Oh great, replying to my own message :-p I just realized something else.
This approval or vetting database fields need not only to be connected with
either the Inkscape User account, or some other account for approving
resources.
It also needs to be available in the link upload feature.
And I'm not sure about this part. But besides being related to such an
account,
as well as the link upload feature; it probably needs to *not* be connected
with
the regular way of uploading (because the regular way is usually uploading your
own resource, and it doesn't make sense for someone to approve their own
resource - otherwise....well, I guess it's self-explanatory).
Does that make sense?
Thanks again :-)
-----Original Message-----
From: brynn
Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2017 7:40 AM
To: Inkscape-Docs ; Martin Owens
Subject: [Inkscape-docs] revisiting vetting of tutorials (on the website)
Hi Friends,
Trying to make brief as possible. (Martin, specific question for you in
this.) (But comments welcome from anyone.)
Some few months ago, there was a request on this list to update the
Video Tutorials page (https://inkscape.org/en/learn/videos/). After some
discussion, it was decided it would be better to put the effort into getting
better tutorials uploaded into the Tutorials section of the gallery
(https://inkscape.org/en/gallery/=tutorial/?order=-edited).
At that time, I mentioned my plan to re-contact all the tutorial
authors, that I've already contacted once before, for the tutorials I have
already curated (or vetted) on this page
https://forum.inkscapecommunity.com/index.php, inform them, if they aren't
already aware of the new website, and including instructions to upload their
tutorials, if they are interested. This bug report covers several related
ideas: https://bugs.launchpad.net/inkscape-web/+bug/1603669 (Someone else is
going through a similar process for Inkscape extensions.)
But I can't start on it, at least until the forum situation is settled.
So I was thinking, if there would be some way to allow anyone to vet tutorials,
which either are already uploaded, or which they want to upload; then anyone who
wants to could get started already.
I wrote some brief guidelines, which I thought to upload to both
tutorial pages (text and video) (or maybe combine both pages into just the
vetting guidelines page). However, in some discussion with Maren about moving
forward with the plan, we've realized that this can't be done without some
somewhat significant changes to the website.
(For the record, when I say "we" it doesn't mean both of us are in favor
of doing this. She actually isn't in favor of it, but is still helping figure
out if it could be done, and how.)
We can't have a tag such as "vetted" or "approved" for tutorials,
because anyone, just anyone, could add such a tag, whether they actually have
read or viewed or worked through the tutorial or not. Theoretically, even
spammers could use it. Theoretically, if there's a way to disallow tags, maybe
certain words should be disallowed, like "approved" for example.
So there needs to be a way to either make a particular tag/filter
("vetted" or "approved" or other) available only for certain people, or only
make it available for a certain user group. In discussions with Maren (who
knows more about the inner workings of the website than I do), there doesn't
seem to be any way to make any certain tags available (or not available) for
only certain people to use.
But there does seem to be some functionality, which has been planned
for, but not actually functioning yet, to allow for resource uploads to be
approved. Maren says that we have 2 database fields, called 'checked_by'
(person) and 'checked_sig' (person's signature), which are specifically created
for approving uploads. She suggests making a bug/wishlist report to request
these fields be defined (and made functional).
I would suggest attaching them to the Inkscape User account (or some
other account which can be used for this). And then we would just give people
who are interested in vetting tutorials (or other resources), access to that
account. So question for Martin.
Before I make the bug report, is there some reason why it would be a
waste of time for tutorials? Could this be done before the forum issue is
settled? Because if not, by then I'll be able to start on the vetting process
that I've already been planning (see link to bug report above). But if it could
be done before then, then other people could start vetting tutorials that I
might not have even seen yet. (I've been putting off my twice yearly update of
that page, while working on the new forum issue. So certainly there are plenty
I haven't seen yet.)
Or is there some other reason why this plan would not work? Or should
something else be included in the report (in case I'm not understanding
something correctly?
Thanks for any comments,
brynn
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Inkscape-docs mailing list
Inkscape-docs@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-docs
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Inkscape-docs mailing list
Inkscape-docs@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-docs
