Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re: Truth by democracy... software by democracy (Score 1) 25

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)

Comment Re:Smokin' (Score 1) 357

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.

Comment Re:Google still exists, right? (Score 1) 412

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)

Comment Re:Where's all the money going? (Score 5, Informative) 353

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.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Show me a good loser, and I'll show you a loser." -- Vince Lombardi, football coach

Working...