Re: [Wikisource-l] Better way to validate pages
2015-08-17 19:12 GMT+02:00 Andrea Zanni : > *Wikisource is still too complicated*, and this is one of the reasons we > don't have big communities. > > IMHO what is really complicated is, the last step of digitalization (OCR review + formatting), it's almost impossible to simplify what is intrinsically complex. Do you know the Distributed Proofreaders approach to split such an intrinsic complexity into many steps? Nevertheless, there's a wide range of complexity - some text being very simple (i.e. novels), other being extremely difficult (ancient books, theatre, scientific textbooks); perhaps the degree of complexity could be evaluated and explicitely stated, both by automatic scripts (page length + no. of templates + no. of unicode, non-ASCII characters) and by expert users. BGB should be used in very simple texts only. Alex ___ 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
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
Re: [Wikisource-l] Better way to validate pages
I like also the idea of more than one click to go from yellow to green. > I also would like to repeat my question about the Visual Editor: are we close tho that or nobody is working on it? Sadly nobody is working on it: I have not moved forward on it since London hackathon and nobody else have started to work on it. I won't commit to do it anytime soon. I don't have the free month to work on it fulltime and it is definitly not a task you do during evenings or week-ends. Cheers, Thomas Le 14 août 2015 6:46 AM, "Andrea Zanni" a écrit : > > 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
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
Re: [Wikisource-l] Better way to validate pages
It is clear from this discussion that we have very different practices in the various language subdomains. My experience is that oftentimes on the English Wikisource you just have to mark paragraph breaks and remove line breaks and extra spaces around punctuation marks, and you can already save the page as "Proofread". More often than not the validator will have nothing to correct, since the OCR was already perfect, which is unsurprising given that OCR software (or any software, for that matter) is generally designed for the English language, with little regard to languages that use additional letters or diacritics (not to talk about writing systems other than the Latin alphabet). On the Italian Wikisource the blue button means "Completely transcribed but not formatted" (not "Problematic"), while the yellow button means "Completely transcribed and formatted". So in theory an inexperienced user could choose to just transcribe a page and let it be formatted by someone else. In practice this rarely happens and the workflow for most pages is similar to the English Wikisource's usual practice, although Italian-language texts, especially medieval or Renaissance ones, tend to have more OCR errors. It looks like on the Polish Wikisource they use the red (or blue?) button, not the yellow one, upon creation, while still proofreading the text of the page. So they end up doing three proofreadings overall, which has the obvious benefit of higher accuracy, especially since they seem to have bad OCR support, with the added difficulty that some of the words with typos happen to be real words and therefore not spotted by spellcheckers. It would be nice to know if other Wikisources take even different approaches. And maybe we could make an attempt to unify them? Taking everyone's issues and concerns into account, that is. Regarding the initial topic of this thread: Pressing the edit button, checking for errors, marking the page as validated, saving, and going on to the page was not a problem for me as a beginner (though since the font in text boxes is not very pleasant to the eye, I would begin checking for errors in view mode and enter the edit mode only upon spotting the first error). Rather, it allowed me to learn the markup little by little (like paragraph breaks, the use of for lines of verse, or the purpose of colons at the beginning of a line). Erasmo Barresi > Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 11:11:00 +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" > > I read a lot of misunderstanding here, > probably due to the fact that none of us are native speaker. > > @Wiera Lee: please, please, please, don't shout. > This is a civil discussion. What Alex did is just a button that you double > click and you go directly in the Edit mode. Nothing more, and only I have > it. It's *definitely not a final decision of any kind*. > So the message you sent earlier is simply not true. So we can restart a > nice conversation :-D > > @Lugusto thanks for sharing your experience. > I probably said the wrong "color", in this discussion: green. > > That is not necesseraly what I really want (of course I thought about > validation at the beginning of the thread). > What I really really want is > * a simpler life for our readers > * a way to harness/tap/exploit the simple fact that a lot of users DO read > our books, but never correct anything. > > What I really want is a very very quick way, for a user, to correct a typo > WHEN she sees it. > > Maybe we could do a BIG YELLOW BUTTON (meaning 75%), or maybe we can simply > find *another* way for a user to signal the simple fact that we correct a > typo or similar. > My fear is that Wikisource is way to complicated, and a lot of people read > our texts, and they could help us but we are too complicated to let them. > Can we try to solve this? > > Aubrey > > > > On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 8:58 AM, Nicolas VIGNERON < > vigneron.nico...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 2015-08-12 7:00 GMT+02:00 Alex Brollo : > > > >> Please don't presume that such a controversial tool hase been implemented > >> anywhere . "running" only means that che code can run; presently only > >> *one* user (Aubrey) can click it, just to test it. > >> > >> Alex > >> > > > > I asked on the frws scriptorium, if the community wants to test it on frws > > ( > > https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Scriptorium/Ao%C3%BBt_2015#Big_green_button > > ). I'll ask on brws too (but I&
Re: [Wikisource-l] Better way to validate pages
Hello Andrea, 2015-08-12 10:11 GMT+01:00 Andrea Zanni : > I read a lot of misunderstanding here, > What Alex did is just a button that you > double click and you go directly in the Edit mode. Nothing more, and such a method of BGB implementation (directly in the edit mode of the Page), makes my earlier concerns "that is not safe to validate a page without reviewing its wikicode" disappear :), but ... this only improves a little bit the comfort of "validation", and, as I understand, it is not the answer to your needs... > What I really really want is > * a simpler life for our readers > * a way to harness/tap/exploit the simple fact that a lot of users > DO read our books, but never correct anything. "to harness/tap/exploit the simple fact that a lot of users DO read our books" I propose the following modification of the idea of BGB (modeled on the reCAPTCHA): 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. > What I really want is a very very quick way, for a user, to correct a typo > WHEN she sees it. Maybe the Thin Blue Button (TBB) described: "I noticed an error on the page, but I do not want / do not have time / I do not know how/ to edit" which would block the TGB and such Page must be "validated" in the standard way? Maybe the TBB in the future could redirect "the reader" to Visuals Editor? ... Z. ___ 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
I read a lot of misunderstanding here, probably due to the fact that none of us are native speaker. @Wiera Lee: please, please, please, don't shout. This is a civil discussion. What Alex did is just a button that you double click and you go directly in the Edit mode. Nothing more, and only I have it. It's *definitely not a final decision of any kind*. So the message you sent earlier is simply not true. So we can restart a nice conversation :-D @Lugusto thanks for sharing your experience. I probably said the wrong "color", in this discussion: green. That is not necesseraly what I really want (of course I thought about validation at the beginning of the thread). What I really really want is * a simpler life for our readers * a way to harness/tap/exploit the simple fact that a lot of users DO read our books, but never correct anything. What I really want is a very very quick way, for a user, to correct a typo WHEN she sees it. Maybe we could do a BIG YELLOW BUTTON (meaning 75%), or maybe we can simply find *another* way for a user to signal the simple fact that we correct a typo or similar. My fear is that Wikisource is way to complicated, and a lot of people read our texts, and they could help us but we are too complicated to let them. Can we try to solve this? Aubrey On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 8:58 AM, Nicolas VIGNERON < vigneron.nico...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2015-08-12 7:00 GMT+02:00 Alex Brollo : > >> Please don't presume that such a controversial tool hase been implemented >> anywhere . "running" only means that che code can run; presently only >> *one* user (Aubrey) can click it, just to test it. >> >> Alex >> > > I asked on the frws scriptorium, if the community wants to test it on frws > ( > https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Scriptorium/Ao%C3%BBt_2015#Big_green_button > ). I'll ask on brws too (but I'll be away). > > *You* (dear reader on this mail) can ask *your* community if *you* want > this tool or not and how. Nothing has been decided and certainly not in > your place. > > @Luiz : there is some very good ideas in your mail. If the code works for > green, surely it could be adapt easily for yellow. > You have a contention on orthographyon ptws? Can you provide the links? > (I'd like to know more as the only convention on frws is to do as the text > does) > > Cdlt, ~nicolas > > ___ > 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
2015-08-12 7:00 GMT+02:00 Alex Brollo : > Please don't presume that such a controversial tool hase been implemented > anywhere . "running" only means that che code can run; presently only > *one* user (Aubrey) can click it, just to test it. > > Alex > I asked on the frws scriptorium, if the community wants to test it on frws ( https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Scriptorium/Ao%C3%BBt_2015#Big_green_button ). I'll ask on brws too (but I'll be away). *You* (dear reader on this mail) can ask *your* community if *you* want this tool or not and how. Nothing has been decided and certainly not in your place. @Luiz : there is some very good ideas in your mail. If the code works for green, surely it could be adapt easily for yellow. You have a contention on orthographyon ptws? Can you provide the links? (I'd like to know more as the only convention on frws is to do as the text does) Cdlt, ~nicolas ___ 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
Please don't presume that such a controversial tool hase been implemented
anywhere . "running" only means that che code can run; presently only
*one* user (Aubrey) can click it, just to test it.
Alex
2015-08-12 2:24 GMT+02:00 Wiera Lee :
> Luiz Augusto: "Rough but runing code of BGB is ready".
>
> This is not a discussion. They had decided.
>
>
> We can change nothing. Well... Why go to Vienna?
> Wieralee
>
> 2015-08-12 1:26 GMT+02:00 Luiz Augusto :
>
>> ("Didn't read the entire thread; too long" warning)
>>
>> I must agree with PL folks: the BGB isn't an improvement. Probably the
>> OCR quality is great on English, Italian and French for doing such thing,
>> but it certainly isn't also for Portuguese (PT).
>>
>> A good improvement will be if a Yellow Big Button wold be implemented.
>> Maybe you don't find it useful, as many pages are reviewed on creation, but
>> it is because we, experienced users, do it in this way.
>>
>> Simply putting an Index page or an external link to get the digitization
>> is the worst thing we currently do.
>>
>> Why not our bots starts extracting all and every pages, to make Page
>> namespace working in similar way that Google Book Search works (you can
>> choose if you need to browse on image view or OCR view on that platform).
>> If a random Internet user goes to Wikisource after doing a Web search due
>> to the correct recognized portion of text (as he go to GBS), he can start
>> immediately to fix the OCR and, voila! A new user just discovered an
>> ancient text and a promising website that collects ancient texts!
>>
>> This approach makes sense on attracting new user and presenting how to
>> work on Wikisource, and not downgrading our compromise to flag pages fully
>> reviewed.
>>
>> Side note: Portuguese language still is "unstable" on orthography and how
>> to spell words. From time to time we change our conventions (Brazil and
>> Portugal are yet implementing the Acordo Ortográfico de 1990 and some are
>> arguing on a new one change). PD-old digitizations came in A VERY OLD
>> ORTHOGRAPHY CONVENTION. Creating the Big Green Button will make us unable
>> to do a last check if the wikitext follows the way that words are on
>> digitization or in the current way of writing. So, it isn't an improvement,
>> only a trouble finding.
