I think German Wikisource has a rather high quality standard compared to a lot of other Wikisource projects. There are several projects which don't do proofread at all or request scans. That is where we should start to unify the Wikisources.
German Wikisource is also one of the project which have the longest time experience with PR. In all this time we never had problems with IPs proofreading. The community is small and it's usually the same few people. Our contributions by IPs are overviewable (check Latest Changes for it) and AFAIK we never had miss-use by IPs. That's why I have problems to understand why a plugin gets developed in a way that is more secure but less user-friendly when there never were problems with security but some with user-friendlyness (e.g. currently you should not be colour-blind if you want to change the status after proofreading because there is no description of the radio-buttons; I don't consider having to create a special monobook as user-friendly, especially considering that not everybody is able to do that just like that).
Next thing: if somebody wants to cheat he will cheat. Switching of IPs does not bring anything since there is sockpuppeting. It actually causes the opposite. While we can see the IP-adresses and can check if they are from the same range, we can't do the same with accounts. Only checkuser can do that and German data privacy law is rather rigorous when it comes to that kind of activity. It is not at all like on Commons (the only other project where I have CU-experience), where you have a suspicion and ask a CU to check it. On German projects (and that is something we can't change) the hurdle is much higher. For those who speak German, you could check the CU-request-page at German Wikipedia to see what kind of information collection is necessary to get a CU ([ http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Checkuser/Anfragen]). So actually the chance to detect a cheater is now much lower than before.
To the suggestion of 'searching a new developer': I don't know how much quality ThomasV produces in his code (comments, format, speaking names for variables/...; bugs are normal, but the amount of bugs in each release is not a good sign), but one thing I know from several years experience: taking over the code of somebody else is no fun at all. Often enough I ended up rewriting the whole code. Getting a second developer to work on the same plugin is a bad idea from my point of view as a developer, even if it is in a second branch (to prevent conflicts). It usually takes months until the first working output gets generated (one that does not cause troubles at zig other places, because you had not yet had the overview and did not know that changing something at this place will cause consequenses in a totally different area). Sorry, but I suppose that Birgitte does not know what developing a working software (not speedily hacking some emergency-tool) includes, because we are having the problem now and not in half a year (just a estimate as I have not seen the sourcecode of PR2).
And we are stuck with PR2. It IS a good idea, and it is more encouraging for those who do the proofreading, because they can do one page now and then later another without a huge text complex. So in the last few years German Wikisource has transfered a majority of its projects to this solution (especially the large ones). Thus switching off the PR2-extension is not an option, since it would break most of our projects and converting them back would probably take several man-months (even with the help of bots). We don't want to get rid of PR2, we just want to be able for everybody to use it, not discriminating a few users who for whatever reason prefer to work without an account. They are as valuable to the German community as registered ones.
Sorry, that got a bit longer, so I will stop now.
Regards, Cecil
--- On Mon, 10/12/09, Cecil cecilatwp@gmail.com wrote:
From: Cecil cecilatwp@gmail.com Subject: [Wikisource-l] Proofreading To: wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Monday, October 12, 2009, 7:42 AM I think German Wikisource has a rather high quality standard compared to a lot of other Wikisource projects. There are several projects which don't do proofread at all or request scans. That is where we should start to unify the Wikisources.
German Wikisource is also one of the project which have the longest time experience with PR. In all this time we never had problems with IPs proofreading. The community is small and it's usually the same few people. Our contributions by IPs are overviewable (check Latest Changes for it) and AFAIK we never had miss-use by IPs. That's why I have problems to understand why a plugin gets developed in a way that is more secure but less user-friendly when there never were problems with security but some with user-friendlyness (e.g. currently you should not be colour-blind if you want to change the status after proofreading because there is no description of the radio-buttons; I don't consider having to create a special monobook as user-friendly, especially considering that not everybody is able to do that just like that).
Next thing: if somebody wants to cheat he will cheat. Switching of IPs does not bring anything since there is sockpuppeting. It actually causes the opposite. While we can see the IP-adresses and can check if they are from the same range, we can't do the same with accounts. Only checkuser can do that and German data privacy law is rather rigorous when it comes to that kind of activity. It is not at all like on Commons (the only other project where I have CU-experience), where you have a suspicion and ask a CU to check it. On German projects (and that is something we can't change) the hurdle is much higher. For those who speak German, you could check the CU-request-page at German Wikipedia to see what kind of information collection is necessary to get a CU ([http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Checkuser/Anfragen]). So actually the chance to detect a cheater is now much lower than before.
Of course anyone can cheat using two usernames instead of IPs. The difference is that when the cheating is discovered somewhere (even if it is three years later) we can easily check ALL the contributions of the usernames involved and take care of the issue. If cheating were done with a dynamic IP it would much less likely to be able to do a through review and catch all the problems.
