Wikipedia:Village pump/December 2002 archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Wikipedia Implementation and performance

During the last few weeks I have been thrilled to discover Wikipedia. However, it is not perfect, and there appear to be very significant performance issues with the software/hardware.

Is there information about how WP is implemented, and is there any form of discussion going on about how to improve it?

What sort of loading does WP server out - 10 page requests/second, 100?, 1000?

Also, what proportion of the load is due to edits - it should be quite low - but maybe it's not. Is it possible to prioritise edits over searches? This would be useful, as quite often these days waiting for an edit to Load takes so long - it really is quite a nuisance.

Would performance be enhanced if WP were distributed over several servers? Is this feasible? If not, why not?

Who is looking at these issues? --User:David Martland

David--
Wikipedia is open source software. See the SourceForge page for details. See Wikipedia:Statistics for detailed access statistics.
The performance issues are discussed on the wikitech-l mailing list. The server is reasonably huge and not suffering from the load. The main problem appear to be locking issues (we use MySQL's MyISAM tables, which only support table-level locking) and unoptimized queries (some columns do not have indexes where they should have etc.). These issues are slowly being worked on by Wikipedia developers, feel free to participate. See m:How to become a Wikipedia hacker for a growing tutorial on the code. --Eloquence 12:22 Dec 3, 2002 (UTC)
Regarding the number of page views per second: On Special:Statistics. In the past 4 1/2 months (since 20 July) there have been about 20,000,000 page views and 400,000 to 450,000 edits. This is equal to slightly under 2 page views per second. As we are still growing dayly, the number will be higher at the moment, put it will probably be well under 10 per second. Andre Engels 14:29 Dec 3, 2002 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick answers. I suppose it's possible the poor performance I get sometimes is due to network problems - besides the locking problems. Another possibility is that a mean rate of 2 queries/second still permits a much higher peak rate. It quite often takes a minute or so to have an update during editing from my locations in the UK - maybe that's the locking problem? David Martland 20:19 Dec 4, 2002 (UTC)

Minor version mixmatch between files, sorry. Should be fixed now. --Brion 00:47 Dec 4, 2002 (UTC)

Hi, I am a newcomer (just discovered Wikipedia yesterday). I think this is a great idea. I notice that you have headings on the main page for mathematics, physics, statistics, and the like, but none for engineering. Speaking for the engineers, I think this would be extremely useful. Is engineering currently grouped with another field, and if it is, does anyone think it should merit its own heading? I did not see any contiguous body of information for engineering when I searched. If there is agreement that this is a good idea, I would be willing to make a few entries for electrical engineering...

M Raj

It's there under "Applied Arts and Sciences", between Education and Family and consumer science. --Brion

What's the most edited article on Wikipedia? Richard Wagner is certainly heading that way. BTW why is there no link to this page on the main page?(or am I being dumb?)

See Wikipedia:most edited article, which I just created. --Uncle Ed 00:01 Dec 13, 2002 (UTC)

Is there a way of opening wikipedia such that I'm already logged in? It would be nice if (for example) http://www.wikipedia.org?user=SGBailey&password=abcdef worked so I could use this as my bookmark. -- SGBailey 17:01 Dec 11, 2002 (UTC)

You can set this in your preferences(Special:Preferences). Mintguy 17:54 Dec 11, 2002 (UTC)

New user here. Sorry if this has been covered before but I can't find it anywhere. I'd like to set up a user profile and so forth, but the impression I get is that during the login process passwords are sent over the Internet unencrypted. Is this true? This makes me very uncomfortable. Plain text sent over the Internet can be read by any man-in-the-middle. Are there any plans to have passwords encrypted during the login process?

In general, identity theft is not an issue that has worried us up until now. Don't use the password you give for Wikipedia for anything important! --Robert Merkel 01:15 Dec 13, 2002 (UTC)
What like having a sysop account isn't important? Just think of the damage a bot using a hijacked sysop, or worse developer, account could do in a very, and I mean very, short amount of time. This really should be encrypted. Also, the vast majority of net users have a limited set of passwords that they use for almost everything. I'm certain many of our users do in fact use sensitive passwords for Wikipedia. --mav
I'll see about setting up https... --Brion 04:38 Dec 15, 2002 (UTC)
You're on a roll tonight Brion. Thank you! --mav
Hmm, going through the mod_ssl docs, it seems that it won't work with our virtual server configuration. I'll see if I can work something out though. --Brion

Hi, I am a newcomer (just discovered Wikipedia yesterday). I think this is a great idea. I notice that you have headings on the main page for mathematics, physics, statistics, and the like, but none for engineering. Speaking for the engineers, I think this would be extremely useful. Is engineering currently grouped with another field, and if it is, does anyone think it should merit its own heading? I did not see any contiguous body of information for engineering when I searched. If there is agreement that this is a good idea, I would be willing to make a few entries for electrical engineering...

