On 12/6/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Rob Church wrote:
On 07/12/06, xaosflux <xaosflux(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Ummm....how is that diferant than rollback?
Because rollback isn't a straightforward revert, despite looking like
one in a lot of cases.
Internally, rollback has special magical powers involving
wikimagicpixiedust, and must be kept out of the hands of the unwashed
masses.
And more seriously, you have to load an extra two pages to undo, in
fact exactly the same number of pages as for a manual revert, plus you
get to enter an edit summary. This makes it less well suited for
abuse, at least in theory.