Idea: Cryptographically signed wiki pages.

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
20 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Idea: Cryptographically signed wiki pages.

Purodha Blissenbach
In a discussion in the German Pirate Party the idea came up that we
might want to have cryptographically signed wiki pages.
I could not find that this has been implemented already anyhow.

Thus, can we develop an extsion which provides cryptographically signed
wiki pages?

A brief and preliminaly scetch would mean that any user who provides a
matching public key could sign any existing page.
Before a page + signature is saved, the signature is checked for
vadility.
Editing a siged page is possible without resigning it.
There must be a page display allowing to copy+paste the page with
signature for external verification.
Therre should be a button triggering the verifivation via an external
online service.
Maybe signature display of signed pages should be suppressable.
Any numer of independent signatures must be possible to a page.

Does that make sense? Anything vital forgotten?

Feedback welcome.

Greetings -- Purodha

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Idea: Cryptographically signed wiki pages.

John Doe-27
why do they need signed in the first place?

On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 5:39 AM, Purodha Blissenbach <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> In a discussion in the German Pirate Party the idea came up that we might
> want to have cryptographically signed wiki pages.
> I could not find that this has been implemented already anyhow.
>
> Thus, can we develop an extsion which provides cryptographically signed
> wiki pages?
>
> A brief and preliminaly scetch would mean that any user who provides a
> matching public key could sign any existing page.
> Before a page + signature is saved, the signature is checked for vadility.
> Editing a siged page is possible without resigning it.
> There must be a page display allowing to copy+paste the page with
> signature for external verification.
> Therre should be a button triggering the verifivation via an external
> online service.
> Maybe signature display of signed pages should be suppressable.
> Any numer of independent signatures must be possible to a page.
>
> Does that make sense? Anything vital forgotten?
>
> Feedback welcome.
>
> Greetings -- Purodha
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Idea: Cryptographically signed wiki pages.

Greg Grossmeier-2
I guess this is to guard against the WMF changing content behind the
scenes? Through court order or otherwise?

The pages are already cryptographically signed for transmission (tls), so
you know you get what WMF servers want you to get, at least.

Greg

--
Sent from my phone, please excuse brevity.
On Sep 13, 2015 6:45 AM, "John" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> why do they need signed in the first place?
>
> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 5:39 AM, Purodha Blissenbach <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > In a discussion in the German Pirate Party the idea came up that we might
> > want to have cryptographically signed wiki pages.
> > I could not find that this has been implemented already anyhow.
> >
> > Thus, can we develop an extsion which provides cryptographically signed
> > wiki pages?
> >
> > A brief and preliminaly scetch would mean that any user who provides a
> > matching public key could sign any existing page.
> > Before a page + signature is saved, the signature is checked for
> vadility.
> > Editing a siged page is possible without resigning it.
> > There must be a page display allowing to copy+paste the page with
> > signature for external verification.
> > Therre should be a button triggering the verifivation via an external
> > online service.
> > Maybe signature display of signed pages should be suppressable.
> > Any numer of independent signatures must be possible to a page.
> >
> > Does that make sense? Anything vital forgotten?
> >
> > Feedback welcome.
> >
> > Greetings -- Purodha
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Idea: Cryptographically signed wiki pages.

Purodha Blissenbach
The idea is that third parties can publish texts, such as theis
statutes, via a open or public wiki, and readers can be sure to read,
download, sign, and mail the originals. Another use would be to have
pledges and petitions signed by many people. Etc. It is not about
WMF-run Wikis.

