Manual talk:Preventing access

How diffs could be visible again in the RSS or Atom feeds ?
In Manual:Preventing access it is said that :
 * In addition to the main page of such a private site, you could give access to the Recentchanges page (if you think that its content isn't private) for feed readers by adding "Special:Recentchanges" to $wgWhitelistRead.

But the problem is that since MediaWiki 1.12, as soon as "Disable reading by anonymous users" is set, the diffs aren't shown anymore in the feeds.

How come ?

How diffs could be visible again in the RSS or Atom feeds ?

--Dieudo 00:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

writeapi
Ohmygod Manual:$wgEnableWriteAPI and the writeapi permission is true by default, but not one word is mentioned about the API. Say if spammers can directly use the default wide open writeapi permission to spam away unthwarted? Jidanni 08:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Right. Just as they could use the regular edit interface. —Emufarmers(T 23:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * So locking it down should be mentioned just as much as locking down the corresponding regular edit interface, please. Jidanni 00:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * If you've removed the edit right from a group, they won't be able to edit through the write API either. —Emufarmers(T 00:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That's good to know. Jidanni 01:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

"Consider whether MediaWiki is right for you" redux + Restrict viewing page to registerred or handpicked person
Greetings from Norway.

I have also ended up dumbfounded by this wording and in particular because MediaWiki IS right for me and all my organisations. I don't understand why this ONE feature doesn't get any more attention from the developers: RESTRICT ACCESS to PAGE and only allow viewing for (1) Registerred members or for (2) Specific members.

Come on, this is 2012, it shouldn't come as a shock that this is a necessary feature. I disagree entirely with the answer provided, that one should consider using a CMS or a Forum. A WIKI _SHOULD_ also have this functionality, and in PARTICULAR MediaWiki.

I urge you to consider adding this critical feature. And please don't tell me to go elsewhere, because I won't.

I remind you again that this is 2012 and the MediaWiki project IS mature enough to support this feature now.

Also this has nothing to do with money or making money on MediaWiki, but it is a feature any type of organisation frequently need.

All the best, T
 * Uh, MediaWiki does have the first, and there are extensions for the second. However MediaWiki's goal was not this. There are other wiki applications with that in mind.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

"Consider whether MediaWiki is right for you"
I proposed a certain organization to install MediaWiki. They described their needs to me, so i worked for a few days to demonstrate them that MediaWiki fits their needs - i installed it on my laptop, wrote a few pages in the style they need, defined user permissions to their liking.

But then they asked their sysadmin to install it on their servers. For some reason, he started looking for excuses not to do it. Among other things, he cited this page: "Consider whether MediaWiki is right for you. MediaWiki was not originally designed for private wikis, so other software may be more suitable".

In this case this was already done - as i said, i already demonstrated that the page design and the security is suitable for them. But now this installation is on hold because of this rather ridiculous reason - they are "reconsidering" because this page told them to do so.

Is this sentence still true? Is MediaWiki so badly suited for a "Simple private wiki"? And is this sentence really needed here? --Amir E. Aharoni 15:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * They should certainly consider whether this is the software they actually want: most people just install the first thing they see. If MediaWiki really is the best option for them, we may hope their consideration will lead them to that conclusion.
 * MediaWiki should be able to handle the use case you describe without any problems, although I can recall one hole that was patched only a couple months ago. There's been a certain amount of warning creep over the years (people don't usually like removing warnings!); I've gone ahead and removed this one. —Emufarmers(T 07:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Dosn't seem to work
I've been trying to disable read access by anonymous users. I've added the code to the LocalSettings.php file and nothing seems to happen. I can still see every page when not logged in. I also tried adding the account creation line suggested and it isn't working either. I tired adding some random letters to the top of the LocalSettings.php file just to confirm that it is the right file, and it broke the wiki, so it is working. I just can't seem to figure out why those lines are having no effect. Any ideas?
 * Add the code at or near the bottom of the file, not the top. —Emufarmers(T 10:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thats what I did, and I removed the <? as well, and I can still access all the pages as a anon. sfeild@uark.edu
 * You mean ?>, right?
 * The only thing I can suggest is that you paste the contents of your LocalSettings.php file (with passwords removed) so I can look for a problem. —Emufarmers(T 20:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to prevent anonymous users to read/edit my wiki. i added to my LocalSettings.php those lines and it's still not working. Thanks! --213.203.135.77 08:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC) $wgGroupPermissions['*']['read'] = false; $wgGroupPermissions['*']['edit'] = false; $wgGroupPermissions['*']['edit'] = false; $wgGroupPermissions['user']['edit'] = false; $wgGroupPermissions['sysop']['edit'] = true; $wgGroupPermissions['*']['edit'] = false; $wgGroupPermissions['user']['edit'] = false; $wgGroupPermissions['sysop']['edit'] = false; $wgGroupPermissions['*']['createaccount'] = false; $wgGroupPermissions['*']['createaccount'] = false; $wgGroupPermissions['sysop']['createaccount'] = false;
 * 1) Disable reading by anonymous users
 * 1) But allow them to read e.g., these pages:
 * 2) $wgWhitelistRead = array ( "Main Page", "Special:Userlogin", "Help:Contents");
 * 3) Like previous, but for French (be careful of encoding! save file as UTF-8!)
 * 4) $wgWhitelistRead = array( ":Page Principale", "Special:Userlogin", "Aide en français");
 * 1) Prevent new user registrations except by sysops
 * 1) Prevent new user registrations by anyone


 * The same advice applies as above. Given that you included the same line three times, I suspect you might have added something else you didn't mean to. —Emufarmers(T 08:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, i'm not really into those things, i'm sure i messed up somewhere :); if you have time you can see my LocalSettings.php here --213.203.135.77 09:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * What exactly isn't working? Are unregistered users still able to see all pages?  Can I have a link to your wiki?


