On NL wikipedia there appears an anonymous user, IP 80.79.97.145, who regularly is making Minor changes. As it does not seem to be a robot, I am worried about this. As the number of contributers to NL wikipedia increase, it is more and more appropiate to switch off the minor changes in the Recent changes.
When asked how he is doing this, he replied something like, "Don't worry. I am not a vandal" (wich is true).
I don't like it at all, though. Can anybody explain, or does anybody have a solution?
Thanks, Elly Waterman
what's the problem?
do you forbid minor changes in nl: ?
--Optim
--- Elly Waterman elly.waterman@wanadoo.nl wrote:
On NL wikipedia there appears an anonymous user, IP 80.79.97.145, who regularly is making Minor changes
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
On Friday 23 January 2004 10:44 am, Optim wrote:
what's the problem?
do you forbid minor changes in nl: ?
--Optim
The problem is that anonymous users don't have a "click-box" (whatever the correct term is) to mark their edits as minor. Meaning that this person is doing it in some as-of-yet unknown way.
Best , Sascha Noyes
----- Original Message ----- From: "Sascha Noyes" sascha-5OWuIOc6HaDk1uMJSBkQmQ@public.gmane.org Newsgroups: gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.technical Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 6:33 PM Subject: Re: Minor changes by anonymous user
The problem is that anonymous users don't have a "click-box" (whatever the correct term is) to mark their edits as minor. Meaning that this person is doing it in some as-of-yet unknown way.
Best , Sascha Noyes --
Indeed, and in addition, I like to switch off the Minor Changes to watch only for the Bigger Changes, by regular users and ALL CHANGES by anonymous users, among which unluckily are some vandals. If vandals can in some way click this nonexisting box, they can do their hobby unnoticed, at least by me, and other sysops who work in this way.
So please, some advice, Elly
Elly Waterman elly.waterman-at-wanadoo.nl |wikipedia| wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Sascha Noyes" sascha-5OWuIOc6HaDk1uMJSBkQmQ@public.gmane.org Newsgroups: gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.technical Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 6:33 PM Subject: Re: Minor changes by anonymous user
The problem is that anonymous users don't have a "click-box" (whatever the correct term is) to mark their edits as minor. Meaning that this person is doing it in some as-of-yet unknown way.
Best , Sascha Noyes --
Indeed, and in addition, I like to switch off the Minor Changes to watch only for the Bigger Changes, by regular users and ALL CHANGES by anonymous users, among which unluckily are some vandals. If vandals can in some way click this nonexisting box, they can do their hobby unnoticed, at least by me, and other sysops who work in this way.
So please, some advice, Elly
I've found a simple bug that would make it possible for anonymous users to mark edits as minor. Exploiting it seems to require at least a little bit of effort, though. But in any case, I think you can safely assume this problem will soon be fixed.
//E23
E23 wrote:
I've found a simple bug that would make it possible for anonymous users to mark edits as minor. Exploiting it seems to require at least a little bit of effort, though. But in any case, I think you can safely assume this problem will soon be fixed.
If the bug is that the POST request just simply accepts the wgMinorEdit variable even for anonymous users, then it is pretty trivial to exploit. Just add the checkbox to your edit screens using something like Proxomitron.
Timwi
On Jan 24, 2004, at 03:51, Timwi wrote:
If the bug is that the POST request just simply accepts the wgMinorEdit variable even for anonymous users, then it is pretty trivial to exploit. Just add the checkbox to your edit screens using something like Proxomitron.
Why do we remove the checkbox anyway? It's stupid, and I find it very annoying when I happen to be making a quick edit while not logged in.
In fact I find it downright insulting that I'm not trusted to mark a spelling correction as "minor" without logging in.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 11:30:25AM -0800, Brion Vibber wrote:
On Jan 24, 2004, at 03:51, Timwi wrote:
If the bug is that the POST request just simply accepts the wgMinorEdit variable even for anonymous users, then it is pretty trivial to exploit. Just add the checkbox to your edit screens using something like Proxomitron.
Why do we remove the checkbox anyway? It's stupid, and I find it very annoying when I happen to be making a quick edit while not logged in.
In fact I find it downright insulting that I'm not trusted to mark a spelling correction as "minor" without logging in.
