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
I'm not sure we're all talking about the same thing.
First, this tool is just a tool. If someone is misusing a tool, don't blame the tool, blame (and block) the user of the tool !
Then it seems that the quality level has not the same meaning on every wikisources. Typo such as « rn » intead of « m » are usually removed on the red or yellow step on fr.ws (and such obvious error can be seen before editing, reviewing the final render code seems enough to me). When I'm thinking of raw code review on yellow to green step, I'm thinking of formatting and things like html code replace by ws templates, Unicode encoding mistakes, and little things like that ; for me all typo should be gone at the previous stage (and personally, I don't go from red to yellow if there is still such typo mistakes).
The GGB is a tool (and just an idea of a tool right now) and one of many solution to one of many problems Andrea pointed ; but there is many other problems. Especially, the navigation arrows could use some improvement. « validate this and go to next page » is definitively something we need. Since the VisualEditor is coming, we would be dumb no to cease this opportunity to do some clean-up and renovation.
We should think too to an other category of tools : global detection of possible mistakes. On frws, there is some little things like https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Gadget-Erreurs-communes.js (intern gadget) and https://tools.wmflabs.org/dicompte/index.php (extern) but here too there is huge room for improvement. Proofreading page by page is great and necessary but we should multiply the approachs to reach the best quality.
We're speaking of new users but such tools (the GGB and much more others) can be useful for old users too. Maybe we can test them for some old user first, see how it goes and then offers them (or not) to new users. Finally, new users are not all the same. The director of Rennes Library is a new user on frws but she's defintively better at proofreading than most wikisorcerers ;)
Cdlt, ~nicolas
2015-08-11 11:28 GMT+01:00 Nicolas VIGNERON <vigneron.nicolas at gmail.com>:
Then it seems that the quality level has not the same meaning on every wikisources. Typo such as « rn » intead of « m » are usually removed on the red or yellow step on fr.ws (and such obvious error can be seen before editing, reviewing the final render code seems enough to me).
on pl ws it should be done on "without text" -> red step
for me all typo should be gone at the previous stage (and personally, I don't go from red to yellow if there is still such typo mistakes).
should be... but statistically on red-> yellow step I find 2-4 typos, on yellow-> green step - 1-2 typos (on fr ws too); if on yellow-> green step I could not found any typos, I do not change its status immediately, leave it on another day to be sure.
I'll write it again ... that is not safe to validate a page without reviewing its wikicode. A BGB at the end of the PREVIEW(!) content in Page namespace WITHOUT displaying and reviewing wikitext content (raw code) it's a bad proposal, declining the quality of proofreading process results, and... I do not think so that "it's unrealistic to expect the raw code to be review for all page" for that kind of "edition" it should be special level "pseudovalidate" - best in pink.
Z.
Another question for Tpt: how far is the implementation of the Visual Editor inside the Proofread Extension? Who's working on it? Just you, as always?
Aubrey
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 1:18 PM, zdzislaw zdzislaw.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
2015-08-11 11:28 GMT+01:00 Nicolas VIGNERON <vigneron.nicolas at gmail.com
: Then it seems that the quality level has not the same meaning on every wikisources. Typo such as « rn » intead of « m » are usually removed on the red or yellow step on fr.ws (and such obvious error can be seen before editing, reviewing the final render code seems enough
to me). on pl ws it should be done on "without text" -> red step
for me all typo should be gone at the previous stage (and personally, I don't go from red to yellow if there is still such typo
mistakes). should be... but statistically on red-> yellow step I find 2-4 typos, on yellow-> green step - 1-2 typos (on fr ws too); if on yellow-> green step I could not found any typos, I do not change its status immediately, leave it on another day to be sure.
I'll write it again ... that is not safe to validate a page without reviewing its wikicode. A BGB at the end of the PREVIEW(!) content in Page namespace WITHOUT displaying and reviewing wikitext content (raw code) it's a bad proposal, declining the quality of proofreading process results, and... I do not think so that "it's unrealistic to expect the raw code to be review for all page" for that kind of "edition" it should be special level "pseudovalidate" - best in pink.
Z.
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
2015-08-11 13:18 GMT+02:00 zdzislaw zdzislaw.wiki@gmail.com:
2015-08-11 11:28 GMT+01:00 Nicolas VIGNERON <vigneron.nicolas at gmail.com
: Then it seems that the quality level has not the same meaning on every wikisources. Typo such as « rn » intead of « m » are usually removed on the red or yellow step on fr.ws (and such obvious error can be seen before editing, reviewing the final render code seems enough
to me). on pl ws it should be done on "without text" -> red step
Ok, we totally agree.
for me all typo should be gone at the previous stage (and personally, I don't go from red to yellow if there is still such typo
mistakes). should be... but statistically on red-> yellow step I find 2-4 typos, on yellow-> green step - 1-2 typos (on fr ws too); if on yellow-> green step I could not found any typos, I do not change its status immediately, leave it on another day to be sure.
Again we agree.
I'll write it again ... that is not safe to validate a page without reviewing its wikicode.
Are I'm puzzled: why?
A BGB at the end of the PREVIEW(!) content in Page namespace WITHOUT
displaying and reviewing wikitext content (raw code) it's a bad proposal, declining the quality of proofreading process results, and... I do not think so that "it's unrealistic to expect the raw code to be review for all page"
Strange... Are you against VisualEditor too? And what can you see on the raw code that you can't see on the rendered code? (obviously not typo and <center> vs. <div align="center"> is not important for validation page by page).
What do you call « preview content » ?
for that kind of "edition" it should be special level "pseudovalidate" -
best in pink.
I think you confusing validation and tool for validation. All edition tools are equal, either by the usual interface, by a customed interface, by VisualEditor (one day...), by AWB, by API, or by a BGB. The tool is mostly irrelevant, what matters is what is changed (or not).
