On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dal...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Edit conflicts with live editing aren't an issue, manual resolution is > trivial. Edit conflicts with significant delays are a much bigger > problem and require automated merging, which isn't always possible, > and is often very difficult. Why do edit conflicts with significant delays require automated merging? What's wrong with sending back a message that "your edit failed due to an edit conflict", or even better "there was an conflict with your edit - it has been sent to a queue for manual processing"? Sure, third worlders won't be able to get into an edit war on the English Wikipedia version of [[George W. Bush]], but that doesn't mean they can't contribute to one of the millions of lower traffic articles. We already have dumps (the latest dump of all enwiki primary content > finished a couple of hours ago and is 4.8 gig), all we would need to > do is make incremental dumps available so people don't have to > download the whole thing repeatedly. Great. Do it. > That would be pretty easy to > program compared to rewriting the whole of MediaWiki to function via > Waves. Google has already done that, except it's not MediaWiki, it's something much much more powerful and easy to use. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l