Sascha Noyes | 1 Jan 05:26 2004
Picon

Re: Re: Single-sign-on

On Wednesday 31 December 2003 09:38 pm, Timwi wrote:
> Jimmy Wales wrote:
> > I think we should do this ASAP, because the issues are only going
> > to get harder.  But the main issue, Timwi, is social -- there are
> > certainly cases where two different people have the same username
> > but in different languages.
>
> I have already suggested a solution for this some time ago. I'll repeat
> it here because I feel like it ;-)
>
> The basic idea is to mark all accounts as "old" (and make them
> unloginnable), and require everybody to create a new account. Then allow
> users to merge their old contribution-lists into this new account
> provided they know the password to the old account.
>
> So, for example, I would then create a "new" account named "Timwi" and
> then merge "old:en:Timwi", "old:de:Timwi", "old:fr:Timwi", etc. into it.

Umm, this sounds like an incredibly bad idea:

1. Hassle
2. Account stealing: This would be a feast day for any trolls or malcontents 
(and wikipedia seems to have quite a few of those)
3. Solution in search of a problem

The only problem with the merge is the collision of accounts (eg. there exists 
a [[de:Jan]] and [[en:Jan]], but they are not the same person). Your proposal 
does not solve this, but would need to solve it in the same way as the simple 
merge would: In the rare cases that this happens, people need to discuss and 
come to an amicable sollution. (I would suggest that whoever registered that 
(Continue reading)

Agon S. Buchholz | 1 Jan 12:30 2004
Picon

Re: Re: Single-sign-on

Sascha Noyes wrote:

> The only problem with the merge is the collision of accounts (eg.
> there exists a [[de:Jan]] and [[en:Jan]], but they are not the same
> person). Your proposal does not solve this, but would need to solve
> it in the same way as the simple merge would: In the rare cases that
> this happens, people need to discuss and come to an amicable
> sollution. (I would suggest that whoever registered that account name
> first should have priority.)

Since the en:Wikipedia is longer with us, fist-come-first-serve would 
favor Accounts from en, possibly causing some unhappyness, but it's the 
most straightforward solution. Ambiguous accounts could be simply 
numbered (jan1, jan2). Very nice would be a feature to rename the (own) 
account resp. the ability for admins to do this.

In any case the editing history and the signatures on talk pages etc. 
have to be synchronized with these changes; this could be either done by 
a bot, but it would be non trivial (when is the account on which 
Wikimedia site being changed, when does the bot start renaming, when 
does it finish, when can the account be used again) and cause much load, 
if many accounts have to be merged, or (probably preferred) by direct 
database manipulations when the database is read-only until all changes 
are completed and the integrity is verified somehow. Or is there a 
simpler way?

Regards,
-asb
Nicolas Weeger | 1 Jan 12:45 2004
Picon

Re: Re: Single-sign-on

What about keeping accounts as they are, but letting users define links between 
them?

For instance, EnUser on en: declares his user matches DeUser on de:, does the 
reverse. And automatically when s/he logins on either of the sites, login occurs 
on the other sites. Because the system knows that EnUser on en: <=> DeUser on 
de: (obviously you need both declarations for the match to occur).

Ok that would still let users with different accounts on different wikipedias. 
But you could retrive interwiki modifications from the user, using linked 
information.
And it would let users keep their current accounts, so no friction.

OTOH, it means 'User' on en: is not necessarily the same as 'User' on de:.

Just my 2 cents of €

Nicolas
Timwi | 1 Jan 17:00 2004
Picon
Picon

Re: Single-sign-on


Sascha Noyes wrote:
> On Wednesday 31 December 2003 09:38 pm, Timwi wrote:
> 
>>The basic idea is to mark all accounts as "old" (and make them
>>unloginnable), and require everybody to create a new account. Then allow
>>users to merge their old contribution-lists into this new account
>>provided they know the password to the old account.
>>
>>So, for example, I would then create a "new" account named "Timwi" and
>>then merge "old:en:Timwi", "old:de:Timwi", "old:fr:Timwi", etc. into it.
> 
> Umm, this sounds like an incredibly bad idea:
> 
> 1. Hassle

It takes no more than a few minutes for everybody. I don't see a major 
hassle in this, considering the advantages it brings.

> 2. Account stealing: This would be a feast day for any trolls or malcontents 
> (and wikipedia seems to have quite a few of those)

You're forgetting that this would require actually hacking into an 
account (i.e. cracking the password). Seeing as this is already 
possible, and no easier or more difficult, I believe this concern of 
yours is invalid.

> 3. Solution in search of a problem

Pardon?
(Continue reading)

Ray Saintonge | 1 Jan 23:06 2004
Picon

Re: Re: Single-sign-on

Timwi wrote:

> Sascha Noyes wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday 31 December 2003 09:38 pm, Timwi wrote:
>>
>>> The basic idea is to mark all accounts as "old" (and make them
>>> unloginnable), and require everybody to create a new account. Then 
>>> allow
>>> users to merge their old contribution-lists into this new account
>>> provided they know the password to the old account.
>>>
>>> So, for example, I would then create a "new" account named "Timwi" and
>>> then merge "old:en:Timwi", "old:de:Timwi", "old:fr:Timwi", etc. into 
>>> it.
>>
>> Umm, this sounds like an incredibly bad idea:
>>
>> 1. Hassle 
>
Any conversion process will involve some degree of hassle, but by the 
same token it is a one time hassle.  Only nothing about it will make 
sure that it is a recurring hassle.  I have no idea how big the account 
conflict problem really is.  Once we move unconflicted accounts, users 
with equivalent multiple accounts (i.e. same name and password), and new 
users into the new database , how much will be leftover?  

>> 2. Account stealing: This would be a feast day for any trolls or 
>> malcontents (and wikipedia seems to have quite a few of those)
>
(Continue reading)

Timwi | 6 Jan 02:57 2004
Picon
Picon

Re: Single-sign-on


Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
> I also think that there should be an association segment to each user 
> file.  Each user will by default have an association with the wiki where 
> he first registered,

You're thinking too much in terms of several wikis. The point in the 
whole thing is that there should not *be* separate wikis. It should be 
one wiki called Wikipedia.

I.e. "the wiki where you first registered" is Wikipedia.

Timwi
Ray Saintonge | 6 Jan 10:27 2004
Picon

Re: Re: Single-sign-on

Timwi wrote:

> Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>> I also think that there should be an association segment to each user 
>> file.  Each user will by default have an association with the wiki 
>> where he first registered,
>
> You're thinking too much in terms of several wikis. The point in the 
> whole thing is that there should not *be* separate wikis. It should be 
> one wiki called Wikipedia.
>
> I.e. "the wiki where you first registered" is Wikipedia.

This argument is a bit on the semantic side.  There is, of course, 
Wikibooks, and Wiktionary etc., not to mention the different language 
projects.  Having associations will make it easier for those in smaller 
projects to know just who is interested in what project.

Ray
Gabriel Wicke | 6 Jan 14:01 2004
Picon

Single-sign-on (was: Mirror in Europe)

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 01:27:43 -0800, Ray Saintonge wrote:

> This argument is a bit on the semantic side.  There is, of course,
> Wikibooks, and Wiktionary etc., not to mention the different language
> projects.  Having associations will make it easier for those in smaller
> projects to know just who is interested in what project.

Maybe it would be sufficient to look for edits or watch entries to find
out who's interested in a certain project. 
The user pages could propably just be 'multilingual', with a knob
'create [french|german|russian|...] version- the same for other content.
I've never bothered to dive into the source, but i guess it's mainly skin
glue that's needed (once the sign on is working).

Gabriel Wicke

Gmane