>>
>> [[User:555]]
>> Em 11/08/2015 7:09 PM, "Alex Brollo" escreveu:
>>
>>> Rough but running code of BGB is ready, and Andrea can test it to find
>>> bugs and/or drawbacks by now, if he likes.
>>>
>>> To lower the risk of a nonsense-click, BGB should pop out after some
>>> reasonable delay - something less than the time needed to carefully compare
>>> the page text and its image. To make simpler to monitor its use, a
>>> standard message could be added to edit, so that BGB edits could be fastly
>>> selected in RecentChanges.
>>>
>>> Alex
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2015-08-11 21:21 GMT+02:00 Nicolas VIGNERON
>>> :
>>>
2015-08-11 20:39 GMT+02:00 Wiera Lee :
>
> On pl.wikisource each correction level means that another person did
the correction again. The green status means the page was corrected three
times by three another persons.
The colours are just for marking the status page, it's not per se a
correction and only two people are actually needed ; but yes, it's the more
or less the same on each wikisource with the proofred system.
> Corrected, not read.
Uh? Correcting without reading?
> In my opinion Big Green Button Correction is useless. New users can
click only for stats, not for proofreading. And nobody would check it
again, because the book would be finished.
Please dont bite the new users or imagine that they're all evil. Maybe
you had a bad experience on plwiki but that's not always true.
Think about it: When you were new users, did you edit only for stats?
I check *a lot* the green pages since *sometimes* there is still little
correction to do (a new and better templates, some strange typo like «
word » - with invisible hyphen - or « wоrd » - with a cyrillic о - instead
of « word », ).
> We are asking new users to validate the pages for the second time
(from red to yellow level): new users can learn how the templates and raw
codes are working, but when they do something wrong, an experienced user
would check it one more time -- to make it green. If they would not edit
the page, they would never know how the templates works. So they would not
become a better editors...
Can't they do both?
And should we really make the life of users (new and old) hard when
it's not needed ?
> We all can do only red pages, why not. We'll get a "perfectly
readable and functional book" with some errors. But should we give its the
same status as a proof-read three times book? Green status means "almost
perfect". We shouldn't make green pages
Re: [Wikisource-l] Better way to validate pages
Luiz Augusto: "Rough but runing code of BGB is ready".
This is not a discussion. They had decided.
We can change nothing. Well... Why go to Vienna?
Wieralee
2015-08-12 1:26 GMT+02:00 Luiz Augusto :
> ("Didn't read the entire thread; too long" warning)
>
> I must agree with PL folks: the BGB isn't an improvement. Probably the OCR
> quality is great on English, Italian and French for doing such thing, but
> it certainly isn't also for Portuguese (PT).
>
> A good improvement will be if a Yellow Big Button wold be implemented.
> Maybe you don't find it useful, as many pages are reviewed on creation, but
> it is because we, experienced users, do it in this way.
>
> Simply putting an Index page or an external link to get the digitization
> is the worst thing we currently do.
>
> Why not our bots starts extracting all and every pages, to make Page
> namespace working in similar way that Google Book Search works (you can
> choose if you need to browse on image view or OCR view on that platform).
> If a random Internet user goes to Wikisource after doing a Web search due
> to the correct recognized portion of text (as he go to GBS), he can start
> immediately to fix the OCR and, voila! A new user just discovered an
> ancient text and a promising website that collects ancient texts!
>
> This approach makes sense on attracting new user and presenting how to
> work on Wikisource, and not downgrading our compromise to flag pages fully
> reviewed.
>
> Side note: Portuguese language still is "unstable" on orthography and how
> to spell words. From time to time we change our conventions (Brazil and
> Portugal are yet implementing the Acordo Ortográfico de 1990 and some are
> arguing on a new one change). PD-old digitizations came in A VERY OLD
> ORTHOGRAPHY CONVENTION. Creating the Big Green Button will make us unable
> to do a last check if the wikitext follows the way that words are on
> digitization or in the current way of writing. So, it isn't an improvement,
> only a trouble finding.
>
> [[User:555]]
> Em 11/08/2015 7:09 PM, "Alex Brollo" escreveu:
>
>> Rough but running code of BGB is ready, and Andrea can test it to find
>> bugs and/or drawbacks by now, if he likes.
>>
>> To lower the risk of a nonsense-click, BGB should pop out after some
>> reasonable delay - something less than the time needed to carefully compare
>> the page text and its image. To make simpler to monitor its use, a
>> standard message could be added to edit, so that BGB edits could be fastly
>> selected in RecentChanges.
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2015-08-11 21:21 GMT+02:00 Nicolas VIGNERON :
>>
>>> 2015-08-11 20:39 GMT+02:00 Wiera Lee :
>>> >
>>> > On pl.wikisource each correction level means that another person did
>>> the correction again. The green status means the page was corrected three
>>> times by three another persons.
>>>
>>> The colours are just for marking the status page, it's not per se a
>>> correction and only two people are actually needed ; but yes, it's the more
>>> or less the same on each wikisource with the proofred system.
>>>
>>> > Corrected, not read.
>>>
>>> Uh? Correcting without reading?
>>>
>>> > In my opinion Big Green Button Correction is useless. New users can
>>> click only for stats, not for proofreading. And nobody would check it
>>> again, because the book would be finished.
>>>
>>> Please dont bite the new users or imagine that they're all evil. Maybe
>>> you had a bad experience on plwiki but that's not always true.
>>>
>>> Think about it: When you were new users, did you edit only for stats?
>>>
>>> I check *a lot* the green pages since *sometimes* there is still little
>>> correction to do (a new and better templates, some strange typo like «
>>> word » - with invisible hyphen - or « wоrd » - with a cyrillic о - instead
>>> of « word », ).
>>>
>>> > We are asking new users to validate the pages for the second time
>>> (from red to yellow level): new users can learn how the templates and raw
>>> codes are working, but when they do something wrong, an experienced user
>>> would check it one more time -- to make it green. If they would not edit
>>> the page, they would never know how the templates works. So they would not
>>> become a better editors...
>>>
>>> Can't they do both?
>>>
>>> And should we really make the life of users (new and old) hard when it's
>>> not needed ?
>>>
>>> > We all can do only red pages, why not. We'll get a "perfectly readable
>>> and functional book" with some errors. But should we give its the same
>>> status as a proof-read three times book? Green status means "almost
>>> perfect". We shouldn't make green pages automatically, only to make our
>>> stats better.
>>>
>>> No, only red pages is not "perfectly readable and functional book.
>>>
>>> How many is « almost » perfect? 80%? 90% 95%? 99%? that's a tricky
>>> question.
>>> And if a book made of 500 yellow pages already at 99% perfect, isn't the
>>> BGB usefull?
>>>
>>> > Correction without correction is not a good
Re: [Wikisource-l] Better way to validate pages
Luiz Augusto: "Rough but running code of BGB is ready".
This is not a discussion. They have decided.
We can't change nothing. Well... Why go to Vienna?
Wieralee
2015-08-12 1:26 GMT+02:00 Luiz Augusto :
> ("Didn't read the entire thread; too long" warning)
>
> I must agree with PL folks: the BGB isn't an improvement. Probably the OCR
> quality is great on English, Italian and French for doing such thing, but
> it certainly isn't also for Portuguese (PT).
>
> A good improvement will be if a Yellow Big Button wold be implemented.
> Maybe you don't find it useful, as many pages are reviewed on creation, but
> it is because we, experienced users, do it in this way.
>
> Simply putting an Index page or an external link to get the digitization
> is the worst thing we currently do.
>
> Why not our bots starts extracting all and every pages, to make Page
> namespace working in similar way that Google Book Search works (you can
> choose if you need to browse on image view or OCR view on that platform).
> If a random Internet user goes to Wikisource after doing a Web search due
> to the correct recognized portion of text (as he go to GBS), he can start
> immediately to fix the OCR and, voila! A new user just discovered an
> ancient text and a promising website that collects ancient texts!
>
> This approach makes sense on attracting new user and presenting how to
> work on Wikisource, and not downgrading our compromise to flag pages fully
> reviewed.
>
> Side note: Portuguese language still is "unstable" on orthography and how
> to spell words. From time to time we change our conventions (Brazil and
> Portugal are yet implementing the Acordo Ortográfico de 1990 and some are
> arguing on a new one change). PD-old digitizations came in A VERY OLD
> ORTHOGRAPHY CONVENTION. Creating the Big Green Button will make us unable
> to do a last check if the wikitext follows the way that words are on
> digitization or in the current way of writing. So, it isn't an improvement,
> only a trouble finding.
>
> [[User:555]]
> Em 11/08/2015 7:09 PM, "Alex Brollo" escreveu:
>
>> Rough but running code of BGB is ready, and Andrea can test it to find
>> bugs and/or drawbacks by now, if he likes.
>>
>> To lower the risk of a nonsense-click, BGB should pop out after some
>> reasonable delay - something less than the time needed to carefully compare
>> the page text and its image. To make simpler to monitor its use, a
>> standard message could be added to edit, so that BGB edits could be fastly
>> selected in RecentChanges.
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2015-08-11 21:21 GMT+02:00 Nicolas VIGNERON :
>>
>>> 2015-08-11 20:39 GMT+02:00 Wiera Lee :
>>> >
>>> > On pl.wikisource each correction level means that another person did
>>> the correction again. The green status means the page was corrected three
>>> times by three another persons.
>>>
>>> The colours are just for marking the status page, it's not per se a
>>> correction and only two people are actually needed ; but yes, it's the more
>>> or less the same on each wikisource with the proofred system.
>>>
>>> > Corrected, not read.
>>>
>>> Uh? Correcting without reading?
>>>
>>> > In my opinion Big Green Button Correction is useless. New users can
>>> click only for stats, not for proofreading. And nobody would check it
>>> again, because the book would be finished.
>>>
>>> Please dont bite the new users or imagine that they're all evil. Maybe
>>> you had a bad experience on plwiki but that's not always true.
>>>
>>> Think about it: When you were new users, did you edit only for stats?
>>>
>>> I check *a lot* the green pages since *sometimes* there is still little
>>> correction to do (a new and better templates, some strange typo like «
>>> word » - with invisible hyphen - or « wоrd » - with a cyrillic о - instead
>>> of « word », ).
>>>
>>> > We are asking new users to validate the pages for the second time
>>> (from red to yellow level): new users can learn how the templates and raw
>>> codes are working, but when they do something wrong, an experienced user
>>> would check it one more time -- to make it green. If they would not edit
>>> the page, they would never know how the templates works. So they would not
>>> become a better editors...