Purodha

On 13.09.2015 18:09, Greg Grossmeier wrote:

> I guess this is to guard against the WMF changing content behind the
> scenes? Through court order or otherwise?
>
> The pages are already cryptographically signed for transmission
> (tls), so
> you know you get what WMF servers want you to get, at least.
>
> Greg
>
> --
> Sent from my phone, please excuse brevity.
> On Sep 13, 2015 6:45 AM, "John" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> why do they need signed in the first place?
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 5:39 AM, Purodha Blissenbach <
>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> > In a discussion in the German Pirate Party the idea came up that
>> we might
>> > want to have cryptographically signed wiki pages.
>> > I could not find that this has been implemented already anyhow.
>> >
>> > Thus, can we develop an extsion which provides cryptographically
>> signed
>> > wiki pages?
>> >
>> > A brief and preliminaly scetch would mean that any user who
>> provides a
>> > matching public key could sign any existing page.
>> > Before a page + signature is saved, the signature is checked for
>> vadility.
>> > Editing a siged page is possible without resigning it.
>> > There must be a page display allowing to copy+paste the page with
>> > signature for external verification.
>> > Therre should be a button triggering the verifivation via an
>> external
>> > online service.
>> > Maybe signature display of signed pages should be suppressable.
>> > Any numer of independent signatures must be possible to a page.
>> >
>> > Does that make sense? Anything vital forgotten?
>> >
>> > Feedback welcome.
>> >
>> > Greetings -- Purodha
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Wikitech-l mailing list
>> > [hidden email]
>> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikitech-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Idea: Cryptographically signed wiki pages.

Max Semenik
Obligatory XKCD: https://xkcd.com/538/

On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 9:20 AM, Purodha Blissenbach <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> The idea is that third parties can publish texts, such as theis statutes,
> via a open or public wiki, and readers can be sure to read, download, sign,
> and mail the originals. Another use would be to have pledges and petitions
> signed by many people. Etc. It is not about WMF-run Wikis.
>
> Purodha
>
>
> On 13.09.2015 18:09, Greg Grossmeier wrote:
>
>> I guess this is to guard against the WMF changing content behind the
>> scenes? Through court order or otherwise?
>>
>> The pages are already cryptographically signed for transmission (tls), so
>> you know you get what WMF servers want you to get, at least.
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> --
>> Sent from my phone, please excuse brevity.
>> On Sep 13, 2015 6:45 AM, "John" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> why do they need signed in the first place?
>>>
>>> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 5:39 AM, Purodha Blissenbach <
>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> > In a discussion in the German Pirate Party the idea came up that we
>>> might
>>> > want to have cryptographically signed wiki pages.
>>> > I could not find that this has been implemented already anyhow.
>>> >
>>> > Thus, can we develop an extsion which provides cryptographically signed
>>> > wiki pages?
>>> >
>>> > A brief and preliminaly scetch would mean that any user who provides a
>>> > matching public key could sign any existing page.
>>> > Before a page + signature is saved, the signature is checked for
>>> vadility.
>>> > Editing a siged page is possible without resigning it.
>>> > There must be a page display allowing to copy+paste the page with
>>> > signature for external verification.
>>> > Therre should be a button triggering the verifivation via an external
>>> > online service.
>>> > Maybe signature display of signed pages should be suppressable.
>>> > Any numer of independent signatures must be possible to a page.
>>> >
>>> > Does that make sense? Anything vital forgotten?
>>> >
>>> > Feedback welcome.
>>> >
>>> > Greetings -- Purodha
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > Wikitech-l mailing list
>>> > [hidden email]
>>> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikitech-l mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikitech-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>



--
Best regards,
Max Semenik ([[User:MaxSem]])
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Idea: Cryptographically signed wiki pages.

Vi to
2015-09-13 18:47 GMT+02:00 Max Semenik <[hidden email]>:

> Obligatory XKCD: https://xkcd.com/538/
>
>
Gotta draw another version with "try using 'password1' as password"

>
> >>> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 5:39 AM, Purodha Blissenbach <
> >>> [hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > In a discussion in the German Pirate Party the idea came up that we
> >>> might
> >>> > want to have cryptographically signed wiki pages.
> >>> > I could not find that this has been implemented already anyhow.
> >>> >
> >>> > Thus, can we develop an extsion which provides cryptographically
> signed
> >>> > wiki pages?
> >>> >
> >>> > A brief and preliminaly scetch would mean that any user who provides
> a
> >>> > matching public key could sign any existing page.
> >>> > Before a page + signature is saved, the signature is checked for
> >>> vadility.
> >>> > Editing a siged page is possible without resigning it.
> >>> > There must be a page display allowing to copy+paste the page with
> >>> > signature for external verification.
> >>> > Therre should be a button triggering the verifivation via an external
> >>> > online service.
> >>> > Maybe signature display of signed pages should be suppressable.
> >>> > Any numer of independent signatures must be possible to a page.
> >>> >
> >>> > Does that make sense? Anything vital forgotten?
> >>> >
> >>> > Feedback welcome.
> >>> >
> >>> > Greetings -- Purodha
> >>> >
>