Cdlt, ~nicolas
2015-08-11 12:34 GMT+01:00 Nicolas VIGNERON <vigneron.nicolas at gmail.com>:
2015-08-11 13:18 GMT+02:00 zdzislaw zdzislaw.wiki@gmail.com:
I'll write it again ... that is not safe to validate a page without reviewing its wikicode.
Are I'm puzzled: why? Strange... Are you against VisualEditor too?
For example, when someone validate a page in preview mode it is impossible to check the line breaks, the use of templates... The single line breaks (text broken into different lines -> common from scanned text) will be seen "normally" on preview mode (parser convers if into #0A), but it shoud be removed, if not... try to "Download (it) as PDF" - all the text will be broken. VisualEditor - here you can see everything at a glance (!), missed line breaks can be seen as an arrow, if you want to check whether the correct template is used, just simply "move" the mouse on it... VE <> view mode
Z.
2015-08-11 14:35 GMT+02:00 zdzislaw zdzislaw.wiki@gmail.com:
2015-08-11 12:34 GMT+01:00 Nicolas VIGNERON <vigneron.nicolas at gmail.com
: 2015-08-11 13:18 GMT+02:00 zdzislaw zdzislaw.wiki@gmail.com:
I'll write it again ... that is not safe to validate a page without
reviewing its wikicode.
Are I'm puzzled: why? Strange... Are you against VisualEditor too?
For example, when someone validate a page in preview mode it is impossible to check the line breaks, the use of templates... The single line breaks (text broken into different lines -> common from scanned text) will be seen "normally" on preview mode (parser convers if into #0A), but it shoud be removed, if not... try to "Download (it) as PDF"
- all the text will be broken.
VisualEditor - here you can see everything at a glance (!), missed line breaks can be seen as an arrow, if you want to check whether the correct template is used, just simply "move" the mouse on it... VE <> view mode
Z.
If a template is mispelled or misused, you'll see right away that something is wrong, no ? Where is the need to go to edit mode? (except for <center> vs. <div align="center"> cases but it's not really relevant for validation).
I don't understand your single line breaks problem, and the problem seems to be on PDF generator not on the page itself (it shouldn't block the validation). "Download (it) as PDF" do you talk about the special page on the right Tools bar or about the wsexport tools? I just tested the two tools and they worked just fine with pages with single line breaks.
You're mixing a little bit « validation » and « perfection ». For example, if a page contains « word » or « wоrd » instead of « word », it's not perfect but it's valid as it invisible for 90% of readers and tools (plus, there is other tools to detect this specific errors).
Cdlt, ~nicolas
Repeating something I tried to explain earlier, we could try to distinguish "markup=layout" from "text". But it's very difficult, and I stand with Vigneron saying that we should aim to a 99,9% accuracy instead of total perfection, becaus the *cost* of finding that 0,01% is really, really high.
Sometimes we have perfectly readable 75% books, and users can already read them and enjoy them. Even if a book has a typo every few pages, is still good to read. If it's not "perfectly isomorphic" to the original book (if some linebreaks are different, or symbols, or formatting) it can be still a perfectly readable and functional book.
My point is: with our tiny communities, we should not reach for the stars, or absolute perfection. We should aim to serve our users (we are wikilibrarians!) the best as we can, but IMHO this means also trying to harness from our readers and let them collaborate with us, even if it is just correction a typo in one page. "Given enough eyes, all typos are shallow" should be the Wikisource version of the Linus law [1]. My wish is that we could, as a community, find a way to find those "enough eyes", expand our communities, even if it means just harnessing casual readers.
Aubrey
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus%27s_Law
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Nicolas VIGNERON < vigneron.nicolas@gmail.com> wrote:
2015-08-11 14:35 GMT+02:00 zdzislaw zdzislaw.wiki@gmail.com:
2015-08-11 12:34 GMT+01:00 Nicolas VIGNERON <vigneron.nicolas at gmail.com>:
2015-08-11 13:18 GMT+02:00 zdzislaw zdzislaw.wiki@gmail.com:
I'll write it again ... that is not safe to validate a page without
reviewing its wikicode.
Are I'm puzzled: why? Strange... Are you against VisualEditor too?
For example, when someone validate a page in preview mode it is impossible to check the line breaks, the use of templates... The single line breaks (text broken into different lines -> common from scanned text) will be seen "normally" on preview mode (parser convers if into #0A), but it shoud be removed, if not... try to "Download (it) as PDF"
- all the text will be broken.
VisualEditor - here you can see everything at a glance (!), missed line breaks can be seen as an arrow, if you want to check whether the correct template is used, just simply "move" the mouse on it... VE <> view mode
Z.
If a template is mispelled or misused, you'll see right away that something is wrong, no ? Where is the need to go to edit mode? (except for
<center> vs. <div align="center"> cases but it's not really relevant for validation).
I don't understand your single line breaks problem, and the problem seems to be on PDF generator not on the page itself (it shouldn't block the validation). "Download (it) as PDF" do you talk about the special page on the right Tools bar or about the wsexport tools? I just tested the two tools and they worked just fine with pages with single line breaks.
You're mixing a little bit « validation » and « perfection ». For example, if a page contains « word » or « wоrd » instead of « word », it's not perfect but it's valid as it invisible for 90% of readers and tools (plus, there is other tools to detect this specific errors).
Cdlt, ~nicolas
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
2015-08-11 13:59 GMT+01:00 Nicolas VIGNERON <vigneron.nicolas at gmail.com>:
You're mixing a little bit « validation » and « perfection ». For example, if a page contains « word » or « wоrd » instead of « word », it's not perfect but it's valid as it invisible for 90% of readers and tools (plus, there is other tools to detect this specific errors).
maybe... but, there's another concern about the BGB (mentioned by Ankry), the mental problem of new users - when they "validate" in edit mode or Visual Editor and notice a typo (or absence of comma) it is just a click to improve the text, but. .. in view mode, after noticing the error, you have to do IT all (which is such a inconvenience causing BGB proposal): enter to the edit mode, find again the same place in the text, place the cursor ... I'm afraid of thinking like: "Uh ... it's just one comma, I click right away in the BGB...
