I propose that in the new software, we might want to have better tools for tracing the work of pranksters.
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki.cgi?action=history&id=Muslim_Language
This shows that the first revision and 4th revision, both written by 168.143.112.xxx, contain references to a "secret Arabic language", with a link. The link is to a page with a "dictionary". Upon inspection, you'll see that the "dictionary" is for a pig-latin variant.
So this is obviously a "joke", although since it isn't really funny and probably isn't meant to be funny, a "hoax" or "prank" is probably a better word.
Naturally, I wonder what else 168.143.112.xxx may have edited. It would be nice to be able to click on that as a link and see.
Or perhaps we could just have a special search function to allow us to do this.
Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com writes:
Naturally, I wonder what else 168.143.112.xxx may have edited. It would be nice to be able to click on that as a link and see.
Indeed. And if this is implemented, maybe we could do away with showing IP adresses altogether? It seems to me that the only use for the addresses is hunting through Recent Changes in cases like the one you describe.
No functionality would be lost if the changlog rather showed a unique number with no (obvious) meaning, that, when clicked, led you to a list of changes coming from the same IP address.
Righty. That unique number could be a cookie-based number. The first time someone visits, we assign them a cookie. Thereafter, they are identified by that cookie.
This is by no means a certain defense against an attacker. A only slightly sophisticated attacker could just turn off cookies in his or her browser.
But I imagine that the sort of pinhead who goes around writing "fart" in all the articles is also the sort of pinhead who wouldn't know how to turn off cookies.
The fallback, in the event that someone doesn't use cookies, could be the ip number. But we could further "munge" it into a unique identifier to help enhance privacy.
Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com writes:
Naturally, I wonder what else 168.143.112.xxx may have edited. It would be nice to be able to click on that as a link and see.
Indeed. And if this is implemented, maybe we could do away with showing IP adresses altogether? It seems to me that the only use for the addresses is hunting through Recent Changes in cases like the one you describe.
No functionality would be lost if the changlog rather showed a unique number with no (obvious) meaning, that, when clicked, led you to a list of changes coming from the same IP address.
-- Robbe
I think tracking IP numbers is the way to go. It's unambiguous, although people going through large ISPs will probably have different IPs assigned each session. I also like the idea of mapping the address to a unique identifier.
I'd go so far as to give all logged-in Wikipedias the power to assign aliases to the identifiers. When we see a particular identifier acting like "fartboy," we can label it as such so it shows up that way in RecentChanges.
Jimmy Wales wrote:
But I imagine that the sort of pinhead who goes around writing "fart" in all the articles is also the sort of pinhead who wouldn't know how to turn off cookies.
Well, maybe Usemod should require cookies be turned on in order to edit. But I still prefer tracking IP numbers.
<>< [[Tbc]]
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals. http://personals.yahoo.com
Let me raise a potentially delicate social issue. :-)
One of the wonderful things about the wiki software, and something that has served us very well so far, is that it is totally wide open. I suspect that any significant deviation from that would kill the magic of the process.
On the other hand, we really are moving into uncharted territory. Wikipedia is already, as far as I know, the most active and heavily trafficked wiki to ever exist. It seems a virtual certainty that the wide open model will start to show some strain (primarily from vandalism) as we move forward.
(Even now, we see "only" about 5,000 unique visitors a day. Imagine when that it 50,000 or 150,000. Or more.)
I have this idea that there should be in the software some concept of "old timer" or "karma points". This would empower some shadowy mysterious elite group of us to do things that might not be possible for newbies. Editing the homepage for example. We already had one instance of very ugly graffiti posted there (a pornographic cartoon).
Some principles that we should use if/when we move in that direction:
1. Cabal membership is available to anyone who puts in time -- there should be no ability by the part of existing cabal members to blackball anyone. The reason for this principle is that we don't want there to be a temptation to ideological blackballing. Anyone who shows up and sticks around for a couple of weeks can be trusted enough to give total freedom.
2. Cabal membership should not give anyone any super powers, just a handful of little things, like locking and unlocking the HomePage, or placing a temporary block on an IP address or UserID.
3. Newcomers should not have to know or realize that they are restricted in any way from doing things that some old timers can do. We should always leave things as open as possible, not requiring login, registration, etc.
3. Of course, as owner of the physical machine where Wikipedia is located, I always retain absolute dictatorial power over everything, if necessary. So if someone gets cabal membership and uses it to vandalize, I could revoke the status unilaterally.
Basically, I think we always want to make a distinction between true vandalism and mere un-encyclopedic behavior. We want to develop little tools and tricks to help us block true vandalism, while keeping things totally open for people to *work for consensus* on article content. The "New Age" debate was good and healthy, and never rose to the level of vandalism.
On Thursday 18 October 2001 21:22, you wrote:
Let me raise a potentially delicate social issue. :-)
Hey, Jimmy, you don't have to tell us anything. We understand ... <g>
I have this idea that there should be in the software some concept of "old timer" or "karma points". This would empower some shadowy mysterious elite group of us to do things that might not be possible for newbies. Editing the homepage for example.
