On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Matthew Flaschen <mflasc...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > No, we disagree on this.
I was afraid that might be the case, so I'm glad we clarified. > The same general idea should apply for Wikibase. The only difference is > that the core functionality of data editing is in Wikibase. Correct, and I would say that Wikibase should be calling the same hooks that core does, so that AbuseFilter can be used to filter all incoming data. If Wikibase wants to define another hook, and can present the data in a generic way (like Daniel did for content handler) we can probably add it into AbuseFilter. But if the processing is specific to Wikibase (you pass an Entity into the hook, for example), then AbuseFilter shouldn't be hooking into something like that, since it would basically make Wikibase a dependency, and I do think that more independent wikis are likely to have AbuseFilter installed without Wikibase than with it. > I don't think it necessarily needs one. A spam filter with a different > approach (which may not have a rule UI at all) can register its own > hooks, just as AbuseFilter does. I can definitely appreciate that, but that is also why we currently have so many extensions for spam / bot handling, using the existing hooks. I would hate to see yet another spam extension that does really great spam detection, but is has a dependency on Wikibase. But that's just my preference. _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
