ience running it, etc etc etc.
People will make bad decisions, estimates, projections, guesses,
conclusions sometimes; it happens. We spot them the second time
around, once we've realised they're wrong, fix them, and move on.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
___
or visit it whilst remaining
logged in.
(This latter part, especially with people looking at article
interwikis, will probably account for quite an upsurge in account
creation post-SUL...)
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
___
foundation-
does begin to sound like a recipe for
unintentionally annoying a lot of people releasing material under the
license.
I wonder, perhaps, if the best thing the next generation of the -nc-
licenses could include would be a long list of worked examples...
--
- A
ot the most desired outcome for the creator, though.
One of the benefits of CC is to encourage worry-free distribution by
helping creators be entirely up-front about what they're happy to have
happen with their material, but this sort of ambiguity seems to bring
us full circle.
--
- And
the
software, rather than just "open problems". I haven't checked each
one, but all the recent ones look solved, so I think we're safe - at
least, safe from the problems we know about, which is always the
important caveat!
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
ternet mechanisms.
There's a couple of estimates on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Internet_usage
though they look a little dated.
Alternatively, users by country is reasonably well estimated, I think,
and you could try estimating based on languages from that.
-
have done - what would have happened? Would the system
have coped? Would we have been able to handle that flood of edits,
technically and organisationally?
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
ortant to distinguish
between the two ratios.
It's interesting to note that Reason show the same expenses pattern as
WMF; they have program expenses increasing at a fairly linear
$1m/year, but unlike WMF their income is plateauing - they'll be
exceeding their income this yea
ng".
As to your second question, a tenth of that figure - about 30,000 -
seems right as a number for "active volunteers"; it's about the order
of magnitude of people active enough to vote for the Board, for
example.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
__
re, it's
just "by X", and the (editor) note is dropped entirely]
This is, annoyingly, one of those things that it would probably be
relatively easy for Amazon to fix - code the system up so that "by X,
Y, Z" becomes "edited by X, Y, Z" when all of X, Y and Z a
dom article
> from e.g. [[November 2]], then chose a random picture from that.
First image is probably your best bet - the odds are reasonably high
it'll be a picture, or something else "representative", in the
conventional top-right slot. Certainly better odds than random
sel
2009/11/2 Nikola Smolenski :
> Дана Monday 02 November 2009 18:31:50 Andrew Gray написа:
>> First image is probably your best bet - the odds are reasonably high
>> it'll be a picture, or something else "representative", in the
>> conventional top-right slo
ther than burn out and
leave entirely. And, of course, people who actively want to write
journalism have somewhere to do it.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
e proposal at all, and we can't just
finesse past that stage.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
a result, I suspect you'll find that traffic to Commons increases
proportionately with traffic to Spanish/Portuguese Wikipedia usage.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscri
ted, but we'd have to seperate that out from the rest, and
then tackle the problem of whether any "editing" people have done to
them gives rise to new copyrights...
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
___
foundation-l maili
seesaws.
I don't know what's considered a normal margin to have - I'd presume
around a year or so is considered quite good - but hopefully someone
more au fait with standard practice in the field could enlighten us.
--
- Andrew Gray
On 3 March 2010 20:53, Andrew Gray wrote:
> mid-2007 - - - - - $1m
> end-2007 - - - - - $2.3m - - - - - $0.21m - - - - - 11 mos.
> mid-2008 - - - - - $3m - - - - - ($0.32m) - - - - - 9 mos.
> end-2008 - - - - - $6.7m - - - - - $0.43m - - - - - 15 mos.
> mid-2009 - - - - - $6.2m -
ite sure we do, without a qualm - doesn't mean that we ought to feel
we can or should start adjudicating on the reasonableness of any
not-entirely-clear-cut case that turns up, such as this one...
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
et the toolbox section to be expanded by
default in the same way the interaction section is...
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
n Vector than in Monobook:
http://pdc.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afrikaa?useskin=vector
http://pdc.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afrikaa?useskin=monobook
- dropping the "solid boxes" from the left-hand column means that it
doesn't look so dominant when expanded.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.g...@dunelm.o
s, eg, "Espanol" into "Spanish (t)", with the (t) link going
to a Google translate link for the target page.
I haven't used it much, but it's a useful tool to have.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
_
tc.
This helps emphasise the distinction between languages and
subsets-of-languages, and also means we can be more fluid about the
"simple"/"for children" presentation on a project-by-project basis.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
_
ack in the first place - there's an
option in preferences to provide an edit link actually on the page for
section 0. Preferences > Gadgets, and the first entry under
"Appearance".