Z.
2015-08-11 15:21 GMT+02:00 zdzislaw zdzislaw.wiki@gmail.com:
2015-08-11 13:59 GMT+01:00 Nicolas VIGNERON <vigneron.nicolas at gmail.com
: You're mixing a little bit « validation » and « perfection ». For example, if a page contains « word » or « wоrd » instead of « word », it's not perfect but it's valid as it invisible for 90% of readers and tools (plus, there is other tools to detect this specific
errors).
maybe... but, there's another concern about the BGB (mentioned by Ankry), the mental problem of new users - when they "validate" in edit mode or Visual Editor and notice a typo (or absence of comma) it is just a click to improve the text, but. .. in view mode, after noticing the error, you have to do IT all (which is such a inconvenience causing BGB proposal): enter to the edit mode, find again the same place in the text, place the cursor ... I'm afraid of thinking like: "Uh ... it's just one comma, I click right away in the BGB...
Z.
That a very good concern and I agree with you but how does the BGB will change anything in this situation? In fact, in this case, the problem is ni the edit mode, not in the BGB. And the solution is not to forbidden tool or edition but to explain to the user what to do and how to do it.
The BGB is not an idea of tool to improve correction but only to quicken the validation when there is no correction to do (and per se, validation is not an improvement at all ; the exact same text could be red, yellow or green and could be perfect or very bad, don't mix the metrics and the subject of the metrics).
Cdlt, ~nicolas
On pl.wikisource each correction level means that another person did the correction again. The green status means the page was corrected three times by three another persons.
Corrected, not read.
In my opinion Big Green Button Correction is useless. New users can click only for stats, not for proofreading. And nobody would check it again, because the book would be finished.
We are asking new users to validate the pages for the second time (from red to yellow level): new users can learn how the templates and raw codes are working, but when they do something wrong, an experienced user would check it one more time -- to make it green. If they would not edit the page, they would never know how the templates works. So they would not become a better editors...
We all can do only red pages, why not. We'll get a "perfectly readable and functional book" with some errors. But should we give its the same status as a proof-read three times book? Green status means "almost perfect". We shouldn't make green pages automatically, only to make our stats better.
Correction without correction is not a good idea. It's a lie.
Wieralee
2015-08-11 15:43 GMT+02:00 Nicolas VIGNERON vigneron.nicolas@gmail.com:
2015-08-11 15:21 GMT+02:00 zdzislaw zdzislaw.wiki@gmail.com:
2015-08-11 13:59 GMT+01:00 Nicolas VIGNERON <vigneron.nicolas at gmail.com>:
You're mixing a little bit « validation » and « perfection ». For example, if a page contains « word » or « wоrd » instead of « word », it's not perfect but it's valid as it invisible for 90% of readers and tools (plus, there is other tools to detect this specific
errors).
maybe... but, there's another concern about the BGB (mentioned by Ankry), the mental problem of new users - when they "validate" in edit mode or Visual Editor and notice a typo (or absence of comma) it is just a click to improve the text, but. .. in view mode, after noticing the error, you have to do IT all (which is such a inconvenience causing BGB proposal): enter to the edit mode, find again the same place in the text, place the cursor ... I'm afraid of thinking like: "Uh ... it's just one comma, I click right away in the BGB...
Z.
That a very good concern and I agree with you but how does the BGB will change anything in this situation? In fact, in this case, the problem is ni the edit mode, not in the BGB. And the solution is not to forbidden tool or edition but to explain to the user what to do and how to do it.
The BGB is not an idea of tool to improve correction but only to quicken the validation when there is no correction to do (and per se, validation is not an improvement at all ; the exact same text could be red, yellow or green and could be perfect or very bad, don't mix the metrics and the subject of the metrics).
Cdlt, ~nicolas
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
2015-08-11 20:39 GMT+02:00 Wiera Lee wieralee@gmail.com:
On pl.wikisource each correction level means that another person did the
correction again. The green status means the page was corrected three times by three another persons.
The colours are just for marking the status page, it's not per se a correction and only two people are actually needed ; but yes, it's the more or less the same on each wikisource with the proofred system.
Corrected, not read.
Uh? Correcting without reading?
In my opinion Big Green Button Correction is useless. New users can click
only for stats, not for proofreading. And nobody would check it again, because the book would be finished.
Please dont bite the new users or imagine that they're all evil. Maybe you had a bad experience on plwiki but that's not always true.
Think about it: When you were new users, did you edit only for stats?
I check *a lot* the green pages since *sometimes* there is still little correction to do (a new and better templates, some strange typo like « word » - with invisible hyphen - or « wоrd » - with a cyrillic о - instead of « word », ).
We are asking new users to validate the pages for the second time (from
red to yellow level): new users can learn how the templates and raw codes are working, but when they do something wrong, an experienced user would check it one more time -- to make it green. If they would not edit the page, they would never know how the templates works. So they would not become a better editors...
Can't they do both?
And should we really make the life of users (new and old) hard when it's not needed ?
We all can do only red pages, why not. We'll get a "perfectly readable
and functional book" with some errors. But should we give its the same status as a proof-read three times book? Green status means "almost perfect". We shouldn't make green pages automatically, only to make our stats better.
No, only red pages is not "perfectly readable and functional book.
How many is « almost » perfect? 80%? 90% 95%? 99%? that's a tricky question. And if a book made of 500 yellow pages already at 99% perfect, isn't the BGB usefull?
Correction without correction is not a good idea. It's a lie.
Very true but the BGB is not about correction, it's about marking as correct something that already is.
Cdlt, ~nicolas
Rough but running code of BGB is ready, and Andrea can test it to find bugs and/or drawbacks by now, if he likes.
To lower the risk of a nonsense-click, BGB should pop out after some reasonable delay - something less than the time needed to carefully compare the page text and its image. To make simpler to monitor its use, a standard message could be added to edit, so that BGB edits could be fastly selected in RecentChanges.