>>>
>>> Can't they do both?
>>>
>>> And should we really make the life of users (new and old) hard when it's
>>> not needed ?
>>>
>>> > We all can do only red pages, why not. We'll get a "perfectly readable
>>> and functional book" with some errors. But should we give its the same
>>> status as a proof-read three times book? Green status means "almost
>>> perfect". We shouldn't make green pages automatically, only to make our
>>> stats better.
>>>
>>> No, only red pages is not "perfectly readable and functional book.
>>>
>>> How many is « almost » perfect? 80%? 90% 95%? 99%? that's a tricky
>>> question.
>>> And if a book made of 500 yellow pages already at 99% perfect, isn't the
>>> BGB usefull?
>>>
>>> > Correction without correction
Re: [Wikisource-l] Better way to validate pages
("Didn't read the entire thread; too long" warning)
I must agree with PL folks: the BGB isn't an improvement. Probably the OCR
quality is great on English, Italian and French for doing such thing, but
it certainly isn't also for Portuguese (PT).
A good improvement will be if a Yellow Big Button wold be implemented.
Maybe you don't find it useful, as many pages are reviewed on creation, but
it is because we, experienced users, do it in this way.
Simply putting an Index page or an external link to get the digitization is
the worst thing we currently do.
Why not our bots starts extracting all and every pages, to make Page
namespace working in similar way that Google Book Search works (you can
choose if you need to browse on image view or OCR view on that platform).
If a random Internet user goes to Wikisource after doing a Web search due
to the correct recognized portion of text (as he go to GBS), he can start
immediately to fix the OCR and, voila! A new user just discovered an
ancient text and a promising website that collects ancient texts!
This approach makes sense on attracting new user and presenting how to work
on Wikisource, and not downgrading our compromise to flag pages fully
reviewed.
Side note: Portuguese language still is "unstable" on orthography and how
to spell words. From time to time we change our conventions (Brazil and
Portugal are yet implementing the Acordo Ortográfico de 1990 and some are
arguing on a new one change). PD-old digitizations came in A VERY OLD
ORTHOGRAPHY CONVENTION. Creating the Big Green Button will make us unable
to do a last check if the wikitext follows the way that words are on
digitization or in the current way of writing. So, it isn't an improvement,
only a trouble finding.
[[User:555]]
Em 11/08/2015 7:09 PM, "Alex Brollo" escreveu:
> Rough but running code of BGB is ready, and Andrea can test it to find
> bugs and/or drawbacks by now, if he likes.
>
> To lower the risk of a nonsense-click, BGB should pop out after some
> reasonable delay - something less than the time needed to carefully compare
> the page text and its image. To make simpler to monitor its use, a
> standard message could be added to edit, so that BGB edits could be fastly
> selected in RecentChanges.
>
> Alex
>
>
>
>
> 2015-08-11 21:21 GMT+02:00 Nicolas VIGNERON :
>
>> 2015-08-11 20:39 GMT+02:00 Wiera Lee :
>> >
>> > On pl.wikisource each correction level means that another person did
>> the correction again. The green status means the page was corrected three
>> times by three another persons.
>>
>> The colours are just for marking the status page, it's not per se a
>> correction and only two people are actually needed ; but yes, it's the more
>> or less the same on each wikisource with the proofred system.
>>
>> > Corrected, not read.
>>
>> Uh? Correcting without reading?
>>
>> > In my opinion Big Green Button Correction is useless. New users can
>> click only for stats, not for proofreading. And nobody would check it
>> again, because the book would be finished.
>>
>> Please dont bite the new users or imagine that they're all evil. Maybe
>> you had a bad experience on plwiki but that's not always true.
>>
>> Think about it: When you were new users, did you edit only for stats?
>>
>> I check *a lot* the green pages since *sometimes* there is still little
>> correction to do (a new and better templates, some strange typo like «
>> word » - with invisible hyphen - or « wоrd » - with a cyrillic о - instead
>> of « word », ).
>>
>> > We are asking new users to validate the pages for the second time (from
>> red to yellow level): new users can learn how the templates and raw codes
>> are working, but when they do something wrong, an experienced user would
>> check it one more time -- to make it green. If they would not edit the
>> page, they would never know how the templates works. So they would not
>> become a better editors...
>>
>> Can't they do both?
>>
>> And should we really make the life of users (new and old) hard when it's
>> not needed ?
>>
>> > We all can do only red pages, why not. We'll get a "perfectly readable
>> and functional book" with some errors. But should we give its the same
>> status as a proof-read three times book? Green status means "almost
>> perfect". We shouldn't make green pages automatically, only to make our
>> stats better.
>>
>> No, only red pages is not "perfectly readable and functional book.
>>
>> How many is « almost » perfect? 80%? 90% 95%? 99%? that's a tricky
>> question.
>> And if a book made of 500 yellow pages already at 99% perfect, isn't the
>> BGB usefull?
>>
>> > Correction without correction is not a good idea. It's a lie.
>>
>> Very true but the BGB is not about correction, it's about marking as
>> correct something that already is.
>>
>> Cdlt, ~nicolas
>>
>> ___
>> 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
Rough but running code of BGB is ready, and Andrea can test it to find bugs and/or drawbacks by now, if he likes. To lower the risk of a nonsense-click, BGB should pop out after some reasonable delay - something less than the time needed to carefully compare the page text and its image. To make simpler to monitor its use, a standard message could be added to edit, so that BGB edits could be fastly selected in RecentChanges. Alex 2015-08-11 21:21 GMT+02:00 Nicolas VIGNERON : > 2015-08-11 20:39 GMT+02:00 Wiera Lee : > > > > On pl.wikisource each correction level means that another person did the > correction again. The green status means the page was corrected three times > by three another persons. > > The colours are just for marking the status page, it's not per se a > correction and only two people are actually needed ; but yes, it's the more > or less the same on each wikisource with the proofred system. > > > Corrected, not read. > > Uh? Correcting without reading? > > > In my opinion Big Green Button Correction is useless. New users can > click only for stats, not for proofreading. And nobody would check it > again, because the book would be finished. > > Please dont bite the new users or imagine that they're all evil. Maybe you > had a bad experience on plwiki but that's not always true. > > Think about it: When you were new users, did you edit only for stats? > > I check *a lot* the green pages since *sometimes* there is still little > correction to do (a new and better templates, some strange typo like « > word » - with invisible hyphen - or « wоrd » - with a cyrillic о - instead > of « word », ). > > > We are asking new users to validate the pages for the second time (from > red to yellow level): new users can learn how the templates and raw codes > are working, but when they do something wrong, an experienced user would > check it one more time -- to make it green. If they would not edit the > page, they would never know how the templates works. So they would not > become a better editors... > > Can't they do both? > > And should we really make the life of users (new and old) hard when it's > not needed ? > > > We all can do only red pages, why not. We'll get a "perfectly readable > and functional book" with some errors. But should we give its the same > status as a proof-read three times book? Green status means "almost > perfect". We shouldn't make green pages automatically, only to make our > stats better. > > No, only red pages is not "perfectly readable and functional book. > > How many is « almost » perfect? 80%? 90% 95%? 99%? that's a tricky > question. > And if a book made of 500 yellow pages already at 99% perfect, isn't the > BGB usefull? > > > Correction without correction is not a good idea. It's a lie. > > Very true but the BGB is not about correction, it's about marking as > correct something that already is. > > Cdlt, ~nicolas > > ___ > 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
2015-08-11 20:39 GMT+02:00 Wiera Lee : > > On pl.wikisource each correction level means that another person did the correction again. The green status means the page was corrected three times by three another persons. The colours are just for marking the status page, it's not per se a correction and only two people are actually needed ; but yes, it's the more or less the same on each wikisource with the proofred system. > Corrected, not read. Uh? Correcting without reading? > In my opinion Big Green Button Correction is useless. New users can click only for stats, not for proofreading. And nobody would check it again, because the book would be finished. Please dont bite the new users or imagine that they're all evil. Maybe you had a bad experience on plwiki but that's not always true. Think about it: When you were new users, did you edit only for stats? I check *a lot* the green pages since *sometimes* there is still little correction to do (a new and better templates, some strange typo like « word » - with invisible hyphen - or « wоrd » - with a cyrillic о - instead of « word », ). > We are asking new users to validate the pages for the second time (from red to yellow level): new users can learn how the templates and raw codes are working, but when they do something wrong, an experienced user would check it one more time -- to make it green. If they would not edit the page, they would never know how the templates works. So they would not become a better editors... Can't they do both? And should we really make the life of users (new and old) hard when it's not needed ? > We all can do only red pages, why not. We'll get a "perfectly readable and functional book" with some errors. But should we give its the same status as a proof-read three times book? Green status means "almost perfect". We shouldn't make green pages automatically, only to make our stats better. No, only red pages is not "perfectly readable and functional book. How many is « almost » perfect? 80%? 90% 95%? 99%? that's a tricky question. And if a book made of 500 yellow pages already at 99% perfect, isn't the BGB usefull? > Correction without correction is not a good idea. It's a lie. Very true but the BGB is not about correction, it's about marking as correct something that already is. Cdlt, ~nicolas ___ 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
On pl.wikisource each correction level means that another person did the correction again. The green status means the page was corrected three times by three another persons. Corrected, not read. In my opinion Big Green Button Correction is useless. New users can click only for stats, not for proofreading. And nobody would check it again, because the book would be finished. We are asking new users to validate the pages for the second time (from red to yellow level): new users can learn how the templates and raw codes are working, but when they do something wrong, an experienced user would check it one more time -- to make it green. If they would not edit the page, they would never know how the templates works. So they would not become a better editors... We all can do only red pages, why not. We'll get a "perfectly readable and functional book" with some errors. But should we give its the same status as a proof-read three times book? Green status means "almost perfect". We shouldn't make green pages automatically, only to make our stats better. Correction without correction is not a good idea. It's a lie. Wieralee 2015-08-11 15:43 GMT+02:00 Nicolas VIGNERON : > > > 2015-08-11 15:21 GMT+02:00 zdzislaw : > >> 2015-08-11 13:59 GMT+01:00 Nicolas VIGNERON > gmail.com>: >> > You're mixing a little bit « validation » and « perfection ». For >> > example, if a page contains « word » or « wоrd » instead of « word >> > », it's not perfect but it's valid as it invisible for 90% of >> > readers and tools (plus, there is other tools to detect this specific >> errors). >> >> maybe... >> but, there's another concern about the BGB (mentioned by Ankry), the >> mental problem of new users - when they "validate" in edit mode or Visual >> Editor and notice a typo (or absence of comma) it is just a click to >> improve the text, but. .. in view mode, after noticing the error, you have >> to do IT all (which is such a inconvenience causing BGB proposal): enter to >> the edit mode, find again the same place in the text, place the cursor ... >> I'm afraid of thinking like: "Uh ... it's just one comma, I click right >> away in the BGB... >> >> Z. > > > That a very good concern and I agree with you but how does the BGB will > change anything in this situation? > In fact, in this case, the problem is ni the edit mode, not in the BGB. > And the solution is not to forbidden tool or edition but to explain to the > user what to do and how to do it. > > The BGB is not an idea of tool to improve correction but only to quicken > the validation when there is no correction to do > (and per se, validation is not an improvement at all ; the exact same text > could be red, yellow or green and could be perfect or very bad, don't mix > the metrics and the subject of the metrics). > > Cdlt, ~nicolas > > ___ > 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
