Re: [sword-devel] CrossWire wiki vandalism?
Eeli Kaikkonen wrote: > Quoting DM Smith : > >> If necessary I can add captcha to every edit and to every page creation. > > Please, never! I'll stop using wiki at that phase. > I second Eeli here. I wonder further whether it might simply make more sense to restrict account creation and make it require human involvement from our side. One of the really easily implemented ways of doing this would be restriction of all editing to someone who has SysOp status, but then make everyone bonafide a SysOp. The privileges of SysSop are so limited (and can IIRC be made more limited) that I would have little fear that it could result in problems. You might want to widen then the circle of buerocrats in turn to avoid a logjam. The Wiki is good for us because it allows easy editing by a wide circle of people. But there is no logical reason that this wide circle includes everyone recently walked off the street. It is meant for people who contribute in a valid way somehwere in the project. Peter ___ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
Re: [sword-devel] Concerns about Alternate Versification
If I understand you right, this makes sense. I was thinking of this earlier in the discussion, but the fog of dengue fever has kept me from responding. As someone who frequently uses different languages in parallel, I feel that exact correspondence of verse to verse would be nice but not necessary. One learns to accept that versification, even in Protestant translations and certainly with ancient versions, varies in places, and so one adjusts. I love the way some frontends display versions in parallel, but my ideal would be to have Bible text windows synchronized the way BibleTime does with commentaries. That way you can preserve paragraph and poetic breaks. Add to that the ability to view more than one chapter at a time, and you'll have reached my ideal (not that I am the authority!). As regards alternative versification in general, I'm so eager to have it (as a module developer) that the two/three stage process sounds more than reasonable. I do think that whatever approach is adopted, the verse numbers that appear on the screen to the user should be the same numbers as those of the printed text. What goes on under the hood to aide in parallel display matters little to the user, but they want to go to Daniel 2:72 and see a number 72 (or to Isaiah 8:23 in the Vietnamese Protestant translations, which currently is reversified as 8:22, and find the number 23). Daniel -Original Message- From: "Peter von Kaehne" To: "SWORD Developers' Collaboration Forum" Sent: 1/7/09 3:55 PM Subject: Re: [sword-devel] Concerns about Alternate Versification As an aside - the simplest way to deal with alternate versification and parallel display would be to decouple (at least potentially) parallel column displays. Poeple who deal regularly with translations which use diverging versificatins are probably well aware of the versification differences and can adjust (particularly if the parallel display actually allows such manual adjustment. This would/could also (theoretically) allow to look at parallel texts within one translation - e.g. a story in Mattew and Luke. ___ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page ___ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
Re: [sword-devel] CrossWire wiki vandalism?
I agree with Eeli and Peter. We should not make the bar too high for genuine CrossWire community members. -- David Peter von Kaehne wrote: > > Eeli Kaikkonen wrote: >> Quoting DM Smith : >> >>> If necessary I can add captcha to every edit and to every page creation. >> >> Please, never! I'll stop using wiki at that phase. >> > > I second Eeli here. > > I wonder further whether it might simply make more sense to restrict > account creation and make it require human involvement from our side. > > One of the really easily implemented ways of doing this would be > restriction of all editing to someone who has SysOp status, but then > make everyone bonafide a SysOp. > > The privileges of SysSop are so limited (and can IIRC be made more > limited) that I would have little fear that it could result in problems. > You might want to widen then the circle of buerocrats in turn to avoid a > logjam. > > The Wiki is good for us because it allows easy editing by a wide circle > of people. But there is no logical reason that this wide circle includes > everyone recently walked off the street. It is meant for people who > contribute in a valid way somehwere in the project. > > Peter > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/CrossWire-wiki-vandalism--tp21299055p21349577.html Sent from the SWORD Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
Re: [sword-devel] Versification/Encoding Issues
As for spelling, and as a fascinating learning experience, pick up your printed KJV Bible and examine the spelling of the word "ankle[s]" in Ezekiel 47:3 and Acts 3:7. Some editions have "ancle", others have "ankle". Ostensibly both streams are based on the Authorised Version of 1769. So Peter's advice is spot on. -- David Peter von Kaehne wrote: > > > The consensus is that any module should be a faithful representation of > the underlying printed text. > > The word "spirt" appears unfamiliar but is listed in dictionaries and > presumably applicable in this situation. > > http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=z3kKIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA688&lpg=RA1-PA688&dq=to+spirt&source=web&ots=r2DFi9xSrf&sig=-D3ScFVjY-OJZDhCqlVVyJ27jJc&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result > > As the word exists and means what must have been meant I would take this > as a useful learning experience that casual "correction" of texts is a > dangerous undertaking. > > Yours in Him > > Peter > > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Versification-Encoding-Issues-tp21341395p21349766.html Sent from the SWORD Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
Re: [sword-devel] CrossWire wiki vandalism?
