http://xkcd.com/547/
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 2/22/09 4:49 AM, River Tarnell wrote:
> currently the dump process is a bit broken. what is the Foundation's position
> on this?
Well, you could have just asked me. :)
http://leuksman.com/log/2009/02/24/wikimedia-data-dump-update/
-- brion
___
fou
On 2/23/09 5:31 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
> 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.
Awesome -- can you work with an
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 4:09 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> http://xkcd.com/547/
>
>
> - d.
>
Eh I'm sure this was discussed somewhere already... anyway, it brought a ton
of new editors in, which was both good and bad (we desperately need more
good editors, but not vandals!)
--
Alex
(User:Majorly)
Its not at all clear why the english wikipedia dump or other large
dumps need to be compressed. It is far more absurd to spend hundreds
of days compressing a file than it is to spend tens of days
downloading one.
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Brion Vibber wrote:
> On 2/23/09 5:31 PM, Samuel K
We should all try the xkcd cure for a while : stick to short words on
this list for a week and see where it gets us. (kat, is this curt's
law? what sorts of threads are star-crossed to end this way?)SJ.
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 11:09 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> http://xkcd.com/547/
>
>
> - d.
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 12:56 PM, Brian wrote:
> Its not at all clear why the english wikipedia dump or other large
> dumps need to be compressed. It is far more absurd to spend hundreds
> of days compressing a file than it is to spend tens of days
> downloading one.
There's no reason it needs
I am of the understanding that the WMF's bandwidth is very cheap.
If you want to consider costs, I think its appropriate to consider the
costs not only to the WMF but to the user. Different compression
algorithms have different encode/decode ratios but if it takes a
cluster to compress a file ther
David Gerard wrote:
> http://xkcd.com/547/
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
Love it !
__
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Brian wrote:
> I am of the understanding that the WMF's bandwidth is very cheap.
>
Compared to what?
If you want to consider costs, I think its appropriate to consider the
> costs not only to the WMF but to the user. Different compression
> algorithms have diffe
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Brian wrote:
> It may in fact be much more user friendly to
> simply offer an enormous text file for download because users don't
> have to unpack it.
Another point, which I forgot to mention. If you have the bandwidth to kill
and just want an enormous uncompre
2009/2/24 Anthony :
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Brian wrote:
>
>> It may in fact be much more user friendly to
>> simply offer an enormous text file for download because users don't
>> have to unpack it.
>
>
> Another point, which I forgot to mention. If you have the bandwidth to kill
> an
On Feb 24, 2009, at 12:52 PM, Al Tally wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 4:09 PM, David Gerard
> wrote:
>
>> http://xkcd.com/547/
>>
>>
>> - d.
>>
>
> Eh I'm sure this was discussed somewhere already... anyway, it
> brought a ton
> of new editors in, which was both good and bad (we desperatel
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/2/24 Anthony :
> > On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Brian
> wrote:
> >
> >> It may in fact be much more user friendly to
> >> simply offer an enormous text file for download because users don't
> >> have to unpack it.
> >
> >
> > Anothe
Just to be clear, your suggesting that, in lieu of a compressed dump,
people who want the full history of the english wikipedia should use
Special:Export to download it, article by article?
Its a truly awful idea.
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 1:24 P
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Brian wrote:
> Just to be clear, your suggesting that, in lieu of a compressed dump,
> people who want the full history of the english wikipedia should use
> Special:Export to download it, article by article?
>
No, I wasn't suggesting it as an alternative to comp
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Brian wrote:
>
> > Just to be clear, your suggesting that, in lieu of a compressed dump,
> > people who want the full history of the english wikipedia should use
> > Special:Export to download it, article by artic
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 2:55 PM, Chad wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Anthony wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Brian
> wrote:
> >
> > > Just to be clear, your suggesting that, in lieu of a compressed dump,
> > > people who want the full history of the english wikipedia sh
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 2:55 PM, Chad wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Anthony wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Brian
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Just to be clear, your suggesting that, in lieu of a compressed dump,
>> > >
In community draft, there is a proposal of an alternative language policy.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy/Community_draft
And there is a section of Simple English projects at the discussion page:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta_talk:Language_proposal_policy/Com
2009/2/24 Anthony :
> What's the average ratio of CPU-seconds to download seconds for an article?
> Surely a single machine could handle thousands of simultaneous
> screen-scrapers doing this 24/7. I don't buy it.
I don't know, but people are asked not to crawl the entire site like
that, so I gue
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Anthony wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 2:55 PM, Chad wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Anthony wrote:
>>>
>>> > On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Brian
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > Just to be clear
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 3:12 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Anthony wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Anthony wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 2:55 PM, Chad wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Anthony wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > On Tue, Feb 24
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 3:17 PM, Chad wrote:
> Afaik, it's fully open on all the wikis except enwiki (according to the
> admin log).
> However, I've yet to find any place in CommonSettings or InitialiseSettings
> that
> changes it from the default. It's no so much a bug as it is a configuration
>
since that is the most recent xkcd, you may be thinking of the recent
http://xkcd.com/545/ "Neutrality Schmeutrality"
or http://xkcd.com/214/ "The Problem with Wikipedia"
or http://xkcd.com/446/ "in Popular Culture"
not to mention the classic http://xkcd.com/285/ "Wikipedian protestor"
On Tu
Anthony wrote:
> I've looked at the numbers and thought about this in detail and I don't
> think so. What definitely *would* be much more user friendly is to use a
> compression scheme which allows random access, so that end users don't have
> to decompress everything all at once in the first plac
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Brian wrote:
> Its not at all clear why the english wikipedia dump or other large
> dumps need to be compressed. It is far more absurd to spend hundreds
> of days compressing a file than it is to spend tens of days
> downloading one.
Faulty premise. Based on my o
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 a RFA.
>
> A further argument against ha
Hoi,
When the use case of the Simple Wikipedia is better understood, it may even
make room for more simple projects as in simple projects in the biggest
languages.
Thanks.,
GerardM
2009/2/25 Cary Bass
> Ray Saintonge wrote:
> > Brian Salter-Duke wrote:
> >> However my central point that a
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Gerard Meijssen
wrote:
> Hoi,
> When the use case of the Simple Wikipedia is better understood, it may even
> make room for more simple projects as in simple projects in the biggest
> languages.
> Thanks.,
> GerardM
If anyone is interested, I believe the othe
Why not make the uncompressed dump available as an Amazon Public
Dataset? http://aws.amazon.com/publicdatasets/
You can already find DBPedia and FreeBase there. Its true that the
uncompressed dump won't fit on a commercial drive (the largest is a
4-platter 500GB = 2TB drive). Cloud computing seems
Brian wrote:
> Why not make the uncompressed dump available as an Amazon Public
> Dataset? http://aws.amazon.com/publicdatasets/
>
> You can already find DBPedia and FreeBase there. Its true that the
> uncompressed dump won't fit on a commercial drive (the largest is a
> 4-platter 500GB = 2TB driv
A dump with just the article namespace would be grossly incomplete.
Much important information about the validity of the contents is on the
discussion pages. But not only there. Other discussions on articles have
been held on user talk pages. Missing these out would greatly hamper any
judgement on
33 matches
Mail list logo
