From: Yaron K. <ya...@gm...> - 2010-04-20 16:30:02
|
Hi everyone, I sent an email about two months ago [1] to the SMW developers mailing list about having SMW work with the FlaggedRevs extension. [2] FlaggedRevs, for those who don't know about it, lets administrators "validate" certain versions of an article as being of high quality - and then when regular users see that page on the wiki, what they'll see is the latest validated version, not necessarily the latest version. The idea was to have SMW, if FlaggedRevs is installed, save data not when a page is saved, but when it's validated - so that queries will only display data that's been approved. It's a straightforward way to do quality control on one's data. It seemed like a good idea, and that was the general consensus of the discussion on the mailing list. However, afterwards, when I actually went to try to install FlaggedRevs on one of my wikis, I realized that the extension is quite complex. The main issue seems to be that it allows for comments and "reviews" of each page, in addition to the validation. To that end, it requires additions to the database; it allows for an arbitrary set of attributes for each page (like 'accuracy' and 'tone'), each with an arbitrary number of levels; it defines four new user rights and three new user groups; and it defines a bunch of new special pages. Since then I've gone back a few times to that documentation, but I haven't been able to bring myself to actually try installing it - it just seems too complex. The one positive aspect of it is that I think now I understand better the total confusion that some people feel when they first see SMW (or sometimes Semantic Forms, for that matter :) ). My sense is that there has to be a much simpler way to do this. FlaggedRevs is clearly an "industrial-strength" solution, appropriate for use on Wikipedia and other major sites. But for smaller-scale wikis, a much simpler extension might be the better option. Really such an extension only needs to accomplish three things: 1) provide a way for administrators to set one version of a page as "stable". 2) display the stable version of a page for normal users when they view it through its main URL. 3) provide a hook for SMW to use. :) I don't know if it makes sense to create a new extension just for this functionality, or if so, who can/should create it, but I wanted to "throw the idea out there". Though - has anyone successfully installed and/or used FlaggedRevs on their wiki? Is it more usable than it looks? [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/sem...@li.../msg01882.html [2] http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:FlaggedRevs -Yaron |
From: Neill M. <ne...@nl...> - 2010-04-20 17:01:05
|
Hi Yaron. I also played with FlaggedRevs. It is way too complicated for most user's needs. It's aimed squarely at Wikipedia. A simpler solution is needed. I almost got a admin approval of articles scheme working with SMW and SF, but it will need a mod to SF to work. Cheers Neill. On 20/04/10 17:29, Yaron Koren wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I sent an email about two months ago [1] to the SMW developers mailing list > about having SMW work with the FlaggedRevs extension. [2] FlaggedRevs, for > those who don't know about it, lets administrators "validate" certain > versions of an article as being of high quality - and then when regular > users see that page on the wiki, what they'll see is the latest validated > version, not necessarily the latest version. The idea was to have SMW, if > FlaggedRevs is installed, save data not when a page is saved, but when it's > validated - so that queries will only display data that's been approved. > It's a straightforward way to do quality control on one's data. > > It seemed like a good idea, and that was the general consensus of the > discussion on the mailing list. However, afterwards, when I actually went to > try to install FlaggedRevs on one of my wikis, I realized that the extension > is quite complex. The main issue seems to be that it allows for comments and > "reviews" of each page, in addition to the validation. To that end, it > requires additions to the database; it allows for an arbitrary set of > attributes for each page (like 'accuracy' and 'tone'), each with an > arbitrary number of levels; it defines four new user rights and three new > user groups; and it defines a bunch of new special pages. Since then I've > gone back a few times to that documentation, but I haven't been able to > bring myself to actually try installing it - it just seems too complex. The > one positive aspect of it is that I think now I understand better the total > confusion that some people feel when they first see SMW (or sometimes > Semantic Forms, for that matter :) ). > > My sense is that there has to be a much simpler way to do this. FlaggedRevs > is clearly an "industrial-strength" solution, appropriate for use on > Wikipedia and other major sites. But for smaller-scale wikis, a much simpler > extension might be the better option. Really such an extension only needs to > accomplish three things: > > 1) provide a way for administrators to set one version of a page as > "stable". > 2) display the stable version of a page for normal users when they view it > through its main URL. > 3) provide a hook for SMW to use. :) > > I don't know if it makes sense to create a new extension just for this > functionality, or if so, who can/should create it, but I wanted to "throw > the idea out there". Though - has anyone successfully installed and/or used > FlaggedRevs on their wiki? Is it more usable than it looks? > > [1] > http://www.mail-archive.com/sem...@li.../msg01882.html > [2] http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:FlaggedRevs > > -Yaron > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval > Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs > proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. > See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev > _______________________________________________ > Semediawiki-user mailing list > Sem...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-user > > |
From: Remco de B. <rem...@gm...> - 2010-04-20 18:31:28
|
Hi Yaron, Neill, and others, I've also been searching for an easy to use FlaggedRevs-like solution in combination with SMW. My main use case would be to have different versions of articles (say v1 (stable), v2 (stable), current (unstable)) which are all accessible, so you would be able to link your query to a particular version of an article. Conceptually, it could be as easy as having several redirect pages pointing to particular revisions of pages since SMW treats redirects as an expression of equality, but I don't believe MediaWiki and/or SMW provide such a versioning/redirect to revision mechanism. Neill, I would be interested to learn more about your admin approval scheme. Do you think it would be possible to builld upon your scheme towards the type of 'versioning mechanism' I'm looking for? Regards, Remco On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 7:00 PM, Neill Mitchell <ne...@nl...> wrote: > Hi Yaron. > > I also played with FlaggedRevs. It is way too complicated for most > user's needs. It's aimed squarely at Wikipedia. > A simpler solution is needed. > > I almost got a admin approval of articles scheme working with SMW and > SF, but it will need a mod to SF to work. > > Cheers > Neill. > On 20/04/10 17:29, Yaron Koren wrote: >> Hi everyone, >> >> I sent an email about two months ago [1] to the SMW developers mailing list >> about having SMW work with the FlaggedRevs extension. [2] FlaggedRevs, for >> those who don't know about it, lets administrators "validate" certain >> versions of an article as being of high quality - and then when regular >> users see that page on the wiki, what they'll see is the latest validated >> version, not necessarily the latest version. The idea was to have SMW, if >> FlaggedRevs is installed, save data not when a page is saved, but when it's >> validated - so that queries will only display data that's been approved. >> It's a straightforward way to do quality control on one's data. >> >> It seemed like a good idea, and that was the general consensus of the >> discussion on the mailing list. However, afterwards, when I actually went to >> try to install FlaggedRevs on one of my wikis, I realized that the extension >> is quite complex. The main issue seems to be that it allows for comments and >> "reviews" of each page, in addition to the validation. To that end, it >> requires additions to the database; it allows for an arbitrary set of >> attributes for each page (like 'accuracy' and 'tone'), each with an >> arbitrary number of levels; it defines four new user rights and three new >> user groups; and it defines a bunch of new special pages. Since then I've >> gone back a few times to that documentation, but I haven't been able to >> bring myself to actually try installing it - it just seems too complex. The >> one positive aspect of it is that I think now I understand better the total >> confusion that some people feel when they first see SMW (or sometimes >> Semantic Forms, for that matter :) ). >> >> My sense is that there has to be a much simpler way to do this. FlaggedRevs >> is clearly an "industrial-strength" solution, appropriate for use on >> Wikipedia and other major sites. But for smaller-scale wikis, a much simpler >> extension might be the better option. Really such an extension only needs to >> accomplish three things: >> >> 1) provide a way for administrators to set one version of a page as >> "stable". >> 2) display the stable version of a page for normal users when they view it >> through its main URL. >> 3) provide a hook for SMW to use. :) >> >> I don't know if it makes sense to create a new extension just for this >> functionality, or if so, who can/should create it, but I wanted to "throw >> the idea out there". Though - has anyone successfully installed and/or used >> FlaggedRevs on their wiki? Is it more usable than it looks? >> >> [1] >> http://www.mail-archive.com/sem...@li.../msg01882.html >> [2] http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:FlaggedRevs >> >> -Yaron >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval >> Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs >> proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. >> See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev >> _______________________________________________ >> Semediawiki-user mailing list >> Sem...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-user >> >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval > Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs > proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. > See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev > _______________________________________________ > Semediawiki-user mailing list > Sem...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-user > |
