[02:04:50] quiddity: thanks for the link [02:06:54] quiddity: automatic wikilinking? wat! no. [02:08:41] quiddity: you mentioned problems with automatic wikilinking. [02:09:22] oh, you meant "every single word in wikipedia should be [cited]" perhaps? [02:10:22] no i meant every relevant string should be wikilinked. and the only reason why this is even an issue is that apparently, like i said, there's a lack of separation of content from presentation. wikignomes should wikify everything and then the user's (and sitewide default's) display template can simply be set to display however many of them. [02:10:46] whether that's one unique one per section, or all of them, or none of them. same with citations. [02:11:14] in actuality, this is a trivial issue of configuration, not of editing whatsoever [02:11:20] data is not its display [02:11:58] mm, that reminds me (as do many things), of the original EOL (encyclopedia of life) proposal and site, which had an interesting "basic->advanced" slider, that let the user display the quantity/detail they wanted. [02:12:12] now you're talkin. [02:12:23] i'm glad to remind you of things. such an honor. [02:12:25] I like how you put the full name in the parenthetical. [02:12:36] Sadly, that feature dissappeared at some point. I would guess because it was too complicated to markup each paragraph/sentence with the "complexity" measures. [02:12:37] heh? [02:12:51] TLAs FTW! [02:13:05] LOL (lots of love) [02:13:21] quiddity: basically what i'm wondering, as a serious editor of only less than two years, how much of wikipedia's infrastructural and sociopolitical policies are obsolete or generally based upon a bygone era [02:13:30] or, infrastructure, period [02:14:08] not to call its infrastructural integrity into a poor light, because i am here to thank and congratulate everyone on the herculean effort on making this thing exist at all [02:14:17] What's the point of wikilinking [[to]]? [02:14:27] i am in awe of it, every second that i have the honor to contribute to its contents [02:14:40] s/to contribute/of contributing/ [02:14:54] quiddity: "I don't like this implication that wikifying is about (over)linking." what was the person referring to , in the link you gave? [02:15:47] The same thing that Carmela refers to: autowikilinking. Ie. seperating editorial decisions from the content itself. [02:16:26] or, Allwiki, which some wikis do use. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_doesn%27t_use_Allwiki [02:17:07] i mean ... grotesque hyperlinking is why wikipedia exists. [02:17:23] that's precisely why articles are defined and separated as they are lol ^_^ [02:17:43] doesn't mean anyone has to see it, if they don't want to. [02:18:16] basically i'd love it if i didn't have to edit articles like they're a popsicle stick sculpture or a house of cards ;) [02:18:32] there's an implicit paranoia [02:19:28] and by the way, has wikipedia's "edit conflict" algorithm recently been upgraded in the last few months? it seems like i've edited alongside other people, on current events, on separate areas, without conflict. and i was editing the entire body at once. [02:19:39] i was impressed. [02:20:51] Not really. [02:21:02] WP does seek to avoid overlinking. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Overlink - because we don't want to overwhelm the people (majority?) who don't want an infodeluge and spaghetti-jumble of possible paths... But it might be an interesting gadget. [02:21:31] Lots of links starts to get slow. [02:21:34] On larger pages. [02:21:38] It's a lot of markup. [02:23:55] oh, that too. Yeah, one of the things I've been asking a lot lately is: Will it scale? So in this case, take any large featured article/list, and apply links everywhere, and see how it multiplies the page size [02:24:09] quiddity: see this discussion about "overlinking" (purely in terms of cosmetics, not in terms of actual munging or bludgeoning of hyperspace) is what i'm talking about, when i say that wikipedia generally doesn't always separate content from presentation. there should be two definitions of "overlinking", where one is real and one is imaginary. the real one is where you are splitting atomic ideas or linking to irrelevant things or things whose ... [02:24:15] quiddity: do you dig what i'm sayin [02:24:18] ... target context is not completely solidly aligned with its source. that's just overly aggressive or careless metadata cultivation. the imaginary one is that overlinking is totally defined by metadata inside of wikitext. it's not; it's supposed to be defined by the presentation. and by default, that wikilink and citation display slider could be down. [02:24:46] so yes also for performance reasons, if mediawiki benchmarks a given page poorly, it could adjust its default slider, or notify someone [02:25:29] I totally dig. Lemme find that video