Actually yes, you can submit code reverts from the gerrit web interface, which is clunky according to many peoples definitions.
However that's really not what you meant. MediaWiki is meant as software for managing prose, not code. Where the code is done with git, which is a tool meant for the job. The use cases are different. The wiki software is also meant for non tech people who would be confused by things like svn or git. That said MediaWiki (and hence Wikipedia) have a web api so you can make your own command line editing tools (and people have)
Wikipedia's software is close in some respects -- you can include pages (but not, AFAIIA, selected bits of pages) in other pages. There aren't links in the UI, but it would be trivial to add them.
Actually there is an extension to do this called labelled section transclude that is in use in some wikimedia projects (Wikisource I think). Not to mention various hacks with <includeonly> or {{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|some target.. Also backlinks (included which pages transclude the current page) can be viewed at the special page special:whatlinkshere. For example [1] lists all pages that are including the main page.
Wikipedia gives you the right to fork. If you feel that the community is beyond all help/whatever, do better. If this was a piece of software, this entire thread would be much different.
Trust me, ads = instant fork. There are many long lists of people who have said ads are not acceptable under any circumstances. There even seems to be an increase in opposition to fuindraiser ads this year (as they get bigger and more annoying each year)
By that token - is this post notable enough for an article? I generally consider myself an inclussionist, but some things just aren't notable enough. (The interesting question is where to draw the line, but if you don't like the arbitrary line, you're free to convince people, or failing that—it's GFDL and you're free to try and do better)
Can someone explain to me when the Wikimedia Foundation suddenly became poverty-stricken? The latest financial statement from the Wikimedia Foundation indicates that in the fiscal year ending June 30, 2006, they received $1,508,039 and spent $791,907 (leaving them with net assets of $1,004,216); according to the Wikimedia fundraising website they received a further $1,096,299 in the second half of 2006 and have received $275,427 so far in 2007. In order for the Wikimedia Foundation to be in trouble, they must have gone from spending $791,907 last fiscal year to spending over $2,000,000 in the first 8 months of this fiscal year.
Personally, I'm not going to make any donations or support advertising on Wikipedia until someone explains where all the money is going. This link sort of answers your question.
I'd rather google just by generous enough to donate money to the Wiki project rather than buy them out. We all saw what happened when google bought youtube. Youtube sucks now. It's copyright infringement take down notice frenzy over there. Once there's money behind something... they start coming for you no matter what. Wikipedia already is very careful about not letting copyright infringements. Google giving them money would be cool (hey yahoo used to give them servers)
Think of all the wiki's about games or tv shows or whatever that have pictures etc. I just see it as a problem. Once there's money, some fucking lawyer from some fucking corporation is going to want to pressure wiki to do things as they see it, or else. Wikipedia is one wiki. None of thoose mentioned are hosted by the wikimedia foundation. What happens to them doesn't make a difference to wikipedia. Quite a lot are hosted by http://wikia.org/ which is owned by similiar people, but totally different. There are also many other people who host wiki's like any other type of website). If you're just referring to pictures in articles on wikipedia. Thoose should be free images (or fair use).
There is currently 1 118 admins. That's the main reason I stick to smaller projects, less bureaucracy. On the other hand, without all of it I have no idea how they would scale, but still its annoying to have to hunt to find anything.
The main reason I think that Jimbo is saying no to ads, is that every time in the past he has even so much as said he was thinking about it, people got really pissed, and threatened to fork. However i don't think the situation is very desperate, they've certainly denied it, and if they are running out of money, why are they hiring new employees, have lots of servers, etc. If they were running out of money, they would not be spending it unless absolutely neccesary.