From: Neill M. <ne...@nl...> - 2010-04-21 09:07:02
|
Hi. My scheme uses Semantic Form's formlink preload=preload-page-name functionality. I use it to effectively copy the page into a different category called Approvals. An admin can then review the copy and make any changes. If the admin doesn't like the new version he can discuss it with the editor using the Discussion tab. Once happy the admin then click on another formlink button (which only admins can see) to "copy" the page back into the original category as a new version. Until this time the original article is still visible untouched in the main category. Hey presto, admin approval functionality. The beauty of this is you can leverage MW's built in versioning. However, for this scheme to work SF needs to support one of the following requirements: 1) You can do this with two very slightly different templates. One has [[Category:Articles]], for example. The 2nd is identical except [[Category:Approvals]]. The templates also have the two different formlink buttons. Apart from that the templates are identical - all fields are the same. However, SF's preload=preload-page-name functionality does not allow you to pass a different template into the form. If the template is different it puts all the field contents into the freetext field. I can see why it does this from a purity point of view, but it stuffs my scheme! I could probably find the code that checks and knock it out, but I don't want to hack SF. 2) Fine I thought, I'll try something else. The other way is to pass in a parameter to set the category for the page- e.g. [[Category:{{{category_name}}}]] in the template. In this way you only need one template and a bit of security on the formlink buttons. Unfortunately SF does not currently allow you to have preload=preload-page-name and template-name[field-name]=field-value in the query string together. This is what finally scuppered my scheme. A shame, because it is so close to working! It would be nice to get this working as it provides a very simple way to achieve admin approval. Cheers Neill. On 20/04/10 19:20, Remco de Boer wrote: > Hi Yaron, Neill, and others, > > I've also been searching for an easy to use FlaggedRevs-like solution > in combination with SMW. My main use case would be to have different > versions of articles (say v1 (stable), v2 (stable), current > (unstable)) which are all accessible, so you would be able to link > your query to a particular version of an article. Conceptually, it > could be as easy as having several redirect pages pointing to > particular revisions of pages since SMW treats redirects as an > expression of equality, but I don't believe MediaWiki and/or SMW > provide such a versioning/redirect to revision mechanism. > > Neill, I would be interested to learn more about your admin approval > scheme. Do you think it would be possible to builld upon your scheme > towards the type of 'versioning mechanism' I'm looking for? > > Regards, > Remco > > On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 7:00 PM, Neill Mitchell<ne...@nl...> wrote: > >> Hi Yaron. >> >> I also played with FlaggedRevs. It is way too complicated for most >> user's needs. It's aimed squarely at Wikipedia. >> A simpler solution is needed. >> >> I almost got a admin approval of articles scheme working with SMW and >> SF, but it will need a mod to SF to work. >> >> Cheers >> Neill. >> On 20/04/10 17:29, Yaron Koren wrote: >> >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> I sent an email about two months ago [1] to the SMW developers mailing list >>> about having SMW work with the FlaggedRevs extension. [2] FlaggedRevs, for >>> those who don't know about it, lets administrators "validate" certain >>> versions of an article as being of high quality - and then when regular >>> users see that page on the wiki, what they'll see is the latest validated >>> version, not necessarily the latest version. The idea was to have SMW, if >>> FlaggedRevs is installed, save data not when a page is saved, but when it's >>> validated - so that queries will only display data that's been approved. >>> It's a straightforward way to do quality control on one's data. >>> >>> It seemed like a good idea, and that was the general consensus of the >>> discussion on the mailing list. However, afterwards, when I actually went to >>> try to install FlaggedRevs on one of my wikis, I realized that the extension >>> is quite complex. The main issue seems to be that it allows for comments and >>> "reviews" of each page, in addition to the validation. To that end, it >>> requires additions to the database; it allows for an arbitrary set of >>> attributes for each page (like 'accuracy' and 'tone'), each with an >>> arbitrary number of levels; it defines four new user rights and three new >>> user groups; and it defines a bunch of new special pages. Since then I've >>> gone back a few times to that documentation, but I haven't been able to >>> bring myself to actually try installing it - it just seems too complex. The >>> one positive aspect of it is that I think now I understand better the total >>> confusion that some people feel when they first see SMW (or sometimes >>> Semantic Forms, for that matter :) ). >>> >>> My sense is that there has to be a much simpler way to do this. FlaggedRevs >>> is clearly an "industrial-strength" solution, appropriate for use on >>> Wikipedia and other major sites. But for smaller-scale wikis, a much simpler >>> extension might be the better option. Really such an extension only needs to >>> accomplish three things: >>> >>> 1) provide a way for administrators to set one version of a page as >>> "stable". >>> 2) display the stable version of a page for normal users when they view it >>> through its main URL. >>> 3) provide a hook for SMW to use. :) >>> >>> I don't know if it makes sense to create a new extension just for this >>> functionality, or if so, who can/should create it, but I wanted to "throw >>> the idea out there". Though - has anyone successfully installed and/or used >>> FlaggedRevs on their wiki? Is it more usable than it looks? >>> >>> [1] >>> http://www.mail-archive.com/sem...@li.../msg01882.html >>> [2] http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:FlaggedRevs >>> >>> -Yaron >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval >>> Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs >>> proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. >>> See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. >>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Semediawiki-user mailing list >>> Sem...@li... >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-user >>> >>> >>> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval >> Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs >> proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. >> See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev >> _______________________________________________ >> Semediawiki-user mailing list >> Sem...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-user >> >> > |
From: Krabina B. <kr...@kd...> - 2010-04-20 19:38:14
|
Hi Yaron, I haven't played around with FlaggedRevs, but a nice and simple extension with the functionality you describe sounds very useful to me. regards, Bernhard ----- "Yaron Koren" <ya...@gm...> schrieb: > Hi everyone, > > I sent an email about two months ago [1] to the SMW developers mailing > list > about having SMW work with the FlaggedRevs extension. [2] FlaggedRevs, > for > those who don't know about it, lets administrators "validate" certain > versions of an article as being of high quality - and then when > regular > users see that page on the wiki, what they'll see is the latest > validated > version, not necessarily the latest version. The idea was to have SMW, > if > FlaggedRevs is installed, save data not when a page is saved, but when > it's > validated - so that queries will only display data that's been > approved. > It's a straightforward way to do quality control on one's data. > > It seemed like a good idea, and that was the general consensus of the > discussion on the mailing list. However, afterwards, when I actually > went to > try to install FlaggedRevs on one of my wikis, I realized that the > extension > is quite complex. The main issue seems to be that it allows for > comments and > "reviews" of each page, in addition to the validation. To that end, > it > requires additions to the database; it allows for an arbitrary set of > attributes for each page (like 'accuracy' and 'tone'), each with an > arbitrary number of levels; it defines four new user rights and three > new > user groups; and it defines a bunch of new special pages. Since then > I've > gone back a few times to that documentation, but I haven't been able > to > bring myself to actually try installing it - it just seems too > complex. The > one positive aspect of it is that I think now I understand better the > total > confusion that some people feel when they first see SMW (or sometimes > Semantic Forms, for that matter :) ). > > My sense is that there has to be a much simpler way to do this. > FlaggedRevs > is clearly an "industrial-strength" solution, appropriate for use on > Wikipedia and other major sites. But for smaller-scale wikis, a much > simpler > extension might be the better option. Really such an extension only > needs to > accomplish three things: > > 1) provide a way for administrators to set one version of a page as > "stable". > 2) display the stable version of a page for normal users when they > view it > through its main URL. > 3) provide a hook for SMW to use. :) > > I don't know if it makes sense to create a new extension just for > this > functionality, or if so, who can/should create it, but I wanted to > "throw > the idea out there". Though - has anyone successfully installed and/or > used > FlaggedRevs on their wiki? Is it more usable than it looks? > > [1] > http://www.mail-archive.com/sem...@li.../msg01882.html > [2] http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:FlaggedRevs > > -Yaron > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval > Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs > proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. > See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev > _______________________________________________ > Semediawiki-user mailing list > Sem...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-user |