2015-08-11 15:21 GMT+02:00 zdzislaw : > 2015-08-11 13:59 GMT+01:00 Nicolas VIGNERON >: > > You're mixing a little bit « validation » and « perfection ». For > > example, if a page contains « word » or « wоrd » instead of « word > > », it's not perfect but it's valid as it invisible for 90% of > > readers and tools (plus, there is other tools to detect this specific > errors). > > maybe... > but, there's another concern about the BGB (mentioned by Ankry), the > mental problem of new users - when they "validate" in edit mode or Visual > Editor and notice a typo (or absence of comma) it is just a click to > improve the text, but. .. in view mode, after noticing the error, you have > to do IT all (which is such a inconvenience causing BGB proposal): enter to > the edit mode, find again the same place in the text, place the cursor ... > I'm afraid of thinking like: "Uh ... it's just one comma, I click right > away in the BGB... > > Z. That a very good concern and I agree with you but how does the BGB will change anything in this situation? In fact, in this case, the problem is ni the edit mode, not in the BGB. And the solution is not to forbidden tool or edition but to explain to the user what to do and how to do it. The BGB is not an idea of tool to improve correction but only to quicken the validation when there is no correction to do (and per se, validation is not an improvement at all ; the exact same text could be red, yellow or green and could be perfect or very bad, don't mix the metrics and the subject of the metrics). Cdlt, ~nicolas ___ 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
2015-08-11 13:59 GMT+01:00 Nicolas VIGNERON : > You're mixing a little bit « validation » and « perfection ». For > example, if a page contains « word » or « wоrd » instead of « word > », it's not perfect but it's valid as it invisible for 90% of > readers and tools (plus, there is other tools to detect this specific errors). maybe... but, there's another concern about the BGB (mentioned by Ankry), the mental problem of new users - when they "validate" in edit mode or Visual Editor and notice a typo (or absence of comma) it is just a click to improve the text, but. .. in view mode, after noticing the error, you have to do IT all (which is such a inconvenience causing BGB proposal): enter to the edit mode, find again the same place in the text, place the cursor ... I'm afraid of thinking like: "Uh ... it's just one comma, I click right away in the BGB... Z. ___ 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
Repeating something I tried to explain earlier, we could try to distinguish "markup=layout" from "text". But it's very difficult, and I stand with Vigneron saying that we should aim to a 99,9% accuracy instead of total perfection, becaus the *cost* of finding that 0,01% is really, really high. Sometimes we have perfectly readable 75% books, and users can already read them and enjoy them. Even if a book has a typo every few pages, is still good to read. If it's not "perfectly isomorphic" to the original book (if some linebreaks are different, or symbols, or formatting) it can be still a perfectly readable and functional book. My point is: with our tiny communities, we should not reach for the stars, or absolute perfection. We should aim to serve our users (we are wikilibrarians!) the best as we can, but IMHO this means also trying to harness from our readers and let them collaborate with us, even if it is just correction a typo in one page. "Given enough eyes, all typos are shallow" should be the Wikisource version of the Linus law [1]. My wish is that we could, as a community, find a way to find those "enough eyes", expand our communities, even if it means just harnessing casual readers. Aubrey [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus%27s_Law On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Nicolas VIGNERON < vigneron.nico...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 2015-08-11 14:35 GMT+02:00 zdzislaw : > >> 2015-08-11 12:34 GMT+01:00 Nicolas VIGNERON > gmail.com>: >> > 2015-08-11 13:18 GMT+02:00 zdzislaw : >> >> I'll write it again ... that is not safe to validate a page without >> reviewing its wikicode. >> > Are I'm puzzled: why? >> > Strange... Are you against VisualEditor too? >> >> For example, when someone validate a page in preview mode it is >> impossible to check the line breaks, the use of templates... >> The single line breaks (text broken into different lines -> common from >> scanned text) will be seen "normally" on preview mode (parser convers if >> into #0A), but it shoud be removed, if not... try to "Download (it) as PDF" >> - all the text will be broken. >> VisualEditor - here you can see everything at a glance (!), missed line >> breaks can be seen as an arrow, if you want to check whether the correct >> template is used, just simply "move" the mouse on it... >> VE <> view mode >> >> Z. > > > If a template is mispelled or misused, you'll see right away that > something is wrong, no ? Where is the need to go to edit mode? (except for > vs. cases but it's not really relevant for > validation). > > I don't understand your single line breaks problem, and the problem seems > to be on PDF generator not on the page itself (it shouldn't block the > validation). > "Download (it) as PDF" do you talk about the special page on the right > Tools bar or about the wsexport tools? I just tested the two tools and they > worked just fine with pages with single line breaks. > > You're mixing a little bit « validation » and « perfection ». For example, > if a page contains « word » or « wоrd » instead of « word », it's not > perfect but it's valid as it invisible for 90% of readers and tools (plus, > there is other tools to detect this specific errors). > > Cdlt, ~nicolas > > ___ > 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
2015-08-11 14:35 GMT+02:00 zdzislaw : > 2015-08-11 12:34 GMT+01:00 Nicolas VIGNERON >: > > 2015-08-11 13:18 GMT+02:00 zdzislaw : > >> I'll write it again ... that is not safe to validate a page without > reviewing its wikicode. > > Are I'm puzzled: why? > > Strange... Are you against VisualEditor too? > > For example, when someone validate a page in preview mode it is impossible > to check the line breaks, the use of templates... > The single line breaks (text broken into different lines -> common from > scanned text) will be seen "normally" on preview mode (parser convers if > into #0A), but it shoud be removed, if not... try to "Download (it) as PDF" > - all the text will be broken. > VisualEditor - here you can see everything at a glance (!), missed line > breaks can be seen as an arrow, if you want to check whether the correct > template is used, just simply "move" the mouse on it... > VE <> view mode > > Z. If a template is mispelled or misused, you'll see right away that something is wrong, no ? Where is the need to go to edit mode? (except for vs. cases but it's not really relevant for validation). I don't understand your single line breaks problem, and the problem seems to be on PDF generator not on the page itself (it shouldn't block the validation). "Download (it) as PDF" do you talk about the special page on the right Tools bar or about the wsexport tools? I just tested the two tools and they worked just fine with pages with single line breaks. You're mixing a little bit « validation » and « perfection ». For example, if a page contains « word » or « wоrd » instead of « word », it's not perfect but it's valid as it invisible for 90% of readers and tools (plus, there is other tools to detect this specific errors). Cdlt, ~nicolas ___ 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
2015-08-11 12:34 GMT+01:00 Nicolas VIGNERON : > 2015-08-11 13:18 GMT+02:00 zdzislaw : >> I'll write it again ... that is not safe to validate a page without >> reviewing its wikicode. > Are I'm puzzled: why? > Strange... Are you against VisualEditor too? For example, when someone validate a page in preview mode it is impossible to check the line breaks, the use of templates... The single line breaks (text broken into different lines -> common from scanned text) will be seen "normally" on preview mode (parser convers if into #0A), but it shoud be removed, if not... try to "Download (it) as PDF" - all the text will be broken. VisualEditor - here you can see everything at a glance (!), missed line breaks can be seen as an arrow, if you want to check whether the correct template is used, just simply "move" the mouse on it... VE <> view mode Z. ___ 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
> While suggesting how the Andrea's ideas coud be implemented (in the > meantime, I wrote some js rows to upload quietly localStorage.rawCode, > localStorage.pageUser, localStorage.pageLevel, an localStorage.validable > too when reading any page in view mode), I was perfecly aware of what a > similar tool could cause. > > But... is there so deep a difference between the validation of a page by a > newbie in Edit mode, and the validation by the same user clicking the Big > Green Button? If a newbie uses VE they do not see how the code is structured and has not idea how it works. If a user sees the code they has at least a CHANCE to learn how it works. Of course, if a user does not intend to learn anything, there is no difference. But we are in most cases too small communities to have two separate group of users: those who only enter "dumb" text with very little formatting and another of more advanced users who verify and fix their input. > For sure, it's much simpler and comfortable to review a text > in view mode: isn't it the idea of VisualEditor? It is. But while the VE may be a good idea for entering and simple formatting texts. It may be even good idea for some fixes. But never for all of them. Just two examples: - a user entered some code that is invisible in Page namespace, byt will break in a specific context in main: Using VE he mey even have no idea where the fix should be edited. - a user used wrong formatting template, which requires few arguments: I doubt VE will ever allow you to change the template name without touching arguments; and writing the arguments again from scratch is a potential source of new typos. > Alex > > > > 2015-08-11 12:28 GMT+02:00 Nicolas VIGNERON : > >> I'm not sure we're all talking about the same thing. >> >> First, this tool is just a tool. If someone is misusing a tool, don't >> blame the tool, blame (and block) the user of the tool ! >> >> Then it seems that the quality level has not the same meaning on every >> wikisources. Typo such as ? rn ? intead of ? m ? are usually removed on >> the >> red or yellow step on fr.ws (and such obvious error can be seen before >> editing, reviewing the final render code seems enough to me). >> When I'm thinking of raw code review on yellow to green step, I'm >> thinking >> of formatting and things like html code replace by ws templates, Unicode >> encoding mistakes, and little things like that ; for me all typo should >> be >> gone at the previous stage (and personally, I don't go from red to >> yellow >> if there is still such typo mistakes). >> >> The GGB is a tool (and just an idea of a tool right now) and one of many >> solution to one of many problems Andrea pointed ; but there is many >> other >> problems. Especially, the navigation arrows could use some improvement. >> ? >> validate this and go to next page ? is definitively something we need. >> Since the VisualEditor is coming, we would be dumb no to cease this >> opportunity to do some clean-up and renovation. >> >> We should think too to an other category of tools : global detection of >> possible mistakes. On frws, there is some little things like >> https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Gadget-Erreurs-communes.js >> (intern gadget) and https://tools.wmflabs.org/dicompte/index.php >> (extern) >> but here too there is huge room for improvement. Proofreading page by >> page >> is great and necessary but we should multiply the approachs to reach the >> best quality. >> >> We're speaking of new users but such tools (the GGB and much more >> others) >> can be useful for old users too. Maybe we can test them for some old >> user >> first, see how it goes and then offers them (or not) to new users. >> Finally, new users are not all the same. The director of Rennes Library >> is >> a new user on frws but she's defintively better at proofreading than >> most >> wikisorcerers ;) >> >> Cdlt, ~nicolas >> >> ___ >> 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 > ___ 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
