Re: [Wikisource-l] Tech issues
Everything looks right in all browsers now :) Anyway, thanks to those who took the time to respond. Erasmo Barresi ___ Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
[Wikisource-l] Tech issues
I've been having trouble visiting Wikisource sites in both Firefox and Chrome since yesterday. On the Italian Wikisource I manage to open the main page and follow the link to the Scriptorium, but I cannot go any farther because pages do not load. I cannot access the English Wikisource at all; I type the URL and press Enter, but it refuses to load. On the multilingual Wikisource I opened the main page and logged in, but then I could not go any farther. However, the French Wikisource works just fine. Everything seems to be fine with Internet Explorer 8, which is the latest version I can have on my old XP-run PC. Has anyone experienced similar problems? I had already noticed something weird a few days ago, as my username (and the set of links that accompany it) appeared on Wikisource sites but not on Wikipedias. Erasmo Barresi ___ Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Re: [Wikisource-l] Better way to validate pages
Hum... why should these "button validations" count less, so that four or five of them are needed to change the page status? Certainly not because "the code is not being checked", since the code stays unchecked no matter how many "button validations" are done. Possibly it would be better if the button(s) opened a flyout telling users what to do: create an account if they do not have one yet, then click edit, [correct what's wrong,] change the page status and save. I think it is better that new users begin to take part in the main editing workflow rather than operating on a separate one that is designed for them. Whether to make the _next_ page appear after saving is entirely another question, and one to which I would answer "yes". This cannot be done for the very last page of an index, of course. Erasmo > Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 15:46:31 +0200 > From: Andrea Zanni > To: "discussion list for Wikisource, the free library" > > Subject: Re: [Wikisource-l] Better way to validate pages > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 2:06 PM, zdzislaw wrote: > > > In the view mode of the yellow Pages (sic! :-)), we can add the "Thin (but > > long) Green Button" (TGB) described: "I read and carefully compared the > > contents with the scan - there's no mistakes." :) Users who "DO read our > > books" (and they do not want / do not have time / skills... to edit) click > > on this button and simply go to the view mode of the next page. Such a > > click would be counted (extra field in the mw database), but did not cause > > an immediate change of the Page status. If for a given page will be counted > > three??, four?? such clicks (this amount would have to have the ability to > > configure for each WS - community could determine their "quality threshold" > > - for "one click" it will became into BGB), then the Page status would > > change automatically from "yellow" to "green". Of course, it would be also > > configurable, to whom show TGB (ip, registered, autopotrolled ...). > > Such a solution would have be implemented directly in the proofread > > extension. > > "TGB" would allow adjustment of the level of "quality" and would be > > acceptable by most the community. If it is true that " a lot of users DO > > read our books," even for 5-4 "clicks" the status would change quickly. > > > > > I do like this approach, and I'd love to see some tests. > I really believe that is good to do tests and experiments, as we are > sometimes convinced by things that are not really proven. > > A 3 step validation passage as you suggest could maybe be easy enough for > new users and casual readers, and we could gain some validations we could > not have had otherwise. > > > I also would like to repeat my question about the Visual Editor: are we > close tho that or nobody is working on it? > > Aubrey ___ Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Re: [Wikisource-l] Better way to validate pages
It is clear from this discussion that we have very different practices in the various language subdomains. My experience is that oftentimes on the English Wikisource you just have to mark paragraph breaks and remove line breaks and extra spaces around punctuation marks, and you can already save the page as "Proofread". More often than not the validator will have nothing to correct, since the OCR was already perfect, which is unsurprising given that OCR software (or any software, for that matter) is generally designed for the English language, with little regard to languages that use additional letters or diacritics (not to talk about writing systems other than the Latin alphabet). On the Italian Wikisource the blue button means "Completely transcribed but not formatted" (not "Problematic"), while the yellow button means "Completely transcribed and formatted". So in theory an inexperienced user could choose to just transcribe a page and let it be formatted by someone else. In practice this rarely happens and the workflow for most pages is similar to the English Wikisource's usual practice, although Italian-language texts, especially medieval or Renaissance ones, tend to have more OCR errors. It looks like on the Polish Wikisource they use the red (or blue?) button, not the yellow