From: Robert M. <xol...@ho...> - 2010-04-20 23:14:09
|
Hi Yaron, I used FlaggedRevs in a test Phase in my wiki and will very probably use it in production some near future. Actually, it is not that complex if you went down the road and play around a bit. What I totally agree is that the documentation does a very bad job explaining the main concepts. For me it was very difficult to get the general idea behind it from just reading the doc... >From my point of view it offers almost everything such an extension would need. And I think that if you start too simple, you will soon be flooded with enhancement requests. So FR would just need a better doc and simpler install (with more preconfigurated values...) Robert -------------------------------------------------- From: "Yaron Koren" <ya...@gm...> Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 6:29 PM To: "Semantic MediaWiki users" <sem...@li...> Subject: [Semediawiki-user] 2nd thoughts about supporting FlaggedRevs? > Hi everyone, > > I sent an email about two months ago [1] to the SMW developers mailing > list > about having SMW work with the FlaggedRevs extension. [2] FlaggedRevs, for > those who don't know about it, lets administrators "validate" certain > versions of an article as being of high quality - and then when regular > users see that page on the wiki, what they'll see is the latest validated > version, not necessarily the latest version. The idea was to have SMW, if > FlaggedRevs is installed, save data not when a page is saved, but when > it's > validated - so that queries will only display data that's been approved. > It's a straightforward way to do quality control on one's data. > > It seemed like a good idea, and that was the general consensus of the > discussion on the mailing list. However, afterwards, when I actually went > to > try to install FlaggedRevs on one of my wikis, I realized that the > extension > is quite complex. The main issue seems to be that it allows for comments > and > "reviews" of each page, in addition to the validation. To that end, it > requires additions to the database; it allows for an arbitrary set of > attributes for each page (like 'accuracy' and 'tone'), each with an > arbitrary number of levels; it defines four new user rights and three new > user groups; and it defines a bunch of new special pages. Since then I've > gone back a few times to that documentation, but I haven't been able to > bring myself to actually try installing it - it just seems too complex. > The > one positive aspect of it is that I think now I understand better the > total > confusion that some people feel when they first see SMW (or sometimes > Semantic Forms, for that matter :) ). > > My sense is that there has to be a much simpler way to do this. > FlaggedRevs > is clearly an "industrial-strength" solution, appropriate for use on > Wikipedia and other major sites. But for smaller-scale wikis, a much > simpler > extension might be the better option. Really such an extension only needs > to > accomplish three things: > > 1) provide a way for administrators to set one version of a page as > "stable". > 2) display the stable version of a page for normal users when they view it > through its main URL. > 3) provide a hook for SMW to use. :) > > I don't know if it makes sense to create a new extension just for this > functionality, or if so, who can/should create it, but I wanted to "throw > the idea out there". Though - has anyone successfully installed and/or > used > FlaggedRevs on their wiki? Is it more usable than it looks? > > [1] > http://www.mail-archive.com/sem...@li.../msg01882.html > [2] http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:FlaggedRevs > > -Yaron > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval > Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs > proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. > See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev > _______________________________________________ > Semediawiki-user mailing list > Sem...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-user > |
From: Dan B. <dan...@gm...> - 2010-06-18 17:00:05
|
On 21 April 2010 00:13, Robert Michel <xol...@ho...> wrote: > Hi Yaron, > > I used FlaggedRevs in a test Phase in my wiki and will very probably use it > in production some near future. > > Actually, it is not that complex if you went down the road and play around a > bit. > What I totally agree is that the documentation does a very bad job > explaining the main concepts. For me it was very difficult to get the > general idea behind it from just reading the doc... Hi Robert, Sorry for jumping in here, but if you know how to configure FlaggedRevs, I wonder if you'd help me set it up on my wiki? I posted my question to the mediawiki-l list last year, but didn't get any reply: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.org.wikimedia.mediawiki/32274/match=flaggedrevs Sincerely, Dan. > >From my point of view it offers almost everything such an extension would > need. And I think that if you start too simple, you will soon be flooded > with enhancement requests. > So FR would just need a better doc and simpler install (with more > preconfigurated values...) > > Robert > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "Yaron Koren" <ya...@gm...> > Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 6:29 PM > To: "Semantic MediaWiki users" <sem...@li...> > Subject: [Semediawiki-user] 2nd thoughts about supporting FlaggedRevs? > >> Hi everyone, >> >> I sent an email about two months ago [1] to the SMW developers mailing >> list >> about having SMW work with the FlaggedRevs extension. [2] FlaggedRevs, for >> those who don't know about it, lets administrators "validate" certain >> versions of an article as being of high quality - and then when regular >> users see that page on the wiki, what they'll see is the latest validated >> version, not necessarily the latest version. The idea was to have SMW, if >> FlaggedRevs is installed, save data not when a page is saved, but when >> it's >> validated - so that queries will only display data that's been approved. >> It's a straightforward way to do quality control on one's data. >> >> It seemed like a good idea, and that was the general consensus of the >> discussion on the mailing list. However, afterwards, when I actually went >> to >> try to install FlaggedRevs on one of my wikis, I realized that the >> extension >> is quite complex. The main issue seems to be that it allows for comments >> and >> "reviews" of each page, in addition to the validation. To that end, it >> requires additions to the database; it allows for an arbitrary set of >> attributes for each page (like 'accuracy' and 'tone'), each with an >> arbitrary number of levels; it defines four new user rights and three new >> user groups; and it defines a bunch of new special pages. Since then I've >> gone back a few times to that documentation, but I haven't been able to >> bring myself to actually try installing it - it just seems too complex. >> The >> one positive aspect of it is that I think now I understand better the >> total >> confusion that some people feel when they first see SMW (or sometimes >> Semantic Forms, for that matter :) ). >> >> My sense is that there has to be a much simpler way to do this. >> FlaggedRevs >> is clearly an "industrial-strength" solution, appropriate for use on >> Wikipedia and other major sites. But for smaller-scale wikis, a much >> simpler >> extension might be the better option. Really such an extension only needs >> to >> accomplish three things: >> >> 1) provide a way for administrators to set one version of a page as >> "stable". >> 2) display the stable version of a page for normal users when they view it >> through its main URL. >> 3) provide a hook for SMW to use. :) >> >> I don't know if it makes sense to create a new extension just for this >> functionality, or if so, who can/should create it, but I wanted to "throw >> the idea out there". Though - has anyone successfully installed and/or >> used >> FlaggedRevs on their wiki? Is it more usable than it looks? >> >> [1] >> http://www.mail-archive.com/sem...@li.../msg01882.html >> [2] http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:FlaggedRevs >> >> -Yaron >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval >> Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs >> proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. >> See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev >> _______________________________________________ >> Semediawiki-user mailing list >> Sem...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-user >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Semediawiki-user mailing list > Sem...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-user > |
From: Hala S. <sk...@lo...> - 2010-04-21 10:36:36
|
