Stewards are just 34 people and are not enough to be a big voting power at the wishlist like enwiki people. What we actually need cannot get it thru that way.
-- Yongmin Sent from my iPhone Text licensed under CC BY ND 2.0 KR Please note that this address is list-only address and any non-mailing list mails will be treated as spam. Please use https://encrypt.to/0x947f156f16250de39788c3c35b625da5beff197a 2019. 2. 12. 02:18, Jonathan Morgan <[email protected]> 작성: > This may be naive, but... isn't the wishlist filling this need? And if not > through a consensus-driven method like the wishlist, how should a WMF team > prioritize which power user tools it needs to focus on? > > Or is just a matter of "Yes, wishlist, but more of it"? > > - Jonathan > >> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 2:34 AM bawolff <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Sure its certainly a front we can do better on. >> >> I don't think Kasada is a product that's appropriate at this time. Ignoring >> the ideological aspect of it being non-free software, there's a lot of easy >> things we could and should try first. >> >> However, I'd caution against viewing this as purely a technical problem. >> Wikimedia is not like other websites - we have allowable bots. For many >> commercial websites, the only good bot is a dead bot. Wikimedia has many >> good bots. On enwiki usually they have to be approved, I don't think that's >> true on all wikis. We also consider it perfectly ok to do limited testing >> of bots before it is approved. We also encourage the creation of >> alternative "clients", which from a server perspective looks like a bot. >> Unlike other websites where anything non-human is evil, here we need to >> ensure our blocking corresponds to social norms of the community. This may >> sound not that hard, but I think it complicates botblocking more than is >> obvious at first glance. >> >> Second, this sort of thing is something that tends to far through the >> cracks at WMF. AFAIK the last time there was a team responsible for admin >> tools & anti-abuse was 2013 ( >> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Admin_tools_development). I believe >> (correct >> me if I'm wrong) that anti-harrasment team is all about human harassment >> and not anti-abuse in this sense. Security is adjacent to this problem, but >> traditionally has not considered this problem in scope. Even core tools >> like checkuser have been largely ignored by the foundation for many many >> years. >> >> I guess this is a long winded way of saying - I think there should be a >> team responsible for this sort of stuff at WMF, but there isn't one. I >> think there's a lot of rather easy things we can try (Off the top of my >> head: Better captchas. More adaptive rate limits that adjust based on how >> evilish you look, etc), but they definitely require close involvement with >> the community to ensure that we do the actual right thing. >> >> -- >> Brian >> (p.s. Consider this a volunteer hat email) >> >>> On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 6:06 AM Pine W <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> To clarify the types of unwelcome bots that we have, here are the ones >> that >>> I think are most common: >>> >>> 1) Spambots >>> >>> 2) Vandalbots >>> >>> 3) Unauthorized bots which may be intended to act in good faith but which >>> may cause problems that could probably have been identified during >> standard >>> testing in Wikimedia communities which have a relatively well developed >> bot >>> approval process. (See >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval.) >>> >>> Maybe unwelcome bots are not a priority for WMF at the moment, in which >>> case I could add this subject into a backlog. I am sorry if I sound >> grumpy >>> at WMF regarding this subject; this is a problem but I know that there >> are >>> millions of problems and I don't expect a different project to be dropped >>> in order to address this one. >>> >>> While it is a rough analogy, I think that this movie clip helps to >>> illustrate a problem of bad bots. Although the clip is amusing, I am not >>> amused by unwelcome bots causing problems on ENWP or anywhere else in the >>> Wikiverse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lokKpSrNqDA >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Pine >>> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Sat, Feb 9, 2019, 1:40 PM Pine W <[email protected] wrote: >>>> >>>> OK. Yesterday I was looking with a few other ENWP people at what I >> think >>>> was a series of edits by either a vandal bot or an inadequately >> designed >>>> and unapproved good faith bot. I read that it made approximately 500 >>> edits >>>> before someone who knew enough about ENWP saw what was happening and >> did >>>> something about it. I don't know how many problematic bots we have, in >>>> addition to vandal bots, but I am confident that they drain a >> nontrivial >>>> amount of time from stewards, admins, and patrollers. >>>> >>>> I don't know how much of a priority WMF places on detecting and >> stopping >>>> unwelcome bots, but I think that the question of how to decrease the >>>> numbers and effectiveness of unwelcome bots would be a good topic for >> WMF >>>> to research. >>>> >>>> Pine >>>> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 9:24 PM Gergo Tisza <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 6:20 PM Pine W <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't know how practical it would be to implement an approach like >>>>> this >>>>>> in the Wikiverse, and whether licensing proprietary technology would >>> be >>>>>> required. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> They are talking about Polyform [1], a reverse proxy that filters >>> traffic >>>>> with a combination of browser fingerprinting, behavior analysis and >>> proof >>>>> of work. >>>>> Proof of work is not really useful unless you have huge levels of bot >>>>> traffic from a single bot operator (also it means locking out users >> with >>>>> no >>>>> Javascript); browser and behavior analysis very likely cannot be >>>>> outsourced >>>>> to a third party for privacy reasons. Maybe we could do it ourselves >>>>> (although it would still bring up interesting questions privacy-wise) >>> but >>>>> it would be a huge undertaking. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> [1] https://www.kasada.io/product/ >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Wikitech-l mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l >>>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikitech-l mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikitech-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > > > > -- > Jonathan T. Morgan > Senior Design Researcher > Wikimedia Foundation > User:Jmorgan (WMF) <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)> > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
