> > * TMC (though whether it's the same as the
> > TMC we know of old, who knows)
>
> I had no involvement with any edits made as "TMC".
> Whatever happened on Saturday (when the above was
> sent), I missed it.
If I remember correctly, the vandalism was done by a party logged in as
"Throbing Monster Cock" with one "b" in "throbing". Another vandal was "Edd
Poor" with two "d"s.
Matt (Montrealais)
Montreal, Quebec
I'm still seeing way too many similarities between having multiple themed
Sifter groups and Erik's team certification proposal. What is the putpose of
Erik's idea? From what I gather it is to create selections of articles that
have been reviewed by different groups. Each group would have its own rules
on certification and on who they decide should be group members. These
members would "certify" certain articles based upon those criteria and then a
list of articles certified by any particular group would be automatically
generated. Heck, this can be done right now without any change to the
software so long as group members manually added articles to a list.
Sifter will be doing the /exact/ same thing except instead of compiling a
list, particular article versions are automatically copied to a separate
static website. There is no reason why a log of articles that have been
uploaded by any particular Sifter group couldn't be generated and available
at Wikipedia.
One of the great things, it was thought, about Sifter was that /no/ changes
would have to be made to PediaWiki for it to work. But Erik wants to change
the software anyway to do a very similar thing from within Wikipedia. So why
not marry the two ideas and get the best of both worlds? Then when somebody
visits a Wikipedia article that has been reviewed they will be able to see
that at least a previous version had been reviewed. They would also be
presented a link to a static copy of the certified version (with maybe a diff
link so that the person can easily compare it with the current Wikipedia
version). I don't think this is possible with the "hands-off Wikipedia"
version of Sifter.
The trouble with Erik's certification idea is that people still can't rely on
certified articles because somebody could completely replace a certified
article with another version right after it is certified. Sifter versions are
stable and therefore something that can be trusted (so long as you trust the
quality and reputation of the Sifter member that certified the article and
Sifter group that the member belongs to).
And as soon as there are a certain number of certified articles for any
particular themed Sifter group, then a CD can be made of that selection -- no
need to recheck each article for vandalism or rubbish that has been added
since certification.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
PS I probably missed some points or even misrepresented Erik's certification
idea. If this is the case, I apologize in advance and please do correct me
Erik (I can't find your original email on this).
Hi all,
I took a some time out the past few days and used my developing Perl
skills to write an encyclopedia meta-search engine, which will at least
temporarily live at:
http://www.seeatown.com/search/
The default settings search only four encyclopedias, but you can choose
from up to 18 (and counting). You can change the encyclopedias searched
on the settings page.
I hope you find this useful! Obviously, I think Wikipedia and Nupedia
should write articles better than all the articles you'll see via this
interface. ;-) But it should be a useful way to get a benchmark idea of
what we want out of a basic encyclopedia article on a topic.
I could really use your help in finding more encyclopedia-type websites to
include. The way the script is written now, one requirement is that the
source website's search results page reproduce the search terms in the URL
(i.e., for those who know about HTML forms, the website should use "GET"
rather than "POST").
Feature requests are also welcome.
By the way, in coding and testing this website I discovered (at least to
my own satisfaction) that Wikipedia is far and away the most complete
*free* (gratis) resource online.
Larry
--
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the obvious is
the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell
Many vandals hide behind shared HTTP proxies, which makes them difficult
to ban.
Here's an idea:
Add a new attribute to user accounts:
* "authenticated" users are users **who have supplied a non-throwaway
E-mail address**: authentication to be done by sending them an E-mail
which they have to reply to, in the same way as mailing list authentication.
We can then "greylist" IP addresses or ranges, so that only
''authenticated'' logged-in users can post from behind these addresses.
We can point out to new users from these ISPs that the reason why they
are being asked to authenticate is that other users from the same ISP
have acted as vandals.
The good bit:
* At the same time, non-greylisted IP addresses can still allow
anonymous or non-authenticated user account edits, so we stay "open" to
>99.99% of all users.
We should greylist just the IP address for a proxy, or the whole /19
range for a user IP address: this is the minimum routable block on the
Internet, and will generally catch all users from a particular region.
This significantly increases the costs to vandals, and provides
traceability back to providers, or even real identities if necessary.
Vandals can go on making new accounts as many times as they like, but
they have to incur the costs of setting up new provider accounts every
time we ban their user account. (I believe that ISPs share phone
numbers and credit card numbers of persistent abusers, so these people
will either end up without access, or using rogue providers, who we can
then blacklist. )
Then, we can reserve "blacklisting" only for IP addresses that are
beyond hope, such as individual users who are non-cooperative, or
providers without a workable anti-abuse policy. "Blacklisting" should
then ban all editing.
We can also refuse to accept authentication E-mails from E-mail
providers who do not have a good abuse policy.
