Last modified: 2005-05-08 20:29:29 UTC
This proposal has already been introduced to the Village Pump where it has been unanimously supported. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals) #Edit_Alerts_Based_on_Content I ask if the recent changes system could be overhauled to incorporate pattern reocognition based on the very predictable attributes of vandalism. A pattern match would result in the recent change appearing highlighted in red under the recent changes section. Some patterns the software should watch for: *Edits within content namespace containing high frequency vandal words: Gay, fuck, shit, penis, cock, fag, SUCKS, etc. The entire corpus of the vandal word bank will be short and enumerated without much research... *Exclamation marks are repeated in sequence more than three times *Blanking *Entire sub-headed area blanked *Large article loses very substantial percentage of content Anyone familiar with controlling vandals will know this short list can be reduced and still strike at almost all malicious vandalism. I know you programmers are overtasked and overrequested but I would like to impress how this is a top priority update. Regular contributers are plagued by this puerile trash, and it's very demoralizing to find ourselves volunteering to clean up after foul kids. This is a problem that debilitates Wikipedia's editor corps. The pressure and sometimes hopeless feeling of being overwhelmed is made real by the current lack of almost any vandal countermeasure. The current system requires omniscience to be successful and that we understand, considering the number of edits, is an eyeball outnumbered task. Software aided cleanup will lift this pressure. Worse of all, I don't think within our community a honest assessment of how successful vandalism is is discussed. The generally positive media reports about us sometimes cite the ancient IBM study or state themselves that vandalism is often rolled back within minutes. This is infrequently true still but anyone familiar with reverting vandalism has observed response times of 90 minutes, 3 hours, 6 hours, and beyond are more common. Our efficiency in squashing adolescent behavior is not as potent as we are billed to be or perhaps believe about ourselves. The large gaps in response time to vandalim are a serious problem for information and brand integrity. Please consider the massive benefit in performance and uplifting effect of implementing an idea like this. Regards, Lotsofissues
(In reply to comment #0) > .. system could be overhauled to incorporate pattern recognition based on attributes of vandalism. ... e.g. Bayes-filer rules [5] > Some patterns the software should watch for: > *Edits within content namespace containing high frequency vandal words: xxx. The entire corpus of the vandal word bank will be short and > enumerated without much research... > *Exclamation marks are repeated in sequence more than three times > *Blanking > *Entire sub-headed area blanked > *Large article loses very substantial percentage of content > Your proposal can be _combined_ with [1]: "E-mail notification for page changes or new pages, where title or body or category matches a regular expression" on which I am working. The current Enotif [2, 3] already allows for notifications on all new pages (for Sysops etc.) and can be extended with your "suspicious page vandal action watch" list. I'll put this onto the to-do list [4] [1] http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1116 [2] http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enotif [3] http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=454 [4] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Email_notification_to-do_list [5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_filtering
Is this a duplicate of bug 958?
It is indeed, marking it as a duplicate. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 958 ***