Hi Yaron, You can realize the scenario you mention by using our extension DSMW (Distributed Semantic MediaWiki http://dsmw.org) of Semantic MediaWiki. DSMW allows to deploy the validation processes as follows You need two SMW called SMW1 and SMW2 installed with the DSMW extension. Let say SMW1 is a public wiki, so it contains only validated data. SMW1 is a private one, it contains data that need to be validated. After the validation of data at SMW1 by an administrator for example, validated data can be pushed to SMW1... I am not sure it is easier than FlaggedRevs extension but it is a possible solution.. Best wishes, On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Yaron Koren <ya...@gm...> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I sent an email about two months ago [1] to the SMW developers mailing list > about having SMW work with the FlaggedRevs extension. [2] FlaggedRevs, for > those who don't know about it, lets administrators "validate" certain > versions of an article as being of high quality - and then when regular > users see that page on the wiki, what they'll see is the latest validated > version, not necessarily the latest version. The idea was to have SMW, if > FlaggedRevs is installed, save data not when a page is saved, but when it's > validated - so that queries will only display data that's been approved. > It's a straightforward way to do quality control on one's data. > > It seemed like a good idea, and that was the general consensus of the > discussion on the mailing list. However, afterwards, when I actually went > to > try to install FlaggedRevs on one of my wikis, I realized that the > extension > is quite complex. The main issue seems to be that it allows for comments > and > "reviews" of each page, in addition to the validation. To that end, it > requires additions to the database; it allows for an arbitrary set of > attributes for each page (like 'accuracy' and 'tone'), each with an > arbitrary number of levels; it defines four new user rights and three new > user groups; and it defines a bunch of new special pages. Since then I've > gone back a few times to that documentation, but I haven't been able to > bring myself to actually try installing it - it just seems too complex. The > one positive aspect of it is that I think now I understand better the total > confusion that some people feel when they first see SMW (or sometimes > Semantic Forms, for that matter :) ). > > My sense is that there has to be a much simpler way to do this. FlaggedRevs > is clearly an "industrial-strength" solution, appropriate for use on > Wikipedia and other major sites. But for smaller-scale wikis, a much > simpler > extension might be the better option. Really such an extension only needs > to > accomplish three things: > > 1) provide a way for administrators to set one version of a page as > "stable". > 2) display the stable version of a page for normal users when they view it > through its main URL. > 3) provide a hook for SMW to use. :) > > I don't know if it makes sense to create a new extension just for this > functionality, or if so, who can/should create it, but I wanted to "throw > the idea out there". Though - has anyone successfully installed and/or used > FlaggedRevs on their wiki? Is it more usable than it looks? > > [1] > > http://www.mail-archive.com/sem...@li.../msg01882.html > [2] http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:FlaggedRevs > > -Yaron > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval > Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs > proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. > See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev > _______________________________________________ > Semediawiki-user mailing list > Sem...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-user > -- Hala Skaf-Molli Maître de Conférences Université Henri Poincaré, Nancy1 LORIA INRIA Nancy-Grand Est www.loria.fr/~skaf |
From: Yaron K. <ya...@gm...> - 2010-04-21 14:21:21
|
Well, opinion definitely seems mixed on this issue... Remco - having SMW be able to query more than one version would be nice, but is probably a long way off - that was actually the main subject of the original FlaggedRevs discussion. Robert - it's good to know that FlaggedRevs has in fact been used successfully. The documentation does seem a little weak, but I don't know if that's the main issue: even with good documentation, you still have database modifications, extra user groups, etc. In my view, the problem is that the creators of FlaggedRevs decided to support not just version "validation", but also version comments and reviews. Version validation seems to be very useful and fairly simple to implement, while comments and reviews seem only marginally useful and complex to implement. It's possible that if they had split up the functionality into two different extensions, none of this would be an issue. Neill - Ah, so your system involves creating a separate wiki page, making all the changes there, then copying the approved contents back. That would work, but it seems quite a bit more complicated than simply being able to approve a certain version of the page; and it might not be practical for any wiki that has more than, say, 10 people working on it. Hala - It's nice to see that DSMW finally has a demo; it looks interesting. For this case, what you describe as a "public wiki" sounds like it would be publicly-readable, but only editable by a few administrators. It's certainly a possible solution, but it doesn't seem ideal for this case. -Yaron On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 6:36 AM, Hala Skaf <sk...@lo...> wrote: > Hi Yaron, > > You can realize the scenario you mention by using our extension DSMW > (Distributed Semantic MediaWiki http://dsmw.org) of Semantic MediaWiki. > DSMW allows to deploy the validation processes as follows > > You need two SMW called SMW1 and SMW2 installed with the DSMW extension. > > Let say SMW1 is a public wiki, so it contains only validated data. SMW1 is > a private one, it contains data that need to be validated. > After the validation of data at SMW1 by an administrator for example, > validated data can be pushed to SMW1... > > I am not sure it is easier than FlaggedRevs extension but it is a possible > solution.. > > > Best wishes, > > > On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Yaron Koren <ya...@gm...> wrote: > >> Hi everyone, >> >> I sent an email about two months ago [1] to the SMW developers mailing >> list >> about having SMW work with the FlaggedRevs extension. [2] FlaggedRevs, for >> those who don't know about it, lets administrators "validate" certain >> versions of an article as being of high quality - and then when regular >> users see that page on the wiki, what they'll see is the latest validated >> version, not necessarily the latest version. The idea was to have SMW, if >> FlaggedRevs is installed, save data not when a page is saved, but when >> it's >> validated - so that queries will only display data that's been approved. >> It's a straightforward way to do quality control on one's data. >> >> It seemed like a good idea, and that was the general consensus of the >> discussion on the mailing list. However, afterwards, when I actually went >> to >> try to install FlaggedRevs on one of my wikis, I realized that the >> extension >> is quite complex. The main issue seems to be that it allows for comments >> and >> "reviews" of each page, in addition to the validation. To that end, it >> requires additions to the database; it allows for an arbitrary set of >> attributes for each page (like 'accuracy' and 'tone'), each with an >> arbitrary number of levels; it defines four new user rights and three new >> user groups; and it defines a bunch of new special pages. Since then I've >> gone back a few times to that documentation, but I haven't been able to >> bring myself to actually try installing it - it just seems too complex. >> The >> one positive aspect of it is that I think now I understand better the >> total >> confusion that some people feel when they first see SMW (or sometimes >> Semantic Forms, for that matter :) ). >> >> My sense is that there has to be a much simpler way to do this. >> FlaggedRevs >> is clearly an "industrial-strength" solution, appropriate for use on >> Wikipedia and other major sites. But for smaller-scale wikis, a much >> simpler >> extension might be the better option. Really such an extension only needs >> to >> accomplish three things: >> >> 1) provide a way for administrators to set one version of a page as >> "stable". >> 2) display the stable version of a page for normal users when they view it >> through its main URL. >> 3) provide a hook for SMW to use. :) >> >> I don't know if it makes sense to create a new extension just for this >> functionality, or if so, who can/should create it, but I wanted to "throw >> the idea out there". Though - has anyone successfully installed and/or >> used >> FlaggedRevs on their wiki? Is it more usable than it looks? >> >> [1] >> >> http://www.mail-archive.com/sem...@li.../msg01882.html >> [2] http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:FlaggedRevs >> >> -Yaron >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval >> Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs >> proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. >> See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev >> _______________________________________________ >> Semediawiki-user mailing list >> Sem...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-user >> > > > > -- > Hala Skaf-Molli > Maître de Conférences > Université Henri Poincaré, Nancy1 > LORIA > INRIA Nancy-Grand Est > www.loria.fr/~skaf > -- WikiWorks · MediaWiki Consulting · http://wikiworks.com |
From: Neill M. <ne...@nl...> - 2010-04-21 14:57:03
|
Hi Yaron. Yes, my scheme is pretty simple, but it does the basic job! Have you any plans/time to make either of the mods to SF to allow this to work? Cheers Neill. On 21/04/10 15:20, Yaron Koren wrote: > Well, opinion definitely seems mixed on this issue... > > Remco - having SMW be able to query more than one version would be nice, but > is probably a long way off - that was actually the main subject of the > original FlaggedRevs discussion. > > Robert - it's good to know that FlaggedRevs has in fact been used > successfully. The documentation does seem a little weak, but I don't know if > that's the main issue: even with good documentation, you still have database > modifications, extra user groups, etc. In my view, the problem is that the > creators of FlaggedRevs decided to support not just version "validation", > but also version comments and reviews. Version validation seems to be very > useful and fairly simple to implement, while comments and reviews seem only > marginally useful and complex to implement. It's possible that if they had > split up the functionality into two different extensions, none of this would > be an issue. > > Neill - Ah, so your system involves creating a separate wiki page, making > all the changes there, then copying the approved contents back. That would > work, but it seems quite a bit more complicated than simply being able to > approve a certain version of the page; and it might not be practical for any > wiki that has more than, say, 10 people working on it. > > Hala - It's nice to see that DSMW finally has a demo; it looks interesting. > For this case, what you describe as a "public wiki" sounds like it would be > publicly-readable, but only editable by a few administrators. It's certainly > a possible solution, but it doesn't seem ideal for this case. > > -Yaron > > > On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 6:36 AM, Hala Skaf<sk...@lo...