I would include in that the "portal" pages coming directly off the home page. If someone vandalises "the Snakehandling Foursquare Gospel Church of Upper Appalachia", chances are few people will have seen it before it gets fixed. But you can do subtle damage in "Religion" that could be much more long-lasting, not even maliciously, just out of ignorance.
- Cabal membership is available to anyone who puts in time
How does that affect existing wikipedians? I suggest we all start at 0 - it seems the fairest thing to do. The only problem with that one is that the "locked" pages will remain static for a week or two.
The alternative would be for you and/or Larry to start a preliminary cabal with people you know and trust and let it go on automatically from there. If you decide to go this route, maybe not let the rabble know what their betters are up to? <g>
Once instituted, will the software automatically assign cabal status or will you and/or Larry do this manually? If automatic, what prevents a really persistent vandal from suddenly being blessed with cabal membership? If manually, how do we stop even the perception that this is really the Jimmy Wales Admiration Society?
Also, does cabal membership expire when you go on holiday for a few weeks? If so, how long can the "real world" call you away from the wikiworld before your cabalicity (cabalaciousness? cabalicality?) expires?
- Cabal membership should not give anyone any super powers, just a handful of little things, like locking and unlocking the HomePage, or placing a temporary block on an IP address or UserID.
agreed, but see my comment on (1)
Technically speaking, I work from different machines and different browsers, which is why some of my work is attributed to my IP number. Would cabal status be recognised in any of these?
- Newcomers should not have to know or realize that they are restricted in any way from doing things that some old timers can do. We should always leave things as open as possible, not requiring login, registration, etc.
Agreed
- Of course, as owner of the physical machine where Wikipedia is located, I always retain absolute dictatorial power over everything, if necessary. So if someone gets cabal membership and uses it to vandalize, I could revoke the status unilaterally.
And of course, as the guy who hacked into that machine last night, I ... OK just kidding.
The "New Age" debate was good and healthy, and never rose to the level of vandalism.
The "ManningBartlett" affair was a sad day, though
Michel Clasquin wrote:
How does that affect existing wikipedians? I suggest we all start at 0 - it seems the fairest thing to do. The only problem with that one is that the "locked" pages will remain static for a week or two.
Or we could start accumulating "points" first, and impose restrictions on newcomers later, and only as necessary.
The alternative would be for you and/or Larry to start a preliminary cabal with people you know and trust and let it go on automatically from there. If you decide to go this route, maybe not let the rabble know what their betters are up to? <g>
Well, I think that transparency is an important goal, but I also think that don't properly most newcomers won't necessarily have a clue that they are being restricted. Most good newcomers have enough sense to know that they shouldn't just edit the homepage, for example. It'd be like going to someone's house for a party and suddenly changing the music on the stereo. Most people recognize that it would be a faux pas.
Once instituted, will the software automatically assign cabal status or will you and/or Larry do this manually? If automatic, what prevents a really persistent vandal from suddenly being blessed with cabal membership? If manually, how do we stop even the perception that this is really the Jimmy Wales Admiration Society?
Right! I would say that automatic assignment is best, or anyhow some kind of "shall issue" rule that says that I won't arbitrarily withhold membership for those who qualify. (And my thinkinng on this is that qualification is really very open -- it's basically open to anyone who isn't a vandal.)
With automatic assignment, there is a chance that a vandal will jump through the hoops to get cabalhood and then do something mean. I guess that's fine. If the rules for membership are something like "must edit at least 25 times, over the course of at least 3 weeks" then someone must *really* have an axe to grind to get to it. And they have to pretend to be normal for 3 weeks. And then when they do something bad, we yank their privileges immediately, and they have to start all over.
That might happen, but in the meantime, we'd have protection against what I think is far more likely -- some punk kid with a perl script goes through and edits every page on the site one night, thus causing us a big pain in the neck to fix it.
Also, does cabal membership expire when you go on holiday for a few weeks? If so, how long can the "real world" call you away from the wikiworld before your cabalicity (cabalaciousness? cabalicality?) expires?
:-) I don't know! Good questions!
My thinking was that all it means to be a member is that you aren't a jerk. That's probably a lifelong thing, so expiration might not be necessary. Anyhow, what I envision is that the powers granted are *very small and narrow*, tailored specifically for site defense against vandals.
Technically speaking, I work from different machines and different browsers, which is why some of my work is attributed to my IP number. Would cabal status be recognised in any of these?
I suppose a person would have to work "logged in" to get credit.
The "ManningBartlett" affair was a sad day, though
I missed that one. I'll go review it now.
On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Michel Clasquin wrote:
Once instituted, will the software automatically assign cabal status or will you and/or Larry do this manually? If automatic, what prevents a really persistent vandal from suddenly being blessed with cabal membership? If manually, how do we stop even the perception that this is really the Jimmy Wales Admiration Society?