There are serious historical reasons for that. As in older wikis, "minor" on Wikipedia used to mean "don't show in Recent Changes by default". Because of that, there was a lot of vandalism that went unnoticed. So this was introduced as a quick fix. It was not stupid.
On Jan 24, 2004, at 11:56, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 11:30:25AM -0800, Brion Vibber wrote:
In fact I find it downright insulting that I'm not trusted to mark a spelling correction as "minor" without logging in.
There are serious historical reasons for that. As in older wikis, "minor" on Wikipedia used to mean "don't show in Recent Changes by default".
That was the case in phase 1 (on UseModWiki), but it was never the case on phase 2 / phase 3 software.
<rant> A ruthless minority of people who chose to use the "hide minor edits" feature decided they were too lazy to look through all edits to find vandalism and bitched until the minor edits checkbox was taken away to get them to shut up. </rant>
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
I agree with Brion.
It is really very stupid to hide the minor edits.
--Optim
--- Brion Vibber brion@pobox.com wrote:
<rant> A ruthless minority of people who chose to use the "hide minor edits" feature decided they were too lazy to look through all edits to find vandalism and bitched until the minor edits checkbox was taken away to get them to shut up. </rant>
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
but I see everything in my Recent Changes, including the minor ones. There is a checkbox "dont show minor in RC". Of course I haven't checked this checkbox. It would be very stupid to do that.
--Optim
--- Tomasz Wegrzanowski taw@users.sf.net wrote:
There are serious historical reasons for that. As in older wikis, "minor" on Wikipedia used to mean "don't show in Recent Changes by default". Because of that, there was a lot of vandalism that went unnoticed. So this was introduced as a quick fix. It was not stupid.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
Brion-
In fact I find it downright insulting that I'm not trusted to mark a spelling correction as "minor" without logging in.
On which basis should you be trusted? When you're not logged in, nobody knows that it is you. I've seen quite a few vandals who liked to test Wikipedia's defenses by claiming to make spelling fixes while in reality vandalizing the article. Marking edits as minor has one primary purpose: Being able to filter them from RC. And that should only be possible if there is a basis for trust.
In addition to the trust factor, there's also the advantage of a simpler user interface for first time users.
Regards,
Erik
On Jan 24, 2004, at 12:22, Erik Moeller wrote:
Brion-
In fact I find it downright insulting that I'm not trusted to mark a spelling correction as "minor" without logging in.
On which basis should you be trusted?
Same reason I'm allowed to edit pages at whim and describe my change as a "spelling correction".
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:00:48PM -0800, Brion Vibber wrote:
On Jan 24, 2004, at 12:22, Erik Moeller wrote:
Brion-
In fact I find it downright insulting that I'm not trusted to mark a spelling correction as "minor" without logging in.
On which basis should you be trusted?
Same reason I'm allowed to edit pages at whim and describe my change as a "spelling correction".
The "minor changes" (in the meaning it has in traditional wikis) feature is dead. We don't support it any more. Now the "minor changes" is only an additional part of description, so the rationale there was when this prohibition was introduced is not valid any more. As far as I am concerned, you can go on and remove it, but there are others who may want to keep it for some different reason than the original one.
Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
The "minor changes" (in the meaning it has in traditional wikis) feature is dead.
Would it be possible to automatically detect what are small changes? e.g. a small change would have: *only interwiki changes or: *no more than two adjacent characters changed in the text and not more than 10 in total possibly excepting the addition or removal of [[ and ]] (but even that could be vandalism if in excess).
If that would be implemented, the checkbox could go altogether.
Rob
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 11:04:33PM +0100, Rob Hooft wrote:
Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
The "minor changes" (in the meaning it has in traditional wikis) feature is dead.
Would it be possible to automatically detect what are small changes? e.g. a small change would have: *only interwiki changes or: *no more than two adjacent characters changed in the text and not more than 10 in total possibly excepting the addition or removal of [[ and ]] (but even that could be vandalism if in excess).
If that would be implemented, the checkbox could go altogether.
Yeah, sure, as if you couldn't find a way to vandalize within such limits.
Of course a Bayesian classificator of diffs would be really wonderful. Any takers ? I thought so.