IMHO a more legally binding solution would be attaching a signed plaintext
containing page wikicode. This was identity check could be done also
offline, without exclusively relying on site's infrastructure.

Vito
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Idea: Cryptographically signed wiki pages.

Gergo Tisza
In reply to this post by Purodha Blissenbach
On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 2:39 AM, Purodha Blissenbach <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Thus, can we develop an extsion which provides cryptographically signed
> wiki pages?
>

T12453 <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T12453> might interest you; it's
about encrypting emails but it involves developing some generic low-level
tooling for PGP inside MediaWiki.

Editing a signed page is possible without resigning it.
>

That seems to defeat the whole point, although I might just not understand
what the point is.
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Idea: Cryptographically signed wiki pages.

Purodha Blissenbach
On 13.09.2015 23:50, Gergo Tisza wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 2:39 AM, Purodha Blissenbach  wrote:
>>
>> Editing a signed page is possible without resigning it.
>
> That seems to defeat the whole point, although I might just not
> understand what the point is.

Oh, yes. Rephrasing:

Editing a signed page is possible and yields an unsigned page.
This could then be signed afresh, but that is optional.

Purodha

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Idea: Cryptographically signed wiki pages.

Brian Wolff
In reply to this post by Purodha Blissenbach
On 9/13/15, Purodha Blissenbach <[hidden email]> wrote:

> In a discussion in the German Pirate Party the idea came up that we
> might want to have cryptographically signed wiki pages.
> I could not find that this has been implemented already anyhow.
>
> Thus, can we develop an extsion which provides cryptographically signed
> wiki pages?
>
> A brief and preliminaly scetch would mean that any user who provides a
> matching public key could sign any existing page.
> Before a page + signature is saved, the signature is checked for
> vadility.
> Editing a siged page is possible without resigning it.
> There must be a page display allowing to copy+paste the page with
> signature for external verification.
> Therre should be a button triggering the verifivation via an external
> online service.
> Maybe signature display of signed pages should be suppressable.
> Any numer of independent signatures must be possible to a page.
>
> Does that make sense? Anything vital forgotten?
>
> Feedback welcome.
>
> Greetings -- Purodha
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Sounds like the sort of use case that would be well-adapted to ContentHandler.

Whether or not this is a good idea depends on what sort of security
goals you have in mind.

Some thoughts
*Key distribution: Can just anyone sign any page with any key? How do
you communicate to the user if the signature is worth anything? Will
some association be made between user accounts and public keys?
*Intent of signature: You may want to have some way to specify what
the intent of the signature is - Is the signer agreeing with the
document? agreeing to be bound by the document? asserting that they
have reviewed the document for factual accuracy?
* "Therre should be a button triggering the verifivation via an
external online service" Well probably a good idea, keep in mind - if
you don't trust the local server, why would you trust that one of its
links go to the legitimate external server, etc.

--
bawolff

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

UploadWizard long term problems

Steinsplitter Wiki
Hi,

UploadWizard has a lot of bugs and is sometimes defacto unusable.

See error reports here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Upload_Wizard_feedback

See also reports on phabricator.

It is a huge problem that the UploadWizard is not fixed for years now. Especially during WLM we have a lot of error reports.


Kind regards,
Steinsplitter
     
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Idea: Cryptographically signed wiki pages.

