Last modified: 2014-04-15 06:44:47 UTC
Based on bug 37992 comment 47 and 48, public drafts are desirable as that would avoid storing private data, which in turn can present a target for the government to make data requests for the non-public data.
As a side note, I noticed a "draft namespace" mentioned at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Engineering/2013-14_Goals#Editor_Engagement_-_Growth_Team Maybe these public drafts would also go to this new namespace?
(In reply to comment #1) > As a side note, I noticed a "draft namespace" mentioned at > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Engineering/2013- > 14_Goals#Editor_Engagement_-_Growth_Team > > Maybe these public drafts would also go to this new namespace? Yes, we're definitely considering the combination of public drafts in a new namespace, ala "Draft:Title".
Self-assigning since next steps are to document basic requirements and implementation ideas.
The English Wikipedia community has just closed a proposal that supports creation of a new Draft namespace.[1] Since that namespace is unlikely best implemented using the Drafts extension, I am going to reassign the bug out of that extension. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)&oldid=582442330#Proposed_new_Draft_namespace
I don't understand how this is _not_ a Drafts bug.
(In reply to comment #5) > I don't understand how this is _not_ a Drafts bug. The scope of Extension:Drafts includes drafts of individual edits. Ours does not. I'd check out the related enwiki RFC and the product docs we made above. There was some thought that having edit drafts by Extension:Drafts be public could solve the litany of problems James outlined on bug 37992, but there are no solid plans regarding that, AFAIK. In general there are major blockers to deploying Extension:Drafts to Wikipedia, so we would prefer to start from scratch and not take up its outstanding bugs and scope.
(In reply to comment #6) > There was some thought that having edit drafts by Extension:Drafts be public > could solve the litany of problems James outlined on bug 37992, but there are > no solid plans regarding that, AFAIK. In general there are major blockers to > deploying Extension:Drafts to Wikipedia, so we would prefer to start from > scratch and not take up its outstanding bugs and scope. Okay, then file your own bug? John filed this bug about the Drafts extension. Both comment 6 and comment 4 make it sound as though you believe this bug is yours. It makes for strange reading. If you want to create a "Draft" namespace on the English Wikipedia, that should be the subject of a separate bug. If you want to use a "Draft" namespace for public drafts, that's also the subject of a separate bug (though I'm not sure what technical needs that might have). This bug is about making it possible to use [[mw:Extension:Drafts]] to make public drafts, rather than private drafts.
(In reply to comment #7) > (In reply to comment #6) > > There was some thought that having edit drafts by Extension:Drafts be public > > could solve the litany of problems James outlined on bug 37992, but there are > > no solid plans regarding that, AFAIK. In general there are major blockers to > > deploying Extension:Drafts to Wikipedia, so we would prefer to start from > > scratch and not take up its outstanding bugs and scope. > > Okay, then file your own bug? John filed this bug about the Drafts extension. > Both comment 6 and comment 4 make it sound as though you believe this bug is > yours. It makes for strange reading. > > If you want to create a "Draft" namespace on the English Wikipedia, that > should > be the subject of a separate bug. If you want to use a "Draft" namespace for > public drafts, that's also the subject of a separate bug (though I'm not sure > what technical needs that might have). > > This bug is about making it possible to use [[mw:Extension:Drafts]] to make > public drafts, rather than private drafts. It's replies like "then file your own bug" that always make you sound like an angry baby. No one owns bugs. The scope and solution desired can change over time. Since apparently no one taught you to share your toys as a child, I'll go ahead and file a new bug that's completely redundant, and let this bug rot unaddressed, just like it was previously.
(In reply to comment #8) > [...] I'll go ahead and file a new bug that's completely redundant [...] If your new bug is completely redundant, I have high confidence that someone will mark it as a duplicate. :-) I'm interested to see what bug(s) you file.
Let's avoid making it personal. I can understand why Steven thought this bug was appropriate to track for what we're discussing for article creation. However, reading the full history than I did earlier, the bug does seem to be requesting personal (i.e. per-user) drafts of individual edits (the same to Drafts currently but public instead of private). That's probably different enough that we should make a new bug. Of course, leaving this bug (public per-user per-edit drafts) open doesn't mean it will necessarily get implemented.
