On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 9:45 PM, Syagrius syagrius@gmx.fr wrote:
This problem of proofreading IPs concerns the whole Wikisources. If all Wikisources don't have the same rules, what it the point to make a comparison with figures and graphics. For example, de.WS doesn't want to mark the empty pages as 'Without text', as en.WS and fr.WS did. It distorts the statistics...
IP edits do not distort the statistics. The statistics are about the content of the pages, rather that who did the edits.
If de.WS is confident that IPs can be trusted to validate pages, that means that their project & community is better able to monitor their IP edits. I think allowing IPs to validate pages is sensible if the community is able to monitor it.
I do not understand why de.WS does not want to mark empty pages as 'Without text'; that sounds like a different issue, and one which would distort statistics. Perhaps a de.WS contributor could explain the reason in a new thread; maybe we can learn from de.WS, or agree to disagree.
-- John Vandenberg
2009/10/12 John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com
I do not understand why de.WS does not want to mark empty pages as 'Without text'; that sounds like a different issue, and one which would distort statistics. Perhaps a de.WS contributor could explain the reason in a new thread; maybe we can learn from de.WS, or agree to disagree.
Marking empty pages as "fertig" (=done) is/was simply a convenient way to announce that the pages in question don't need further work. De.ws has handled empty pages like this for a long time, way before the introduction of PR2. It's not a ploy to inflate statistics. I don't think this thought ever occurred to any of us and it would be kind of useless too. The number of empty pages isn't that high.
Personally, I don't mind a new category for empty pages. But I don't really like naming it "without text". Often there is text, it's just text we don't need. Handwritten notes from previous owners, library stamps, ads etc.
Tosca @ de.wikisource
wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org