To the suggestion of 'searching a new developer': I don't know how much quality ThomasV produces in his code (comments, format, speaking names for variables/...; bugs are normal, but the amount of bugs in each release is not a good sign), but one thing I know from several years experience: taking over the code of somebody else is no fun at all. Often enough I ended up rewriting the whole code. Getting a second developer to work on the same plugin is a bad idea from my point of view as a developer, even if it is in a second branch (to prevent conflicts). It usually takes months until the first working output gets generated (one that does not cause troubles at zig other places, because you had not yet had the overview and did not know that changing something at this place will cause consequenses in a totally different area). Sorry, but I suppose that Birgitte does not know what developing a working software (not speedily hacking some emergency-tool) includes, because we are having the problem now and not in half a year (just a estimate as I have not seen the sourcecode of PR2).
I don't think it would be trivial to get another developer. I just think it would be easier to do that than to convince ThomasV to do you all a favor given what you all are saying about him. Also you don't seem like you want to work with ThomasV at all. So it seems to me things would be better for all involved if you work with someone else.
And we are stuck with PR2. It IS a good idea, and it is more encouraging for those who do the proofreading, because they can do one page now and then later another without a huge text complex. So in the last few years German Wikisource has transfered a majority of its projects to this solution (especially the large ones). Thus switching off the PR2-extension is not an option, since it would break most of our projects and converting them back would probably take several man-months (even with the help of bots). We don't want to get rid of PR2, we just want to be able for everybody to use it, not discriminating a few users who for whatever reason prefer to work without an account. They are as valuable to the German community as registered ones.
OK I can understand that. I wasn't sure how far along you were with the extension. Perhaps you can ask brion to put de.WS back on the older version of MediaWiki until you manage to patch the last update to do what you like.
Birgitte SB
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 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
way to label those who do not agree with your ideas...
There is a need for a law on comparisons to "Orwellian" these days, a la Godwin's.
teak
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 7:02 AM, Michael Jörgens joergens.mic@googlemail.com wrote:
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 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
2009/10/29 teak teak.wiki@gmail.com:
way to label those who do not agree with your ideas...
There is a need for a law on comparisons to "Orwellian" these days, a la Godwin's.
teak
I do not think that this answer is very helpful. You can substitute "Orwellian" with "control freak" or so.
Joergens has written for the consensus of the German Wikisource community.
Klaus Graf
And I don't think the attitude of the de.ws spokespeople is very helpful for their cause either. That's all my message was meant to convey... but goodluck garnering helpful answers. I, for one, would like to see this issue solved, so that this collective attitude of "de.ws community consensus" can finally get off the lawn of the general wikisource mailing list.
teak
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 7:46 AM, Klaus Graf klausgraf@googlemail.com wrote:
2009/10/29 teak teak.wiki@gmail.com:
way to label those who do not agree with your ideas...
There is a need for a law on comparisons to "Orwellian" these days, a la Godwin's.
teak
I do not think that this answer is very helpful. You can substitute "Orwellian" with "control freak" or so.
Joergens has written for the consensus of the German Wikisource community.
Klaus Graf
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Well, your attitude isn't any better or do you think we can't read between the rows. Good to know that our issues are not for the ''general'' wikisource list. So we've learned at least that only general stuff belongs to this list and our issues are not general. Would you please tell us your definition of 'general'. Is it only everything that you consider acceptable, everybody else is not welcome? Sorry, but shitty attitude.
Cecil
2009/10/29 teak teak.wiki@gmail.com
And I don't think the attitude of the de.ws spokespeople is very helpful for their cause either. That's all my message was meant to convey... but goodluck garnering helpful answers. I, for one, would like to see this issue solved, so that this collective attitude of "de.ws community consensus" can finally get off the lawn of the general wikisource mailing list.
teak
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 7:46 AM, Klaus Graf klausgraf@googlemail.com wrote:
2009/10/29 teak teak.wiki@gmail.com:
way to label those who do not agree with your ideas...
There is a need for a law on comparisons to "Orwellian" these days, a la Godwin's.
teak
I do not think that this answer is very helpful. You can substitute "Orwellian" with "control freak" or so.
Joergens has written for the consensus of the German Wikisource
community.
Klaus Graf
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
Well... I don't know about reading between the lines, but you seem to not be able to read the lines. I criticized the attitude (with which the issue is presented) in the general mailing list, not the relevance of the issue itself.
I guess it's perfectly OK in the de.ws community to use this attitude, since as was mentioned the view represents the community consensus. But, at least in my book, it's not too smart to call a policy that every other wikisource community is content with "Orwellian", "control freak", "or so" in the general wikisource mailing list (read, among others, by very people who you call control freaks) and expect helpful feedback. And yes, such insults do not belong in the mailing list to which users sign up with expectations of constructive discussions, where respect toward others' opinions is a priory assumed, even if strong disagreements persist. That's my definition of general.
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Cecil cecilatwp@gmail.com wrote:
Well, your attitude isn't any better or do you think we can't read between the rows. Good to know that our issues are not for the ''general'' wikisource list. So we've learned at least that only general stuff belongs to this list and our issues are not general. Would you please tell us your definition of 'general'. Is it only everything that you consider acceptable, everybody else is not welcome? Sorry, but shitty attitude.