Didn't the wikimedia foundation used to provide a way for anyone to download the entire 25GB+ database for wikipedia? So anyone could pick up with it. Even if
that's not still the case, the torch would likely be passed onto someone else. Database downloads are still avalible at http://download.wikimedia.org/ . However the image ones are slightly outdated (I'm told, never actually tried it)
I think FLOSS, F/OSS, whatever the prefered acronym is now, is a Gift Economy. From Wikipedia:
A gift economy is an economic system in which the prevalent mode of exchange is for goods and services to be given without explicit agreement upon a quid pro quo, or the concept of "a favor for a favor" in the Latin language. Typically, this occurs in a cultural context where there is an expectation either of reciprocation--in the form of goods or services of comparable value, or of political support, general loyalty, honor to the giver, etc.--or of the gift being passed on in some other manner. It can be considered a form of reciprocal altruism.
Idea of FOSS is someone gives you software, and eventually they might find something in it and fix it, and give you the benifits back. Seems fairly similiar.
Slashdot Mirror
12% at wikipedia, which is probably pretty representative. http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/squids/SquidReportClients.htm
Actually yes, you can submit code reverts from the gerrit web interface, which is clunky according to many peoples definitions. However that's really not what you meant. MediaWiki is meant as software for managing prose, not code. Where the code is done with git, which is a tool meant for the job. The use cases are different. The wiki software is also meant for non tech people who would be confused by things like svn or git. That said MediaWiki (and hence Wikipedia) have a web api so you can make your own command line editing tools (and people have)
Damn sites requiring stored session information (cookies) to maintain a persistent session (logging in).
I dunno man, I kind of like being to re-start aborted transfers, too. I wish the W3C would tack that onto HTTP.
What do you think the range header does ( http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.35.2 )
Actually there is an extension to do this called labelled section transclude that is in use in some wikimedia projects (Wikisource I think). Not to mention various hacks with <includeonly> or {{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|some target.. Also backlinks (included which pages transclude the current page) can be viewed at the special page special:whatlinkshere. For example [1] lists all pages that are including the main page.
apt-get install bsdgames will also get adventure for you, as well as some other older games.
Wikipedia gives you the right to fork. If you feel that the community is beyond all help/whatever, do better. If this was a piece of software, this entire thread would be much different.
Trust me, ads = instant fork. There are many long lists of people who have said ads are not acceptable under any circumstances. There even seems to be an increase in opposition to fuindraiser ads this year (as they get bigger and more annoying each year)
By that token - is this post notable enough for an article? I generally consider myself an inclussionist, but some things just aren't notable enough. (The interesting question is where to draw the line, but if you don't like the arbitrary line, you're free to convince people, or failing that—it's GFDL and you're free to try and do better)
Personally, I'm not going to make any donations or support advertising on Wikipedia until someone explains where all the money is going. This link sort of answers your question.
http://www.cafepress.com/wikipedia
Wikipedia already is very careful about not letting copyright infringements. Google giving them money would be cool (hey yahoo used to give them servers) Think of all the wiki's about games or tv shows or whatever that have pictures etc. I just see it as a problem. Once there's money, some fucking lawyer from some fucking corporation is going to want to pressure wiki to do things as they see it, or else.
Wikipedia is one wiki. None of thoose mentioned are hosted by the wikimedia foundation. What happens to them doesn't make a difference to wikipedia. Quite a lot are hosted by http://wikia.org/ which is owned by similiar people, but totally different. There are also many other people who host wiki's like any other type of website). If you're just referring to pictures in articles on wikipedia. Thoose should be free images (or fair use).
There is currently 1 118 admins. That's the main reason I stick to smaller projects, less bureaucracy. On the other hand, without all of it I have no idea how they would scale, but still its annoying to have to hunt to find anything. The main reason I think that Jimbo is saying no to ads, is that every time in the past he has even so much as said he was thinking about it, people got really pissed, and threatened to fork. However i don't think the situation is very desperate, they've certainly denied it, and if they are running out of money, why are they hiring new employees, have lots of servers, etc. If they were running out of money, they would not be spending it unless absolutely neccesary.
From Wikipedia: Idea of FOSS is someone gives you software, and eventually they might find something in it and fix it, and give you the benifits back. Seems fairly similiar.
try VLC. A little light on visualization but still has a couple.