Re: [Wikisource-l] What is our next major hurdle, or where we need most development assistance

[Andrea Zanni]

On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 6:34 PM, Dominic McDevitt-Parks 
wrote:


> You have a good point, though. One of the differences between Wikisource
> and most other platforms is that it is actually richly formatted. It's kind
> of a shame to strip all that formatting information out when extracting the
> transcriptions. (Though many destinations wouldn't know what to do with
> formatted text anyway.)



I think this is a crucial issue.
Many projects do give you the possibility to download a .txt, which is ok
for digital preservation, but I challenge anyone to actually read a book in
txt. :-)
I believe that accessibility is having good ebooks accessible and readable
on numerous devices.
IMHO, what Tpt has done with his EPUB tool is remarkable: a nice, quick
tool for generate fairly formatted ebooks, allow readers to actually read
an ebook on a Kindle or a Kobo (or a tablet). It also work both with Index
and ns0 books. The problem is that it's not perfectly formatted, of course,
and it's not integrate within MediaWiki.
When I put the link to the ebook converter directly in the Header template,
stats skyrocketed : in few weeks we had thousands of downloads. (see it
here: http://wsexport.wmflabs.org/tool/stat.php)


So, readibility is one big issue. We are here to be read.

Structured formats it's good for export, integration with different
libraries, standardisation, and so on. It's fundamental, I think, for the
development of the whole project. if we convince the WMF to put some
permanent staff time, many things could be achieved :-)

Aubrey

PS: the script it's bad, I warn you, bit that's what I come up so far. I
hope to improve it in the next weeks. If you can make it better, please do
:-)
___
Wikisource-l mailing list
Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l

Re: [Wikisource-l] What is our next major hurdle, or where we need most development assistance

[Dominic McDevitt-Parks]

On 25 November 2014 at 11:33, Andrea Zanni  wrote:

>
> How would I do that now? Wikisource pages are not structured data (though
>> Wikimedia Commons image metadata will soon be!), so there is not a clear
>> way to use the Wikisource API to extract just the relevant transcribed text
>> on the page as a field. And on top of that, any text you do extract this
>> way will be full of templates and other code that has no meaning outside of
>> the context of Wikisource. I don't see a way to easily extract just the
>> plain text that is meaningful and relevant (along with other fielded data,
>> like what page or text it belongs to).
>>
>
> Wikisource as a "structured" repository is what we ask from the dawn of
> time :-)
> The problem, as usual, is that if things are left to volunteer developers
> thing will go slowly.
> I do think this is fundamental: an ideal Wikisource would ingest and
> understand many times metadata standards, and would give them back as well.
>
> As for the Wikimedia API, I did this awful script:
> https://github.com/Aubreymcfato/ws_scraper
> Please come and make it better :-D
>
> Awesome! I'll definitely give it a whirl.


> It just scrapes the data from the HTML (it is localized to it.source, but
> a quick glance at the HTML source of your own ws could help you, especially
> if you use microformats) and puts them on a csv.
> If you take the HTML you can also get the formatted text.
> (I also wonder of a Wikisource which understands Markdown, but that's too
> far :-)
>

You have a good point, though. One of the differences between Wikisource
and most other platforms is that it is actually richly formatted. It's kind
of a shame to strip all that formatting information out when extracting the
transcriptions. (Though many destinations wouldn't know what to do with
formatted text anyway.)
___
Wikisource-l mailing list
Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l

Re: [Wikisource-l] What is our next major hurdle, or where we need most development assistance

[Andrea Zanni]

> How would I do that now? Wikisource pages are not structured data (though
> Wikimedia Commons image metadata will soon be!), so there is not a clear
> way to use the Wikisource API to extract just the relevant transcribed text
> on the page as a field. And on top of that, any text you do extract this
> way will be full of templates and other code that has no meaning outside of
> the context of Wikisource. I don't see a way to easily extract just the
> plain text that is meaningful and relevant (along with other fielded data,
> like what page or text it belongs to).
>

Wikisource as a "structured" repository is what we ask from the dawn of
time :-)
The problem, as usual, is that if things are left to volunteer developers
thing will go slowly.
I do think this is fundamental: an ideal Wikisource would ingest and
understand many times metadata standards, and would give them back as well.

