On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Thibaut Horel <thibaut.ho...@gmail.com>wrote:
> 3. The current system with 4 quality levels to represent the proofreading > state of a page is not sufficient to represent the diversity of > proofreading scenarios. Indeed, there is a distinction to make between the > *correctness* of the text and its *formatting*. In the case of a scanned > edition which has been OCRed, we do need several passes before reaching a > satisfying level of confidence about the correctness of the text as well as > a suitable formatting (proper use of the wikicode, etc.). For digital-born > documents however, as billinghurst said, we can automatically assume that > the extracted text is correct, but that still doesn't mean that the text is > correctly formatted and ready to be transcluded in the main namespace. > Maybe we should add another level meaning "text is correct, still needs > formatting"? Ideally, we should have to scales of quality levels: one > dealing with the correctness of the text, and one dealing with its > formatting. This would probably be too heavy and confusing though... I couldn't agree more. I think this could be an opportunity also to make task *smaller* and *clearer* (in the direction of "microtask", which are contributions in crowdsourcing projects which are small, definite and simple. eg GalaxyZoo, reCAPTCHA). We could define some tasks as * corrected the page * proofread the text * formatted the page * validated the formatting * OPTIONAL added optional templates/links/annotations *... We could even have qualifiers (all/part of the page, ...) Is this idea crazy, or somewhat doable? Aubrey
_______________________________________________ Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