> wrote: > > >> Hi Yaron, >> >> You can realize the scenario you mention by using our extension DSMW >> (Distributed Semantic MediaWiki http://dsmw.org) of Semantic MediaWiki. >> DSMW allows to deploy the validation processes as follows >> >> You need two SMW called SMW1 and SMW2 installed with the DSMW extension. >> >> Let say SMW1 is a public wiki, so it contains only validated data. SMW1 is >> a private one, it contains data that need to be validated. >> After the validation of data at SMW1 by an administrator for example, >> validated data can be pushed to SMW1... >> >> I am not sure it is easier than FlaggedRevs extension but it is a possible >> solution.. >> >> >> Best wishes, >> >> >> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Yaron Koren<ya...@gm...> wrote: >> >> >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> I sent an email about two months ago [1] to the SMW developers mailing >>> list >>> about having SMW work with the FlaggedRevs extension. [2] FlaggedRevs, for >>> those who don't know about it, lets administrators "validate" certain >>> versions of an article as being of high quality - and then when regular >>> users see that page on the wiki, what they'll see is the latest validated >>> version, not necessarily the latest version. The idea was to have SMW, if >>> FlaggedRevs is installed, save data not when a page is saved, but when >>> it's >>> validated - so that queries will only display data that's been approved. >>> It's a straightforward way to do quality control on one's data. >>> >>> It seemed like a good idea, and that was the general consensus of the >>> discussion on the mailing list. However, afterwards, when I actually went >>> to >>> try to install FlaggedRevs on one of my wikis, I realized that the >>> extension >>> is quite complex. The main issue seems to be that it allows for comments >>> and >>> "reviews" of each page, in addition to the validation. To that end, it >>> requires additions to the database; it allows for an arbitrary set of >>> attributes for each page (like 'accuracy' and 'tone'), each with an >>> arbitrary number of levels; it defines four new user rights and three new >>> user groups; and it defines a bunch of new special pages. Since then I've >>> gone back a few times to that documentation, but I haven't been able to >>> bring myself to actually try installing it - it just seems too complex. >>> The >>> one positive aspect of it is that I think now I understand better the >>> total >>> confusion that some people feel when they first see SMW (or sometimes >>> Semantic Forms, for that matter :) ). >>> >>> My sense is that there has to be a much simpler way to do this. >>> FlaggedRevs >>> is clearly an "industrial-strength" solution, appropriate for use on >>> Wikipedia and other major sites. But for smaller-scale wikis, a much >>> simpler >>> extension might be the better option. Really such an extension only needs >>> to >>> accomplish three things: >>> >>> 1) provide a way for administrators to set one version of a page as >>> "stable". >>> 2) display the stable version of a page for normal users when they view it >>> through its main URL. >>> 3) provide a hook for SMW to use. :) >>> >>> I don't know if it makes sense to create a new extension just for this >>> functionality, or if so, who can/should create it, but I wanted to "throw >>> the idea out there". Though - has anyone successfully installed and/or >>> used >>> FlaggedRevs on their wiki? Is it more usable than it looks? >>> >>> [1] >>> >>> http://www.mail-archive.com/sem...@li.../msg01882.html >>> [2] http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:FlaggedRevs >>> >>> -Yaron >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval >>> Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs >>> proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. >>> See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. >>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Semediawiki-user mailing list >>> Sem...@li... >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-user >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Hala Skaf-Molli >> Maître de Conférences >> Université Henri Poincaré, Nancy1 >> LORIA >> INRIA Nancy-Grand Est >> www.loria.fr/~skaf >> >> > > > |
From: Yaron K. <ya...@gm...> - 2010-04-21 15:14:46
|
Hi Neill, Your scheme sounds quite complicated to me, actually. How would you copy the revised contents back into the original page? Wouldn't that require yet another change to SF, to allow for automatically overwriting a page's current contents? And what would you do if a user modified the original page during that time, unaware that it was currently in "editing mode"? -Yaron On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Neill Mitchell <ne...@nl...>wrote: > Hi Yaron. > > Yes, my scheme is pretty simple, but it does the basic job! Have you any > plans/time to make either of the mods to SF to allow this to work? > > |
From: Neill M. <ne...@nl...> - 2010-04-21 16:54:12
|
Hi Yaron. Not, it's very simple, you just need to manipulate the category. So I either need to be able to pass slightly different templates into the form or pass in the category parameter along with the pre-load template. Cheers Neill. On 21/04/10 16:14, Yaron Koren wrote: > Hi Neill, > > Your scheme sounds quite complicated to me, actually. How would you > copy the revised contents back into the original page? Wouldn't that > require yet another change to SF, to allow for automatically > overwriting a page's current contents? And what would you do if a user > modified the original page during that time, unaware that it was > currently in "editing mode"? > > -Yaron > > On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Neill Mitchell > <ne...@nl... <mailto:ne...@nl...>> wrote: > > Hi Yaron. > > Yes, my scheme is pretty simple, but it does the basic job! Have > you any > plans/time to make either of the mods to SF to allow this to work? > |
From: Neill M. <ne...@nl...> - 2010-04-21 16:57:46
|
Sorry missed the word "complicated after Not ;) "And what would you do if a user modified the original page during that time, unaware that it was currently in "editing mode"?" The user cannot edit pages. They are locked down. A user can only submit a changed version of the page for approval. The original page is left untouched until the admin creates a new version after approving it. Cheers Neill. On 21/04/10 17:54, Neill Mitchell wrote: > Hi Yaron. > > Not, it's very simple, you just need to manipulate the category. So I > either need to be able to pass slightly different templates into the > form or pass in the category parameter along with the pre-load template. > > Cheers > Neill. > On 21/04/10 16:14, Yaron Koren wrote: > >> Hi Neill, >> >> Your scheme sounds quite complicated to me, actually. How would you >> copy the revised contents back into the original page? Wouldn't that >> require yet another change to SF, to allow for automatically >> overwriting a page's current contents? And what would you do if a user >> modified the original page during that time, unaware that it was >> currently in "editing mode"? >> >> -Yaron >> >> On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Neill Mitchell >> <ne...@nl...<mailto:ne...@nl...>> wrote: >> >> Hi Yaron. >> >> Yes, my scheme is pretty simple, but it does the basic job! Have >> you any >> plans/time to make either of the mods to SF to allow this to work? >> >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Semediawiki-user mailing list > Sem...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-user > > |
From: Yaron K. <ya...@gm...> - 2010-04-21 17:09:09
|
Hi Neill, Out of curiosity, do you see this approach as in some way better than a simple "stable/validated version" scheme; and if so, how? -Yaron On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Neill Mitchell <ne...@nl...>wrote: > Sorry missed the word "complicated after Not ;) > > "And what would you do if a user modified the original page during that > time, unaware that it was currently in "editing mode"?" > > The user cannot edit pages. They are locked down. A user can only submit > a changed version of the page for approval. The original page is left > untouched until the admin creates a new version after approving it. > > Cheers > Neill. > > > On 21/04/10 17:54, Neill Mitchell wrote: > > Hi Yaron. > > > > Not, it's very simple, you just need to manipulate the category. So I > > either need to be able to pass slightly different templates into the > > form or pass in the category parameter along with the pre-load template. > > > > Cheers > > Neill. > > On 21/04/10 16:14, Yaron Koren wrote: > > > >> Hi Neill, > >> > >> Your scheme sounds quite complicated to me, actually. How would you > >> copy the revised contents back into the original page? Wouldn't that > >> require yet another change to SF, to allow for automatically > >> overwriting a page's current contents? And what would you do if a user > >> modified the original page during that time, unaware that it was > >> currently in "editing mode"? > >> > >> -Yaron > >> > >> On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Neill Mitchell > >> <ne...@nl...<mailto:ne...@nl...>> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Yaron. > >> > >> Yes, my scheme is pretty simple, but it does the basic job! Have > >> you any > >> plans/time to make either of the mods to SF to allow this to work? > >> > >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > > Semediawiki-user mailing list > > Sem...@li... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-user > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Semediawiki-user mailing list > Sem...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-user > -- WikiWorks · MediaWiki Consulting · http://wikiworks.com |
From: Neill M. <ne...@nl...> - 2010-04-21 17:25:43
|