Platonides
In reply to this post by Purodha Blissenbach
On 13/09/15 18:20, Purodha Blissenbach wrote:
> The idea is that third parties can publish texts, such as theis
> statutes, via a open or public wiki, and readers can be sure to read,
> download, sign, and mail the originals. Another use would be to have
> pledges and petitions signed by many people. Etc. It is not about
> WMF-run Wikis.
>
> Purodha


You can already use PGP-armored wikitext if you wanted to (you may want
to parse it locally, ensure that it doesn't call unsigned templates,
etc. but the option is there).

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Idea: Cryptographically signed wiki pages.

John Erling Blad
You will run into problems with transclusions
http://www.w3.org/standards/techs/xmlsig#w3c_all

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 1:54 AM, Platonides <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 13/09/15 18:20, Purodha Blissenbach wrote:
>
>> The idea is that third parties can publish texts, such as theis
>> statutes, via a open or public wiki, and readers can be sure to read,
>> download, sign, and mail the originals. Another use would be to have
>> pledges and petitions signed by many people. Etc. It is not about
>> WMF-run Wikis.
>>
>> Purodha
>>
>
>
> You can already use PGP-armored wikitext if you wanted to (you may want to
> parse it locally, ensure that it doesn't call unsigned templates, etc. but
> the option is there).
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Idea: Cryptographically signed wiki pages.

Brian Wolff
Not to mention images, dynamic parser extensions that do not
functionally depend on their input, changes to site javascript, etc.

On 9/14/15, John Erling Blad <[hidden email]> wrote:

> You will run into problems with transclusions
> http://www.w3.org/standards/techs/xmlsig#w3c_all
>
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 1:54 AM, Platonides <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On 13/09/15 18:20, Purodha Blissenbach wrote:
>>
>>> The idea is that third parties can publish texts, such as theis
>>> statutes, via a open or public wiki, and readers can be sure to read,
>>> download, sign, and mail the originals. Another use would be to have
>>> pledges and petitions signed by many people. Etc. It is not about
>>> WMF-run Wikis.
>>>
>>> Purodha
>>>
>>
>>
>> You can already use PGP-armored wikitext if you wanted to (you may want to
>> parse it locally, ensure that it doesn't call unsigned templates, etc. but
>> the option is there).
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikitech-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UploadWizard long term problems

Bartosz Dziewoński
In reply to this post by Steinsplitter Wiki
On 2015-09-14 13:44, Steinsplitter Wiki wrote:
> Hi,
>
> UploadWizard has a lot of bugs and is sometimes defacto unusable.

Hi. UploadWizard is maintained by a three-person team, and it's only one
of many responsibilities every of us has. Personally I find it perfectly
usable.


 > See also reports on phabricator.
 >
 > It is a huge problem that the UploadWizard is not fixed for years
now. Especially during WLM we have a lot of error reports.

I actually spend a bit of time working on it in the last two weeks,
fixing a number of issues which would result in not being able to finish
the upload if something went wrong. We're even boasting about this in
the next Tech News: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Tech/News/2015/39

Can you point to specific issues that are especially problematic for you?


> See error reports here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Upload_Wizard_feedback

So I looked at the last ten, findings below. This page would be much
more useful if it was tended to by Commons community a bit more.

 > 41 Wiki Loves Monuments
 > 50 FOTOGRAFÍA DEL ESCRITOR CARLOS MIDENCE
 > 51 FOTOGRAFÍA DE CARLOS MIDENCE

These are in Spanish, I think? Apologies, but I do not speak Spanish. I
can take bug reports in Polish and English. :)

 > 43 Name des Fotos IMGb2451
 > 45 Fehlschlag
 > 48 Interner Fehler: Der Token ist fehlerhaft.

These are in German. I do not speak German either. Two of them are
linked to Phabricator bugs, which is nice, and both of the bugs are
resolved.

 > 42 Tomoji NAKAMURA

This just says "I can not up lord." (sic). That is, unfortunately, not a
useful bug report.

 > 44 Issue

"Upload Wizard is not working.". Not useful :(

 > 46 to change the title of the file during uploading

This describes https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T106968 , which is one
of the problems I fixed last week.

 > 47 Uploading several files - unique file name?

This is T106968 again, and also https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T48741 
, which I also fixed last week.

