Syagrius wrote:
If the Wikisources have adopted some common rules, every sublanguage should follow it. On the other hand, I don't understand why you don't want to transform these empty pages, since en.ws and fr.ws already did it and a bot could do it very easily. There would be absolutely no loss of quality or credibility...
There is no general process for adopting common rules on all Wikisources, and, in fact, allowing rules to be developed separately does give more room for innovation. If Wikisourcerors had wanted common rules they would not have allowed each language to develop its own independent project.
I really don't care how blank pages are represented, but it is important to note these in some way to forestall the inevitable complaint when a page is missing.
Ec
I disagree in general with the idea that everyone must conform. There is room for the communities to develop their own solutions. Hopefully when one community proves that some solution has good results others will learn from their experience and adopt it. But there needs to be room for experimentation.
In this specific case, it seems to me this is more of legacy issue on de.WS rather than a deliberate choice. If they (as well as every other subdomains) conform to the standards the majority of Wikisources use then the comparative numbers between Wikisources will be more accurate. I don't see a strong reason for de.WS deciding to not conform here. But it is a bunch of tedious work and it should be thoroughly discussed. It would be very nice if de.WS took the time to consider the issue and let us know what the consensus turns out to be.
However we can always make a footnote when people choose to count things differently and estimate with data crunching. (i.e. Of 1000 validated pages on the top three non-de.WS subdomains the average number of empty pages is X (A%), therefore an estimate of de.WS validated non-empty page is the given total minus the A% of the given total) This is not an unsolvable issue and I am sure sooner of later some subdomain will discover a good reason to do something differently.
Birgitte SB
--- On Wed, 10/14/09, Syagrius syagrius@gmx.fr wrote:
From: Syagrius syagrius@gmx.fr Subject: Re: [Wikisource-l] Pages without text To: "discussion list for Wikisource, the free library" wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Wednesday, October 14, 2009, 10:47 AM #yiv579852079 html, #yiv579852079 {}#yiv579852079 html {width:100%;height:100%;margin:0px;padding:0px;}#yiv579852079 {font-size:100.01%;font-family:Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;background-color:transparent;background-image:none;margin:0px;padding:5px;}#yiv579852079 p {margin:0px;padding:0px;}#yiv579852079 {font-size:12px;font-family:Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;background-color:#FFFFFF;}#yiv579852079 p {margin:0;padding:0;}#yiv579852079 blockquote {padding-left:5px;margin-left:5px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-top:0px;}#yiv579852079 blockquote.quote {border-left:1px solid #CCC;padding-left:5px;margin-left:5px;} If the Wikisources have adopted some common rules, every sublanguage should follow it. On the other hand, I don't understand why you don't want to transform these empty pages, since en.ws and fr.ws already did it and a bot could do it very easily. There would be absolutely no loss of quality or credibility...
Syagrius
----- Message d'origine -----De : John VandenbergEnvoyés : 14.10.09 02:03À : discussion list for Wikisource, the free libraryObjet : Re: [Wikisource-l] Pages without text On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Cecil wrote:
Syagrius, could you please explain why this would be
"irrespectuous toward
other wikisources" when we mark them as part of a
'finished' project?
It is not a part of the same work.
Advertisements are a _different_ work, and it has not been transcribed.
It should be marked as a incomplete.
Advertisements are also sources....
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Category:Advertisements
:-)
-- John Vandenberg
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Is there a need for this ''empty discussion'' about empty pages here,
The main point ist to find an for all acceptable way of working together with Thomas. In a way that Thomas is satisfied and feels comfortable, taking the problems he see's into concern and the problems some projects have. And it should be a compromise that all can accept, without feeling overruled by others.
With this in the background the other discussion is simply silly. Some are talking about some pages, which in total are below 1%, there are bigger issues to solve.
sincerly joergens.mi
2009/10/14 Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com
I disagree in general with the idea that everyone must conform. There is room for the communities to develop their own solutions. Hopefully when one community proves that some solution has good results others will learn from their experience and adopt it. But there needs to be room for experimentation.