As for the Wikimedia API, I did this awful script:
https://github.com/Aubreymcfato/ws_scraper
Please come and make it better :-D

It just scrapes the data from the HTML (it is localized to it.source, but a
quick glance at the HTML source of your own ws could help you, especially
if you use microformats) and puts them on a csv.
If you take the HTML you can also get the formatted text.
(I also wonder of a Wikisource which understands Markdown, but that's too
far :-)

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

Re: [Wikisource-l] What is our next major hurdle, or where we need most development assistance

[Dominic McDevitt-Parks]

On 24 November 2014 at 13:51, Andrea Zanni  wrote:

>
> Another greataccomplishment could be *giving back proofread OCR* to GLAMs:
> think about libraries (or Internet Archive!) give us ancient texts, and us
> giving them back a perfect djvu or PDF with mapped text inside...
> I'm sure we could have many GLAMs coming to us then :-)
> We cannot give them back almost anything, right now, a part from our HTML
> pages.
>
>
This is exactly the kind of suggestion I have been looking for. Many
cultural institutions are developing their own crowdsourced transcription
projects. I think Wikisource can be a much more robust platform than these
one-off projects, with a more well-developed community that aggregates the
transcription efforts of texts from many institutions in a single place
with a proven process.

At NARA, along with our own transcription program, we are also developing a
writable API for submitting transcriptions to it, because we recognize that
third-party platforms like Wikisource might be the best place for the
actual transcribing to take place. As long as we can ingest that data back
into our own dataset, that is.

How would I do that now? Wikisource pages are not structured data (though
Wikimedia Commons image metadata will soon be!), so there is not a clear
way to use the Wikisource API to extract just the relevant transcribed text
on the page as a field. And on top of that, any text you do extract this
way will be full of templates and other code that has no meaning outside of
the context of Wikisource. I don't see a way to easily extract just the
plain text that is meaningful and relevant (along with other fielded data,
like what page or text it belongs to).
___
Wikisource-l mailing list
Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l

Re: [Wikisource-l] What is our next major hurdle, or where we need most development assistance

[Lars Aronsson]

On 11/24/2014 11:13 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
When I think of this, I agree that OCR is the main issue. But it's not 
necessarily the one which worries me most, because tesseract is 
something living outside the wiki which can be improved even if the 
wiki has design issues. If we try really hard, we may face unsolvable 
integration problems in the OCR<->DjVU<->Wikisource food chain; but so 
far the issue is rather that we never tried seriously.[1]


[1] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/CAPTCHA


The problem is that we are stuck in the notion that
"it must be a wiki". The wiki is just one tool. Captchas
could be another. The goal is to make the contents of
books available in a more correct, more reliable and
useful form. To scale things up, we should have the
ambition to handle all books in the Internet Archive.
(Books from other sources, such as Google, can be
copied to the Internet Archive.)

Our use of OCR today is indeed "outside the wiki", it
is a one-time operation to us. But it shouldn't be. When
a book page is proofread, the OCR software should
learn from this. Aha, it wasn't "arn", it was "am". And
when the OCR software has improved, all other pages
should be evaluated again. Maybe the arn/am error
was found in more places? It sounds like an impossible
job to process millions of pages again every day, but
that's where an algorithm designer starts. Maybe we
can index the patterns, so all possible arn/am patterns
can be found in a second and quickly reprocessed.
As you proofread one page, a hundred other pages
in dozens of books are also improved. With this kind
of application in mind, a wiki to proofread one page
or a captcha to proofread one word are just two
kinds of tools to collect the human contribution to the
improvement of the OCR engine and to the library.


