The Wikipedians Who Make it Happen 236
Phoe6 writes "Many of us might have wondered who these crazy people are, spending lot of time at wikipedia and presenting us with such an invaluable information.
Wired has decided to give some credits to the most active wikipedians, in their article titled Wiki becomes a way of life"
Link to the first page... (Score:5, Informative)
The link in the post goes to page two for me
Some interview! -- Wired needs to be a wiki (Score:2, Informative)
Hey wired, good job on your homework!
Re:Wiki (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I love the wikipedia, (Score:5, Informative)
Bandwidth isn't the problem (or the cost, really), but the servers. We spend $4k-ish a month on bandwidth (off the top of my head; ICBW), but we spent about $65k in just the last 6 months on servers (see the server list [wikimedia.org]).
BTW, we prefer that people just call it "Wikipedia", without a definite article.
Re:but.. (Score:2, Informative)
It's released under the GPL, so anyone caan bring back the free content for free.
Re:Wikipedia is too biased to be useful (Score:3, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Eagle_Scouts [wikipedia.org]
Also, there is no "they".
Re:Wikipedia is too biased to be useful (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Still wondering who these crazy people are (Score:2, Informative)
Re:WTF? Why would you /. Wikipedia? (Score:4, Informative)
maybe it has happened in the past but wikipedia hardly notices
its a noticeable but small blip in the squids traffic to the squids and pretty much nothing at all beyond that
there are two types of slashdotting:
1: bandwidth slashdotting: wikipedia has a gigabit link that is not exactly heavilly utilised so this just isn't going to happen.
2: server load slashdotting: (that is where a badly designed dynamic site can't keep up) squid pretty much takes care of making sure this doesn't happen (/.ers are very much a flash crowd they come they mostly view the same pages and then they go again if your site does seperate dynamic rendering for every pageview with no caching you are in trouble)
the main reason the
http://www.alexa.com/site/site_stats/signup?sit
wikipedia has had problems (power currupts power failure currupts absoloutely) and more recently some problems related to the software keeping transactions open too long whilst purging the squids and to a lesser extent hardware shortages. HOWEVER bandwidth and
Re:but.. (Score:3, Informative)
Anyone have a torrent of these?
Re:Wikipedia is too biased to be useful (Score:2, Informative)
It looks like the article [wikipedia.org] was edited by a pesistant vandal, (Sistertina), from a brief look at the edit history [wikipedia.org]. These edits were also reverted (restored to the original version), fairly quickly, as they removed everyone from the list. If there are other edits removing Charles Manson, that don't seem to be by the same person, please post links to the edit history. If not, this looks to be more a case of one isolated idiot, rather than sytematic bias.
In any case, Charles Manson is on the list now. I also notice no comment about keeping the list " nice for the kids" on the discussion page [wikipedia.org], was this in e-mail?
Re:I'd be happy if.... (Score:3, Informative)
So, about equal to many history and politics textbooks.
Wikipedia is a useful first source of information. Research for any project should include a wide variety and decent number of sources. Published encyclopedias are often riddled with errors and out-of-date information.
Re:Still wondering who these crazy people are (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why I don't like Wikipedia (Score:2, Informative)
1) It would work for a while, but eventually the incorrect facts and bias they add will be rooted out. A proper research and verification process would ensure this.
2) A libre, open, gift-culture-based process for creating a public good that is currently growing at an astounding rate is not "breaking with the established dogma/doctrine/explanandum of the era"?
3)Given enough time and edits, Wikipedia articles can cite every fact to those same peer reviewed papers and collate all important human knowledge. Those biases can be discussed and accounted for.
4)When the above is done, Wikipedia will be reliable. Until then it is not. But if you trust any other one single source now to be 100% correct you are naive. So why is Wikipedia different? Of course it contains errors, but the process is that they are rooted out *relatively* quickly.
So you've basically joined the countless others that want to sit on the sidelines and point out the problems instead of contributing. It is much more difficult to build something remarkable than it is to be a critic.
Re:All Male? (Score:3, Informative)
Angela: No. 31. in the main namespace; No. 10. in all namespaces.
Morwen: No. 18. in the main namespace; No. 25. in all namespaces.
Jengod: No. 21. in the main namespace; No. 27 in all namespaces
Dysprosia: No. 24 in the main namespace; No. 32. in all namespaces
There are just four of the "top authors" ( 32 in the main namespace, UtherSRG's "ranking").
So, not all of the top authors are male.
Well, we do get spikes, they just don't hurt (Score:5, Informative)
On the Slashdot/RSS thing, RSS is getting quite a reputaton for really unpleasant surge loads. Something we're factoring in to anything we doing relation to RSS, designing for caching. Not really a surprise if Slashdot has had to do some tweaking.
We were suffering a bit today from the combination of Slashdot, Wired News (Wikipedia Becomes a Way of Life [wired.com]) and Spiegel Online with an overloaded image server. Image server was bouncing around 100% utilization, kept some pages in the queue too long and that hurt overall apache capacity. We've seen far worse and we're getting rid of that bottleneck. As a temporary measure we've asked people to remove some pretty but not content images from a few places. Won't last long, though.
On the fund-raising side, the drive ended early after exceeding its $75,000 target. It's currently at around $95,000 probably with some data still to arrive, close to reaching $100,000, my initial thought of a target. Really good news for those of us doing the capacity and reliability work but it'll take a few months for it to be visible. Thanks to everyone here who helped!
Anyone who wants to spend a bit of money on another useful project might consider sending a bit to Freenode.net [freenode.net], the IRC host. Among other things they host our channels, including our offsite 24/7 IRC NOC and a superb MySQL channel, regularly inhabited by MySQL employees. Providing good service to lots of other open source projects.