Hi Yaron. The advantage is it's so simple ordinary members of the public can easily use it. Usability is always my top concern. Flagged Revs is way to complicated for anyone but trained up people. It drove me nuts ;) I can't see any alternative that gives simple to use admin approval of pages. My method also has the advantage of very nearly working! I just need the following to work: {{#formlink:form=Event Form|link text=Submit an Event or News Item|link type=button|query string=preload=Article Template, Article Template[Category_Name]=Approvals}} or {{#formlink:form=Event Form|link text=Submit an Event or News Item|link type=button|query string=preload=Article Template}} and {{#formlink:form=Event Form|link text=Submit an Event or News Item|link type=button|query string=preload=Slightly Different Article Template}} There is nothing else in sight that can do simple admin approval. Cheers Neill. On 21/04/10 18:09, Yaron Koren wrote: > Hi Neill, > > Out of curiosity, do you see this approach as in some way better than > a simple "stable/validated version" scheme; and if so, how? > > -Yaron > > On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Neill Mitchell > <ne...@nl... <mailto:ne...@nl...>> wrote: > > Sorry missed the word "complicated after Not ;) > > "And what would you do if a user modified the original page during > that > time, unaware that it was currently in "editing mode"?" > > The user cannot edit pages. They are locked down. A user can only > submit > a changed version of the page for approval. The original page is left > untouched until the admin creates a new version after approving it. > > Cheers > Neill. > > > On 21/04/10 17:54, Neill Mitchell wrote: > > Hi Yaron. > > > > Not, it's very simple, you just need to manipulate the category. > So I > > either need to be able to pass slightly different templates into the > > form or pass in the category parameter along with the pre-load > template. > > > > Cheers > > Neill. > > On 21/04/10 16:14, Yaron Koren wrote: > > > >> Hi Neill, > >> > >> Your scheme sounds quite complicated to me, actually. How would you > >> copy the revised contents back into the original page? Wouldn't > that > >> require yet another change to SF, to allow for automatically > >> overwriting a page's current contents? And what would you do if > a user > >> modified the original page during that time, unaware that it was > >> currently in "editing mode"? > >> > >> -Yaron > >> > >> On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Neill Mitchell > >> <ne...@nl... > <mailto:ne...@nl...><mailto:ne...@nl... > <mailto:ne...@nl...>>> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Yaron. > >> > >> Yes, my scheme is pretty simple, but it does the basic > job! Have > >> you any > >> plans/time to make either of the mods to SF to allow this > to work? > >> > >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > > Semediawiki-user mailing list > > Sem...@li... > <mailto:Sem...@li...> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-user > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Semediawiki-user mailing list > Sem...@li... > <mailto:Sem...@li...> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-user > > > > > -- > WikiWorks · MediaWiki Consulting · http://wikiworks.com |
From: Yaron K. <ya...@gm...> - 2010-04-21 17:52:01
|
Hi, Well, I was asking about your scheme vs. a hypothetical simple validation extension that was originally discussed. I actually think such a thing would be easier to program than the changes you're talking about, especially since I don't think you're aware of all the changes that would be necessary - your scheme seems to also require SF to allow automatic overwriting of existing content, which isn't possible now either. -Yaron On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Neill Mitchell <ne...@nl...>wrote: > Hi Yaron. > > The advantage is it's so simple ordinary members of the public can easily > use it. Usability is always my top concern. Flagged Revs is way to > complicated for anyone but trained up people. It drove me nuts ;) > > I can't see any alternative that gives simple to use admin approval of > pages. My method also has the advantage of very nearly working! I just need > the following to work: > > {{#formlink:form=Event Form|link text=Submit an Event or News Item|link > type=button|query string=preload=Article Template, Article > Template[Category_Name]=Approvals}} > or > {{#formlink:form=Event Form|link text=Submit an Event or News Item|link > type=button|query string=preload=Article Template}} > and > {{#formlink:form=Event Form|link text=Submit an Event or News Item|link > type=button|query string=preload=Slightly Different Article Template}} > > There is nothing else in sight that can do simple admin approval. > > Cheers > Neill. > > On 21/04/10 18:09, Yaron Koren wrote: > > Hi Neill, > > Out of curiosity, do you see this approach as in some way better than a > simple "stable/validated version" scheme; and if so, how? > > -Yaron > > On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Neill Mitchell <ne...@nl...>wrote: > >> Sorry missed the word "complicated after Not ;) >> >> "And what would you do if a user modified the original page during that >> time, unaware that it was currently in "editing mode"?" >> >> The user cannot edit pages. They are locked down. A user can only submit >> a changed version of the page for approval. The original page is left >> untouched until the admin creates a new version after approving it. >> >> Cheers >> Neill. >> >> >> On 21/04/10 17:54, Neill Mitchell wrote: >> > Hi Yaron. >> > >> > Not, it's very simple, you just need to manipulate the category. So I >> > either need to be able to pass slightly different templates into the >> > form or pass in the category parameter along with the pre-load template. >> > >> > Cheers >> > Neill. >> > On 21/04/10 16:14, Yaron Koren wrote: >> > >> >> Hi Neill, >> >> >> >> Your scheme sounds quite complicated to me, actually. How would you >> >> copy the revised contents back into the original page? Wouldn't that >> >> require yet another change to SF, to allow for automatically >> >> overwriting a page's current contents? And what would you do if a user >> >> modified the original page during that time, unaware that it was >> >> currently in "editing mode"? >> >> >> >> -Yaron >> >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Neill Mitchell >> >> <ne...@nl...<mailto:ne...@nl...>> wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi Yaron. >> >> >> >> Yes, my scheme is pretty simple, but it does the basic job! Have >> >> you any >> >> plans/time to make either of the mods to SF to allow this to work? >> >> >> >> >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Semediawiki-user mailing list >> > Sem...@li... >> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-user >> > >> > >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> _______________________________________________ >> Semediawiki-user mailing list >> Sem...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-user >> > > > > -- > WikiWorks · MediaWiki Consulting · http://wikiworks.com > > > -- WikiWorks · MediaWiki Consulting · http://wikiworks.com |
From: Neill M. <ne...@nl...> - 2010-04-21 19:56:43
|
Hi Yaron. Thanks for thinking about this. I don't expect SF to overwrite existing content. Doesn't it just create a new version when you hit save? I've tried this manually i.e. with a drop-down for Category_Name with [[Category:Category_Name]] in the template and it works. A new version of the "approved" article is created when you hit save. If the query string= argument could take more than one parameter then I'm pretty sure this will work. Cheers Neill. On 21/04/10 18:51, Yaron Koren wrote: > Hi, > > Well, I was asking about your scheme vs. a hypothetical simple > validation extension that was originally discussed. I actually think > such a thing would be easier to program than the changes you're > talking about, especially since I don't think you're aware of all the > changes that would be necessary - your scheme seems to also require SF > to allow automatic overwriting of existing content, which isn't > possible now either. > > -Yaron > > On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Neill Mitchell <ne...@nl... > <mailto:ne...@nl...>> wrote: > > Hi Yaron. > > The advantage is it's so simple ordinary members of the public can > easily use it. Usability is always my top concern. Flagged Revs is > way to complicated for anyone but trained up people. It drove me > nuts ;) > > I can't see any alternative that gives simple to use admin > approval of pages. My method also has the advantage of very nearly > working! I just need the following to work: > > {{#formlink:form=Event Form|link text=Submit an Event or News > Item|link type=button|query string=preload=Article Template, > Article Template[Category_Name]=Approvals}} > or > {{#formlink:form=Event Form|link text=Submit an Event or News > Item|link type=button|query string=preload=Article Template}} > and > {{#formlink:form=Event Form|link text=Submit an Event or News > Item|link type=button|query string=preload=Slightly Different > Article Template}} > > There is nothing else in sight that can do simple admin approval. > > Cheers > Neill. > > On 21/04/10 18:09, Yaron Koren wrote: >> Hi Neill, >> >> Out of curiosity, do you see this approach as in some way better >> than a simple "stable/validated version" scheme; and if so, how? >> >> -Yaron >> >> On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Neill Mitchell >> <ne...@nl... <mailto:ne...@nl...>> wrote: >> >> Sorry missed the word "complicated after Not ;) >> >> "And what would you do if a user modified the original page >> during that >> time, unaware that it was currently in "editing mode"?" >> >> The user cannot edit pages. They are locked down. A user can >> only submit >> a changed version of the page for approval. The original page >> is left >> untouched until the admin creates a new version after >> approving it. >> >> Cheers >> Neill. >> >> >> On 21/04/10 17:54, Neill Mitchell wrote: >> > Hi Yaron. >> > >> > Not, it's very simple, you just need to manipulate the >> category. So I >> > either need to be able to pass slightly different templates >> into the >> > form or pass in the category parameter along with the >> pre-load template. >> > >> > Cheers >> > Neill. >> > On 21/04/10 16:14, Yaron Koren wrote: >> > >> >> Hi Neill, >> >> >> >> Your scheme sounds quite complicated to me, actually. How >> would you >> >> copy the revised contents back into the original page? >> Wouldn't that >> >> require yet another change to SF, to allow for automatically >> >> overwriting a page's current contents? And what would you >> do if a user >> >> modified the original page during that time, unaware that >> it was >> >> currently in "editing mode"? >> >> >> >> -Yaron >> >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Neill Mitchell >> >> <ne...@nl... >> <mailto:ne...@nl...><mailto:ne...@nl... >> <mailto:ne...@nl...>>> wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi Yaron. >> >> >> >> Yes, my scheme is pretty simple, but it does the >> basic job! Have >> >> you any >> >> plans/time to make either of the mods to SF to allow >> this to work? >> >> >> >> >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Semediawiki-user mailing list >> > Sem...@li... >> <mailto:Sem...@li...> >> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-user >> > >> > >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> _______________________________________________ >> Semediawiki-user mailing list >> Sem...@li... >> <mailto:Sem...@li...> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-user >> >> >> >> >> -- >> WikiWorks · MediaWiki Consulting · http://wikiworks.com > > > > > -- > WikiWorks · MediaWiki Consulting · http://wikiworks.com |