--
  Lars Aronsson (l...@aronsson.se)
  Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se



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

Re: [Wikisource-l] What is our next major hurdle, or where we need most development assistance

[Andrea Zanni]

Hi strongly agree with everything, Nemo.
I also remember hearing Sj, in an official Board Q&A, say explicitly that
he foresaw Wikisource as bigger than Wikipedia!

But Wikisource is out of the strategy, we know that.
We ask, keep asking and will continue to ask, but we are still out of the
development and strategic planning.
I don't have a solution for that, that is different from I (and others, of
course) have done in these years:
build a community, build a consensus focus energies and minds on important
issues, gain credibility and interest.

For me, just having a skilled Wikisorceror like Billinghurst onboard is a
great step forward:
in Wikimania we had several talks about Wikisource, and in the WS meeting
there were almost 20 of us.
Things are moving, but we really need to work together.

Aubrey

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 11:41 PM, Nicolas VIGNERON <
vigneron.nico...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> However, in 5 years I've yet to find ONE person that says, yes
>> Nemo, you're right, Wikisource should be 10 or 50 times as big as
>> Wikipedia, let's plan for that. Probably I'm wrong. :)
>>
>
> +1. Count me in !
> It will be hard and I'm afraid we might lose some good users in the
> process if we don't do things the right way but the wikisources should and
> need to be bigger (and easier to use/edit, and more compatible-compliant,
> and so on).
>
> The very question is : how could and should we do it right ?
> My 2 cents : maybe we could do an other survey but more technical, writing
> down some proposals, drawing some mock-up and ask the 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

Re: [Wikisource-l] What is our next major hurdle, or where we need most development assistance

[Nicolas VIGNERON]

> However, in 5 years I've yet to find ONE person that says, yes
> Nemo, you're right, Wikisource should be 10 or 50 times as big as
> Wikipedia, let's plan for that. Probably I'm wrong. :)
>

+1. Count me in !
It will be hard and I'm afraid we might lose some good users in the process
if we don't do things the right way but the wikisources should and need to
be bigger (and easier to use/edit, and more compatible-compliant, and so
on).

The very question is : how could and should we do it right ?
My 2 cents : maybe we could do an other survey but more technical, writing
down some proposals, drawing some mock-up and ask the wikisorcerers.

Cdlt, ~nicolas
___
Wikisource-l mailing list
Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l

Re: [Wikisource-l] What is our next major hurdle, or where we need most development assistance

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Lars is right, (too) little changed in several years; so let me say that 
my opinion has not changed since 2009 when I wrote "Make Wikisource 
scale" (which I dared to link from 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Role_of_Wikisource#footer ).
	The one and only question worth asking is: can Wikisource, as a 
concept, proofread a million books and involve half a million 
volunteers? Because IMHO it must.
	When I think of this, I agree that OCR is the main issue. But it's not 
necessarily the one which worries me most, because tesseract is 
something living outside the wiki which can be improved even if the wiki 
has design issues. If we try really hard, we may face unsolvable 
integration problems in the OCR<->DjVU<->Wikisource food chain; but so 
far the issue is rather that we never tried seriously.[1]
	What worries me most is something else: all the effort we spend making 
perfectly loyal layouts with fragile templates, which are worth NOTHING 
outside our wiki; all the effort we spend organising books scattered 
across pages, to form a structure that not even MediaWiki knows 
about,[2] let alone an ePub exporter[3] or OAI-PMH handle[4] or third 
party user. I don't care if VisualEditor can make those templates easier 
to use, I care about things like making Proofread Page understand 
METS[5] or perhaps making sure what we're doing can end up in a DocBook[6].
	We might discover that these things only require small adjustments, or 
that they don't matter that much. Or we might discover that one of the 
tools linked by Vigneron (which I didn't manage to try yet) requires a 
fundamental shift. Either way, we need to reason about it to be 
confident we're on the right track, and/or maybe pioneer some new way of 
working in one subdomain.
	However, in 5 years I've yet to find ONE person that says, yes Nemo, 
you're right, Wikisource should be 10 or 50 times as big as Wikipedia, 
let's plan for that. Probably I'm wrong. :)


Nemo

[1] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/CAPTCHA
[2] Will it ever? https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Book_management
[3] Despite the recently-trashed work by PediaPress, and all Tpt's 
awesomeness with WSexport.

