that few know about
> it remains. The !vote is 42:102. We get more at en:WP on a RFA.
A further argument against having this principally discusse
That may be your opinion, but that doesn't mean it can't be done,
hasn't been done before, or won't be done again.
Mark
skype: node.ue
2009/2/23 Al Tally :
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 4:48 PM, Mark Williamson wrote:
>
>> This is wrong; the Siberian Wikipedia had an active userbase but was
>> cl
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 4:48 PM, Mark Williamson wrote:
> This is wrong; the Siberian Wikipedia had an active userbase but was
> closed because it was deemed to be in a "fake" language.
>
As long as a project has an active community, there really is no good reason
to close a project.
--
Alex
(
This is wrong; the Siberian Wikipedia had an active userbase but was
closed because it was deemed to be in a "fake" language.
Mark
skype: node.ue
2009/2/23 Al Tally :
> Proposals to close Simple English projects are like the perennial proposals
> of Wikipedia: not going to happen. As long as
Proposals to close Simple English projects are like the perennial proposals
of Wikipedia: not going to happen. As long as a project has an active
community, there really is no good reason to close a project. OK, Simple
English might not meet current standards for language, but it has an active
comm
2009/2/23 Brian Salter-Duke :
> However my central point that a discussion of something as important as
> closing one of our most important projects in a way that few know about
> it remains. The !vote is 42:102. We get more at en:WP on a RFA.
The proposal is almost certainly going to fail, so the
2009/2/23 Anthony :
> On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>> The discussion has to
>> take place somewhere, meta seems the best option (the only obvious
>> alternative is to have closure discussions on the project in question,
>> but that would most likely result in few people f
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 9:45 AM, Brian Salter-Duke wrote:
> They know about it because of [[Template:Bulletin/News]] on Simple. As
> far as I can see the place(s) that this is transcuded are the only
> places. The question however is how does a Simple WP editor who never
> normally goes to meta kn
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 09:18:03 +, Al Tally
wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 4:05 AM, H wrote:
>
>> Brian,
>> It is usually the responsibility of the proposer to notify the
>> community. I am very surprised that no one did.
>>
>
> Er, the community was notified. Not by the proposer, but by som
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 4:05 AM, H wrote:
> Brian,
> It is usually the responsibility of the proposer to notify the
> community. I am very surprised that no one did.
>
Er, the community was notified. Not by the proposer, but by someone else.
They do know about it though. No issue here.
--
Ale
25 matches
Mail list logo
