> While suggesting how the Andrea's ideas coud be implemented (in the > meantime, I wrote some js rows to upload quietly localStorage.rawCode, > localStorage.pageUser, localStorage.pageLevel, an localStorage.validable > too when reading any page in view mode), I was perfecly aware of what a > similar tool could cause. > > But... is there so deep a difference between the validation of a page by a > newbie in Edit mode, and the validation by the same user clicking the Big > Green Button?
If a newbie uses VE they do not see how the code is structured and has not idea how it works. If a user sees the code they has at least a CHANCE to learn how it works. Of course, if a user does not intend to learn anything, there is no difference. But we are in most cases too small communities to have two separate group of users: those who only enter "dumb" text with very little formatting and another of more advanced users who verify and fix their input. > For sure, it's much simpler and comfortable to review a text > in view mode: isn't it the idea of VisualEditor? It is. But while the VE may be a good idea for entering and simple formatting texts. It may be even good idea for some fixes. But never for all of them. Just two examples: - a user entered some code that is invisible in Page namespace, byt will break in a specific context in main: Using VE he mey even have no idea where the fix should be edited. - a user used wrong formatting template, which requires few arguments: I doubt VE will ever allow you to change the template name without touching arguments; and writing the arguments again from scratch is a potential source of new typos. > Alex > > > > 2015-08-11 12:28 GMT+02:00 Nicolas VIGNERON <[email protected]>: > >> I'm not sure we're all talking about the same thing. >> >> First, this tool is just a tool. If someone is misusing a tool, don't >> blame the tool, blame (and block) the user of the tool ! >> >> 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). >> When I'm thinking of raw code review on yellow to green step, I'm >> thinking >> of formatting and things like html code replace by ws templates, Unicode >> encoding mistakes, and little things like that ; 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). >> >> The GGB is a tool (and just an idea of a tool right now) and one of many >> solution to one of many problems Andrea pointed ; but there is many >> other >> problems. Especially, the navigation arrows could use some improvement. >> ? >> validate this and go to next page ? is definitively something we need. >> Since the VisualEditor is coming, we would be dumb no to cease this >> opportunity to do some clean-up and renovation. >> >> We should think too to an other category of tools : global detection of >> possible mistakes. On frws, there is some little things like >> https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Gadget-Erreurs-communes.js >> (intern gadget) and https://tools.wmflabs.org/dicompte/index.php >> (extern) >> but here too there is huge room for improvement. Proofreading page by >> page >> is great and necessary but we should multiply the approachs to reach the >> best quality. >> >> We're speaking of new users but such tools (the GGB and much more >> others) >> can be useful for old users too. Maybe we can test them for some old >> user >> first, see how it goes and then offers them (or not) to new users. >> Finally, new users are not all the same. The director of Rennes Library >> is >> a new user on frws but she's defintively better at proofreading than >> most >> wikisorcerers ;) >> >> 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
