I'm sure if you asked the guy he'll give you the code, but keeping the code concealed may be a good thing because it'll stave off the bot being compromised for some time.
Yup. You really think that Wiki folks would keep it quiet if there wasn't a plausible reason? Come on!
We already have several open bot frameworks, it's purportedly an easy task to whip up a vandalbot. There's even a similar transclusion-checking bot that was made open source. And surely making MediaWiki itself open source was even more dangerous, and yet, there you go.
And finally of course there's argumentum ad Jimbo.
Dan
This just occurred to me. I'm probably wrong, but there you go... This bot is on RfA. So surely, whatever it does, it needs sysop privileges. Therefore, releasing the code does nothing to help vandals as vandals don't have sysop accounts... Or is that just misguided?
On 1/9/07, dmehkeri@swi.com dmehkeri@swi.com wrote:
I'm sure if you asked the guy he'll give you the code, but keeping the
code
concealed may be a good thing because it'll stave off the bot being compromised for some time.
Yup. You really think that Wiki folks would keep it quiet if there wasn't a plausible reason? Come on!
We already have several open bot frameworks, it's purportedly an easy task to whip up a vandalbot. There's even a similar transclusion-checking bot that was made open source. And surely making MediaWiki itself open source was even more dangerous, and yet, there you go.
And finally of course there's argumentum ad Jimbo.
Dan
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Gary Kirk wrote:
This just occurred to me. I'm probably wrong, but there you go... This bot is on RfA. So surely, whatever it does, it needs sysop privileges. Therefore, releasing the code does nothing to help vandals as vandals don't have sysop accounts... Or is that just misguided?
Well, the code theoretically could be used to circumvent the bot, so the argument goes.
I mean, I can't see the code, so I can't verify that, but still...
-Jeff
On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 11:30:12 -0500 (EST), "Jeff Raymond" jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
I can't see the code, so I can't verify that
What was the reply when you emailed, then?
Guy (JzG)
On 1/9/07, Gary Kirk gary.kirk@gmail.com wrote:
This just occurred to me. I'm probably wrong, but there you go... This bot is on RfA. So surely, whatever it does, it needs sysop privileges. Therefore, releasing the code does nothing to help vandals as vandals don't have sysop accounts... Or is that just misguided?
On 1/9/07, dmehkeri@swi.com dmehkeri@swi.com wrote:
I'm sure if you asked the guy he'll give you the code, but keeping
the
code
concealed may be a good thing because it'll stave off the bot being compromised for some time.
Yup. You really think that Wiki folks would keep it quiet if there wasn't a plausible reason? Come on!
We already have several open bot frameworks, it's purportedly an easy
task
to whip up a vandalbot. There's even a similar transclusion-checking bot
that
was made open source. And surely making MediaWiki itself open source was
even
more dangerous, and yet, there you go.
And finally of course there's argumentum ad Jimbo.
Dan
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Gary Kirk
No, see the answer to question 11 on the RfA. The function adding the protection tags can be easily changed to vandalize articles instead. The code to actually do the protection would be unused.