In this specific case, it seems to me this is more of legacy issue on de.WS rather than a deliberate choice. If they (as well as every other subdomains) conform to the standards the majority of Wikisources use then the comparative numbers between Wikisources will be more accurate. I don't see a strong reason for de.WS deciding to not conform here. But it is a bunch of tedious work and it should be thoroughly discussed. It would be very nice if de.WS took the time to consider the issue and let us know what the consensus turns out to be.
However we can always make a footnote when people choose to count things differently and estimate with data crunching. (i.e. Of 1000 validated pages on the top three non-de.WS subdomains the average number of empty pages is X (A%), therefore an estimate of de.WS validated non-empty page is the given total minus the A% of the given total) This is not an unsolvable issue and I am sure sooner of later some subdomain will discover a good reason to do something differently.
Birgitte SB
--- On Wed, 10/14/09, Syagrius syagrius@gmx.fr wrote:
From: Syagrius syagrius@gmx.fr Subject: Re: [Wikisource-l] Pages without text To: "discussion list for Wikisource, the free library" <
wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Date: Wednesday, October 14, 2009, 10:47 AM #yiv579852079 html, #yiv579852079 {}#yiv579852079 html {width:100%;height:100%;margin:0px;padding:0px;}#yiv579852079 {font-size:100.01%;font-family:Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif;background-color:transparent;background-image:none;margin:0px;padding:5px;}#yiv579852079
p {margin:0px;padding:0px;}#yiv579852079 {font-size:12px;font-family:Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;background-color:#FFFFFF;}#yiv579852079 p {margin:0;padding:0;}#yiv579852079 blockquote
{padding-left:5px;margin-left:5px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-top:0px;}#yiv579852079
blockquote.quote {border-left:1px solid #CCC;padding-left:5px;margin-left:5px;} If the Wikisources have adopted some common rules, every sublanguage should follow it. On the other hand, I don't understand why you don't want to transform these empty pages, since en.ws and fr.ws already did it and a bot could do it very easily. There would be absolutely no loss of quality or credibility...
Syagrius
----- Message d'origine -----De : John VandenbergEnvoyés : 14.10.09 02:03À : discussion list for Wikisource, the free libraryObjet : Re: [Wikisource-l] Pages without text On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Cecil wrote:
Syagrius, could you please explain why this would be
"irrespectuous toward
other wikisources" when we mark them as part of a
'finished' project?
It is not a part of the same work.
Advertisements are a _different_ work, and it has not been transcribed.
It should be marked as a incomplete.
Advertisements are also sources....
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Category:Advertisements
:-)
-- John Vandenberg
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
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 sorry you find the concerns other people have to be "empty" and "silly". Perhaps in the future you could ignore the threads on smaller issues without comment. It would really help keep things more congenial.
Birgitte SB
--- On Wed, 10/14/09, Michael Jörgens joergens.mic@googlemail.com wrote:
From: Michael Jörgens joergens.mic@googlemail.com Subject: Re: [Wikisource-l] Pages without text To: "discussion list for Wikisource, the free library" wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Wednesday, October 14, 2009, 12:15 PM Is there a need for this ''empty discussion'' about empty pages here, The main point ist to find an for all acceptable way of working together with Thomas. In a way that Thomas is satisfied and feels comfortable, taking the problems he see's into concern and the problems some projects have. And it should be a compromise that all can accept, without feeling overruled by others. With this in the background the other discussion is simply silly. Some are talking about some pages, which in total are below 1%, there are bigger issues to solve.
sincerly joergens.mi
2009/10/14 Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com
I disagree in general with the idea that everyone must conform. There is room for the communities to develop their own solutions. Hopefully when one community proves that some solution has good results others will learn from their experience and adopt it. But there needs to be room for experimentation.
In this specific case, it seems to me this is more of legacy issue on de.WS rather than a deliberate choice. If they (as well as every other subdomains) conform to the standards the majority of Wikisources use then the comparative numbers between Wikisources will be more accurate. I don't see a strong reason for de.WS deciding to not conform here. But it is a bunch of tedious work and it should be thoroughly discussed. It would be very nice if de.WS took the time to consider the issue and let us know what the consensus turns out to be.
However we can always make a footnote when people choose to count things differently and estimate with data crunching. (i.e. Of 1000 validated pages on the top three non-de.WS subdomains the average number of empty pages is X (A%), therefore an estimate of de.WS validated non-empty page is the given total minus the A% of the given total) This is not an unsolvable issue and I am sure sooner of later some subdomain will discover a good reason to do something differently.