M Raj

It's there under "Applied Arts and Sciences", between Education and Family and consumer science. --Brion

What's the most edited article on Wikipedia? Richard Wagner is certainly heading that way. BTW why is there no link to this page on the main page?(or am I being dumb?)

See Wikipedia:most edited article, which I just created. --Uncle Ed 00:01 Dec 13, 2002 (UTC)

Is there a way of opening wikipedia such that I'm already logged in? It would be nice if (for example) http://www.wikipedia.org?user=SGBailey&password=abcdef worked so I could use this as my bookmark. -- SGBailey 17:01 Dec 11, 2002 (UTC)

You can set this in your preferences(Special:Preferences). Mintguy 17:54 Dec 11, 2002 (UTC)

New user here. Sorry if this has been covered before but I can't find it anywhere. I'd like to set up a user profile and so forth, but the impression I get is that during the login process passwords are sent over the Internet unencrypted. Is this true? This makes me very uncomfortable. Plain text sent over the Internet can be read by any man-in-the-middle. Are there any plans to have passwords encrypted during the login process?

In general, identity theft is not an issue that has worried us up until now. Don't use the password you give for Wikipedia for anything important! --Robert Merkel 01:15 Dec 13, 2002 (UTC)
What like having a sysop account isn't important? Just think of the damage a bot using a hijacked sysop, or worse developer, account could do in a very, and I mean very, short amount of time. This really should be encrypted. Also, the vast majority of net users have a limited set of passwords that they use for almost everything. I'm certain many of our users do in fact use sensitive passwords for Wikipedia. --mav
I'll see about setting up https... --Brion 04:38 Dec 15, 2002 (UTC)
You're on a roll tonight Brion. Thank you! --mav
Hmm, going through the mod_ssl docs, it seems that it won't work with our virtual server configuration. I'll see if I can work something out though. --Brion

Can some clever person please sort out the silly b*lls up over pictures of Wallace - two of 'em, William and Alfred, where they were both just called "Wallace.jpg" like this: Image:Wallace.jpg ... and guess what, poor Alfred has been overwritten by Bill's memorial plaque! I would love to sort this out but have not a clue how to even start. Do please enlighten me, if you feel like it. I am sure that somewhere in an FAQ I have seen the dangers of this imprecise naming mentioned ... thanks. Nevilley 18:44 Dec 10, 2002 (UTC) oh and I'm sorry if this is the wrong file for this, just call me a stupid newbie. :)

First, never upload files with overshort names like that! Give them nice, long, descriptive names that will never be accidentally overwritten; or at least not by something completely unrelated. Second, when encountering such: you can revert an image to a previously uploaded version by clicking the 'rev' link in the image description page (click the image to get the image description page; you must be logged in for the revert link to work). Clicking on the date of a previous version let you look at the older revision; you can save it and re-upload it under another name. I've moved these two out to image:William Wallace memorial plaque.jpg and image:Alfred Russel Wallace.jpg and deleted the useless ambiguous title. --Brion 23:44 Dec 10, 2002 (UTC)
aha! That's the bit I didn't understand - I thought there might have been a way within the wikipedia software to sort it out - I didn't realise you'd need to save it and upload it again. And this, btw: "First, never upload files with overshort names like that!" is preaching to the converted, (unles it's closing the stable door after the horse has bolted ... I'm having a metaphor supply crisis) insofar as I was trying to sort out the mess but was not the one who caused it! Thanks very much for the advice. Nevilley 00:02 Dec 11, 2002 (UTC)
Not aimed at you, just advice for the general reader. :) --Brion 01:13 Dec 11, 2002 (UTC)
Thank you so much - clealry I was being oversensitive, sorry. :) Nevilley 08:21 Dec 11, 2002 (UTC)

BTW, the software shouldn't let somebody upload a file with the same name as a file already on the server without obviously warning the person that they are going to overwrite the active version of a previously uploaded file. --mav

Yes, I was thinking that - of course for the c*ckup to happen it requires the user to not choose a sensible name (and/or not check that the name has not been used), but it would certainly help them to realise the oncoming booboo if it warned them. :) Nevilley 00:27 Dec 11, 2002 (UTC)
I'll see if I can hack that in. The upload subsystem is dark and scary and may have monsters lurking in it... --Brion 01:13 Dec 11, 2002 (UTC)

