API Access

API Access

AdminBright 02 Nov 2011 05:27

Was sent the following PM by Mackenzie

Bright,

I was wondering if it would be possible to enable API Access on the main SCP wiki. Doing so lets Wikidot API developers have high-volume access to the contents of the site, which would let us do better indexing and statistics, as well as data mining for things like infographics.

As far as I know, API Access has to be requested directly from Wikidot, and there are less than a hundred allowed users on this list. The Wikidot API does not allow pages or files to be deleted, and any changes made are logged as edits from the accessing user, and can be reverted as normal. In my case, I would be running in read-only mode and would not be making changes via the API.

Please let me know if this is possible.

Thanks,
Mackenzie

Opinions?

---

Admin, SCP Wiki

I have a bad feeling about this.

tunedtoadeadchannel 02 Nov 2011 06:36

If it weren't mackenzie, or it were being done for a particular purpose to help the site, I'd say go for it.

Because it's mackenzie, and they're probably just trying to get information for their personal infographic site project site whatever the hell thing, I question the necessity of opening the wiki to another form of access that I don't know anyone on staff knows how to control. I don't see the point, really.

Best case scenario, it's another attempt by mackenzie to insert themself among the ranks of the "important" people, just like that custom site thing that was never used for anything, in which case, pfft.

I say no unless they can show a way it will tangibly benefit the wiki to grant them that access.

Basically, I know from stuff they've posted before that they contribute to infographic sites and enter infographic contests. I have a feeling they're looking to make a graphic based on the wiki, but don't want to work to compile it themself. If this request is for something that won't help the wiki at all, but will allow them to gain personally, I say fuck 'em for trying to take advantage of us. We're not here to make mack's epeen bigger.

If it can help us, frankly I'd rather see a user I trust doing it.

Last edited on 02 Nov 2011 06:57 by tunedtoadeadchannel Show more

Re: I have a bad feeling about this.

Gnosis 02 Nov 2011 07:19

So wait, manually looking over the pages to gather whatever information is OK, but writing a program to do the same thing isn't work because it's less mindless repetitive effort and more mindful skilled effort? I'm really not sure I see your logic here.

I don't think we should really care that much. As far as I can tell she's telling the truth about how the API works (though the API documentation is really lacking), and if it comes down to it we can always say 'okay, you can get access, but you have to do so through this other account that isn't allowed to edit the site' (this might or might not be doable, I don't know.) And if we only want to allow people to create works that benefit us directly, why is the site licensed under a CC-SA license and not something more restrictive?

If worst comes to worse Bright can just go 'welp' and shut off the API access.

Re: API Access

Quikngruvn 02 Nov 2011 11:25

She had asked me about this in chat, and I looked over the documentation involved. Most of the methods available are "get" methods— pulling (meta)data from the site without making any changes. There are only two methods that would actually make changes, one to attach files to pages, and one to change pages themselves. There is no method to delete (which, even if there were, would still be limited by wiki permissions— she couldn't delete any pages with the API tool that she couldn't manually). I don't have a problem with enabling API access— heck, it's just a check box on the Management site— but didn't want to unilaterally enable it (unintended consequences ahoy).

yoric, I realize you have a history of animosity with Mackenzie, but really, insofar as trust goes, do you think she'd do something to harm the site itself? (And, as an aside, she already is "among the ranks of the important people"— having written thirty-plus successful SCPs will kinda do that regardless of anything else.)

Also, full disclosure: I would totally geek out over wiki infographics.

Re: API Access

tunedtoadeadchannel 02 Nov 2011 19:07

If it's a harmless thing, there's no reason to object. My whole post applies only if it's a potentially dangerous thinger.

Re: API Access

Dexanote 02 Nov 2011 06:47

I still don't know what this means and thus am hesitant.

Re: API Access

DrEverettMann 02 Nov 2011 11:47

Okay, it sounds like the tech boys are saying this is fairly harmless. If this is the case, then I see no reason not to. Sure, Mack may use it for other purposes, but it sounds like we can use this as well. Given that, why not let her have access to it? Doesn't hurt us, and it gives us access to the information as well.

So long as none of you know of an actual problem here, I say go for it.

Re: API Access

Photosynthetic 02 Nov 2011 19:27

I'm with Mann here. I don't know enough about the API myself to make an informed decision, but based on what Quik is saying, I'm all right with it. It doesn't sound like it requires extra effort on our part, nor could it do serious damage; and even if it does, said damage will be nothing we can't revert. Also, to be honest, I'd geek out over infographics too — and surely there are ways we can leverage this to help the site.

Hell, if there are any problems or doubts, we could conceivably set the "price" of API access as some applet that'll actively help the wiki. Just a thought.

Re: API Access

SophosBlitz 02 Nov 2011 23:14

I'm in the What Could Possible Go Wrong camp so I don't see anything wrong with enabling API access for the time being. Unless Wikidot's security is bad enough to allow arbitrary users admin rights that'll let them mess with the wiki significantly (e.g. mass deletions), nothing can be done that cannot be reversed (as some already mentioned).

Hell, if there are any problems or doubts, we could conceivably set the "price" of API access as some applet that'll actively help the wiki. Just a thought.

For the record, it'll be impossible to police how users with API access use the wiki's information because it's a global switch.

That said, if anybody has doubts, just get Mack to demonstrate what can be done with the information and then render a final decision then if it comes to that.

Re: API Access

Quikngruvn 03 Nov 2011 13:46

Turns out, when you enable API access, you can specify whether to grant write access to site members and/or site admins. You just don't see these options till you check the box to enable it. I'm gonna err on the side of paranoia and disable all write access, leaving it read-only, and let Mackenzie know it's enabled.

Re: API Access

Photosynthetic 03 Nov 2011 15:44

Excellent, then!

Re: API Access

tunedtoadeadchannel 03 Nov 2011 23:09

Good plan.