I think we should do this ASAP, because the issues are only going to get harder. But the main issue, Timwi, is social -- there are certainly cases where two different people have the same username but in different languages.
Timwi wrote:
Thomas R. Koll wrote:
On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 11:04:00PM +0100, Erik Moeller wrote:
Stuff like single sign on
That is not possible anymore. It would be total chaos.
I'm pretty confused at this assessment of yours.
All it would take to achieve this would be to:
- Add a field to the 'cur' and 'old' tables (or perhaps even just the
'cur' table) to specify what language an article is in.
- Move all the articles from all languages into one database.
- Adapt code accordingly.
Should be doable (given adequate manpower).
Timwi
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@Wikipedia.org http://wikipedia.mormo.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Jimmy Wales wrote:
I think we should do this ASAP, because the issues are only going to get harder. But the main issue, Timwi, is social -- there are certainly cases where two different people have the same username but in different languages.
I have already suggested a solution for this some time ago. I'll repeat it here because I feel like it ;-)
The basic idea is to mark all accounts as "old" (and make them unloginnable), and require everybody to create a new account. Then allow users to merge their old contribution-lists into this new account provided they know the password to the old account.
So, for example, I would then create a "new" account named "Timwi" and then merge "old:en:Timwi", "old:de:Timwi", "old:fr:Timwi", etc. into it.
Timwi
On Wednesday 31 December 2003 09:38 pm, Timwi wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
I think we should do this ASAP, because the issues are only going to get harder. But the main issue, Timwi, is social -- there are certainly cases where two different people have the same username but in different languages.
I have already suggested a solution for this some time ago. I'll repeat it here because I feel like it ;-)
The basic idea is to mark all accounts as "old" (and make them unloginnable), and require everybody to create a new account. Then allow users to merge their old contribution-lists into this new account provided they know the password to the old account.
So, for example, I would then create a "new" account named "Timwi" and then merge "old:en:Timwi", "old:de:Timwi", "old:fr:Timwi", etc. into it.
Umm, this sounds like an incredibly bad idea:
1. Hassle 2. Account stealing: This would be a feast day for any trolls or malcontents (and wikipedia seems to have quite a few of those) 3. Solution in search of a problem
The only problem with the merge is the collision of accounts (eg. there exists a [[de:Jan]] and [[en:Jan]], but they are not the same person). Your proposal does not solve this, but would need to solve it in the same way as the simple merge would: In the rare cases that this happens, people need to discuss and come to an amicable sollution. (I would suggest that whoever registered that account name first should have priority.)
Best, Sascha Noyes
Sascha Noyes wrote:
The only problem with the merge is the collision of accounts (eg. there exists a [[de:Jan]] and [[en:Jan]], but they are not the same person). Your proposal does not solve this, but would need to solve it in the same way as the simple merge would: In the rare cases that this happens, people need to discuss and come to an amicable sollution. (I would suggest that whoever registered that account name first should have priority.)
Since the en:Wikipedia is longer with us, fist-come-first-serve would favor Accounts from en, possibly causing some unhappyness, but it's the most straightforward solution. Ambiguous accounts could be simply numbered (jan1, jan2). Very nice would be a feature to rename the (own) account resp. the ability for admins to do this.
In any case the editing history and the signatures on talk pages etc. have to be synchronized with these changes; this could be either done by a bot, but it would be non trivial (when is the account on which Wikimedia site being changed, when does the bot start renaming, when does it finish, when can the account be used again) and cause much load, if many accounts have to be merged, or (probably preferred) by direct database manipulations when the database is read-only until all changes are completed and the integrity is verified somehow. Or is there a simpler way?
Regards, -asb
What about keeping accounts as they are, but letting users define links between them?
For instance, EnUser on en: declares his user matches DeUser on de:, does the reverse. And automatically when s/he logins on either of the sites, login occurs on the other sites. Because the system knows that EnUser on en: <=> DeUser on de: (obviously you need both declarations for the match to occur).
Ok that would still let users with different accounts on different wikipedias. But you could retrive interwiki modifications from the user, using linked information. And it would let users keep their current accounts, so no friction.
OTOH, it means 'User' on en: is not necessarily the same as 'User' on de:.
Just my 2 cents of €
Nicolas
Sascha Noyes wrote:
On Wednesday 31 December 2003 09:38 pm, Timwi wrote:
The basic idea is to mark all accounts as "old" (and make them unloginnable), and require everybody to create a new account. Then allow users to merge their old contribution-lists into this new account provided they know the password to the old account.
So, for example, I would then create a "new" account named "Timwi" and then merge "old:en:Timwi", "old:de:Timwi", "old:fr:Timwi", etc. into it.
Umm, this sounds like an incredibly bad idea:
- Hassle
It takes no more than a few minutes for everybody. I don't see a major hassle in this, considering the advantages it brings.
