Hello,
Le mercredi 11 février 2015, 16:59:45 Petr Bena a écrit :
We have OAuth for browser based programs. But nothing for desktop
applications that are being used by users. (Like AWB etc).
It sounds pretty simple to me, so why we don't have anything like that?
The reason currently given
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 8:48 PM, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
What is more important: allowing as many people to use our libraries as
possible, or protecting against our libraries from being used in proprietary
software.
For me, allowing as many people to use our libraries as
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
On February 11, 2015 at 11:49:15, Bryan Davis (bd...@wikimedia.org) wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 8:48 PM, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
What is more important: allowing as many people to use our libraries as
On Wednesday, February 11, 2015, Guillaume Paumier gpaum...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Hello,
Le mercredi 11 février 2015, 16:59:45 Petr Bena a écrit :
We have OAuth for browser based programs. But nothing for desktop
applications that are being used by users. (Like AWB etc).
It sounds
From developer point of view session looks much more easy to implement
than signed api calls. I wouldn't even need to change the code of
application for it to work.
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 6:43 PM, Chris Steipp cste...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Wednesday, February 11, 2015, Guillaume Paumier
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 10:48 PM, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
I’m still not entirely convinced that the GPLv2 allows more licenses than
the v3.
GPL v2+ is a superset of GPL v3. I don't know why you find that so hard to
understand.
[...] I do not think it is possible to add
On February 11, 2015 at 11:49:15, Bryan Davis (bd...@wikimedia.org) wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 8:48 PM, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
What is more important: allowing as many people to use our libraries as
possible, or protecting against our libraries from being used in
On February 11, 2015 at 12:53:54, C. Scott Ananian (canan...@wikimedia.org)
wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 10:48 PM, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
I’m still not entirely convinced that the GPLv2 allows more licenses than
the v3.
GPL v2+ is a superset of GPL v3. I don't know why you
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 2:01 PM, Dan Andreescu dandree...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Scrum_of_scrums/2015-02-11
If anyone with better wiki kung fu than me could take a look and figure
out why the table of contents is not rendering on that page like it does on
all the
Both pages you linked have a table of contents for me.
Dan
On 11 February 2015 at 11:01, Dan Andreescu dandree...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Scrum_of_scrums/2015-02-11
If anyone with better wiki kung fu than me could take a look and figure
out why the table of
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Scrum_of_scrums/2015-02-11
If anyone with better wiki kung fu than me could take a look and figure out
why the table of contents is not rendering on that page like it does on all
the other [1] ones, I would appreciate it.
[1]
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
And, as a result, since MediaWiki is licensed under the v2+ rather than
v3, we cannot accept Apache-licensed code into core.
We cannot. But our users can. And our users can also combine with GPL
v2-only code.
The set
I know this and that is why I started this thread :)
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Guillaume Paumier
gpaum...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello,
Le mercredi 11 février 2015, 16:59:45 Petr Bena a écrit :
We have OAuth for browser based programs. But nothing for desktop
applications that are
Hi,
We have OAuth for browser based programs. But nothing for desktop
applications that are being used by users. (Like AWB etc).
These applications now have to ask for password, which is kind of safe
given that they are open source and running on computer of the user,
so at some point giving
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 5:07 AM, This, that and the other
at.li...@live.com.au wrote:
How does a user prove that they're using a particular tool a way that can't
be faked? Something like OAuth comes to mind. All edits made via an OAuth
consumer are already tagged with a unique tag, and I would
First of all, this is why I am discussing it here, to avoid having
multiple people work on same thing.
Abuses:
I would consider this to be more like something like minor edit for
which you also don't need a permission. People who deal with vandals
probably shouldn't filter out users based on
This is true but I don't understand why we can't have something like
OAuth for applications. I don't think it should be something complex.
User would just generate some token in mediawiki interface that
would be some long string which they would give to application, which
would then login to
Il 11/02/2015 14:07, This, that and the other ha scritto:
Chris Grant wrote in message
news:caf_zkbp-abgzgcy4lqqvbtxur-2tjo8opmbwxtrosfvihuc...@mail.gmail.com...
On 11 Feb 2015 17:57, Petr Bena benap...@gmail.com wrote:
As I said, I belive that any registered user should be able to use,
Please excuse the combined replies.
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 4:10 AM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:
Definitely worth discussing. For ENWP, I suggest bringing this up on VP:T.
Probably better to host the discussion on Meta, since it affects all wikis.
Then you could advertise it on enwiki
I believe that majority of users will not like to have to ask for some
extra permissions in order to use some feature and so they will not
ask for them and not use it. So in case this tool edit flag was
restricted to some special permissions, users would keep using
automated tools and their edits
On 2015-02-11 10:06 AM, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
And, as a result, since MediaWiki is licensed under the v2+ rather than
v3, we cannot accept Apache-licensed code into core.