Birgitte SB
--- On Wed, 10/14/09, Syagrius syagrius@gmx.fr wrote:
From: Syagrius syagrius@gmx.fr
Subject: Re: [Wikisource-l] Pages without text
To: "discussion list for Wikisource, the free
library" wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Wednesday, October 14, 2009, 10:47 AM
#yiv579852079 html, #yiv579852079
{}#yiv579852079 html
{width:100%;height:100%;margin:0px;padding:0px;}#yiv579852079
{font-size:100.01%;font-family:Verdana, Geneva,
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;background-color:transparent;background-image:none;margin:0px;padding:5px;}#yiv579852079
p {margin:0px;padding:0px;}#yiv579852079
{font-size:12px;font-family:Verdana, Geneva, Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;background-color:#FFFFFF;}#yiv579852079 p
{margin:0;padding:0;}#yiv579852079 blockquote
{padding-left:5px;margin-left:5px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-top:0px;}#yiv579852079
blockquote.quote {border-left:1px solid
#CCC;padding-left:5px;margin-left:5px;} If the
Wikisources have adopted
some common rules, every sublanguage
should follow it. On
the other hand, I don't understand why you
don't
want to transform these empty pages, since en.ws
and fr.ws
already did it and a bot could do it very easily.
There
would be absolutely no loss of quality or
credibility...
Syagrius
----- Message
d'origine -----De : John
VandenbergEnvoyés : 14.10.09 02:03À :
discussion list for Wikisource, the free
libraryObjet : Re: [Wikisource-l] Pages without
text On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 10:12
AM, Cecil
wrote:
Syagrius, could you please explain why this would
be
"irrespectuous toward
other wikisources" when we mark them as part
of a
'finished' project?
It is not a part of the same work.
Advertisements are a _different_ work, and it has not
been
transcribed.
It should be marked as a incomplete.
Advertisements are also sources....
:-)
--
John Vandenberg
Wikisource-l mailing list
Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
Wikisource-l mailing list
Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikisource-l mailing list
Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Sorry, that was my fault, I didn't read the topic right, i thougt this discussion is still part of the topic [Wikisource-l] Proofreading.* * *From my personal point of view, there is no difference between this pages. I see no need to distinguish empty und full pages. The final state means, all work needed is done with this page. * *In general I like statistiks, but never mind, I would never count empty pages. * *On the other hand if others like to do, no problem in general. * *I think we will introduce this question to our community and we will make a decision. Changes can be done by bot, as I understand.* * *sincerly joergens.mi
2009/10/14 Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com
I sorry you find the concerns other people have to be "empty" and "silly". Perhaps in the future you could ignore the threads on smaller issues without comment. It would really help keep things more congenial.
Birgitte SB
--- On Wed, 10/14/09, Michael Jörgens joergens.mic@googlemail.com wrote:
From: Michael Jörgens joergens.mic@googlemail.com Subject: Re: [Wikisource-l] Pages without text To: "discussion list for Wikisource, the free library" <
wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Date: Wednesday, October 14, 2009, 12:15 PM Is there a need for this ''empty discussion'' about empty pages here, The main point ist to find an for all acceptable way of working together with Thomas. In a way that Thomas is satisfied and feels comfortable, taking the problems he see's into concern and the problems some projects have. And it should be a compromise that all can accept, without feeling overruled by others. With this in the background the other discussion is simply silly. Some are talking about some pages, which in total are below 1%, there are bigger issues to solve.
sincerly joergens.mi
2009/10/14 Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com
I disagree in general with the idea that everyone must conform. There is room for the communities to develop their own solutions. Hopefully when one community proves that some solution has good results others will learn from their experience and adopt it. But there needs to be room for experimentation.
In this specific case, it seems to me this is more of legacy issue on de.WS rather than a deliberate choice. If they (as well as every other subdomains) conform to the standards the majority of Wikisources use then the comparative numbers between Wikisources will be more accurate. I don't see a strong reason for de.WS deciding to not conform here. But it is a bunch of tedious work and it should be thoroughly discussed. It would be very nice if de.WS took the time to consider the issue and let us know what the consensus turns out to be.
