https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=58196
--- Comment #38 from Krinkle <krinklem...@gmail.com> --- Changing the timestamp in this table based on wiki size would be a mistake in my opinion. It would make the data too arbitrary and hard to maintain. It also probably won't scale well into the MySQL mapping and relevant configuration. The reason we don't want to provide the full timestamp is because it exposes rather detailed information that would be trivial to map to an individual on most wikis (even large wikis) based on when an edit has happened. Shortening this to a month minimised this ability greatly, reducing it to only being able to tell that those with the current month as their last-active timestamp (YYYY-MM) are one of the users listed on Special:ActiveUsers. In theory this could still be exploited by being a patient person and waiting for the moment one month has ended. Then the first user to become active in the new month would be the only person with a newer month timestamp. For this particular exploit it is irrelevant how much we crop the timestamp (year, month, date, it's all the same, it only reduces how often one can make such attempt and with that the usefulness the data in the first place). If we consider that possibility important enough to warrant a solution, then that solution will work equally for year, month and day. I don't think there is any reason to trim it further than month, nor is there any reason to bring small/medium/large into the balance. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Wikibugs-l mailing list Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