Neil
I wondered why there were about 60 articles with zero bytes waiting to
be deleted, and nearly as many with less than 50 (usually a sign that
they're either a typoed redirect, vandalism, or a mistake). But after
waiting more than five minutes for a single delete to be confirmed now I
know...
You can add as many bells and whistles to the wikipedia as you like, but
they do no good when the basic functioning doesn't.
--
Karen AKA Kajikit
To err is human... to really foul things up add kitten and stir.
Come and visit my part of the web:
Kajikit's Corner: http://Kajikit.netfirms.com/
Aussie Support Mailing List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AussieSupport
Allergyfree Eating Recipe Swap:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Allergyfree_Eating
Ample Aussies Mailing List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ampleaussies/
We have a [[goatse.cx]] article, and I don't like it. But anyone who's foolish enough to click on the link for it will be able to read it. And anyone who's foolhardy enough to click on the external image link will see it.
And do us a favor -- or at least Karen, who requested it -- and change the f------- a------ subject line in your replies. Please.
Ed Poor
LearII uploaded the following, which appears to be an attempt to read from
one port on one box and write to a port on another box. He also uploaded
another PHP file, which was an attempt to list the files on the server. PHP
doesn't run in the upload directory, and he left out the semicolons, but
would someone please block him?
phma
---
<html>
<body>
<?php
?arg1=a&arg2=b&arg3=c&arg4=d
$fp2 = fsockopen($arg1, $arg2)
$fp1 = fsockopen($arg3, $arg4)
set_socket_blocking($fp1, false)
set_socket_blocking($fp2, false)
while (1) {
$recvbuf = fgets( $fp1, 512)
fwrite($fp2,$recvbuf,strlen($recvbuf))
$recvbuf2 = fgets( $fp2, 512)
fwrite($fp1,$recvbuf2,strlen($recvbuf2))
}
fclose($fp1);
fclose($fp2);
}
?>
</body>
</html>
What it comes down to is a tough choice between two choices:
(1) We are building a free encyclopedia. Therefore, we use Wiki software.
(2) We are maintaining a Wiki community. If we make some good encyclopedia articles, that's nice too.
Which is it going to be, people?
I happen to think both are possible, but our choice of which to make PRIMARY will make all the difference. "Two roads diverged in a yellow wood..."
If we make Wiki participation primary, and allow anyone with a magic marker and a pair of scissors to come in and deface or cut out any page, eventually the vandals will overcome the project. It won't happen in 2002; but I won't take any bets on the next 3 years.
Clutch has been reined in, somewhat, by my mentoring. Lir has become bearable, but not trustworthy. While I personally don't mind spending 80% of my screen time checking up on the kids, that's because I really am a Sunday School teacher: I see the value in helping kids to grow up. However, others lack the time or patience or "talent" for this kind of mentoring.
Also, as a mentor of my friends' children, I did not only speak softly; I carried a "big stick". I could give a time out, or even do the dreaded letter-to-the-parents ploy. "Johnny, what will your parents do with you if I write them a letter telling them everything you did today?" "Oh, please, don't send that letter! I'll be good!" "Very well, go apologize to Billy." "Billy, I'm sorry I hit you!!"
Cunctator correctly points out that an analogy could be taken too far. But he misses several points:
* like a Sunday School, the Wikipedia has a lofty goal (higher ideal)
* the enjoyment of peace resulting from not being hurt by others (golden rule)
* I refused to accept students in my class whose parents required their attendance (no prisoners)
The reason attendance increased in proportion to order was that the children found out (and told their friends) how pleasant it was to be there. Kids are aware of the difference between order and chaos. They're not all imbeciles or trouble-makers; even the rambunctious ones just want to have fun. As a teacher, I channeled that desire for enjoyment in a positive direction.
Cunctator, you're never going to call me "Uncle Ed", because you're not one of the kids. You are the paradigmatic example of the rational anarchist. I may not agree with all your article edits, but I can work with you. I can't really work with Lir and her ilk.
Lir proclaimed herself Empress of Wikipedia, if you recall. We others contribute only as she deigns. Maybe this was a joke; I certainly tried to characterize it as such. But in jokes can often be found a germ of truth.
Unless a contributor shows that they place NPOV, et al., above their other goals for participation, then I for one do not and cannot trust them. I don't have to check up after the dozens of contributors I've come to admire. Sure, they might make a typo or grammar error; sure, I can tighten up some wordy prose or wikify it a bit; yes, occasionally they'll get a fact wrong by accident. But when Jeronimo or Axel, to pick just 2 out of many dozens, makes a change -- I rest tranquil in the confidence that I will not have to check for a neutrality violation. I only read the article if I'm curious about the subject.
Like Larry, Julie and the lot, I too get tired of clean-up duty. I would find it less tiresome (A) if more people would be mentors, as Erik suggests; and also (B) if we had moderators with just a bit more power and some rules that were a bit stronger and to the point than "do as you like".
