Another question for Tpt: how far is the implementation of the Visual Editor inside the Proofread Extension? Who's working on it? Just you, as always?
Aubrey On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 1:18 PM, zdzislaw <[email protected]> wrote: > > 2015-08-11 11:28 GMT+01:00 Nicolas VIGNERON <vigneron.nicolas at gmail.com > >: > > Then it seems that the quality level has not the same meaning on > > every wikisources. Typo such as « rn » intead of « m » are usually > > removed on the red or yellow step on fr.ws (and such obvious error > > can be seen before editing, reviewing the final render code seems enough > to me). > on pl ws it should be done on "without text" -> red step > > > for me all typo should be gone at the previous stage (and > > personally, I don't go from red to yellow if there is still such typo > mistakes). > should be... but statistically on red-> yellow step I find 2-4 typos, on > yellow-> green step - 1-2 typos (on fr ws too); if on yellow-> green step I > could not found any typos, I do not change its status immediately, leave it > on another day to be sure. > > I'll write it again ... that is not safe to validate a page without > reviewing its wikicode. A BGB at the end of the PREVIEW(!) content in Page > namespace WITHOUT displaying and reviewing wikitext content (raw code) it's > a bad proposal, declining the quality of proofreading process results, > and... I do not think so that "it's unrealistic to expect the raw code to > be review for all page" > for that kind of "edition" it should be special level "pseudovalidate" - > best in pink. > > Z. > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikisource-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l >
_______________________________________________ Wikisource-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
