Community Wishlist Survey 2023/Editing/Create a private sandbox page for a Wikipedia user

Random proposal ►◄ Editing The survey has concluded. Here are the results!

Create a private sandbox page for a Wikipedia user

Problem: Currently, every user has a sandox (Special:MyPage/sandbox) when creating an account from Wikipedia. However, when you edit it, it appears in the user's contributed list (Special:Contributions). This is a problem for users working on featured articles, as some users may steal content from those issues, pasting all of that person's work into this article before the project is ready.
Proposed solution: Create a private sandbox for the user to develop their editorial work without appearing in the list of contributions.
Who would benefit: Everyone would benefit, as it would be a private space, where no one could know how that user is using his private sandbox, in addition to being the only place where he could edit as many times as he wanted without counting his edits, being able to click several times on the "publish changes", but which would only be available to the user. This will prevent content theft by this account.
More comments: With the approval of this proposal, it will be implemented in all global Wikipedias.
Phabricator tickets:
Proposer: WikiFer ^msg 15:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

ONE of many places where I have tested Good idea. Create also a private sandbox for new versions of templates and modules, that would be completely invisible to other users, and could be irrecoverably deleted when testing work is done. And do this for all wikis of course, not only wikipedia. But this is a difficult task. Taylor 49 (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Taylor 49 If it can be applied to all wiki projects, great. I highlighted Wikipedia because it is an encyclopedia, so it would require a private space to develop perfect articles. WikiFer ^msg 17:09, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Taylor 49, no, it's not a good idea. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 09:46, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This would raise this same legal problems as server-side storage for the auto-save feature. --Tgr (talk) 05:29, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tgr I believe it is necessary to limit the storage time that the privacy sandbox holds user content for 1 week, 15 days or 1 month, for example. WikiFer ^msg 12:50, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really the issue, it can still be used to share illegal content etc. OTOH ContentTranslation already lets you store drafts so maybe storing drafts in one more place wouldn't make much difference at this point... Tgr (talk) 20:35, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tgr ContentTranslation it's just an example of how it's possible to create a private space without anyone having access, since it's just a space for translating articles into other languages, not for developing a project where the content can be in the same language as the project. Regarding the alleged “illegal content”, it is enough to allow CheckUsers to view the private sandbox, as long as there is evidence that justifies a check, as they cannot violate the privacy policy. WikiFer ^msg 21:10, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiFer:, you don't need a private sandbox to do anything. Common sense dictates, if you don't want people seeing it, you shouldn't be doing it. Also, it's not just illegal content. It's also WP:OWN and WP:NOTAWEBHOST.

At the risk of WP:BEANS, any registered user can privately store arbitrary data in user preferences (though I'm sure there's a cap). There is in fact a user script taking advantage of this to allow a private sandbox (by SD0001), but a drawback is that the server has to send the data on every page you visit while logged in so you get slower page load. Nardog (talk) 11:44, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe: "server-side data storage can be shared between multiple users by sharing account credentials, and that can be used for all kinds of illegal activities". What illegal activities can be promoted by storing just plain text? I do not think that this is a BIG problem. It can be reduced by:
- limiting the time of storage (say 3 days)
- allowing sysops and other privileged users to inspect the private sandboxes
- limiting the feature to "good users"
Taylor 49 (talk) 10:27, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Devils advocate: you can abuse WMF wikis to transmit any potentially illegal data anyway. Just hide it in a large image or audio file and upload that file to Commons. The file will remain forever, or at least for a week, sufficient to commit your organized crime. IMHO the objection "can be used for all kinds of illegal activities" is invalid. Taylor 49 (talk) 10:34, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That does in fact happen, see e.g. here or here. But as long as it's happening in the open, the community is reasonably well-equipped to do something about it. If it's happening via data no one but the sharing "role account" can see, that problem lands with the developers/sysops who have much less capacity to deal with it. Tgr (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thank you for sharing that. Obviously, the private sandbox should have some sane restrictions:
only plain text

limited size (say up to 4 pages and totally 1 Mi)

limiting the time of storage (say 3 days)

allowing sysops and other privileged users to inspect the private sandboxes

limiting the feature to "good users" (some time since registration, valid email address, good contributions on some wiki) and maybe enable only upon request (similarly to "rollback" or "file mover" rights)