Alex
2015-08-11 21:21 GMT+02:00 Nicolas VIGNERON vigneron.nicolas@gmail.com:
2015-08-11 20:39 GMT+02:00 Wiera Lee wieralee@gmail.com:
On pl.wikisource each correction level means that another person did the
correction again. The green status means the page was corrected three times by three another persons.
The colours are just for marking the status page, it's not per se a correction and only two people are actually needed ; but yes, it's the more or less the same on each wikisource with the proofred system.
Corrected, not read.
Uh? Correcting without reading?
In my opinion Big Green Button Correction is useless. New users can
click only for stats, not for proofreading. And nobody would check it again, because the book would be finished.
Please dont bite the new users or imagine that they're all evil. Maybe you had a bad experience on plwiki but that's not always true.
Think about it: When you were new users, did you edit only for stats?
I check *a lot* the green pages since *sometimes* there is still little correction to do (a new and better templates, some strange typo like « word » - with invisible hyphen - or « wоrd » - with a cyrillic о - instead of « word », ).
We are asking new users to validate the pages for the second time (from
red to yellow level): new users can learn how the templates and raw codes are working, but when they do something wrong, an experienced user would check it one more time -- to make it green. If they would not edit the page, they would never know how the templates works. So they would not become a better editors...
Can't they do both?
And should we really make the life of users (new and old) hard when it's not needed ?
We all can do only red pages, why not. We'll get a "perfectly readable
and functional book" with some errors. But should we give its the same status as a proof-read three times book? Green status means "almost perfect". We shouldn't make green pages automatically, only to make our stats better.
No, only red pages is not "perfectly readable and functional book.
How many is « almost » perfect? 80%? 90% 95%? 99%? that's a tricky question. And if a book made of 500 yellow pages already at 99% perfect, isn't the BGB usefull?
Correction without correction is not a good idea. It's a lie.
Very true but the BGB is not about correction, it's about marking as correct something that already is.
Cdlt, ~nicolas
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
("Didn't read the entire thread; too long" warning)
I must agree with PL folks: the BGB isn't an improvement. Probably the OCR quality is great on English, Italian and French for doing such thing, but it certainly isn't also for Portuguese (PT).
A good improvement will be if a Yellow Big Button wold be implemented. Maybe you don't find it useful, as many pages are reviewed on creation, but it is because we, experienced users, do it in this way.
Simply putting an Index page or an external link to get the digitization is the worst thing we currently do.
Why not our bots starts extracting all and every pages, to make Page namespace working in similar way that Google Book Search works (you can choose if you need to browse on image view or OCR view on that platform). If a random Internet user goes to Wikisource after doing a Web search due to the correct recognized portion of text (as he go to GBS), he can start immediately to fix the OCR and, voila! A new user just discovered an ancient text and a promising website that collects ancient texts!
This approach makes sense on attracting new user and presenting how to work on Wikisource, and not downgrading our compromise to flag pages fully reviewed.
Side note: Portuguese language still is "unstable" on orthography and how to spell words. From time to time we change our conventions (Brazil and Portugal are yet implementing the Acordo Ortográfico de 1990 and some are arguing on a new one change). PD-old digitizations came in A VERY OLD ORTHOGRAPHY CONVENTION. Creating the Big Green Button will make us unable to do a last check if the wikitext follows the way that words are on digitization or in the current way of writing. So, it isn't an improvement, only a trouble finding.
[[User:555]] Em 11/08/2015 7:09 PM, "Alex Brollo" alex.brollo@gmail.com escreveu:
Rough but running code of BGB is ready, and Andrea can test it to find bugs and/or drawbacks by now, if he likes.
To lower the risk of a nonsense-click, BGB should pop out after some reasonable delay - something less than the time needed to carefully compare the page text and its image. To make simpler to monitor its use, a standard message could be added to edit, so that BGB edits could be fastly selected in RecentChanges.
Alex
2015-08-11 21:21 GMT+02:00 Nicolas VIGNERON vigneron.nicolas@gmail.com:
2015-08-11 20:39 GMT+02:00 Wiera Lee wieralee@gmail.com:
On pl.wikisource each correction level means that another person did
the correction again. The green status means the page was corrected three times by three another persons.
The colours are just for marking the status page, it's not per se a correction and only two people are actually needed ; but yes, it's the more or less the same on each wikisource with the proofred system.
Corrected, not read.
Uh? Correcting without reading?
In my opinion Big Green Button Correction is useless. New users can
click only for stats, not for proofreading. And nobody would check it again, because the book would be finished.
Please dont bite the new users or imagine that they're all evil. Maybe you had a bad experience on plwiki but that's not always true.
Think about it: When you were new users, did you edit only for stats?
I check *a lot* the green pages since *sometimes* there is still little correction to do (a new and better templates, some strange typo like « word » - with invisible hyphen - or « wоrd » - with a cyrillic о - instead of « word », ).
We are asking new users to validate the pages for the second time (from
red to yellow level): new users can learn how the templates and raw codes are working, but when they do something wrong, an experienced user would check it one more time -- to make it green. If they would not edit the page, they would never know how the templates works. So they would not become a better editors...
Can't they do both?
And should we really make the life of users (new and old) hard when it's not needed ?
We all can do only red pages, why not. We'll get a "perfectly readable
and functional book" with some errors. But should we give its the same status as a proof-read three times book? Green status means "almost perfect". We shouldn't make green pages automatically, only to make our stats better.
No, only red pages is not "perfectly readable and functional book.
How many is « almost » perfect? 80%? 90% 95%? 99%? that's a tricky question. And if a book made of 500 yellow pages already at 99% perfect, isn't the BGB usefull?
Correction without correction is not a good idea. It's a lie.
Very true but the BGB is not about correction, it's about marking as correct something that already is.
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
Luiz Augusto: "Rough but running code of BGB is ready".
