https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34590
--- Comment #22 from Nicolas Brouard <[email protected]> 2012-04-16 12:21:52 UTC --- Hi, No activity since a month... I think that the only argument against this patch could be that it reveals the name of a user. As I said a Special:UserContribution doesn't DIRECTLY reveal, on the listing, the name of the user when you enter the e-mail address instead of the username. And you get the message below "No changes were found matching these criteria" instead of the list of contribution that you will get if you entered the usernale: --------------Results of Special:UserContribution with the patch above ---- User contributions For [email protected] (talk | block | block log | uploads | logs | deleted user contributions | user rights management) Search for contributions Show contributions of new accounts only IP address or username: Namespace: Deleted only Only show edits that are latest revisions >From year (and earlier): From month (and earlier): No changes were found matching these criteria. ---------------------------- End of listing ------------------------------ But if you have your mouse on talk or block or etc., you get the Username in clear. Also on Special:Log if you enter an e-mail and if this user is a admin and has changed something special enough to be logged, the list is unfortunately revealing his name! Thus, I agree that, unfortunately, this simple patch is not convenient for Wikipedia! But for many corporate mediawikis where official identity is the rule, I am still wondering if it is a good idea or not? Would spy-robots try to reveal e-mails of Officials? On our own 'patched' wikis, an Arabic user was recently very happy to change his English transliterated name with his Arabic identity but still appreciated the facility to enter his English transliterated e-mail for authentication. I am not sure that the pro is balancing the con (unfortunate weakness that could reveal the email address from an identity) and thus I am disappointed by the leak of my patch. Other issues discussed here, like the very nice Narayam extension, are not as simple as this patch and might still discourage people to sign with their mother language identity. Currently most scientists want to sign with their English transliterated name signature but not all of them if a possibility was offered to sign with their own identity. We recently have had a meeting on Multilingualism in Sciences (mostly social sciences) and it was clear that if the results of Science have to be diffused among the populations, scientists have also to share their results using local languages and signatures! Unicode gives us the opportunity to keep that diversity. Someone, at this humble meeting, remembered us the diversity, which was standard before the second war, by highlighting a scientific review were articles were written in Italian, German, English and French. She also presented a scan of a communication from a Chinese statistician were the hand-written captions and headers of tables were also translated into French and not only Chinese. Would the forced English transliteration period last only a few decades? There are probably other places to discuss that. But we should admit that this future is very dependent of softwares (Mediawiki?) and standards (Unicode) as well as hardwares (virtual keyboards of recent smart-phones are offering 8 different Chinese input methods for example). Would Mediawiki wait until all keyboards are virtual? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug. You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Wikibugs-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
