Last modified: 2014-05-17 12:46:06 UTC
As well as having patrolled edits (ones that aren't obvious vandalism I think), there should be suspicious edits (changing a detail for example)
*** Bug 3299 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
How would you compute what's supicious? I'm interested, just skeptical we could find a good enough algorithm.
Suspicious edits should be flagged by a user who saw it, but isn't sure of the details, and does not want to (or can't) research it. This is somewhat similar to the {{fact}} template on en:
It could be more general, like the HELPWANTED keyword on Bugzilla, for example.
Can we fold this into 4288?
Can we fold this into bug 4288?
I've done some work in r17608 and r17609 to implement something similar to the feature described in this bug.
Ultimately, I'm not sure expanding the scope of automatic edit summaries is the way to go about addressing this request; I think it would be more effective in the long run to introduce some sort of flag for a change, indicating it should be double-checked. Then again, existing patrolling features (and extensions), and forthcoming stable version tagging and reviewing features will make this kind of thing obsolete.
Right. And the auto-summary code will be adapted to be a tag instead of an autosummary when this tagging code comes around.
*** Bug 8221 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Bug 8221 has a considerably more detailed proposal that might or might not be the best way to do this.
I've got some interest in implementing this when I have time. Flags could be applied, for example, by the Abuse Filter, and Tor Block extensions.
We do have change tags in MW now
*** Bug 1596 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 4288 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
This request is about allowing humans to manually add a marker to a revision - not doing this automatically as AbuseFilter and TorBlock do.
It looks like starting with Bugzilla was/is the wrong path for this request. First the feature should have buy-in from the editors (pick a project, i.e. enwiki), and if it has consensus then we can discuss about implementing it. As it is now, no developer will jump on it.
(In reply to Quim Gil from comment #18) > It looks like starting with Bugzilla was/is the wrong path for this request. > First the feature should have buy-in from the editors (pick a project, i.e. > enwiki), and if it has consensus then we can discuss about implementing it. > > As it is now, no developer will jump on it. This is nonsense. Adding arbitrary tags to revisions is inherently useful. This Bugzilla installation and its various inputs are a clear demonstration of the utility of tags and keywords and a whiteboard. Of course Bugzilla attaches this metadata to bugs (vaguely equivalent to pages) rather than comments (vaguely equivalent to revisions), but between this ancient bug report and its duplicates, there's obvious interest in implementing this capability. It also seems noteworthy that there's now a "Change tagging" component in Bugzilla. It'd be nice if users could, uh, tag changes. Whether to put this feature in MediaWiki core or in a MediaWiki extension is up for debate, though.
