Last modified: 2007-08-31 08:59:21 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 8221 - Buttons to flag as possibly defamatory/copyvio
Buttons to flag as possibly defamatory/copyvio
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 1189
Product: MediaWiki extensions
Classification: Unclassified
Extensions requests (Other open bugs)
unspecified
All All
: Normal enhancement (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody - You can work on this!
:
Depends on:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2006-12-11 17:29 UTC by Aryeh Gregor (not reading bugmail, please e-mail directly)
Modified: 2007-08-31 08:59 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

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


Attachments

Description Aryeh Gregor (not reading bugmail, please e-mail directly) 2006-12-11 17:29:16 UTC
Bug 3712 comment #10 had a very interesting suggestion that's applicable to all
WMF wikis, not just Commons.  Basically, have a couple of buttons (or just one)
for users to flag things as defamatory or a copyright violation.  Every other
site of user-submitted content has had these for ages, but as far as I know we
never considered them.  This is probably because, after all, we're a wiki, so
the anons can just edit the things out, but there are several advantages to
specific buttons:

1) Many people don't seem to "get" that they can edit every page, despite the
friendly-looking buttons and taglines and everything.
2) Even if they do, they may be scared away by all that fixed-width wikitext
with crazy punctuation marks everywhere.
3) Anyone who did edit a page to remove large chunks of content would probably
be reverted nowadays by Tawkerbot or something, at least on enwiki, and there
goes any chance of their trying that again.
4) It's quicker to just hit a button, which plays to the fact that most anons
aren't going to be terribly committed to rooting out bad stuff from Wikipedia.
5) It's best to delete or oversight libel in particular, not just blank it, so
notification of admins is necessary.

Presumably the buttons would go to a special page, which would put the stuff in
a table, that could then be called up by anyone to go ahead and delete or AFD or
whatever they like.  It could then be removed from the list somehow once it had
been dealt with, preferably only by sysops or other trusted users.  For privacy
and to make people more willing to submit reports, it might be best to hide IPs
even for anonymous reporters, keeping them accessible only to sysops or
checkusers or what have you.
Comment 1 Chad H. 2007-01-30 16:41:47 UTC
What if someone went around tagging articles that they were defamatory, when in fact they were not? Who has 
permission to clear that status, if it's found to not be a copyvio, etc? What if someone were to properly tag an 
article as bad, then someone wanted the article to stay, so they simply cleared it?

I see where you're coming from, but I also see a huge potential for abuse. I think as it stands, the current 
system of templates and whatnot works fine.



Comment 2 Daniel Kinzler 2007-01-30 16:44:36 UTC
hm... a "quick tag" feature sounds like a nice idea... basically, there could be
an extension that adds links/buttons that add a template. shouldn't be too hard
to do, should it?
Comment 3 Aryeh Gregor (not reading bugmail, please e-mail directly) 2007-01-30 17:10:28 UTC
(In reply to comment #1)
> What if someone went around tagging articles that they were defamatory, when in fact they were
> not? Who has permission to clear that status, if it's found to not be a copyvio, etc? What if
> someone were to properly tag an article as bad, then someone wanted the article to stay, so they
> simply cleared it?

The answer to all of the above: "it's a wiki".  ;)

(In reply to comment #2)
> hm... a "quick tag" feature sounds like a nice idea... basically, there could be
> an extension that adds links/buttons that add a template. shouldn't be too hard
> to do, should it?

It might be better to have a more centralized paper trail, but that would be a straightforward way 
to do it, yes.  I was thinking more like a few special pages and a log.  That would potentially 
allow admins to track things better.  So maybe:

* Special:Report/pagename: Adds a "reported" flag to the article (and logs it), with an optional 
summary message.  Accessible through a button on every page, which ideally wouldn't require any page 
reloads for capable UAs (to make it as effortless as possible).  Reports may or may not show up on 
the page, maybe add an interface message to the top that can be left empty.
* Special:Reportedpages: Lists all pages that have been reported and not cleared.
* Special:Unreport/pagename: Removes a "reported" flag from the article (and logs it), with an 
optional summary message.  Only accessible via direct access, or from Special:Reportedpages, so it's 
not immediately obvious to random people how to unreport a page (could be linked from the "this page 
is reported" message).
* Special:Log would of course have report/unreport sections added.  Interested users could keep 
track of the unreport logs to spot suspicious stuff like anons unreporting, so they can review it.

And two new permissions would be added: 'report' and 'unreport', probably by default * for report 
and autoconfirmed for unreport.
Comment 4 Aaron Schulz 2007-08-31 08:59:21 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1189 ***

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


Navigation
Links