Jump to content

Talk:Emerging strategic priorities/ESP 3 key questions/How can we better prevent editing that hurts quality (e.g., vandalism and malicious edits), and fix it when it occurs?

From Strategic Planning
Let anonymous editors (or at least those from inconvenient ISPs/locations) fill in ReCaptchas extensively. --Fasten 13:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
One could deny anonymous authors (or at least those from inconvenient ISPs/locations) to edit more than a smallest sub-section at a time. --Fasten 14:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
    • I'm not sure that OpenID will solve the problem, but the "less useful tools...." sounds promising. Some of the most damaging vandals work extremely fast and this would slow them down. We could also make semi-protection of articles standard, thus limiting their edits to talk pages, and even then we should use the slowing down process you mention. While not all IPs perform vandalism, nearly all vandalism is performed by IPs, so limiting the rights of IPs has no really serious downside. -- BullRangifer 03:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
    • We can slow them down by forcing IPs to "jump through a hoop" each time they edit. Every single time an IP attempts to edit, a screen (with polices and encouragement to register) will appear that forces them to click through before they can actually get to the real editing screen. This will slow them down, and the first screen will explain to them the advantages of registering and why editing as an IP will always be a cumbersome process for them. -- BullRangifer 03:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
    • Summarizing:
    1. Providing less useful tools to IPs.
    2. Slow them down by making them "jump through hoops" for each edit.
    3. Making semi-protection of articles their default state.
    • Our goal should be aimed at preventing vandalism, not (just) making it easier to fight it after it happens. Too much time is wasted on mopping up vandalism considering the relatively few (as compared to vandalistic) good edits from IPs. -- BullRangifer 17:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
    • Case study: On one of the smaller projects we have someone who has decided to spend several hours a day doing damage to pages, due to a past personal disupte. Block one IP, they power cycle their router (of course). Blocking the entire ISP is not a great option, since many legitimate users would be affected. What can we do about cases like these? I expect the projects will see more of them as time goes on; en pedia survives them because the number of editors/vandal fighters is ginormous. For small communities, what has proven effective elsewhere? Or, what new approaches might we look into? (Yes, Abusefilter is activated, but it's not effective against someone who is persistent.) -- ArielGlenn 03:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
    Anonymous editing is useful while it is useful for Wikipedia but there is no reason to see it as a right of the individual. If your location or ISP is temporarily banned from anonymous editing on Wikipedia you still have the option to create an account. One could allow administrators to increase different penalties for ISP locations individually (forced preview, extra request for edit summary, longer preview delay, multiple CAPTCHAs) before blocking an ISP location entirely. --Fasten 11:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
    • How about a blacklist for words and a filter that flags any edit that uses sexual content or swear words? Exceptions could be made for pages where such words were expected as part of the content, such as anatomical/psycho-social pages about sex.--Graeme E. Smith 13:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
Proposal:Authoring groups for Wikibooks and Wikiversity would be useful. --Fasten 21:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
  1. FR helps. (agree with Sigma 7) Woudloper 00:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)Reply