Karol, it looks like nobody else is interested at the moment, maybe this project will become more useful in the future.
Anyway I'll stay subscribed to this thread, so every reply will be taken into consideration
I'm checking every wiki edit and so far I'm not overwhelmed by the amount of work, so I think I can keep it up. I'm more concerned with the 'bus factor'. 'Bus factor' is the number of people that have to be "hit by a bus" (i.e. unable/unwilling to work on the project anymore) for the project to fail. The lower the number, the more likely the lofty goal set by the project will not be met.
]]>karol wrote:Do the current versions have only the first type of spam [...] or do you suggest checking some previous versions and comparing for [...]?
Large-scale checking for already-existent spam/vandalistic edits would require a completely different kind of organization and searching method, for sure it would need other instruments than simply the recent changes: it would be a much larger and harder mission, this team should systematically address only future attacks.
Ah, I thought we were going to go through the already written articles too.
Would reading the article be enough or do we need to read the wiki code? Apart from comments, can some tags be (ob)used to hide something?
The diffs show directly the source code, not the processed text, so even if there were other elements that can hide content (like fake templates and so on) everytinhg would be visible.
OK, I think I finally got it :-)
]]>Do the current versions have only the first type of spam [...] or do you suggest checking some previous versions and comparing for [...]?
Large-scale checking for already-existent spam/vandalistic edits would require a completely different kind of organization and searching method, for sure it would need other instruments than simply the recent changes: it would be a much larger and harder mission, this team should systematically address only future attacks.
Would reading the article be enough or do we need to read the wiki code? Apart from comments, can some tags be (ob)used to hide something?
The diffs show directly the source code, not the processed text, so even if there were other elements that can hide content (like fake templates and so on) everytinhg would be visible.
]]>- insertion of spam text, like ads or any other kind of useless junk, almost often automatically created;
or do you suggest checking some previous versions and comparing for
- vandalism, like the deletion of entire pieces of articles, for pure destructive purposes;
- deletion of useful content in good faith.
?
Would reading the article be enough or do we need to read the wiki code? Apart from comments, can some tags be (ob)used to hide something?
]]>An intermediate solution would be to highlight in some way the unwatched articles in the recent changes page, so that regular controllers could pay more attention to them.
]]>In general, many non-English article translations are not watched/maintained. As someone who only understands English and a smidgen of French, it is more difficult to spot abuse on these pages -- this is where I could see an anti-spam team being useful. However, as Pierre already noted, we are encouraging the creation of separate localized wikis to address this issue.
]]>Specifically, it would be nice if we could trim down the list of Unwatched Pages.
If you forward me the list/give me access, I would be keen to adopt a couple dozen...
]]>For the record, I try my best to review all changes every day. I believe wiki spam is well-controlled for the most part, but more active maintenance is always appreciated. Specifically, it would be nice if we could trim down the list of Unwatched Pages.
Sorry:
Permission error
From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
The action you have requested is limited to users in the group: Administrators.
Return to Main Page.
- do everything else he wants on all the articles he wants, like those he can have in his watchlist: this is not meant to be part of this project.
Thanks that answers my question. I'll remain in the complementary camp.
]]>