Help talk:Paragraph-based Edit Conflict Interface

About this board

Feedback and discussion page for the Paragraph-based Edit Conflict Interface.

Update: We completely revised the interface for this feature based on user feedback and user test.

Report a new bug in Phabricator

You can post in any language here, preferably English or German.

Seewolf (talkcontribs)

If I open the editor for an answer and then think long enough about my answer, the tool erases every answer which was saved in the meantime. I don't think that's the way it should work.

Seewolf (talkcontribs)

We just had a Sperrprüfung because of this behaviorand I could reproduce it easily. --~~~~

Robin Strohmeyer (WMDE) (talkcontribs)
Thiemo Kreuz (WMDE) (talkcontribs)

@Seewolf: We haven't been able to reproduce the issue. You said you could do that. Can you explain in a little more detail how you did it?

Reply to "Not for thinkers"

Interface for discussion conflicts is great

4
Wugapodes (talkcontribs)

I really liked the new edit conflict interface (the one with the radio buttons), but even with that, edit conflicts in discussions were still a pain. It was great for articles or editing the same text, but when adding to a discussion, I found myself, more often than not, just reopening the edit-interface and adding my text again because it was easier. I just got this new paragraph-based interface and it's amazing. I'm really excited about this feature and am thankful to everyone who is working on it!


My only suggestion is to add more helpful tooltips or labels. Having seen the previous radio-button interface, this one confused me a bit and it took me some time to figure out what would happen when I hit "publish". I think RoySmith gave a more detailed description below which was similar to my confusion. I remember when I first got the interface with the radio buttons that there were blue dots that were part of a tutorial or something? Could those be reintroduced?

Seewolf (talkcontribs)

+1

Max Klemm (WMDE) (talkcontribs)

Hi @Wugapodes:, thanks for your feedback. We are glad to hear you like the new interfaces.

Currently, there are no blue buttons in the talk page edit conflict interface, but we will take your feedback into consideration and see how we can improve the tooltips and help text as we roll out the interface to more wikis.  --For the Technical Wishes Team

138.19.149.125 (talkcontribs)

+1

Reply to "Interface for discussion conflicts is great"
Sunpriat (talkcontribs)
Reply to "False positive"

How to test this interface?

6
Summary by Thiemo Kreuz (WMDE)
Aron Manning (talkcontribs)

I've tried to edit conflict with myself in the Sandbox, but it just overwrote my first change with the second. A demo setup would be helpful.

Help:Paragraph-based Edit Conflict Interface#Usage mentions to enable the beta feature. There's no such option in my Beta Preferences, though according to the roadmap it's still in beta.

Max Klemm (WMDE) (talkcontribs)

Hi @Aron Manning:, thanks for your feedback. Unfortunately, there is no demo setup available for this feature. You can create an edit conflict with yourself if you make one of the changes from a private/incognito window where you aren’t logged in to your account.

Whether the feature is available as a Beta Preference depends on which wiki you are on. On MediaWiki it is a default feature already, so it’s not shown as a Beta Preference in the list. The reason it’s still a beta feature on the roadmap is because it’s currently only a default feature on dewiki, arwiki, fawiki and Group 0 wikis (MediaWiki is in this group). For all other wikis it remains a beta feature for now. --For the Technical Wishes Team

Aron Manning (talkcontribs)

> You can create an edit conflict with yourself if you make one of the changes from a private/incognito window where you aren’t logged in to your account.

Thank you for the detailed answers. To clarify: this means that if a user conflicts with themself, that case is ignored?

Max Klemm (WMDE) (talkcontribs)

Hi @Aron Manning:, yes, that’s right. But the fact that a user’s conflict with themselves is ignored is not actually something that is decided by this interface. It’s something that the MediaWiki core code does through the “EditPage class”. We didn’t work on that code in this project, so whether an edit conflict is detected and then shown actually depends on the same MediaWiki core code that has been in place for a long time, not on the new paragraph-based edit conflict interface. -- For the Technical Wishes Team

Aron Manning (talkcontribs)

I suspected that is the case. From one aspect it makes sense to avoid complicating editing with conflict resolution with oneself - probably editors just want their last version. Thank you for confirming this.