We cannot. But our users can. And our users
On February 11, 2015 at 15:32:00, Ryan Lane (rlan...@gmail.com) wrote:
Companies don't need to give back with GPL either, even if they make mods.
They only need to do so if they distribute. There's lots of Apache2
projects that have a very large amount of contribution, so maybe this would
happen,
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
On February 11, 2015 at 11:49:15, Bryan Davis (bd...@wikimedia.org) wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 8:48 PM, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
What is more important: allowing as many people to use our libraries as
*OOjs UI 0.7.0* has been released today. It will be in MW from 1.25wmf18+.
We've tried hard to avoid breaking changes when possible, but occasionally
they will happen. The last time there were breaking changes in a release
was 2014-12-16 (wmf13), 137 OOjs UI commits ago.
*Breaking changes since
I'm still thinking about this. A designated tool flag that (1) is assigned
to trusted users as a userright like autopatrol and (2) could be used for
multi-edit rollbacks as well as other semiautomated edits, could be quite
useful for both watchlist screening and recent changes screening. The flag
Hoi,
What does this have to do with English Wikipedia ? It is useful
everywhere.. Why limit the scope ?
Thanks,
GerardM
On 11 February 2015 at 10:33, Petr Bena benap...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, the question is however, if this passed consensus on english
wikipedia and I made a patch for
Yes, the question is however, if this passed consensus on english
wikipedia and I made a patch for mediawiki, assuming code would be
correct would it be merged to core of mediawiki or is there any other
requirement? Does it actually even need to pass consensus on
wikipedia? I think this would be
Definitely worth discussing. For ENWP, I suggest bringing this up on VP:T.
Thanks,
Pine
On Feb 11, 2015 12:45 AM, Petr Bena benap...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I think I proposed this once but I forgot the outcome.
I would like to implement a new feature called tool edit it would be
pretty much
It's relevant for all projects and languages.
I haven't done it in a while, but I had my periods of massive AWB editing,
and other RC patrollers rightly complained about it and asked me to do such
things with a bot account.
thinkingoutloudThe question is, how would it be different from the usual
As I said, I belive that any registered user should be able to use,
with no need for permissions as I see no way to abuse it. Bot flag
gives you higher api limits which can be abused, but this would just
work to make it easier for users to hide out your edits. The
permission could be individually
Petr Bena benap...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
The rationale is pretty clear: there is a number of tools, like AWB
and many others that produce incredible amounts of edits every day.
They are spamming recent changes page -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChanges can't be filtered
On 11 Feb 2015 17:57, Petr Bena benap...@gmail.com wrote:
As I said, I belive that any registered user should be able to use,
with no need for permissions as I see no way to abuse it.
If anyone can use it, wouldn't the smarter vandals just use it to avoid the
RC patrollers?
-Chris
Hi,
I think I proposed this once but I forgot the outcome.
I would like to implement a new feature called tool edit it would be
pretty much the same as bot edit but with following differences:
-- Every registered user would be able to flag edit as tool edit (bot
needs special user group)
-- The
On 11 February 2015 at 09:33, Petr Bena benap...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, the question is however, if this passed consensus on english
wikipedia and I made a patch for mediawiki, assuming code would be
correct would it be merged to core of mediawiki or is there any other
requirement? Does it
It's funny, it just so happens that Anomie and I are working on something [1]
right now, based on the existing change tagging infrastructure, which is quite
similar to what you are asking for, and with much the same purpose in mind.
There have been discussions at [2] and [3] relating to this
Keep in mind that it isn't always easy to tell 'tool' and 'bot' edits
apart. Several scripts can perform actions whose degree of automation
varies widely.
For my part, I make most of my semi-automated edits using my bot's
account, but many users also have separate 'flood' accounts for use with
Chris Grant wrote in message
news:caf_zkbp-abgzgcy4lqqvbtxur-2tjo8opmbwxtrosfvihuc...@mail.gmail.com...
On 11 Feb 2015 17:57, Petr Bena benap...@gmail.com wrote:
As I said, I belive that any registered user should be able to use,
with no need for permissions as I see no way to abuse it.
Hi Petr,
Petr Bena schreef op 11-2-2015 om 7:50:
I believe that majority of users will not like to have to ask for some
extra permissions in order to use some feature and so they will not
ask for them and not use it.
Don't break your head over this.
1. We build this tool edit feature (or not).
Maarten's thinking works well with my train of thought also.
What would it take to implement a new tool edit flag userright,
associated filters for recent changes and watchlists, and automatic
applications of the flag to uses of rollback, AWB, etc when the user of
those tools has the right to the
Alex Monk wrote:
On 11 February 2015 at 09:33, Petr Bena benap...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, the question is however, if this passed consensus on english
wikipedia and I made a patch for mediawiki, assuming code would be
correct would it be merged to core of mediawiki or is there any other
40 matches
Mail list logo
