On 24 June 2010 15:37, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
I love those proofreading features, and the new default layout for a book's pages and TOC. Wikisource is becoming AWESOME.
Ahem. Even more awesome, you mean. :-)
Do we have PGDP contributors who can weigh on on how similar the processes are? Is there a way for us to actually merge workflows with them?
Disclaimer - my PGDP account dates from 2004, but I only get involved in fits every couple of years. This should be seen mostly as an "outsider's" viewpoint. :-)
IME, PGDP's processes are /seriously/ heavy-weight, burning lots of worker time on 2nd or even 3rd-level passes, and multiple tiers of work (Proofreading, Formatting, and all the special management levels for people running projects). The pyramid of processes has grown so great that they have seemed to crash in on themselves - there's a huge dearth of people at the "higher" levels (you need to qualify at the lower levels before the system will let you contribute to the activities at the end). It's generally quite "unwiki".
I think Wikisource's model is a great deal more light weight that PGDP's - and that we really don't want to push Wikisource down that route. :-) Unfortunately I think that this means linking the two up might prove challenging - and there's also a danger that people may jump ship, damaging PGDP still further and making them upset with us.
J.