one, upon creation, while still proofreading the text of the page. So they end up doing three proofreadings overall, which has the obvious benefit of higher accuracy, especially since they seem to have bad OCR support, with the added difficulty that some of the words with typos happen to be real words and therefore not spotted by spellcheckers. It would be nice to know if other Wikisources take even different approaches. And maybe we could make an attempt to unify them? Taking everyone's issues and concerns into account, that is. Regarding the initial topic of this thread: Pressing the edit button, checking for errors, marking the page as validated, saving, and going on to the page was not a problem for me as a beginner (though since the font in text boxes is not very pleasant to the eye, I would begin checking for errors in view mode and enter the edit mode only upon spotting the first error). Rather, it allowed me to learn the markup little by little (like paragraph breaks, the use of for lines of verse, or the purpose of colons at the beginning of a line). Erasmo Barresi > Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 11:11:00 +0200 > From: Andrea Zanni > To: "discussion list for Wikisource, the free library" > > Subject: Re: [Wikisource-l] Better way to validate pages > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > I read a lot of misunderstanding here, > probably due to the fact that none of us are native speaker. > > @Wiera Lee: please, please, please, don't shout. > This is a civil discussion. What Alex did is just a button that you double > click and you go directly in the Edit mode. Nothing more, and only I have > it. It's *definitely not a final decision of any kind*. > So the message you sent earlier is simply not true. So we can restart a > nice conversation :-D > > @Lugusto thanks for sharing your experience. > I probably said the wrong "color", in this discussion: green. > > That is not necesseraly what I really want (of course I thought about > validation at the beginning of the thread). > What I really really want is > * a simpler life for our readers > * a way to harness/tap/exploit the simple fact that a lot of users DO read > our books, but never correct anything. > > What I really want is a very very quick way, for a user, to correct a typo > WHEN she sees it. > > Maybe we could do a BIG YELLOW BUTTON (meaning 75%), or maybe we can simply > find *another* way for a user to signal the simple fact that we correct a > typo or similar. > My fear is that Wikisource is way to complicated, and a lot of people read > our texts, and they could help us but we are too complicated to let them. > Can we try to solve this? > > Aubrey > > > > On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 8:58 AM, Nicolas VIGNERON < > vigneron.nico...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 2015-08-12 7:00 GMT+02:00 Alex Brollo : > > > >> 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 > >> > > > > I asked on the frws scriptorium, if the community wants to test it on frws > > ( > > https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Scriptorium/Ao%C3%BBt_2015#Big_green_button > > ). I'll ask on brws too (but I&
Re: [Wikisource-l] more to edition(s) <-> edition or translation of
I agree with Billinghurst that user-made translations do not necessarily have to be dealt with the same way published editions/translations are. However, if the user-made translation is connected to the same WD item as the original work (edition, actually), then we should indicate which of the Wikisource links really leads to the text the statements refer to (i.e., the original work). This can easily be done with property 953, "full text available at". Erasmo Barresi > Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 07:59:46 + > From: billinghurst > To: "discussion list for Wikisource, the free library" > , novar...@gmail.com > Subject: Re: [Wikisource-l] more to edition(s) <-> edition or > translation of > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Nahum, > > I suppose the predominant part of my discussion was focusing on published > translations, rather than WS-generated translations. > > 1) because many famous works have (famous) published translations, each > with their own translator(s), date of publication, publisher, ... all > worthy of noting and WD'ing. > > 2) you can only link to one work per wiki at WD, and as an example of an > issue , I know of numbers of Chekov's works that enWS hosts where we have > multiple published translations. So enWS needs a means for link generation > for many to one (at ruWS), or for English language works, we may need a one > to any. > > When it comes to WS-generated translations, I can see that we may or may > not wish to call those translations their own edition. If a translation > passes a notability check of its own edition, then separate, if not, maybe > then it comes off the other original language work. (Maybe leave that > decision with the xxWS to determine???). > > What I am hoping to see is a tool that provides the maximum flexibity and > credibility for the WSes, yet gives best visibility and authority at WD. > > Billinghurst > > On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 12:35 Nahum Wengrov wrote: > >> Wait a minute. >> If a work esists in, say, ru.wikisource, >> And then someone translates that work and posts his translation under a >> free