Huh, so a bit like git blame? And then you would merge together the chunks/edits which are most stable? That sounds awesome!! I suppose you can't really count

Huh, so a bit like git blame? And then you would merge together the chunks/edits which are most stable? That sounds awesome!! I suppose you can't really count on the same text/markup being shifted around as articles get split and modified in the ways you've described. Also I suppose there is no such thing as a cross-article edit in MediaWiki terms iirc. Use vector embeddings? Throw an LLM at the problem? Rate editors on their familiarity with a given topic area (and track how that evolves over time)? The idea of using edit information in addition to the raw text written by editors seems like it's extracting additional bits of information from human interactions. I might have read some idea in a HN comment of training AI not just on code, but on how that code is edited in a git repo, or maybe I am just imagining it.