Page MenuHomePhabricator

Specify which edit was thanked in Special:Log/thanks, both for private and public records' sake, if configured to do so
Open, MediumPublic

Description

Splitting this out from T49658#527202:

I just learned about [[Special:Log/thanks]] and think that this log should be expanded to include a link to the edit. So instead of:

11:26, June 3, 2013 Okeyes (WMF) (talk | contribs) thanked Foo (talk | contribs)

it would read:

11:26, June 3, 2013 Okeyes (WMF) (talk | contribs) thanked Foo (talk | contribs) for this edit

and the words "this edit" would link to the diff of the revision.


See Also:
T56983: Add thanking to $wgRateLimits as emailuser, to avoid "thank nuking"
T57428: Remove all logging for the Thanks extension
T58818: UserProfile displays page that user was thanked on

Event Timeline

There are a very large number of changes, so older changes are hidden. Show Older Changes
  • Bug 62507 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Even as the user who was thanked or who did the thanking, I can't tell from the log what edit this is for.

I got a notice when I was originally thanked, perhaps a few months ago, but AFAIK there is no way for me to reconstruct that now.

(In reply to Pharos from comment #31)

Even as the user who was thanked or who did the thanking, I can't tell from
the log what edit this is for.

I got a notice when I was originally thanked, perhaps a few months ago, but
AFAIK there is no way for me to reconstruct that now.

You should be able to find details in your [[Special:Notifications]] page, although I don't know how far back that archive extends.
I vaguely recall a discussion about it only going back 365 days, but that might have been a suggestion, rather than the actual implementation.
If anyone knows/finds out, please document it at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Echo/Feature_requirements#Echo_Notification_Storage

(In reply to Quiddity from comment #32)

(In reply to Pharos from comment #31)

Even as the user who was thanked or who did the thanking, I can't tell from
the log what edit this is for.

I got a notice when I was originally thanked, perhaps a few months ago, but
AFAIK there is no way for me to reconstruct that now.

You should be able to find details in your [[Special:Notifications]] page,
although I don't know how far back that archive extends.
I vaguely recall a discussion about it only going back 365 days, but that
might have been a suggestion, rather than the actual implementation.
If anyone knows/finds out, please document it at
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Echo/
Feature_requirements#Echo_Notification_Storage

While digging through your [[Special:Notifications]] page may be possible, it is entirely impractical to expect to be able to find a notification even a month ago when you receive dozens of mentions and talk page notifications daily. Don't forget that the notifications page only loads a few results at a time and you have to actively click on "show more" to get the next chunk. That means if you average 15 notifications a day, this is a few clicks to load each day's notifications and if you want something that was a month back, likely 100 or more clicks to get back that far. It should simply be available in the log which offers at least some filtering so you can show results that were in or before month of year.

Created attachment 14789
15 months old notifications

There are certainly older notifications. However, one of the root issues/design decisions of Echo is, long story short, that notifications are meant to be ephemeral rather than long-lasting. It's a big shift for those used to talk pages, yes.

Attached:

  • Bug 64284 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

As I understand the feature from having a brief read through the tech news, the Notifications/Thanks feature was developed by the Editor Engagement Experience team, in order to try and strike a fine balance between trying to draw in newer editors by introducing a friendly "Likes" feature and simultaneously keeping it ephemeral and private enough to avoid the public scrutiny of the "We are not Facebook" crowd. Of course, as a feature design, it's extremely difficult to reach that balance without tilting too much one way or the other. I'm surprised that people did not know about the design choice to keep a log public while not revealing the target edit of the Thanks (avoiding point-scoring).

At the same time, the third previously unaccounted-for aspect of this feature, which is the accountability, and subsequently the abuse, did not seem to be properly addressed. Perhaps we should make something even as trivial as a friendly thank you message to someone else, subject to intense scrutiny, curation, triple-checking and investigation for abuse by oversighters or whatever powers that be.

One of the other considerations that weighed heavily in the design of the Thanks feature was to avoid the feature bloat that doomed ArticleFeedback. Everyone hated ArticleFeedback because it required so much work to curate, monitor, and oversight for very little actual benefit. Thanks was designed to avoid all of that by being dead simple and ephemeral.

