This is awesome! I've wanted to build something like this for a while, but never gotten the chance :). Better tools like this are essential for helping users accept and reject the correct edits, and making it easier to investigate when reversions might be unjustified.<p>The only problem I noticed is that clicking the footnotes does not work, which makes it harder to evaluate the legitimacy of an edit (well, it just means I have to have the current article open as well).
A tip on the diffing:<p>We have done something similar when diffing HTML, e.g. replacing the HTML with single unicodes. And then we run the diff and get several diff-segments (EQUALS, INS, DEL). What we have done, is then to scan those for tags, and split them into a new type.<p>So an insert like INS(something \xE000 else) would become three <i>changes</i>. E.g. INS(something ) INS_TAG(\xE000) INS( else). So the INS_TAG shouldn't be wrapped in <ins> when converting this back to HTML.
I'm not sure if Wikipedia is OK with that, considering the load it generates [1]. I am currently doing some research on Wikipedia, and for my purposes I use the official dumps site at <a href="https://dumps.wikimedia.org/" rel="nofollow">https://dumps.wikimedia.org/</a><p>[1] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/robots.txt" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/robots.txt</a>
<i></i>You tried to access the address <a href="http://wikiwash.metronews.ca/" rel="nofollow">http://wikiwash.metronews.ca/</a>, which is currently unavailable.<i></i><p>:(
not a very useful project. Problem for journalists isn't "how to inspect edits" but rather "which edits on which entries should I inspect"
This is a surveillance tool so that 'we' can monitor 'their' activity and take appropriate measures.
Wikipedia's "openly editable model" in 2014.