I myself chose the 3 rules of my Sunday School class, after watching Ah-nuld in Kindergarten Cop. I adapted his approach to the situation and after some trial and error settled on (1) no hitting, (2) no grabbing, (3) no teasing. The only sanctions I permitted myself were (A) time-out and (B) "take this letter to your father, please" (i.e., expulsion).
I regard our situation of November 2002 as somewhere between the date I saw Kindergarten Cop and the date I settled upon the "three noes" described above. It was a period of sorting things out, in discussion with parents and church officials.
I took it upon myself to start using power, even before it was authorized. I just decided I wouldn't endure the chaos any more, and like Ah-nuld I "blew the whistle", so to speak: I appointed myself sheriff. Okay, I was a vigilante or an "elitist", a one-man "cabal". But that is often how government arises out of anarchy.
No system is perfect. The US separation of powers into legislative, executive and judiciary isn't perfect. Wikipedia works because Jimbo is a genuinely good guy. It is *de facto* a benevolent dictatorship. What will happen after control and sponsorship passes from his hands is anyone's guess.
I don't really know what is best for Wikipedia. But if I had the power to do so, I would give all sysops banning rights over signed-in contributors; with each ban undoable by any other sysop. Or we could create a super-sysop (moderator) with that power, undoable by any other moderator. This obviously leaves open the question of who should have "ban-a-signed-in-user" power. I guess we could just discuss it on the list, as we do now with granting sysop power.
But whether we do this or not, we need to come up with a clear (and preferable short) list of rules. My Sunday School rules were as short as possible, mainly so that even a 4-year-old could understand them. What is teasing? You said something that hurt his feelings. Don't call someone "stupid", okay? "Okay, teacher." Same with calling a picture someone drew "ugly". If you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all. These ideas are easy for children to understand.
Wikipedia is not for children. It's run by adults, and nearly of them are men. Does the fact that men are not children mean that Wikipedia need no rules, no "hard security"? Even anarchy requires guidelines or customs of some sort. If everyone carries swords and knives, then you show an open hand as sign of friendship when you approach another armed man, or you risk a sudden skewering. That's a custom -- not a law.
We have some customs. We need to review and codify them. "Ignore all rules" will have to go. "Please follow the rules or be blocked" will have to replace it.
I suggest -- and hereby formally submit for the community's consideration -- that we formulate a set of rules, which like my Sunday School's "three noes" are readily seen as mutually helpful. That is, contributors will follow the rule set we will formulate, BECAUSE DOING SO IS TO THEIR BENEFIT as well as to the benefit of others and the project as a whole.
Here is a partial list of the customs or guidelines I see as already in place:
* don't delete an entire article or insert random nonsense (no vandalism)
* don't alter other user's comments (no forgery)
* don't write partisan articles on controversial subjects (NPOV)
* don't post copyrighted material, except fair use
Here are the 3 enforcement mechanisms:
* anyone can undo a change, thus reverting the vandalism, forgery or POV violation (soft security)
* a sysop or above can ban an IP address
* developers can ban a signed-in user (not "authorized" but "can")
* Jimbo can ban a signed-in user
Is this is fine, then let's keep it. If it could possibly be improved, let's improve it.
Ed Poor
"My opinions are only mine, not my employer's."
Erik Zachte wrote:
>Maybe this has been asked before, anyway: couldn't a script be writtten
>for administrators to roll back all changes made by a certain user or ip
>address after a certain date/time, provided noone else has updated
>since.
>
>
I wrote about just that 10 minutes ago; didn't my mail make it through?
Anyway, on user contributions, all edits of a user that are still
current revision are now marked with "(top)". Makes it easier to see
what still needs reverting. Online for en and de.
Magnus
I like the idea expressed by Anthere and others of finding a way to shield tender eyes from "adult" stuff. A significant minority of users believe that young people of a certain age should not be exposed to certain materials.
This is totally without prejudice to the debate over whether sexuality is "sinful", just a reflection of the desire of many parents and educators to introduce some subjects step by step, keyed to the maturity level of the learner.
Someday, we plan to make the Wikipedia available on CD-ROM for schools and libraries that don't have T-1 lines (or the patience to tolerate the "lag" problem). It would be very useful to allow a parent or educator to filter out a few articles such as [[****-piercing]] or [[fisting]] or whatever.
A rating system would facilitate this.
I myself would like to be able to filter out the following (in no particular order):
* Any mention of TMC's username (as in Recent Changes, his user page and user talk page)
* All articles on bizarre sexuality (BDSM, etc.)
I would like to retain the articles related to homosexuality, since they are so well written (i.e., NPOV rather than pro-gay) -- but I might be biased by pride of workmanship since I put a lot of effort into some of them.
Those who don't want this filtering should be able to bypass it easily.
So it could be a user option, with the default set to NO FILTERING.
Ed Poor
Tolerant Absolutist