While keeping a detailed permanent record of every action that transpires on Wikipedia sounds like a good idea on paper, it has real costs in additional workload for the community, especially folks like admins and oversighters who have to deal with complaints. The way we tried to strike a balance was giving people a way to complain about Thank volume abuse (sending too many thanks), but avoiding the drama of people complaining about who thanked who for what edit. Do we really want another noticeboard for "Inappropriate thanks"?

swalling wrote:

(In reply to TeleComNasSprVen from comment #36)

As I understand the feature from having a brief read through the tech news,
the Notifications/Thanks feature was developed by the Editor Engagement
Experience team, in order to try and strike a fine balance between trying to
draw in newer editors by introducing a friendly "Likes" feature and
simultaneously keeping it ephemeral and private enough to avoid the public
scrutiny of the "We are not Facebook" crowd. Of course, as a feature design,
it's extremely difficult to reach that balance without tilting too much one
way or the other. I'm surprised that people did not know about the design
choice to keep a log public while not revealing the target edit of the
Thanks (avoiding point-scoring).

At the same time, the third previously unaccounted-for aspect of this
feature, which is the accountability, and subsequently the abuse, did not
seem to be properly addressed. Perhaps we should make something even as
trivial as a friendly thank you message to someone else, subject to intense
scrutiny, curation, triple-checking and investigation for abuse by
oversighters or whatever powers that be.

It is unclear to me that it is in fact possible to really abuse the feature.

Consider the following:

  • You can't write a custom message with the thanks, so the notification contents is always friendly.
  • The use of thanks is rate limited. If we want, we can talk about whether to increase that rate limit.

Accountability doesn't really enter into the matter when thanks is a standardized action with no negative consequences, with the exception of sending an excessive/annoying number of notifications.

(In reply to TeleComNasSprVen from comment #36)

Perhaps we should make something even as trivial as a friendly thank you
message to someone else, subject to intense scrutiny, curation, triple-checking
and investigation for abuse by oversighters or whatever powers that be.

This was written half-satirically and I agree with Kaldari that we shouldn't be spending too much resources for oversight on such a simple feature. At the same time we needed to establish a few simple abuse checks in place (your rate limit is one good example).

(In reply to Ryan Kaldari from comment #37)

One of the other considerations that weighed heavily in the design of the
Thanks feature was to avoid the feature bloat that doomed ArticleFeedback.

As demonstrated above, including an oldid/rev_id in a log row is standard log formatting, so it can't in any way be considered feature bloat and has nothing to do with AFT (which, for instance, reinvented logging instead of using Special:Log, with catastrophic consequences).

I was about to file a duplicate bug when noticed this one :) Here goes the text I've written for the almost filed dup:
When someone thanked you for a edit you made you can click on the notification you receive and see what edit exactly you were thanked for. But if you see in the Special:Log/thanks a thank of user A to user B you can't see what exactly he was thanked for. If user B has 1 edit then there are no questions but if he has more edits than it's not an easy task to determine the object of thank. I'm used that on-wiki I can see everything save for some private things like OS and CU logs, other users' whatchlists so it seems not right that I can't see the data in the case. I assume the data are not private in the issue because otherwise I can see little sense in existence of the log at all.

(In reply to Oliver Keyes from comment #6)

Keeping the subject of the 'thank' unlogged is a way of ensuring that this
won't happen; it makes it utterly impossible for anyone to actually justify
a statement of "well, lotsa people thought it was a good edit, check out my
log". Adding the edits as an element makes this risk more likely, not less.

The abuser described already could just give a screenshot of his notification page or whatsoever.

This was a deliberate design decision that has by now had a lot of discussion. No reason to leave open at this time.

@Legoktm so then how does Flow know which edit I was thanked for? The revision ID has to be stored somewhere, if not in the logging table.

The revision is also stored as part of the echo notification. For Flow, it's slightly different, as users are thanked for posts rather than revisions (if I understand correctly).

That's right. The notification is generated at thank time, so for both (wikitext thanks and Flow thanks) we put the post/revision ID in the event metadata but not in the public logging table.

There was some discussion on IRC that this could perhaps be allowed if a certain $wg was set (WMF production would keep the current behavior).

