Rough but running code of BGB is ready, and Andrea can test it to find bugs and/or drawbacks by now, if he likes.
To lower the risk of a nonsense-click, BGB should pop out after some reasonable delay - something less than the time needed to carefully compare the page text and its image. To make simpler to monitor its use, a standard message could be added to edit, so that BGB edits could be fastly selected in RecentChanges. Alex 2015-08-11 21:21 GMT+02:00 Nicolas VIGNERON <[email protected]>: > 2015-08-11 20:39 GMT+02:00 Wiera Lee <[email protected]>: > > > > On pl.wikisource each correction level means that another person did the > correction again. The green status means the page was corrected three times > by three another persons. > > The colours are just for marking the status page, it's not per se a > correction and only two people are actually needed ; but yes, it's the more > or less the same on each wikisource with the proofred system. > > > Corrected, not read. > > Uh? Correcting without reading? > > > In my opinion Big Green Button Correction is useless. New users can > click only for stats, not for proofreading. And nobody would check it > again, because the book would be finished. > > Please dont bite the new users or imagine that they're all evil. Maybe you > had a bad experience on plwiki but that's not always true. > > Think about it: When you were new users, did you edit only for stats? > > I check *a lot* the green pages since *sometimes* there is still little > correction to do (a new and better templates, some strange typo like « > word » - with invisible hyphen - or « wоrd » - with a cyrillic о - instead > of « word », ). > > > We are asking new users to validate the pages for the second time (from > red to yellow level): new users can learn how the templates and raw codes > are working, but when they do something wrong, an experienced user would > check it one more time -- to make it green. If they would not edit the > page, they would never know how the templates works. So they would not > become a better editors... > > Can't they do both? > > And should we really make the life of users (new and old) hard when it's > not needed ? > > > We all can do only red pages, why not. We'll get a "perfectly readable > and functional book" with some errors. But should we give its the same > status as a proof-read three times book? Green status means "almost > perfect". We shouldn't make green pages automatically, only to make our > stats better. > > No, only red pages is not "perfectly readable and functional book. > > How many is « almost » perfect? 80%? 90% 95%? 99%? that's a tricky > question. > And if a book made of 500 yellow pages already at 99% perfect, isn't the > BGB usefull? > > > Correction without correction is not a good idea. It's a lie. > > Very true but the BGB is not about correction, it's about marking as > correct something that already is. > > 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