However we can always make a footnote when people choose to count things differently and estimate with data crunching. (i.e. Of 1000 validated pages on the top three non-de.WS subdomains the average number of empty pages is X (A%), therefore an estimate of de.WS validated non-empty page is the given total minus the A% of the given total) This is not an unsolvable issue and I am sure sooner of later some subdomain will discover a good reason to do something differently.
Birgitte SB
--- On Wed, 10/14/09, Syagrius syagrius@gmx.fr wrote:
From: Syagrius syagrius@gmx.fr
Subject: Re: [Wikisource-l] Pages without text
To: "discussion list for Wikisource, the free
library" wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Wednesday, October 14, 2009, 10:47 AM
#yiv579852079 html, #yiv579852079
{}#yiv579852079 html
{width:100%;height:100%;margin:0px;padding:0px;}#yiv579852079
{font-size:100.01%;font-family:Verdana, Geneva,
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;background-color:transparent;background-image:none;margin:0px;padding:5px;}#yiv579852079
p {margin:0px;padding:0px;}#yiv579852079
{font-size:12px;font-family:Verdana, Geneva, Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;background-color:#FFFFFF;}#yiv579852079 p
{margin:0;padding:0;}#yiv579852079 blockquote
{padding-left:5px;margin-left:5px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-top:0px;}#yiv579852079
blockquote.quote {border-left:1px solid
#CCC;padding-left:5px;margin-left:5px;} If the
Wikisources have adopted
some common rules, every sublanguage
should follow it. On
the other hand, I don't understand why you
don't
want to transform these empty pages, since en.ws
and fr.ws
already did it and a bot could do it very easily.
There
would be absolutely no loss of quality or
credibility...
Syagrius
----- Message
d'origine -----De : John
VandenbergEnvoyés : 14.10.09 02:03À :
discussion list for Wikisource, the free
libraryObjet : Re: [Wikisource-l] Pages without
text On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 10:12
AM, Cecil
wrote:
Syagrius, could you please explain why this would
be
"irrespectuous toward
other wikisources" when we mark them as part
of a
'finished' project?
It is not a part of the same work.
Advertisements are a _different_ work, and it has not
been
transcribed.
It should be marked as a incomplete.
Advertisements are also sources....
:-)
--
John Vandenberg
Wikisource-l mailing list
Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
Wikisource-l mailing list
Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikisource-l mailing list
Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
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
Thank you for explaining, this discussion would have been off-topic in the other thread. I am not someone that finds statistics to be a big deal, but I have learned that others feel deeply about such issues. The statistics total all pages marked "4" and report this as the number of pages a subdomain has proofread and validated. So when compared to other subdomains which mark empty pages with "0" the numbers of de.WS are slightly inflated. The current state of things is that other subdomains do not count empty pages in their totals while de.WS does. I appreciate your introducing the situation to the local community.
Birgitte SB
--- On Wed, 10/14/09, Michael Jörgens joergens.mic@googlemail.com wrote:
From: Michael Jörgens joergens.mic@googlemail.com Subject: Re: [Wikisource-l] Pages without text To: "discussion list for Wikisource, the free library" wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Wednesday, October 14, 2009, 2:29 PM Sorry, that was my fault, I didn't read the topic right, i thougt this discussion is still part of the topic [Wikisource-l] Proofreading.
From my personal point of view, there is no difference between this pages. I see no need to distinguish empty und full pages. The final state means, all work needed is done with this page. In general I like statistiks, but never mind, I would never count empty pages. On the other hand if others like to do, no problem in general. I think we will introduce this question to our community and we will make a decision. Changes can be done by bot, as I understand.
sincerly joergens.mi 2009/10/14 Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com
I sorry you find the concerns other people have to be "empty" and "silly". Perhaps in the future you could ignore the threads on smaller issues without comment. It would really help keep things more congenial.
