Wikimedia sysadmins begin using anti-spam tools to fight LTAs

[Bbb23sucks]

Forked from the Sucks spam thread:

Since it now seems like the tools originally intended just for me are now going to stay in use generally, I thought we'd start a topic.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php? ... 7C54754233

[Archer]

As in, just recently? Bayesian spam filters have been around for thirty years if not longer. They're simple and they can be implemented easily from scratch, as can more advanced models for spam filtering. I'm not sure quite what to make of Wikipedia's ostensible backwardness, but it is suspect.

It would not be hard to discourage casual vandalism/spam e.g. by dispensing with IP editing, by asking users to provide some information about themselves and their expertise when they register, by using spam filters, so on and so forth. It's almost as though Wikipedia wants there to be some amount of vandalism. IP editing seems unnecessary and I suspect it's a PR feature, of the look-at-how-open-and-welcoming-we-are variety. Likewise, the steady busywork of issuing vandalism/spam blocks provides reliable cover for more abusive applications of the block tool.

[suckadmin]

It would not be hard to discourage casual vandalism/spam e.g. by dispensing with IP editing, by asking users to provide some information about themselves and their expertise when they register, by using spam filters, so on and so forth. It's almost as though Wikipedia wants there to be some amount of vandalism. IP editing seems unnecessary and I suspect it's a PR feature, of the look-at-how-open-and-welcoming-we-are variety. Likewise, the steady busywork of issuing vandalism/spam blocks provides reliable cover for more abusive applications of the block tool.

My guess is the original intention was to make it as easy as possible for anybody to edit. Not so much as a PR feature (although why not make that a talking point) but because they needed as many editors as possible to get it off the ground. But obviously such a system is ripe for abuse and should have been abandoned years ago. Let's make a megaphone that can reach the entire world and anybody can use it... well except you and you and you etc

Another approach would be to (gasp) change a small fee to be an editor. This might go against their philosophy and would definitely make it more difficult for third would countries or the impoverished to participate. But such a system would curb casual vandalism and the paradoxical true spam.

Or they could use their piles of cash to fund a user a verification system but privacy issues would have to be mitigated and there still would be biases against the third world and the impoverished. Also I think they'd feel more pressure to create a fair system to mitigate disputes over admin abuse.

Wasn't the block chain or crypto somehow supposed to solve these problems? lol

[Archer]

It would not be hard to discourage casual vandalism/spam e.g. by dispensing with IP editing, by asking users to provide some information about themselves and their expertise when they register, by using spam filters, so on and so forth. It's almost as though Wikipedia wants there to be some amount of vandalism. IP editing seems unnecessary and I suspect it's a PR feature, of the look-at-how-open-and-welcoming-we-are variety. Likewise, the steady busywork of issuing vandalism/spam blocks provides reliable cover for more abusive applications of the block tool.

My guess is the original intention was to make it as easy as possible for anybody to edit. Not so much as a PR feature (although why not make that a talking point) but because they needed as many editors as possible to get it off the ground. But obviously such a system is ripe for abuse and should have been abandoned years ago. Let's make a megaphone that can reach the entire world and anybody can use it... well except you and you and you etc

Another approach would be to (gasp) change a small fee to be an editor. This might go against their philosophy and would definitely make it more difficult for third would countries or the impoverished to participate. But such a system would curb casual vandalism and the paradoxical true spam.

Or they could use their piles of cash to fund a user a verification system but privacy issues would have to be mitigated and there still would be biases against the third world and the impoverished. Also I think they'd feel more pressure to create a fair system to mitigate disputes over admin abuse.

Wasn't the block chain or crypto somehow supposed to solve these problems? lol

they needed as many editors as possible

I don't know what their original intent was but presently Wikipedia has little reason to permit IP editing, which seems to encourage vandalism. Registration is not a deterrent to someone interested in making a decent contribution.

Another approach would be to (gasp) change a small fee to be an editor.

Gross, though personally I wouldn't mind something like a one-time $1.00 cover charge - that is, if I weren't blocked. This would be a very crude way to vet editors and I'm sure they could do better than that.

Or they could use their piles of cash to fund a user a verification system but privacy issues would have to be mitigated and there still would be biases against the third world and the impoverished. But such a system would curb casual vandalism and the paradoxical true spam.

This seems practical enough, but why not try the easiest thing first? Get rid of IP editing and require registration. IP editors account for a huge portion of vandalism.

Wasn't the block chain or crypto somehow supposed to solve these problems?

Bitcoin is grossly inefficient and will likely fail at some point as the block reward diminishes to the point where mining becomes unprofitable. Users won't bear the real transaction cost. How would it solve this problem? Or perhaps you meant something else.

But obviously such a system is ripe for abuse

Wikipedia seems practically designed for abuse. See my critique of Wikipedia's policy, which starts here https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... 836#p29836. It's a bit long, spanning several posts over several pages. At some point I should consolidate it and repost it (preferably with an exemption to the length limit on posts, if possible), but I digress.

[Bbb23sucks]

Gross, though personally I wouldn't mind something like a one-time $1.00 cover charge - that is, if I weren't blocked. This would be a very crude way to vet editors and I'm sure they could do better than that.

