Re: [Wikitech-l] changing edit summaries
(Sorry, I posted this in the wrong thread a few minutes ago.) On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 9:57 PM, Yusuke Matsubara whym at whym.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l wrote: ** On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 9:15 PM, Amir E. Aharoni *** amir.aharoni at mail.huji.ac.il https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l wrote: ** I tried looking for it in Bugzilla; I expected to find a two-digit bug for ** it, but I couldn't find any at all. Of course it's possible that I didn't ** look well enough. ** A bit different, but there is an extension that enables ** supplementing additional non-modifiable edit summaries: ** https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:RevisionCommentSupplement https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:RevisionCommentSupplement ** It was contributed (without a Bugzilla request) by Burthsceh, a ** volunteer at Japanese Wikipedia, prompted by the necessity to fix ** attributions made in edit summaries (for reused texts). [1] I don't ** think it has been extensively reviewed, though. ** With that approach, you could effectively modify an edit summary by ** appending a modified one and rev-deleting the original one. ** [1] https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:%E4%BA%95%E6%88%B8%E7%AB%AF/subj/%E5%B1%A5%E6%AD%B4%E3%83%9A%E3%83%BC%E3%82%B8%E3%81%AE%E5%80%8B%E3%80%85%E3%81%AE%E7%89%88%E3%81%AB%E5%AF%BE%E3%81%97%E3%81%A6%E8%BF%BD%E5%8A%A0%E3%81%AE%E3%82%B3%E3%83%A1%E3%83%B3%E3%83%88%E3%82%92%E8%A1%A8%E7%A4%BA%E3%81%99%E3%82%8B%E6%96%B9%E6%B3%95%E3%81%AE%E5%B0%8E%E5%85%A5%E3%81%AE%E6%8F%90%E6%A1%88 https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:%E4%BA%95%E6%88%B8%E7%AB%AF/subj/%E5%B1%A5%E6%AD%B4%E3%83%9A%E3%83%BC%E3%82%B8%E3%81%AE%E5%80%8B%E3%80%85%E3%81%AE%E7%89%88%E3%81%AB%E5%AF%BE%E3%81%97%E3%81%A6%E8%BF%BD%E5%8A%A0%E3%81%AE%E3%82%B3%E3%83%A1%E3%83%B3%E3%83%88%E3%82%92%E8%A1%A8%E7%A4%BA%E3%81%99%E3%82%8B%E6%96%B9%E6%B3%95%E3%81%AE%E5%B0%8E%E5%85%A5%E3%81%AE%E6%8F%90%E6%A1%88 * On Wed Nov 12 01:05:26 UTC 2014 I asked this list if the technical team could help the patrollers of recent changes to Wikipedia's medical articles “...tag the log entry of revisions ... as having been reviewed for policy/guideline compliance by a trusted editor.” [1] I am quite technically illiterate and may have misunderstood, but judging by Yusuke Matsubara's description, the extension he mentions above seems like it might fit our needs. Will it enable patrollers to add a comment to the edit summary? Does anyone know if it works on en.Wikipedia? 1.https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2014-November/079418.html Anthony Cole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthonyhcole ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Release candidate for 1.24.0
Ignore my last post - I appended it to the wrong thread. Anthony Cole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthonyhcole ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] changing edit summaries
- I think this ML top-posts. Not sure. - Suspect that the Flow extension would allow for more flexibility, including attaching multiple discussion threads to a specific edit or paragraph. -- svetlana On Sun, 23 Nov 2014, at 19:25, Anthony Cole wrote: (Sorry, I posted this in the wrong thread a few minutes ago.) On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 9:57 PM, Yusuke Matsubara whym at whym.