[4] Though, https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Proofread_Page#OAI-PMH
[5] 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikisource-l/2014-September/002081.html

[6] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T63047#679332

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

Re: [Wikisource-l] What is our next major hurdle, or where we need most development assistance

[Nicolas VIGNERON]

2014-11-24 19:51 GMT+01:00 Andrea Zanni :

> Please keep up this good discussion :-)
> We have the Wikisource contest on it.source right now,
> so this mail is not going to be as long and detailed as I hoped.
>
> I agree with Vigneron that the Survey report is a good start:
> having written it myself, I'm well aware that it's not perfect, and that
> questions were not bulletproof, as well the methodology.
> Nonetheless, we tried hard to make it and many results are as good and
> trustworthy.
>
> I personally agree that a VE integration with the Proofread extension
> would be much needed:
> if you think about it, Wikisource is the right place for the VE.
> We could simplify enormously the life of new proofreaders, and formatting
> on Wikisource is ten times more difficult than in Wikipedia.
> I'm sure it's one of the best thing to do right now.
>
> At the same time, I agree with Lars (who always has great insights)
> that we still need to do the big leap in digital libraries.
> For me, one of the thing Wikisource offers that nobody does is
> *hypertextuality*,
> and connections and integration with other projects as Wikidata
> (hopefully) and Wikipedia.
> I agree with him that algorithmic learning of Wikisource is an amazing
> idea: just think about having a Tesseract instance for every Wikisource,
> and the tesseract learns from every page the community proofreads... In few
> years, we could even think about tell our Tesseract to distinguish between
> XII century Italian vs XIX century... We could have amazing open source
> OCRs to give to the world.
>
> Another greataccomplishment could be *giving back proofread OCR* to GLAMs:
> think about libraries (or Internet Archive!) give us ancient texts, and us
> giving them back a perfect djvu or PDF with mapped text inside...
> I'm sure we could have many GLAMs coming to us then :-)
> We cannot give them back almost anything, right now, a part from our HTML
> pages.
>
> Aubrey
>

VE integration is important and could be very useful but I'm not sure if
it's really that urgent for the wikisources. In short : is VE really a
priority ?
On a wikisource page there is far less formatting than in a wikipedia
article (but ‘touché’ : the little formatting on Wikisource could be a pain
in the a**).
VE has still some glitch/malstructure (my favorite : did you ever try to
put a ref with a template inside ?), should we wait before adapting it to
Wikisource ? (or should we start right now knowing it's a long way…).

A tool like Gallica (website of the National Library of France) is testing
seems more useful to me. You can test it here :
https://ozalid.orange-labs.fr/ozviewer/

There's probably something to look further about a tool like
http://tools.wmflabs.org/dicompte/ (compare the dump of Wikisource and
Wiktionary and give the list of words in Wikisource without definition on
Wiktionary) but in real time and integrated in the edit interface.

Cdlt, ~nicolas
___
Wikisource-l mailing list
Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l

Re: [Wikisource-l] What is our next major hurdle, or where we need most development assistance

[Andrea Zanni]

Please keep up this good discussion :-)
We have the Wikisource contest on it.source right now,
so this mail is not going to be as long and detailed as I hoped.

I agree with Vigneron that the Survey report is a good start:
having written it myself, I'm well aware that it's not perfect, and that
questions were not bulletproof, as well the methodology.
Nonetheless, we tried hard to make it and many results are as good and
trustworthy.

I personally agree that a VE integration with the Proofread extension would
be much needed:
if you think about it, Wikisource is the right place for the VE.
We could simplify enormously the life of new proofreaders, and formatting
on Wikisource is ten times more difficult than in Wikipedia.
I'm sure it's one of the best thing to do right now.

