2009/10/16 ThomasV
<thomasV1@gmx.de>
Cecil a écrit :
> books. They are part of our currently most important community project
> which should be finished until November 10th. Because of the short
> time left all books were switched to PR2 so that more people can work
> on them and
I don't think that setting yourself deadlines for finishing
to proofread a book is a good way to improve quality
Nobody ever said anything about finishing. We want to have as many works as possible to be finished until Schillers 250th birthday (who after all is one of the most important German poets ever), that's why many people now have stopped the other projects for this one, but that does not mean we would let suffer quality for it by trying the impossible. Please don't insult us that way.
> When I complained about that to ThomasV, he suggested to use level 0
> for it, since it is a finished page and no more proofreading needs to
> be done. He would even rename the 'without text' to fit it better and
> the pages still would land in category 'finished'.
This is not accurate. I suggested to use level 0 because
I thought that you were talking about pages without text,
or with very short text (image caption or chapter title).
When I realized that you were talking about pages full of
text, I said that they should not be using level zero, but
level 4. I said that it was acceptable to use a robot to reach
level 4, because the pages had already been proofread before.
http://de.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Skriptorium&diff=prev&oldid=863000
You said so many different things after the update (not all of them understandable), who should still now what you meant. The bot is no real option, even if you think it is acceptable to create that kind of chaos and damage quality just to keep some weird kind of security by forbiding even established users to set correct statuses but would allow it to programs where just one little part of a command needs to be incorrect to create chaos and hours of extra work trying to figure out how to correct it (which one again has to be done by programs, since people have no right to do it anymore). I'm a programmer too, but I learned already at university that it is stupid and careless to let machines do everything. They are only as good as the programmer and should never work alone. And a bot always works alone. The only way a user can interact is to stop the bot.
And it sure looks good for readers if they check the version history and see that a bot did the second proofreading. Or will you manage to put the whole explanation why a user set a state and then a bot corrected it in the short line in a way the reader can understand and accept.
It would not even be possible for me to revert vandalism or accidents if I had done the first proofreading-round and somebody damages the page after the second one. Or did you fix that? The last time I checked I had to delete all the pages and then restore all except the vandalised one to remove the error.
Cecil