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l wrote: ** On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 9:15 PM, Amir E. Aharoni *** amir.aharoni at mail.huji.ac.il https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l wrote: ** I tried looking for it in Bugzilla; I expected to find a two-digit bug for ** it, but I couldn't find any at all. Of course it's possible that I didn't ** look well enough. ** A bit different, but there is an extension that enables ** supplementing additional non-modifiable edit summaries: ** https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:RevisionCommentSupplement https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:RevisionCommentSupplement ** It was contributed (without a Bugzilla request) by Burthsceh, a ** volunteer at Japanese Wikipedia, prompted by the necessity to fix ** attributions made in edit summaries (for reused texts). [1] I don't ** think it has been extensively reviewed, though. ** With that approach, you could effectively modify an edit summary by ** appending a modified one and rev-deleting the original one. ** [1] https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:%E4%BA%95%E6%88%B8%E7%AB%AF/subj/%E5%B1%A5%E6%AD%B4%E3%83%9A%E3%83%BC%E3%82%B8%E3%81%AE%E5%80%8B%E3%80%85%E3%81%AE%E7%89%88%E3%81%AB%E5%AF%BE%E3%81%97%E3%81%A6%E8%BF%BD%E5%8A%A0%E3%81%AE%E3%82%B3%E3%83%A1%E3%83%B3%E3%83%88%E3%82%92%E8%A1%A8%E7%A4%BA%E3%81%99%E3%82%8B%E6%96%B9%E6%B3%95%E3%81%AE%E5%B0%8E%E5%85%A5%E3%81%AE%E6%8F%90%E6%A1%88 https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:%E4%BA%95%E6%88%B8%E7%AB%AF/subj/%E5%B1%A5%E6%AD%B4%E3%83%9A%E3%83%BC%E3%82%B8%E3%81%AE%E5%80%8B%E3%80%85%E3%81%AE%E7%89%88%E3%81%AB%E5%AF%BE%E3%81%97%E3%81%A6%E8%BF%BD%E5%8A%A0%E3%81%AE%E3%82%B3%E3%83%A1%E3%83%B3%E3%83%88%E3%82%92%E8%A1%A8%E7%A4%BA%E3%81%99%E3%82%8B%E6%96%B9%E6%B3%95%E3%81%AE%E5%B0%8E%E5%85%A5%E3%81%AE%E6%8F%90%E6%A1%88 * On Wed Nov 12 01:05:26 UTC 2014 I asked this list if the technical team could help the patrollers of recent changes to Wikipedia's medical articles “...tag the log entry of revisions ... as having been reviewed for policy/guideline compliance by a trusted editor.” [1] I am quite technically illiterate and may have misunderstood, but judging by Yusuke Matsubara's description, the extension he mentions above seems like it might fit our needs. Will it enable patrollers to add a comment to the edit summary? Does anyone know if it works on en.Wikipedia? 1.https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2014-November/079418.html Anthony Cole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthonyhcole ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
[Wikitech-l] Tagging edits by reviewers (was: changing edit summaries)
On Sun, 23 Nov 2014, at 19:25, Anthony Cole wrote: On Wed Nov 12 01:05:26 UTC 2014 I asked this list if the technical team could help the patrollers of recent changes to Wikipedia's medical articles “...tag the log entry of revisions ... as having been reviewed for policy/guideline compliance by a trusted editor.” [1] I am quite technically illiterate and may have misunderstood, but judging by Yusuke Matsubara's description, the extension he mentions above seems like it might fit our needs. Will it enable patrollers to add a comment to the edit summary? Does anyone know if it works on en.Wikipedia? 1.https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2014-November/079418.html I don't think it is promising to use the RevisionCommentSupplement extension for a kind of revision tagging in the manner described. For example, the extension doesn't have the functionality of filtering RecentChanges by appended summaries. The intended use case is re-explain the individual edit so that humans (readers) can better understand it. A more promising approach might be (re-)using tags [1] - AbuseFilter and a few other tools (such as HHVM) add tags to revisions, and RecentChanges can (already) be filtered by tags. Is there an implementation that allows editors with certain privilege to add/remove a certain tag to a chosen revision? Is it easy to create one? [1] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Tags Best, Yusuke On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 7:15 PM, svetlana svetl...