Birgitte SB
--- On Wed, 10/14/09, Michael Jörgens joergens.mic@googlemail.com wrote:
From: Michael Jörgens joergens.mic@googlemail.com
Subject: Re: [Wikisource-l] Pages
without text
To: "discussion list for Wikisource, the free
library" wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Wednesday, October 14, 2009, 12:15 PM
Is there a need for
this
''empty discussion'' about empty
pages
here,
The main point ist to find an for all acceptable
way of working together with Thomas. In a way
that Thomas is satisfied and feels comfortable,
taking the
problems he see's into concern and the problems
some
projects have.
And it should be a compromise that all can accept,
without feeling overruled by others.
With this in the background the other discussion
is simply silly. Some are talking about some pages,
which
in total are below 1%, there are bigger issues to
solve.
sincerly joergens.mi
2009/10/14 Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com
I
disagree in general with the idea that everyone must
conform. There is room for the communities to
develop
their own solutions. Hopefully when one community
proves
that some solution has good results others will learn
from
their experience and adopt it. But there needs to be
room
for experimentation.
In this specific case, it seems to me this is more of
legacy issue on de.WS rather than a deliberate choice.
If
they (as well as every other subdomains) conform to
the
standards the majority of Wikisources use then the
comparative numbers between Wikisources will be more
accurate. I don't see a strong reason for de.WS
deciding to not conform here. But it is a bunch of
tedious
work and it should be thoroughly discussed. It would
be
very nice if de.WS took the time to consider the issue
and
let us know what the consensus turns out to be.
However we can always make a footnote when people
choose to
count things differently and estimate with data
crunching.
(i.e. Of 1000 validated pages on the top three
non-de.WS
subdomains the average number of empty pages is X
(A%),
therefore an estimate of de.WS validated non-empty
page is
the given total minus the A% of the given total)
This is
not an unsolvable issue and I am sure sooner of later
some
subdomain will discover a good reason to do something
differently.
Birgitte SB
--- On Wed, 10/14/09, Syagrius syagrius@gmx.fr
wrote:
From: Syagrius syagrius@gmx.fr
Subject: Re: [Wikisource-l] Pages without text
To: "discussion list for Wikisource, the
free
library" wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Wednesday, October 14, 2009, 10:47 AM
#yiv579852079 html, #yiv579852079
{}#yiv579852079 html
{width:100%;height:100%;margin:0px;padding:0px;}#yiv579852079
{font-size:100.01%;font-family:Verdana, Geneva,
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;background-color:transparent;background-image:none;margin:0px;padding:5px;}#yiv579852079
p {margin:0px;padding:0px;}#yiv579852079
{font-size:12px;font-family:Verdana, Geneva,
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;background-color:#FFFFFF;}#yiv579852079 p
{margin:0;padding:0;}#yiv579852079 blockquote
{padding-left:5px;margin-left:5px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-top:0px;}#yiv579852079
blockquote.quote {border-left:1px solid
#CCC;padding-left:5px;margin-left:5px;} If the
Wikisources have adopted
some common rules, every sublanguage
should follow it. On
the other hand, I don't understand why you
don't
want to transform these empty pages, since en.ws
and fr.ws
already did it and a bot could do it very
easily.
There
would be absolutely no loss of quality or
credibility...
Syagrius
----- Message
d'origine -----De : John
VandenbergEnvoyés : 14.10.09 02:03À :
discussion list for Wikisource, the
free
libraryObjet : Re: [Wikisource-l] Pages without
text On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 10:12
AM, Cecil
wrote:
Syagrius, could you please explain why this
would
be
"irrespectuous toward
other wikisources" when we mark them as
part
of a
'finished' project?
It is not a part of the same work.
Advertisements are a _different_ work, and it has
not
been
transcribed.
It should be marked as a incomplete.
Advertisements are also sources....
:-)
--
John Vandenberg
Wikisource-l mailing list
Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
Wikisource-l mailing list
Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikisource-l mailing list
Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
Wikisource-l mailing list
Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikisource-l mailing list
Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Birgitte SB that was the reason, why my text wasn't as polite as it should be. It sounded off-topic for me.
joergens.mi
2009/10/14 Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com
Thank you for explaining, this discussion would have been off-topic in the other thread. I am not someone that finds statistics to be a big deal, but I have learned that others feel deeply about such issues. The statistics total all pages marked "4" and report this as the number of pages a subdomain has proofread and validated. So when compared to other subdomains which mark empty pages with "0" the numbers of de.WS are slightly inflated. The current state of things is that other subdomains do not count empty pages in their totals while de.WS does. I appreciate your introducing the situation to the local community.
