 | Welcome to this sandbox page, a space to experiment with editing.
You can either edit the source code ("Edit source" tab above) or use VisualEditor (here). Click the "Publish changes" button when finished. You can click "Show preview" to see a preview of your edits, or "Show changes" to see what you have changed. Anyone can edit this page and it is automatically cleared regularly (anything you write will not remain indefinitely). Click here to reset the sandbox. You can use your personal sandbox, instead, or using the "Sandbox" link in the top right.Creating an account gives you access to a personal sandbox, among other benefits. Please do not place copyrighted, offensive, illegal or libelous content in the sandboxes. For more info about sandboxes, see Wikipedia:About the sandbox and Help:My sandbox. New to Wikipedia? See the contributing to Wikipedia page or our tutorial. Questions? Try the Teahouse! |
.png){kind=link}
Heading
User:Finlay McWalter:sandbox Wikipedia might be a wonderful thing, but I think it is going to cumble under its own weight. I have a broad band connection an Wikipedia is so slow in editing and finding pages that I feel like giving up. Lots of times it times out all-together. The program itself is probably so cumbersome that it can't move and the server underpowered. when can we expect better? I donated a little. Phil 23:33, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Another heading
Well, the changes will take time to come in affect. With more and more users growing onto Wikipedia it will be slow at some times but usually the pages do load even after a few minutes. You can use Google if you want to view a cache of the page if you like. --Thorpe :: talk | contributions 23:39, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Just out of interest, which operating system and web browser are your running? You might find Dillo on either Linux, BSD or Mac OS X serves you better for speed. I haven't tried editing the wiki with it, so i don't know if the frame support would be a problem, but from experience it is the fastest I've found to date. Alf melmac 23:47, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia runs on a fairly large collection of servers, using sop histicated (and extremely high speed) caching mechanisms. It is among the top 50 highest traffic websites in the world (see m:Wikipedia.org_is_more_popular_than...), run by the non-profit Wikimedia_foundation and programmed nearly entirely by volunteers. If you're interested in the technical details, you might read Wikipedia:Technical FAQ. Thank you for donating. The money will go to more server hardware, which WILL help the response times. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:24, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
[edit]
2 Finding and removing "hidden" "bad" articles
I just came across the Gbwillia article, which AFIK is complete nonsense. (So, I marked it up with the {nonsense} tag.) It's apparently been in Wikipedia for months. It occurs to me that perhaps there's other "bad" articles that nobody ever sees and so they don't get deleted. Is there a way to search for articles that are un-linked to? Or, better yet to avoid the more creative rube who creates several bogus articles and circularly links them, to find sets of articles that are not linked to the remainder of Wikipedia? This won't solve the problem but it's the best solution I can come up with. --kop 23:37, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
It's a red link which means it isn't an article. --Thorpe :: talk | contributions 23:43, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Thorpe, that's because someone speedy deleted it. op, go to the main page, scroll all the way down and you'll see a link for "New pages" as well as "Orphan pages". New pages are created every few minutes by vandals with no useful content like the one you found. There are many Wikipedians who check this list as often as possible to try to weed them out. Also, you can help by finding useful articles in the orphans and making links to them from related articles. Or if you want to help in other ways, go to Wikipedia:Community Portal and look at the section entitled "Open tasks" for even more ways to help. Dismas 23:46, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Dismas, thanks, but that does not solve the problem. I found that article looking at recent edits, but it had not been edited for months and apparently made it through the initial 'weed out' of bad initial pages (probably by looking like techno gobbledy gook.) What I'm looking for is a way to find those bogus pages that are just sitting there, untouched and unreferenced. --kop 00:01, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Sounds like you're talking about orphaned articles, which is one of the things Dismas was pointing you to, see Special:Lonelypages (and it's talk page, with pointers to lists of orphaned articles). The orphaned article lists haven't been updated in a long time. If you're interested and have the expertise, it would be very helpful if you could do this. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:39, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
[edit]
3 In search of bot that suggests wikilinks (not interwikilinks!)