Discussion of Wiki Spam

Some comments from the old Google page, which I have locked:

Is there not some way we could block changes for a particular user? @alex

• No there is not. I asked at UseMod and they told me that you can only block the IP, host name, subnet or (sub)domain. --DonRedman

  The IPs used have been blocked, AFAICT. Time will tell. - DaveEvans

Under Usemod there used to be a way for Wiki admins to edit the IP ban list. I don't know if there is an equivalent for Moin; for now, I've implemented this in an Apache config file. This means that the people who were banned before are still banned, but AFAIK it's not so easy to add new people to the list. - DaveEvans

Another thought which came to mind: if, in the future, wiki spam becomes a real problem (at the moment we seem to be okay) then another option is as follows: instead of using the fixed "mbwiki" user/pass when trying to edit pages, we could use a different authentication data source. I was thinking the musicbrainz-users subscriber list - username = your e-mail address, password = your mailing list password. This would mean that everyone editing the wiki would have a working e-mail address. (These e-mail addresses would not be seen anywhere... I think. Maybe the web stats pages? I'd have to check). - DaveEvans

Do you realise that MoinMoin has a very superior spam protection, the AntiSpamGlobalSolution. I would very much prefer that from a difficult login. If this really prevents spam, then the login could be dropped completely, which would enhance wiki nature. It does not seem to be possible to use the MusicBrainz authenitcation with Moin, does it? You might also want to check OliverGraf/HttpAuthentication. --DonRedman

I just found another anti spam measure RedirectingExternalLinks. Since right now we have virtually no spam at all, I think we could loosen the pretty sever login mechanism. I suppose that a combination of RedirectingExternalLinks and AntiSpamGlobalSolution should be well enough --DonRedman

I'm curious to know what you have against the existing system. Presumably it isn't that it's ineffective at stopping spam, because (as you say) "right now we have virtually no spam at all". Where is the need to change? -- DaveEvans

CategoryWiki CategoryDiscussion