Ankry,

there's no need to shout :-)

We are just *talking*, nobody is coming to Polish Wikisource and make you use a tool you don't want.

You do what the Polish community wants to do.

Still, it's 10 years I'm on Wikisource projects (it.ws) and worries me the most

is that the community grows sloooowly. It's too slow, and the web changes rapidly, and our infrastructure becomes rapidly obsolete.

I think (but I do not have hard data) that we would have many ways to make users active and teach them how to format things.

But a big green button like "if you see an error fix it" could be useful. Maybe we don't need to link it to the validation process, and let users understand that by themself. But I still think that we need to low the complexity of wikisource if we want our communities to grow and thrive.

I repeat, there can be many ways to achieve this goal, but for me it's a crucial goal.

Aubrey

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 11:45 AM, <ankry@mif.pg.gda.pl> wrote:

> That's a very good idea.

NO! NO! NO!
It is suggesting new users to behave like bots! Just click and go on?
Why to read the small-lettering texts? Just click the GGB (Great Green
Button).

In Polish language Wikisource we have VERY BAD experience with directing
new users to the final validation process: they can't carefully compare
the text in both windows word-by-word. They just read both texts (and
maybe one only?) and click validate & next.

Later we found a lot of unnoticed OCR-related mistakes like:
- missing last paragraph
- missing a line
- typos like m->rn, in->m, ę->ą, o->n, etc.

Even 5-10 mistakes per a GREEN page (whan it was based on poor scans/poor
OCR). In our opinion people need to LEARN how to compare texts. And it is
easier to learn when there are more mistakes to notice when there is only
a few of them.

If you want to decrease quality or you believe you have perfect OCR
software, plese do it for specified Wikisource subdomains, not as general
tool.

plwikisource highly discourage such a tool.

Ankry

> A big green button "validate" at the end of the displayed wikitext content
> of the page may fit the need. It would open a confirmation popup with an
> explanation message the first k times the user click on it in order to
> make sure new contributors use it well (with k something like 3 or 5).
>
> What do you think about it? I'll have some free time in a few weeks to
> implement a such thing directly into the ProofreadPage extension.
>
> Thomas
>
>
>> Le 10 ao?t 2015 ? 14:31, Alex Brollo <alex.brollo@gmail.com> a écrit :
>>
>> Ok; imagine that while opening a level 3 page, an ajax query uploads
>> quietly the raw code of the page; as soon as you click the "Big Green
>> Button" the script could edit the code and send it to the server - in
>> milliseconds - and immediately could click the next page button.
>>
>> If a review of page in view mode is all what is needed to validate it,
>> there's no reason to enter in edit mode when there's nothing to fix.
>>
>> Alex
>>
>> 2015-08-10 18:14 GMT+02:00 Andrea Zanni <zanni.andrea84@gmail.com>:

>> The Big Validate Button is a good idea,
>> but I also would like a better navigation experience, as it is pretty
>> slow and cumbersome to got on the top of the page to click a tiny arrow,
>> wait for the new page, click edit, etc.
>>
>> Aubrey
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Alex Brollo <alex.brollo@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> If this is true, then to add a big button "Validate" to edit by ajax the
>> code of the page (the header section only needs to be changed if there's
>> no error to fix into the txt) should be a banal task for a good
>> programmer.
>>
>> Perhaps Andrea is asking for much more, but this could be a first step.
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>
>>
>> 2015-08-10 14:47 GMT+01:00 Nicolas VIGNERON
>> <vigneron.nicolas@gmail.com>:
>> 2015-08-10 15:37 GMT+02:00 Alex Brollo <alex.brollo@gmail.com>:
>> >
>> > First point is:
>> > is it a safe practice to validate a page without reviewing its raw
>> code?
>>
>> Probably yes.
>> Obviously, it's safer to check the raw code but it's unrealistic to
>> expect the raw code to be review for all page. Anyway, the pages doesn't
>> contain a lot of code (and most pages does'nt contain code at all), so
>> it doesn't seems to be crucial to me.
>> Plus : when VisualEditor will be on WS, less and less people will
>> actually see the raw wikicode.
>>
>> > A second point: is it a safe practice to validate a page without
>> carefully reviewing its transclusion into ns0?
>>
>> Definitively yes.
>> When can a transclusion can go wrong? In all cases I can think of, the
>> problem come from templates, css classes or general stuff like that. It
>> should be fixed generally and it shouldn't block the page validation
>> since it have nothing to do the the page itself (but maybe I'm missing
>> an obvious example here).
>>
>> > Alex
>>
>> Cdlt, ~nicolas
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikisource-l mailing list
>> 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