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