This is not a discussion. They have decided.
We can't change nothing. Well... Why go to Vienna?
Wieralee
2015-08-12 1:26 GMT+02:00 Luiz Augusto lugusto@gmail.com:
("Didn't read the entire thread; too long" warning)
I must agree with PL folks: the BGB isn't an improvement. Probably the OCR quality is great on English, Italian and French for doing such thing, but it certainly isn't also for Portuguese (PT).
A good improvement will be if a Yellow Big Button wold be implemented. Maybe you don't find it useful, as many pages are reviewed on creation, but it is because we, experienced users, do it in this way.
Simply putting an Index page or an external link to get the digitization is the worst thing we currently do.
Why not our bots starts extracting all and every pages, to make Page namespace working in similar way that Google Book Search works (you can choose if you need to browse on image view or OCR view on that platform). If a random Internet user goes to Wikisource after doing a Web search due to the correct recognized portion of text (as he go to GBS), he can start immediately to fix the OCR and, voila! A new user just discovered an ancient text and a promising website that collects ancient texts!
This approach makes sense on attracting new user and presenting how to work on Wikisource, and not downgrading our compromise to flag pages fully reviewed.
Side note: Portuguese language still is "unstable" on orthography and how to spell words. From time to time we change our conventions (Brazil and Portugal are yet implementing the Acordo Ortográfico de 1990 and some are arguing on a new one change). PD-old digitizations came in A VERY OLD ORTHOGRAPHY CONVENTION. Creating the Big Green Button will make us unable to do a last check if the wikitext follows the way that words are on digitization or in the current way of writing. So, it isn't an improvement, only a trouble finding.
[[User:555]] Em 11/08/2015 7:09 PM, "Alex Brollo" alex.brollo@gmail.com escreveu:
Rough but running code of BGB is ready, and Andrea can test it to find bugs and/or drawbacks by now, if he likes.
To lower the risk of a nonsense-click, BGB should pop out after some reasonable delay - something less than the time needed to carefully compare the page text and its image. To make simpler to monitor its use, a standard message could be added to edit, so that BGB edits could be fastly selected in RecentChanges.
Alex
2015-08-11 21:21 GMT+02:00 Nicolas VIGNERON vigneron.nicolas@gmail.com:
2015-08-11 20:39 GMT+02:00 Wiera Lee wieralee@gmail.com:
On pl.wikisource each correction level means that another person did
the correction again. The green status means the page was corrected three times by three another persons.
The colours are just for marking the status page, it's not per se a correction and only two people are actually needed ; but yes, it's the more or less the same on each wikisource with the proofred system.
Corrected, not read.
Uh? Correcting without reading?
In my opinion Big Green Button Correction is useless. New users can
click only for stats, not for proofreading. And nobody would check it again, because the book would be finished.
Please dont bite the new users or imagine that they're all evil. Maybe you had a bad experience on plwiki but that's not always true.
Think about it: When you were new users, did you edit only for stats?
I check *a lot* the green pages since *sometimes* there is still little correction to do (a new and better templates, some strange typo like « word » - with invisible hyphen - or « wоrd » - with a cyrillic о - instead of « word », ).
We are asking new users to validate the pages for the second time
(from red to yellow level): new users can learn how the templates and raw codes are working, but when they do something wrong, an experienced user would check it one more time -- to make it green. If they would not edit the page, they would never know how the templates works. So they would not become a better editors...
Can't they do both?
And should we really make the life of users (new and old) hard when it's not needed ?
We all can do only red pages, why not. We'll get a "perfectly readable
and functional book" with some errors. But should we give its the same status as a proof-read three times book? Green status means "almost perfect". We shouldn't make green pages automatically, only to make our stats better.
No, only red pages is not "perfectly readable and functional book.
How many is « almost » perfect? 80%? 90% 95%? 99%? that's a tricky question. And if a book made of 500 yellow pages already at 99% perfect, isn't the BGB usefull?
Correction without correction is not a good idea. It's a lie.
Very true but the BGB is not about correction, it's about marking as correct something that already is.
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
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Luiz Augusto: "Rough but runing code of BGB is ready".
This is not a discussion. They had decided.
We can change nothing. Well... Why go to Vienna? Wieralee
2015-08-12 1:26 GMT+02:00 Luiz Augusto lugusto@gmail.com:
("Didn't read the entire thread; too long" warning)
I must agree with PL folks: the BGB isn't an improvement. Probably the OCR quality is great on English, Italian and French for doing such thing, but it certainly isn't also for Portuguese (PT).
A good improvement will be if a Yellow Big Button wold be implemented. Maybe you don't find it useful, as many pages are reviewed on creation, but it is because we, experienced users, do it in this way.
Simply putting an Index page or an external link to get the digitization is the worst thing we currently do.
Why not our bots starts extracting all and every pages, to make Page namespace working in similar way that Google Book Search works (you can choose if you need to browse on image view or OCR view on that platform). If a random Internet user goes to Wikisource after doing a Web search due to the correct recognized portion of text (as he go to GBS), he can start immediately to fix the OCR and, voila! A new user just discovered an ancient text and a promising website that collects ancient texts!
This approach makes sense on attracting new user and presenting how to work on Wikisource, and not downgrading our compromise to flag pages fully reviewed.
Side note: Portuguese language still is "unstable" on orthography and how to spell words. From time to time we change our conventions (Brazil and Portugal are yet implementing the Acordo Ortográfico de 1990 and some are arguing on a new one change). PD-old digitizations came in A VERY OLD ORTHOGRAPHY CONVENTION. Creating the Big Green Button will make us unable to do a last check if the wikitext follows the way that words are on digitization or in the current way of writing. So, it isn't an improvement, only a trouble finding.
[[User:555]] Em 11/08/2015 7:09 PM, "Alex Brollo" alex.brollo@gmail.com escreveu:
Rough but running code of BGB is ready, and Andrea can test it to find bugs and/or drawbacks by now, if he likes.