Cecil
2009/10/29 teak teak.wiki@gmail.com
And I don't think the attitude of the de.ws spokespeople is very helpful for their cause either. That's all my message was meant to convey... but goodluck garnering helpful answers. I, for one, would like to see this issue solved, so that this collective attitude of "de.ws community consensus" can finally get off the lawn of the general wikisource mailing list.
teak
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 7:46 AM, Klaus Graf klausgraf@googlemail.com wrote:
2009/10/29 teak teak.wiki@gmail.com:
way to label those who do not agree with your ideas...
There is a need for a law on comparisons to "Orwellian" these days, a la Godwin's.
teak
I do not think that this answer is very helpful. You can substitute "Orwellian" with "control freak" or so.
Joergens has written for the consensus of the German Wikisource community.
Klaus Graf
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
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
From my point of view. The commons projekt ist an old one, older than most
of people who working on de.ws. The rules to have an account on commons for uploading was before we started to do so.
Here it'is the other way round. We started the project with a new 'vision' at the beginning of 2006 by forcing to have scan's for all texts (some of the older ones are still lacking, I know that. But we are seraching for the scans) and a two staged proof reading process in a free community where everybody could edit and cotribute IP or with a nick We had a first different verion of the proofread free for all. This proofread II extension came up free for al js-based. And after some struggle we accepted the technical better solution. When we had accepted the technical solution, the programmer started up to put constraints on the technical good solution. Excluding IP's, defining more and more hard coded rules, because he was in fear of vandalism. When we found ways around his contraints on js-level, he put the next constraints on a different level. Every time we had big discussions with him.
His constraints are hampering the process of converting older project to PR II. The only answer is. ok thats true, use a bot and let a bot make the second proofread process. Excellent solution.
And in his last answer, he says there maybe a way around but you have to find him yourself, find you a programmer to do it there may be there are some js people around at de.ws, . What will be the situation with his next update, will our solution still work, or will he have changed things in a way, that we can't use our changes anymore as usuall. And what are the drawbacks of the workaround's Can we use the index page as we do it now, can we use the special index page with the projects. Both are interesting things and helpfull.
And with this experience an such attitudes, you are talking about our attitudes, teak?
Greetings
2009/10/29 teak teak.wiki@gmail.com
Well... I don't know about reading between the lines, but you seem to not be able to read the lines. I criticized the attitude (with which the issue is presented) in the general mailing list, not the relevance of the issue itself.
I guess it's perfectly OK in the de.ws community to use this attitude, since as was mentioned the view represents the community consensus. But, at least in my book, it's not too smart to call a policy that every other wikisource community is content with "Orwellian", "control freak", "or so" in the general wikisource mailing list (read, among others, by very people who you call control freaks) and expect helpful feedback. And yes, such insults do not belong in the mailing list to which users sign up with expectations of constructive discussions, where respect toward others' opinions is a priory assumed, even if strong disagreements persist. That's my definition of general.
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Cecil cecilatwp@gmail.com wrote:
Well, your attitude isn't any better or do you think we can't read
between
the rows. Good to know that our issues are not for the ''general'' wikisource list. So we've learned at least that only general stuff
belongs
to this list and our issues are not general. Would you please tell us
your
definition of 'general'. Is it only everything that you consider
acceptable,
everybody else is not welcome? Sorry, but shitty attitude.
Cecil
2009/10/29 teak teak.wiki@gmail.com
And I don't think the attitude of the de.ws spokespeople is very helpful for their cause either. That's all my message was meant to convey... but goodluck garnering helpful answers. I, for one, would like to see this issue solved, so that this collective attitude of "de.ws community consensus" can finally get off the lawn of the general wikisource mailing list.
teak
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 7:46 AM, Klaus Graf klausgraf@googlemail.com wrote:
2009/10/29 teak teak.wiki@gmail.com:
way to label those who do not agree with your ideas...
There is a need for a law on comparisons to "Orwellian" these days, a la Godwin's.
teak
I do not think that this answer is very helpful. You can substitute "Orwellian" with "control freak" or so.
Joergens has written for the consensus of the German Wikisource community.
Klaus Graf
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
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
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
Where in your Blanche-example did the same user proofread AND validate the page? The text was an e-text. Joergens.mi did the first proofreading in 2007. In 2009 Enomil converted the project first to PR2 and then did the second proofreading and then logically set the page to the next status. Sure it can happen that several people overlook the same mistake but that can happen even with 5 rounds of proofreading.
And no, there are not ''some'' users who have questioned the fact that IPs should be allowed to validate pages. In that whole discussion there was exactly ''one'' user. The quality critics concerned projects without IP contribution. And in case you have misunderstood the discussion: a user who admits being dyslexis did the first proofreading for his own project (had an OCR) http://dict.leo.org/ende?lp=ende&p=5tY9AA&search=dyslexic. The second proofreader had after reading a few pages a bad feeling of setting the second status because there were so many errors left. So he announced it there and asked for a solution which was to set back the whole project one status.
And to your last passage: in case you haven't noticed. We don't want anybody to upload images at de.WS, no matter if it is a registered user or an IP. We are not an image collection project. Clicking on upload in the menu brings everybody to Commons, a different project. Sure, the upload-page on de.WS still works, but it is hidden and has a request not to use it.
Cecil
2009/10/29 ThomasV thomasV1@gmx.de
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
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org