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
___
foundat
lopedia Britannica:
We want it to have 55 times as many entries, present contentious
debates fairly, and reflect brand new scholarly research, all while
being edited and overseen primarily by volunteers."
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
__
d leaving it there; this isn't the case, and we do need
to think seriously about these issues without yelling "censorship!"
any time someone tries to discuss the problem.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 11 March 2012 00:23, David Gerard wrote:
> On 10 March 2012 22:15, Andrew Gray wrote:
>
>> The image filter may not be a good solution, but too much of the
>> response involves saying "we're fine, we're neutral, we don't need to
>> do anything&quo
n our articles or something -
the fact that it's not a cunning ploy on our part is completely
inconceivable to someone who approaches everything from this
perspective.)
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
___
foundation-l mailing list
fo
t from an old copy of the Dictionary of Australian Biography.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
publish academic work - not
a quirk of this one organisation for which they specifically need
punished. Are there some particularly egregious bits of past behaviour
I've missed?
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
p there is between [language groups common on twitter] and
[small WP projects needing users].)
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
a look at tidying
it a bit...
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Twitter
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Legal identity is a bit tangential here, I think; if we accept a
pseudonymous account as good enough to release the content under CC
licenses to begin with, then all you'd need for relicensing would be
for those same accounts to agree to it.
--
-
initial neutrality, is very
meaningful; it's presuming that the alternative is reverting to a
neutral and balanced status quo, but that never really existed. The
status quo is that every reader, in every context, gets given the one
particular image se
em to have caused the end of the world there :-)
My Arabic is basically nonexistent, so while I can tell there *are*
some past discussions about it, I've no idea what they were saying.
Anyone?
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
___
foundat
ltered" version of Wikipedia, I
think that falls more under the general heading of "where are the
major third-party reusers that anyone actually cares about?" - the
non-existence of a commercial filtered version is less of a surprise
when we consider the dearth of
7;t happening.
It's not a problem we can solve (and it's perhaps not one we should be
trying to solve) but it does mean we shouldn't draw any firm
conclusions from the absence of any specific types of project -
there's an absence of *all* sorts of proj
have to
individually turn it on for it to work.)
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
future research on redlinks, it would definitely be worth
distinguishing between "links in article text" and "links from
projectspace / inline templates". Technically more difficult to figure
out, of course, but that's why we call them
the existing
"Wikipedian POV" *really* the same as "neutral", or are we letting our
aspirations to inclusive global neutrality win out over the real state
of affairs? It's the great big unexamined assumption in our
discussions...
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.g...@dunelm.or
ges are in articles, the unacceptable ones aren't.
People are saying we can't have the image filter because it would stop
us being neutral. If we aren't neutral to begin with, this is a bad
argument. It doesn't mean we *should* have the image filter, but it
does
registered-user-only we need to
work out how this interacts with account creation - and IP blocks. It
clearly will cause problems if people *want* to turn on the filter, go
to create an account, and discover one of our famed cryptic block
messages telling them they can't...
the images,
just to label them for display [or not] in articles.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
erfect, but it's probably no *less* clunky than
requiring people to sign in (and the associated
forgetting-to-sign-out...)
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
ne?
For images, on the other hand, it's a relatively coherent position to
be willing to *read* about sex or violence without wanting to look at
pictures of it - a system which allows someone to choose to read the
article without looking at the pictures thus makes more sense in
comparison.
--
- An
get were there a filter which screened out articles
under a minimum quality threshold! Opt-in to see articles with more
than two cleanup tags, etc. :-)
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
e - there might be demand, there might not, we just can't tell
from the available evidence.
(To steal David's analogy, it's a bit like saying that unicorns can't
be trained, as there are no trained unicorns. Of course, there are no
unicorns at all, and their trainability is moo
But there's a problem when the issue is whether it's appropriate to
*include an image at all*. If one position says we should include an
image and the other position says we shouldn't, then whichever way we
decide, we've taken sides. We can't really be neutral in a yes-or
. testing on Commons is
tricky, but I've spent a few minutes sampling the Flickr live upload
feed. Over about 20 pages of 20 images each, I found eight
wrongly-rotated shots, or eight in 400 ~~ 2%. It's not Commons, of
course, but it is indicative.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.g...@dunel
but it's going to be a
hard sell. If you're planning to get this running in the summer, you
might want to start the negotiations quite soon...