I've written a hack that doesn't require you to set a $wg; it would just be a 5::revid parameter that you could display by changing MediaWiki:Logentry-thanks-thank to, e.g., $1 thanked $3 for revision $5.

There have been a few times when I've thanked someone and then wanted to look at the log to see where the revision was that I thanked them for, because I was having trouble finding it again. I was going to give them a barnstar "for x, y, and z" because I remembered there had been a few contributions I had found particularly important, but it had been awhile so I had forgotten what exactly they were. I tried going through his contributions manually, to try to jog my memory, but there were thousands to sift through because he's a very active editor.

I've written a hack that doesn't require you to set a $wg; it would just be a 5::revid parameter that you could display by changing MediaWiki:Logentry-thanks-thank to, e.g., $1 thanked $3 for revision $5.

The $wg would control whether the $5 is passed. On WMF wikis, it would not be, since this is considered private information.

I've written a hack that doesn't require you to set a $wg; it would just be a 5::revid parameter that you could display by changing MediaWiki:Logentry-thanks-thank to, e.g., $1 thanked $3 for revision $5.

The $wg would control whether the $5 is passed. On WMF wikis, it would not be, since this is considered private information.

To clarify: the reason you need a $wg to control whether $5 is passed at all is because if $5 is passed unconditionally, it could trivially be exposed using ?uselang=qqx, and it'd also be visible in the logging table through the replica DB in tool labs. To make this information inaccessible on wikis that want it to be inaccessible, it needs to not be stored.

What do you want to call the $wg setting?

I created this nifty maintenance script to retroactively populate the thanks log with revision IDs. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Tjlsangria/populateThanksLogParams.php

Change 311364 had a related patch set uploaded (by Tjlsangria):
Specify which revision was thanked in Special:Log/thanks

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/311364

Other useful parameters could include the prefixed page title and the revision ID presented as a clickable link to [[Special:Diff/xxx|revision xxx]].

As there is a patch available, should this task be reopened?

Mattflaschen-WMF renamed this task from Specify which edit was thanked in Special:Log/thanks, both for private and public records' sake to Specify which edit was thanked in Special:Log/thanks, both for private and public records' sake, if configured to do so.Sep 26 2016, 8:26 PM
Mattflaschen-WMF reopened this task as Open.

Links to the revisions for Thanks are currently in

  • Special:Contributions/<user_name>
  • Special/Notifications

but not in

  • Special:Log/thanks

As I know dewiki, to deploy this there without community consensus will probably create a shitstorm. That's why here should be a setting to disable this.

Can you clarify this? If Alice thanks Bob for revision 123, Bob should be able to know all of that. Eve (any other user) should just be able to tell that Alice thanked Bob, but not for what (unless this is patch is implemented and it's configured to reveal that on a particular wiki).

Links to the revisions for Thanks are currently in

  • Special:Contributions/<user_name>

That is just a list of revisions, but it shouldn't allow Eve to tell which revisions Alice thanked Bob for.

  • Special/Notifications

This is private to Bob.

As I know dewiki, to deploy this there without community consensus will probably create a shitstorm. That's why here should be a setting to disable this.

I don't understand the thumbs down. The task specifically says it will only be done if configured to do so.

@Mattflaschen-WMF

That is just a list of revisions, but it shouldn't allow Eve to tell which revisions Alice thanked Bob for.

Correct, I stroked the text.

I don't see what I Thanked for @Mattflaschen-WMF

A Thanks log entry for Target David Hedlund

2017-04-21T23:08:23 Testem (talk | contribs) thanked David Hedlund (talk | contribs)

But I don't know what I was thanked for. It should read:

2017-04-21T23:08:23 Testem (talk | contribs) thanked David Hedlund (talk | contribs) for your edit on 25I-NBOMe

@MZMcBride Can you please copy my concrete example to the top of this post?

You can of course modify if to another existing Thank log.

@kaldari As Wikipedia is right now, without the patch I guess.

Change 311364 abandoned by TTO:
Specify which revision was thanked in Special:Log/thanks

Reason:
Needs discussion on task. Patch owner is banned so cannot contribute to a discussion here.

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/311364