intwiki-l should be abolished and the wikipedia / wikien-l distinction should be more actively enforced. Regards, Erik

On Sat, Jan 04, 2003 at 10:14:32AM +0100, Magnus Manske 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? We already do something similar for the links on article pages, where we classify the links according to their size. Jonathan -- Geek House Productions, Ltd. Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting, QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation, General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998 Phone: 604-435-1205 Email: djw(a)reactor-core.org Webpage: http://reactor-core.org Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC V5R2W2

On Sat, Jan 04, 2003 at 10:25:00AM +0100, Erik Moeller wrote: 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. -- Geek House Productions, Ltd. Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting, QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation, General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998 Phone: 604-435-1205 Email: djw(a)reactor-core.org Webpage: http://reactor-core.org Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC V5R2W2

Jimmy Wales wrote: 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

|From: Magnus Manske <magnus.manske(a)epost.de> |X-Accept-Language: de-de, en-us, en |Sender: wikipedia-l-admin(a)wikipedia.org |Reply-To: wikipedia-l(a)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