At the same time, I agree with Lars (who always has great insights)
that we still need to do the big leap in digital libraries.
For me, one of the thing Wikisource offers that nobody does is
*hypertextuality*,
and connections and integration with other projects as Wikidata (hopefully)
and Wikipedia.
I agree with him that algorithmic learning of Wikisource is an amazing
idea: just think about having a Tesseract instance for every Wikisource,
and the tesseract learns from every page the community proofreads... In few
years, we could even think about tell our Tesseract to distinguish between
XII century Italian vs XIX century... We could have amazing open source
OCRs to give to the world.

Another greataccomplishment could be *giving back proofread OCR* to GLAMs:
think about libraries (or Internet Archive!) give us ancient texts, and us
giving them back a perfect djvu or PDF with mapped text inside...
I'm sure we could have many GLAMs coming to us then :-)
We cannot give them back almost anything, right now, a part from our HTML
pages.

Aubrey


On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 6:16 PM, Lars Aronsson  wrote:

> On 11/23/2014 02:55 AM, Wiki Billinghurst wrote:
>
>> What do we see as the next components for Wikisource?
>>
>> What are our major hurdles for system development?
>>
>> If we were offered development help where do people think that we
>> should be making use of that help?  Is it incremental fixes,
>> transactional changes, or are we wanting transformational changes,
>> completely new features, and new opportunities?
>>
>
> Ten years ago, Wikipedia was already a given success, and
> we started to branch out into projects like Wikisource,
> Wikinews and what not. That was also when Google Book
> Search started, and when the Internet Archive got its
> current practices for book scanning (with the "Scribe"
> scanning stations) in place. Ten years earlier, in the mid
> 90s, the first large-scale book scanning projects appeared.
> In the two decades 1990-2010, several books were published
> on the future of digital libraries. But what has happened
> in the last decade? What is new, really? Has anything
> changed in Google Book Search or the Internet Archive
> in the five years 2010-2014? Yes, more books have been
> digitized, but are they presented or used differently?
>
> I think a lot more can be done, e.g. algorithmic improvement
> of OCR engines. Wikisource hasn't looked into that, neither
> has the Internet Archive, and nobody knows much about
> what Google does internally. This isn't necessarily "wiki",
> so it's not clear that it's a task for WMF and its projects.
> Another thing could be "gamification" of proofreading or
> mark-up / categorization / analysis of scanned books.
>
> As for new kinds of content, the digitization of entire
> newspapers is still a new area, where the Australian
> national library was a pioneer some years ago, but what
> has happened since then? Potentially, it could become
> a cross-over between Wikisource and Wikinews, where
> each event can be found on the same day in many
> different newspapers. How to link them together?
> The problem: If we get scanned images + OCR text
> of 10 different newspapers, 10 years, 10 pages each
> day, that is 365 × 10 × 10 × 10 = 365,000 large pages
> to proofread, before we can do any serious analysis.
> How do we proofread so many pages in any reasonable
> time? We don't have enough volunteers for that.
>
>
> --
>   Lars Aronsson (l...@aronsson.se)
>   Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Wikisource-l] What is our next major hurdle, or where we need most development assistance

[Lars Aronsson]

On 11/23/2014 02:55 AM, Wiki Billinghurst wrote:

What do we see as the next components for Wikisource?

What are our major hurdles for system development?

If we were offered development help where do people think that we
should be making use of that help?  Is it incremental fixes,
transactional changes, or are we wanting transformational changes,
completely new features, and new opportunities?


Ten years ago, Wikipedia was already a given success, and
we started to branch out into projects like Wikisource,
Wikinews and what not. That was also when Google Book
Search started, and when the Internet Archive got its
current practices for book scanning (with the "Scribe"
scanning stations) in place. Ten years earlier, in the mid
90s, the first large-scale book scanning projects appeared.
In the two decades 1990-2010, several books were published
on the future of digital libraries. But what has happened
in the last decade? What is new, really? Has anything
changed in Google Book Search or the Internet Archive
in the five years 2010-2014? Yes, more books have been
digitized, but are they presented or used differently?

