Perhaps the logics could be reversed - t.i. with a list of todo specific steps *needed* for a specific page; "This page needs proofreading? yes/no; needs formatting? yes/no; needs image managing? yes/no; and so on. With this approach, a new page could have all steps *flagged*, bus some could be immediately unflagged, since the page doesn't need the step (if a page has no picture indside, theres'n any need for image managing). So, a level 4 page will be by definition *a page with no pending flag*, and it will be very simple to categorize them for pending flags.
Alex 2016-11-11 10:00 GMT+01:00 Andrea Zanni <zanni.andre...@gmail.com>: > I remember when we tried to make a partnership with a scholar who works > with ancient texts. > He needed some Italian translation of Greek texts in Wikisource, but he > was much more interested in validated/proofread text *without* formatting, > than the contrary. > 75% for us is formatted, always. > But, arguably, for people it's easier to correct typos and proofread than > format with strange templates and codes. We always assume that people know > how Wikisource works, how wikicode works, etc. > > A brand new quality workflow could be beneficial. > > Aubrey > > > On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Alex Brollo <alex.bro...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> .... coupled with a KISSing approach it could run perhaps.... :-) >> >> Alex >> >> 2016-11-11 9:37 GMT+01:00 Sam Wilson <s...@samwilson.id.au>: >> >>> Yes, makes sense! Or a series of attributes like: >>> >>> proofread once? >>> proofread twice? >>> formatted? >>> all images added? >>> hyperlinked? >>> transcluded? >>> read in context with other pages? >>> etc. >>> >>> Only some of which need be linear. >>> >>> And only when all are done is the thing considered bonzer. :-) >>> >>> —sam >>> >>> On Fri, 11 Nov 2016, at 04:17 PM, Alex Brollo wrote: >>> >>> I'd like to state a "binary page quality" splitting the workflow into >>> its basic steps (proofreading of text; formatting; adding links; >>> validating....), t.i. into a set of true/false states, clearly showing the >>> list of lacking steps. I.e. sometimes I fastly add complex formatting to >>> rough text, and this results into a exotic "level" proofreading=false, >>> formatting=true. It's a level 1, but it is deeply different from a level 1 >>> coming from proofreading=true, formatting=false. >>> Obviously the whole "binary level" could be simply stored as a number, >>> with useful information into it. >>> Alex >>> >>> 2016-11-11 8:32 GMT+01:00 Sam Wilson <s...@samwilson.id.au>: >>> >>> >>> That sounds really interesting! Do you mean as a way for people >>> unfamiliar with Wikisource to easily contribute notes and corrections? On >>> the face of things, it could perhaps work by storing the notes in a the >>> Page_talk namspace and doing some clever thing to display them on the Page >>> (and perhaps in main) namespaces. >>> >>> It seems like it'd be cool to be able to get "typo reports" or >>> something, from people who mightn't have any idea of Wikisource other than >>> that's where they got an epub. >>> >>> To rate a page, we currently have the various levels of proofreading >>> quality. Is this not sufficient? And does the current Index page overview >>> of all of a book's statuses work for you? I sometimes wonder if we need >>> another rating, above 'validated', that indicates that a whole book has >>> been read through and (hopefully) any remaining typos have been found. >>> >>> >>> —sam >>> >>> >>> On Fri, 11 Nov 2016, at 12:27 AM, mathieu stumpf guntz wrote: >>> >>> Hmm, at the conference I think someone was interested in a feature to >>> make comments on texts, like you can make on some word processors for >>> example. That may be interesting, but how you render the result might be a >>> huge user interface problem. One should be able to choose whom comments >>> should be visible… >>> >>> Otherwise, I would still be happy to have more flexibable way to "rate" >>> a page. That is, a page might be text proof readed, but laking some css, or >>> a picture should be extracted etc. Having a way to see that for all pages >>> in the book: namespace would be fine. >>> >>> ĝis baldaŭ >>> >>> Le 10/11/2016 à 06:09, Sam Wilson a écrit : >>> >>> Thanks Alex :) It's a minor project so far, but I reckon the work you've >>> been doing on making a better, bigger, more proofreading-focused >>> interface is really good. Do stick a proposal up! >>> >>> So far, we've got: >>> >>> * Add a 'clean' method for side-titles, and side notes to parser >>> * A spelling- and typo-checking system for proofreading >>> * Visual Editor menu refresh >>> * upload text wizard >>> * Language links in Wikisource for edition