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