I think a lot more can be done, e.g. algorithmic improvement
of OCR engines. Wikisource hasn't looked into that, neither
has the Internet Archive, and nobody knows much about
what Google does internally. This isn't necessarily "wiki",
so it's not clear that it's a task for WMF and its projects.
Another thing could be "gamification" of proofreading or
mark-up / categorization / analysis of scanned books.

As for new kinds of content, the digitization of entire
newspapers is still a new area, where the Australian
national library was a pioneer some years ago, but what
has happened since then? Potentially, it could become
a cross-over between Wikisource and Wikinews, where
each event can be found on the same day in many
different newspapers. How to link them together?
The problem: If we get scanned images + OCR text
of 10 different newspapers, 10 years, 10 pages each
day, that is 365 × 10 × 10 × 10 = 365,000 large pages
to proofread, before we can do any serious analysis.
How do we proofread so many pages in any reasonable
time? We don't have enough volunteers for that.


--
  Lars Aronsson (l...@aronsson.se)
  Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se



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

Re: [Wikisource-l] What is our next major hurdle, or where we need most development assistance

[Nicolas VIGNERON]

2014-11-23 13:02 GMT+01:00 Wiki Billinghurst :

> In thinking further about this, I think one of our major hurdles in
> getting casual transcription is the formatting and templates aspects.
> So is the migration to Visual Editor one of our major progression
> points?
>
> Regards, Billinghurst
>
> Yes it is, once again look at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikisource_Community_User_Group/Wikisource_survey_report
 ;)

Cdlt, ~nicolas
___
Wikisource-l mailing list
Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l

Re: [Wikisource-l] What is our next major hurdle, or where we need most development assistance

[Wiki Billinghurst]

In thinking further about this, I think one of our major hurdles in
getting casual transcription is the formatting and templates aspects.
So is the migration to Visual Editor one of our major progression
points?

Regards, Billinghurst

On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 9:08 PM, Nicolas VIGNERON
 wrote:
> 2014-11-23 2:55 GMT+01:00 Wiki Billinghurst :
>>
>> What do we see as the next components for Wikisource?
>>
>> What are our major hurdles for system development?
>>
>> If we were offered development help where do people think that we
>> should be making use of that help?  Is it incremental fixes,
>> transactional changes, or are we wanting transformational changes,
>> completely new features, and new opportunities?
>>
>> Regards, Billinghurst
>
>
> Not sure but I think improving what we already have is more a priority (ePub
> / PDF export - on the fly ? - book/page namespaces, better OCR, Wikidata
> integration ?).
>
> Plus, you can find some profitable infos on
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikisource_Community_User_Group/Wikisource_survey_report
> ; it's a bit old but still relevant.
>
> 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

Re: [Wikisource-l] What is our next major hurdle, or where we need most development assistance

[Nicolas VIGNERON]

2014-11-23 2:55 GMT+01:00 Wiki Billinghurst :

> What do we see as the next components for Wikisource?
>
> What are our major hurdles for system development?
>
> If we were offered development help where do people think that we
> should be making use of that help?  Is it incremental fixes,
> transactional changes, or are we wanting transformational changes,
> completely new features, and new opportunities?
>
> Regards, Billinghurst


Not sure but I think improving what we already have is more a priority
(ePub / PDF export - on the fly ? - book/page namespaces, better OCR,
Wikidata integration ?).

Plus, you can find some profitable infos on
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikisource_Community_User_Group/Wikisource_survey_report
;
it's a bit old but still relevant.

Cdlt, ~nicolas
___
Wikisource-l mailing list
Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l

[Wikisource-l] What is our next major hurdle, or where we need most development assistance

[Wiki Billinghurst]

What do we see as the next components for Wikisource?

What are our major hurdles for system development?

If we were offered development help where do people think that we
should be making use of that help?  Is it incremental fixes,
transactional changes, or are we wanting transformational changes,
completely new features, and new opportunities?

Regards, Billinghurst

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