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
