Wikisource-l

wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org

2 participants
1306 discussions

Fwd: [Foundation-l] Commons reaches 5 million files
by John Vandenberg 17 Oct '09

17 Oct '09

We should take this text and put it on Wikisource, and translate it into every language! http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kj%C3%B8benhavnsposten_28_nov_1838_s… ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Guillaume Paumier <guillom.pom(a)gmail.com> Date: Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 12:21 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Commons reaches 5 million files To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Hello, On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 3:18 PM, Mathias Schindler<mathias.schindler(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > From a PR perspective, taking this image as the 5millionth one is a > desaster, the only positive aspect is that it is "honest" to take that > one instead of a shiny picture. Nah, we can use it to make a case for Wikisource and encourage libraries to provide high-quality scans! -- Guillaume Paumier [[m:User:guillom]] http://www.gpaumier.org _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

1 0

Re: [Wikisource-l] Pages without text
by Syagrius 16 Oct '09

16 Oct '09

6 11

Re: [Wikisource-l] Pages without text
by Syagrius 14 Oct '09

14 Oct '09

5 4

Re: [Wikisource-l] Proofreading
by Birgitte SB 13 Oct '09

13 Oct '09

--- On Mon, 10/12/09, Michael Jörgens <joergens.mic(a)googlemail.com> wrote: From: Michael Jörgens <joergens.mic(a)googlemail.com> Subject: Re: [Wikisource-l] Proofreading To: "discussion list for Wikisource, the free library" <wikisource-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Date: Monday, October 12, 2009, 2:00 PM Thanks teak for you trying to moderate that problem. Even if we are complaining about ThomasV attitudes, in general we (I hope I speak for the majority of the community- but I'm sure about that) like the tool, and we also would like to take benefit of it's advantages if possible even in the future. In general terms spoken it is an improvement in comparison to the old tool. That is the reason why we convert our old projects. ThomasV basic ideas in the human interface of the tool are not so bad . His new ideas with the index-page are good to (smaller quirks can be eliminated). Our problem is, that there is no communication in advance what will happen and when. Every time we see the reaults after the change. The second thing is that ThomasV exactly knows what our key points are - they have been discussed to often, everytime he made an incompatible change in his tool - but from my personal point of view is not willing to find a solution which would be best for both sides. *** The thing you are missing is that this is not what ThomasV wants vs. what de.WS wants. It is making the tool compatible with the workings of multiple Wikisources or one Wikisource. That he has chosen to no longer spend time on custom configurations for the one Wikisource that wants it differently is his choice. It is his time after all. Regarding advance communication. Certainly there must be advance copies of these updates out there in test environments if you were to look for them, just as there is with any code updates. No one makes such advance announcements about any changes in code that I have ever seen. At least no one tells en.WS. Yet I am sure the information is being discussed and tested somewhere in development circles. I can't understand why ThomasV should be obliged to go around to all the different Wikisources announcing his plans when no other developer does this. While I agree that communication about these things could be better, it is not a fault against ThomasV but rather a systematic issue. There should be a central place to follow all updates in the pipeline. (Maybe there even is one already, but I don't know about it) Birgitte SB

2 1

Proofreading
by Michael Jörgens 13 Oct '09

13 Oct '09

@teak"A wake up call to the de.ws quality guru's: where would your quality be without the proofread tool?" At least at the same point or better. We have introduced the process prior to the most ws's and we have been using a tool call profread before. (Better because, we converted a lot of projects to pr2, we lost time needed for that in the normal correcting porcess. We decided to do so and we don't blame anyone on that used time. But you hopefully understand, that you will get upset, when such converting actions are hampered by single point decisions and sillies in design or coding of the tools) This tool is still working as you can see in this porject. http://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Die_Ursache_des_Einschlagens_vom_Blitze Here a single page. you can use the button "Korrekturlesen", to see how it works. http://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Die_Ursache_des_Einschlagens_vom_Blitze:Seite… For convienence (index Pages for example or easier setup of an project, and for coworking with other ws projekts, we accepted after some discussions ThomasV extension which we normally call proofread 2. Most of the hampering processes where introduced and detected after we decided to use this extension. The first version was nearly without any curious restrictions. But the way how to proofread http://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Hilfe:Korrekturlesen , and the rules started in august 2006 in written form as you can see here http://de.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Hilfe:Korrekturlesen&action=hist… after discussion and defining our goals. - No text without scan, - older projects without scans will be reworked with scans as soon as possible If you are keen in statistics We have 154555 pages at de.ws roundabout 100.000 in pr2 and 55000 in older forms in both forms more than 60 % are at least corrected once and 30% proofread twice. The percentages are equal distributed to both methods. And we know where our quality is. Quality is a question of the attitude of mind of the community. Only if I'm lacking a good community, then there is a need for a Big-Brother setup. Adressing the without text question. There are two answer for that, First, we are not used to do so, and normally we see no need for difference between bookpages, This rule was introduced at a time we already had accepted proofread 2 and we had a lot of discussion why we cannot set the ready state. Second, a lot of books have pages consisting of a picture and on ore two lines of text - simply giving a title to the picture. In our rule setup, people are allowed, to put such pages immediate to the ready state. For example http://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Seite:Anfangsgr%C3%BCnde_der_Mathematik_I_A_0… or http://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Seite:Topographia_Alsatiae_%28Merian%29_012.j… And ''without text'', will most of the time interpreted as without usefull contents. Sincerly

