Please don't presume that such a controversial tool hase been implemented
anywhere ..... "running" only means that che code can run; presently only
*one* user (Aubrey) can click it, just to test it.
Alex
2015-08-12 2:24 GMT+02:00 Wiera Lee <wiera...@gmail.com>:
> 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
>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikisource-l mailing list
Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
