I frequently work offline on he.wikisource. I download the entire pdf file
from commons to my hard drive, and OCR the page I need myself. One can use
the OCR of wikisource and download the text too, I guess, page by page.
Then I proof the text in a Word document, open to the lower half of my
screen, with the pdf open on the upper half of the screen, where I go to
the page I need with acrobat reader, and scroll both windows down or up as
needed.
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 11:21 AM, mathieu stumpf guntz <
psychosl...@culture-libre.org> wrote:
> Le 24/03/2018 à 16:22, billinghurst a écrit :
>
> Though that would defeat the purpose of online proofreading with account
> verification. Some of the true value of our online process is that
> contribution builds a level of trust and knowledge and that is reflected in
> both our patrolling and the allocation of autopatrolled status.
>
> How providing tools to make batch work offline would interfere in anyway
> with that? Once the work is done, it can be uploaded to Wikisource with
> whichever account the user want.
>
> Actually, to my mind, the main benefit of the online aspect is the peer to
> peer production model. Also there is no need of a central node carrying
> accounts to take into account the trust given to a particular contributor.
> There is digital signature technologies such as gpg for example. Having a
> central node with a web interface just makes things easier for most users,
> it doesn't improve the trustability of the environment. On the contrary,
> with a single point of failure, we actually rely on a weaker solution on
> this regard.
>
> Also how would you have access to templates, and components like that
> from off-line?
>
> Well, that just show how innefecient are this tools to continue to
> contribute while being offline. It's allways possible to install Mediawiki
> and download required templates, but currently this process seems way to
> complicated, doesn't it.
>
>
> Also we generally cannot download the images separately as that is usually
> part of the later clean-up where people have the technical skills.
>
> I'm afraid the term "image" misguided your answer. It's seems you
> interpreted that as picture elements from files, while I was talking about
> this files themselves.
>
> So yes, there is the capacity to have the text and proofread the text,
> that actual checking the text against the image is not the sole component
> of proofreading, and further it would not be at all helpful for validation.
>
> There is nothing magic about working directly in a browser. People do
> download and upload all the required material anyway, but on a page per
> page base. The result is just as valid as it is done when transactions are
> operated on a file repository level.
>
> Cheers
>
> ___
> 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