@fastmail.com.au wrote: - I think this ML top-posts. Not sure. - Suspect that the Flow extension would allow for more flexibility, including attaching multiple discussion threads to a specific edit or paragraph. -- svetlana On Sun, 23 Nov 2014, at 19:25, Anthony Cole wrote: (Sorry, I posted this in the wrong thread a few minutes ago.) On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 9:57 PM, Yusuke Matsubara whym at whym.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l wrote: ** On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 9:15 PM, Amir E. Aharoni *** amir.aharoni at mail.huji.ac.il https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l wrote: ** I tried looking for it in Bugzilla; I expected to find a two-digit bug for ** it, but I couldn't find any at all. Of course it's possible that I didn't ** look well enough. ** A bit different, but there is an extension that enables ** supplementing additional non-modifiable edit summaries: ** https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:RevisionCommentSupplement https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:RevisionCommentSupplement ** It was contributed (without a Bugzilla request) by Burthsceh, a ** volunteer at Japanese Wikipedia, prompted by the necessity to fix ** attributions made in edit summaries (for reused texts). [1] I don't ** think it has been extensively reviewed, though. ** With that approach, you could effectively modify an edit summary by ** appending a modified one and rev-deleting the original one. ** [1] https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:%E4%BA%95%E6%88%B8%E7%AB%AF/subj/%E5%B1%A5%E6%AD%B4%E3%83%9A%E3%83%BC%E3%82%B8%E3%81%AE%E5%80%8B%E3%80%85%E3%81%AE%E7%89%88%E3%81%AB%E5%AF%BE%E3%81%97%E3%81%A6%E8%BF%BD%E5%8A%A0%E3%81%AE%E3%82%B3%E3%83%A1%E3%83%B3%E3%83%88%E3%82%92%E8%A1%A8%E7%A4%BA%E3%81%99%E3%82%8B%E6%96%B9%E6%B3%95%E3%81%AE%E5%B0%8E%E5%85%A5%E3%81%AE%E6%8F%90%E6%A1%88 https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:%E4%BA%95%E6%88%B8%E7%AB%AF/subj/%E5%B1%A5%E6%AD%B4%E3%83%9A%E3%83%BC%E3%82%B8%E3%81%AE%E5%80%8B%E3%80%85%E3%81%AE%E7%89%88%E3%81%AB%E5%AF%BE%E3%81%97%E3%81%A6%E8%BF%BD%E5%8A%A0%E3%81%AE%E3%82%B3%E3%83%A1%E3%83%B3%E3%83%88%E3%82%92%E8%A1%A8%E7%A4%BA%E3%81%99%E3%82%8B%E6%96%B9%E6%B3%95%E3%81%AE%E5%B0%8E%E5%85%A5%E3%81%AE%E6%8F%90%E6%A1%88 * On Wed Nov 12 01:05:26 UTC 2014 I asked this list if the technical team could help the patrollers of recent changes to Wikipedia's medical articles “...tag the log entry of revisions ... as having been reviewed for policy/guideline compliance by a trusted editor.” [1] I am quite technically illiterate and may have misunderstood, but judging by Yusuke Matsubara's description, the extension he mentions above seems like it might fit our needs. Will it enable patrollers to add a comment to the edit summary? Does anyone know if it works on en.Wikipedia? 1.https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2014-November/079418.html Anthony Cole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthonyhcole ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Tagging edits by reviewers (was: changing edit summaries)
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Yusuke Matsubara w...@whym.org wrote: ... A more promising approach might be (re-)using tags [1] - AbuseFilter and a few other tools (such as HHVM) add tags to revisions, and RecentChanges can (already) be filtered by tags. Is there an implementation that allows editors with certain privilege to add/remove a certain tag to a chosen revision? Is it easy to create one? There is a request for that on https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18670 (Create ability to remove tags from edits / actions) Helder ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Feature request.
