https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46440
--- Comment #17 from Matthew Flaschen <mflasc...@wikimedia.org> ---
From where I'm coming from, it has nothing to do with the first option (HTML
comments/warnings to editors).
It is meant as a collaboration tool, essentially your second option. I don't
see it as a replacement for long free-form discussion ("this article needs more
reliable sources..."/"it has an undue weight is the following areas"...), but a
targeted form of collaboration around small areas of the article, like co-ment.
I agree a first pass (on MediaWiki.org, etc.) would be useful regardless, even
if not all the code could necessarily be integrated into the permanent
solution. It would allow trying out implementations and UI ideas.
I agree it would probably have to be one interface at first (and maybe ever),
and VisualEditor/Parsoid probably makes more sense.
There would probably have to be limited threading, but flat (these people
commented on this excerpt in this chronological order) would probably be
sufficient. If it gets too elaborate, talk it to the talk page/Flow.
To keep it concise, I would suggest just the username and date (perhaps
auto-formatted to e.g. "3 hours ago" for recent comments), rather than a
signature. I suggest it should show IPs for anons.
I'm not envisioning using LQT, since it seems like if we want to integrate at
some point, Flow would be a better candidate.
It would be most useful attached to pages, automatically invalidating a comment
when an excerpt is altered. But "attached to revision" is probably more
realistic for the first implementation.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
You are watching all bug changes.
_______________________________________________
Wikibugs-l mailing list
Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
