Is there any plans on how to extract the edits which are reverts/anti-vandalism only out of the article history? so that when you want to know the authors of a certain article...you just choose to get all edits..
I was thinking of adding a tick box like that of the 'minor edit' that people use (along with anti-vandal bots) when they are just reverting...that box should mark these edits I presume...what do you think?
2007/7/20, Mohamed Magdy mohamed.m.k@gmail.com:
Is there any plans on how to extract the edits which are reverts/anti-vandalism only out of the article history? so that when you want to know the authors of a certain article...you just choose to get all edits..
I was thinking of adding a tick box like that of the 'minor edit' that people use (along with anti-vandal bots) when they are just reverting...that box should mark these edits I presume...what do you think?
I have made attempts to get the main authors out of the page history using a bot. Unfortunately, they are still in the 'plans' stage - I intended to compare various algorithms with the opinion of regular editors, to see which is best, but I have not done this yet. It would be good to have something like that in the actual code, so someone can find the actual authors without ploughing through sometimes hundreds of edits.
Mohamed Magdy wrote:
Is there any plans on how to extract the edits which are reverts/anti-vandalism only out of the article history? so that when you want to know the authors of a certain article...you just choose to get all edits..
I was thinking of adding a tick box like that of the 'minor edit' that people use (along with anti-vandal bots) when they are just reverting...that box should mark these edits I presume...what do you think?
If you wanted to remove someone, i'd remove the vandalisms, not people reverting them. At least, people watching the article is 'contributing' by preserving their state.
Andre, there was an nice experimental 'blame' utility... don't know what happened to it. See the archives.
"Platonides" Platonides@gmail.com wrote in message news:f7qg0l$a3a$1@sea.gmane.org...
Mohamed Magdy wrote:
Is there any plans on how to extract the edits which are reverts/anti-vandalism only out of the article history? so that when you want to know the authors of a certain article...you just choose to get all edits..
I was thinking of adding a tick box like that of the 'minor edit' that people use (along with anti-vandal bots) when they are just reverting...that box should mark these edits I presume...what do you
think?
If you wanted to remove someone, i'd remove the vandalisms, not people reverting them. At least, people watching the article is 'contributing' by preserving their state.
Well... they're contributing to the process, but they're not contributing to the content (which is, I think, the point of this feature).
I would suggest marking edits that are just vandalism. A bot can then walk through the revisions skipping over any marked edits, and if two consecutive versions are the same then it marks the second one as a revert automatically (although page-moves and any other administrative tasks that don't change content (protection?) would also be picked up by this - however that may be a good thing, depending on the point of the excercise).
I've been thinking for a while about using a field to tag the type of edit for each revision. The main purpose was to establish the actual content contributors for licensing purposes. A bot could handle a fair amount of this, but some would need to be done manually. Some of the flags include: "blanking", "reversion", "vandalism", "language tag", "categories", "references", "wikification", etc. The aim would be, ultimately, to get a list of authors that does not include administrative edits, vandalism or other non-content activities.
- Mark Clements (HappyDog)
To establish the authors of an article, it would be most sensible to do a word-by-word blame (annotate, whatever you like: who last modified each word -- or better, each token, given that wikisyntax can theoretically be tokenized) and just use that as a list. If someone contributed in the distant past and their contribution was later totally replaced, that's nice of them and all, but they aren't really a contributor to the present version in any real sense.
"Simetrical" Simetrical+wikilist@gmail.com wrote in message news:7c2a12e20707200909l4bd76a34nf70fa31a4a6e7ad7@mail.gmail.com...
To establish the authors of an article, it would be most sensible to do a word-by-word blame (annotate, whatever you like: who last modified each word -- or better, each token, given that wikisyntax can theoretically be tokenized) and just use that as a list. If someone contributed in the distant past and their contribution was later totally replaced, that's nice of them and all, but they aren't really a contributor to the present version in any real sense.
True, but that won't work on its own. If I write a new article, someone else blanks it and a third person reverts to my original, then the third person will get credit for my work. In practice I think you need both - a way of marking some edits as ignored for licensing purposes (and I think it should be more flexible than a simple flag, as described in my previous post) and a blame tool so that only the authors of the current version are displayed. However, this becomes hard to do correctly when re-factoring is taken into account, so I would rather err on the side of caution (including people who may not have contributed) than to omit people who made a contribution that was subsequently jigged about by someone else.
- Mark Clements (HappyDog)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Mark Clements wrote:
"Simetrical" Simetrical+wikilist@gmail.com wrote in message news:7c2a12e20707200909l4bd76a34nf70fa31a4a6e7ad7@mail.gmail.com...
To establish the authors of an article, it would be most sensible to do a word-by-word blame (annotate, whatever you like: who last modified each word -- or better, each token, given that wikisyntax can theoretically be tokenized) and just use that as a list. If someone contributed in the distant past and their contribution was later totally replaced, that's nice of them and all, but they aren't really a contributor to the present version in any real sense.
True, but that won't work on its own. If I write a new article, someone else blanks it and a third person reverts to my original, then the third person will get credit for my work. In practice I think you need both - a
That would be poor design :). Naturally an annotation will have to be constructed from earliest to latest--it's the question of who *introduced* a word or phrase into an article. Those that are not still in the present article will not be included in the annotation. Those that are will be elegantly marked as originating from a certain author.
There was a presentation[1] at Wikimania 06 that addressed issues of attribution. I think it's certainly something important to revisit.
[1]http://eprints.rclis.org/archive/00007102/02/FirstWorkshopOnWikipediaResearch.odp
- -- Daniel Cannon (AmiDaniel)
http://amidaniel.com cannon.danielc@gmail.com
That would be poor design :). Naturally an annotation will have to be constructed from earliest to latest--it's the question of who *introduced* a word or phrase into an article. Those that are not still in the present article will not be included in the annotation. Those that are will be elegantly marked as originating from a certain author.
Who gets the credit if I move a paragraph? Or correct the spelling of a word? Or, even worse, merge two articles? Annotating authors of individual bits of text is very challenging. Be great if someone can get it to work, though.
On 7/20/07, Daniel Cannon cannon.danielc@gmail.com wrote:
That would be poor design :). Naturally an annotation will have to be constructed from earliest to latest--it's the question of who *introduced* a word or phrase into an article.
That depends on what you want from it. Annotation for source control generally cares who *last* modified it, so you can find whom to "blame" if something breaks. That would be useful for wikis too. Annotation for attribution would be a bit different.
On 7/20/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Who gets the credit if I move a paragraph? Or correct the spelling of a word? Or, even worse, merge two articles?
Leaving aside the last, which I feel is the same issue as if you copy the page from an entirely external source, it would depend on whether you're looking for blame or attribution. For blame you alone get the credit, for attribution you both do. The latter is considerably harder to pull off, since it requires accurate classification of moves versus additions/removals.
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org