items in Wikidata >>> * Display subpage name in category >>> * Make Special:IndexPage transcludeable >>> * Fix Extension:Cite to get rid of foibles >>> >>> If anyone's got half-formed ideas, I'd encourage you to post something, >>> or just post to this mailing list, and we can all have a chat about it. >>> :) >>> >>> —sam >>> >>> >>> On Wed, 9 Nov 2016, at 04:50 PM, Alex Brollo wrote: >>> >>> I too could add *some* proposals.... but the first one could be a deep >>> revision of nsPage edit interface to got the goal "fixed tools, almost full >>> screen scrolling text & image". In the meantime, I'm go on testing >>> FullScreenEditing.js by Sam, that presently is an excellent, running step >>> approximating such a goal. >>> >>> Alex >>> >>> 2016-11-09 1:03 GMT+01:00 Sam Wilson <s...@samwilson.id.au> >>> <s...@samwilson.id.au>: >>> >>> __ >>> Huzza for Wikisource; we've currently got more proposals than any of the >>> other categories (not that it's a competition, but still...). >>> >>> @Micru: this whole topic of how to represent bibliographic data in WD and >>> properly link it in Wikisource is great! I'm looking forward to helping. :-) >>> >>> >>> —sam >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, 8 Nov 2016, at 10:08 PM, David Cuenca Tudela wrote: >>> >>> Hi Thomas, >>> thanks for bringing that up! I wrote a proposal to finish the work >>> retrieving the language links from several editions and represent them in >>> wikisource as language links. >>> >>> To write or vote exiting Wikisource proposals, the link >>> is:https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2016_Community_Wishlist_Survey/Categories/Wikisource >>> Cheers, >>> Micru >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 10:06 AM, Thomas PT <thoma...@hotmail.fr> >>> <thoma...@hotmail.fr> wrote: >>> >>> Hello everyone, >>> >>> The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team has launched a new "Community >>> Wishlist Survey". >>> Last year survey allowed us to get WMF staff time to work on using Google >>> OCR in Wikisource that allowed some Indian languages Wikisources to raise >>> and on VisualEditor support. >>> >>> Please, take time to submit new wishes and comment them. It could be simple >>> things (e.g. a new gadget for a specific workflow) or very complicated ones >>> (e.g. native TEI support). >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Thomas >>> >>> >>> >>> Début du message réexpédié : >>> >>> *De: *Johan Jönsson <jjons...@wikimedia.org> <jjons...@wikimedia.org> >>> *Objet: **[Wikitech-ambassadors] Your help needed: Community Wishlist >>> Survey 2016* >>> *Date: *7 novembre 2016 à 20:26:21 UTC+1 >>> *À: *Wikitech Ambassadors <wikitech-ambassad...@lists.wikimedia.org> >>> <wikitech-ambassad...@lists.wikimedia.org> >>> *Répondre à: *Coordination of technology deployments across >>> languages/projects <wikitech-ambassad...@lists.wikimedia.org> >>> <wikitech-ambassad...@lists.wikimedia.org> >>> >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> Last year, the Community Tech team did a survey for a community wishlist to >>> decide what we shoudl be working on throughout the year. Since it's useful >>> to have a list of tasks from the Wikimedia communities, it's also been used >>> by other developers, >>> >>> been the focus of Wikimedia hackathons and so on. In short, I think it >>> matters. >>> >>> Now we're doing the process again. >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2016_Community_Wishlist_Survey >>> >>> If you'd feel like spreading this in your communities, it would be much >>> appreciated. >>> >>> *) This is when you can suggest things. This phase will last from 7 >>> November to 20 November. >>> *) Editors who are not comfortable writing in English can write proposals >>> in their language. >>> *) Voting will take place 28 November to 12 December. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> //Johan Jönsson >>> -- >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikitech-ambassadors mailing >>> listWikitech-ambassadors@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-ambassadors >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikisource-l mailing >>> listWikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l >>> >>> -- >>> Etiamsi omnes, ego non >>> _________________________________________________ >>> Wikisource-l mailing >>> listWikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://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 >>> listWikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikisource-l mailing >>> listWikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://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 >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