On Jan 8, 2009, at 1:22 AM, Eeli Kaikkonen wrote: Quoting DM Smith : I have learned more about wikis and fighting spam than I ever wanted to;) I have recently learned (read), to my surprise, that "captchas" are not a final solution. Spammers have already used human resources - in cheap developing countries, of course - to break them. Image recognition have become better and better and is ready to break visual traps. Captchas may be very annoying. Last time I used one I got furious because I couldn't be sure what was there and I had to retry several times. If it's used in every edit it surely may block some spam but it also prevents valid edits because it raises the bar too high. The idea of a wiki should be that it's easy and fast. I have one CrossWire-specific trick in mind, but I don't know if it's too much work and how it could be implemented. There could be a small quiz, for example 4 questions with 4 multiple choices. The answers could be found in our FAQ. If the questions and choices are put there in random order it would prevent any non-human cracking, and the quiz would ensure that the user is determined enough to know something about us. I'll keep this in mind. My strategy is to be minimally invasive. If I can find a better method than captchas I'll replace it. There is a math version of the captcha, which might be better than what I have in place. BTW, I don't know php and at this point I am not interested in learning php. There are more interesting things for me to do. Chris, Peter and I watch edits daily, acting as an informal editorial board. We catch spam generally within a few hours. So the value of captchas is that it further minimizes junk from being seen by others and the also work we have to do to keep it clean. New as of today: 3) A user agent string is necessary to view the wiki. Without it a 503, forbidden will be generated. I hope this gives also a message telling the reason. Otherwise some valid users may be blocked without they knowing why. I agree, but I don't have it in place yet. I've installed reCaptcha, which gives the user a choice of visual and auditory captchas. I chose this one based on a much earlier thread that expressed the concern that it be friendly to handicapped users. The default implementation requires captcha for the following: 4) Creation of new accounts. This is fair, but see above. I think most of the new accounts are automated as the account name have a well defined pattern of "AbcdeFghijk". You are welcomed to try it out. When you get to the login screen, click on the new account creation link to see reCaptcha. When it comes up, it gives two hard to read words, but has a button to generate new ones (which I generally click about 3 times before I can read both words), a toggle to flip between text and audio. I don't have an mp3 codec on my machine so I haven't tried it. 5) Adding an external URL to a page. (Let me know if this gets in the way. I can turn it off.) Have the spammers put external urls there? Most of the wiki spam I have seen has been incomprehensible gibberish. Also, if creation of new accounts is already protected, I don't know how this helps any more. If spammers can create accounts they can create links, too. Yes spammers have been putting in external urls to drug and porn sites. Lately, perhaps for the last year or so, most, maybe all, of the spam edits have been to insert gibberish. This is the only default that I'm not sure I like. A few of our active wiki writers add external links on a regular basis. These are very constructive and I don't want to discourage them. To turn it off just takes a couple of minutes. 6) Failed login attempts (purpose is to foil automated password cracking). Fair enough. If necessary I can add captcha to every edit and to every page creation. Please, never! I'll stop using wiki at that phase. These are available captcha hooks. I don't like them. I don't see us needing them, as we keep on top of the edits. In Christ, DM ___ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
Re: [sword-devel] CrossWire wiki vandalism?
I'm mostly happy with everything that's been implemented & suggested. There are only a couple of things I might do differently (probably based on my own behavior on the wiki combined with our universal hatred of actually facing captchas): DM Smith wrote: 5) Adding an external URL to a page. (Let me know if this gets in the way. I can turn it off.) This I would probably have left off. We did have problems with link spam, but not for a while now. Now it's mostly gibberish. I can't even remember the last time I saw link spam. If necessary I can add captcha to every edit and to every page creation. Every edit would be bad (and I think that's what everyone was up in arms against). On the other hand, every page creation would seem like a good time to show a captcha. Legitimate page creations are relatively few & far between, but spammers create them often. --Chris ___ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
Re: [sword-devel] Spelling (was Versification/Encoding issues)
On issue 4, spelling:
I've taken everyone's advice on spelling to heart, I will try to remain true to
the original text copy.