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:59 AM, James Forrester jforres...@wikimedia.org wrote: A paragraph-level diff means that you only get an edit conflict if two people change the same paragraph. A character-level diff would mean, then, that you only get a conflict if they change the same character? That sounds a bit excessive. (Stupid example: if I change sixty-three to sixty-five and someone else changes it to seventy-three, that should probably be a conflict, but a character-level diff would happily merge them into seventy-five.) Sure, but wikitext paragraphs are significantly more extensive and diverse than the NLP concept; to give an example: Original wikitext: There are six [[alpaca]] shearers on [[Sunningdale Acers|the farm]]. My changes: There are six [[*Alpaca fiber|*alpaca]] shearers on [[Sunningdale Acr*e*s|the farm]]. Their changes: There are six [[alpaca]] shearers on [[Sunningdale Acers|the farm*stead* ]]. Merging these two changes requires character-level merging (or something that natively understand wikitext at a subtle level. The first change would go through as a word-level diff (but not at sentence-level); the second wouldn't go through even then. Of course, we could prompt people to review the diff after saving if we're auto-merging, but that might be something we should be doing even now? I don't think this is particularly unique to wikitext, but sure, a character-level (or even word-level) diff would often bring better results than the current algorithm. My point is that paragraph-based (and maybe even sentence-based) diffing makes unwanted results rare enough that it can just be applied without any oversight from the user, while the same definitely would not be true of the finer-grained algorithms. They could be applied with some sort of user review, or 3-way merge interface, and those would be cool features in general, but more complex than just tweaking the diff algorithm, I would think. ...which made me wonder: are we logging enough information of edit conflicts that we could just replay them with an alternative algorithm and see how well it performs? None of the EventLogging schemas which look relevant (Edit [1], EditConflict [2], EditDebugging [3]) seem to store the text which could not be saved, and while EditDebugging saves the ids for both old revisions for a successful automatic merge, I'm not sure if those can be connected with id of the new revision. [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Schema:Edit [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Schema:EditConflict [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Schema:EditDebugging ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Feature request.
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 11:00 AM, James Forrester jforres...@wikimedia.org wrote: No. The Drafts extension (and any feature that puts hidden content on the servers) was veto'ed years ago by Legal. We need to stop beating this dead horse. If that is the case, it should be expressed more clearly at T39992 https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T39992 which right now has some legal arguments (not very convincing ones, in my opinion, but I'll expand on that there), but no mention of any authoritative legal evaluation, and on the whole the discussion is centered on usability. Anyway, this doesn't really answer the question - whether drafts are stored locally or on the server is an implementation detail (a major one, but still). Is a localstorage-based draft feature on the roadmap, then? ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
[Wikitech-l] Bugzilla-Phabricator migration (almost) completed
Happy Monday! We did it. https://phabricator.wikimedia.org now contains all the Bugzilla reports. If you need to check the original Bugzilla, it can be found at https://old-bugzilla-wikimedia.org (never mind the certificate warning, it will go away today or so). Important notes: * If your Bugzilla activity still hasn't been assigned to you, just wait. bzimport is processing the data of about 800 users. It assigns tasks first, then comments. Don't be surprised if you see a task assigned to you, while your comments still belong to bzimport. * Another ongoing background task: after injecting 73k tasks, it is possible that not all the content is indexed yet, so some search results might still be missing. * Join and watch the projects that matter to you. We have almost 700 new projects imported that nobody is watching currently. This is especially relevant if you were default CC in Bugzilla components. Details: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Phabricator/Help#Receiving_updates_and_notifications and https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T75699 * Do not change project names and policies for now. You may break links in Phabricator and mediawiki.org. See https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Phabricator/Requesting_a_new_project#Guidelines * Bugzilla URLs redirect to Phabricator (most of them) or old-bugzilla (some). Details: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Phabricator/versus_Bugzilla#Redirected_URLs_after_Bugzilla_migration If you find bugs, please report them under the Phabricator project. If you need support, ask in #wikimedia-devtools. As usual, all the relevant details can be found at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Phabricator/versus_Bugzilla BIG THANK YOU to everybody involved in this big, long, and complex migration. It has been really exciting to deploy a Phabricator instance with 75k tasks, the biggest Maniphest container we are aware of. And well, this is only the beginning. Right now we will focus in the most urgent post-Bugzilla-migration tasks, while starting to prepare the RT migration. Your tasks, comments, and tokens are welcome. Check the current backlog at https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/maniphest/query/y2CdmZwKv3oZ/#R -- Quim Gil Engineering Community Manager @ Wikimedia Foundation http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Qgil ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Bugzilla-Phabricator migration (almost) completed
On 24/11/14 07:41, Quim Gil wrote: Happy Monday! We did it. https://phabricator.wikimedia.org now contains all the Bugzilla reports. If you need to check the original Bugzilla, it can be found at https://old-bugzilla-wikimedia.org (never mind the certificate warning, it will go away today or so). To clarify the typo, that should be https://old-bugzilla.wikimedia.org . Also this is all pretty awesome. -I ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
