Page MenuHomePhabricator

Allow mass thank
Open, LowestPublic

Description

Often I feel deeply thankful to not one contributor, but all people who contributed to the article I just red. Currently, the "thank you" feature – as far as I know – only allow individual thanks.

It would also nice to allow entering a message to specify what/how we are thankful about that, with a small set of out-of-the-box message options plus a "custom message" option.

I heard the Thank extension is not much used, that probably would help make it used more extensively. Also making it more visible with an icon along the star icon rather than hiding this in the history would probably help much.

Event Timeline

Restricted Application added a subscriber: Aklapper. · View Herald Transcript

I think we've got instances where this feature was being abused and we've got to set limits on it (@Urbanecm I think it was on cswiki?) so I'm not sure if allowing to thank a bunch of people at once would be helpful. Thanks.

@MarcoAurelio No, it wasn't on cswiki but on plwiki. But the ratelimit patch was created by me. If anybody wants to look into the problem me and @MarcoAurelio is talking about, please look at T169268 for details.

From my point of view, allowing a user to thank multiple users at once (or, more specifically, thank to a user because of the user and not because of some edit) cannot do more harm than doing not so. As long as Wikipedia will be an openly editable knowledge base, there is something that is eligible for abusing. We should focus on finding ways how to fight against abusing (by extending the blocking feature for certain rights, for example, so it'll be possible to stop user from thanking), not on not-implementing some possibly useful feature that somebody can abuse (because everything can be abused).

Aklapper triaged this task as Lowest priority.Dec 20 2017, 12:44 PM
Ebe123 lowered the priority of this task from High to Lowest.
Ebe123 added a subscriber: Sexynessas.

I didn't thought of the possible abuse, thank you @MarcoAurelio and @matmarex for relieving the potential problems. I agree with @Urbanecm that potential abuse should be taken into consideration without abandoning completely the feature.

Cheers