> Ankry, > there's no need to shout :-) > We are just *talking*, nobody is coming to Polish Wikisource and make you > use a tool you don't want. > You do what the Polish community wants to do.
I'm sorry, maybe I misunderstood. I thought you want to include it into ProofreadPage extension as the default behaviour for the last step of validation process. That is what I oppose to. And only that. Ankry > Still, it's 10 years I'm on Wikisource projects (it.ws) and worries me the > most > is that the community grows sloooowly. It's too slow, and the web changes > rapidly, and our infrastructure becomes rapidly obsolete. > I think (but I do not have hard data) that we would have many ways to make > users active and teach them how to format things. > But a big green button like "if you see an error fix it" could be useful. > Maybe we don't need to link it to the validation process, and let users > understand that by themself. But I still think that we need to low the > complexity of wikisource if we want our communities to grow and thrive. > > I repeat, there can be many ways to achieve this goal, but for me it's a > crucial goal. > > Aubrey > > > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 11:45 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > That's a very good idea. >> >> NO! NO! NO! >> It is suggesting new users to behave like bots! Just click and go on? >> Why to read the small-lettering texts? Just click the GGB (Great Green >> Button). >> >> In Polish language Wikisource we have VERY BAD experience with directing >> new users to the final validation process: they can't carefully compare >> the text in both windows word-by-word. They just read both texts (and >> maybe one only?) and click validate & next. >> >> Later we found a lot of unnoticed OCR-related mistakes like: >> - missing last paragraph >> - missing a line >> - typos like m->rn, in->m, ę->ą, o->n, etc. >> >> Even 5-10 mistakes per a GREEN page (whan it was based on poor >> scans/poor >> OCR). In our opinion people need to LEARN how to compare texts. And it >> is >> easier to learn when there are more mistakes to notice when there is >> only >> a few of them. >> >> If you want to decrease quality or you believe you have perfect OCR >> software, plese do it for specified Wikisource subdomains, not as >> general >> tool. >> >> plwikisource highly discourage such a tool. >> >> Ankry >> >> > A big green button "validate" at the end of the displayed wikitext >> content >> > of the page may fit the need. It would open a confirmation popup with >> an >> > explanation message the first k times the user click on it in order to >> > make sure new contributors use it well (with k something like 3 or 5). >> > >> > What do you think about it? I'll have some free time in a few weeks to >> > implement a such thing directly into the ProofreadPage extension. >> > >> > Thomas >> > >> > >> >> Le 10 ao?t 2015 ? 14:31, Alex Brollo <[email protected]> a écrit >> : >> >> >> >> Ok; imagine that while opening a level 3 page, an ajax query uploads >> >> quietly the raw code of the page; as soon as you click the "Big Green >> >> Button" the script could edit the code and send it to the server - in >> >> milliseconds - and immediately could click the next page button. >> >> >> >> If a review of page in view mode is all what is needed to validate >> it, >> >> there's no reason to enter in edit mode when there's nothing to fix. >> >> >> >> Alex >> >> >> >> 2015-08-10 18:14 GMT+02:00 Andrea Zanni <[email protected]>: >> >> The Big Validate Button is a good idea, >> >> but I also would like a better navigation experience, as it is pretty >> >> slow and cumbersome to got on the top of the page to click a tiny >> arrow, >> >> wait for the new page, click edit, etc. >> >> >> >> Aubrey >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Alex Brollo <[email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> >> If this is true, then to add a big button "Validate" to edit by ajax >> the >> >> code of the page (the header section only needs to be changed if >> there's >> >> no error to fix into the txt) should be a banal task for a good >> >> programmer. >> >> >> >> Perhaps Andrea is asking for much more, but this could be a first >> step. >> >> >> >> Alex >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 2015-08-10 14:47 GMT+01:00 Nicolas VIGNERON >> >> <[email protected]>: >> >> 2015-08-10 15:37 GMT+02:00 Alex Brollo <[email protected]>: >> >> > >> >> > First point is: >> >> > is it a safe practice to validate a page without reviewing its raw >> >> code? >> >> >> >> Probably yes. >> >> Obviously, it's safer to check the raw code but it's unrealistic to >> >> expect the raw code to be review for all page. Anyway, the pages >> doesn't >> >> contain a lot of code (and most pages does'nt contain code at all), >> so >> >> it doesn't seems to be crucial to me. >> >> Plus : when VisualEditor will be on WS, less and less people will >> >> actually see the raw wikicode. >> >> >> >> > A second point: is it a safe practice to validate a page without >> >> carefully reviewing its transclusion into ns0? >> >> >> >> Definitively yes. >> >> When can a transclusion can go wrong? In all cases I can think of, >> the >> >> problem come from templates, css classes or general stuff like that. >> It >> >> should be fixed generally and it shouldn't block the page validation >> >> since it have nothing to do the the page itself (but maybe I'm >> missing >> >> an obvious example here). >> >> >> >> > Alex >> >> >> >> Cdlt, ~nicolas >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> 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 >> > _______________________________________________ > 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
