I'd use it in a flash. I often find it helpful when examining an article (for edit warriors and vandals, or dodgy editorship), to trace back where a given wording was introduced.
I can also see it would be immensely useful to me, to be able to see which wordings were being warred over or changed recently and which were more stable or historically unchanged.
As I also know a number of users, it may further help me in evaluating a text, to have a quick way ("hover" information) to say "okay, these are texts introduced by users I know and consider decent responsible editors, so I don't have to spend time on them and can focus on these sections".
However I would be relying on my own experience and using it as a tool to assist and help me shortcut doing things I do already, not as a bible of reliability, a substitute for reliable sources, or as a measure of implicit trust.
FT2
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 3:09 PM, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 8:36 PM, FT2ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
It's a lot less glamorous, sounds alot less dramatic, doesn't get the dollars - but it's got zero capability of misleading.
To be honest, what exactly is the point of this thing? I've seen this kind of thing a couple of times when academics have been doing research. But what's the use case? What are users supposed to do with the knowledge? Is it important? Should end-users care?
All I can see is a moderately handy tool for editors who do a lot of patrolling, to save them a bit of time. Other than that, it just makes the page text hard to read, imho.
Or have I missed some radical advancement in the tech?
Steve
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l