Birgitte SB
--- On Wed, 10/14/09, Michael Jörgens joergens.mic@googlemail.com wrote:
From: Michael Jörgens joergens.mic@googlemail.com Subject: Re: [Wikisource-l] Pages without text To: "discussion list for Wikisource, the free library" <
wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Date: Wednesday, October 14, 2009, 2:29 PM Sorry, that was my fault, I didn't read the topic right, i thougt this discussion is still part of the topic [Wikisource-l] Proofreading.
From my personal point of view, there is no difference between this pages. I see no need to distinguish empty und full pages. The final state means, all work needed is done with this page. In general I like statistiks, but never mind, I would never count empty pages. On the other hand if others like to do, no problem in general. I think we will introduce this question to our community and we will make a decision. Changes can be done by bot, as I understand.
sincerly joergens.mi 2009/10/14 Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com
I sorry you find the concerns other people have to be "empty" and "silly". Perhaps in the future you could ignore the threads on smaller issues without comment. It would really help keep things more congenial.
Birgitte SB
--- On Wed, 10/14/09, Michael Jörgens joergens.mic@googlemail.com wrote:
From: Michael Jörgens joergens.mic@googlemail.com
Subject: Re: [Wikisource-l] Pages
without text
To: "discussion list for Wikisource, the free
library" wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Wednesday, October 14, 2009, 12:15 PM
Is there a need for
this
''empty discussion'' about empty
pages
here,
The main point ist to find an for all acceptable
way of working together with Thomas. In a way
that Thomas is satisfied and feels comfortable,
taking the
problems he see's into concern and the problems
some
projects have.
And it should be a compromise that all can accept,
without feeling overruled by others.
With this in the background the other discussion
is simply silly. Some are talking about some pages,
which
in total are below 1%, there are bigger issues to
solve.
sincerly joergens.mi
2009/10/14 Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com
I
disagree in general with the idea that everyone must
conform. There is room for the communities to
develop
their own solutions. Hopefully when one community
proves
that some solution has good results others will learn
from
their experience and adopt it. But there needs to be
room
for experimentation.
In this specific case, it seems to me this is more of
legacy issue on de.WS rather than a deliberate choice.
If
they (as well as every other subdomains) conform to
the
standards the majority of Wikisources use then the
comparative numbers between Wikisources will be more
accurate. I don't see a strong reason for de.WS
deciding to not conform here. But it is a bunch of
tedious
work and it should be thoroughly discussed. It would
be
very nice if de.WS took the time to consider the issue
and
let us know what the consensus turns out to be.
However we can always make a footnote when people
choose to
count things differently and estimate with data
crunching.
(i.e. Of 1000 validated pages on the top three
non-de.WS
subdomains the average number of empty pages is X
(A%),
therefore an estimate of de.WS validated non-empty
page is
the given total minus the A% of the given total)
This is
not an unsolvable issue and I am sure sooner of later
some
subdomain will discover a good reason to do something
differently.
Birgitte SB
--- On Wed, 10/14/09, Syagrius syagrius@gmx.fr
wrote:
From: Syagrius syagrius@gmx.fr
Subject: Re: [Wikisource-l] Pages without text
To: "discussion list for Wikisource, the
free
library" wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Wednesday, October 14, 2009, 10:47 AM
#yiv579852079 html, #yiv579852079
{}#yiv579852079 html
{width:100%;height:100%;margin:0px;padding:0px;}#yiv579852079
{font-size:100.01%;font-family:Verdana, Geneva,
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;background-color:transparent;background-image:none;margin:0px;padding:5px;}#yiv579852079
p {margin:0px;padding:0px;}#yiv579852079
{font-size:12px;font-family:Verdana, Geneva,
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;background-color:#FFFFFF;}#yiv579852079 p
{margin:0;padding:0;}#yiv579852079 blockquote
{padding-left:5px;margin-left:5px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-top:0px;}#yiv579852079
blockquote.quote {border-left:1px solid
#CCC;padding-left:5px;margin-left:5px;} If the
Wikisources have adopted
some common rules, every sublanguage
should follow it. On
the other hand, I don't understand why you
don't
want to transform these empty pages, since en.ws
and fr.ws
already did it and a bot could do it very
easily.