To lower the risk of a nonsense-click, BGB should pop out after some reasonable delay - something less than the time needed to carefully compare the page text and its image. To make simpler to monitor its use, a standard message could be added to edit, so that BGB edits could be fastly selected in RecentChanges.
Alex
2015-08-11 21:21 GMT+02:00 Nicolas VIGNERON vigneron.nicolas@gmail.com:
2015-08-11 20:39 GMT+02:00 Wiera Lee wieralee@gmail.com:
On pl.wikisource each correction level means that another person did
the correction again. The green status means the page was corrected three times by three another persons.
The colours are just for marking the status page, it's not per se a correction and only two people are actually needed ; but yes, it's the more or less the same on each wikisource with the proofred system.
Corrected, not read.
Uh? Correcting without reading?
In my opinion Big Green Button Correction is useless. New users can
click only for stats, not for proofreading. And nobody would check it again, because the book would be finished.
Please dont bite the new users or imagine that they're all evil. Maybe you had a bad experience on plwiki but that's not always true.
Think about it: When you were new users, did you edit only for stats?
I check *a lot* the green pages since *sometimes* there is still little correction to do (a new and better templates, some strange typo like « word » - with invisible hyphen - or « wоrd » - with a cyrillic о - instead of « word », ).
We are asking new users to validate the pages for the second time
(from red to yellow level): new users can learn how the templates and raw codes are working, but when they do something wrong, an experienced user would check it one more time -- to make it green. If they would not edit the page, they would never know how the templates works. So they would not become a better editors...
Can't they do both?
And should we really make the life of users (new and old) hard when it's not needed ?
We all can do only red pages, why not. We'll get a "perfectly readable
and functional book" with some errors. But should we give its the same status as a proof-read three times book? Green status means "almost perfect". We shouldn't make green pages automatically, only to make our stats better.
No, only red pages is not "perfectly readable and functional book.
How many is « almost » perfect? 80%? 90% 95%? 99%? that's a tricky question. And if a book made of 500 yellow pages already at 99% perfect, isn't the BGB usefull?
Correction without correction is not a good idea. It's a lie.
Very true but the BGB is not about correction, it's about marking as correct something that already is.
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
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
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
2015-08-12 2:24 GMT+02:00 Wiera Lee wieralee@gmail.com:
Luiz Augusto: "Rough but runing code of BGB is ready".
This is not a discussion. They had decided.
We can change nothing. Well... Why go to Vienna? Wieralee
2015-08-12 1:26 GMT+02:00 Luiz Augusto lugusto@gmail.com:
("Didn't read the entire thread; too long" warning)
I must agree with PL folks: the BGB isn't an improvement. Probably the OCR quality is great on English, Italian and French for doing such thing, but it certainly isn't also for Portuguese (PT).
A good improvement will be if a Yellow Big Button wold be implemented. Maybe you don't find it useful, as many pages are reviewed on creation, but it is because we, experienced users, do it in this way.
Simply putting an Index page or an external link to get the digitization is the worst thing we currently do.
Why not our bots starts extracting all and every pages, to make Page namespace working in similar way that Google Book Search works (you can choose if you need to browse on image view or OCR view on that platform). If a random Internet user goes to Wikisource after doing a Web search due to the correct recognized portion of text (as he go to GBS), he can start immediately to fix the OCR and, voila! A new user just discovered an ancient text and a promising website that collects ancient texts!
This approach makes sense on attracting new user and presenting how to work on Wikisource, and not downgrading our compromise to flag pages fully reviewed.
Side note: Portuguese language still is "unstable" on orthography and how to spell words. From time to time we change our conventions (Brazil and Portugal are yet implementing the Acordo Ortográfico de 1990 and some are arguing on a new one change). PD-old digitizations came in A VERY OLD ORTHOGRAPHY CONVENTION. Creating the Big Green Button will make us unable to do a last check if the wikitext follows the way that words are on digitization or in the current way of writing. So, it isn't an improvement, only a trouble finding.
[[User:555]] Em 11/08/2015 7:09 PM, "Alex Brollo" alex.brollo@gmail.com escreveu:
Rough but running code of BGB is ready, and Andrea can test it to find bugs and/or drawbacks by now, if he likes.
To lower the risk of a nonsense-click, BGB should pop out after some reasonable delay - something less than the time needed to carefully compare the page text and its image. To make simpler to monitor its use, a standard message could be added to edit, so that BGB edits could be fastly selected in RecentChanges.
Alex
2015-08-11 21:21 GMT+02:00 Nicolas VIGNERON vigneron.nicolas@gmail.com :
2015-08-11 20:39 GMT+02:00 Wiera Lee wieralee@gmail.com:
On pl.wikisource each correction level means that another person did
the correction again. The green status means the page was corrected three times by three another persons.
The colours are just for marking the status page, it's not per se a correction and only two people are actually needed ; but yes, it's the more or less the same on each wikisource with the proofred system.
Corrected, not read.
Uh? Correcting without reading?
In my opinion Big Green Button Correction is useless. New users can
click only for stats, not for proofreading. And nobody would check it again, because the book would be finished.
Please dont bite the new users or imagine that they're all evil. Maybe you had a bad experience on plwiki but that's not always true.
Think about it: When you were new users, did you edit only for stats?
I check *a lot* the green pages since *sometimes* there is still little correction to do (a new and better templates, some strange typo like « word » - with invisible hyphen - or « wоrd » - with a cyrillic о - instead of « word », ).
We are asking new users to validate the pages for the second time
(from red to yellow level): new users can learn how the templates and raw codes are working, but when they do something wrong, an experienced user would check it one more time -- to make it green. If they would not edit the page, they would never know how the templates works. So they would not become a better editors...
Can't they do both?
And should we really make the life of users (new and old) hard when it's not needed ?