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2009/1/9 shi zhao :
> Today Chinese wikinews in China Blocked. GFW keyword is "zh.wikinews.org".
> other wikinews can acess.
Do we have a page somewhere listing exactly which sites of ours are
blocked in China?
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.g.
Jane Doe and Mike Placeholder
(2004-2007), Citizendium contributors Alan White, John Smith and Betty
Green (2007-2009), and anonymous contributors."
It's not exactly smooth, but it is comprehensible, and it does seem
helpful to name the project to give some context to the na
he "cite all named authors who make nontrivial contributions" result
would be like? This might be a useful bit of data...
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscr
ou over it.
I'm not sure quite how the results were obtained via WikiBlame, but it
certainly seems a little more meaningful than just dumping every name
which appears in the article history. (Admittedly, that has the
advantage of not accidental
has ballooned to around six hundred! Especially for
something like this, we might well have to exert editorial control
sooner or later as to who gets listed - I'm all for doing it, of
course, but I think we need to be aware from the start that the ideal
"everyone gets listed" might brea
How is this a special
case?
The CC switch, when and if it happens, will be complex enough without
inventing extra problems!
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
"buy a print now" clickthrough button? I can't see
anyone arguing to keep it because they want to run off a poster...
(and to a degree this is rendered moot by that helpful "lowest useful
resolution" requirement of the unfree material rules)
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.g...@
7;t, I'm stull confused over how we have the right
to use one set of GFDL v.1.2 or later contributions, and not the
other. It is, after all, *exactly the same license*...
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
___
foundation-l mailing list
f
shed elsewhere, and must be treated as such.
Which is to say, if you look hard you have a point, but there's a
perfectly legitimate interpretation going the other way, which
complies with the letter just as well and the spirit perhaps better
can be set to read off
this "credit name" rather than simply using the normal internal
username, if one is available.
I note that MediaWiki already has a user_real_name field - could we
use it for this sort of purpose? Would this be technically practical?
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.g
of "NOCREDIT" magic word,
perhaps. This would neatly sidestep the worry of people not wanting
credited downstream...
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://li
here's going to
be a step in the process - perhaps only an optional one - where
someone takes a Wikipedia article and tries to shake out some authors.
Figuring out how to make that work efficiently and cleanly and
helpfully is a good thing in and of itself, whatever conclusion the
main d
ed this way...
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
7;s backs up.
So, please, if you know how we can make this situation better, *tell
us*. Please explain, clearly and practically, what you think we need
to do. You clearly have some understanding of the issue, but I hope
you can see that you've really not been managing to communicate it to
any of
2009/2/19 Mark Williamson :
> I still hold the crown on Wikipedia-l. Whatever happened to that list,
> anyways?
Most of the people wanting to have abtruse cross-project theological
debates just took it to foundation-l :-)
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.g...@dunelm.
in/
which isn't *quite* what you want, but you can see the potential.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
ch ones are appropriate.
Or, even simpler (for the user), a plugin where the author selects a
word or phrase and the system generates a Wikipedia link for it.
Should be relatively effective for nouns and names, at least...
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
__
tly) derived from two defined "simplified versions"
of English which were deliberately designed - have there been projects
to do the same for, say, French or Spanish, or would we have to do the
heavy lifting ourselves?
--
- Andrew Gray
and
ctly what he was suggesting - I'm not sure why
you're objecting to it...
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
simplified form of Latin, but mostly it's all conlangs...
...oh, well, another on for the to-do pile :-)
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
want, and keeping
the material we *do* want up to a high standard.
The trick is taking advantage of their perspective, without turning it
into a (real or imagined) conflict-of-interest issue, or letting it
degenerate into the kind of thing that breeds automatic assumptions of
bad fai
gestion...
...print up a sheaf of business cards, with "Got a problem? info @
wikimedia.org" in nice clear bold lettering, the puzzle-globe at one
edge; the other side just WIKIPEDIA writ large. Distribute them to
everyone who does PRish stuff...
-
prevent even
more by proportion if we turned on a "report this" function, since
that'd heavily be skewed towards vandalism.
Enabling both, together, would be excellent. But I think making it
something for after we get the thrice-blesséd FlaggedRevs might be the
most e
ting in Wikipedia supporting.
Is this clearly phishing? It looks like what we've always wondered
about, a functioning mirror carrying advertising...
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.