There
would be absolutely no loss of quality or
credibility...
Syagrius
----- Message
d'origine -----De : John
VandenbergEnvoyés : 14.10.09 02:03À :
discussion list for Wikisource, the
free
libraryObjet : Re: [Wikisource-l] Pages without
text On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 10:12
AM, Cecil
wrote:
Syagrius, could you please explain why this
would
be
"irrespectuous toward
other wikisources" when we mark them as
part
of a
'finished' project?
It is not a part of the same work.
Advertisements are a _different_ work, and it has
not
been
transcribed.
It should be marked as a incomplete.
Advertisements are also sources....
:-)
--
John Vandenberg
Wikisource-l mailing list
Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
Wikisource-l mailing list
Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikisource-l mailing list
Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
Wikisource-l mailing list
Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikisource-l mailing list
Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
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
Birgitte SB: please read ThomasV's statement a little bit up this thread, the one where he explains why and for what level 0 was introduced in the beginning. That is one of the problems. Each community considers something different to fall among that state. With the last PR2-update it suddenly was no more possible to switch already finished projects to PR2, because it was disabled for a person to immediately select 'finished'-state. As an example (I did that switch to PR2 just a few days before): http://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Seite:De_Neue_Thalia_Band1_385.jpg was immediately set to finished because the poem was already proofreaded twice ( http://de.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Das_Bildni%C3%9F&action=histo...). But it belonged to a large story collection ( http://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Index:Neue_Thalia,_Erster_Band) which also is just a part of seven such books. They are part of our currently most important community project which should be finished until November 10th. Because of the short time left all books were switched to PR2 so that more people can work on them and also have a better overview which poem/story/... in which book is already finished and which not. I finished the whole switch just a few days before the mediawiki-update. A few days later I would not have been able anymore to set the pages to 'finished'. When I complained about that to ThomasV, he suggested to use level 0 for it, since it is a finished page and no more proofreading needs to be done. He would even rename the 'without text' to fit it better and the pages still would land in category 'finished'.
Does this sound to you like the statistics of this level would be useable to determine how many pages a project has finished and how many there are that are just empty? Not to me. So those people who for some reason need statistics wouldn't be able to get a real result out of it anyway, because one projects uses it for really empty pages, the other one also for those with less than ~10 words and the next one for pages that do not need proofread for some or the other reason, even if they are full of text.
Cecil
(The other solution suggested by ThomasV would have been to create a list of all pages and which state they are and then let a bot or a second user correct the state of those pages that I would not be able to do. The 7 Thalia-bands have 3279 pages full of text and a few more with index, introduction, headers and first pages, so you can imagine how difficult it would have been to maintain those lists without any chaos and always obtain a format that the bot can deal with.)
2009/10/14 Michael Jörgens joergens.mic@googlemail.com
Birgitte SB that was the reason, why my text wasn't as polite as it should be. It sounded off-topic for me.
joergens.mi
2009/10/14 Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com
Thank you for explaining, this discussion would have been off-topic in the other thread. I am not someone that finds statistics to be a big deal, but I have learned that others feel deeply about such issues. The statistics total all pages marked "4" and report this as the number of pages a subdomain has proofread and validated. So when compared to other subdomains which mark empty pages with "0" the numbers of de.WS are slightly inflated. The current state of things is that other subdomains do not count empty pages in their totals while de.WS does. I appreciate your introducing the situation to the local community.
Birgitte SB
--- On Wed, 10/14/09, Michael Jörgens joergens.mic@googlemail.com wrote:
From: Michael Jörgens joergens.mic@googlemail.com Subject: Re: [Wikisource-l] Pages without text To: "discussion list for Wikisource, the free library" <
wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Date: Wednesday, October 14, 2009, 2:29 PM Sorry, that was my fault, I didn't read the topic right, i thougt this discussion is still part of the topic [Wikisource-l] Proofreading.
