Difference between revisions of "Talk:Main Page"
From Computer History Wiki
(SSeNtXJZpM) |
(→Backup/mirror?: Go for it) |
||
| (419 intermediate revisions by 22 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | ==Need help== | |
| − | + | Can we get the Amiga pointing to the [[Amiga]]? | |
| − | + | Is there arny specific way in which I could help? Kuro 20:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC) | |
| − | == | + | ==Real names?== |
| − | + | Should we ask for real names to go with accounts, when people apply? (This is not for the 'account name - people can use pretty much whatever they want, there.) [http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/ Classic computer people] mostly use their real names (maybe because we're old-fashioned :-). I like knowing who people really are; the anonymity of Wikipedia has always irked me. But if people want to allow anonymous editors here, I'd be OK with that. [[User:Jnc|Jnc]] ([[User talk:Jnc|talk]]) 01:12, 24 April 2022 (CEST) | |
| − | + | : I think it's fine to ''ask'' for their name, and have a preference for attaching a real name to an account name. Whether to ''require'' it is another matter. My main concern with anonymity is that it makes it difficult to contact people. [[User:Larsbrinkhoff|Larsbrinkhoff]] ([[User talk:Larsbrinkhoff|talk]]) 06:56, 24 April 2022 (CEST) | |
| − | + | :: Well, exactly: it's the ''require'' I'm unsure about, and am asking for opinions on. | |
| + | :: We don't exactly have a large editor community, despite my pleading several times on CCTalk; a number of people have shown up and [https://gunkies.org/wiki/Special:ListUsers?username=&group=&creationSort=1&desc=1&wpsubmit=&wpFormIdentifier=mw-listusers-form&limit=50 gotten accounts], but somehow, almost all have never generated much content. So, if there was someone out there who was prepared to add a lot of good content, we'd be foolish to turn them down just because they want to be anonymous. | ||
| + | :: By the same token though, the chances are that anyone we did turn down because of that would have added a lot of content are low. So it's unlikely that we're losing much, if we do that. | ||
| + | :: The 'contact' thing is not an issue; on starting an account, MediaWiki sends out a temporary password via email. So every account has a working associated email address (at least to start); and there is a [https://gunkies.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser/Jnc link] on everyone's home page on the wiki which allows anyone here to send them email. [[User:Jnc|Jnc]] ([[User talk:Jnc|talk]]) 13:29, 24 April 2022 (CEST) | ||
| − | == | + | == Backup/mirror? == |
| − | + | Sometimes this site goes down and is unavailable for a short period. So far it has always come back up, but there's always the concern that it might not always do so in the future. So I wonder: '''is the data backed up or mirrored somewhere'''? Granted, archive.org does an ok job: [https://web.archive.org/web/20220000000000*/https://gunkies.org/wiki/Main_Page Main Page] But it would be nice with a more proactive strategy. [[User:Larsbrinkhoff|Larsbrinkhoff]] ([[User talk:Larsbrinkhoff|talk]]) 09:13, 6 October 2022 (CEST) | |
| − | + | : I think Tore might have an automatic backup running, but I'm not sure. The problem with archive.org is that it might save the articles, but I'm not sure about the history. | |
| + | : The big concern along these lines, for me, is that Tore runs the whole thing 'out of his back pocket', as the expression in English goes. So if he is crossing the street and gets run over by a truck, we're SOL at the moment: the DNS entry, hosting, etc are all in his name. | ||
| + | : I did mention this to him, a while back, and he understood the concern, but I got sick, and we never pushed forward to get an improvement picked and put in place. | ||
| + | : Ideally, there should be some sort of link to an institution (such as the [[Computer History Museum|CHM]], or the [[Charles Babbage Institute|CBI]]), so that there is a more guaranteed long-term future. Of course, such a link would also require working out a workable relationship, for both sides - and there is the concern that they would want to run the show, in directions that they pick. | ||
| + | : But a number of people have put in a lot of work (in my case, quite a lot), and we really ought to do something to make sure it is safeguarded for the future. | ||
| + | : Are you up for helping make something happen? [[User:Jnc|Jnc]] ([[User talk:Jnc|talk]]) 13:38, 7 October 2022 (CEST) | ||
| − | + | :: Yes, I can help. I know a few friendly people at CHM, for example. Having an organization run the server is better, but I still don't like if there's a single point of failure. One thing at a time, I guess. [[User:Larsbrinkhoff|Larsbrinkhoff]] ([[User talk:Larsbrinkhoff|talk]]) 14:59, 7 October 2022 (CEST) | |
| − | + | :: OK, you have the action item. Please let me know if I can help in any way. [[User:Jnc|Jnc]] ([[User talk:Jnc|talk]]) 16:42, 7 October 2022 (CEST) | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
Latest revision as of 15:42, 7 October 2022
Need help
Can we get the Amiga pointing to the Amiga?