I was
under the impression we'd moved wholesale, servers and all, to
California, so we were in the ninth circuit jurisdiction...
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: ht
t nodules==
(...)
==Chapter 307: smelting copper==
(...)
==Chapter 87,823: the basics of nuclear fission==
(...)
I love it as an intellectual exercise, but the plausible *utility* of
the whole thing might be open to question!
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.g...@dune
e 2008 Board Election only had 3019
> votes, which also suggests the turnout this time was remarkable.
Do we have a rough estimate of qualifying voters who didn't vote?
17000 is pretty good, but it occurs to me I have no idea how large the
editing community really is!
--
- A
il
2009... and there we get this problem.
So, yeah. Pretty solid consensus that this is something to avoid. If
we have some "explanatory notes" to go with the privacy policy
anywhere, it might be worth explicitly mentioning the use of external
logging services and Why Thou Shalt N
emented - would it be too impractical to just regularly run a
script to check those for things like Google Analytics links, and
remove them with a polite note when found?
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
___
foundation-l mailin
d in the US, but I
could be wrong. (3) is quite a common provision, but (4) takes it
further than usual.
(I really like the spirit of nr. 11, but I can see how it's not really
applicable here...)
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
e public domain.
> Additionally, if so, that means for a news, the "five Ws" are not
> eligible but the comment by the author is eligible for copyright. Am I
> right? Thanks.
I'd extend "comment" to be "the words they've actuall
27;s worth, I've noticed that "the Wikipedia" is becoming
more common, but more among third parties than among people associated
with the project.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
d presumably a lot of the code for it is
already in existence (what with etc). It'd also solve the issue
with people wanting to "templatise" content such as infoboxes in order
to reduce the clutter on a specific page.
Can anyone see any obvious downsides?
--
- And
kipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=302589573
I discovered yesterday that:
enwp.org/Article
redirects to
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article
Sadly, it doesn't work with revision IDs, but it's a start!
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
___
ton for x many hours at a
stretch, rotating them so as to ensure they don't regularly go up at
the same time (of the day or of the week) and so that they get roughly
equal coverage.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
___
foundation-l mailing
wouldn't equal a year's output
now.
I don't have the numbers to hand to be confident of this - and
hopefully Open Library, as it grows, will help us draw a firmer
conclusion - but I'd guess that at least half of the identifiable
works ever conventionally published as monographs
th Wikinews project - there's now Turkish
editions of wikinews, wikiquote, wikisource, and wikitionary, as well
as wikipedia.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe
ht well be quicker.
One other false positive here: edit warring where one or both sides is
using undo/rollback. You'll get the impression of a lot of vandalism
without there necessarily being any.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
_
t;asdfdfggfh" at the end of a paragraph in the same
article.
I'm not sure how we'd go ahead with the second one, but it's an
interesting thing to think about.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
___
foundation-l mailing
this more closely soon - for now, has anyone else identified
attribution problems with the PDF generators?
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
t without them, but they are emphatically *not* primary
goals in themselves.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
dia? If there's
a problem with mass creation of articles, you could try being stricter
about requiring community approval before the bots are allowed to run,
to check that you actually do want these topics.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
e posted some praise of their own rather than just
leaving a blank void.)
The most recent of the editorial articles in the HE section to have
any comments at *all*, good or bad, is from 29th September - there
have been ten posted since then. I suspect the site operators are just
not very respo
; for most users by a week or so later - the middle of
the month. If we were going to see a surge from that, we'd have had it
appearing in late September, but that month doesn't seem to be
particularly unusual.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
___
unt, but I
think you can make a decent case either way.
So our first estimate is 85k; polyglot users will drive the figure
down, whilst "less active" users will drive the total up, as will
accounting for past contributors. I don't have any estimates as to the
m
e marketing consultancy" services that
vaguely promise this sort of thing - but I wonder what will come of it
in practice.
(I have written articles on companies. I never thought to *invoice*
them for it...)
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
action=history
All you'd need to do is produce a nice wrapper for it...
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
t editor.
At which point, you can easily discover their great fondness for
reading about something embarrassing...
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimed
for the pageview statistics, which are very fine-grained
The end result: one file with 0.1% of requests logged in detail and
another file with "hit counts" and no more.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
___
foundation-l mailing li
107830.html
"We were not consulted, and are currently fully examining this. It is
not official or endorsed by us." [Erik]
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: h
1 - 100 of 121 matches
Mail list logo