From: Yaron K. <ya...@gm...> - 2010-04-21 21:08:56
|
Well, let me phrase it differently: the other change you seem to be asking for is allowing forms to preload data when editing an existing page, as opposed to creating a new one - that's currently not allowed either. -Yaron On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 3:56 PM, Neill Mitchell <ne...@nl...>wrote: > Hi Yaron. > > Thanks for thinking about this. I don't expect SF to overwrite existing > content. Doesn't it just create a new version when you hit save? I've tried > this manually i.e. with a drop-down for Category_Name with > [[Category:Category_Name]] in the template and it works. A new version of > the "approved" article is created when you hit save. If the query string= > argument could take more than one parameter then I'm pretty sure this will > work. > > Cheers > Neill. > > > On 21/04/10 18:51, Yaron Koren wrote: > > Hi, > > Well, I was asking about your scheme vs. a hypothetical simple validation > extension that was originally discussed. I actually think such a thing would > be easier to program than the changes you're talking about, especially since > I don't think you're aware of all the changes that would be necessary - your > scheme seems to also require SF to allow automatic overwriting of existing > content, which isn't possible now either. > > -Yaron > > On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Neill Mitchell <ne...@nl...>wrote: > >> Hi Yaron. >> >> The advantage is it's so simple ordinary members of the public can easily >> use it. Usability is always my top concern. Flagged Revs is way to >> complicated for anyone but trained up people. It drove me nuts ;) >> >> I can't see any alternative that gives simple to use admin approval of >> pages. My method also has the advantage of very nearly working! I just need >> the following to work: >> >> {{#formlink:form=Event Form|link text=Submit an Event or News Item|link >> type=button|query string=preload=Article Template, Article >> Template[Category_Name]=Approvals}} >> or >> {{#formlink:form=Event Form|link text=Submit an Event or News Item|link >> type=button|query string=preload=Article Template}} >> and >> {{#formlink:form=Event Form|link text=Submit an Event or News Item|link >> type=button|query string=preload=Slightly Different Article Template}} >> >> There is nothing else in sight that can do simple admin approval. >> >> Cheers >> Neill. >> >> On 21/04/10 18:09, Yaron Koren wrote: >> >> Hi Neill, >> >> Out of curiosity, do you see this approach as in some way better than a >> simple "stable/validated version" scheme; and if so, how? >> >> -Yaron >> >> On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Neill Mitchell <ne...@nl...>wrote: >> >>> Sorry missed the word "complicated after Not ;) >>> >>> "And what would you do if a user modified the original page during that >>> time, unaware that it was currently in "editing mode"?" >>> >>> The user cannot edit pages. They are locked down. A user can only submit >>> a changed version of the page for approval. The original page is left >>> untouched until the admin creates a new version after approving it. >>> >>> Cheers >>> Neill. >>> >>> >>> On 21/04/10 17:54, Neill Mitchell wrote: >>> > Hi Yaron. >>> > >>> > Not, it's very simple, you just need to manipulate the category. So I >>> > either need to be able to pass slightly different templates into the >>> > form or pass in the category parameter along with the pre-load >>> template. >>> > >>> > Cheers >>> > Neill. >>> > On 21/04/10 16:14, Yaron Koren wrote: >>> > >>> >> Hi Neill, >>> >> >>> >> Your scheme sounds quite complicated to me, actually. How would you >>> >> copy the revised contents back into the original page? Wouldn't that >>> >> require yet another change to SF, to allow for automatically >>> >> overwriting a page's current contents? And what would you do if a user >>> >> modified the original page during that time, unaware that it was >>> >> currently in "editing mode"? >>> >> >>> >> -Yaron >>> >> >>> >> On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Neill Mitchell >>> >> <ne...@nl...<mailto:ne...@nl...>> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Hi Yaron. >>> >> >>> >> Yes, my scheme is pretty simple, but it does the basic job! Have >>> >> you any >>> >> plans/time to make either of the mods to SF to allow this to >>> work? >>> >> >>> >> >>> > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > Semediawiki-user mailing list >>> > Sem...@li... >>> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-user >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Semediawiki-user mailing list >>> Sem...@li... >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-user >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> WikiWorks · MediaWiki Consulting · http://wikiworks.com >> >> >> > > > -- > WikiWorks · MediaWiki Consulting · http://wikiworks.com > > > -- WikiWorks · MediaWiki Consulting · http://wikiworks.com |
From: Neill M. <ne...@nl...> - 2010-04-21 21:32:43
|
Hi Yaron. No, it always creates a new page via the formlink. The new page is populated from an existing one via the preload= Here's the steps. 1) The person opens a page. They want to make changes. At the bottom of the template for the page there is a button called "Submit an edit for approval" 2) They click the button which is a formlink. This populates a new page from the existing page. The user makes their desired changes to the new page and hits save. The page gets saved into the Approval category. The original page is left untouched. 3) The admin gets an email telling him that an approval He opens the page. At the bottom there is a button called "Approved" (this button has sysop protection on it.) 4) They click the button which is a formlink. This populates a new page from the existing page. If the admin wants to edit they then do so and then click save. The page gets saved into the original category. At no time is the original or copied pages edited via "edit with form". The people involved always work on the cloned versions. Sorry for not being clear about the process in my earlier emails. Cheers Neill. On 21/04/10 22:08, Yaron Koren wrote: > Well, let me phrase it differently: the other change you seem to be > asking for is allowing forms to preload data when editing an existing > page, as opposed to creating a new one - that's currently not allowed > either. > > -Yaron > > On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 3:56 PM, Neill Mitchell <ne...@nl... > <mailto:ne...@nl...>> wrote: > > Hi Yaron. > > Thanks for thinking about this. I don't expect SF to overwrite > existing content. Doesn't it just create a new version when you > hit save? I've tried this manually i.e. with a drop-down for > Category_Name with [[Category:Category_Name]] in the template and > it works. A new version of the "approved" article is created when > you hit save. If the query string= argument could take more than > one parameter then I'm pretty sure this will work. > > Cheers > Neill. > > > On 21/04/10 18:51, Yaron Koren wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Well, I was asking about your scheme vs. a hypothetical simple >> validation extension that was originally discussed. I actually >> think such a thing would be easier to program than the changes >> you're talking about, especially since I don't think you're aware >> of all the changes that would be necessary - your scheme seems to >> also require SF to allow automatic overwriting of existing >> content, which isn't possible now either. >> >> -Yaron >> >> On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Neill Mitchell >> <ne...@nl... <mailto:ne...@nl...>> wrote: >> >> Hi Yaron. >> >> The advantage is it's so simple ordinary members of the >> public can easily use it. Usability is always my top concern. >> Flagged Revs is way to complicated for anyone but trained up >> people. It drove me nuts ;) >> >> I can't see any alternative that gives simple to use admin >> approval of pages. My method also has the advantage of very >> nearly working! I just need the following to work: >> >> {{#formlink:form=Event Form|link text=Submit an Event or News >> Item|link type=button|query string=preload=Article Template, >> Article Template[Category_Name]=Approvals}} >> or >> {{#formlink:form=Event Form|link text=Submit an Event or News >> Item|link type=button|query string=preload=Article Template}} >> and >> {{#formlink:form=Event Form|link text=Submit an Event or News >> Item|link type=button|query string=preload=Slightly Different >> Article Template}} >> >> There is nothing else in sight that can do simple admin approval. >> >> Cheers >> Neill. >> >> On 21/04/10 18:09, Yaron Koren wrote: >>> Hi Neill, >>> >>> Out of curiosity, do you see this approach as in some way >>> better than a simple "stable/validated version" scheme; and >>> if so, how? >>> >>> -Yaron >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Neill Mitchell >>> <ne...@nl... <mailto:ne...@nl...>> wrote: >>> >>> Sorry missed the word "complicated after Not ;) >>> >>> "And what would you do if a user modified the original >>> page during that >>> time, unaware that it was currently in "editing mode"?" >>> >>> The user cannot edit pages. They are locked down. A user >>> can only submit >>> a changed version of the page for approval. The original >>> page is left >>> untouched until the admin creates a new version after >>> approving it. >>> >>> Cheers >>> Neill. >>> >>> >>> On 21/04/10 17:54, Neill Mitchell wrote: >>> > Hi Yaron. >>> > >>> > Not, it's very simple, you just need to manipulate the >>> category. So I >>> > either need to be able to pass slightly different >>> templates into the >>> > form or pass in the category parameter along with the >>> pre-load template. >>> > >>> > Cheers >>> > Neill. >>> > On 21/04/10 16:14, Yaron Koren wrote: >>> > >>> >> Hi Neill, >>> >> >>> >> Your scheme sounds quite complicated to me, actually. >>> How would you >>> >> copy the revised contents back into the original >>> page? Wouldn't that >>> >> require yet another change to SF, to allow for >>> automatically >>> >> overwriting a page's current contents? And what would >>> you do if a user >>> >> modified the original page during that time, unaware >>> that it was >>> >> currently in "editing mode"? >>> >> >>> >> -Yaron >>> >> >>> >> On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Neill Mitchell >>> >> <ne...@nl... >>> <mailto:ne...@nl...><mailto:ne...@nl... >>> <mailto:ne...@nl...>>> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Hi Yaron. >>> >> >>> >> Yes, my scheme is pretty simple, but it does the >>> basic job! Have >>> >> you any >>> >> plans/time to make either of the mods to SF to >>> allow this to work? >>> >> >>> >> >>> > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > Semediawiki-user mailing list >>> > Sem...@li... >>> <mailto:Sem...@li...> >>> > >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-user >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Semediawiki-user mailing list >>> Sem...@li... >>> <mailto:Sem...@li...> >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-user >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> WikiWorks · MediaWiki Consulting · http://wikiworks.com >> >> >> >> >> -- >> WikiWorks · MediaWiki Consulting · http://wikiworks.com > > > > > -- > WikiWorks · MediaWiki Consulting · http://wikiworks.com |