Taylor 49 (talk) 12:24, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Taylor 49, "limiting to good users." Is that supposed to be a joke? Common sense dictates, if they don't want people seeing it, they shouldn't be doing it. The cons (listed in the votes) outweighs these so-called pros. Plus, it's redundant to have a private sandbox if certain people have access to it. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 09:43, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Extension:ContentTranslation allows users to work on translating an article without anyone having access to the content they are translating. Therefore, I believe the MediaWiki developers could develop a similar platform for a private sandbox. WikiFer ^msg 13:35, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Voting

Support There should be, in my opinion, some area of Wikipedia to test things out that is NOT visible to anyone else, including admin. If no one else could see it, then I (as a regular, high-volume, recent changes patroller) do not see what possible harm could be done. This "private" feature should only exist as a sandbox, but should exist as an option. Moops (talk) 20:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Moops, common sense dictates, if they don't want people seeing it, they shouldn't be doing it. Plus, the fact you don't see the harm as a recent change patroller says a lot. See the various comments with SHB2000 and Blaze Wolf's votes. This will never be a thing. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 09:37, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Couldn't you do the same thing off-wiki? Having a private sandbox that cannot be seen from anyone would just make it a haven for users who use their sandbox as their personal web host, which can also be used to host illegal content, and there's also no way of knowing if someone mass-pasted copyvios into this "private" sandbox. The downsides outweigh the minimal benefits of this proposal. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 22:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@User:SHB2000 Theoretically YES, in practice NO. It is extremely difficult to install a private wiki with ca 1'000 extensions and a reasonably same configuration as WMF wikis (svwikt). It is difficult and causes disruption to test large template and module changes involving several pages. The sandbox would be limited to plain text and a sane size (say 2 Mi totally) making it useless as a "personal web host" or "piracy spot". Also, some users contribute from public computers where local storage is not available. Taylor 49 (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose This gives people essentially a private website, courtesy of WP. What's wrong with a text editor? --Rconroy (talk) 22:38, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose If the user did not set one up, that means that they do not want one and would not read it. I think their pages are their pages and not other users pages. I understand the dilemma but cannot vote for this. I'm sorry. Magnoliasouth (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Magnoliasouth, never say sorry when you've done nothing wrong. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 09:27, 11 February 2023 (UTC) Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 09:27, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose There are way to many issues with this, including the potential to add copyvios, illegal content, and various other things. This would also go against en:WP:OWN which states that no user owns any page on Wikipedia. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 23:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per everyone above. See also w:WP:NOTWEBHOST * Pppery * _{it has begun} 03:50, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Jim Hokins (talk) 08:15, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose, this will never be a thing and should never be proposed again. The cons have already been stated. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 09:38, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose There is no good reason to allow this, it has been said clearly : "if they don't want people seeing it, they shouldn't be doing it". It just makes harder or impossible some verifications, which makes no sense on communitary website like Wikipedia and such. CaféBuzz (talk) 10:17, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose per everyone above. This is opposite to the spirit and the principles of Wikipedia. If a user ever wants to keep some content private before publishing and releasing it with a Creative Commons license, they should use a different editor. Lion-hearted85 (talk) 11:27, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Smetanakaviar (talk) 12:08, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Crosstor (talk) 13:17, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Joseph (talk) 13:19, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support CROIX (talk) 15:12, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:NOWEBHOST. Thingofme (talk) 15:57, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Radio-Somewhere (talk) 16:47, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:NOWEBHOST. Just save your drafts locally with any word processor or available apps if you are concerned about this. And if this happens just take the content dispute to an appropriate discussion board. Terasail ^[✉️] 17:12, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Aquí en WP luz y taquígrafos siempre, aunque a veces duela. --LauraFarina (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support De nue pw (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose My immediate reaction was that this violates multiple policies, if not directly, then at least in spirit. I am reassured to see that so many others agree. Toadspike (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Spectrallights (talk) 00:15, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mauricio V. Genta (talk) 07:52, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support 沁水湾 (talk) 11:44, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose pile-on, we should not have private storage server-side per lots and lots of the above. Possible incorporate this to the mobile client, but store it client-side. