On 1/3/03 10:56 AM, "Erik Moeller" e.moeller@fokus.gmd.de wrote:
It is my understanding that this was the consensus, so I have disabled the "minor edit" checkbox for anonymous users. The reasoning here is that an anon can never gain the trust necessary to have his edits ignored by some users.
Note that the checkbox is simply not rendered, an anon can theoretically still get an edit marked as minor with URL magic. I'll try to get to that later.
This is not good. Please change it back until this can be better discussed.
This is a wikipedia-l issue, not wikitech-l issue.
The Cunctator cunctator=+4VDYf+6WHMAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org wrote in news:BA3BAE8A.5DF3%cunctator@kband.com:
This is a wikipedia-l issue, not wikitech-l issue.
If it is for all wikipedia's, it is a Intlwiki-l issue. Wikipedia-l is only the second list of en.wikipedia.
The Cunctator wrote:
On 1/3/03 10:56 AM, "Erik Moeller" e.moeller@fokus.gmd.de wrote:
It is my understanding that this was the consensus, so I have disabled the "minor edit" checkbox for anonymous users. The reasoning here is that an anon can never gain the trust necessary to have his edits ignored by some users.
This is not good. Please change it back until this can be better discussed.
It *was* that way (no minor edits for anons) some time ago, then it was changed back for some reason (maybe for no reason...).
Just leave it as "no minor edits for anons", until there's good reason to change it again.
Magnus
On Sat, Jan 04, 2003 at 10:14:32AM +0100, Magnus Manske wrote:
It is my understanding that this was the consensus, so I have disabled the "minor edit" checkbox for anonymous users. The reasoning here is that an anon can never gain the trust necessary to have his edits ignored by some users.
This is not good. Please change it back until this can be better discussed.
It *was* that way (no minor edits for anons) some time ago, then it was changed back for some reason (maybe for no reason...).
Just leave it as "no minor edits for anons", until there's good reason to change it again.
I think there shouldn't be any "minor edits" flag at all; we have the ability to have the software determine if an edit is "minor"; why not let the software flag a change as minor in the html if only a few bytes have changed? We already do something similar for the links on article pages, where we classify the links according to their size.
Jonathan
I think there shouldn't be any "minor edits" flag at all; we have the ability to have the software determine if an edit is "minor"; why not let the software flag a change as minor in the html if only a few bytes have changed?
Richard Wagner was an anti-Semite -> Richard Wagner was not an anti-Semite
4 bytes. Minor edit?
Regards,
Erik
On Sat, Jan 04, 2003 at 10:25:00AM +0100, Erik Moeller wrote:
I think there shouldn't be any "minor edits" flag at all; we have the ability to have the software determine if an edit is "minor"; why not let the software flag a change as minor in the html if only a few bytes have changed?
Richard Wagner was an anti-Semite -> Richard Wagner was not an anti-Semite
4 bytes. Minor edit?
The current system also fails to catch that one, since a person making a change like that would probably mark it as minor. My proposal to let the software do the work is no worse than the current system, and is a win from a usability point of view.
Jonathan Walther wrote:
Richard Wagner was an anti-Semite -> Richard Wagner was not an anti-Semite
4 bytes. Minor edit?
The current system also fails to catch that one, since a person making a change like that would probably mark it as minor. My proposal to let the software do the work is no worse than the current system, and is a win from a usability point of view.
I do not agree with Jonathan. The degree to which an edit is minor or not has virtually nothing to do with the number of bytes.
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.
--Jimbo
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
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.
How about giving sysops the ability to flag certain IPs as "suspicious"? I wouldn't want to extend that ability to signed in users for various reasons, though.
Personally, I think that having talk pages and a "new message" indicator for anons would go a long way to resolving many problems. I've put that in my pipeline.
Regards,
Erik
|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
The Cunctator wrote:
On 1/3/03 10:56 AM, "Erik Moeller" e.moeller@fokus.gmd.de wrote:
It is my understanding that this was the consensus, so I have disabled the "minor edit" checkbox for anonymous users. The reasoning here is that an anon can never gain the trust necessary to have his edits ignored by some users.
Note that the checkbox is simply not rendered, an anon can theoretically still get an edit marked as minor with URL magic. I'll try to get to that later.
This is not good. Please change it back until this can be better discussed.
This was discussed and decided a long time ago. It was only an accident that it got changed back.
--Jimbo
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org