("Didn't read the entire thread; too long" warning)
I must agree with PL folks: the BGB isn't an improvement. Probably the OCR
quality is great on English, Italian and French for doing such thing, but
it certainly isn't also for Portuguese (PT).
A good improvement will be if a Yellow Big Button wold be implemented.
Maybe you don't find it useful, as many pages are reviewed on creation, but
it is because we, experienced users, do it in this way.
Simply putting an Index page or an external link to get the digitization is
the worst thing we currently do.
Why not our bots starts extracting all and every pages, to make Page
namespace working in similar way that Google Book Search works (you can
choose if you need to browse on image view or OCR view on that platform).
If a random Internet user goes to Wikisource after doing a Web search due
to the correct recognized portion of text (as he go to GBS), he can start
immediately to fix the OCR and, voila! A new user just discovered an
ancient text and a promising website that collects ancient texts!
This approach makes sense on attracting new user and presenting how to work
on Wikisource, and not downgrading our compromise to flag pages fully
reviewed.
Side note: Portuguese language still is "unstable" on orthography and how
to spell words. From time to time we change our conventions (Brazil and
Portugal are yet implementing the Acordo Ortográfico de 1990 and some are
arguing on a new one change). PD-old digitizations came in A VERY OLD
ORTHOGRAPHY CONVENTION. Creating the Big Green Button will make us unable
to do a last check if the wikitext follows the way that words are on
digitization or in the current way of writing. So, it isn't an improvement,
only a trouble finding.
[[User:555]]
Em 11/08/2015 7:09 PM, "Alex Brollo" <[email protected]> escreveu:
> 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
>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikisource-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