Thiemo Kreuz (WMDE) (talkcontribs)

I'm sorry to hear this is causing confusion. MediaWiki's behavior is underspecified and rather inconsistent when "conflicting with yourself". There are dozens of tickets discussing this problem for years, most notably phab:T36423, phab:T58849, and phab:T222805, as well as very recent incidents, see phab:T246726. When testing the conflict resolution interface it's important to do this with two different users. One of them can be an anonymous, not logged in user, as Max already mentioned. That can be done using an incognito window.

Reply to "How to test this interface?"

The new tool is missing the "Show changes" button

5
Alsee (talkcontribs)

The standard edit mode has three core buttons:

  1. Publish Changes
  2. Show Preview
  3. Show Changes

The third button is missing in the new tool. The button brings up a standard DIFF which shows what changes will be made, and it does so in a familiar, formal, and extremely precise format. My last conflict was a bit more complicated than average, I did resolve it correctly, but during the process I wasn't 100% sure I had solved the edit conflict cleanly. I was painfully hesitant to save without being able to verify it via the ShowChanges diff. (It happened to be a talk page edit conflict, and there is heightened feeling of responsibility not to screw up other people's comments.)

This post was hidden by Max Klemm (WMDE) (history)
Max Klemm (WMDE) (talkcontribs)

Hi @Alsee:, thanks for your feedback. We decided to publish the feature without the ‘Show Changes’ option, because it actually is a very complex and resource intensive function to integrate into the feature.

However, we appreciate your feedback and will consider it in any further development of the tool. -- For the Technical Wishes Team

Alsee (talkcontribs)

@Max Klemm (WMDE) your comment did not match my experience. I did directly handle the text of the other person's comment. Below I will describe my edit conflict and resolution. (If requested, I could dig up a link for the conflict diff.)

In the tool I had three separated regions of conflict to resolve:

  • Top conflict choice: I had inserted a new line (a template). I resolved this conflict-region by selecting my version.
  • Gray unchanged text: Old comments from multiple people.
  • Middle conflict choice: One side had a new comment from someone else (I believe in yellow), the other side had a new comment by me (I believe in blue). I resolved this conflict-region by CTRL-C copying their text, clicking the edit pencil on my comment-area, and pasting their comment above mine. At the time I did not see any other way to resolve this conflict-portion. Either there was no other option present, or I missed it.
  • Gray unchanged text: The start of a ===subsection===.
  • Bottom conflict choice: Two people had added comments in this subsection. I resolved this conflict-region by selecting their version.

We decided to publish the feature without the ‘Show Changes’ option, because it actually is a very complex and resource intensive function to integrate into the feature.

Your meaning is somewhat unclear. Did you mean you would add the button in a later publication? Or did you mean you decided to drop the button from the end product? ShowChanges is probably used less often, but it serves an important function. ShowPreview and ShowChanges highlight or conceal essentially opposite aspects of the content.

Max Klemm (WMDE) (talkcontribs)

Hi @Alsee:, sorry, if the last answer was not clear. Based on your description, you did not end up in the edit conflict interface  for talk pages, but in the general edit conflict interface shown in all other cases. The edit conflict interface for talk pages or discussion-based edit conflicts appears in the talk or project namespace when two people insert a new line in the same single place on the page at the same time. The general edit conflict interface appears, when two people edit two or more parts of the same page at the same time. In your case, unfortunately, you ended up in the general interface since you added both a new line and added a new comment to the discussion on the page. This is of course not optimal, so thank you for letting us know about this case so that we can try to address it through future improvements.  

As for the ShowChanges button, currently we do not have plans to add the button. However, we will consider your feedback in any planning of changes we would make in the future and potentially come back to you for more input if you would be open to it? -- For the Technical Wishes Team

Reply to "The new tool is missing the "Show changes" button"
RoySmith (talkcontribs)

I just got the new beta interface for the first time. To be honest, I find it totally confusing. Some of it makes sense. There's two text boxes, highlighted in yellow and blue. I get that. The blue one on the bottom is what I wrote, the yellow one on the top is what somebody else wrote. So far, so good.

