-----Original Message----- From: zero 0000 [mailto:nought_0000@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 06:57 AM To: 'wikipedia' Subject: [WikiEN-l] Searching an article history
If an article is pretty active, it can be quite a chore to locate the edit where a particular text was added. Is there any sort of tool to help with that?
Thanks. Zero.
This would be a daunting coding problem, but would be very useful. It would be a search of diffs I guess.
Fred
Fred Bauder wrote:
From: zero 0000
If an article is pretty active, it can be quite a chore to locate the edit where a particular text was added. Is there any sort of tool to help with that?
This would be a daunting coding problem, but would be very useful. It would be a search of diffs I guess.
What helps is a good search strategy. Batching the diffs into successively smaller groups is faster than looking at every one individually.
Ec
On 1/19/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
What helps is a good search strategy. Batching the diffs into successively smaller groups is faster than looking at every one individually.
Ec
That's what I do too, a sort of binary diff-search.
--Oskar
On 19/01/07, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/19/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
What helps is a good search strategy. Batching the diffs into successively smaller groups is faster than looking at every one individually.
That's what I do too, a sort of binary diff-search.
Yep. It's a bit painful, but is generally feasible. Nightmare on a really heavily edited page, of course.
- d.
On 1/19/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Yep. It's a bit painful, but is generally feasible. Nightmare on a really heavily edited page, of course.
It Would Be Nice If Wikipedia had a good way to search for when a given text string was added to an article, or deleted from it. Like many IWBNIs, however, I can't see a great way to code it that would be efficient.
-Matt
Matthew Brown wrote:
On 1/19/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Yep. It's a bit painful, but is generally feasible. Nightmare on a really heavily edited page, of course.
It Would Be Nice If Wikipedia had a good way to search for when a given text string was added to an article, or deleted from it. Like many IWBNIs, however, I can't see a great way to code it that would be efficient.
That's basically what the IBM History Flow http://www.research.ibm.com/visual/projects/history_flow/ does, but unfortunately the code isn't released. Of course, It Would Be Nice If either they were persuaded to release the code, or someone reimplemented a free version.
On a slight tangent, the nightmare of dealing with histories on heavily-edited pages could be slightly eased if there were some way to mark edits as vandalism, perhaps when reverting. Then, like we can currently do "hide minor edits", we would be able to do "hide vandalism" and not get all that cruft in the edit history.
-Mark
Delirium wrote:
That's basically what the IBM History Flow http://www.research.ibm.com/visual/projects/history_flow/ does, but unfortunately the code isn't released. Of course, It Would Be Nice If either they were persuaded to release the code, or someone reimplemented a free version.
On a slight tangent, the nightmare of dealing with histories on heavily-edited pages could be slightly eased if there were some way to mark edits as vandalism, perhaps when reverting. Then, like we can currently do "hide minor edits", we would be able to do "hide vandalism" and not get all that cruft in the edit history.
-Mark
I like this idea. Maybe a similar feature would be easier to implement: hiding blocks of edits that were reverted. A frequent occurrence is a vandalism edit followed by a reversion. If those pairs could be hidden, it would clean up many edit history views. Only a bit more complicated would be multiple edits that get reverted as a block. It gets more involved when reverts of reverts take place...
-Rich