I'm thinking of... [02:25:43] ideally, scalability should be solved. and should not be defined by the content. [02:26:11] unless you wanna talk about absolute physical limits, like not streaming a video from every page without a CDN in place. [02:26:43] quiddity: okay so the discussion you linked earlier, shoudl be amended to reflect this. if that discussion is important. and it's important to me, so is that the best place for me to note it? [02:27:43] that's as good a place as any that I can think of, at the moment. It can always be moved elsewhere, later. [02:27:53] i mean is taht as visible as anything? [02:34:24] that's a good place for comments and notes. Once the idea has percolated for a few weeks or months (there, and in your head and others), and a more coherent/concise description has been made, it might be good to take to a Village Pump for further input, and in the hopes of inspiring a gadget writer (unless you are one ;) [02:35:48] kthx [02:39:13] See this video, specifically 3:19 to 4:01 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C05jAgJkuPw [02:39:28] (for the preferences panel) [02:40:22] And see this video, specifically from 2:48 to 3:20 (for a glimpse of the slider) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28T7q01pG50 [02:41:45] basically, the complexity-slider would emphasize/re-arrange different aspects of the article (eg. making the Common Name of the animal bigger, or the Taxonomic Name), and it would trim or add complete sections. [02:47:51] I thought it was brilliant, at the time. But I can understand how it wasn't a successful enough feature to warrant the prime-placement that it had. [02:52:07] * quiddity heads to sleep [03:03:56] quiddity: okay i'll take a look, thanks [03:04:01] quiddity: have a good night [04:14:22] quiddity: so EOL has vetted curators, in a presumably reputation based social system [05:28:48] Nemo_bis: oh hi i'm about to reply to you and quiddity on mediawiki [05:28:56] i didn't realize that was you [05:28:59] til just now [05:30:16] < James_F> dtm: One of the longer-term things we'd like to achieve is proper structured data storage of cites, which could be regularly checked for updates/staleness/deadness etc. <-- would that allow citation reuse? citations and entire wikicode blocks should be reusable wiki-wide objects. [05:31:12] i maintain so many redundant wikicode blocks, man. between PlayStation, Nintendo 64, Nintendo 64 GamePak, Programming characteristics of Nintendo 64, Nintendo 64 accessories.... etc etc imagine how many times I describe the debacle of CD-ROMs vs. cartridges [05:31:38] and seriously that list of article names, on that particular topic alone, goes on [05:32:02] for example. [06:08:06] James_F|Away: quiddity: Nemo_bis: i replied here https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Beta_Features/New_Features [06:08:52] James_F|Away: i'm not a software engineer, but i believe i am correct in citing MVC as the proper common sense concept for properly abstracting data from code from presentation, right? [06:09:38] i tried to make it the least awful to read, considering that we're reimplementing the wheel that is a forum, as wikicode ;) [09:03:31] James_F|Away: is there some publicly reachable installation upon which i can currently utilize citoid? [09:18:43] Hi there, [09:19:54] can somebody please update the wikimania centeral notice translation for persian wikipedia (fa.wiki), the text is in english but has been translated to persian in meta [09:23:36] pouyana: try asking in #wikimedia-stewards? [09:23:48] ok [09:24:04] Nemo_bis: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Admin_tools_development/SUL_Audit does "...with email" refer to "total local accounts with email"? or "total non-attached accounts with email"? [09:25:05] the latter I think. [09:33:46] legoktm: latter IIRC; but my understanding had some component of speculation [09:33:59] (and I should re-read it to be safer) [09:34:21] ok [09:51:07] Nemo_bis: so, what repo should I put this in https://gist.github.com/legoktm/98a4ea1b217ce9463f7d ? :) [09:52:42] awww [09:52:50] Did you have to make it from scratch? [09:53:26] yeah, took me about 30 minutes though [09:53:48] hehe [09:53:56] Hoping we're actually measuring the same thing [09:54:11] I think user_touched is now supposed to be replaced by aa_touched? [09:54:20] yeah, I think so too [09:55:04] Once you replace that it would IMHO make sense to use the AccountAudit repo: same goal, interdependent [09:55:42] makes sense [10:01:22] Nemo_bis: do you remember when AccountAudit was deployed? if users aren't logged in that, I'll just fallback to that date or use user_touched if it's older. [10:07:01] right around 20130430225552 probably. [10:10:34] legoktm: I noted it on the [[SUL finalisation]] page [10:10:40] early May 2013 IIRC [10:11:29] I did select min(aa_lastlogin) on