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
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
* 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