- Account stealing: This would be a feast day for any trolls or malcontents
(and wikipedia seems to have quite a few of those)
You're forgetting that this would require actually hacking into an account (i.e. cracking the password). Seeing as this is already possible, and no easier or more difficult, I believe this concern of yours is invalid.
- Solution in search of a problem
Pardon?
The only problem with the merge is the collision of accounts (eg. there exists a [[de:Jan]] and [[en:Jan]], but they are not the same person). Your proposal does not solve this,
It does solve it. Perhaps you haven't quite understood my suggestion.
Maybe what you're thinking of is that these two people cannot both continue to use the name "Jan". But that's normal. It would be the same way if we had had single sign-on all the way through. Whoever comes first on that "day of the switch" will get the username Jan, and the next person will just have to pick another name.
Greetings, Timwi
Timwi wrote:
Sascha Noyes wrote:
On Wednesday 31 December 2003 09:38 pm, Timwi wrote:
The basic idea is to mark all accounts as "old" (and make them unloginnable), and require everybody to create a new account. Then allow users to merge their old contribution-lists into this new account provided they know the password to the old account.
So, for example, I would then create a "new" account named "Timwi" and then merge "old:en:Timwi", "old:de:Timwi", "old:fr:Timwi", etc. into it.
Umm, this sounds like an incredibly bad idea:
- Hassle
Any conversion process will involve some degree of hassle, but by the same token it is a one time hassle. Only nothing about it will make sure that it is a recurring hassle. I have no idea how big the account conflict problem really is. Once we move unconflicted accounts, users with equivalent multiple accounts (i.e. same name and password), and new users into the new database , how much will be leftover?
- Account stealing: This would be a feast day for any trolls or
malcontents (and wikipedia seems to have quite a few of those)
You're forgetting that this would require actually hacking into an account (i.e. cracking the password). Seeing as this is already possible, and no easier or more difficult, I believe this concern of yours is invalid.
This problem is possible but improbable. We are dealing with a transitional issue where the vulnerability will not be long-lived. Problem accounts will retain their problem status. Problem title accounts will be transferred just like anything else. During the transition concerned Wikipedians can be on the lookout for unusual activity.
The only problem with the merge is the collision of accounts (eg. there exists a [[de:Jan]] and [[en:Jan]], but they are not the same person). Your proposal does not solve this,
It does solve it. Perhaps you haven't quite understood my suggestion.
Maybe what you're thinking of is that these two people cannot both continue to use the name "Jan". But that's normal. It would be the same way if we had had single sign-on all the way through. Whoever comes first on that "day of the switch" will get the username Jan, and the next person will just have to pick another name.
OK, but I would not favour the name going to the one that was longest established. If one of the Jans joined more than a year ago then disappeared after contributing for one week, he should not have priority over the more recent Jan who may have become a steady contributor.
I also think that there should be an association segment to each user file. Each user will by default have an association with the wiki where he first registered, and each entry transferred from the old system will retain its association with each wiki where the owner is also registered (perhaps even retaining the registration number). If, as a registered user, I visit another project where I am not associated, I would be told, "If you want to be associated with this Wiki, please press here." I would then be assigned an association number with that project. This could also be useful if anyone wanted to have a list of all who are interested in a particular project, particularly a small one. A similar system could be used for accreditations as sysops or developers.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
I also think that there should be an association segment to each user file. Each user will by default have an association with the wiki where he first registered,
You're thinking too much in terms of several wikis. The point in the whole thing is that there should not *be* separate wikis. It should be one wiki called Wikipedia.
I.e. "the wiki where you first registered" is Wikipedia.
Timwi
Timwi wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
I also think that there should be an association segment to each user file. Each user will by default have an association with the wiki where he first registered,
You're thinking too much in terms of several wikis. The point in the whole thing is that there should not *be* separate wikis. It should be one wiki called Wikipedia.
I.e. "the wiki where you first registered" is Wikipedia.
This argument is a bit on the semantic side. There is, of course, Wikibooks, and Wiktionary etc., not to mention the different language projects. Having associations will make it easier for those in smaller projects to know just who is interested in what project.
Ray
On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 01:27:43 -0800, Ray Saintonge wrote:
This argument is a bit on the semantic side. There is, of course, Wikibooks, and Wiktionary etc., not to mention the different language projects. Having associations will make it easier for those in smaller projects to know just who is interested in what project.
Maybe it would be sufficient to look for edits or watch entries to find out who's interested in a certain project. The user pages could propably just be 'multilingual', with a knob 'create [french|german|russian|...] version- the same for other content. I've never bothered to dive into the source, but i guess it's mainly skin glue that's needed (once the sign on is working).
Gabriel Wicke
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org