I will try to ignore the insults and still answer the message.
Your request simply mean that you do not want to use the quality system of the Proofreadpage extension.
However, what you fail to understand is that nobody forces you to use this quality system. I already explained to you twice that it is perfectly possible to use the extension without these quality levels. All you need is to modify your local javascript, so that it adds quality categories to the pages. (de.ws will not be counted in the stats if you do that, but I understand you do not care).
This was a constructive proposal, and I do not know why you keep ignoring it. Instead, you want me to make changes at the extension level. This is not realistic; I will not modify the extension just because you don't know how to configure your wiki. Of course, my proposal implies some programmer work, and any sensible programmer will realize that it would be much less work to convince those two or three anonymous users to login... but hey, this is your problem.
To answer your other question : Yes, there is evidence that some pages at de.ws have been proofread and validated by the same user, with spelling errors remaining after the page is validated : http://de.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Seite:De_Blanche.djvu/37&curi... (in this particular example the error was fixed after I told the proofreader about it; it would otherwise have gone unnoticed). For this reason, I do not believe that de.ws users are more serious than others, and I do not think that the German Wikisource should use different proofreading rules than the other Wikisources.
But again, this is my position, and not a diktat. If the de.ws users collectively believe that they deserve different rules, I respect this belief. As I already said above, nobody forces you to use the quality levels of the proofreadpage extension.
You claim to be representing the consensus at de.ws; I agree that you might be representing a majority of de.ws users, but you certainly do not represent all of them. Some de.ws users have already criticized the lack of quality control at de.ws, and have questionned the fact that IPs should be allowed to validate pages : see http://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Skriptorium#Kn.C3.B6pfe_hin_-_Kn.C3... So, if you decide to get out of the common quality system, I suggest that you first have a debate with these people.
btw, you claim to be defending the rights of anonymous users against unfair discrimination. In general, I do not like it too much when one category of people pretends to be defending the rights of another category who are silent; but anyway, let us assume that you are really defending them, and not your own power. The point is, the de.ws rules have long required that users upload scans with all new texts. This rule means that anonymous users are de facto excluded from adding new texts. Curiously, you never felt the need to complain about that. Is this not an intolerable discrimination ? Did you ever request that IPs be allowed to upload images at de.ws ? Please go for it, I would love to see the answer you get (and do not forget to abundantly insult the people who decided that IPs cannot upload images; it will certainly help).
Thomas
Michael Jörgens a écrit :
Because nothing happened the last few days. I will draw a conclusion form our point of view
We, from the german language wikisource want the following faults in the proofread extension patched.
- IP-editing allowed, up to level 4: (ready). The reasons for that
have been shown again from different views during the last postings. The obstuctions by the current iplementaion have been proven.
- The possibility for setting every level as needed. as above
There is no problem to make this configurable by two variables. A good software programmer can implement this easily withour any faults and flaws. The two configuration variables should be on the level of common.js. If common.js is protected as it shold be there is no missuse possible.
By this way the community of a wiki can decide wether they want to live in an Orwell like wiki or in a wiki which is conform to the basic thinking of the wiki-idea.
On the other hand The Orwellianer should prove that the integrity of the work has been ruined by vandaling IP's The Orwellianer should prove that the integrity of the work has been ruined by members setting the wrong state. In a good community we can trust in the work of the members.
If they can prove that, we could start a new discussion based on the reality.
Greetings jöergens.mi
_______________________________________________ Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l