Maybe it should also force an edit reason, such as "Reverting edit by Fast Eddie. Reason:*User's reason here*"
Oh, wow, if it's a "rollback" option then it almost has to be a mod tool, or limited in some way. It's way too powerful to just let random people whack off weeks of work on an article. But regardless, it must be logged and there must be a required edit reason.
edited 20th Aug '11 7:35:20 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"It reverts to a prior version. That is exactly what revert does in Mediawiki. Rollback is a shortcut that allows a change to be backed out, if it is the last edit, without looking at the difference display. We don't have anything like that.
Requiring an edit reason is pointless. Here, let me give you a vandal's reason: "jhgfali vyhqwvtuybu."
Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty
No, revert un-does just a single edit.
If you go back, say, three edits and revert that edit on a MediaWiki, it will revert only that edit, while still keeping the later two edits, provided there's no conflicts that make that impossible (in which case you'll get a no-can-do error). I just tried this on my personal (well, my RP group's that I host) wiki to make sure I was remembering right.
Reverting all edits back to a different version is a different and potentially more dangerous beast.
edited 20th Aug '11 8:03:14 PM by Jeysie
Apparently I am adorable, but my GF is my #1 Groupie. (Avatar by Dreki-K)If we're going to have both as an option(a full revert or a single revert), I just don't honestly trust random members being able to do it. Even if they've been here a long time... that means nothing.
Right now, Mods and Admins have authority for a reason, including being impartial for the sake of rules. Or atleast, that's what I'm thinking it would be. Anyway, it's better off to only allow those that already have special privileges for the sake of keeping the wiki safe.
It might be fine for certain Wiki Curators, sure, but "veterans" are never a safe idea whatsoever.
Quest 64 threadI concur with the idea of keeping it very limited. This doesn't sound like something that should go in the general troper populace's hands, because it would turn into one more avenue for edit warring...
I am now known as Flyboy.Actually, that's what they describe as 'undo.' It has a whole crapload of code that attempts to preserve subsequent edits. Of necessity, it often can't. Pain in the ass to build for very little benefit.
I don't see the risk you guys are imagining with version replacement. If someone goes back three weeks and places a wrong version as current, the fix is simple. Just put the right version back as current and block the nimrod.
Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty
I'm not saying you necessarily should build that instead. Just that IMHO a "wipe out all these edits in one-click" button doesn't seem like such a hot thing to give the unwashed peasants. Should be a mod-only option.
(Although admittedly I could see a single edit revert/undo as being more useful than you might think, when a bit of vandalism doesn't get noticed/fixed and people keep contributing afterwards, meaning that even a legitimate mass revert is going to be useless. As you'll either lose good edits or have to add them back on by hand. Plus on our pages we tend to add new list items more than we add to or change old entries, so I'd think conflicts would be less likely. Anyhoo.)
Apparently I am adorable, but my GF is my #1 Groupie. (Avatar by Dreki-K)This conversation is confusing me, probably because I'm used to MediaWiki's revert button.
In MediaWiki, when you revert a page, the reversion is saved as a new edit, which allows one to revert a reversion. This means that regular users are allowed to revert as far back as they like, because it can be fixed easily.
Is this not how this revert button works?
edited 22nd Aug '11 5:30:42 PM by Unknownlight
Net effect is the same. Ours will allow a selected version to be set as the current version.
Nothing happens to any version, unless a mod decides to make it ineligible to be used as the current version. In that case it will disappear from the list of available versions.
edited 22nd Aug '11 5:59:20 PM by FastEddie
Goal: Clear, Concise and WittyOf course a null edit could be detected - it's just a tech issue. There have been cases where a vandal makes a rapid series of them to cover up their edits, but Eddie can clear those out if needed.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"The problem is that reverting lots of edits at once (or even being allowed to make many single reversions in a row) is also a really good way to vandalize.
And it's harder to detect than, say, blanking (probably the nearest equivalent) is, since you can only notice multiple reverts by one, having a reason to look at the page's history, and two, knowing the reverted edits shouldn't have been reverted.
And if people then go and make legitimate edits to the existing state of the article because they didn't realize it was vandalized, then you can really have a mess to clean up.
edited 25th Aug '11 9:08:01 AM by Jeysie
Apparently I am adorable, but my GF is my #1 Groupie. (Avatar by Dreki-K)

A single edit anywhere is good but when a edit is like say really huge though and then someone reverts to before that its a problem. (as well as maybe limiting the amount of reverts a troper can do to prevent people just going from page to page reverting things at random.)
Sparkling and glittering! Jan-Ken-Pon!