 > 49 Chunked upload crash

This is interesting and finally something new. Can you file a but?

It would be useful if the file in question was available for download
somewhere, so that we could try to reproduce the issue.

I'm not sure if any of us in Multimedia have the access necessary to try
to find out what happened to the failed upload.

--
Bartosz Dziewoński

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UploadWizard long term problems

Purodha Blissenbach
Hi,
jst a few minues ago, I tried to use the upload wizard of commons.
It stalled in the midst of everything and it did not upload anything.
Purodha

On 15.09.2015 14:18, Bartosz Dziewoński wrote:

> On 2015-09-14 13:44, Steinsplitter Wiki wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> UploadWizard has a lot of bugs and is sometimes defacto unusable.
>
> Hi. UploadWizard is maintained by a three-person team, and it's only
> one of many responsibilities every of us has. Personally I find it
> perfectly usable.
>
>
>> See also reports on phabricator.
>>
>> It is a huge problem that the UploadWizard is not fixed for years
>> now. Especially during WLM we have a lot of error reports.
>
> I actually spend a bit of time working on it in the last two weeks,
> fixing a number of issues which would result in not being able to
> finish the upload if something went wrong. We're even boasting about
> this in the next Tech News:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Tech/News/2015/39
>
> Can you point to specific issues that are especially problematic for
> you?
>
>
>> See error reports here:
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Upload_Wizard_feedback
>
> So I looked at the last ten, findings below. This page would be much
> more useful if it was tended to by Commons community a bit more.
>
>> 41 Wiki Loves Monuments
>> 50 FOTOGRAFÍA DEL ESCRITOR CARLOS MIDENCE
>> 51 FOTOGRAFÍA DE CARLOS MIDENCE
>
> These are in Spanish, I think? Apologies, but I do not speak Spanish.
> I can take bug reports in Polish and English. :)
>
>> 43 Name des Fotos IMGb2451
>> 45 Fehlschlag
>> 48 Interner Fehler: Der Token ist fehlerhaft.
>
> These are in German. I do not speak German either. Two of them are
> linked to Phabricator bugs, which is nice, and both of the bugs are
> resolved.
>
>> 42 Tomoji NAKAMURA
>
> This just says "I can not up lord." (sic). That is, unfortunately,
> not a useful bug report.
>
>> 44 Issue
>
> "Upload Wizard is not working.". Not useful :(
>
>> 46 to change the title of the file during uploading
>
> This describes https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T106968 , which is
> one of the problems I fixed last week.
>
>> 47 Uploading several files - unique file name?
>
> This is T106968 again, and also
> https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T48741 , which I also fixed last
> week.
>
>> 49 Chunked upload crash
>
> This is interesting and finally something new. Can you file a but?
>
> It would be useful if the file in question was available for download
> somewhere, so that we could try to reproduce the issue.
>
> I'm not sure if any of us in Multimedia have the access necessary to
> try to find out what happened to the failed upload.


_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UploadWizard long term problems

Mark Holmquist-2
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 02:40:17PM +0200, Purodha Blissenbach wrote:
> jst a few minues ago, I tried to use the upload wizard of commons.
> It stalled in the midst of everything and it did not upload anything.

Purodha,

This is the sort of bug report that we, as people who try to maintain Upload
Wizard, can do exactly nothing with.

What file(s) were you using? How long did you wait between opening the page
and uploading the file(s)? What license(s) are you uploading them under?
What file format are they? What browser were you using? What OS? Do you get
any error messages in the browser console? Does any other process on your
system seem slow or halted?

These are all basic debugging questions that, frankly, on a technical mailing
list I feel I shouldn't need to ask.

Please either reply in private or file a Phabricator task describing your
issue in detail.

--
Mark Holmquist
Lead Engineer, Multimedia
Wikimedia Foundation
[hidden email]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/User:MHolmquist

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

signature.asc (853 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UploadWizard long term problems

Andre Klapper-2
On Tue, 2015-09-15 at 08:10 -0500, Mark Holmquist wrote:
> What file(s) were you using? How long did you wait between opening the page
> and uploading the file(s)? What license(s) are you uploading them under?
> What file format are they? What browser were you using? What OS? Do you get
> any error messages in the browser console? Does any other process on your
> system seem slow or halted?

