Following the mediawiki-l discussion<http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/mediawiki-l/2013-November/042038.html>about $wgNoFollowLinks and various other discussions, in which some discontent was expressed with the current two options of either applying or not applying nofollow to all external links, I wanted to see what support there might be for applying nofollow only to external links added in revisions that are still unpatrolled (bug 42599<https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42599> ).
How common do you think it would be for a use case to arise in which one could be confident that a revision's being patrolled means that the external links added in that revision have been adequately reviewed for spamminess? Nemo had mentioned "sysadmins would be interested in this only if their wiki has a strict definition of what's patrollable which matches the assumptions here." In my experience, spam is pretty easy to spot because the bots aren't very subtle about it. I would think that if someone went around marking such obviously spammy edits as patrolled, that if there were any bureaucrats around who cared about keeping spam off the wiki, his patrol rights would end up getting taken away. Spam is a form of vandalism, so it would fall under the duties of patrollers. At Wikipedia, RecentChanges patrollers are expected to be on the lookout for spam. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Recent_changes_patrol#Spam -- Nathan Larson <https://mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Leucosticte> _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