From: Albert K. <alb...@ce...> - 2010-04-22 09:45:58
|
Yaron, We are using FlaggedRevs especially for Process Documentation acc. to ISO9001 (to make sure there is always a defined "official" version of a process description - regardless of the constantly ongoing optimization). But we don't use any of the additional features you mention - basically our configuration of FlaggedRevs is toned down so that it just provides the approval mechanism. The draft version can be freely edited and modified, but in order to show up on the approved page (which is shown by default) the Process Owner has to mark the version as approved. In daily use the FlaggedRevs-Extension is actually quite easy, and very useful (and for our needs it is essential to be able to have approved page versions). But it helps if you slim down the configuration (so not to be bothered by all the options you don't need). So there is a one-time effort required when installing, but regular use then is quite easy. Of course it would be perfect if FlaggedRevs could already come preconfigured for those users who just need the simple "approval mechanism", without all the additional stuff like accuracy, different levels, etc. Albert Am 20.04.2010 18:29, schrieb Yaron Koren: > Hi everyone, > > I sent an email about two months ago [1] to the SMW developers mailing list > about having SMW work with the FlaggedRevs extension. [2] FlaggedRevs, for > those who don't know about it, lets administrators "validate" certain > versions of an article as being of high quality - and then when regular > users see that page on the wiki, what they'll see is the latest validated > version, not necessarily the latest version. The idea was to have SMW, if > FlaggedRevs is installed, save data not when a page is saved, but when it's > validated - so that queries will only display data that's been approved. > It's a straightforward way to do quality control on one's data. > > It seemed like a good idea, and that was the general consensus of the > discussion on the mailing list. However, afterwards, when I actually went to > try to install FlaggedRevs on one of my wikis, I realized that the extension > is quite complex. The main issue seems to be that it allows for comments and > "reviews" of each page, in addition to the validation. To that end, it > requires additions to the database; it allows for an arbitrary set of > attributes for each page (like 'accuracy' and 'tone'), each with an > arbitrary number of levels; it defines four new user rights and three new > user groups; and it defines a bunch of new special pages. Since then I've > gone back a few times to that documentation, but I haven't been able to > bring myself to actually try installing it - it just seems too complex. The > one positive aspect of it is that I think now I understand better the total > confusion that some people feel when they first see SMW (or sometimes > Semantic Forms, for that matter :) ). > > My sense is that there has to be a much simpler way to do this. FlaggedRevs > is clearly an "industrial-strength" solution, appropriate for use on > Wikipedia and other major sites. But for smaller-scale wikis, a much simpler > extension might be the better option. Really such an extension only needs to > accomplish three things: > > 1) provide a way for administrators to set one version of a page as > "stable". > 2) display the stable version of a page for normal users when they view it > through its main URL. > 3) provide a hook for SMW to use. :) > > I don't know if it makes sense to create a new extension just for this > functionality, or if so, who can/should create it, but I wanted to "throw > the idea out there". Though - has anyone successfully installed and/or used > FlaggedRevs on their wiki? Is it more usable than it looks? > > [1] > http://www.mail-archive.com/sem...@li.../msg01882.html > [2] http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:FlaggedRevs > > -Yaron > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval > Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs > proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. > See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev > _______________________________________________ > Semediawiki-user mailing list > Sem...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-user Mit freundlichen Grüßen, -- Bakk. Albert Köllner Quality Management / Human Resources Cenarion Information Systems GmbH Mariahilfer Straße 176, A-1150 Wien Handelsgericht Wien, FN 264084i Tel: 01/5221764-1020 Fax: 01/5221764-9000 http://www.cenarion.com/ |
From: Dan B. <dan...@gm...> - 2010-06-18 17:14:21
|
On 22 April 2010 10:20, Albert Köllner <alb...@ce...> wrote: > Yaron, > > We are using FlaggedRevs especially for Process Documentation acc. to > ISO9001 (to make sure there is always a defined "official" version of a > process description - regardless of the constantly ongoing optimization). > But we don't use any of the additional features you mention - basically > our configuration of FlaggedRevs is toned down so that it just provides > the approval mechanism. The draft version can be freely edited and > modified, but in order to show up on the approved page (which is shown > by default) the Process Owner has to mark the version as approved. > > In daily use the FlaggedRevs-Extension is actually quite easy, and very > useful (and for our needs it is essential to be able to have approved > page versions). But it helps if you slim down the configuration (so not > to be bothered by all the options you don't need). > So there is a one-time effort required when installing, but regular use > then is quite easy. > > Of course it would be perfect if FlaggedRevs could already come > preconfigured for those users who just need the simple "approval > mechanism", without all the additional stuff like accuracy, different > levels, etc. Right, this seems to be the major stumbling block! Would you mind posting your configuration? It sounds exactly like what I need! Cheers, Dan. > Albert > > Am 20.04.2010 18:29, schrieb Yaron Koren: >> Hi everyone, >> >> I sent an email about two months ago [1] to the SMW developers mailing list >> about having SMW work with the FlaggedRevs extension. [2] FlaggedRevs, for >> those who don't know about it, lets administrators "validate" certain >> versions of an article as being of high quality - and then when regular >> users see that page on the wiki, what they'll see is the latest validated >> version, not necessarily the latest version. The idea was to have SMW, if >> FlaggedRevs is installed, save data not when a page is saved, but when it's >> validated - so that queries will only display data that's been approved. >> It's a straightforward way to do quality control on one's data. >> >> It seemed like a good idea, and that was the general consensus of the >> discussion on the mailing list. However, afterwards, when I actually went to >> try to install FlaggedRevs on one of my wikis, I realized that the extension >> is quite complex. The main issue seems to be that it allows for comments and >> "reviews" of each page, in addition to the validation. To that end, it >> requires additions to the database; it allows for an arbitrary set of >> attributes for each page (like 'accuracy' and 'tone'), each with an >> arbitrary number of levels; it defines four new user rights and three new >> user groups; and it defines a bunch of new special pages. Since then I've >> gone back a few times to that documentation, but I haven't been able to >> bring myself to actually try installing it - it just seems too complex. The >> one positive aspect of it is that I think now I understand better the total >> confusion that some people feel when they first see SMW (or sometimes >> Semantic Forms, for that matter :) ). >> >> My sense is that there has to be a much simpler way to do this. FlaggedRevs >> is clearly an "industrial-strength" solution, appropriate for use on >> Wikipedia and other major sites. But for smaller-scale wikis, a much simpler >> extension might be the better option. Really such an extension only needs to >> accomplish three things: >> >> 1) provide a way for administrators to set one version of a page as >> "stable". >> 2) display the stable version of a page for normal users when they view it >> through its main URL. >> 3) provide a hook for SMW to use. :) >> >> I don't know if it makes sense to create a new extension just for this >> functionality, or if so, who can/should create it, but I wanted to "throw >> the idea out there". Though - has anyone successfully installed and/or used >> FlaggedRevs on their wiki? Is it more usable than it looks? >> >> [1] >> http://www.mail-archive.com/sem...@li.../msg01882.html >> [2] http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:FlaggedRevs >> >> -Yaron >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval >> Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs >> proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. >> See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev >> _______________________________________________ >> Semediawiki-user mailing list >> Sem...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-user > > > Mit freundlichen Grüßen, > -- > Bakk. Albert Köllner > Quality Management / Human Resources > > Cenarion Information Systems GmbH > Mariahilfer Straße 176, A-1150 Wien > Handelsgericht Wien, FN 264084i > > Tel: 01/5221764-1020 > Fax: 01/5221764-9000 > http://www.cenarion.com/ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Semediawiki-user mailing list > Sem...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-user > |