We all can do only red pages, why not. We'll get a "perfectly
readable and functional book" with some errors. But should we give its the same status as a proof-read three times book? Green status means "almost perfect". We shouldn't make green pages automatically, only to make our stats better.
No, only red pages is not "perfectly readable and functional book.
How many is « almost » perfect? 80%? 90% 95%? 99%? that's a tricky question. And if a book made of 500 yellow pages already at 99% perfect, isn't the BGB usefull?
Correction without correction is not a good idea. It's a lie.
Very true but the BGB is not about correction, it's about marking as correct something that already is.
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
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
2015-08-12 7:00 GMT+02:00 Alex Brollo alex.brollo@gmail.com:
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_gre... ). 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
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@gmail.com> wrote:
2015-08-12 7:00 GMT+02:00 Alex Brollo alex.brollo@gmail.com:
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_gre... ). 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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Hello Andrea,
2015-08-12 10:11 GMT+01:00 Andrea Zanni <zanni.andrea84 at gmail.com>:
I read a lot of misunderstanding here, What Alex did is just a button that you double click and you go directly in the Edit mode. Nothing more, and
such a method of BGB implementation (directly in the edit mode of the Page), makes my earlier concerns "that is not safe to validate a page without reviewing its wikicode" disappear :), but ... this only improves a little bit the comfort of "validation", and, as I understand, it is not the answer to your needs...
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.
"to harness/tap/exploit the simple fact that a lot of users DO read our books" I propose the following modification of the idea of BGB (modeled on the reCAPTCHA): In the view mode of the yellow Pages (sic! :-)), we can add the "Thin (but long) Green Button" (TGB) described: "I read and carefully compared the contents with the scan - there's no mistakes." :) Users who "DO read our books" (and they do not want / do not have time / skills... to edit) click on this button and simply go to the view mode of the next page. Such a click would be counted (extra field in the mw database), but did not cause an immediate change of the Page status. If for a given page will be counted three??, four?? such clicks (this amount would have to have the ability to configure for each WS - community could determine their "quality threshold" - for "one click" it will became into BGB), then the Page status would change automatically from "yellow" to "green". Of course, it would be also configurable, to whom show TGB (ip, registered, autopotrolled ...). Such a solution would have be implemented directly in the proofread extension. "TGB" would allow adjustment of the level of "quality" and would be acceptable by most the community. If it is true that " a lot of users DO read our books," even for 5-4 "clicks" the status would change quickly.
What I really want is a very very quick way, for a user, to correct a typo WHEN she sees it.
Maybe the Thin Blue Button (TBB) described: "I noticed an error on the page, but I do not want / do not have time / I do not know how/ to edit" which would block the TGB and such Page must be "validated" in the standard way? Maybe the TBB in the future could redirect "the reader" to Visuals Editor? ...
Z.
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 2:06 PM, zdzislaw zdzislaw.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
In the view mode of the yellow Pages (sic! :-)), we can add the "Thin (but long) Green Button" (TGB) described: "I read and carefully compared the contents with the scan - there's no mistakes." :) Users who "DO read our books" (and they do not want / do not have time / skills... to edit) click on this button and simply go to the view mode of the next page. Such a click would be counted (extra field in the mw database), but did not cause an immediate change of the Page status. If for a given page will be counted three??, four?? such clicks (this amount would have to have the ability to configure for each WS - community could determine their "quality threshold"
- for "one click" it will became into BGB), then the Page status would
change automatically from "yellow" to "green". Of course, it would be also configurable, to whom show TGB (ip, registered, autopotrolled ...). Such a solution would have be implemented directly in the proofread extension. "TGB" would allow adjustment of the level of "quality" and would be acceptable by most the community. If it is true that " a lot of users DO read our books," even for 5-4 "clicks" the status would change quickly.
I do like this approach, and I'd love to see some tests. I really believe that is good to do tests and experiments, as we are sometimes convinced by things that are not really proven.
A 3 step validation passage as you suggest could maybe be easy enough for new users and casual readers, and we could gain some validations we could not have had otherwise.
I also would like to repeat my question about the Visual Editor: are we close tho that or nobody is working on it?
Aubrey
I like also the idea of more than one click to go from yellow to green.
I also would like to repeat my question about the Visual Editor: are we
close tho that or nobody is working on it? Sadly nobody is working on it: I have not moved forward on it since London hackathon and nobody else have started to work on it. I won't commit to do it anytime soon. I don't have the free month to work on it fulltime and it is definitly not a task you do during evenings or week-ends.
Cheers,
Thomas Le 14 août 2015 6:46 AM, "Andrea Zanni" zanni.andrea84@gmail.com a écrit :
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 2:06 PM, zdzislaw zdzislaw.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
In the view mode of the yellow Pages (sic! :-)), we can add the "Thin (but long) Green Button" (TGB) described: "I read and carefully compared the contents with the scan - there's no mistakes." :) Users who "DO read our books" (and they do not want / do not have time / skills... to edit) click on this button and simply go to the view mode of the next page. Such a click would be counted (extra field in the mw database), but did not cause an immediate change of the Page status. If for a given page will be counted three??, four?? such clicks (this amount would have to have the ability to configure for each WS - community could determine their "quality threshold" - for "one click" it will became into BGB), then the Page status would change automatically from "yellow" to "green". Of course, it would be also configurable, to whom show TGB (ip, registered, autopotrolled ...). Such a solution would have be implemented directly in the proofread extension. "TGB" would allow adjustment of the level of "quality" and would be acceptable by most the community. If it is true that " a lot of users DO read our books," even for 5-4 "clicks" the status would change quickly.
I do like this approach, and I'd love to see some tests. I really believe that is good to do tests and experiments, as we are sometimes convinced by things that are not really proven.
A 3 step validation passage as you suggest could maybe be easy enough for new users and casual readers, and we could gain some validations we could not have had otherwise.
I also would like to repeat my question about the Visual Editor: are we close tho that or nobody is working on it?
