-----Original Message----- From: George Herbert [mailto:george.herbert@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 03:34 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Harassment sites
On 10/15/07, fredbaud@waterwiki.info fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: David Gerard [mailto:dgerard@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 03:04 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Harassment sites
On 15/10/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 15/10/2007, fredbaud@waterwiki.info fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
The encyclopedia is the work of the community, its creation. Thus the encyclopedia is dependent on the viability and integrity of the community.
Yes, but if it comes down to one or the other ... then what?
And let me say that I consider removing the michaelmoore.com link from [[Michael Moore]] to obviously constitute damage to the encyclopedia, and if the community comes up with a rule that makes that a good idea then the community is *wrong* and the rule needs removal. That's NPA vs NPOV, i.e. the BADSITES arbitration.
- d.
There is threatening to remove the link, temporarily removing the link, using removal of the link as a negotiation point, negotiating, etc. And saying that due to his high status (and the low status of the editor who offended him) we should shine it on.
Is it possible to outright block any edit attempts with an external HTTP referrer?
We could probably safely do that as a blanket policy. Someone could still say "go here, and then click on edit" with the link to the page to edit, but that requires more steps for the abuser hordes, which cuts down on the number that will follow through.
On 10/15/07, fredbaud@waterwiki.info fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: George Herbert [mailto:george.herbert@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 03:34 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Harassment sites
On 10/15/07, fredbaud@waterwiki.info fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: David Gerard [mailto:dgerard@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 03:04 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Harassment sites
On 15/10/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 15/10/2007, fredbaud@waterwiki.info fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
The encyclopedia is the work of the community, its creation. Thus the encyclopedia is dependent on the viability and integrity of the community.
Yes, but if it comes down to one or the other ... then what?
And let me say that I consider removing the michaelmoore.com link from [[Michael Moore]] to obviously constitute damage to the encyclopedia, and if the community comes up with a rule that makes that a good idea then the community is *wrong* and the rule needs removal. That's NPA vs NPOV, i.e. the BADSITES arbitration.
- d.
There is threatening to remove the link, temporarily removing the link, using removal of the link as a negotiation point, negotiating, etc. And saying that due to his high status (and the low status of the editor who offended him) we should shine it on.
Is it possible to outright block any edit attempts with an external HTTP referrer?
We could probably safely do that as a blanket policy. Someone could still say "go here, and then click on edit" with the link to the page to edit, but that requires more steps for the abuser hordes, which cuts down on the number that will follow through.
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
That might be a bit of a coding problem as the link is not to a discrete page, but it might be possible to redirect a user of the link to a page which explains the inappropriateness of the request. We could redirect the targeted user page to a policy page, for example.
Fred
I was thinking more of a general, WIkipedia-wide rule.
Any inbound "edit" link (with a non-wikipedia.org referring URL) is terminated in the page itself, or in an error page saying "We don't let outsiders link directly to edit pages, we're redirecting you to the page in question..."
So not even specific to attack sites, but general for everyone.
As far as I can tell, all the common cases, everything I have heard of, for external links in to edit our pages, were vandalism or abuse issues. What could be legit which would do that directly?...
Quoting George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com:
On 10/15/07, fredbaud@waterwiki.info fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: George Herbert [mailto:george.herbert@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 03:34 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Harassment sites
On 10/15/07, fredbaud@waterwiki.info fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: David Gerard [mailto:dgerard@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 03:04 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Harassment sites
On 15/10/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 15/10/2007, fredbaud@waterwiki.info fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
The encyclopedia is the work of the community, its creation.
Thus the encyclopedia is dependent on the viability and integrity of the community.
Yes, but if it comes down to one or the other ... then what?
And let me say that I consider removing the michaelmoore.com link from [[Michael Moore]] to obviously constitute damage to the encyclopedia, and if the community comes up with a rule that makes that a good idea then the community is *wrong* and the rule needs removal. That's NPA vs NPOV, i.e. the BADSITES arbitration.
- d.
There is threatening to remove the link, temporarily removing the
link, using removal of the link as a negotiation point, negotiating, etc. And saying that due to his high status (and the low status of the editor who offended him) we should shine it on.
Is it possible to outright block any edit attempts with an external HTTP referrer?
We could probably safely do that as a blanket policy. Someone could still say "go here, and then click on edit" with the link to the page to edit, but that requires more steps for the abuser hordes, which cuts down on the number that will follow through.
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
That might be a bit of a coding problem as the link is not to a discrete page, but it might be possible to redirect a user of the link to a page which explains the inappropriateness of the request. We could redirect the targeted user page to a policy page, for example.
Fred
I was thinking more of a general, WIkipedia-wide rule.
Any inbound "edit" link (with a non-wikipedia.org referring URL) is terminated in the page itself, or in an error page saying "We don't let outsiders link directly to edit pages, we're redirecting you to the page in question..."
So not even specific to attack sites, but general for everyone.
As far as I can tell, all the common cases, everything I have heard of, for external links in to edit our pages, were vandalism or abuse issues. What could be legit which would do that directly?...
This makes sense, but it won't solve much. I've seen many people link to pages and say "go to this page and click on edit" or "go to this AfD and tell them to delete/don't delete our page". Adding one additional click isn't going to solve much.
On 10/15/07, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com:
On 10/15/07, fredbaud@waterwiki.info fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: George Herbert [mailto:george.herbert@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 03:34 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Harassment sites
On 10/15/07, fredbaud@waterwiki.info fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: David Gerard [mailto:dgerard@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 03:04 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Harassment sites
On 15/10/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 15/10/2007, fredbaud@waterwiki.info fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
The encyclopedia is the work of the community, its creation.
Thus the encyclopedia is dependent on the viability and integrity of the community.
Yes, but if it comes down to one or the other ... then what?
And let me say that I consider removing the michaelmoore.com link from [[Michael Moore]] to obviously constitute damage to the encyclopedia, and if the community comes up with a rule that makes that a good idea then the community is *wrong* and the rule needs removal. That's NPA vs NPOV, i.e. the BADSITES arbitration.
- d.
There is threatening to remove the link, temporarily removing the
link, using removal of the link as a negotiation point, negotiating, etc. And saying that due to his high status (and the low status of the editor who offended him) we should shine it on.
Is it possible to outright block any edit attempts with an external HTTP referrer?
We could probably safely do that as a blanket policy. Someone could still say "go here, and then click on edit" with the link to the page to edit, but that requires more steps for the abuser hordes, which cuts down on the number that will follow through.
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
That might be a bit of a coding problem as the link is not to a discrete page, but it might be possible to redirect a user of the link to a page which explains the inappropriateness of the request. We could redirect the targeted user page to a policy page, for example.
Fred
I was thinking more of a general, WIkipedia-wide rule.
Any inbound "edit" link (with a non-wikipedia.org referring URL) is terminated in the page itself, or in an error page saying "We don't let outsiders link directly to edit pages, we're redirecting you to the page in question..."
So not even specific to attack sites, but general for everyone.
As far as I can tell, all the common cases, everything I have heard of, for external links in to edit our pages, were vandalism or abuse issues. What could be legit which would do that directly?...
This makes sense, but it won't solve much. I've seen many people link to pages and say "go to this page and click on edit" or "go to this AfD and tell them to delete/don't delete our page". Adding one additional click isn't going to solve much.
The one additional click will remove a large fraction of the driveby harrassers/vandals.
How much help that ultimately is, is an open question... but it's some help for some things. And it's something where I can't see a downside, so far.