Here's another new user question: How does one indicate pronunciation in an entry. Is it acceptable/desirable to do so? I haven't find any information about this. The example I have in mind is the Arkansas River and the city of Arkansas City, Kansas. The common pronunciation of Arkansas is like AR-kan-saw, but we Kansans do things a bit differently. The river starts in Colorado with the above mentioned pronunciation, but as it crosses into Kansas, the pronunciation becomes like ar-KAN-zus. The city name is also pronounced the latter way. The river reverts to the "normal" pronunciation when it enters Oklahoma. Thanks for any advice. Zeaner 00:03 Dec 18, 2002 (UTC)

Even if that's a somewhat vague answer: I think the criterion should be the relevance of the pronunciation. A Frenchman with only a basic knowledge of English asking a Londoner how to get to Beauchamp Place (near Harrods) will never be able to make himself understood, so it may be important to point that out. Also, in a bookshop it can be quite embarrassing if you have no idea how to pronounce names like Carl Hiaasen or Chuck Palahniuk. I don't know if similar misunderstandings could crop up if a tourist said AR-kan-saw instead of ar-KAN-zus. --KF 00:19 Dec 18, 2002 (UTC)

How to represent pronunciation is one of those issues that keeps getting discussed but never resolved. Take a look at Talk:Language and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (under the "Pronunciation" section) for some previous discussions. In your particular case, I think your information is very interesting, so I would include it just as you have here, with a homemade pronunciation guide. If the issue of how to represent pronunciation ever gets sorted out, someone can go back and change it. If not, it communicates what you want to say perfectly well. -- Stephen Gilbert 00:38 Dec 18, 2002 (UTC)

The absolute best way to represent pronunciation, of course, is to record a sound file (preferably encode as Ogg Vorbis) and upload it. --Brion

Is pronunciation of a printed proper name or words on Wiki a real issue? If you're from Oklahoma, you might pronounce "oil": all, or from New Zealand Oy-el. Dictionaries do help. Dialects vary all over the world. BF

I'm a newbie in need of advice. After happily working on some articles about physics and other noncontroversial subjects, I did some editing on these articles: astrology, horoscope, and Walter Mercado (an astrologer). Now I seem to be getting into "edit wars." Any suggestions on how to handle this? I felt that the original articles were completely credulous about astrology, and lacked any pretense of a neutral point of view. The Walter Mercado article is particularly goofy; if you look at its history, it started out with an anonymous user sticking in a fluffy, adulatory fan piece. Then someone edited it to try to restore a neutal point of view. Then a user came along and changed it back, and then I edited it again. How long does this go on? -- User:Bcrowell

Well, it depends on the dispute in question. I looked at astrology and Walter Mercado. For the latter, it seems you are the only person who has edited it since November, so there's no conflict there. Generally, when two Wikipedians disagree on edits or article content, they take it to the discussion page of the article in question, which I see you've done. I usually find it helpful to stop editing until some sort of agreement is reached in discussion; this tends to keep the other party from getting defensive and avoids edit wars. The vast majority of Wikipedians are reasonable people, and agreements are often reached quickly, as longas both parties recognize that they are working on the article in good faith. Oh, and welcome to Wikipedia! We're glad to have you here. -- Stephen Gilbert 00:48 Dec 20, 2002 (UTC)
Well, it's pretty discouraging if you look at the history of how the zodiac and Walter Mercado articles have been edited. People who don't believe in astrology have repeatedly tried to introduce a neutral point of view, but over and over again the true believers have deleted their text and reverted to a completely credulous, one-sided view. -- User:Bcrowell
I think we're making some progress now, because some new people have gotten involved in working on the articles, and it's no longer just a back-and-forth between me and User:Eclecticology. Right now, I think it would be helpful if someone without an agenda could go over some of the most controversial articles such as horoscope and just edit them for style, so they don't read so much like "one person says this, and another person says this." -- User:Bcrowell
In my own defense, I know nothing about Mercado so I have said nothing there at all. User:Bcrowell can apply whatever POV material he wants, and I won't interfere with it. In the other articles he has insistead on his POV that astrology is pseudoscience should dominate all ithers, and insists on a one-sided idiosyncratic interpretation of scientific method. He fails to understand that his true believer syndrome can afflict the orthodox scientific view just as much as its opponents. There are dogmatic Points of View on both sides of that divide, and I feel quite content to revert that kind of bullshit from either side. Eclecticology 02:38 Dec 22, 2002 (UTC)

[edit] On the decline of the quality of writing in Wikipedia

Is it just my imagination or is the general standard of this project turning into a Drexleresque grey goo scenario? Notwithstanding the contributions of non-native English speakers who have a more than valid excuse for a certain amount of lexical and grammatical inexactitude, the standard of writing seems to have dropped as dramatically as a barometer in the eye of a hurricane. Previously I and a few others who care not only about content but about mode of expression were able to keep on top of the orcish hordes with their horrible tautologies, oxymorons, grocer's apostrophes, split infinitives, inability to distinguish between there and their, etcetera, etcetera.