 * You should probably change your database password, since you just posted it for the world to see. —Emufarmers(T 10:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

A way to restrict editing to logged in people, but keep the edit links
I wonder if there is a way to keep the edit links available once I've restricted editing to only logged in users. The use case is this: the people browsing our internal wiki might not realize they can edit unless they see the links. I want to avoid misunderstanding that the wiki doesn't allow edits for them: I imagine they'd more readily click the edit tab then get a login challenge than just guess they have to login to edit the page.

Diff of hack to keep edit links after requiring a login to edit a page

 * branch:http://svn.wikimedia.org/svnroot/mediawiki/tags/REL1_16_5/phase3

Index: includes/SkinTemplate.php

=
====================================================== --- includes/SkinTemplate.php	(revision 90117) +++ includes/SkinTemplate.php	(working copy) @@ -737,7 +737,8 @@ 			); 			wfProfileIn( __METHOD__. '-edit' ); -			if ( $this->mTitle->quickUserCan( 'edit' ) && ( $this->mTitle->exists || $this->mTitle->quickUserCan( 'create' ) ) ) { +#			if ( $this->mTitle->quickUserCan( 'edit' ) && ( $this->mTitle->exists || $this->mTitle->quickUserCan( 'create' ) ) ) { +			if ( true ) { 				$istalk = $this->mTitle->isTalkPage; 				$istalkclass = $istalk?' istalk':''; 				$content_actions['edit'] = array( Index: languages/messages/MessagesEn.php

=
====================================================== --- languages/messages/MessagesEn.php	(revision 90117) +++ languages/messages/MessagesEn.php	(working copy) @@ -1008,7 +1008,7 @@ 'actionthrottledtext' => 'As an anti-spam measure, you are limited from performing this action too many times in a short space of time, and you have exceeded this limit. Please try again in a few minutes.', 'protectedpagetext'   => 'This page has been locked to prevent editing.', -'viewsourcetext'      => 'You can view and copy the source of this page:', +'viewsourcetext'      => 'If you haven\'t logged in, try logging in. You can view and copy the source of this page:', 'protectedinterface'  => 'This page provides interface text for the software, and is locked to prevent abuse.', 'editinginterface'    => "Warning: You are editing a page which is used to provide interface text for the software. Changes to this page will affect the appearance of the user interface for other users.

Davious 19:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

TextEdit for Mac
Is it okay to use TextEdit for Mac computers? It does mention about Notepad for Windows, but nothing for the Mac platform. --TJRana 22:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Notification for closed account
The example


 * function efLoginFormMessage( &$template ) {
 * $template->set( 'header', "(For an account to edit articles with, contact Mrs. Nurdsbaum in room B-303, nelda.nurdsbaum@example.com )");
 * return true;
 * }
 * $wgHooks['UserLoginForm'][]='efLoginFormMessage';

seems not to work with MW 1.18. The message doesn't show up at all.

--Francishunger (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I used 1.19 Jidanni (talk) 03:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Broken inter-page link
In section Restrict viewing of certain specific pages the link "see above" (near "configure one as viewable and one as unviewable") seems to be broken, and I am not sure what it should be. What should it be? --Mortense (talk) 09:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Please add more anonymous user examples
Please provide example for ANONYMOUS users to be able to read but not edit article, but allow them to edit talk pages. Sbmeirow (talk) 11:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * See Manual:$wgGroupPermissions and Manual:$wgNamespaceProtection.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Prevent unregistered users from viewing files, even if they know the URL
I'm trying to set up a completely private wiki for my nonprofit's internal collaborative use. I've figured out how to prevent unregistered "users" from viewing or editing any pages and how to restrict account creation. But it appears that while the "File:Whatever" pages are protected in this way, the actual files themselves are only | secured through obscurity; anyone can view them if they know the URL that leads directly to the file. Is there an extension or other means to block unregistered users from seeing any files, even if they have a direct link? --LouisB3 (talk) 15:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * See Manual:Image Authorization, it involves setting up img_auth.php, which is part of core mediawiki. -- Skiz zerz  06:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, did this and it worked. -- LouisB3

Preventing creation of certain pages
I was wondering, if there were pages which were being repeatedly created on my wiki, and were recreated every time I deleted them, is it possible to prevent creation of those pages? I don't know if it's a protection function or a preventing access function.
 * Help:Protecting and unprotecting pages - the procedure described there can also be used to prevent pages from being created. Depending on your skin, entering the page protection menu for a particular non-existing page will, in place of "edit" or "move" restrictions, have a "create" restriction to be set.
 * Alternatively, you can make use of regex with the use of Extension:Titleblacklist instead, although it typically offers only one protection level.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)