I think this should be done automatically. A persistent vandal blessed with cabal membership would have a banned IP, complaints to sysops, etc. As for the perception, the club should be inclusive. I've you've been working on Wikipedia for some minimum amount of time, you should be in. This means that 80% of the people who work on Wikipedia should be in. There's no reasonable way to construe that as the JWAS. :-) Besides, Jimbo's proposal is to keep the very existence of the old timers' rights semi-secret.
Also, does cabal membership expire when you go on holiday for a few weeks? If so, how long can the "real world" call you away from the wikiworld before your cabalicity (cabalaciousness? cabalicality?) expires?
Why let it expire at all?
Technically speaking, I work from different machines and different browsers, which is why some of my work is attributed to my IP number. Would cabal status be recognised in any of these?
Magnus' code lets you log in with a username and password.
Larry
lsanger@nupedia.com wrote:
Besides, Jimbo's proposal is to keep the very existence of the old timers' rights semi-secret.
Although it isn't inaccurate, exactly, I don't like spinning it in this way. Everything should be transparent and explained on the site in an appropriate place. It's just that if you're a newcomer, you needn't be burdened with knowing some of the advanced information before you can participate.
Mostly, people can just edit almost all pages the same as ever. If they've been around for awhile, it turns out that a link to edit the homepage magically appears. I suspect many newcomers will never know when they went from "newbie" to "Jimmy Wales Admiration Society" members. ;-)
Why let it expire at all?
Right, I would agree with this. Mostly, if someone isn't a troll, they'll continue to not be a troll. It's an empirical question. If someday we find that a bunch of former participants who we haven't heard from in a long time are coming back and writing "fart" on all the pages, we can make an adjustment.
Magnus' code lets you log in with a username and password.
Well worth looking at:
http://php.wikipedia.com is easy to remember, and leads us to:
http://wikipedia.sourceforge.net/fpw/wiki.phtml
On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Jimmy Wales wrote:
On the other hand, we really are moving into uncharted territory. Wikipedia is already, as far as I know, the most active and heavily trafficked wiki to ever exist. It seems a virtual certainty that the wide open model will start to show some strain (primarily from vandalism) as we move forward.
(Even now, we see "only" about 5,000 unique visitors a day. Imagine when that it 50,000 or 150,000. Or more.)
So we have a problem we are not yet faced with on a serious scale (even though Fartboy is very annoying), but we can very reasonably expect that it will develop into a more serious problem. OK.
And Jimbo's karma points idea is a solution to *that* problem.
I want to try to place a few constraints on the solution. First, I'd just like to reiterate that ease of use and openness are what have made Wikipedia work so well so far, and we should do our best to retain those features, just as Jimbo said. Second, I think it is important, in view of the widely-reported experience of Everything2, that we not create an "elite," or even the public impression of an "elite"--again, as Jimbo has said. This coheres well with experience on Wikipedia; some people, reasonably or not, have left Wikipedia on grounds of perceived personal slights by persons perceived as "leaders." One of the ways to prevent more such silliness is to downplay, as much as possible, the idea that there *are* "leaders" on Wikipedia. Even those of us paid to work on Wikipedia should try, as much as we can anyway :-), to be members, or soldiers, rather than generals.
I don't think these constraints entail that we reject Jimbo's proposal. If we simply create an "old timer" category of participant, there will soon be quite enough of them that it will be unreasonable for newbies to think that we are being *elitist* (if they even realize that there is a category of old timers.
I'm not sure if the "karma points" idea can be reconciled with the constraints I suggest, though. I'd have to hear more about it, I guess.
- Cabal membership is available to anyone who puts in time -- there should be no ability by the part of existing cabal members to blackball anyone. The reason for this principle is that we don't want there to be a temptation to ideological blackballing. Anyone who shows up and sticks around for a couple of weeks can be trusted enough to give total freedom.
Absolutely. Remember what problem we're trying to solve: we aren't trying to create an elite group of editors, we're trying to disempower vandals, and *that's all*.
- Cabal membership should not give anyone any super powers, just a handful of little things, like locking and unlocking the HomePage, or placing a temporary block on an IP address or UserID.
Right.
- Newcomers should not have to know or realize that they are restricted in any way from doing things that some old timers can do. We should always leave things as open as possible, not requiring login, registration, etc.
If it can be hidden, that isn't a bad idea.
Basically, I think we always want to make a distinction between true vandalism and mere un-encyclopedic behavior. We want to develop little tools and tricks to help us block true vandalism, while keeping things totally open for people to *work for consensus* on article content. The "New Age" debate was good and healthy, and never rose to the level of vandalism.
With this I agree 100%. I think it's very important that we bear in mind that a distinction can be made between bad edits and vandalism. The purpose of an "old timer" category would not be to discourage bad edits; for that we have the Recent Changes page and good old mutual editing.
Larry
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org