I'd just require real-world verification and show your username as your real-name. That would reduce spam 99.9%.

[Archer]

Gross, though personally I wouldn't mind something like a one-time $1.00 cover charge - that is, if I weren't blocked. This would be a very crude way to vet editors and I'm sure they could do better than that.

I'd just require real-world verification and show your username as your real-name. That would reduce spam 99.9%.

Not to labor the point, but everyone should keep in mind that it would require virtually no work on their part to simply disable IP editing and make a brief statement explaining that IP editing has been a source of vandalism, that registration is 'open' to anyone who wants to edit, yada yada. The "open to anyone" part would be bullshit, coming from them, but the point is it would be easy to justify this and they really have no reason not to try it*, as far as I can see. Conversely, one can just imagine the excuses if something like ID verification were suggested. It seems better not to leave such openings when one makes a policy critique, if possible.

* Though as I mentioned, I suspect they keep IP editing to encourage the idea that they are a public organization, welcoming even despite the nuisance of 'vandals'. They depend upon this public image. Wikipedia's abuses might be documented on sites like this one, tucked away in a corner and largely absent from search results (unless one already knows what to search for), but all most people see is Wikipedia's wishy-washy posturing and PR, along with the content it makes available. It would be easy enough for the average viewer to simply assume that critics have a grudge. If Wikipedia required registration, ID, a cover charge, an application, or anything to that effect, would it undermine this facade? Hard to say, but I suspect so.

[suckadmin]

your username as your real-name

Nah. Because privacy issues.

And even if that wasn't the case it wouldn't solve the over arching problem of the poor management and structure of the organisation.

There's little motivation for them to fix anything in anyway and it's a common issue with social media companies as well although not as acute. The technology at Wikipedia is old and shitty and poorly maintained. Whereas Facebook is newer but churns through new features so quickly that by the time you might get used to a new features they are removing it and no user is getting the sane front-end experience as the others.

The only driving factor is profitability. WMF has really low overhead .. the biggest cost is servers... which is probably pretty significant. Significant enough that it keeps grassroots competition at bay.

Requiring real names as usernames is problematic for a number of reasons and was met with alot of resistance on Facebook even though most people are already using more or less their real name.

Asking users to pay any amount or use their realnames is pretty much a non starter these days because everyone is accustomed to the internet being "free" and anonymous.

Even still if WMF used a third party verification service there would be issues but not as severe as say what's going on with certain states requiring verification for adult websites.

[suckadmin]

Wasn't the block chain or crypto somehow supposed to solve these problems?

Bitcoin is grossly inefficient and will likely fail at some point as the block reward diminishes to the point where mining becomes unprofitable. Users won't bear the real transaction cost. How would it solve this problem? Or perhaps you meant something else.

Bitcoin is.. but I think there has been other crypto coins written to be less so and one had the intended use of costing basically a penny or less but you had to use one to send an email and for spammers this would add up to millions of dollars quickly because they basically thrive on the free use of internet resources. It's estimated that only half the activity on the internet is actual humans .. the whole dead internet thing.


As for turning off ip edits. yes its a builtin feature.. one click in the settings would turn it off.

It'd be interesting to know how much activity would be effected by that but my experience says it'd be high. Most people are very lazy and will hesitate it's part of how Facebook killed off forums... its just "easier". And really if registering an account is too much trouble then editing should be too much trouble.

Allowing ip edits is hardly a talking point.. allowing unverified accounts edit isn't much less anonymous

[Archer]

your username as your real-name

Nah. Because privacy issues.

And even if that wasn't the case it wouldn't solve the over arching problem of the poor management and structure of the organisation.

Preventing vandalism might, just as I explained in my earlier replies. Or rather, I suspect they don't want to take any of these measures because 1) vandalism provides admins with steady busywork that obscures abuse while at the same time keeping up appearances and making for good PR, and 2) these measures would undermine Wikipedia's (largely bogus) public image of an 'open', 'inclusive' and public organization.

Asking users to pay any amount or use their realnames is pretty much a non starter these days because everyone is accustomed to the internet being "free" and anonymous.

How's that? Not that I endorse his idea, but this doesn't seem true. People get nickle-and-dimed constantly on the internet. Amazon prime, microtransactions, various subscriptions e.g. patreon, netflix, and so on. A cheap (e.g. $2) one-time cover charge probably wouldn't bother most prospective, qualified editors, nor I imagine would ID verification. Having said that, neither would be the first thing I'd try, as I explained in my earlier replies. This might have the potential to be a very effective critique, as Wikipedia really has no honest reason not to take some preventative action, as far as I can see. It would be far less work on their part to prevent vandalism instead of wasting time patrolling for vandalism and responding with blocks.

[Archer]

It'd be interesting to know how much activity would be effected by that but my experience says it'd be high. Most people are very lazy and will hesitate it's part of how Facebook killed off forums... its just "easier". And really if registering an account is too much trouble then editing should be too much trouble.

I would be very surprised if the volume of "good" IP editing weren't very small compared to that of registered users. I'm sure there's some data somewhere. There's no (honest) reason they couldn't simply try it for a while. Personally I'd require users to submit an essay with their registration.