license in he.wikisource, >> I am not to link the hebrew version to its source in ru.ws on wikidata, >> But to create a seperate wikidata entry for it? >> This makes zero sense to me, and we never did it this way on he.wikisource. >> >> On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 2:25 PM, billinghurst >> wrote: >> >>> >>> Thought that the pasted discussion from WD is of interest and adds to our >>> recent discussion on interwikis/interlanguage links. >>> >>> >>> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Wikidata_discourages_interwiki_links >>> >>> Wikidata discourages interwiki links >>> >>> Looking at Zhuangzi (Q1074987) >>> *Zhuanhgzi*, I see that this data item is only for the work as it exists >>> in Chinese. The work as translated into English is a separate data item, >>> and the French Wikisource translation is another data item. >>> >>> Effectively, this means that Wikidata discourages interwiki links to and >>> between Wikisource projects, because they will never be part of the same >>> data item. Further, anyone seeking a translation of a work into another >>> language must first come to Wikidata and surf the links even to find out if >>> translations of a work in another language exist on Wikisource; it is not >>> possible to do that from any Wikisource directly. >>> >>> I thought the whole point of moving the links to Wikidata was to promote >>> connections between projects, not to eliminate them. But perhaps I am >>> wrong. --EncycloPetey ( >>> talk ) 02:19, 26 >>> July 2015 (UTC) >>> @EncycloPetey : There >>> are other ways to create interwiki by the help of Wikidata. See s:sv:Bibeln >>> 1917 where I have made >>> some tests with the Bible (Q1845) . >>> The interwiki is created by the help of a Lua-module that follows edition(s) >>> (P747) and edition or >>> translation of (P629) . The >>> big advantage is that it makes possible to create intewiki to more than one >>> page in every project. For example, that page have 13 links to >>> enwikisource. -- Innocent bystander >>> (talk >>> ) 05:49, 26 >>> July 2015 (UTC) @Innocent bystander >>> :This is very >>> interesting, what template (and Lua-module) do you use ? it should be done >>> for all wikisources, that often have a lot of translated texts :) -- >>> Hsarrazin (ta
Re: [Wikisource-l] More on difficulties of discovery of WS within Wikidata
The problem with item Q936276 is that three of the four "editions" are not editions at all--one is a TV series and two are films. I just asked on Wikidata (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property_talk:P144#Reverse_property.3F) what property should be used in such cases. Erasmo Barresi > Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 01:01:53 + > From: billinghurst > To: "discussion list for Wikisource, the free library" > > Subject: [Wikisource-l] More on difficulties of discovery of WS within > Wikidata > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > I was just working through data bits and pieces and found another > interesting example of the issues of difficulties of separation. > > d:q936276 is the book "wind in the willows" from there find out which one > has the edition of the book. > > While I know that wikidata is primarily focused on data pulls, that there > is no visual cues is an issue. One wonders whether there is an opportunity > to have sister flags against each of the "edition(s)". > > Regards, Billinghurst ___ Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Re: [Wikisource-l] Wikisource survey
Aubrey, you might want to change "Wikisource should accept user translations?" to "Should Wikisource accept user translations?". Everything else is good. Congratulations! I volunteer to translate it into Italian. Where can I write the translation? Erasmo ___ Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Re: [Wikisource-l] Wikisource User Group
My answers: Q: Currently you are using an individual engagement grant, what about the future when the grant has finished or spent? How you will fund your UG?A: The UG does not need funding per se. As explained in the "Transforming words into action" section of the UG page, only some projects will require monetary support. When money is needed, grants can be used. Q: I want to know if you are thinking in future. Are you thinking in a kind of organization for your UG like a proposal of Board, structure or membership requirements for WS UG?A: Not yet. Personally, the UG will be primarily a means for discussion. Wikisource language communities should interact more.If organization is needed, I propose the election of three or four leaders. If membership requirements are needed, I propose the following ones. "You can join the UG if you have made 15+ (fifteen or more) edits to Wikisource _and_ your first one dates back to 5+ (five or more) days ago." Q: Until now Aubrey and Micru are the most active in the UG, what about the rest of supporters? Are they really involved? Are there real-life activities to involve them? Have any plan for a future face-to-face meeting?A: You can find me online, though I could not currently take part in any real-life activity or meeting. Discussions are among my favorite activities. I'd sometimes like more radical decisions instead of having legacy around. "Don't be afraid of innovations" could/will be one of the UG's principles. Erasmo ___ Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
