It is clear from this discussion that we have very different practices in the various
language subdomains. My experience is that oftentimes on the English Wikisource you just
have to mark paragraph breaks and remove line breaks and extra spaces around punctuation
marks, and you can already save the page as "Proofread". More often than not the
validator will have nothing to correct, since the OCR was already perfect, which is
unsurprising given that OCR software (or any software, for that matter) is generally
designed for the English language, with little regard to languages that use additional
letters or diacritics (not to talk about writing systems other than the Latin alphabet).
On the Italian Wikisource the blue button means "Completely transcribed but not
formatted" (not "Problematic"), while the yellow button means
"Completely transcribed and formatted". So in theory an inexperienced user could
choose to just transcribe a page and let it be formatted by someone else. In practice this
rarely happens and the workflow for most pages is similar to the English Wikisource's
usual practice, although Italian-language texts, especially medieval or Renaissance ones,
tend to have more OCR errors.
It looks like on the Polish Wikisource they use the red (or blue?) button, not the yellow
one, upon creation, while still proofreading the text of the page. So they end up doing
three proofreadings overall, which has the obvious benefit of higher accuracy, especially
since they seem to have bad OCR support, with the added difficulty that some of the words
with typos happen to be real words and therefore not spotted by spellcheckers.
It would be nice to know if other Wikisources take even different approaches. And maybe we
could make an attempt to unify them? Taking everyone's issues and concerns into
account, that is.
Regarding the initial topic of this thread: Pressing the edit button, checking for errors,
marking the page as validated, saving, and going on to the page was not a problem for me
as a beginner (though since the font in text boxes is not very pleasant to the eye, I
would begin checking for errors in view mode and enter the edit mode only upon spotting
the first error). Rather, it allowed me to learn the markup little by little (like
paragraph breaks, the use of <poem> for lines of verse, or the purpose of colons at
the beginning of a line).
Erasmo Barresi
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 11:11:00 +0200
From: Andrea Zanni <zanni.andrea84(a)gmail.com>
To: "discussion list for Wikisource, the free library"
<wikisource-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wikisource-l] Better way to validate pages
Message-ID:
<CAC=VxyaZfHuxZNZFjYCKfA0+1D4EkCPyRKZf5cm1EbS_T+hmzw(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
I read a lot of misunderstanding here,
probably due to the fact that none of us are native speaker.
@Wiera Lee: please, please, please, don't shout.
This is a civil discussion. What Alex did is just a button that you double
click and you go directly in the Edit mode. Nothing more, and only I have
it. It's *definitely not a final decision of any kind*.
So the message you sent earlier is simply not true. So we can restart a
nice conversation :-D
@Lugusto thanks for sharing your experience.
I probably said the wrong "color", in this discussion: green.
That is not necesseraly what I really want (of course I thought about
validation at the beginning of the thread).
What I really really want is
* a simpler life for our readers
* a way to harness/tap/exploit the simple fact that a lot of users DO read
our books, but never correct anything.
What I really want is a very very quick way, for a user, to correct a typo
WHEN she sees it.
Maybe we could do a BIG YELLOW BUTTON (meaning 75%), or maybe we can simply
find *another* way for a user to signal the simple fact that we correct a
typo or similar.
My fear is that Wikisource is way to complicated, and a lot of people read
our texts, and they could help us but we are too complicated to let them.
Can we try to solve this?
Aubrey
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 8:58 AM, Nicolas VIGNERON <
vigneron.nicolas(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> 2015-08-12 7:00 GMT+02:00 Alex Brollo <alex.brollo(a)gmail.com>om>:
>
>> Please don't presume that such a controversial tool hase been implemented
>> anywhere ..... "running" only means that che code can run; presently
only
>> *one* user (Aubrey) can click it, just to test it.
>>
>> Alex
>>
>
> I asked on the frws scriptorium, if the community wants to test it on frws
> (
>
https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Scriptorium/Ao%C3%BBt_2015#Big_gr…
> ). I'll ask on brws too (but I'll be away).
>
> *You* (dear reader on this mail) can ask *your* community if *you* want
> this tool or not and how. Nothing has been decided and certainly not in
> your place.
>
> @Luiz : there is some very good ideas in your mail. If the code works for
> green, surely it could be adapt easily for yellow.
> You have a contention on orthographyon ptws? Can you provide the links?
> (I'd like to know more as the only convention on frws is to do as the text
> does)
>
> Cdlt, ~nicolas
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikisource-l mailing list
> Wikisource-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
>
>