enwiki and came up with 20130430225552 [10:11:35] which lines up [10:12:55] :) [10:14:18] Right, it wasn't pre-filled, so you need to consider the latest of aa_lastlogin and user_touched I guess. For now just a fast update would be best though [10:48:29] Upgrading this morning? [10:48:43] Things are a bit slower than normal [10:52:34] Qcoder00: traceroute please... [10:54:19] Where's the pasttebin? [10:56:16] Nemo_bis: https://tools.wmflabs.org/paste/view/ad146ee9 [10:56:24] Not showing anything obvious [10:57:59] aaaaaaaargh init7 again [10:58:03] mark: save us [11:01:01] Qcoder00: can you also try something like: mtr -w -c 20 bits.wikimedia.org [11:01:26] <_joe_> Nemo_bis: is this fastweb again? [11:01:40] <_joe_> just joined, sorry [11:01:43] Not with the tools I have at my disposal [11:01:48] _joe_: no, he's in UK; but still init7 [11:02:16] Is init7 a known bottleneck? If so it's not a major worry [11:02:20] we only know "Things are a bit slower than normal" [11:02:25] (At least I know) [11:02:40] Allso I've had firefox lock up trying to access meta.wikimedia.org [11:02:44] IIRC last times Qcoder00 had such problems it was networking [11:02:50] <_joe_> Nemo_bis: yesterday fastweb was down for ~ 5 mins [11:03:06] <_joe_> now most people know I work here and bug me whenever they see a problem :) [11:03:17] lol [11:03:49] It's not a major concern given that I am used to doign Wikipedia on Dial-up speeds which is something like a tenth of brodband speeds [11:04:00] Imagine if we had a system to collect issue reports ;) [11:04:06] OTRS? [11:04:17] <_joe_> Qcoder00: can you give me your IP? [11:04:22] <_joe_> in private [11:04:26] See the trace... [11:04:38] https://tools.wmflabs.org/paste/view/ad146ee9 [11:04:41] I'm not actualyl sure what it is currently, as I think my ISP does pool allocation [11:04:46] <_joe_> so I can relay info to people that may be able to do something about it [11:05:13] (And the origin point shown there appears to be an IANA code for LAN use) [11:05:21] <_joe_> mmh that does not seem problematic [11:05:35] <_joe_> an RTT of 163 ms is a bit high but still bearable I think [11:06:10] 194.159.169.242 is my ISP [11:06:11] unless you have 80 % packet loss [11:06:20] I notice one of my tabs didn't load, but now it does [11:06:45] Given the trace I appear to be talking with Amerstdam [11:06:53] *Amsterdam [11:06:59] <_joe_> Qcoder00: which makes sense btw [11:07:36] And it's the Init7 route out of Linx (majoe data hub in London) that's being used [11:08:45] <_joe_> also, it seems most of the slowness happens between rlams2 and gw-wikimedia, which are both within init7 [11:17:09] Yes [11:17:31] Don't worry about the DNS warnings as such [11:17:40] (that appears to be an issue with the firewall I usse) [11:18:28] <_joe_> Qcoder00: do you still experience slowness? [11:18:39] A little [11:18:49] <_joe_> (on a freshly opened browser, in an incognito window) [11:18:51] But given what I am doing isn't fast page loading anyway [11:20:06] It's still below normal speed but I can work with it [11:20:21] (I'm used to working with some sites at Dial up speeds) [11:20:52] <_joe_> can you exemplify one page that is slow? [11:21:09] <_joe_> so that I can take a deeper look and assess if this is a network slowness or what [11:56:04] Sadly not, [11:56:24] It seems to have cleared though, so I suspect network issues [11:56:49] My first thought was that it was an upgrade being progressed given that's the 1st of the month [11:57:09] yesterday, and there's a software update going through [11:57:29] And now for something completely different [11:57:54] Where there any plans to create a Semantic Wiki add on based on Wikidata for WMF sites? [11:58:41] Qcoder00: What exactly do you mean with your last question? [11:58:55] Currently WMF wikis have categories [11:59:19] Would it be possible to implement a box that lists related items by semantic links? [11:59:54] I.E The article for London, would have London is 'Capital of' England, Administraive center for United Kingdom etc... [12:00:03] (based on Wikidata entries) [12:00:51] Well, that's partly already possible [12:16:19] Yeah, isn't that just Wikidata? [12:19:20] Oh OK [15:11:26] * Nemo_bis is so curious to see legoktm's unattached accounts stats [15:28:38] Is this ProofreadPage not replicated on Labs? https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32590#c3 [15:37:21] Hi Tpt, I was looking for you :) 17.28 < Nemo_bis> Is this ProofreadPage not replicated on Labs? https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32590#c3 [15:38:12] Nemo_bis: Hi! There is a dev instance for ProofreadPage: http://wikisource-dev.wmflabs.org/wiki/Main_Page [15:38:56] Tpt: useful, thanks again for making PP testing better! But are the PP tables of Wikisource replicated on labs? [15:39:18] Nemo_bis: Ah. Ok. I don't know. [15:39:26] But