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
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikisource-l mailing list
Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
