Perhaps we have competing interfaces / workflows. but I expect we
would be glad to share 99.99%-verified high-quality
texts-unified-with-images if it were easy for both projects to
identify that combination of quality and comprehensive data... and
would be glad to share metadata so that a WS
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 5:49 AM, Samuel Klein sjkl...@hcs.harvard.edu wrote:
Andre, this is a great summary -- I've linked to it from the english
ws Scriptorium.
Do you see opportunities for the two projects to coordinate their
wofklows better?
^^^
Clearly this email needed 1 more round
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 7:49 PM, Samuel Klein sjkl...@hcs.harvard.edu wrote:
Andre, this is a great summary -- I've linked to it from the english
ws Scriptorium.
Do you see opportunities for the two projects to coordinate their
wofklows better?
I don't understand your use of 'coordinate' in
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 6:13 AM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
irrespective of whether it is verified, OCR
quality, or if it is vandalism. However, wikisource keeps the images
and the text unified from day 0 to eternity.
Some works become verified, and reach high OCR quality.
PGDP
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 8:42 PM, Samuel J Klein s...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 6:13 AM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
irrespective of whether it is verified, OCR
quality, or if it is vandalism. However, wikisource keeps the images
and the text unified from day 0
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Samuel J Klein s...@wikimedia.org wrote:
PGDP has a very strict and arduous workflow... The
result is quality, however only the text is sent downstream.
Why not send images and text downstream?
Because PGDP produces for Project Gutenberg, which publishes
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 1:24 PM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
Good question! ;-)
Storage is one issue.
It would be interesting to estimate the storage requirements of
Wikisource if we had produced the PGDP etexts.
I think it is the main reason; however, a back-of-the-envelope
I love those proofreading features, and the new default layout for a
book's pages and TOC. Wikisource is becoming AWESOME.
Do we have PGDP contributors who can weigh on on how similar the
processes are? Is there a way for us to actually merge workflows with
them?
Prof. Greg Crane of The
On 24 June 2010 15:37, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
I love those proofreading features, and the new default layout for a
book's pages and TOC. Wikisource is becoming AWESOME.
Ahem. Even more awesome, you mean. :-)
Do we have PGDP contributors who can weigh on on how similar the
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 11:16 AM, James Forrester ja...@jdforrester.org wrote:
On 24 June 2010 15:37, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
I love those proofreading features, and the new default layout for a
book's pages and TOC. Wikisource is becoming AWESOME.
Ahem. Even more awesome, you
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 4:37 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
I love those proofreading features, and the new default layout for a
book's pages and TOC. Wikisource is becoming AWESOME.
Do we have PGDP contributors who can weigh on on how similar the
processes are? Is there a way
(Renaming the subject as we've changed topic)
On 23 Jun 2010, at 21:31, Mariano Cecowski wrote:
--- El mié 23-jun-10, Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net escribió:
I always think than not using reCaptcha is a shame, as it's
a nice way to get people to proofread text in a reasonably
efficient
12 matches
Mail list logo