2 2

Proofreading
by Michael Jörgens 12 Oct '09

12 Oct '09

ThomasV is working as author, I think mainly at fr.wikisource. He has his personal ideas how things have to be done, there is no communication of him, at least to german wikisource, - what things and how he will change them - in advance. From one day to the next, things which have been working, doesn't work any longer. Because of two definite reasons - The will of the author. - Bugs in his code. There has been NO update of his code without bugs! >From the very beginning of his work on his proofread extension, he tried to exclude everybody he personal doesn't like. Especially IP's he dislikes and treats them the same way as vandals. There has been at least 3 major updates of his extension, every time he found new ways to discourage people to work with his extension and to complicate the work of author. Every time we had big discussion with him after his buggy changes and must find ways to get around his blocking methods. We have a lot of texts (thousands of pages) proofread two times before his extension was developed. We try to convert most of them to the proofread extension. But even Administrators are not capable of setting a 2 times proofread text to the ready state. When we begged him to assist us with this problem he wasn't willing to, we found away around his restriction. Now there is an update and we have the same problems again, an this not by an accident. Because when he sees that we find solutions in the js part which is configurable, he moves more and more of his SILLY IDEAS into parts of the code we can't change. There has been a lot of experiments to get a common working interface with ThomasV but he is not willing to cooperate. In my opinion it would be very easy, to incorporate parameters, to give the project the chance to implement their community consensus of for example IP editing (including second proofreading), setting completed pages to the ready state, ... And to Brigitte SB It's not so easy to call take another developer if this one is not willing to cooperate. Would it be accepted that there are two different (but extremely similar) pr extensions, active on all wiki's? And I don't think that ThomasV is willing to accept any consensus which is not according to his way of thinking Have a look at the other ws. Has there been any question of ThomasV what the consensus in this ws is - or is there only his dictate! Have a look here. https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20812 Sincerly

8 10

Re: [Wikisource-l] Proofreading
by Syagrius 12 Oct '09

12 Oct '09

3 2

Re: [Wikisource-l] Proofreading
by Syagrius 12 Oct '09

12 Oct '09

3 2

Proofreading
by Michael Jörgens 12 Oct '09

12 Oct '09

>From the very beginning of his work on his proofread extension, he tried to exclude everybody he personal doesn't like. Especially IP's he dislikes and treats them the same way as vandals. There has been at least 3 major updates of his extension, every time he found new ways to discourage people to work with his extension and to complicate the work of author. Every time we had big discussion with him after his buggy changes and must find ways to get around his blocking methods. We have a lot of texts (thousands of pages) proofread two times before his extension was developed. We try to convert most of them to the proofread extension. But even Administrators are not capable of setting a 2 times proofread text to the ready state. When we begged him to assist us with this problem he wasn't willing to, we found away around his restriction. Now there is an update and we have the same problems again, an this not by an accident. Because when he sees that we find solutions in the js part which is configurable, he moves more and more of his SILLY IDEAS into parts of the code we can't change. There has been a lot of experiments to get a common working interface with ThomasV but he is not willing to cooperate. In my opinion it would be very easy, to incorporate parameters, to give the project the chance to implement their community consensus of for example IP editing (including second proofreading), setting completed pages to the ready state, ... And to Brigitte SB It's not so easy to call take another developer if this one is not willing to cooperate. Would it be accepted that there are two different (but extremely similar) pr extensions, active on all wiki's? And I don't think that ThomasV is willing to accept any consensus which is not according to his way of thinking. Have a look at the other ws. Has there been any question of ThomasV what the consensus in this ws is - or is there only his dictate! Have a look here. https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20812 Sincerly

1 0

Proofreading
by Michael Jörgens 12 Oct '09

12 Oct '09

>From the very beginning of his work on his proofread extension, he tried to exclude everybody he personal doesn't like. Especially IP's he dislikes and treats them the same way as vandals. There has been at least 3 major updates of his extension, every time he found new ways to discourage people to work with his extension and to complicate the work of author. Every time we had big discussion with him after his buggy changes and must find ways to get around his blocking methods. We have a lot of texts (thousands of pages) proofread two times before his extension was developed. We try to convert most of them to the proofread extension. But even Administrators are not capable of setting a 2 times proofread text to the ready state. When we begged him to assist us with this problem he wasn't willing to, we found away around his restriction. Now there is an update and we have the same problems again, an this not by an accident. Because when he sees that we find solutions in the js part which is configurable, he moves more and more of his SILLY IDEAS into parts of the code we can't change. There has been a lot of experiments to get a common working interface with ThomasV but he is not willing to cooperate. In my opinion it would be very easy, to incorporate parameters, to give the project the chance to implement their community consensus of for example IP editing (including second proofreading), setting completed pages to the ready state, ... And to Brigitte SB It's not so easy to call take another developer if this one is not willing to cooperate. Would it be accepted that there are two different (but extremely similar) pr extensions, active on all wiki's? And I don't think that ThomasV is willing to accept any consensus which is not according to his way of thinking Have a look at the other ws. Has there been any question of ThomasV what the consensus in this ws is - or is there only his dictate! Have a look here. https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20812 Sincerly

1 0

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

Wikisource-l