> As for spelling, and as a fascinating learning experience, pick up your
> printed KJV Bible and examine the spelling of the word "ankle[s]" in Ezekiel
> 47:3 and Acts 3:7.
>
> Some editions have "ancle", others have
> "ankle".
>
> Ostensibly both streams are based on the Authorised Version
> of 1769. So
> Peter's advice is spot on.
>
> -- David
That's interesting, because ancle is one of the words I corrected in JSFB --
the OCR had ancle, but the PDF itself, my paper KJV copy, and my JPS complete
Tanach (individual volumes) had ankle... I can't say what verse it was, at the
time I was hunting for e's that had been OCR'd into c's (search for 'regular
expression' [bcdfghjklmnpqrstvwxy]c[bcdfgjklmnpqrstvwx] in kwrite)
On the subject, but in an opposing view, if you look at the 1611 text of the
KJV, you'll note that some ~50% of the words are spelled different from what we
call call the "King James Version" today, but it doesn't really seem to matter.
Read for example the 23rd psalm, It is still (or originally) the same as what
we know and memorize in Sunday school at age 9, regardless of the spelling. I
don't remember the spelling when I recite.
KJV1611 23rd pfalme
http://www.us.archive.org/GnuBook/?id=holybiblefacsimi00polluoft#804
(there's a zoom button in the upper left margin, it is readable at 50% )
(**)-see further note below.
Since the 1769 version is still called the "King James" and they both read
largely the same, I'd say the spelling is not as important as the word (as
pronounced). And even then, a good number of words have been 'updated' from the
1611 copy in the 1769 'true' KJV.
I've taken everyone's advice on spelling to heart, I will try to remain true to
the original text copy.
That said, If you look at the quality of the Jewish School and Family Bible
scans, you will see that I'm up against a mammoth task just getting a readable
text, much less one that is letter-exact. About 10%-20% of the words were
mis-interpreted by the OCR. I've managed to reverse engineer the OCR process
and repair the meaning of most words. That is, an OCR interprets the same font
the same way most of the time, so what may appear to be gibberish in the OCR
output can be repaired by careful examination of the OCR errors. For example,
in JSFB, the italicized words are generally simple short modifier words: the,
of , to, etc. The OCR did poorly at interpreting these words, but it did do a
fair job of being repeatable in how it interpreted them ("of" turned into o/*
or o/' or o/".) I've done countless search and replace for things like V/ ->
W, etc to restore the characters to readable text. What I've got now matches
the PDF for 95+% of my random checks,
with mostly missing letters and punctuation for most mismatches now. (and no
I'm not trying to keep italicized words.. plain text only. )
Additionally, In the JSFB, verses are marked in the margins only. I am
restoring the verse indicators to the verse divisions. In volume 1 this is
easy, because the verse divisions appear as asterisks. (Don't ask me why, I
don't see any divisions in the PDF, but they are there in the 2nd copy of
volume 1 on the archive ( http://www.archive.org/details/schoolfamilybibl01beni
) In the other volumes, the verse division is generally the nearest punctuation
mark, but not always. The "not always" part gets tricky. I'm referring to the
JSFB PDF, A hardcopy KJV, and a JPS new Tanach to see.
Additionally, the JSFB has copious foot notes on each page (average 10 notes a
page). I'm unable to devise a capture technique for the notes on this revision,
so these are being tossed. The footnote markers are presenting another level of
special problem, in that they mess with the word they're attached to.
After all these issues, I by myself, will never be able to certify the correct
spelling of each word from this witness, and that isn't my intention, because
there is so much more to do. I'm semi-dyslexic anyway, so editing would never
be my strong point. This work has a different (unique to me anyway) approach to
translation, (uses "The Eternal" For the tetragrammation, for example) that
seems to be interesting enough to study, and I study in bibletime or bible
desktop, so I want it there.
The years 2002-2008 were explosive for online texts. Over 1 million books now
reside at the Internet Archive alone, and Google was a bigger (but more recent)
operation. However, The bubble is over. The rate of books going online will
drop significantly due to Microsoft dropping its program, and Google settling
the lawsuits against it by the publishing industry.
