On 11/16/2013 09:04 AM, Anthony Cole wrote:
The problem of false positives from mirrors doesn't exist if we scan edits as they are made.
Agreed. However, that example is a legal, attributed (at least on the talk page) copy from a third-party freely licensed text, not a false positive copy from a Wikipedia mirror.
Maggie says here<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Emergency_block_of_an_editor_with_which_I_have_been_previously_involved>that copyright bots populate WP:SCV <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SCV> So a similarly-configured bot could scan recent changes and tag suspected copyvios in watchlists and page histories like suspected vandalism is currently tagged.
The suspected vandalism checks that actually tag the edit (e.g. "Tag: possible vandalism") are based on AbuseFilter checks. These are relatively fast determinations that consider the text of the edit (e.g. regexes for strings of curse words, or meaningless repeating characters), and comparisons to the previous version (blanked the section, blanked the page).
As far as I know, regular AbuseFilter rules can not hit a database or web search to check for copyright violations. An extension could in theory do this. But there would possibly be performance problems, since AbuseFilter runs on the actual server (not just some bot's computer) on every edit.
It is possible for a bot to scan every edit; it just can't use AbuseFilter tags.
Matt Flaschen _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
