Bureaucrats, checkuser, Interface administrators, interwiki, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Editors (Semantic MediaWiki), staff, Suppressors, Administrators
83,693
edits
WikiIndex talk:Spam control policy: Difference between revisions
→spam - do you 'undo' or 'rollback' on existing valid articles: reply
MarkDilley (talk | contribs) (→spam - do you 'undo' or 'rollback' on existing valid articles: : ''I don't understand this. Let me try to reflect back what I think you are saying. If you use rollback, then the spam is removed from the history of the page? Best, ~~~'') |
Hoof Hearted (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
An interesting consideration . . . looking at some edit histories of articles I update, I notice that when spam has been discovered, the edit gets reverted by using the 'undo' function. This can have a problem, in that the spam is still there in the article (by using either the 'diff' or the timestamp). This may not be a big problem to generic trivial spam, but for more contentious spam (such as illegal activities, child porn images, etc) this can be a real problem. So can I suggest that when spam is added to existing articles, the admins use the 'rollback' function instead - as this then permanently deletes the offending spam edit, and wont then show up in the articles edit history. --[[User:Hoof Hearted|Hoof Hearted]] • <small>[[User talk:Hoof Hearted|talk2HH]]</small> 01:39, 26 January 2012 (PST) | An interesting consideration . . . looking at some edit histories of articles I update, I notice that when spam has been discovered, the edit gets reverted by using the 'undo' function. This can have a problem, in that the spam is still there in the article (by using either the 'diff' or the timestamp). This may not be a big problem to generic trivial spam, but for more contentious spam (such as illegal activities, child porn images, etc) this can be a real problem. So can I suggest that when spam is added to existing articles, the admins use the 'rollback' function instead - as this then permanently deletes the offending spam edit, and wont then show up in the articles edit history. --[[User:Hoof Hearted|Hoof Hearted]] • <small>[[User talk:Hoof Hearted|talk2HH]]</small> 01:39, 26 January 2012 (PST) | ||
: ''I don't understand this. Let me try to reflect back what I think you are saying. If you use rollback, then the spam is removed from the history of the page? Best, [[MarkDilley]]'' | : ''I don't understand this. Let me try to reflect back what I think you are saying. If you use rollback, then the spam is removed from the history of the page? Best, [[MarkDilley]]'' | ||
::Correct. Rollback completely deletes any 'offending' edit such as spam. For people who are 'wiki savvy', an 'undo' edit will still leave any spam in its edit history, and could still potentially be indexed in a search engine. But rollback is like 'un-inventing the wheel' - all trace is gone. It was the lack of rollback which caused [[Goatopedia]] to be shut down - a spammer posted images of child porn, but the site admins just 'undone' the offending edit, and then [[wp:CEOP|CEOP]] (a specialist division of the UKs Met Police) repeatedly found damming image, and threatened the site owner. Had the rollback function been used, Goatopedia would still be up and running. Rollback should seriously be implemented by all WikiIndex admins - Wikipedia even allow non-admins to use rollback. Hope I've made this a little clearer :) --[[User:Hoof Hearted|Hoof Hearted]] • <small>[[User talk:Hoof Hearted|talk2HH]]</small> 10:38, 27 January 2012 (PST) | |||