On Wednesday 23 May 2007 19:41:00 Kurt Jansson wrote:
P. Birken schrieb:
In particular, as the edit button is hidden, large parts of the wiki might look uneditable to IP users. How do we solve this?
We could take up Arnomanes idea again which means to show the editbutton, with a different behaviour in those cases.
I still think this is the best solution. It will also avoid criticism
from community members who fear IP users would be obstructed. And
there's also the press, but some of them won't get it anyway ;-)
I think the same. When I recruit new people for Wikipedia I often encourage them to read a bit and to correct typos they find on reading in order to get quickly a feeling how Wikipedia "works" and in order to show quick results to them.
During reading you don't want to read anew on a small error, you want to fix the problem right now (impulse action) and proceed. Clicking on "current revision" would require this much more than just clicking on edit and inmediatly focusing on the "just do it" part.
However as I wrote in one of the emails the "section edit" would still be lost with the idea of the modified edit button for IPs as you cannot take the section structure of an older and the current version as identical and even if it would be identical it could be easily the case that two sections just changed their places (very common task on reorganizing article content).
A possible solution for keeping even section edit would be a similarity comparison: * When clicking on section edit on an old (approved, whatever flagged) revision it takes the text of that old section you want to edit and compares it to the full text of the current revision. * The smallest nearby matching (sub-) section of the current revision will be opened for editing (alongside the full diff view to current revision above the edit box). * In case there is no nearby match (depending on resonable threshold) or if the section is splitted into two or more top level sections the full article would be opened for editing (as the full article would be the smallest matching section in that case).
I know that this is maybe to advanced for the first version (and we need to test it at one point in the wild if we want to suceed) but IMHO worthwile for later improvements.
Grüße, Arnomane