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:08, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Per w:WP:NOTWEBHOST --HenriHa (talk) 17:48, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lalaithan (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others, goes against the intended nature/spirit/principles/etc. of this encyclopedia. Funcrunch (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Error (talk) 13:21, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. Titore (talk) 14:21, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gillum (talk) 20:26, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Erbiton (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral This idea can benefit people who want to test things privately, but this idea can also go against core principles of Wikipedia. NPRB (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Amtiss (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - I oftentimes want to be testing out new template code, phrasing sentences, notes about sites I'm writing about, etc., and am self-conscious about seeing these messy notes and things done perhaps incorrectly to be in public view and on permanent record. And no, I can't just use a word processor; enwiki has so much more functionality, formatting, scripts, links, templates, etc. that MS Word will never have. Ɱ (talk) 02:37, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support See my comments far above. Taylor 49 (talk) 04:04, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Zwd626 (talk) 04:22, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Seeing as this proposal has many potentially negative uses, such as: Copyright violations, hosting of illegal content, even potentially providing a space where cyber-attacks directed at Wikipedia could be tested on the site itself without repercussions, I believe that (and I am surprised that no-one has brought this up), that this entire proposal is simply a [1]WP:BADIDEA. SpacedShark (talk) 06:00, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This feature would be massively used by spammers, pornographers and copyviolators to create non-encyclopedic content. Taivo (talk) 14:59, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot spam anyone with a sandbox visible to you only. Taylor 49 (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --cyrfaw (talk) 12:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Thooompson (talk) 14:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support אסתר66 (talk) 14:04, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hey man im josh (talk) 15:42, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 07:25, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support बडा काजी (talk) 12:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lots of good reasons to oppose above. pile-on. —‍(ping on reply)—‍CX Zoom (A/अ/অ) (let's talk|contribs) 21:54, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Currently it’s very difficult to do test changes that involve a lot of things (articles, templates and modules) without polluting Recent Changes and category pages. Especially with the recent change to list category changes in Recent Changes. Some bugs (in templates and modules) never get fixed because it’s impossible to test things. Either this or (ideally) devs need to think more like users (what we call “empathy” in design. From my interactions with Wikimedia tech our devs have zero empathy). Al12si (talk) 03:23, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mr. Thistle (talk) 11:10, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I oppose this idea wholly unless an agreement can be found where only admins can see the page and not regular users. This cuts off a large portion of Wikipedia whilst also allowing moderation and checking for non-encylopedic stuff. 56independent (talk) 11:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support KatastrophenKommando (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Packerfan386 (talk) 09:56, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Crainsaw (talk) 11:47, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support With restrictions: Limited duration, limited size, accessible to admins, by request only, extended confirmed or equivalent required, other precautions. May not be worth the development time, however. Constant314 (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes please! Davidgblackburn (talk) 05:39, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support نیکات (talk) 19:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support An interesting idea, which if implemented simply would be very successful.
You should look at this as an unsaved preview page. A page in the special namespace that can be edited visually or in wiki syntax, and will allow the result to be previewed, without being able to publish anything. —מקף⁻ණ (Hyphen) 23:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Decent idea, but could be used maliciously, as others have pointed out. DrowssapSMM (talk) 16:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose They are many offline and online private/personal editing tools people can use to write or save their private content. Serieminou (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Can't enforce "don't use Wikipedia as a web host". David10244 (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Horecak (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]