> Ankry, > there's no need to shout :-) > We are just *talking*, nobody is coming to Polish Wikisource and make you > use a tool you don't want. > You do what the Polish community wants to do. I'm sorry, maybe I misunderstood. I thought you want to include it into ProofreadPage extension as the default behaviour for the last step of validation process. That is what I oppose to. And only that. Ankry > Still, it's 10 years I'm on Wikisource projects (it.ws) and worries me the > most > is that the community grows slwly. It's too slow, and the web changes > rapidly, and our infrastructure becomes rapidly obsolete. > I think (but I do not have hard data) that we would have many ways to make > users active and teach them how to format things. > But a big green button like "if you see an error fix it" could be useful. > Maybe we don't need to link it to the validation process, and let users > understand that by themself. But I still think that we need to low the > complexity of wikisource if we want our communities to grow and thrive. > > I repeat, there can be many ways to achieve this goal, but for me it's a > crucial goal. > > Aubrey > > > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 11:45 AM, wrote: > >> > That's a very good idea. >> >> NO! NO! NO! >> It is suggesting new users to behave like bots! Just click and go on? >> Why to read the small-lettering texts? Just click the GGB (Great Green >> Button). >> >> In Polish language Wikisource we have VERY BAD experience with directing >> new users to the final validation process: they can't carefully compare >> the text in both windows word-by-word. They just read both texts (and >> maybe one only?) and click validate & next. >> >> Later we found a lot of unnoticed OCR-related mistakes like: >> - missing last paragraph >> - missing a line >> - typos like m->rn, in->m, ę->ą, o->n, etc. >> >> Even 5-10 mistakes per a GREEN page (whan it was based on poor >> scans/poor >> OCR). In our opinion people need to LEARN how to compare texts. And it >> is >> easier to learn when there are more mistakes to notice when there is >> only >> a few of them. >> >> If you want to decrease quality or you believe you have perfect OCR >> software, plese do it for specified Wikisource subdomains, not as >> general >> tool. >> >> plwikisource highly discourage such a tool. >> >> Ankry >> >> > A big green button "validate" at the end of the displayed wikitext >> content >> > of the page may fit the need. It would open a confirmation popup with >> an >> > explanation message the first k times the user click on it in order to >> > make sure new contributors use it well (with k something like 3 or 5). >> > >> > What do you think about it? I'll have some free time in a few weeks to >> > implement a such thing directly into the ProofreadPage extension. >> > >> > Thomas >> > >> > >> >> Le 10 ao?t 2015 ? 14:31, Alex Brollo a écrit >> : >> >> >> >> Ok; imagine that while opening a level 3 page, an ajax query uploads >> >> quietly the raw code of the page; as soon as you click the "Big Green >> >> Button" the script could edit the code and send it to the server - in >> >> milliseconds - and immediately could click the next page button. >> >> >> >> If a review of page in view mode is all what is needed to validate >> it, >> >> there's no reason to enter in edit mode when there's nothing to fix. >> >> >> >> Alex >> >> >> >> 2015-08-10 18:14 GMT+02:00 Andrea Zanni : >> >> The Big Validate Button is a good idea, >> >> but I also would like a better navigation experience, as it is pretty >> >> slow and cumbersome to got on the top of the page to click a tiny >> arrow, >> >> wait for the new page, click edit, etc. >> >> >> >> Aubrey >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Alex Brollo >> >> wrote: >> >> If this is true, then to add a big button "Validate" to edit by ajax >> the >> >> code of the page (the header section only needs to be changed if >> there's >> >> no error to fix into the txt) should be a banal task for a good >> >> programmer. >> >> >> >> Perhaps Andrea is asking for much more, but this could be a first >> step. >> >> >> >> Alex >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 2015-08-10 14:47 GMT+01:00 Nicolas VIGNERON >> >> : >> >> 2015-08-10 15:37 GMT+02:00 Alex Brollo : >> >> > >> >> > First point is: >> >> > is it a safe practice to validate a page without reviewing its raw >> >> code? >> >> >> >> Probably yes. >> >> Obviously, it's safer to check the raw code but it's unrealistic to >> >> expect the raw code to be review for all page. Anyway, the pages >> doesn't >> >> contain a lot of code (and most pages does'nt contain code at all), >> so >> >> it doesn't seems to be crucial to me. >> >> Plus : when VisualEditor will be on WS, less and less people will >> >> actually see the raw wikicode. >> >> >> >> > A second point: is it a safe practice to validate a page without >> >> carefully reviewing its transclusion into ns0? >> >> >> >> Definitively yes. >> >> When can a transclusion can go wrong? In all
Re: [Wikisource-l] Better way to validate pages
2015-08-11 13:23 GMT+02:00 Andrea Zanni : > there's no need to shout :-) > We are just *talking*, nobody is coming to Polish Wikisource and > make you use a tool you don't want. mh... Tpt suggest that ..."I'll have some free time in a few weeks to implement a such thing directly into the ProofreadPage extension." so... DIRECTLY into PP ext., not as a Tool nor Gadget. Z. ___ 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
2015-08-11 13:18 GMT+02:00 zdzislaw : > > 2015-08-11 11:28 GMT+01:00 Nicolas VIGNERON >: > > Then it seems that the quality level has not the same meaning on > > every wikisources. Typo such as « rn » intead of « m » are usually > > removed on the red or yellow step on fr.ws (and such obvious error > > can be seen before editing, reviewing the final render code seems enough > to me). > on pl ws it should be done on "without text" -> red step > Ok, we totally agree. > > for me all typo should be gone at the previous stage (and > > personally, I don't go from red to yellow if there is still such typo > mistakes). > should be... but statistically on red-> yellow step I find 2-4 typos, on > yellow-> green step - 1-2 typos (on fr ws too); if on yellow-> green step I > could not found any typos, I do not change its status immediately, leave it > on another day to be sure. > Again we agree. > I'll write it again ... that is not safe to validate a page without > reviewing its wikicode. Are I'm puzzled: why? A BGB at the end of the PREVIEW(!) content in Page namespace WITHOUT > displaying and reviewing wikitext content (raw code) it's a bad proposal, > declining the quality of proofreading process results, and... I do not > think so that "it's unrealistic to expect the raw code to be review for all > page" > Strange... Are you against VisualEditor too? And what can you see on the raw code that you can't see on the rendered code? (obviously not typo and vs. is not important for validation page by page). What do you call « preview content » ? for that kind of "edition" it should be special level "pseudovalidate" - > best in pink. > I think you confusing validation and tool for validation. All edition tools are equal, either by the usual interface, by a customed interface, by VisualEditor (one day...), by AWB, by API, or by a BGB. The tool is mostly irrelevant, what matters is what is changed (or not). Cdlt, ~nicolas ___ 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
While suggesting how the Andrea's ideas coud be implemented (in the meantime, I wrote some js rows to upload quietly localStorage.rawCode, localStorage.pageUser, localStorage.pageLevel, an localStorage.validable too when reading any page in view mode), I was perfecly aware of what a similar tool could cause. But... is there so deep a difference between the validation of a page by a newbie in Edit mode, and the validation by the same user clicking the Big Green Button? For sure, it's much simpler and comfortable to review a text in view mode: isn't it the idea of VisualEditor? Alex 2015-08-11 12:28 GMT+02:00 Nicolas VIGNERON : > I'm not sure we're all talking about the same thing. > > First, this tool is just a tool. If someone is misusing a tool, don't > blame the tool, blame (and block) the user of the tool ! > > Then it seems that the quality level has not the same meaning on every > wikisources. Typo such as « rn » intead of « m » are usually removed on the > red or yellow step on fr.ws (and such obvious error can be seen before > editing, reviewing the final render code seems enough to me). > When I'm thinking of raw code review on yellow to green step, I'm thinking > of formatting and things like html code replace by ws templates, Unicode > encoding mistakes, and little things like that ; for me all typo should be > gone at the previous stage (and personally, I don't go from red to yellow > if there is still such typo mistakes). > > The GGB is a tool (and just an idea of a tool right now) and one of many > solution to one of many problems Andrea pointed ; but there is many other > problems. Especially, the navigation arrows could use some improvement. « > validate this and go to next page » is definitively something we need. > Since the VisualEditor is coming, we would be dumb no to cease this > opportunity to do some clean-up and renovation. > > We should think too to an other category of tools : global detection of > possible mistakes. On frws, there is some little things like > https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Gadget-Erreurs-communes.js > (intern gadget) and https://tools.wmflabs.org/dicompte/index.php (extern) > but here too there is huge room for improvement. Proofreading page by page > is great and necessary but we should multiply the approachs to reach the > best quality. > > We're speaking of new users but such tools (the GGB and much more others) > can be useful for old users too. Maybe we can test them for some old user > first, see how it goes and then offers them (or not) to new users. > Finally, new users are not all the same. The director of Rennes Library is > a new user on frws but she's defintively better at proofreading than most > wikisorcerers ;) > > Cdlt, ~nicolas > > ___ > 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
Another question for Tpt: how far is the implementation of the Visual Editor inside the Proofread Extension? Who's working on it? Just you, as always? Aubrey On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 1:18 PM, zdzislaw wrote: > > 2015-08-11 11:28 GMT+01:00 Nicolas VIGNERON >: > > Then it seems that the quality level has not the same meaning on > > every wikisources. Typo such as « rn » intead of « m » are usually > > removed on the red or yellow step on fr.ws (and such obvious error > > can be seen before editing, reviewing the final render code seems enough > to me). > on pl ws it should be done on "without text" -> red step > > > for me all typo should be gone at the previous stage (and > > personally, I don't go from red to yellow if there is still such typo > mistakes). > should be... but statistically on red-> yellow step I find 2-4 typos, on > yellow-> green step - 1-2 typos (on fr ws too); if on yellow-> green step I > could not found any typos, I do not change its status immediately, leave it > on another day to be sure. > > I'll write it again ... that is not safe to validate a page without > reviewing its wikicode. A BGB at the end of the PREVIEW(!) content in Page > namespace WITHOUT displaying and reviewing wikitext content (raw code) it's > a bad proposal, declining the quality of proofreading process results, > and... I do not think so that "it's unrealistic to expect the raw code to > be review for all page" > for that kind of "edition" it should be special level "pseudovalidate" - > best in pink. > > Z. > > > ___ > 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
