For details of what we are purchasing, or if you have expertise and would like to help guide us, join the wikitech-l mailing list. [Note that when Wikipedia is down, the mailing list subscription is affected, too.]
Here's the list archive. Signup probably won't work right now since the main mail server is on one of the machines that's down, but you can send mail to the list (wikitech-l at wikipedia.org) and it'll go through the backup MX just fine.
$20,000 is a nice, round number to set for a fundraising target, not an itemized total. We got/.ed a little early and the shopping list isn't complete, I'm afraid, and I can't just make something up for you.
The regular database backup dumps have been available for download for years, and there are a number of independent mirror sites around on the net. (Some of them with adverts.)
The wiki is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License, so the content isn't going to die even if the main servers explode and are washed into the sea and the Wikimedia Foundation disbands.
(Disclaimer: the GFDL is somewhat unpopular these days, but we don't have any invariant sections and Wikipedia predates Creative Commons.)
Web server 2 and the database server are presently offline, respectively for disk and RAM problems. A second fast web server is being installed tomorrow, at which point we'll hopefully get the other one back online too.
Networking and bandwidth isn't a problem at all, and we're actually in a reasonable place CPU-wise when everything's up (though more is always better). What we need is more robustness in the case of server failures; we need enough machines available that one machine going down doesn't kill us, and that we can still limp along with two down.
It's not like Wikipedia will vanish tomorrow if we don't have $20k, but failover and growth capacity will be good to have.
The database server is failing memory tests under no load other than the memory tester, which indicates (but does not prove) hardware problems; hypothetically it could be a faulty kernel, we'll be running memtest86 (which bypasses the OS) tomorrow when we can get someone into the colo to work on it.
The secondary web server (and backup database server) started kicking out SCSI timeouts about a day after we put the database back on it to pull the primary db server for testing.
SECURITY: Fix a buffer overflow in address parsing.
Problem detected by Michal Zalewski, patch from Todd C. Miller of Courtesan Consulting.
These look like two different bugs (among the many things listed as fixed). They have separate indent levels, and are credited to different discoverers.
But that doesn't work either. I use a pobox.com mail forwarding address. My outgoing mail never has their servers in the headers, but it is a legit "From:" line, and mail delivered there does make it back to me.
pobox.com does run an outgoing SMTP server which you could use...
...for things like an encyclopedia, IMO it would be better to have one great project, rather than two mediocre ones.
All the more reason to support an effort that's legally copiable, so the community doesn't have to duplicate the entire effort when the present owners of the site vanish or lose interest.
Many articles do include links to further references, both net and dead-tree, in an "External links" or "Further reading" section at the bottom of the page.
If you'd like to organize a systematic effort to add more bibliographic references, that would be great.
Well, it would be trivially easy to not strip out Unicode-numbered character references (eg, &x108; for C-cirumflex). This would be quite useful in discussions that might be about other languages. One could quote a text in a foreign language, or give actual demonstrations of original spellings and other alphabets in one's posts.
True enough, but even if I had a drawing or picture to contribute, there doesn't appear to be a mechanism by which to do so.
If you create a user account and log in, an "Upload" link will appear in the sidebar, through which you can upload pictures and other media files for use in articles. (We restrict uploads to logged-in users because it cuts down a lot on random people who have no interest in the project finding "Upload" from google and putting in their personal photos and/or pirated mp3z and/or pr0n to link to from RPG BBSs in the Netherlands or what-have-you.)
If you want to give your content away and never get it back again (and frequently see it stepped on later, from what I've been reading in this story) put it on Wiki.
Being "stepped on" is what the quality-conscious call "editing".;)
Note also that you *do* own your own content that you submit to Wikipedia, but to submit it you must license it under the GFDL. (Not GPL -- the software that runs the wiki is GPL, though.) You are always free to turn around and release the same material under a strict license, but any derivative works that other people make from your Wikipedia submissions will be likewise under GFDL, and you can't use their additions under a non-GFDL license without explicitly asking to relicense them.
The point, though, is that other people can also republish your submissions elsewhere -- as long as they share and share alike.
If you want your prose to vanish forever once e2 goes under and you've forgotten about it, then post on e2. If you care about the right to read, if you want your work to live on forever and still be published and improved on after you and/or the present hosting provider of Wikipedia have turned to dust, post on Wikipedia.
