Grants:IdeaLab/Blockchain to track changes and voting on content to prevent harassment and smap.
Blockchain to track changes and voting on content to prevent harassment and spam.
Use Blockchain approaches - require proof of work to submit content.
created on23:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Project idea[edit]
What is the problem you're trying to solve?[edit]
Make it hard to submit spam and harrasment.
What is your solution?[edit]
Cryptocurrencies make it hard to fake transactions using chains of hashed transactions and requiring proof of work. Wikipedia could benefit from this approach and make it too expensive to harass others.
Goals[edit]
Get Involved[edit]
About the idea creator[edit]
Participants[edit]
Endorsements[edit]
- I once had issues with a page being changed in detrimental ways by persons who shared an extreme political agenda. I had suggested to a couple of admins that in my case all changes be blocked and suggested edits be approved by an admin. I was shot down and I finally gave up trying to fix untrue edits that were made. The page ended up being deleted with my approval, as it no longer contained accurate information. Wpollard (talk) 01:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Opposition[edit]
Strong oppose. If I'm reading this right, you're proposing that edits to Wikipedia can only be made when the editor has "paid" with some amount of CPU cycles. This is a very bad for several reasons. For one, endless CPU cycles would be wasted on perfectly normal edits. Second, you're penalizing 99.99% of editors for 0.01% of harassers. Third, this is a massive technological undertaking (you would have to do the proof-of-work in the client's browser and do it fast and cryptographically secure). --Doveofsymplegades (talk) 10:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- comment, on above oppose. In virtually all cases edits to pages should be made with ease by anyone, regardless of number of edits. In a very few cases pages have been protected against untruthful or vandalizing edits. Vandalism or distortion of the truth can be considered forms of harassment that should be stopped. I think when someone brings cases of harassment, including vandalism and distortion, to the attention of admins, protecting pages should be considered. Wpollard (talk) 06:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Alternative[edit]
this seems similar to the idea below. Especially the voting part. However the main difference seems that this approach is to block edits, while the other one is to allow different ideas to exist simultaneously.
Grants:IdeaLab/more robust controversy handling
Expand your idea[edit]
Would a grant from the Wikimedia Foundation help make your idea happen? You can expand this idea into a grant proposal.