2015-08-11 13:23 GMT+02:00 Andrea Zanni : > Ankry, > there's no need to shout :-) > +1, especially when we're actually saying the same thing but with different words. Cdlt, ~nicolas ___ 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
Ankry, there's no need to shout :-) We are just *talking*, nobody is coming to Polish Wikisource and make you use a tool you don't want. You do what the Polish community wants to do. Still, it's 10 years I'm on Wikisource projects (it.ws) and worries me the most is that the community grows slwly. It's too slow, and the web changes rapidly, and our infrastructure becomes rapidly obsolete. I think (but I do not have hard data) that we would have many ways to make users active and teach them how to format things. But a big green button like "if you see an error fix it" could be useful. Maybe we don't need to link it to the validation process, and let users understand that by themself. But I still think that we need to low the complexity of wikisource if we want our communities to grow and thrive. I repeat, there can be many ways to achieve this goal, but for me it's a crucial goal. Aubrey On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 11:45 AM, wrote: > > That's a very good idea. > > NO! NO! NO! > It is suggesting new users to behave like bots! Just click and go on? > Why to read the small-lettering texts? Just click the GGB (Great Green > Button). > > In Polish language Wikisource we have VERY BAD experience with directing > new users to the final validation process: they can't carefully compare > the text in both windows word-by-word. They just read both texts (and > maybe one only?) and click validate & next. > > Later we found a lot of unnoticed OCR-related mistakes like: > - missing last paragraph > - missing a line > - typos like m->rn, in->m, ę->ą, o->n, etc. > > Even 5-10 mistakes per a GREEN page (whan it was based on poor scans/poor > OCR). In our opinion people need to LEARN how to compare texts. And it is > easier to learn when there are more mistakes to notice when there is only > a few of them. > > If you want to decrease quality or you believe you have perfect OCR > software, plese do it for specified Wikisource subdomains, not as general > tool. > > plwikisource highly discourage such a tool. > > Ankry > > > A big green button "validate" at the end of the displayed wikitext > content > > of the page may fit the need. It would open a confirmation popup with an > > explanation message the first k times the user click on it in order to > > make sure new contributors use it well (with k something like 3 or 5). > > > > What do you think about it? I'll have some free time in a few weeks to > > implement a such thing directly into the ProofreadPage extension. > > > > Thomas > > > > > >> Le 10 ao?t 2015 ? 14:31, Alex Brollo a écrit : > >> > >> Ok; imagine that while opening a level 3 page, an ajax query uploads > >> quietly the raw code of the page; as soon as you click the "Big Green > >> Button" the script could edit the code and send it to the server - in > >> milliseconds - and immediately could click the next page button. > >> > >> If a review of page in view mode is all what is needed to validate it, > >> there's no reason to enter in edit mode when there's nothing to fix. > >> > >> Alex > >> > >> 2015-08-10 18:14 GMT+02:00 Andrea Zanni : > >> The Big Validate Button is a good idea, > >> but I also would like a better navigation experience, as it is pretty > >> slow and cumbersome to got on the top of the page to click a tiny arrow, > >> wait for the new page, click edit, etc. > >> > >> Aubrey > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Alex Brollo > >> wrote: > >> If this is true, then to add a big button "Validate" to edit by ajax the > >> code of the page (the header section only needs to be changed if there's > >> no error to fix into the txt) should be a banal task for a good > >> programmer. > >> > >> Perhaps Andrea is asking for much more, but this could be a first step. > >> > >> Alex > >> > >> > >> > >> 2015-08-10 14:47 GMT+01:00 Nicolas VIGNERON > >> : > >> 2015-08-10 15:37 GMT+02:00 Alex Brollo : > >> > > >> > First point is: > >> > is it a safe practice to validate a page without reviewing its raw > >> code? > >> > >> Probably yes. > >> Obviously, it's safer to check the raw code but it's unrealistic to > >> expect the raw code to be review for all page. Anyway, the pages doesn't > >> contain a lot of code (and most pages does'nt contain code at all), so > >> it doesn't seems to be crucial to me. > >> Plus : when VisualEditor will be on WS, less and less people will > >> actually see the raw wikicode. > >> > >> > A second point: is it a safe practice to validate a page without > >> carefully reviewing its transclusion into ns0? > >> > >> Definitively yes. > >> When can a transclusion can go wrong? In all cases I can think of, the > >> problem come from templates, css classes or general stuff like that. It > >> should be fixed generally and it shouldn't block the page validation > >> since it have nothing to do the the page itself (but maybe I'm missing > >> an obvious example here). > >> > >> > Alex > >> > >> Cdlt, ~nicolas > >> > >> ___ > >> Wi
Re: [Wikisource-l] Better way to validate pages
2015-08-11 11:28 GMT+01:00 Nicolas VIGNERON : > Then it seems that the quality level has not the same meaning on > every wikisources. Typo such as « rn » intead of « m » are usually > removed on the red or yellow step on fr.ws (and such obvious error > can be seen before editing, reviewing the final render code seems enough to > me). on pl ws it should be done on "without text" -> red step > for me all typo should be gone at the previous stage (and > personally, I don't go from red to yellow if there is still such typo > mistakes). should be... but statistically on red-> yellow step I find 2-4 typos, on yellow-> green step - 1-2 typos (on fr ws too); if on yellow-> green step I could not found any typos, I do not change its status immediately, leave it on another day to be sure. I'll write it again ... that is not safe to validate a page without reviewing its wikicode. A BGB at the end of the PREVIEW(!) content in Page namespace WITHOUT displaying and reviewing wikitext content (raw code) it's a bad proposal, declining the quality of proofreading process results, and... I do not think so that "it's unrealistic to expect the raw code to be review for all page" for that kind of "edition" it should be special level "pseudovalidate" - best in pink. Z. ___ 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
I'm not sure we're all talking about the same thing. First, this tool is just a tool. If someone is misusing a tool, don't blame the tool, blame (and block) the user of the tool ! Then it seems that the quality level has not the same meaning on every wikisources. Typo such as « rn » intead of « m » are usually removed on the red or yellow step on fr.ws (and such obvious error can be seen before editing, reviewing the final render code seems enough to me). When I'm thinking of raw code review on yellow to green step, I'm thinking of formatting and things like html code replace by ws templates, Unicode encoding mistakes, and little things like that ; for me all typo should be gone at the previous stage (and personally, I don't go from red to yellow if there is still such typo mistakes). The GGB is a tool (and just an idea of a tool right now) and one of many solution to one of many problems Andrea pointed ; but there is many other problems. Especially, the navigation arrows could use some improvement. « validate this and go to next page » is definitively something we need. Since the VisualEditor is coming, we would be dumb no to cease this opportunity to do some clean-up and renovation. We should think too to an other category of tools : global detection of possible mistakes. On frws, there is some little things like https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Gadget-Erreurs-communes.js (intern gadget) and https://tools.wmflabs.org/dicompte/index.php (extern) but here too there is huge room for improvement. Proofreading page by page is great and necessary but we should multiply the approachs to reach the best quality. We're speaking of new users but such tools (the GGB and much more others) can be useful for old users too. Maybe we can test them for some old user first, see how it goes and then offers them (or not) to new users. Finally, new users are not all the same. The director of Rennes Library is a new user on frws but she's defintively better at proofreading than most wikisorcerers ;) Cdlt, ~nicolas ___ 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
> That's a very good idea. NO! NO! NO! It is suggesting new users to behave like bots! Just click and go on? Why to read the small-lettering texts? Just click the GGB (Great Green Button). In Polish language Wikisource we have VERY BAD experience with directing new users to the final validation process: they can't carefully compare the text in both windows word-by-word. They just read both texts (and maybe one only?) and click validate & next. Later we found a lot of unnoticed OCR-related mistakes like: - missing last paragraph - missing a line - typos like m->rn, in->m, ę->ą, o->n, etc. Even 5-10 mistakes per a GREEN page (whan it was based on poor scans/poor OCR). In our opinion people need to LEARN how to compare texts. And it is easier to learn when there are more mistakes to notice when there is only a few of them. If you want to decrease quality or you believe you have perfect OCR software, plese do it for specified Wikisource subdomains, not as general tool. plwikisource highly discourage such a tool. Ankry > A big green button "validate" at the end of the displayed wikitext content > of the page may fit the need. It would open a confirmation popup with an > explanation message the first k times the user click on it in order to > make sure new contributors use it well (with k something like 3 or 5). > > What do you think about it? I'll have some free time in a few weeks to > implement a such thing directly into the ProofreadPage extension. > > Thomas > > >> Le 10 ao?t 2015 ? 14:31, Alex Brollo a écrit : >> >> Ok; imagine that while opening a level 3 page, an ajax query uploads >> quietly the raw code of the page; as soon as you click the "Big Green >> Button" the script could edit the code and send it to the server - in >> milliseconds - and immediately could click the next page button. >> >> If a review of page in view mode is all what is needed to validate it, >> there's no reason to enter in edit mode when there's nothing to fix. >> >> Alex >> >> 2015-08-10 18:14 GMT+02:00 Andrea Zanni : >> The Big Validate Button is a good idea, >> but I also would like a better navigation experience, as it is pretty >> slow and cumbersome to got on the top of the page to click a tiny arrow, >> wait for the new page, click edit, etc. >> >> Aubrey >> >> >> On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Alex Brollo >> wrote: >> If this is true, then to add a big button "Validate" to edit by ajax the >> code of the page (the header section only needs to be changed if there's >> no error to fix into the txt) should be a banal task for a good >> programmer. >> >> Perhaps Andrea is asking for much more, but this could be a first step. >> >> Alex >> >> >> >> 2015-08-10 14:47 GMT+01:00 Nicolas VIGNERON >> : >> 2015-08-10 15:37 GMT+02:00 Alex Brollo : >> > >> > First point is: >> > is it a safe practice to validate a page without reviewing its raw >> code? >> >> Probably yes. >> Obviously, it's safer to check the raw code but it's unrealistic to >> expect the raw code to be review for all page. Anyway, the pages doesn't >> contain a lot of code (and most pages does'nt contain code at all), so >> it doesn't seems to be crucial to me. >> Plus : when VisualEditor will be on WS, less and less people will >> actually see the raw wikicode. >> >> > A second point: is it a safe practice to validate a page without >> carefully reviewing its transclusion into ns0? >> >> Definitively yes. >> When can a transclusion can go wrong? In all cases I can think of, the >> problem come from templates, css classes or general stuff like that. It >> should be fixed generally and it shouldn't block the page validation >> since it have nothing to do the the page itself (but maybe I'm missing >> an obvious example here). >> >> > Alex >> >> Cdlt, ~nicolas >> >> ___ >> 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
