Members-
I couldn't agree more. The title "editor" implies a
totally different job function to me. Yes, editors deal
with content, but they usually review, alter, and/or
approve content. As was already said, in this sense, all
Wikipedians are editors.
Another issue is whether we want to identify
members' functions, at all, on the user page. There are
many other ways to identify developers and sysops on
Wikipedia and they should be considered too. There could
be a sysops page and a developers page with a list of
such people.
Frankly, I like the site as it is. Developes are
identified by going to Source Forge, usually, and if a
developer has not been included on this site, I think
they can simply ask. Sysops know who they are by the
sidebar on their view of the Wikipedia pages.
Maybe someone in favor of ths system can explain
the advantages to me.
As Ever,
Ruth Ifcher
--
> On 6/1/02 6:52 PM, "lcrocker(a)nupedia.com" <lcrocker(a)nupedia.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > We need some status for a generally well-known member of the
> > group who we trust to make content choices like editing
> > protected pages, temporarily banning vandals, deleting pages,
> > and so on. We also need a status for more dangerous things like
> > database queries and other maintenance tasks. The current
> > software calls these "sysop" and "developer", but I think "editor" and
> > "sysop" makes more sense. Developers will probably have logins to the
> > server and direct database access, so they don't need any rights the
> > software knows about--they exist outside the software.
> >
> "Editor" is a bad name, because everyone is an editor, and should be
> considered as such. I've already expressed my views on the need for sysops
> etc.
>
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> I have tried to read the endless posts to the Wiki
>lists, but perhaps I missed something. On Mr. Crocker's
>test site, did we decide to show on the Users page, that
>certain members are "editors," and "sysops?" And, if so,
>what is a "editor?"
That's just my impression of the better names for what we
now call "sysop" and "developer"--and those can be changed to
whatever we decide on when we have an actual policy on the
matter.
We need some status for a generally well-known member of the
group who we trust to make content choices like editing
protected pages, temporarily banning vandals, deleting pages,
and so on. We also need a status for more dangerous things like
database queries and other maintenance tasks. The current
software calls these "sysop" and "developer", but I think "editor" and
"sysop" makes more sense. Developers will probably have logins to the
server and direct database access, so they don't need any rights the
software knows about--they exist outside the software.
0
Members,
I have tried to read the endless posts to the Wiki
lists, but perhaps I missed something. On Mr. Crocker's
test site, did we decide to show on the Users page, that
certain members are "editors," and "sysops?" And, if so,
what is a "editor?"
I think all members should be aware of this. I have
seen no consensus on making anyone an editor. Please
explain. Please explain, also, what makes a member an
editor?
As Ever,
Ruth Ifcher
--
> I think Recent Changes and page history are in something like a final,
> usable, and efficient form. Recent changes shows /all/ changes,
> without collapsing changes to the same page into one line. Each has a
> link to a diff page and the history page.
>
> Each entry on the history page now has a link to a diff with the
> current version, and diff with the immediately previous version. The
> date and time, rather than the page name, is the link to the revision
> (it seemed silly to have a pageful of links with the same name).
>
> The diffs are in side-by-side format with context.
>
> Since the last update, I've also finished a few miscellaneous things
> like Random page, user list, and printable versions (this now works
> for all pages, even special pages and forms).
>
> The running version is still at
> (http://www.piclab.com/newwiki/wiki.phtml)
>
> I've set up the Sourceforge bug database at
> (http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=34373&atid=411192)
> to which the public can add bugs.
>
> The feature request tracker is at
> (http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?group_id=34373&atid=411195)
>
> REQUEST: A useful thing for some non-techie to do would be to go
> through the old wiki pages of bug reports on the old software, try
> the new software, and add bugs to the tracker. Now is also a good
> time to go ahead and add missing features to the feature request
> tracker so they don't get lost.
>
> Special thanks to Axel and KQ for their diligent QA work.
0
Axel makes a good argument that the new code's simplified layout
of the Recent Changes page (see
http://www.piclab.com/newwiki/wiki.phtmltitle=Special:Recentchanges )
really is an important loss of functionality. Since his comment, I
added an article history link, but I think his comment still applies
in general. I think it is of critical importance that this feature
be optimized both for function and for speed. I don't want to put
the old code back because it's a dog, but if I can find a way to
implement the needed features in a faster way, I'm all for it.
First, I'd like to solicit an opinion from Jan or other database
gurus about what might make the speed better. Currently, it is
driven by a single SELECT from the current article table, which is
sorted by reverse timestamp (on which there's an index), and with a
LIMIT. The old (N changes) feature also required accessing the old
versions table and an expensive GROUP BY, which I'd like to avoid if
possible.
One way I might do that is to create a new "changelog" table, updated
on each page change. This would hold the information needed for the
RC page which would avoid having to hit the article table or the old
versions table at all. It would use basically the same query (by
reverse timestamp). It might even be able to do the GROUP BY faster,
but if not, it would still have the advantage that multiple changes
to the same page would all show up in the list at their appropriate
position, which might actually be better, because that would also
show the person changing it and other stats which are now buried in
the (N changes).
Jan, would the increase non-atomicity of the article save process be
a problem? MySQL doesn't have transactions, so it's possible that
either an aritlce might be saved while recording that fact in the
changelog fails, or vice versa. I can't think of any real negative
consequences of that (each article's history list would still be
accurate, because those go straight to the article tables).
Any other ideas?
0
I think Recent Changes and page history are in something like a final,
usable, and efficient form. Recent changes shows /all/ changes,
without collapsing changes to the same page into one line. Each has a
link to a diff page and the history page.
Each entry on the history page now has a link to a diff with the
current version, and diff with the immediately previous version. The
date and time, rather than the page name, is the link to the revision
(it seemed silly to have a pageful of links with the same name).
The diffs are in side-by-side format with context.
Since the last update, I've also finished a few miscellaneous things
like Random page, user list, and printable versions (this now works
for all pages, even special pages and forms).
The running version is still at
(http://www.piclab.com/newwiki/wiki.phtml)
I've set up the Sourceforge bug database at
(http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=34373&atid=411192)
to which the public can add bugs.
The feature request tracker is at
(http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?group_id=34373&atid=411195)
REQUEST: A useful thing for some non-techie to do would be to go
through the old wiki pages of bug reports on the old software, try
the new software, and add bugs to the tracker. Now is also a good
time to go ahead and add missing features to the feature request
tracker so they don't get lost.
Special thanks to Axel and KQ for their diligent QA work.
0