https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=57512

Brad Jorsch <bjor...@wikimedia.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |bjor...@wikimedia.org

--- Comment #10 from Brad Jorsch <bjor...@wikimedia.org> ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> however, the only way we'll know if this is the case is
> when actual users begin to use Flow. That's why we're deploying to a few
> pages
> where people can test it out and tell us if this is important to fix asap. 

Yes, they'll tell you. While coming after you with torches and pitchforks, most
likely. Especially so soon after the same thing happened with VE.

I don't think that having Flow do all sorts of non-discussion-related things
differently just because "it's Flow!" is a good justification.

> But vandalism works the other way around, too. Take the Meepsheep vandal of..
> 2011, I think? The guy who found a bunch of unprotected transcluded templates
> that were used on thousands of really high-visibility articles and inserted
> pictures of swastikas and dead babies in them. I'd argue that's a much more
> common and much more serious form of vandalism that the current mediawiki
> setup
> does not adequately address.

Having templates in articles work that way would be antithetical to the entire
purpose of templates. This very issue has been discussed in depth very recently
on enwiki, and various more-well-thought-out proposals than "break templates
completely" were discussed and rejected.

And I strongly suspect that having templates weirdly work differently in Flow
than in articles is going to be confusing for users.

And if some vandal does manage to do this, will it even be *possible* to find
the Flow posts that are affected? Since there are no links table entries, it
seems unlikely unless we can get lucky in being able to find them with the
search engine without false positives.

> but again, it's
> also
> extremely confusing when a template is used for years, is edited, and
> suddenly
> looks completely out of context in places where the older version still
> lives.

OTOH, with this bug it's impossible for anyone to find how a template is used
in discussions in the first place. Or to find the transclusions in order to fix
them if a template (or a template redirect, or a shortcut redirect, etc) is
repurposed. It also breaks any workflow that depends on finding transclusions
of a template in talk pages. And if categorylinks is included in this bug,
it'll also break workflows that depend on adding talk pages to maintenance
categories.

This reminds me of the problem with bug 12974: bug 529 was easy enough to work
around, but fixing it caused problems that are impossible to work around.
"Templates that shouldn't change" is easy to work around with subst, but making
all templates pseudo-substed in Flow sounds like it'll cause problems that are
impossible to work around.


The non-updating of link tables also makes it impossible to search for external
links (e.g. to find past discussions of the reliability of a source), or to
find discussions that link to some page, or to find discussions that use an
image, and so on. Except by hoping that some search engine invocation can find
it without too many false positives to wade through.

-- 
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
Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l

Reply via email to