Yes, I sort of agree with this, I must say! I love the idea of one-click "validate this and go to next page", but I reckon it should be when one is viewing wikitext. Maybe it could just be as simple as "save this and go to next"? Although, then one doesn't get confirmation that one's edits are correct... hmmm I'm no help am I? Of course, if visual editor is coming, then that's a whole other thing... :-) I always proofread with that DP font, so perhaps if that were set as default for page NS viewing... but that's probably not a good idea... -sam On 11/08/15 17:18, an...@mif.pg.gda.pl wrote: If you wish to add the "Big Validate Button" in a specific Wikisource, it is your choice. But the Polish language Wikisource will definitely refuse to use such a tool. So it should never become a general tool. We have VERY BAD experience with new users making the final validation process. Noticing an OCR error omited in previous stages is often a problem for a user unexperienced in work with OCR-based texts. In general, they just read both texts, do not compare them word-by-word so they often cannot notice mistakes like: missing paragraph, missing line of text, wrong word and also aften miss a typo (eg. missing letter). Our OCR tetxs are full of OCR-specific "typos", like m instead of in rn instead of m 1 instead of l l instead of 1 l instead of ł ą instead of ę i instead of ! , instead of . . instead of , wrong capitalization missing or extra diacritic marks In most cases such "typos" are impossible to eliminate using dictionary-based tests as both "words" (OCR-created and the correct one) exist in the OCR dictionary. Another disadvantage of directing new users to the validation process (especially without even viewing the code) is that they might NEVER learn how to format texts (or even fix broken formatting) as they might never need to use it! It does not matter whether it is low-level template-based formatting process or using VE (however, it is likely that wrong formatting enetered using VE might be difficult to fix while also using VE). In plwikisource we prefer to direct new users to start work with simple texts, when little formatting is required (eg. short stories, novels, simple poetry) entering them (basing on pre-formatted OCR) or to do the first Proofread stage (red -> yellow) than direct them to final validation. Maybe OCR in other languages is much better or you do not care for final text quality - but it definitely should be a choice. Ankry Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 18:14:20 +0200 Andrea Zanni wrote: The Big Validate Button is a good idea, but I also would like a better navigation experience, as it is pretty slow and cumbersome to got on the top of the page to click a tiny arrow, wait for the new page, click edit, etc. Aubrey On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Alex Brollo wrote: If this is true, then to add a big button "Validate" to edit by ajax the code of the page (the header section only needs to be changed if there's no error to fix into the txt) should be a banal task for a good programmer. Perhaps Andrea is asking for much more, but this could be a first step. Alex 2015-08-10 14:47 GMT+01:00 Nicolas VIGNERON : 2015-08-10 15:37 GMT+02:00 Alex Brollo : First point is: is it a safe practice to validate a page without reviewing its raw code? Probably yes. Obviously, it's safer to check the raw code but it's unrealistic to expect the raw code to be review for all page. Anyway, the pages doesn't contain a lot of code (and most pages does'nt contain code at all), so it doesn't seems to be crucial to me. Plus : when VisualEditor will be on WS, less and less people will actually see the raw wikicode. A second point: is it a safe practice to validate a page without carefully reviewing its transclusion into ns0? Definitively yes. When can a transclusion can go wrong? In all cases I can think of, the problem come from templates, css classes or general stuff like that. It should be fixed generally and it shouldn't block the page validation since it have nothing to do the the page itself (but maybe I'm missing an obvious example here). Alex Cdlt, ~nicolas ___ 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 ___ 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
If you wish to add the "Big Validate Button" in a specific Wikisource, it is your choice. But the Polish language Wikisource will definitely refuse to use such a tool. So it should never become a general tool. We have VERY BAD experience with new users making the final validation process. Noticing an OCR error omited in previous stages is often a problem for a user unexperienced in work with OCR-based texts. In general, they just read both texts, do not compare them word-by-word so they often cannot notice mistakes like: missing paragraph, missing line of text, wrong word and also aften miss a typo (eg. missing letter). Our OCR tetxs are full of OCR-specific "typos", like m instead of in rn instead of m 1 instead of l l instead of 1 l instead of ł ą instead of ę i instead of ! , instead of . . instead of , wrong capitalization missing or extra diacritic marks In most cases such "typos" are impossible to eliminate using dictionary-based tests as both "words" (OCR-created and the correct one) exist in the OCR dictionary. Another disadvantage of directing new users to the validation process (especially without even viewing the code) is that they might NEVER learn how to format texts (or even fix broken formatting) as they might never need to use it! It does not matter whether it is low-level template-based formatting process or using VE (however, it is likely that wrong formatting enetered using VE might be difficult to fix while also using VE). In plwikisource we prefer to direct new users to start work with simple texts, when little formatting is required (eg. short stories, novels, simple poetry) entering them (basing on pre-formatted OCR) or to do the first Proofread stage (red -> yellow) than direct them to final validation. Maybe OCR in other languages is much better or you do not care for final text quality - but it definitely should be a choice. Ankry > Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 18:14:20 +0200 > Andrea Zanni wrote: > > The Big Validate Button is a good idea, > but I also would like a better navigation experience, as it is pretty slow > and cumbersome to got on the top of the page to click a tiny arrow, wait > for the new page, click edit, etc. > > Aubrey > > > On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Alex Brollo > wrote: > >> If this is true, then to add a big button "Validate" to edit by ajax the >> code of the page (the header section only needs to be changed if there's >> no >> error to fix into the txt) should be a banal task for a good programmer. >> >> Perhaps Andrea is asking for much more, but this could be a first step. >> >> Alex >> >> >> >> 2015-08-10 14:47 GMT+01:00 Nicolas VIGNERON >> : >> >>> 2015-08-10 15:37 GMT+02:00 Alex Brollo : >>> > >>> > First point is: >>> > is it a safe practice to validate a page without reviewing its raw >>> code? >>> >>> Probably yes. >>> Obviously, it's safer to check the raw code but it's unrealistic to >>> expect the raw code to be review for all page. Anyway, the pages >>> doesn't >>> contain a lot of code (and most pages does'nt contain code at all), so >>> it >>> doesn't seems to be crucial to me. >>> Plus : when VisualEditor will be on WS, less and less people will >>> actually see the raw wikicode. >>> >>> > A second point: is it a safe practice to validate a page without >>> carefully reviewing its transclusion into ns0? >>> >>> Definitively yes. >>> When can a transclusion can go wrong? In all cases I can think of, the >>> problem come from templates, css classes or general stuff like that. It >>> should be fixed generally and it shouldn't block the page validation >>> since >>> it have nothing to do the the page itself (but maybe I'm missing an >>> obvious >>> example here). >>> >>> > Alex >>> >>> Cdlt, ~nicolas >>> >>> ___ >>> 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
Ideally, yes, the user should proofread the wikitext.
We use wikitext to shape and format the text, we put templates and italics
and headers.
But I agree with Vigneron that for many, many pages in our books this is
not worth it, or, to explain me better:
* many pages are really simple, and if expert users have done the 75%, they
just need to be read in the text
* many, many users are not aware of our system and procedures, do not know
wikitext, and we *lose* their contribution. If 1000 users read a whole 75%
book but never click on Edit, we lost valuable contributions.
So, I think this is a problem that needs to be fixed.
In a very good book about crowdsourcing ("Reinventing Discovery", from
Michael Nielsen) the author argues that the more you "low the barrier for
contribution", the more contributions you will have.
It's a very simple but very effective idea.
I strongly believe that the validation (75 >100) is our silver bullet for
this.
We would need a way to "mark" one page as a "simple page to be proofread"
directly by users who are not WIkisource experts, who just need to look at
the text.
Unfortunately, our formatting is IN the text (as in many part pf the web),
but we all now that
text and layout can be separated: in the validation process, they are
blurred, and a user validates it corrects both the text and the occasional
templates.
It's technically difficult to separate "the layout" from "the content
itself", so we'll have to live with that.
Other communities (like Distributed Proofreaders) have a different way of
working, and they ask one user to think about the text and another to think
about the layout and markup.
We can't do that, I think, for us being wiki and free and all.
I much prefer the freedom to a more rigid but effective structure.
Still, we could maybe add a new layer ("pseudovalidation" seems promising)
or invent other ways to cope with the same problem.
I think the problem is: make the life of the user easier, and in this
specific case it is about harnessing *casual readers who read the book for
fun but can easily spot a typo and correct the text*.
Aubrey
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 9:41 AM, zdzislaw wrote:
> 2015-08-10 14:47 GMT+01:00 Nicolas VIGNERON >:
> >2015-08-10 15:37 GMT+02:00 Alex Brollo :
> >>
> >> First point is:
> >> is it a safe practice to validate a page without reviewing its raw code?
> >
> >Probably yes.
> >Obviously, it's safer to check the raw code but it's unrealistic to expect
> >the raw code to be review for all page. Anyway, the pages doesn't contain
> a
> Probaby yes?? you're kidding?!... Of course, that is not safe! during the
> validation (Proofread -> Validated level) it is particularly important to
> review the wikitext (the raw code). "Work of literature" that we submit
> proofreading is not just content, is also a FORM, and how to ensure that
> the form is correct without checking typography, layout, used templates...
> "it's unrealistic to expect the raw code to be review for all page"??
> kidding again?! for all (~95k on pl. ws) the "green" pages - source code
> (wikitext) has been revised, and not once, but three times!, at each change
> of the status.
>
> A big green button (!) "validate" at the end of the PREVIEW(!) content in
> Page namespace WITHOUT displaying and reviewing wikitext content (raw code)
> it's a bad proposal, declining the quality of proofreading process results.
> I propose simultaneous addition a special level for such sites:
> "pseudovalidate" - best in pink - will be able to easily pick out a
> "revised" page in such a way... and to check it again - it will facilitate
> the work of administrators.
>
> Z.