I can only stomach editing so much of this admittedly well-researched but ineffably poorly written nonsense a day. user:sjc (23/12/02 04:36)

I believe it should be grocers' apostrophes instead of grocer's apostrophes. :-)
One grocer's apostrophe is a grocer's apostrophe too far in my book... user:sjc
I sympathize with your plight Unfortunately, I don't think this battle is winable. Eclecticology 06:56 Dec 23, 2002 (UTC)
I've not noticed an increase in "it's" & the like. I'm more concerned with POV stuff, crank theories, articles for minor porn stars, fetishes and every single word in LOTR. -- Tarquin 11:28 Dec 23, 2002 (UTC)
What's wrong about every single word in LOTR? :) Talking about fetishes and LOTR is a redundancy :):)--AN
What's LOTR? Wikipedians quickly learn what the initials "POV" stand for, but apart from that, a common criticism of the presentation in articles is the introduction of undefined or unexplained abbreviations and acronyms. Eclecticology
LOTR is the Sad Person's Book also known as The Lord of the Rings. An all too common acronym for a deeply regrettable pile of piffle. user:sjc

See Talk:London (disambiguation) for question about data in disambiguation pages. -- SGBailey 10:59 Dec 24, 2002 (UTC)

[edit] Who's setting up the Hebrew Wiki and do they need help?

How does one go about finding them and what can one do to help once he does :-) aarrrggghhh

Try talking to User:Brion VIBBER. He's the point man when it comes to setting up the non-English wikis. -- Stephen Gilbert 17:48 Dec 24, 2002 (UTC)

[edit] Are ALL self-links unwanted?

Self links are listed on the maintenance page as if they were a Bad Thing which generally I guess they are. The relevant maintenance page simply says: The following pages contain a link to themselves, which they should not. However a number of pages contain deliberate self-links, for example List of group theory topics and List of musical topics. In these cases an author has left a note (on the page itself in the case of the former, and on the latter's Talk page) asking that the self-link not be removed, as it is needed to help with page or topic maintenance.

I feel that the current situation is a bit messy in that someone wanting to help by tidying up can accidentally thwart the plans of people who are trying to maintain a page or topic area. This happened just now at List of musical topics. Could we please have a clear policy on this? I would have thought it either needs to be that self-links are just not allowed, in which case maybe a clearer note on the maintenance page could clarify this (plus maybe something in the style manual etc somewhere??) or, if they are allowed (where they are a deliberate action of page maintainers and not just a mistake), this should be made clear on the maintenance page, in the same way that the spelling page tried to make it clear that not every apparent misspelling needs to be corrected - that there are in effect false positives too. Maybe there could even be a standard statement that people woudl be encouraged to use in that case - the List of group theory topics has a nice clear statement: Since the page is a maintenance page, the interested parties also want to know when changes are made to this list as well; so please do not remove the self-link.

Apologies if all this has already been covered 93 times in here or in an FAQ or something. Thanks, Nevilley 11:50 Dec 26, 2002 (UTC)

Normally a self-link is unconvenient for the user: a link promises related info, but all you get is the same again. However, I understand that it can be useful in connection with the use of Related changes (no need to check the history of the page itself additionally) and then the statement above is a good solution, especially because the self-link occurs in this statement itself only. It is clearer than in List of musical topics. - Patrick 12:23 Dec 26, 2002 (UTC)

A clear short version of the statement, best put at the end of the article, is also:

This [[...|self-link]] is for technical reasons (use of Related changes), please do not remove.

Patrick 12:58 Dec 26, 2002 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to change "Related Changes" so that it includes changes of the current page (and maybe also pages that link to the current page)? -Martin
Yes, I think that would be better. Patrick 13:26 Dec 26, 2002 (UTC)

I'm the guy who removed the self link on list of musical topics. I see why they wanted it now, and I very much agree that Related Changes should include changes made to the current page. Maybe if for some crazy reason people didn't like this, it could be an option in their preferences so that related changes doesn't include the current page. Then, surely we could just automatically strip out self links, as they would then be rendered completely useless, and there would be no possibility of a false positive. Just an idea for the automatically stripping out self-links, there may be some reason against it, but I definitely think related changes should include the current page Smelialichu 17:28 Dec 26, 2002 (UTC)


How to add an other language link? Marc Girod

See Wikipedia:Interlanguage links. --Brion