Re: [Wikisource-l] Better way to validate pages
2015-08-17 19:12 GMT+02:00 Andrea Zanni zanni.andre...@gmail.com: *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
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 zanni.andre...@gmail.com To: discussion list for Wikisource, the free library wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikisource-l] Better way to validate pages Message-ID: CAC=vxyzzg0vnpohkqn52bqys-48u0pvopax9pupowpqrd_8...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 2:06 PM, zdzislaw zdzislaw.w...@gmail.com 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
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 erasmo_barr...@live.it: 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 zanni.andre...@gmail.com To: discussion list for Wikisource, the free library wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikisource-l] Better way to validate pages Message-ID: CAC=vxyzzg0vnpohkqn52bqys-48u0pvopax9pupowpqrd_8...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 2:06 PM, zdzislaw zdzislaw.w...@gmail.com 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 zdzislaw.w...@gmail.com 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 poem 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 zanni.andre...@gmail.com To: discussion list for Wikisource, the free library wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikisource-l] Better way to validate pages Message-ID: CAC=vxyazfhuxznzfjyckfa0+1d4ekcpyrkzf5cm1ebs_t+h...@mail.gmail.com 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 alex.bro...@gmail.com: 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
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 zanni.andre...@gmail.com a écrit : On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 2:06 PM, zdzislaw zdzislaw.w...@gmail.com 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
Hello Andrea, 2015-08-12 10:11 GMT+01:00 Andrea Zanni zanni.andrea84 at gmail.com: 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
2015-08-12 7:00 GMT+02:00 Alex Brollo alex.bro...@gmail.com: 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
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 alex.bro...@gmail.com: 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
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 alex.bro...@gmail.com 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 vigneron.nico...@gmail.com: 2015-08-10 15:37 GMT+02:00 Alex Brollo alex.bro...@gmail.com: 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 alex.bro...@gmail.com 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 vigneron.nico...@gmail.com: 2015-08-10 15:37 GMT+02:00 Alex Brollo alex.bro...@gmail.com: 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
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 zdzislaw.w...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-08-10 14:47 GMT+01:00 Nicolas VIGNERON vigneron.nicolas at gmail.com : 2015-08-10 15:37 GMT+02:00 Alex Brollo alex.brollo at gmail.com: 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
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 alex.bro...@gmail.com 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 zanni.andre...@gmail.com: 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 alex.bro...@gmail.com 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 vigneron.nico...@gmail.com: 2015-08-10 15:37 GMT+02:00 Alex Brollo alex.bro...@gmail.com: 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
2015-08-11 13:23 GMT+02:00 Andrea Zanni zanni.andre...@gmail.com: 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
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 vigneron.nico...@gmail.com: 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
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, an...@mif.pg.gda.pl 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 alex.bro...@gmail.com 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 zanni.andre...@gmail.com: 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 alex.bro...@gmail.com 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 vigneron.nico...@gmail.com: 2015-08-10 15:37 GMT+02:00 Alex Brollo alex.bro...@gmail.com: 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
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 zdzislaw.w...@gmail.com: 2015-08-11 12:34 GMT+01:00 Nicolas VIGNERON vigneron.nicolas at gmail.com: 2015-08-11 13:18 GMT+02:00 zdzislaw zdzislaw.w...@gmail.com: 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 center vs. div align=center 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
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
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, an...@mif.pg.gda.pl 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 alex.bro...@gmail.com 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 zanni.andre...@gmail.com: 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 alex.bro...@gmail.com 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 vigneron.nico...@gmail.com: 2015-08-10 15:37 GMT+02:00 Alex Brollo alex.bro...@gmail.com: 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
2015-08-11 11:28 GMT+01:00 Nicolas VIGNERON vigneron.nicolas at gmail.com: 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
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 zdzislaw.w...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-08-11 11:28 GMT+01:00 Nicolas VIGNERON vigneron.nicolas at gmail.com : 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 12:34 GMT+01:00 Nicolas VIGNERON vigneron.nicolas at gmail.com: 2015-08-11 13:18 GMT+02:00 zdzislaw zdzislaw.w...@gmail.com: 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
2015-08-11 13:18 GMT+02:00 zdzislaw zdzislaw.w...@gmail.com: 2015-08-11 11:28 GMT+01:00 Nicolas VIGNERON vigneron.nicolas at gmail.com : 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 center vs. div align=center 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
2015-08-11 15:21 GMT+02:00 zdzislaw zdzislaw.w...@gmail.com: 2015-08-11 13:59 GMT+01:00 Nicolas VIGNERON vigneron.nicolas at 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
Re: [Wikisource-l] Better way to validate pages
2015-08-11 13:59 GMT+01:00 Nicolas VIGNERON vigneron.nicolas at 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. ___ 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 vigneron.nico...@gmail.com: 2015-08-11 15:21 GMT+02:00 zdzislaw zdzislaw.w...@gmail.com: 2015-08-11 13:59 GMT+01:00 Nicolas VIGNERON vigneron.nicolas at 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 20:39 GMT+02:00 Wiera Lee wiera...@gmail.com: 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 vigneron.nico...@gmail.com: 2015-08-11 20:39 GMT+02:00 Wiera Lee wiera...@gmail.com: 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
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 lugu...@gmail.com: (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 alex.bro...@gmail.com 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 vigneron.nico...@gmail.com: 2015-08-11 20:39 GMT+02:00 Wiera Lee wiera...@gmail.com: 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
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 lugu...@gmail.com: (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 alex.bro...@gmail.com 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 vigneron.nico...@gmail.com: 2015-08-11 20:39 GMT+02:00 Wiera Lee wiera...@gmail.com: 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
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 wiera...@gmail.com: 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 lugu...@gmail.com: (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 alex.bro...@gmail.com 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 vigneron.nico...@gmail.com : 2015-08-11 20:39 GMT+02:00 Wiera Lee wiera...@gmail.com: 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
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 alex.bro...@gmail.com 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 vigneron.nico...@gmail.com: 2015-08-10 15:37 GMT+02:00 Alex Brollo alex.bro...@gmail.com: 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
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 zanni.andre...@gmail.com: 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
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 vigneron.nico...@gmail.com: 2015-08-10 15:37 GMT+02:00 Alex Brollo alex.bro...@gmail.com: 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
