12 Jun
2004
12 Jun
'04
4:45 p.m.
A week or so ago someone completely destroyed the home page of the
Oxford Guide [1]. This was a pain, and to recover the state I had to paste
the content from mysql command line output because it wasn't possible to
recover the earlier version from the CGI.
Two possible solutions (ideally both should be implemented I think):
- Implement a "delete revision" function (to go with the "Delete
node"
functions. I would not want to keep most malicious edits: bear in mind
that you are still effectively publishing them through the historical
versions. When this is spamming for googlejuice... [2]
- Allow editing of historical versions:
16:40 <@grault> load the text of an earlier version into the edit
buffer; save it as a new version when you hit save.
Dominic.
[1] http://www.ox.compsoc.net/oxfordguide/?id=Home&version=81
[2] http://www.ox.compsoc.net/oxfordguide/?id=Home&version=XX
(replace XX with 65)
25 Jun
25 Jun
10:43 p.m.
On Sat 12 Jun 2004, Dominic Hargreaves <dom(a)earth.li> wrote:
- Implement a "delete revision" function (to
go with the "Delete node"
functions. I would not want to keep most malicious edits[...]
Done in 0.34 (just released).
- Allow editing of historical versions:
16:40 <@grault> load the text of an earlier version into the edit
buffer; save it as a new version when you hit save.
Do you still want this given the above, and if so why?
Kake
28 Jun
28 Jun
5:23 p.m.
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 10:43:26PM +0100, Kate L Pugh wrote:
This would enable non-admins to revert changes rapidly and non-distructively
to be tidied up - I'm assuming the above command is password-protected.
It probably has general editorial value that I haven't thought of.
Actually a whole new approach might simply to have an approval queue of
admin commands, so a deletion would appear to take place immediately
when a non-admin selects it, but the actual deletion wouldn't happen
until an admin approves it.
Dominic.
On Sat 12 Jun 2004, Dominic Hargreaves
<dom(a)earth.li> wrote:
Lovely, thanks!
- Implement a "delete revision"
function (to go with the "Delete node"
functions. I would not want to keep most malicious edits[...]
Done in 0.34 (just released). - Allow
editing of historical versions:
16:40 <@grault> load the text of an earlier version into the edit
buffer; save it as a new version when you hit save.
Do you still want this given the above, and if so why? 
5:40 p.m.
On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 05:23:17PM +0100, Dominic quoted Kake quoting me:
This would enable non-admins to revert changes rapidly and non-distructively
to be tidied up - I'm assuming the above command is password-protected.
Yes, it is. I would still like this ability because it's a big time-saver
over the following.
- Go to historical version, copy
- Edit current version, paste
Another problem with the current situation is is that I don't think you can
get the raw wiki text of old versions, so the above loses your formatting.
There should be a warning when you edit with the text of an old version -
probably above the edit box, and along the lines of "Warning! Saving this
node will over-write the current version." Of course, it would only create a
new version, so you could always do the same thing again with [current version
-1] to fix it....
- Allow editing of historical versions:
16:40 <@grault> load the text of an earlier version into the edit
buffer; save it as a new version when you hit save.
Do you still want this given [historic version deletion], and if so why? Actually a whole new approach might simply to have an
approval queue of
admin commands, so a deletion would appear to take place immediately
when a non-admin selects it, but the actual deletion wouldn't happen
until an admin approves it.
I'm happy with only letting admins delete.
--
Earle Martin
http://downlode.org/
http://purl.oclc.org/net/earlemartin/
30 Jun
30 Jun
7:06 p.m.
On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 05:40:52PM +0100, Earle Martin wrote:
I'm happy with only letting admins delete.
That does rely on admins being around in a timely fashion. If something
offensive, illegal or otherwise strongly objectionable is put into the
wiki, allowing regular users to soft delete it ASAP would surely be
useful.
Dominic.
7094
days inactive
7112
days old
openguides-dev@lists.openguides.org
5 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Dominic Hargreaves -
Earle Martin -
Kate L Pugh