Then, there's a button with up and down arrows which flips those two. I don't understand this. It switches which is on top, but other than this trivial layout change, I don't see that it performs any useful function.

My text has two controls on it, a checkmark and an X. Again, I have no clue what these do. The checkmark has a tooltip, "Apply your changes to this text". I don't understand what that means. Does it mean, take this change and automatically merge it into the other text? The X tooltip says, "Discard all your changes to this text". I'm afraid to even click that one because I don't know what it'll do. Discard permanently with no way to recover the text?

Sorry, this is just totally mystifying. And I say that as a software engineer with many years of using merge conflict resolution tools.

RoySmith (talkcontribs)

PS, I did what I usually do. I copied my text to the clipboard, opened up the same page in another window, and redid my edit there. That seems much simpler and understandable than any of the automatic merge tools I've seen tried.

Max Klemm (WMDE) (talkcontribs)

Hi @RoySmith:, we have seen your feedback and need some more time to discuss it with our team. I will come back to you at the beginning of next week. -- For the Technical Wishes Team

Max Klemm (WMDE) (talkcontribs)

Hi @RoySmith:, thanks for your constructive feedback. Your comments are helpful for understanding where usability improvements could be made to the interface. To explain what the controls you mention should do, both symbols (the check mark and the X) only appear if you decide to edit your post (click into the textbox) in the talk page edit conflict interface. By clicking the check mark, you save any changes you’ve made to your post in the interface. By clicking on the X, every change you made in the talk page edit conflict interface is discarded and you will see the text of your initial post (which resulted in the initial edit conflict). --For the Technical Wishes Team

Reply to "This is totally confusing"
Sheenbrino (talkcontribs)

it's good. I don´t hace problems with this tool

Max Klemm (WMDE) (talkcontribs)

Great, we are glad to hear it works for you. :)

Reply to "Good"
Misibacsi (talkcontribs)

I edited an article today ([[:hu:Bismarck (csatahajó) ]]). When I intended to save my modifications, the "Two Column Edit Conflict View" warned me of a conflict with another editor. I have sent him a message, but he did not respond. I did not "save" my modifications yet!


Meanwhile I checked the differences between the two versions, and I noticed, that only I modified the article, the "other" editor did not. However, the article was somehow saved, with the name of the other editor, but the content was my modifications!


Here is the link to the differences: https://hu.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bismarck_%28csatahaj%C3%B3%29&type=revision&diff=22661743&oldid=22661703


The histrory says "2020. május 24., 15:22‎ Sepultura", which is incorrect, because editor Sepultura says he did not edit the article.

More importantly I recognize my text (under his name).


Robin Strohmeyer (WMDE) (talkcontribs)

Hi @Misibacsi, we looked into your request last week and tried to understand what was going on here.

It is quite a head scratcher, to be honest.

After going through the version history, it seems to us as if you and Sepultura made very similar edits (maybe following a convention?). Thus, our best interpretation so far is that the text you thought to recognize as your own actually comes from Sepultura and just looks very similar to your edits.

Do you think that’s possible?

PS: Unfortunately, we don’t have any Hungarian speakers on our end, so we had to rely on auto-translation for our research. This might have led to misinterpretations of the situation - apologies if that is the case. If we misunderstood anything, please let us know. Robin Strohmeyer (WMDE)

Misibacsi (talkcontribs)

It seems you are right: we made very similar edits (following conventions and mostly correcting typos). When I saw the article some minutes later, I was sure that "these were my edits". Which was strange, because I did not save my edits.

Meanwhile I wrote to the other editor several times, but he did not respond.

As I did not receive answers from him, I thought, that the "History" of the article contains a mistake as those were my edits and not his.

Later he admitted, that he made modifications and when he finished editing he left his home, so he could answer to my questions. (Much later he returned and answered to me).

