Open main menu

Community Wishlist Survey 2019/Miscellaneous/Display more information about users on the user page

 ◄ Back to Miscellaneous  The survey has concluded. Here are the results!


Example implementation of this idea by the userinfo.js user script
  • Problem: Right now, it takes a lot of clicking around to find out basic information about a user—how long they've been editing, how many edits they've made, what user rights they have, whether or not they're an admin, etc. There are a some external tools to help with this such as XTools, but it would be better if this information was readily available just from going to their user page. A popular user script, userinfo.js, does a nice job of this, but requires knowing about the script and installing it.
  • Who would benefit: Anyone who interacts with editors (admins, other editors)
  • Proposed solution: Convert most of the functionality from userinfo.js into an extension so that you can see basic user info directly on the user page.
  • More comments:

DiscussionEdit

Isn't this provided by Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups ? Cabayi (talk) 08:06, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't know that. Regardless it would be good to have this functionality baked into MediaWiki rather than having to use wiki-specific gadgets or user scripts. Kaldari (talk) 16:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I think it needs to be opt-in for my account, I don't want my privileges to be seen by others - I don't think it matters in most discussions.

I would think the number of edits does not matter in any circumstances as it may result in harsher attitude towards people who have not made any edits and

may result in people aiming to increase their edit count just to seem more important. Gryllida 22:39, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Account privileges are already visible to people using this script; the proposal is only asking for it to be made into a MediaWiki feature. Enterprisey (talk) 04:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I am not sure that it's a good idea to broadcast far and wide how many hats and edits - or how few - someone has. People routinely attach a lot more significance to these numbers than they deserve. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:32, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Just saying, because this does not seem to have been mentioned or considered yet: The mobile design of Wikipedia already includes exactly this information for every diff view. See Special:MobileDiff/18448513 for example; you may need to scroll down to see it ToBeFree (talk) 19:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I guess when a user visits their user page they could be presented with a wizard that allows them to show/hide

  • their edit count
  • their contributions ({{Special:Contributions/Gryllida}})   Done
    • pages they created
  • their privileges
  • their participation at sister projects

the first step would be availability of this information as templates which they can put at their user page by hand. I think that's something Wikimedia Community Team could implement...?

I oppose implementing this hardcoded like the mobile diff mentioned above. --Gryllida 07:32, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Normally I favour transparency, but in this case, transparency could facilitate abuse. Having editor info prominently served up front-and-centre is the wrong emphasis, and potentially increases ease of wikihounding/harassment by new editors who may not yet have acclimated to WP conventions (e.g. edit reverts). I think new users should have to discover this functionality (e.g. via Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups, script etc) since in the process they will be exposed to more WP culture (in other words, I support the status quo, and I oppose hardcoding). The lack of opt-out is also a serious red-flag for me; if there was an opt-in I would be more inclined to support. ifny (talk) 03:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

VotingEdit

  •   Support As this would make this information available for newcomers. This information is already easily available for all more experienced users. Braveheidi (talk) 01:43, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 11:25, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Like tears in rain (talk) 13:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:07, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per the rationale given in the discussion section. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:18, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Zoranzoki21 (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Jullan3 (talk) 15:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Vercelas (quæstiones?) 21:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Super Wang on zhwiki (Share your opinions) 03:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per rationale of Jo-Jo Eumerus. AHeneen (talk) 06:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support NMaia (talk) 10:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Timeshifter (talk) 14:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I would prefer this to either be an opt-in feature or completely abandoned. If someone truly needs to know this information it isn't difficult to find, and I'm not sure how "anyone who interacts with editors" would actually benefit through this feature; to me it seems that it would encourage using edit-count as a measure of worthiness when it truly doesn't matter at all. The only time I have ever seen edit-count used as evidence of an active editor is in RfAs. Pagliaccious (talk) 16:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I appreciate the good intent but unless this is opt-in I think it gives too much information Jessamyn (talk) 17:20, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Hyperik (talk) 20:40, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support JackPotte (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Whats new?(talk) 22:31, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Stryn (talk) 23:05, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support [[kgh]] (talk) 00:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Waddie96 (talk) 07:59, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Mediatus (talk) 08:51, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support ·addshore· talk to me! 10:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose If it's opt-in, then maybe, but a huge NO if mandatory.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  17:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support as opt in. Oppose as opt out Lostinlodos (talk) 19:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Novak Watchmen (talk) 01:33, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Only if optional BugWarp (talk) 01:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Terra  (talk) 03:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Vulphere 04:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Neutral. What is the benefit to the user of expending the effort to convert it to an extension compared to, say, keeping it as a gadget and making it enabled by default? Is there one? Enabling the gadget by default could be done in five minutes. (I don't know. I'm genuinely asking.) I don't oppose the proposal because this functionality would be perfectly valid as an extension, but I also don't see why effort should be spent converting it to an extension when there'd be no real difference for the user. --Deskana (talk) 12:20, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Jo-Jo Eumerus. No such user (talk) 19:34, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I agree, but this should be an opt-in option. Poslovitch (talk) 20:32, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I support this idea as long as it is opt-in. Tetizeraz (talk) 23:17, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Vctrbarbieri (talk) 02:36, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Victorgibby 03:06, 25 November 2018 (UTC). Eso ya es decision de cada usuario, además si ya existen herramientas como XTools para que hacer esto?
  •   Oppose IKhitron (talk) 19:37, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Ranjithsiji (talk) 23:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose ifny (talk) 03:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Dvorapa (talk) 12:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I think implementing this via a template, rather than changes to the code, would make everyone happier. Daniel Case (talk) 16:21, 28 November 2018 (UTC)