with apologies for re-vitalising a slightly old thread -I have a couple of
follow ups, which it'd be great to try and make some progress on....
My understanding is that Aaron (whom I haven't 'met' - so hello!) has
completed work on a test configuration of flagged revisions - I hope it's
appropraite for me to ask directly on this list whether or not Aaron
considers this development complete? (my understanding is that the extension
is pretty much ready to go?)
There is understandably considerable interest in the timeframe for
installing flagged revisions, I would hope it would be a positive step to
set some timeframes a bit tighter than 'hopefully by wikimedia' ;-) - is
this list an appropriate context for such discusison, and if so (hopefullly)
- could someone appropriately empowered flesh out the next steps a bit more,
and maybe try and establish a timetable of sorts?
My intention in posting about this every so often is to ensure that such an
important development doesn't sort of slip through the cracks - I think
communication on this matter has to date been ok, but not great - it'll be
cool to improve it a bit :-)
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 9:00 AM, Platonides <Platonides(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I think a better solution would be to upgrade
Huggle/Twinkle. As it now
stands, the main antivandal programs are... somewhat stodgy. When you
a bunch of people all using them at once, you
start to run into edit
conflicts. Different people will be trying to revert the same page at
same time. But you know how you can set a page
as "patrolled" in the
revisions" section? Perhaps there should be
a way to set that on
Huggle/Twinkle, but for multiple users. There could be a flag that flips
when there are more than X number of users actively running through
Huggle/Twinkle. If the number of users is greater than X, then revisions
are actually sent out to multiple people at once. This seems somewhat
contradictory at first, the idea that you'll save time/resources and
more pages if you have more people working on the
same page, but it
revert as soon as you hit revert. It would just
set the flag on that
and serve up the next page -- if a majority of
reviewers reverts it, the
vandalism is reverted and the vandal is warned.
If the number of users is lower than X, then of course each person would
instantly revert a page when they revert. But I spend a lot of time
for Huggle to revert a page and warn a user.
This may not be the case
everyone, but I read very quickly. I read the
last Harry Potter book in
like a couple of hours, no joking. When I use Huggle, I spend the
of my time waiting for Huggle to revert a page
and warn a user (well,
than using Google to find other sites to check on
factual accuracy, but
that's another story).
I just feel that the amount of edit conflicts while using Huggle and the
amount that the same set of pages is looked over by the same set of
all of whom are trying to individually revert, is
just too much. There's
far too much wasted time, in my opinion, because Huggle and Twinkle,
although great, are just slightly inadequate to keep up with how big
Wikepdia has become. It's so huge that it's impossible for one person to
read it all, since it'd take a few years of continuous reading and it's
growing faster than the fastest reader could read.
In summary, your complain is that Huggle and Twinkle are slow.
Complain to its authors, not to mediawiki developers. It's up to you to
use them or not, or even create a "better" tool.
If two people save the same version, mediawiki already chooses the first
one. There could be an addition of "add this section if it doesn't
exist" command, but that's all.
Antivandal tools are free to synchronize and load their load between
them in any way they wish. This is the wrong list to rant about them.
Wikitech-l mailing list