So, it is settled, sorry for the inconvenience, but I thought I found a serious software bug in the system... (fortunately it was not the case).


Reply to "Editors are mixed together"
ValeJappo (talkcontribs)

Today this tool does not work: when there is an edit conflict, starts the "old tool".

Max Klemm (WMDE) (talkcontribs)

@ValeJappo: We disabled the tool for edit conflicts on talk pages. If your edit conflict was on a talk page, this is the reason why you saw the old interface. -- For the Technical Wishes Team: Max Klemm (WMDE) (talk) 13:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Dvorapa (talkcontribs)

Why? This week every day I've had numerous edit conflicts and all of them with the old interface. First I was thinking this is a cache issue or some bug, but after a week of seeing old bad interface I searched for any explanation (unsuccessfully).

Max Klemm (WMDE) (talkcontribs)

Hi @Dvorapa: We turned off the Two Column Edit Conflict Interface for talk pages, because it helps merging two versions of a page. This is not helpful for edit conflicts on talk pages.
I guess the reason why you still see the old interface is that it only is a default feature on the German, Farsi, and Arabic Wikipedia. However, if you want to use it already on the Czech Wikipedia, you should be able to enable it as a beta feature in your settings. --For the Technical Wishes Team: Max Klemm (WMDE) (talk) 08:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Dvorapa (talkcontribs)

I don't understand anything from your answer, I'm sorry, please be more specific. Why do you think it is more helpful to use the old interface for talk pages instead of the new one? Is there a way to turn it back on even on talk pages?

Max Klemm (WMDE) (talkcontribs)

Hi @Dvorapa: When an edit conflict occurs, the Two Column Conflict interface works in such way that it needs you to choose either between your edit or the edit of the person you are having the edit conflict with. On talk pages this set up does not make any sense, since you do not want to choose between the other persons comment or yours. Both should be on there. In most cases you only want to adjust the order of the comments. Is this more specific? As always, you can find more information on the Two Column Conflict Edit Conflict View project page.
No, there is currently no way to turn it back on. There will be an additional interface to help solve edit conflicts on talk pages in the future. --For the Technical Wishes Team: Max Klemm (WMDE) (talk) 10:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Dvorapa (talkcontribs)

Now I understand your response, thank you for the explanation. But still Two Column Edit Conflict interface also allows both compared versions to be edited, which several cswiki users used to merge both changes also on talk pages, choosing their order and putting them together. In the old interface there is just one edit window with the full page text (not just the conflicting parts), which makes such merge not an easy task. That's what I liked most on the tool's interface: The ability to edit only the conflicting parts, not the whole page and it seemed to me as a key feature of it. I hope this will eventually become the main interface and once again we could use Two Column Edit Conflict tool. Shame I have to turn the Beta Feature off because seeing the new interface in 1 of 10 cases makes me quite confused.

Dvorapa (talkcontribs)

I also hope the talk page edit conflict interface you mentioned will launch soon. It looks awesome on the screenshots.

ValeJappo (talkcontribs)
Ferdi2005 (talkcontribs)

And why isn't it working also on Wikipedia: namespace pages?

Max Klemm (WMDE) (talkcontribs)

Hi @Ferdi2005:, we temporarily disabled the Two Column Conflict interface for the "Wikipedia:" namespace, because there are many discussion happening in this namespace and the Two Column Edit Conflict View doesn't work as well on these kind of pages. We are working on an additional interface for talk pages and will enable it on these pages soon. -- For the Technical Wishes Team: Max Klemm (WMDE) (talk) 13:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Reply to "Does not work"
W!B: (talkcontribs)

das werkzeug ist schrecklich, wenn ich in den konflikt einfach manuell lösen will.

wie komm ich da wieder raus?

wie kann ich _nur einen_ von mehreren blöcken anders auflösen als durch pores überschrieben?.

wieso beschränkt sich das tool nicht nur auf _den_ abschnitt, den ich bearbeitet habe, wie das die alt versionsansicht schon konnte.?