Is there arny specific way in which I could help? Kuro 20:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Real names?
Should we ask for real names to go with accounts, when people apply? (This is not for the 'account name - people can use pretty much whatever they want, there.) Classic computer people mostly use their real names (maybe because we're old-fashioned :-). I like knowing who people really are; the anonymity of Wikipedia has always irked me. But if people want to allow anonymous editors here, I'd be OK with that. Jnc (talk) 01:12, 24 April 2022 (CEST)
- I think it's fine to ask for their name, and have a preference for attaching a real name to an account name. Whether to require it is another matter. My main concern with anonymity is that it makes it difficult to contact people. Larsbrinkhoff (talk) 06:56, 24 April 2022 (CEST)
- Well, exactly: it's the require I'm unsure about, and am asking for opinions on.
- We don't exactly have a large editor community, despite my pleading several times on CCTalk; a number of people have shown up and gotten accounts, but somehow, almost all have never generated much content. So, if there was someone out there who was prepared to add a lot of good content, we'd be foolish to turn them down just because they want to be anonymous.
- By the same token though, the chances are that anyone we did turn down because of that would have added a lot of content are low. So it's unlikely that we're losing much, if we do that.
- The 'contact' thing is not an issue; on starting an account, MediaWiki sends out a temporary password via email. So every account has a working associated email address (at least to start); and there is a link on everyone's home page on the wiki which allows anyone here to send them email. Jnc (talk) 13:29, 24 April 2022 (CEST)
Backup/mirror?
Sometimes this site goes down and is unavailable for a short period. So far it has always come back up, but there's always the concern that it might not always do so in the future. So I wonder: is the data backed up or mirrored somewhere? Granted, archive.org does an ok job: Main Page But it would be nice with a more proactive strategy. Larsbrinkhoff (talk) 09:13, 6 October 2022 (CEST)
- I think Tore might have an automatic backup running, but I'm not sure. The problem with archive.org is that it might save the articles, but I'm not sure about the history.
- The big concern along these lines, for me, is that Tore runs the whole thing 'out of his back pocket', as the expression in English goes. So if he is crossing the street and gets run over by a truck, we're SOL at the moment: the DNS entry, hosting, etc are all in his name.
- I did mention this to him, a while back, and he understood the concern, but I got sick, and we never pushed forward to get an improvement picked and put in place.
- Ideally, there should be some sort of link to an institution (such as the CHM, or the CBI), so that there is a more guaranteed long-term future. Of course, such a link would also require working out a workable relationship, for both sides - and there is the concern that they would want to run the show, in directions that they pick.
- But a number of people have put in a lot of work (in my case, quite a lot), and we really ought to do something to make sure it is safeguarded for the future.
- Are you up for helping make something happen? Jnc (talk) 13:38, 7 October 2022 (CEST)
- Yes, I can help. I know a few friendly people at CHM, for example. Having an organization run the server is better, but I still don't like if there's a single point of failure. One thing at a time, I guess. Larsbrinkhoff (talk) 14:59, 7 October 2022 (CEST)
