Thanks, Michael Jörgens, for your extensive explanation of the adoption history of pr2. I am not quite convinced that the project would have been better off without the pr2, even if the time taken to convert to the new tool. From what I could see and understand about the original tool, it doesn't seem to be close to proofreadpage in its ease of use and logistic matters, which both would contribute to the rate of quality improvement. Some more statistics would be necessary (for the rate of proofreading) to make definite assertions about the usefulness of the tool in the de.ws realm.
In any case, you are certainly right about the crucial factor of dedication to the quality and building the community around it, and I applaud the de.ws community on the marvelous state of the project. I'm also happy to admit that I stand corrected in the way my words may have implied that pr2 is the sole driver of quality in de.ws.
However the way the de.ws community is handling the issue on this mailing list causes further animosity between the de.ws and the rest in the WS world. I agree that the proofreadpage extension had its share of nasty bugs and some of the updates severely broke compatibility with the prior proofreading process, and on more than one occasion this was done without any warning or even least bit of effort towards providing documentation, but calling names and shutting comments out of the discussion will not improve all that.
At this points (assuming the channel of communication between ThomasV and de.ws community cannot be established), if the version before the last update was satisfactory for the de.ws community, forking it and having it activated instead of the proofreadpage extension may be the best way out. And this will provide a time window before compatibility issues and/or alternative development path for the new branch can be sorted out.
teak
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 6:15 AM, Michael Jörgens joergens.mic@googlemail.com wrote:
@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=h... 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_00... or http://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Seite:Topographia_Alsatiae_%28Merian%29_012.jp... And ''without text'', will most of the time interpreted as without usefull contents.
Sincerly _______________________________________________ Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l