On 10/17/07, Luiz Augusto <lugusto@gmail.com> wrote:
This thread have received some followup at wikiquality-l that aren't delivered to here (wikisource-l), including a proposal to host a unofficial test-wiki for Wikisource [1] and a reply to ThomasV [2]
On regards to [1], this is IMHO a great option and I think that the default configuration for MediaWiki and FlaggedRevs is sufficient (list of configuration options for FlaggedRevs: [3]),
since my worry is related to transclusion issues from the LabeledSectionTransclusion extension and interactions between ProofreadPage javascript and FlaggedRevs javascript
[1] - http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikiquality-l/2007-October/000359.html
[2] -
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikiquality-l/2007-October/000363.html
[3] -
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:FlaggedRevs#Configuration
On 10/15/07, Birgitte SB <
birgitte_sb@yahoo.com> wrote:
I disagree. I think this extension will be even more
useful for Wikisource than Wikipedia. Text stability
is a more important goal at Wikisource. This is what
flaggedrevs offers: stability. I certainly hope it
it will work on Wikisource projects.
BirgitteSB
--- thomasV1@gmx.de wrote:
> Flaggedrevs had been designed with Wikipedia in
> mind.
> Writing an encyclopedy article is about confronting
> multiple
> points of view. During this process, the quality of
> an article might not always improve; the purpose of
> Flaggedrevs is to flag some revisions as "non
> draft",
> while still allowing users to modify the article.
>
> I do not think that this would be useful for
> Wikisource.
> A decrease of quality on a wikisource article can be
>
> agreed upon in a much more objective way.
> Introducing
> flaggedrevs will likely result on confusion and
> useless
> complexity.
>
> (I am not even sure if Flaggedrevs will solve the
> problems
> faced by wikipedia; once the community know what it
> really
> is about, they might realize technology does not
> replace
> expertise...)
>
>
>
>
> -------- Original-Nachricht --------
> > Datum: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 22:39:04 -0300
> > Von: "Luiz Augusto" <lugusto@gmail.com>
> > An:
wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > CC:
wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Betreff: [Wikisource-l] Feedback and beta-testing
> from non-Wikipedia projects
>
> > (sorry for my English and for the crossposting)
> >
> > I known that the FlaggedRevs extension is under a
> review stage and their
> > development is devoted basically to the needs from
> the most known
> > Wikimedia
> > project. This is ok to me, no worries on it. But
> since more Wikimedia
> > projects have users watching the development of
> this feature, I think that
> > only two future official wikis for the public beta
> testing is
> > insufficient.
> >
> > Wikisource, for example, have
> LabeledSectionTransclusion and ProofreadPage
> > enabled on all of yours wikis. These extensions
> may have issues to work
> > appropriately with FlaggedRevs. Enabling these two
> extensions at the same
> > wiki devoted to the English Wikipedia beta-testing
> may generate some
> > troubles with the en.wp
users that don't known how
> and why Wikisource have
> > these extensions, to exemplify with only one of
> the possible reactions.
> > Not
> > enabling these two extensions + FlaggedRevs at
> someplace may create false
> > hopes. And I think that knowing that issues and
> waiting for someone with
> > the
> > required skills to fix them when get time to work
> on it is more proper
> > instead of a community (a Wikisource wiki) gaining
> consensus to request
> > FlaggedRevs getting enabled and finding that a new
> nice feature brokes
> > another
> > one.
> >
> > [[:m:User:555]]
>