Checking for vandalism means we check all edits, no matter whether they are minor or not.
if an admin fails to notice vandalism because he/she hides the minor changes from RC, I consider it his/her own fault.
--Optim
--- Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
Brion-
In fact I find it downright insulting that
I'm not trusted to mark a
spelling correction as "minor" without
logging in.
On which basis should you be trusted? When you're not logged in, nobody knows that it is you. I've seen quite a few vandals who liked to test Wikipedia's defenses by claiming to make spelling fixes while in reality vandalizing the article. Marking edits as minor has one primary purpose: Being able to filter them from RC. And that should only be possible if there is a basis for trust.
In addition to the trust factor, there's also the advantage of a simpler user interface for first time users.
Regards,
Erik _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
Optim wrote:
Checking for vandalism means we check all edits, no matter whether they are minor or not.
if an admin fails to notice vandalism because he/she hides the minor changes from RC, I consider it his/her own fault.
--Optim
Go back to the original question of the original poster.
"How can a anonymous user make Minor changes and how to stop that?"
I think you look at the situation of the English Wikipedia regarding edits by anonymous users. The question of Elly is about the Dutch Wikipedia. The speed of RC there is much, much, slower there if you compare whit EN. Everybody still knows more or less everybody. There are very few anonymous users. Mostly from a different Wikipedia for a interwiki-link or somebody who has forgotten to login.
The edits done by anonymous users must be checked because the have a high change to be a vandal. The edits done by resisted users have a much lower priority.
Because there is no option "Show only anonymous edits" the option the hide small edits is the best way to keep the list of edits to verify short.
Walter
"EM" == Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de writes:
EM> On which basis should you be trusted?
On the same basis as _EVERYONE_ is trusted on Wikipedia.
Wiki is an exercise in trust. It's finding out that if you open the doors and let everyone in, 99% of them are going to be good-hearted, hard-working, and well-meaning. And you can collectively deal with the other 1% quickly and effectively.
Casual and anonymous editors are the lifeblood of any wiki -- including Wikipedia -- and we restrict their privileges at our own peril.
~ESP
Evan-
Wiki is an exercise in trust. It's finding out that if you open the doors and let everyone in, 99% of them are going to be good-hearted, hard-working, and well-meaning. And you can collectively deal with the other 1% quickly and effectively.
More like 30-40% for anonymous users. Check RC on En: occasionally. The simple fact is that most vandals, crackpots and abusers are anons, and that "minor edit" is a tool that is easily abused. It seems fairly obvious then that it's a good idea to limit that tool to signed in users.
Regards,
Erik
"EM" == Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de writes:
EM> More like 30-40% for anonymous users. Check RC on En: EM> occasionally. The simple fact is that most vandals, crackpots EM> and abusers are anons, and that "minor edit" is a tool that is EM> easily abused. It seems fairly obvious then that it's a good EM> idea to limit that tool to signed in users.
I've made it optional on a per-installation basis to allow minor edits by anonymous editors. The option is off by default.
~ESP
----- Original Message ----- From: "Evan Prodromou" evan-+DxIcwYt55H9qxiX1TGQuw@public.gmane.org
I've made it optional on a per-installation basis to allow minor edits by anonymous editors. The option is off by default.
~ESP
Thanks, Elly
I agree.
--- Brion Vibber brion@pobox.com wrote:
Why do we remove the checkbox anyway? It's stupid, and I find it very annoying when I happen to be making a quick edit while not logged in.
In fact I find it downright insulting that I'm not trusted to mark a spelling correction as "minor" without logging in.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
On Fri, 2004-01-23 at 15:26, Elly Waterman wrote:
Indeed, and in addition, I like to switch off the Minor Changes to watch only for the Bigger Changes, by regular users and ALL CHANGES by anonymous users, among which unluckily are some vandals. If vandals can in some way click this nonexisting box, they can do their hobby unnoticed, at least by me, and other sysops who work in this way.
If people don't like removing the "minor edit" box for anonymous users, how about this?
1) Put the "minor edit" box back 2) Have 3 states for "Recent Changes": show all edits, hide minor changes, hide minor changes from logged-in users
This should satisfy everybody at (I assume) a fairly small cost in software effort.
(I actually like not having the "minor edit" box as an anonymous user; it helps me remember to log in!)
Carl Witty
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org