Page MenuHomePhabricator

Determine if wpAntispam field is so effective, that we should also include it in Flow
Open, MediumPublic

Description

I feel I see a lot more spam on mw.org pages that have Flow enabled then on mw.org LQT pages. Since so much of the blacklists etc are shared, there must be other reasons why the difference is so big.

My first idea is the inclusion of wpAntispam hidden input in the normal editor (which is reused by Lqt). We should probably gather statistics about how many edits are rejected due to this field, and if it is worthy to include this very simple technique into Flow.

Backup ideas I had if this turns out not to be the reason:

  • Could be the simple presence of the form + textarea + submit combination on all pages using Flow. Lqt doesn't have this, which might cause bots to not find it an interesting target, but Flow is tastier ?
  • Add to this the fact that Flow pages are allowed to be indexed and crawled by robots, unlike the action=edit page. Explains why if the above is true, we are not being hit so much by this on normal edit pages ?

Event Timeline

TheDJ raised the priority of this task from to Needs Triage.
TheDJ updated the task description. (Show Details)
TheDJ subscribed.
Restricted Application added a subscriber: Aklapper. · View Herald Transcript

Spam looks to be a regular issue on some pages, for example https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Beta_Features/Hovercards&action=history

We definitely need to look into which measures we could add to help alleviate the problem. The spam doesn't seem to contain links or really any info, just gibberish.