Are these questions listed on some UploadWizard wikipage/section?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Upload_Wizard_feedback says
"To resolve issues, it helps us to have exact steps to reproduce" so
I'd love that sentence to link to such "basic" debugging questions.

Does also asking users to add "?debug=true" to the URL and to try again
make sense in the context of debugging UploadWizard issues, or not?

andre
--
Andre Klapper | Wikimedia Bugwrangler
http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper/



_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UploadWizard long term problems

Mark Holmquist-2
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 04:49:49PM +0200, Andre Klapper wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-09-15 at 08:10 -0500, Mark Holmquist wrote:
> Are these questions listed on some UploadWizard wikipage/section?
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Upload_Wizard_feedback says
> "To resolve issues, it helps us to have exact steps to reproduce" so
> I'd love that sentence to link to such "basic" debugging questions.

I don't know if there's a "common questions" link anywhere. I could write
it. I guess I just did.

I honestly don't think that page is very useful, it gets a lot of noise and
not much signal, which is why I don't usually look at it. We could change
the config to point at Phabricator, maybe?

> Does also asking users to add "?debug=true" to the URL and to try again
> make sense in the context of debugging UploadWizard issues, or not?

It usually does, if only to get meaningful error messages and line numbers
for a bug report.

--
Mark Holmquist
Lead Engineer, Multimedia
Wikimedia Foundation
[hidden email]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/User:MHolmquist

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

signature.asc (853 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UploadWizard long term problems

James Forrester-4
On 15 September 2015 at 08:10, Mark Holmquist <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 04:49:49PM +0200, Andre Klapper wrote:
> > On Tue, 2015-09-15 at 08:10 -0500, Mark Holmquist wrote:
> > Are these questions listed on some UploadWizard wikipage/section?
> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Upload_Wizard_feedback says
> > "To resolve issues, it helps us to have exact steps to reproduce" so
> > I'd love that sentence to link to such "basic" debugging questions.
>
> I don't know if there's a "common questions" link anywhere. I could write
> it. I guess I just did.
>
> I honestly don't think that page is very useful, it gets a lot of noise and
> not much signal, which is why I don't usually look at it. We could change
> the config to point at Phabricator, maybe?
>

​Yeah, maybe dropping the feedback tool link from UW might make sense, or
at least, turning the target page into a system better suited for tracking
things (we use Flow for VE/F which works quite well as we can show which
things are resolved).​

​J.
--
James D. Forrester
Lead Product Manager, Editing
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

[hidden email] | @jdforrester
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UploadWizard long term problems

James Forrester-4
On 15 September 2015 at 08:26, James Forrester <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> On 15 September 2015 at 08:10, Mark Holmquist <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 04:49:49PM +0200, Andre Klapper wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2015-09-15 at 08:10 -0500, Mark Holmquist wrote:
>> > Are these questions listed on some UploadWizard wikipage/section?
>> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Upload_Wizard_feedback says
>> > "To resolve issues, it helps us to have exact steps to reproduce" so
>> > I'd love that sentence to link to such "basic" debugging questions.
>>
>> I don't know if there's a "common questions" link anywhere. I could write
>> it. I guess I just did.
>>
>> I honestly don't think that page is very useful, it gets a lot of noise
>> and
>> not much signal, which is why I don't usually look at it. We could change
>> the config to point at Phabricator, maybe?
>>
>
> ​Yeah, maybe dropping the feedback tool link from UW might make sense, or
> at least, turning the target page into a system better suited for tracking
> things (we use Flow for VE/F which works quite well as we can show which
> things are resolved).​
>

​Follow-up: In chatting with Steinsplitter on IRC, we agreed to replace the
link with a Phabricator one for the time being:

https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T112666

Hopefully this will help ease things!

Yours,​
--
James D. Forrester
Lead Product Manager, Editing
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

[hidden email] | @jdforrester
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l