(And yes, you can get your refactored Wikipedia pages back from the edit history. If your contribution was deleted completely because it's not encyclopedic material, ask nicely and we'll be happy to dig it out of the archives and send you a copy.)
Presently 591,369 edits since the July 2002 software upgrade. That includes edits to pages that aren't included in the "article" count -- discussion, meta-information, users' personal pages, and pages that were since deleted or that don't contain complete sentences.
H2G2 and everything2 are copyright-encumbered, making it impossible to create derivative works (ie, republishing a culled 'good parts' version, hardcover or CD-ROM editions, or continuing the whole project if the current sponsor drops it) without explicitly licensing content from the BBC or the individual authors.
Wikipedia is available under the GNU Free Documentation License, making it proof against the current network provider going out of business or losing interest, and opening its content up to reuse and repurposing. This in itself is, I think, worthwhile; what GNU and Linux provide to the world of operating systems, Wikipedia hopes to provide for the encyclopedia: something that's good enough and not subject to draconian use prevention.
Wikipedia is also a multilingual project, with another 37,000 or so entries in the younger sister projects. I believe this is fairly unique among the field of competitors.
(If you want to talk about duplication of effort, though, see the Enciclopedia Libre, a fork of the Spanish section of Wikipedia which split last year in protest over a since-repudiated proposal to include optional banner ads on the English section of Wikipedia to help offset the costs of operation.)
There's no reason (well, excepting licensing) that someone couldn't come along and verify a subset of the Wikipedia and sell a hardcopy version.
The GFDL license very much allows this. Whether you can paper-publish it profitably (or convince someone to underwrite it as charity or gov'mint work) is another matter, of course.:)
You'll find some vague comparisons to paper encyclopedias at Wikipedia:Size comparisons. It's hard to compare directly, though; Wikipedia tends to divide up large subjects into a number of separate entries, and includes quite a few entries on subjects that aren't likely to be in traditional encyclopedias (imported US Census data on 30,000 communities, including one-horse towns in the midwest somewhere of little historical importance; culturally significant films, games, internet culture phenomena, yadda yadda).
If you're interested in publishing a dead-tree edition, we'd love to hear from you.;)
You should always consult multiple sources of information if you're concerned about bias and correctness. That goes for your Brittanica or Microsoft encyclopedia, too.
The thing that makes Wikipedia a little different is that, once you've consulted other sources and come to your own balanced conclusions, you can edit the article to bring it more in line with accuracy and the project's Neutral Point of View goal/policy.
A malicious or unthinking person could skew it away, but so can you put it back on track.
In addition, as the 'pedia is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License, you're welcome to republish a culled version that includes only 'known good' revisions of articles. There has been some talk of a semi-official project along these lines run by Wikipedia's former editor, Larry Sanger, but it hasn't been put into place yet.
Remember, Wikipedia is still very much under construction; it's only two years old and just getting the hang of walking around. There's no need to rush into driving yet.;)
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for the pointer to VA-CTCS, we'll check it out.
Here's the list archive. Signup probably won't work right now since the main mail server is on one of the machines that's down, but you can send mail to the list (wikitech-l at wikipedia.org) and it'll go through the backup MX just fine.
$20,000 is a nice, round number to set for a fundraising target, not an itemized total. We got /.ed a little early and the shopping list isn't complete, I'm afraid, and I can't just make something up for you.
That's me.
Here's the official page: http://wikimediafoundation.org/fundraising
And for doubters, on the wikipedia.org domain too.
Wikipedia is, according to alexa, within the top 1000 trafficked domains in the web.
Yes, we're about even in traffic with slashdot these days.
The wiki is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License, so the content isn't going to die even if the main servers explode and are washed into the sea and the Wikimedia Foundation disbands.
(Disclaimer: the GFDL is somewhat unpopular these days, but we don't have any invariant sections and Wikipedia predates Creative Commons.)
Web server 2 and the database server are presently offline, respectively for disk and RAM problems. A second fast web server is being installed tomorrow, at which point we'll hopefully get the other one back online too.
