On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 6:52 PM, Alex Brollo <alex.brollo@gmail.com> wrote:

IMHO, even if I'm testing the BGB as a personal script, I'm not satisfied by it, since - ironically - I don't agree fully with Andrea: I think that a good look to wiki code is mandatory, I want to see if transclusion codes are OK, I want see templates and their use and so on. Unexperienced but interested users need to look at code to learn by example. Often experienced users need too (but they are aware of such a need).

I see this discussion is going on, so let me draw an example I think it fits.

Take Linux, and take Windows/Apple.

If you wanted people to learn how a computer works, you give them Linux. They will have to face issues, and solve them. The will use the command line, understand a bit of architecture, and some of them will become professional and use these skills for work.

If, on the other hand, you want people just to use a computer, and do stuff with it, you give them Windows/Apple. It's simpler, it hides complexity, is made for being used and not understood.

There are drawbacks in using Windows or Apple, of course. Beside privacy and freedom factors (they are not important, in this metaphor) you just learn less, using them.

But there are drawbacks in giving people Linux too: sometimes, people just don't want to learn how to use a computer. they just want to use it.

---

I think that showing the wikicode is a crucial factor in assessing the quality of the page. It's prabably a very good idea to make it mandatory for the page validation.

AT THE SAME TIME, I am pretty convinced that we must not think that all Wikisource readers want to understand how Wikisource works, and are all potential Wikisource editors.

I think that we can aim for them to read Wikisource, and sometimes correct a typo, if it's really easy and straightforward and quick.

But they come to Wikisource to read books, not to learn hot correct books on Wikisource.

It's a crucial difference.

Can we harness the simple fact that they are reading a text and give them a quick tool to fix typos when they see it? I hope so. I believe many people would use such a tool (if we make it good enough).

I don't believe that maintaining the barrier high because we want editors to learn by themselves is a very good idea, if we want Wikisource to be a place with a lot of good books to read.

For me, it goes like this:

Lot of correct books > lots of readers > lots of potential users

It's a feedback loop and we want it to go in the right direction.

Community building is very important too, but at the same time I don't see a conflict in letting users do the good of Wikisource (correcting a typo) even if they do not become expert users. Wikisource is still too complicated, and this is one of the reasons we don't have big communities.

Aubrey