Max Klemm (WMDE) (talkcontribs)

Hi@W!B::, du kannst die Oberfläche in den Einstellungen abschalten. Dann kommst du zur vorherigen Ansicht zurück. Es sollten nur Textabschnitte, die sich unterscheiden, nebeneinander angezeigt werden. Du kannst diese bearbeiten, indem du auf das 'Stift- Symbol' in der rechten, oberen Ecke des Textfeldes klickst. Die Textabschnitte, die gleich sind, sollten über die volle Länge der Seite in grauen Kästen angezeigt werden. --Für das Team Technische Wünsche: Max Klemm (WMDE) (talk) 16:26, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

W!B: (talkcontribs)

danke. ja, wenn es keine möglichkeit gibt, schnell zwischen den beiden werkzeugen umzuschalten, werd ich es ganz deaktivieren.

der grund ist übrigens, dass ein editkonflikt auf einer diskussionsseite gänzlich anders aufzulösen ist als in einem artikel. bei zweiterem muss man zwei textversionen konsolodieren, bei ersterem aber meist einfach die selbe antwort nur anders plazieren. dafür ist dieses tool untauglich.

und mir kommen konflikte hauptsächlich auf diskseiten unter.

Max Klemm (WMDE) (talkcontribs)
W!B: (talkcontribs)

danke dir für den hinweis. nichtsdestotrotz wird das nicht helfen, auch hierbei gibt es mehrere häufige fälle: vor dem EK-beitrag des kollegen einschieben (direkte antwort zum vorausgegangenen); danach (mit hinweis EK, wenn das gespräch so weiterlaufen kann); meinen text aufteilen zwischen diesen optionen; nur teilweise neu formulieren; antwort gänzlich neu gestalten.

da ich kaum annehme, dass die "neue" skin das leisten wird, wird auch diese nur etwas bringen, wenn ich sie schnell ein- und ausschalten kann, um in reinem text-modus zu editieren, wenn das besser geht (ganz wie beim WikiEd und klassischem Quelltext-editor, WikiEd kann zb. lähmend träge laufen und ist mir viel zu überladen, weshalb ich ihn nur in ausnahmefällen verwende)

ein gespräch -- auch schriftlich -- ist halt wesentlich komplexer als nur eine simple abfolge von tweets und re-tweets. zumindest in der gesprächskultur, in der ich sozialisert bin, und die zum glück in der WP auch noch gepflegt wird -- weshalb sich auch diese hiesige form der "diskussionsseite" nie durchsetzen wird, da sie vereinsamte dialoge forciert, anstatt echte diskussionen in der gruppe: das hier ist _keine_ diskussionsseite, sondern ein "small talk", der es leicht macht, beiträge anderer effizient zu ignorieren -- besser, um echte zwiegespräche (dialoge) zu führen, also einer hilfe- und ratgeberseite durchaus angemessen.

und auch die "neue" skin leidet aber unter demselben denkmodell (gesprächskulturmodell), auch in ihr hab ich keinerlei überblick zum gesamtkontext des gespräches, weil die weiteren vorbeiträge ausgeblendet sind. in einem mehr-personen-gespräch knüpft man aber _nie_ nur an den direkten vorredner an. auch -- eigentlich insbesondere -- dann nicht , wenn man sich versehentlich gegenseitig ins wort gefallen ist. das wäre auch reallife eine der heikelsten gesprächssituationen überhaupt, und lässt sich nicht nach schema-f lösen.


Max Klemm (WMDE) (talkcontribs)

Hi @W!B:: wir sind uns der möglichen Komplexität von Diskussionen auf Diskussionsseiten bewusst und probieren die Oberfläche daraufhin zu entwickeln (T230231).
Es wäre großartig, wenn du dir die zusätzliche Oberfläche für Bearbeitungskonflikte auf Diskussionsseiten nochmals anguckst und uns Feedback geben würdest, wenn sie im späteren Verlaufe dieses Jahres bereitgestellt wird. --Für das Team Technische Wünsche: Max Klemm (WMDE) (talk) 09:32, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Reply to "way out"
Return to "Paragraph-based Edit Conflict Interface" page.