Networking and bandwidth isn't a problem at all, and we're actually in a reasonable place CPU-wise when everything's up (though more is always better). What we need is more robustness in the case of server failures; we need enough machines available that one machine going down doesn't kill us, and that we can still limp along with two down.
It's not like Wikipedia will vanish tomorrow if we don't have $20k, but failover and growth capacity will be good to have.
The secondary web server (and backup database server) started kicking out SCSI timeouts about a day after we put the database back on it to pull the primary db server for testing.
But right above that it says:
These look like two different bugs (among the many things listed as fixed). They have separate indent levels, and are credited to different discoverers.
pobox.com does run an outgoing SMTP server which you could use...
Amaya is written in C. Perhaps you were thinking of Sun's HotJava?
All the more reason to support an effort that's legally copiable, so the community doesn't have to duplicate the entire effort when the present owners of the site vanish or lose interest.
If you'd like to organize a systematic effort to add more bibliographic references, that would be great.
And, I could spell my sig right. ;)
If you create a user account and log in, an "Upload" link will appear in the sidebar, through which you can upload pictures and other media files for use in articles. (We restrict uploads to logged-in users because it cuts down a lot on random people who have no interest in the project finding "Upload" from google and putting in their personal photos and/or pirated mp3z and/or pr0n to link to from RPG BBSs in the Netherlands or what-have-you.)
Being "stepped on" is what the quality-conscious call "editing". ;)
Note also that you *do* own your own content that you submit to Wikipedia, but to submit it you must license it under the GFDL. (Not GPL -- the software that runs the wiki is GPL, though.) You are always free to turn around and release the same material under a strict license, but any derivative works that other people make from your Wikipedia submissions will be likewise under GFDL, and you can't use their additions under a non-GFDL license without explicitly asking to relicense them.
The point, though, is that other people can also republish your submissions elsewhere -- as long as they share and share alike.
If you want your prose to vanish forever once e2 goes under and you've forgotten about it, then post on e2. If you care about the right to read, if you want your work to live on forever and still be published and improved on after you and/or the present hosting provider of Wikipedia have turned to dust, post on Wikipedia.
(And yes, you can get your refactored Wikipedia pages back from the edit history. If your contribution was deleted completely because it's not encyclopedic material, ask nicely and we'll be happy to dig it out of the archives and send you a copy.)
Jes, nia kara lingvo ne jam mortas en la interreto. Bonvolu esti logita, kaj redaktu... redaktu... :)
Presently 591,369 edits since the July 2002 software upgrade. That includes edits to pages that aren't included in the "article" count -- discussion, meta-information, users' personal pages, and pages that were since deleted or that don't contain complete sentences.
Wikipedia is available under the GNU Free Documentation License, making it proof against the current network provider going out of business or losing interest, and opening its content up to reuse and repurposing. This in itself is, I think, worthwhile; what GNU and Linux provide to the world of operating systems, Wikipedia hopes to provide for the encyclopedia: something that's good enough and not subject to draconian use prevention.
Wikipedia is also a multilingual project, with another 37,000 or so entries in the younger sister projects. I believe this is fairly unique among the field of competitors.
(If you want to talk about duplication of effort, though, see the Enciclopedia Libre, a fork of the Spanish section of Wikipedia which split last year in protest over a since-repudiated proposal to include optional banner ads on the English section of Wikipedia to help offset the costs of operation.)
The GFDL license very much allows this. Whether you can paper-publish it profitably (or convince someone to underwrite it as charity or gov'mint work) is another matter, of course. :)
If you're interested in publishing a dead-tree edition, we'd love to hear from you. ;)
The thing that makes Wikipedia a little different is that, once you've consulted other sources and come to your own balanced conclusions, you can edit the article to bring it more in line with accuracy and the project's Neutral Point of View goal/policy.
A malicious or unthinking person could skew it away, but so can you put it back on track.
In addition, as the 'pedia is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License, you're welcome to republish a culled version that includes only 'known good' revisions of articles. There has been some talk of a semi-official project along these lines run by Wikipedia's former editor, Larry Sanger, but it hasn't been put into place yet.
Remember, Wikipedia is still very much under construction; it's only two years old and just getting the hang of walking around. There's no need to rush into driving yet. ;)
You're a peer, you reviewed it, you found a problem. Why didn't you correct it?