|From: Magnus Manske magnus.manske@epost.de |X-Accept-Language: de-de, en-us, en |Sender: wikipedia-l-admin@wikipedia.org |Reply-To: wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org |Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2003 18:46:35 +0100 | |Jimmy Wales wrote: | |>The ability to signal to others that an edit is minor is useful and should |>be continued. Denying this ability to anon users is reasonable, and does not |>prevent them from making any edits. Soft security at its finest. |> |> |I agree with that. But, maybe we shouldn't abandon Jonathan's idea, but |use it for soft security. Similar to a prior suggestion of mine: | |Those who want can activate a user option that marks "suspicious" edits. |That would include |* edits by IPs (anons) that remove more than 20% of the article (in bytes) |* edits (by IPs, or anyone) that add certain keywords (f**k, etc.) |* edits by IPs whose edits have been "rolled back" (with the function) |lately |* edits by IPs who are listed on the Vandalism in Progress page | |These are just some ideas that come to mind. More can be added. This |won't find all vandals, and will have a false alert once in a while, but |could improve the "hit rate" on malicious edits. | |Magnus |
These suggestions by Magnus follow the lines of the most effective first-line mail filters, which have been shown to work very well without needlessly restricting information flow.
Tom P. O88