Last modified: 2014-05-17 12:46:06 UTC

Wikimedia Bugzilla is closed!

Wikimedia has migrated from Bugzilla to Phabricator. Bug reports should be created and updated in Wikimedia Phabricator instead. Please create an account in Phabricator and add your Bugzilla email address to it.
Wikimedia Bugzilla is read-only. If you try to edit or create any bug report in Bugzilla you will be shown an intentional error message.
In order to access the Phabricator task corresponding to a Bugzilla report, just remove "static-" from its URL.
You could still run searches in Bugzilla or access your list of votes but bug reports will obviously not be up-to-date in Bugzilla.
Bug 1189 - Manual tagging of edits, for review
Manual tagging of edits, for review
Status: REOPENED
Product: MediaWiki
Classification: Unclassified
Change tagging (Other open bugs)
unspecified
All All
: Low enhancement with 3 votes (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody - You can work on this!
:
: 1596 3299 4288 8221 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Blocks: 3741
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2004-12-24 05:36 UTC by Sgeo
Modified: 2014-05-17 12:46 UTC (History)
13 users (show)

See Also:
Web browser: ---
Mobile Platform: ---
Assignee Huggle Beta Tester: ---


Attachments

Description Sgeo 2004-12-24 05:36:21 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)
Comment 1 Zigger 2005-09-06 12:39:48 UTC
*** Bug 3299 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 2 Rob Church 2006-01-02 14:58:36 UTC
How would you compute what's supicious? I'm interested, just skeptical we could
find a good enough algorithm.
Comment 3 ssd 2006-01-15 17:55:48 UTC
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:
Comment 4 Minh Nguyễn 2006-03-06 00:48:01 UTC
It could be more general, like the HELPWANTED keyword on Bugzilla, for example.
Comment 5 Jeff Martin 2006-07-12 20:55:53 UTC
Can we fold this into 4288?
Comment 6 Jeff Martin 2006-07-12 20:56:12 UTC
Can we fold this into bug 4288?
Comment 7 Andrew Garrett 2006-11-14 08:20:42 UTC
I've done some work in r17608 and r17609 to implement something similar to the
feature described in this bug.
Comment 8 Rob Church 2006-11-14 08:41:02 UTC
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.
Comment 9 Andrew Garrett 2006-11-14 08:43:23 UTC
Right. And the auto-summary code will be adapted to be a tag instead of an
autosummary when this tagging code comes around.
Comment 10 Aaron Schulz 2007-08-31 08:59:21 UTC
*** Bug 8221 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 11 Aryeh Gregor (not reading bugmail, please e-mail directly) 2007-08-31 15:06:12 UTC
Bug 8221 has a considerably more detailed proposal that might or might not be the best way to do this.
Comment 12 Andrew Garrett 2008-10-24 12:37:24 UTC
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.
Comment 13 Aaron Schulz 2009-03-22 00:34:01 UTC
We do have change tags in MW now
Comment 14 Chad H. 2009-07-14 19:56:59 UTC
*** Bug 1596 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 15 Chad H. 2009-07-14 19:57:19 UTC
*** Bug 4288 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 16 Chad H. 2009-07-16 17:33:40 UTC
*** Bug 4288 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 17 Mike.lifeguard 2009-07-16 17:42:08 UTC
This request is about allowing humans to manually add a marker to a revision - not doing this automatically as AbuseFilter and TorBlock do.
Comment 18 Quim Gil 2014-05-17 00:42:54 UTC
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.
Comment 19 MZMcBride 2014-05-17 00:57:45 UTC
(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.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.


Navigation
Links