I think the hosting of the server should be left to Jimbo to decide. But what I'd really like to see is something like groove.net, where I can keep an offline copy on my own computer, edit articles locally, and sync the changes with the server the next time I'm online. I'm not on a modem connection, but I'm moving with my laptop and wireless LAN between home, workplaces and cafes. This of course would be a major software change. Some two-way synchronization protocol (like unison) would be needed.
what if someone else edits your article after you last see it? how would the software reconcile different edits from the same point? i rather prefer the current system, where you can go in and choose the best bits of each to save. I don't foresee software being that sophisticated within our lifetimes. maybe you have some ideas about it.
kq
0
On ven, 2002-03-01 at 20:50, koyaanisqatsi@nupedia.com wrote:
Lars Aronsson wrote:
I think the hosting of the server should be left to Jimbo to decide. But what I'd really like to see is something like groove.net, where I can keep an offline copy on my own computer, edit articles locally, and sync the changes with the server the next time I'm online. I'm not on a modem connection, but I'm moving with my laptop and wireless LAN between home, workplaces and cafes. This of course would be a major software change. Some two-way synchronization protocol (like unison) would be needed.
what if someone else edits your article after you last see it? how would the software reconcile different edits from the same point? i rather prefer the current system, where you can go in and choose the best bits of each to save. I don't foresee software being that sophisticated within our lifetimes. maybe you have some ideas about it.
Changes that don't conflict with one another could be integrated fairly easily, as long as the upload indicates which revision of the article you were working from. (CVS does this with source code, for instance.)
Actual conflicts -- changes that affect the same part of the text in both revisions -- are more difficult. Probably we would want to handle this the same way that we do it now within the web interface: throw up an edit conflict and ask the user to manually reconcile the two versions.
The edit conflict process needs to be improved in any case; including a diff with the edit conflict screen has been recommended, which I heartily endorse, but the diff function is currently quite limited: removes and adds are not shown in sequence, and small changes in large paragraphs are very difficult to see.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
major software change. Some two-way synchronization protocol (like unison) would be needed.
what if someone else edits your article after you last see it?
This is something that existing systems like CVS and unison already deal with. When I decide to sync, the software would inform me about any editing conflicts, and I would have to either resolve them or discard my own changes. The edit conflict could be moved to my local copy, so I could resolve it offline and commit it the next time I'm online (provided the same page hasn't changed again, in which case there would be a new editing conflict). My offline software would need a "recent conflicts" listing. :-) As I said, this would be a major software change. But it is still a sweet dream, isn't it?
i rather prefer the current system,
Which is fine. The current system would still work as it does today.
// Suggestion #4: Avatar Evil Suggestion
I like the actual look & feel of Wikipedia. But.. Can be improved with icons views of data. You can visually pack more info with icons, helping people sorting and finding information.
Icons view of older versions of files. Icon for Talk Icon for users edit this page ( with avatars? )
I suggest this looks and feel: - windows 95 big icons view - winjabber buddylist view - etc..
1 saludo Tei RatBert
At 20:50 1/03/02 -0800, you wrote:
I think the hosting of the server should be left to Jimbo to decide. But what I'd really like to see is something like groove.net, where I can keep an offline copy on my own computer, edit articles locally, and sync the changes with the server the next time I'm online. I'm not on a modem connection, but I'm moving with my laptop and wireless LAN between home, workplaces and cafes. This of course would be a major software change. Some two-way synchronization protocol (like unison) would be needed.
what if someone else edits your article after you last see it? how would
the software reconcile different edits from the same point? i rather prefer the current system, where you can go in and choose the best bits of each to save. I don't foresee software being that sophisticated within our lifetimes. maybe you have some ideas about it.
kq
0
----- Original Message ----- From: "Tei" 421621@ingta.unizar.es To: wikipedia-l@nupedia.com Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 12:28 PM Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Suggestions #4
| | // Suggestion #4: Avatar Evil Suggestion | | I like the actual look & feel of Wikipedia. But.. Can be improved with | icons views of data. You can visually pack more info with icons, helping | people sorting and finding information. | | Icons view of older versions of files. | Icon for Talk | Icon for users edit this page ( with avatars? ) | | I suggest this looks and feel: | - windows 95 big icons view | - winjabber buddylist view | - etc..
IMHO this would only increase the weight of the pages to be loaded and consume valuable bandwith. regards, WojPob
<wojtek@seti23.org.> what burns twice as bright, burns half as long, and you have burnt so very, very brightly roy.
At 12:34 4/03/02 +0100, you wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Tei" 421621@ingta.unizar.es To: wikipedia-l@nupedia.com Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 12:28 PM Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Suggestions #4
| | // Suggestion #4: Avatar Evil Suggestion | | I like the actual look & feel of Wikipedia. But.. Can be improved with | icons views of data. You can visually pack more info with icons, helping | people sorting and finding information. | | Icons view of older versions of files. | Icon for Talk | Icon for users edit this page ( with avatars? ) | | I suggest this looks and feel: | - windows 95 big icons view | - winjabber buddylist view | - etc..
IMHO this would only increase the weight of the pages to be loaded and
consume
valuable bandwith. regards, WojPob
Woj, thats true, but i suggest icows of less than 1 k size, ante then will be cached anyway in the client machine.
1 saludo Tei
note: type error: icons, not icows,... :DDD
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org