Re: [Wikisource-l] Better way to validate pages
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 6:52 PM, Alex Brollo wrote: > IMHO, even if I'm testing the BGB as a personal script, I'm not satisfied > by it, since - ironically - I don't agree fully with Andrea: I think that a > good look to wiki code is mandatory, I want to see if transclusion codes > are OK, I want see templates and their use and so on. Unexperienced but > interested users need to look at code to learn by example. Often > experienced users need too (but they are aware of such a need). I see this discussion is going on, so let me draw an example I think it fits. Take Linux, and take Windows/Apple. If you wanted people to learn how a computer works, you give them Linux. They will have to face issues, and solve them. The will use the command line, understand a bit of architecture, and some of them will become professional and use these skills for work. If, on the other hand, you want people just to use a computer, and do stuff with it, you give them Windows/Apple. It's simpler, it hides complexity, is made for being used and not understood. There are drawbacks in using Windows or Apple, of course. Beside privacy and freedom factors (they are not important, in this metaphor) you just learn less, using them. But there are drawbacks in giving people Linux too: sometimes, people just don't want to learn how to use a computer. they just want to use it. --- I think that showing the wikicode is a crucial factor in assessing the quality of the page. It's prabably a very good idea to make it mandatory for the page validation. AT THE SAME TIME, I am pretty convinced that we must not think that all Wikisource readers want to understand how Wikisource works, and are all potential Wikisource editors. I think that we can aim for them to read Wikisource, and sometimes correct a typo, if it's really easy and straightforward and quick. But they come to Wikisource to read books, not to learn hot correct books on Wikisource. It's a crucial difference. Can we harness the simple fact that they are reading a text and give them a quick tool to fix typos when they see it? I hope so. I believe many people would use such a tool (if we make it good enough). I don't believe that maintaining the barrier high because we want editors to learn by themselves is a very good idea, if we want Wikisource to be a place with a lot of good books to read. For me, it goes like this: Lot of correct books > lots of readers > lots of potential users It's a feedback loop and we want it to go in the right direction. Community building is very important too, but at the same time I don't see a conflict in letting users do the good of Wikisource (correcting a typo) even if they do not become expert users. Wikisource is still too complicated, and this is one of the reasons we don't have big communities. Aubrey ___ Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Re: [Wikisource-l] Better way to validate pages
IMHO, even if I'm testing the BGB as a personal script, I'm not satisfied by it, since - ironically - I don't agree fully with Andrea: I think that a good look to wiki code is mandatory, I want to see if transclusion codes are OK, I want see templates and their use and so on. Unexperienced but interested users need to look at code to learn by example. Often experienced users need too (but they are aware of such a need). It would be great IMHO that the raw code of the page would be uploaded by default into some system variable in view mode too, so that it can be reviewed immediately by a click. It is a really simple job to do by javascript, but I think that wiki code should be uploaded by default/by an extension. I think that server and browser load would be very low. Alex 2015-08-17 15:07 GMT+02:00 Erasmo Barresi : > Hum... why should these "button validations" count less, so that four or > five of them are needed to change the page status? Certainly not because > "the code is not being checked", since the code stays unchecked no matter > how many "button validations" are done. > Possibly it would be better if the button(s) opened a flyout telling users > what to do: create an account if they do not have one yet, then click edit, > [correct what's wrong,] change the page status and save. I think it is > better that new users begin to take part in the main editing workflow > rather than operating on a separate one that is designed for them. > > Whether to make the _next_ page appear after saving is entirely another > question, and one to which I would answer "yes". This cannot be done for > the very last page of an index, of course. > > Erasmo > > > Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 15:46:31 +0200 > > From: Andrea Zanni > > To: "discussion list for Wikisource, the free library" > > > > Subject: Re: [Wikisource-l] Better way to validate pages > > Message-ID: > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 2:06 PM, zdzislaw > wrote: > > > > > In the view mode of the yellow Pages (sic! :-)), we can add the "Thin > (but > > > long) Green Button" (TGB) described: "I read and carefully compared the > > > contents with the scan - there's no mistakes." :) Users who "DO read > our > > > books" (and they do not want / do not have time / skills... to edit) > click > > > on this button and simply go to the view mode of the next page. Such a > > > click would be counted (extra field in the mw database), but did not > cause > > > an immediate change of the Page status. If for a given page will be > counted > > > three??, four?? such clicks (this amount would have to have the > ability to > > > configure for each WS - community could determine their "quality > threshold" > > > - for "one click" it will became into BGB), then the Page status would > > > change automatically from "yellow" to "green". Of course, it would be > also > > > configurable, to whom show TGB (ip, registered, autopotrolled ...). > > > Such a solution would have be implemented directly in the proofread > > > extension. > > > "TGB" would allow adjustment of the level of "quality" and would be > > > acceptable by most the community. If it is true that " a lot of users > DO > > > read our books," even for 5-4 "clicks" the status would change quickly. > > > > > > > > I do like this approach, and I'd love to see some tests. > > I really believe that is good to do tests and experiments, as we are > > sometimes convinced by things that are not really proven. > > > > A 3 step validation passage as you suggest could maybe be easy enough for > > new users and casual readers, and we could gain some validations we could > > not have had otherwise. > > > > > > I also would like to repeat my question about the Visual Editor: are we > > close tho that or nobody is working on it? > > > > Aubrey > > ___ > Wikisource-l mailing list > Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l > > ___ Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Re: [Wikisource-l] Better way to validate pages
Hum... why should these "button validations" count less, so that four or five of them are needed to change the page status? Certainly not because "the code is not being checked", since the code stays unchecked no matter how many "button validations" are done. Possibly it would be better if the button(s) opened a flyout telling users what to do: create an account if they do not have one yet, then click edit, [correct what's wrong,] change the page status and save. I think it is better that new users begin to take part in the main editing workflow rather than operating on a separate one that is designed for them. Whether to make the _next_ page appear after saving is entirely another question, and one to which I would answer "yes". This cannot be done for the very last page of an index, of course. Erasmo > Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 15:46:31 +0200 > From: Andrea Zanni > To: "discussion list for Wikisource, the free library" > > Subject: Re: [Wikisource-l] Better way to validate pages > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 2:06 PM, zdzislaw wrote: > > > In the view mode of the yellow Pages (sic! :-)), we can add the "Thin (but > > long) Green Button" (TGB) described: "I read and carefully compared the > > contents with the scan - there's no mistakes." :) Users who "DO read our > > books" (and they do not want / do not have time / skills... to edit) click > > on this button and simply go to the view mode of the next page. Such a > > click would be counted (extra field in the mw database), but did not cause > > an immediate change of the Page status. If for a given page will be counted > > three??, four?? such clicks (this amount would have to have the ability to > > configure for each WS - community could determine their "quality threshold" > > - for "one click" it will became into BGB), then the Page status would > > change automatically from "yellow" to "green". Of course, it would be also > > configurable, to whom show TGB (ip, registered, autopotrolled ...). > > Such a solution would have be implemented directly in the proofread > > extension. > > "TGB" would allow adjustment of the level of "quality" and would be > > acceptable by most the community. If it is true that " a lot of users DO > > read our books," even for 5-4 "clicks" the status would change quickly. > > > > > I do like this approach, and I'd love to see some tests. > I really believe that is good to do tests and experiments, as we are > sometimes convinced by things that are not really proven. > > A 3 step validation passage as you suggest could maybe be easy enough for > new users and casual readers, and we could gain some validations we could > not have had otherwise. > > > I also would like to repeat my question about the Visual Editor: are we > close tho that or nobody is working on it? > > Aubrey ___ Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