It is my belief that these texts (especially Judaeo-Christian texts) may not
always be readily available online, so there is a limited window while they are
being offered for free download to snag what you can
Re: [sword-devel] Spelling (was Versification/Encoding issues)
Mike Hart wrote: > That's interesting, because ancle is one of the words I corrected in > JSFB -- the OCR had ancle, but the PDF itself, my paper KJV copy, and > my JPS complete Tanach (individual volumes) had ankle... I can't say > what verse it was, at the time I was hunting for e's that had been > OCR'd into c's (search for 'regular expression' > [bcdfghjklmnpqrstvwxy]c[bcdfgjklmnpqrstvwx] in kwrite) You should have a look at Troy's work with tesseract. Rather than search and replace a text badly ocred he seems to have figured out how to "educate" tesseract with one or two sample pages until it does the right thing. That might be way easier and with a better outcome in the long term for you too. Peter ___ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
[sword-devel] Wiki changes
I've gotten the old url's to the wiki to redirect to the new location. For example: www.crosswire.org/wiki/index.php/XXX will redirect to www.crosswire.org/wiki/XXX where XXX is the name of a page. If you noticed some odd behavior in the wiki, it was due to my figuring it out. Let me know if you find anything that needs to be fixed or changed in the wiki. By the way, in looking at the logs I can see that there have been hundreds of attempts at spamming the wiki today. None got through. In Him, DM ___ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
[sword-devel] Sword Library on Windows Without Requiring Cygwin
Hi, For BibleMemorizer, I am attempting to create Windows binaries. I would like to have a working Windows binary of Sword. However, the only build I was successful in creating was using Cygwin, in which case I get undefined reference errors if I don't link with the Cygwin DLL. I tried using --host=i686-pc-mingw32, but it didn't make a difference. I also tried building against straight MinGW with MSYS, but for some reason almost everything I do in MSYS results in sh.exe segfaulting, which means something is wrong with my install, even though I followed the instructions on the MinGW site. It might actually be easiest if someone has a pre-built .a library for Sword. Otherwise, is there something I'm missing in ./configure in order for it to build a non-Cygwin dependent binary? Or are there better/easier instructions for setting up MSYS than http://www.mingw.org/wiki/msys ? I found that process quite cumbersome, and the resulting setup simply doesn't work. (I failed to compile autoconf with the same problems Sword gave me.) I have never really compiled anything on Windows not using Visual Studio, unless I was using Cygwin and didn't care if it linked the DLL. (The vast majority of my experience is on Linux, and the rest on Mac OS X which is similar.) However, for distribution, I would prefer not to have to link it. Also, where does the Windows version of Sword look for modules by default? -Jeremy Erickson ___ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
Re: [sword-devel] Sword Library on Windows Without Requiring Cygwin
It's all in how the gcc linker for cygwin works. Just pass it the option -mnocygwin (or something similar, like -mno-cygwin) and it won't require the cygwin.dll anymore. If that's not exact, just search online for it or through the man pages. I did the same thing for a while. --Greg On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 9:59 PM, Jeremy Erickson wrote: > Hi, >For BibleMemorizer, I am attempting to create Windows binaries. I > would like > to have a working Windows binary of Sword. However, the only build I was > successful in creating was using Cygwin, in which case I get undefined > reference errors if I don't link with the Cygwin DLL. I tried > using --host=i686-pc-mingw32, but it didn't make a difference. I also tried > building against straight MinGW with MSYS, but for some reason almost > everything I do in MSYS results in sh.exe segfaulting, which means something > is wrong with my install, even though I followed the instructions on the > MinGW site. >It might actually be easiest if someone has a pre-built .a library for > Sword. > Otherwise, is there something I'm missing in ./configure in order for it to > build a non-Cygwin dependent binary? Or are there better/easier instructions > for setting up MSYS than http://www.mingw.org/wiki/msys ? I found that > process quite cumbersome, and the resulting setup simply doesn't work. (I > failed to compile autoconf with the same problems Sword gave me.) >I have never really compiled anything on Windows not using Visual > Studio, > unless I was using Cygwin and didn't care if it linked the DLL. (The vast > majority of my experience is on Linux, and the rest on Mac OS X which is > similar.) However, for distribution, I would prefer not to have to link it. >Also, where does the Windows version of Sword look for modules by > default? > > -Jeremy Erickson > > ___ > sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org > http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel > Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page > ___ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