Aubrey
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
While suggesting how the Andrea's ideas coud be implemented (in the meantime, I wrote some js rows to upload quietly localStorage.rawCode, localStorage.pageUser, localStorage.pageLevel, an localStorage.validable too when reading any page in view mode), I was perfecly aware of what a similar tool could cause.
But... is there so deep a difference between the validation of a page by a newbie in Edit mode, and the validation by the same user clicking the Big Green Button? For sure, it's much simpler and comfortable to review a text in view mode: isn't it the idea of VisualEditor?
Alex
2015-08-11 12:28 GMT+02:00 Nicolas VIGNERON vigneron.nicolas@gmail.com:
I'm not sure we're all talking about the same thing.
First, this tool is just a tool. If someone is misusing a tool, don't blame the tool, blame (and block) the user of the tool !
Then it seems that the quality level has not the same meaning on every wikisources. Typo such as « rn » intead of « m » are usually removed on the red or yellow step on fr.ws (and such obvious error can be seen before editing, reviewing the final render code seems enough to me). When I'm thinking of raw code review on yellow to green step, I'm thinking of formatting and things like html code replace by ws templates, Unicode encoding mistakes, and little things like that ; for me all typo should be gone at the previous stage (and personally, I don't go from red to yellow if there is still such typo mistakes).
The GGB is a tool (and just an idea of a tool right now) and one of many solution to one of many problems Andrea pointed ; but there is many other problems. Especially, the navigation arrows could use some improvement. « validate this and go to next page » is definitively something we need. Since the VisualEditor is coming, we would be dumb no to cease this opportunity to do some clean-up and renovation.
We should think too to an other category of tools : global detection of possible mistakes. On frws, there is some little things like https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Gadget-Erreurs-communes.js (intern gadget) and https://tools.wmflabs.org/dicompte/index.php (extern) but here too there is huge room for improvement. Proofreading page by page is great and necessary but we should multiply the approachs to reach the best quality.
We're speaking of new users but such tools (the GGB and much more others) can be useful for old users too. Maybe we can test them for some old user first, see how it goes and then offers them (or not) to new users. Finally, new users are not all the same. The director of Rennes Library is a new user on frws but she's defintively better at proofreading than most wikisorcerers ;)
Cdlt, ~nicolas
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
While suggesting how the Andrea's ideas coud be implemented (in the meantime, I wrote some js rows to upload quietly localStorage.rawCode, localStorage.pageUser, localStorage.pageLevel, an localStorage.validable too when reading any page in view mode), I was perfecly aware of what a similar tool could cause.
But... is there so deep a difference between the validation of a page by a newbie in Edit mode, and the validation by the same user clicking the Big Green Button?
If a newbie uses VE they do not see how the code is structured and has not idea how it works. If a user sees the code they has at least a CHANCE to learn how it works.
Of course, if a user does not intend to learn anything, there is no difference.
But we are in most cases too small communities to have two separate group of users: those who only enter "dumb" text with very little formatting and another of more advanced users who verify and fix their input.
For sure, it's much simpler and comfortable to review a text in view mode: isn't it the idea of VisualEditor?
It is.
But while the VE may be a good idea for entering and simple formatting texts. It may be even good idea for some fixes. But never for all of them. Just two examples: - a user entered some code that is invisible in Page namespace, byt will break in a specific context in main: Using VE he mey even have no idea where the fix should be edited. - a user used wrong formatting template, which requires few arguments: I doubt VE will ever allow you to change the template name without touching arguments; and writing the arguments again from scratch is a potential source of new typos.
Alex
2015-08-11 12:28 GMT+02:00 Nicolas VIGNERON vigneron.nicolas@gmail.com:
I'm not sure we're all talking about the same thing.
First, this tool is just a tool. If someone is misusing a tool, don't blame the tool, blame (and block) the user of the tool !
Then it seems that the quality level has not the same meaning on every wikisources. Typo such as ? rn ? intead of ? m ? are usually removed on the red or yellow step on fr.ws (and such obvious error can be seen before editing, reviewing the final render code seems enough to me). When I'm thinking of raw code review on yellow to green step, I'm thinking of formatting and things like html code replace by ws templates, Unicode encoding mistakes, and little things like that ; for me all typo should be gone at the previous stage (and personally, I don't go from red to yellow if there is still such typo mistakes).
The GGB is a tool (and just an idea of a tool right now) and one of many solution to one of many problems Andrea pointed ; but there is many other problems. Especially, the navigation arrows could use some improvement. ? validate this and go to next page ? is definitively something we need. Since the VisualEditor is coming, we would be dumb no to cease this opportunity to do some clean-up and renovation.
We should think too to an other category of tools : global detection of possible mistakes. On frws, there is some little things like https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Gadget-Erreurs-communes.js (intern gadget) and https://tools.wmflabs.org/dicompte/index.php (extern) but here too there is huge room for improvement. Proofreading page by page is great and necessary but we should multiply the approachs to reach the best quality.
We're speaking of new users but such tools (the GGB and much more others) can be useful for old users too. Maybe we can test them for some old user first, see how it goes and then offers them (or not) to new users. Finally, new users are not all the same. The director of Rennes Library is a new user on frws but she's defintively better at proofreading than most wikisorcerers ;)
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
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
2015-08-11 13:23 GMT+02:00 Andrea Zanni zanni.andrea84@gmail.com:
Ankry, there's no need to shout :-)
+1, especially when we're actually saying the same thing but with different words.
Cdlt, ~nicolas
2015-08-11 13:23 GMT+02:00 Andrea Zanni <zanni.andrea84 at gmail.com>:
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.
mh... Tpt suggest that ..."I'll have some free time in a few weeks to implement a such thing directly into the ProofreadPage extension." so... DIRECTLY into PP ext., not as a Tool nor Gadget.
Z.
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.
I'm sorry, maybe I misunderstood. I thought you want to include it into ProofreadPage extension as the default behaviour for the last step of validation process. That is what I oppose to. And only that.
Ankry
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
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org