Manual tagging of edits, for review
OpenPublic

Description

Author: sgwikieo

Description:
As well as having patrolled edits (ones that aren't obvious vandalism I think),
there should be suspicious edits (changing a detail for example)


Version: unspecified
Severity: enhancement

bzimport added a subscriber: Unknown Object (MLST).
bzimport set Reference to bz1189.
bzimport created this task.Via LegacyDec 24 2004, 5:36 AM
bzimport added a comment.Via ConduitSep 6 2005, 12:39 PM

zigger wrote:

*** Bug 3299 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

bzimport added a comment.Via ConduitJan 2 2006, 2:58 PM

robchur wrote:

How would you compute what's supicious? I'm interested, just skeptical we could
find a good enough algorithm.

bzimport added a comment.Via ConduitJan 15 2006, 5:55 PM

ssd.wiki wrote:

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:

mxn added a comment.Via ConduitMar 6 2006, 12:48 AM

It could be more general, like the HELPWANTED keyword on Bugzilla, for example.

bzimport added a comment.Via ConduitJul 12 2006, 8:55 PM

dogshed wrote:

Can we fold this into 4288?

bzimport added a comment.Via ConduitJul 12 2006, 8:56 PM

dogshed wrote:

Can we fold this into bug 4288?

werdna added a comment.Via ConduitNov 14 2006, 8:20 AM

I've done some work in r17608 and r17609 to implement something similar to the
feature described in this bug.

bzimport added a comment.Via ConduitNov 14 2006, 8:41 AM

robchur wrote:

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.

werdna added a comment.Via ConduitNov 14 2006, 8:43 AM

Right. And the auto-summary code will be adapted to be a tag instead of an
autosummary when this tagging code comes around.

aaron added a comment.Via ConduitAug 31 2007, 8:59 AM

*** Bug 8221 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

bzimport added a comment.Via ConduitAug 31 2007, 3:06 PM

ayg wrote:

Bug 8221 has a considerably more detailed proposal that might or might not be the best way to do this.

werdna added a comment.Via ConduitOct 24 2008, 12:37 PM

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.

aaron added a comment.Via ConduitMar 22 2009, 12:34 AM

We do have change tags in MW now

demon added a comment.Via ConduitJul 14 2009, 7:56 PM
  • Bug 1596 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
demon added a comment.Via ConduitJul 14 2009, 7:57 PM
  • Bug 4288 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
demon added a comment.Via ConduitJul 16 2009, 5:33 PM
  • Bug 4288 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
bzimport added a comment.Via ConduitJul 16 2009, 5:42 PM

mike.lifeguard+bugs wrote:

This request is about allowing humans to manually add a marker to a revision - not doing this automatically as AbuseFilter and TorBlock do.

Qgil added a comment.Via ConduitMay 17 2014, 12:42 AM

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.

MZMcBride added a comment.Via ConduitMay 17 2014, 12:57 AM

(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.

werdna removed a subscriber: werdna.Via WebDec 10 2014, 6:16 PM
Cenarium added a subscriber: Cenarium.Via WebDec 13 2014, 6:17 AM
He7d3r added a subscriber: He7d3r.Via WebJan 3 2015, 2:28 PM
Dr_Brains added a subscriber: Dr_Brains.Via WebFeb 28 2015, 12:13 PM
TTO moved this task to Feature requests on the MediaWiki-Change-tagging workboard.Via WebMar 1 2015, 3:29 AM
epriestley added a commit: Unknown Object (Diffusion Commit).Via DaemonsMar 4 2015, 8:21 AM
Qgil added a comment.Via WebMar 4 2015, 8:40 AM

Accidental clash. Known issue. Sorry for the noise.

Ricordisamoa added a subscriber: Ricordisamoa.Via WebApr 3 2015, 11:37 PM
TTO added a subscriber: TTO.Via WebApr 16 2015, 1:13 PM

How is this different from T20670? Can we close this now?

Add Comment