>
>
> ___
> 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
2015-08-10 14:47 GMT+01:00 Nicolas VIGNERON : >2015-08-10 15:37 GMT+02:00 Alex Brollo : >> >> First point is: >> is it a safe practice to validate a page without reviewing its raw code? > >Probably yes. >Obviously, it's safer to check the raw code but it's unrealistic to expect >the raw code to be review for all page. Anyway, the pages doesn't contain a Probaby yes?? you're kidding?!... Of course, that is not safe! during the validation (Proofread -> Validated level) it is particularly important to review the wikitext (the raw code). "Work of literature" that we submit proofreading is not just content, is also a FORM, and how to ensure that the form is correct without checking typography, layout, used templates... "it's unrealistic to expect the raw code to be review for all page"?? kidding again?! for all (~95k on pl. ws) the "green" pages - source code (wikitext) has been revised, and not once, but three times!, at each change of the status. A big green button (!) "validate" at the end of the PREVIEW(!) content in Page namespace WITHOUT displaying and reviewing wikitext content (raw code) it's a bad proposal, declining the quality of proofreading process results. I propose simultaneous addition a special level for such sites: "pseudovalidate" - best in pink - will be able to easily pick out a "revised" page in such a way... and to check it again - it will facilitate the work of administrators. Z. ___ 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
That's a very good idea. A big green button "validate" at the end of the displayed wikitext content of the page may fit the need. It would open a confirmation popup with an explanation message the first k times the user click on it in order to make sure new contributors use it well (with k something like 3 or 5). What do you think about it? I'll have some free time in a few weeks to implement a such thing directly into the ProofreadPage extension. Thomas > Le 10 août 2015 à 14:31, Alex Brollo a écrit : > > Ok; imagine that while opening a level 3 page, an ajax query uploads quietly > the raw code of the page; as soon as you click the "Big Green Button" the > script could edit the code and send it to the server - in milliseconds - and > immediately could click the next page button. > > If a review of page in view mode is all what is needed to validate it, > there's no reason to enter in edit mode when there's nothing to fix. > > Alex > > 2015-08-10 18:14 GMT+02:00 Andrea Zanni : > The Big Validate Button is a good idea, > but I also would like a better navigation experience, as it is pretty slow > and cumbersome to got on the top of the page to click a tiny arrow, wait for > the new page, click edit, etc. > > Aubrey > > > On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Alex Brollo wrote: > If this is true, then to add a big button "Validate" to edit by ajax the code > of the page (the header section only needs to be changed if there's no error > to fix into the txt) should be a banal task for a good programmer. > > Perhaps Andrea is asking for much more, but this could be a first step. > > Alex > > > > 2015-08-10 14:47 GMT+01:00 Nicolas VIGNERON : > 2015-08-10 15:37 GMT+02:00 Alex Brollo : > > > > First point is: > > is it a safe practice to validate a page without reviewing its raw code? > > Probably yes. > Obviously, it's safer to check the raw code but it's unrealistic to expect > the raw code to be review for all page. Anyway, the pages doesn't contain a > lot of code (and most pages does'nt contain code at all), so it doesn't seems > to be crucial to me. > Plus : when VisualEditor will be on WS, less and less people will actually > see the raw wikicode. > > > A second point: is it a safe practice to validate a page without carefully > > reviewing its transclusion into ns0? > > Definitively yes. > When can a transclusion can go wrong? In all cases I can think of, the > problem come from templates, css classes or general stuff like that. It > should be fixed generally and it shouldn't block the page validation since it > have nothing to do the the page itself (but maybe I'm missing an obvious > example here). > > > Alex > > Cdlt, ~nicolas > > ___ > 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 > > > > ___ > 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 ___ 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
Ok; imagine that while opening a level 3 page, an ajax query uploads quietly the raw code of the page; as soon as you click the "Big Green Button" the script could edit the code and send it to the server - in milliseconds - and immediately could click the next page button. If a review of page in view mode is all what is needed to validate it, there's no reason to enter in edit mode when there's nothing to fix. Alex 2015-08-10 18:14 GMT+02:00 Andrea Zanni : > The Big Validate Button is a good idea, > but I also would like a better navigation experience, as it is pretty slow > and cumbersome to got on the top of the page to click a tiny arrow, wait > for the new page, click edit, etc. > > Aubrey > > > On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Alex Brollo > wrote: > >> If this is true, then to add a big button "Validate" to edit by ajax the >> code of the page (the header section only needs to be changed if there's no >> error to fix into the txt) should be a banal task for a good programmer. >> >> Perhaps Andrea is asking for much more, but this could be a first step. >> >> Alex >> >> >> >> 2015-08-10 14:47 GMT+01:00 Nicolas VIGNERON : >> >>> 2015-08-10 15:37 GMT+02:00 Alex Brollo : >>> > >>> > First point is: >>> > is it a safe practice to validate a page without reviewing its raw >>> code? >>> >>> Probably yes. >>> Obviously, it's safer to check the raw code but it's unrealistic to >>> expect the raw code to be review for all page. Anyway, the pages doesn't >>> contain a lot of code (and most pages does'nt contain code at all), so it >>> doesn't seems to be crucial to me. >>> Plus : when VisualEditor will be on WS, less and less people will >>> actually see the raw wikicode. >>> >>> > A second point: is it a safe practice to validate a page without >>> carefully reviewing its transclusion into ns0? >>> >>> Definitively yes. >>> When can a transclusion can go wrong? In all cases I can think of, the >>> problem come from templates, css classes or general stuff like that. It >>> should be fixed generally and it shouldn't block the page validation since >>> it have nothing to do the the page itself (but maybe I'm missing an obvious >>> example here). >>> >>> > Alex >>> >>> Cdlt, ~nicolas >>> >>> ___ >>> 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 >> >> > > ___ > 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
The Big Validate Button is a good idea, but I also would like a better navigation experience, as it is pretty slow and cumbersome to got on the top of the page to click a tiny arrow, wait for the new page, click edit, etc. Aubrey On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Alex Brollo wrote: > If this is true, then to add a big button "Validate" to edit by ajax the > code of the page (the header section only needs to be changed if there's no > error to fix into the txt) should be a banal task for a good programmer. > > Perhaps Andrea is asking for much more, but this could be a first step. > > Alex > > > > 2015-08-10 14:47 GMT+01:00 Nicolas VIGNERON : > >> 2015-08-10 15:37 GMT+02:00 Alex Brollo : >> > >> > First point is: >> > is it a safe practice to validate a page without reviewing its raw code? >> >> Probably yes. >> Obviously, it's safer to check the raw code but it's unrealistic to >> expect the raw code to be review for all page. Anyway, the pages doesn't >> contain a lot of code (and most pages does'nt contain code at all), so it >> doesn't seems to be crucial to me. >> Plus : when VisualEditor will be on WS, less and less people will >> actually see the raw wikicode. >> >> > A second point: is it a safe practice to validate a page without >> carefully reviewing its transclusion into ns0? >> >> Definitively yes. >> When can a transclusion can go wrong? In all cases I can think of, the >> problem come from templates, css classes or general stuff like that. It >> should be fixed generally and it shouldn't block the page validation since >> it have nothing to do the the page itself (but maybe I'm missing an obvious >> example here). >> >> > Alex >> >> Cdlt, ~nicolas >> >> ___ >> 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 > > ___ 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
If this is true, then to add a big button "Validate" to edit by ajax the code of the page (the header section only needs to be changed if there's no error to fix into the txt) should be a banal task for a good programmer. Perhaps Andrea is asking for much more, but this could be a first step. Alex 2015-08-10 14:47 GMT+01:00 Nicolas VIGNERON : > 2015-08-10 15:37 GMT+02:00 Alex Brollo : > > > > First point is: > > is it a safe practice to validate a page without reviewing its raw code? > > Probably yes. > Obviously, it's safer to check the raw code but it's unrealistic to expect > the raw code to be review for all page. Anyway, the pages doesn't contain a > lot of code (and most pages does'nt contain code at all), so it doesn't > seems to be crucial to me. > Plus : when VisualEditor will be on WS, less and less people will actually > see the raw wikicode. > > > A second point: is it a safe practice to validate a page without > carefully reviewing its transclusion into ns0? > > Definitively yes. > When can a transclusion can go wrong? In all cases I can think of, the > problem come from templates, css classes or general stuff like that. It > should be fixed generally and it shouldn't block the page validation since > it have nothing to do the the page itself (but maybe I'm missing an obvious > example here). > > > Alex > > Cdlt, ~nicolas > > ___ > 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
2015-08-10 15:37 GMT+02:00 Alex Brollo : > > First point is: > is it a safe practice to validate a page without reviewing its raw code? Probably yes. Obviously, it's safer to check the raw code but it's unrealistic to expect the raw code to be review for all page. Anyway, the pages doesn't contain a lot of code (and most pages does'nt contain code at all), so it doesn't seems to be crucial to me. Plus : when VisualEditor will be on WS, less and less people will actually see the raw wikicode. > A second point: is it a safe practice to validate a page without carefully reviewing its transclusion into ns0? Definitively yes. When can a transclusion can go wrong? In all cases I can think of, the problem come from templates, css classes or general stuff like that. It should be fixed generally and it shouldn't block the page validation since it have nothing to do the the page itself (but maybe I'm missing an obvious example here). > Alex Cdlt, ~nicolas ___ 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
First point is: is it a safe practice to validate a page without reviewing its raw code? A second point: is it a safe practice to validate a page without carefully reviewing its transclusion into ns0? Alex 2015-08-10 10:48 GMT+01:00 Andrea Zanni : > As you all probably do, > I sometimes go and proofread/validate pages in Wikisource. > The validation (going from a 75% to a 100% level) is probably the simplest > of Wikisource tasks, and it's especially fit to teach fist to WS beginners. > > When we do (in it.ws) the Proofreading contest, validated pages count in > thousands. > > The point is: > as of today, the procedure is pretty cumbersome. > It's easy to read one text on the right column, and on the left column. > What is not easy is to navigate through the pages: > * our indexes are not easily findable, nor understandable > * the arrows for navigating are small > * for validating or proofreading a page, I have to click on Edit, and then > proofread, click on the right radiobutton, then save. > > > I was wondering if some of your communities has tried to ease the > procedure, > and make life more easy (and *QUICK*) for beginners and experts alike. > > For me, I usually go to the Index Page, open in different tabs different > pages, then start reading. > But I'm sure we could come up with a different, easier procedure, when a > user *just reads, occasionaly edit and save the page as he progresses*. A > quicker, easier way to flip pages and reading. > > > 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
[Wikisource-l] Better way to validate pages
As you all probably do, I sometimes go and proofread/validate pages in Wikisource. The validation (going from a 75% to a 100% level) is probably the simplest of Wikisource tasks, and it's especially fit to teach fist to WS beginners. When we do (in it.ws) the Proofreading contest, validated pages count in thousands. The point is: as of today, the procedure is pretty cumbersome. It's easy to read one text on the right column, and on the left column. What is not easy is to navigate through the pages: * our indexes are not easily findable, nor understandable * the arrows for navigating are small * for validating or proofreading a page, I have to click on Edit, and then proofread, click on the right radiobutton, then save. I was wondering if some of your communities has tried to ease the procedure, and make life more easy (and *QUICK*) for beginners and experts alike. For me, I usually go to the Index Page, open in different tabs different pages, then start reading. But I'm sure we could come up with a different, easier procedure, when a user *just reads, occasionaly edit and save the page as he progresses*. A quicker, easier way to flip pages and reading. Aubrey ___ Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
