4 ms·
I think it's just not feasible/useful for most people. The latest copy of Wikipedia is 42GB, and that's not including images or earlier revisions.
by arthulia 13y ago
I think it's just not feasible/useful for most people. The latest copy of Wikipedia is 42GB, and that's not including images or earlier revisions.
- csmuk 13y agoTo be honest, a lot of wikipedia is crap. An abridged version would be a couple of gigabytes perhaps which isn't beyond the realm of possibility. That'd fit nicely on a smart phone/tablet and could be taken somewhere with less than adequate data connections (read most places on this planet).
- adrianN 13y agoGood luck with getting the editors to agree which parts are crap.
- qznc 13y agoYou can get the page view logs. You can filter out most of the garbage that way. http://dumps.wikimedia.org/other/pagecounts-raw/ http://dumps.wikimedia.org/other/pagecounts-raw/
- tommorris 13y agoJustin Bieber: 594,757 views in the last month. Origin of birds: 8,506 in the last month. Ogden L. Mills (secretary of the US Treasury under Herbert Hoover): 399 views in the last month. What is in the public interest is not the same as what the public show an interest in. Page views won't necessarily help you filter Wikipedia...
- qznc 13y agoWith filtering I was thinking about discarding everything with less then 10 views. I consider all of your examples relevant. Getting rid of pages like "Wikipeida_suxxxs" is the first step.
- tommorris 13y agoIf those pages exist, it would be awesome if you could notify admins and we'll delete them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CSD https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CSD Just edit the page and {{db-nonsense}} {{db-test}} or {{db-vandalism}} as appropriate. :)
- qznc 13y agoFor a while I had a 300MB text-only Wikipedia on my (Symbian) phone. Found most of the stuff I looked up. For example, I remember browsing some cocktail recipes.