I belive they are [15:39:36] Should be easily fixable if not [15:40:05] phe should know more than me about it [15:41:43] Asked him as well. I don't see anything PP related but I may be blind. http://paste.debian.net/107800/ [15:43:55] Nemo_bis: I don't see too. It's really possible that the pr_index table has been forgotten [15:44:29] It's not included [15:44:33] Let me make a changeset to have it included [15:44:58] If nobody asked, it will not be included. :) [15:45:05] Thanks Reedy [15:45:17] just pr_index? [15:46:08] All PP tables should be good to have, but I don't know them by heart. Tpt? [15:46:24] There only seems to be 1... [15:46:33] Reedy: Yes, ProofreadPage adds only pr_index table [15:47:28] Nice [15:47:30] https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/143622 [15:48:16] Tpt: did Aubrey tell you that the main OPAC company of Italy is (in theory) working on using https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:ProofreadPage#OAI-PMH to fetch books from Wikisource? [15:48:30] Nemo_bis: No, he didn't. [15:48:42] It's very nice :-) [15:48:52] Ok. We still know no details, that may be why. They didn't get anything done yet I suspect. [15:50:04] In theory they started a few months ago [15:50:32] ok. Thanks [15:56:34] Did Perfect Forward Secrecy happen in the end? [15:57:50] Jarry1250: https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/analyze.html?d=en.wikipedia.org yes :) [16:12:58] Reedy: I'll submit a patch for https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Nemo_bis/Unused_local_uploads tomorrow before the deployment of 1.24wmf11 if you're ok with it. [16:13:35] I think permission changes are more understandable for users/communities than the disabling of Special:Upload via WikimediaMessages shipped by 1.24wmf11. [16:14:09] I pinged hundreds of admins and users and communicated with dozens wikis, hopefully everyone will be happy. :-) [17:09:07] there are some vague reports on German Commons about issues loading scripts from bits. Might be Monobook specific, not clear yet, and I cannot reproduce. https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=67420 for the records [17:09:34] <^d> That's the german VP on commons. There's only one commons :) [17:12:08] andre__: worth asking a traceroute maybe [17:12:28] Still slow [17:12:30] for me [17:12:36] Want another trace? [17:13:24] I don't remember the name of the german user who was on init7 [17:13:42] satanist [17:14:39] I guess satanico...fr is not ther same user [17:48:53] Qcoder00: btw I believe there is also mtr for Windows [18:14:42] OK [18:27:18] Reedy: got a minute? [18:27:25] I have several [18:27:29] Do you have bit coins? [18:27:30] * Reedy grins [18:28:49] QueenOfFrance: wassup? [20:44:51] dtm, you might enjoy this (i'm not a participant; just know of it. it's a good linkhub / starting spot - should take you many days to explore ;) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Reform_of_citation_structure_for_all_Wikimedia_projects [20:46:34] Still having speed issues [20:46:42] Almost certainly network issues [20:46:59] because I get it on other sites [20:52:42] quiddity: hellos [20:52:48] quiddity: did you see my reply on the web site [20:53:44] quiddity: you brought up a very good point which is to examine other encyclopedia sites. of course my mind says "WHAT other encyclopedias?!" but. [20:53:45] dtm, indeed, and much longer than I expected! I'll re-read it (and reply there) when I've finished work for the day. [20:53:52] i guess someone made some other ones for some reason [20:54:03] and they made em better in a lot of ways i guess or something [20:54:05] maybe [20:54:24] quiddity: well i apologize if it's too long. tell me if it was rambling or if it was helpful [20:54:44] nope, intelligent rambling is good :) [20:54:57] well it was quite structured to me! [20:55:44] quiddity: "Citations should be hosted in Wikidata so that they can be called as interwiki links." ahaaaaaa!!! [20:55:56] quiddity: not only interwiki, but interarticle, eh? [20:56:31] i'm not familiar with any of it. I just know of it. (Also, no time to chat at the moment, sorry. :) [20:56:47] quiddity: okay have a good one [22:39:17] getting a 404 at http://bits.wikimedia.org/wiki/skins/monobook/main.css ? [22:40:55] I don't think that's supposed to work [22:41:59] it worked till now, was used by erwin for his tools [22:44:17] Should be using something like https://bits.wikimedia.org/static-current/skins/MonoBook/main.css [22:44:55] There's also been some casing changes to the skin names [22:45:21] Reedy: ok, will change [22:54:30] Reedy: thanks, back working, but wondering, where there some changes done, it happened at the moment I was debugging something else ... [22:55:52] I can't see how the /wiki one actually ever worked [22:57:33] https://bits.wikimedia.org/skins/MonoBook/main.css