From my personal point of view, there is no difference between this pages. I see no need to distinguish empty und full pages. The final state means, all work needed is done with this page. In general I like statistiks, but never mind, I would never count empty pages. On the other hand if others like to do, no problem in general. I think we will introduce this question to our community and we will make a decision. Changes can be done by bot, as I understand.
sincerly joergens.mi 2009/10/14 Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com
I sorry you find the concerns other people have to be "empty" and "silly". Perhaps in the future you could ignore the threads on smaller issues without comment. It would really help keep things more congenial.
Birgitte SB
--- On Wed, 10/14/09, Michael Jörgens joergens.mic@googlemail.com wrote:
From: Michael Jörgens joergens.mic@googlemail.com
Subject: Re: [Wikisource-l] Pages
without text
To: "discussion list for Wikisource, the free
library" wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Wednesday, October 14, 2009, 12:15 PM
Is there a need for
this
''empty discussion'' about empty
pages
here,
The main point ist to find an for all acceptable
way of working together with Thomas. In a way
that Thomas is satisfied and feels comfortable,
taking the
problems he see's into concern and the problems
some
projects have.
And it should be a compromise that all can accept,
without feeling overruled by others.
With this in the background the other discussion
is simply silly. Some are talking about some pages,
which
in total are below 1%, there are bigger issues to
solve.
sincerly joergens.mi
2009/10/14 Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com
I
disagree in general with the idea that everyone must
conform. There is room for the communities to
develop
their own solutions. Hopefully when one community
proves
that some solution has good results others will learn
from
their experience and adopt it. But there needs to be
room
for experimentation.
In this specific case, it seems to me this is more of
legacy issue on de.WS rather than a deliberate choice.
If
they (as well as every other subdomains) conform to
the
standards the majority of Wikisources use then the
comparative numbers between Wikisources will be more
accurate. I don't see a strong reason for de.WS
deciding to not conform here. But it is a bunch of
tedious
work and it should be thoroughly discussed. It would
be
very nice if de.WS took the time to consider the issue
and
let us know what the consensus turns out to be.
However we can always make a footnote when people
choose to
count things differently and estimate with data
crunching.
(i.e. Of 1000 validated pages on the top three
non-de.WS
subdomains the average number of empty pages is X
(A%),
therefore an estimate of de.WS validated non-empty
page is
the given total minus the A% of the given total)
This is
not an unsolvable issue and I am sure sooner of later
some
subdomain will discover a good reason to do something
differently.
Birgitte SB
--- On Wed, 10/14/09, Syagrius syagrius@gmx.fr
wrote:
From: Syagrius syagrius@gmx.fr
Subject: Re: [Wikisource-l] Pages without text
To: "discussion list for Wikisource, the
free
library" wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Wednesday, October 14, 2009, 10:47 AM
#yiv579852079 html, #yiv579852079
{}#yiv579852079 html
{width:100%;height:100%;margin:0px;padding:0px;}#yiv579852079
{font-size:100.01%;font-family:Verdana, Geneva,
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;background-color:transparent;background-image:none;margin:0px;padding:5px;}#yiv579852079
p {margin:0px;padding:0px;}#yiv579852079
{font-size:12px;font-family:Verdana, Geneva,
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;background-color:#FFFFFF;}#yiv579852079 p
{margin:0;padding:0;}#yiv579852079 blockquote
{padding-left:5px;margin-left:5px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-top:0px;}#yiv579852079
blockquote.quote {border-left:1px solid
#CCC;padding-left:5px;margin-left:5px;} If the
Wikisources have adopted
some common rules, every sublanguage
should follow it. On
the other hand, I don't understand why you
don't
want to transform these empty pages, since en.ws
and fr.ws
already did it and a bot could do it very
easily.
There
would be absolutely no loss of quality or
credibility...
Syagrius
----- Message
d'origine -----De : John
VandenbergEnvoyés : 14.10.09 02:03À :
discussion list for Wikisource, the
free
libraryObjet : Re: [Wikisource-l] Pages without
text On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 10:12
AM, Cecil
wrote:
Syagrius, could you please explain why this
would
be
"irrespectuous toward
other wikisources" when we mark them as
part
of a
'finished' project?
It is not a part of the same work.
Advertisements are a _different_ work, and it has
not
been
transcribed.
It should be marked as a incomplete.
Advertisements are also sources....
:-)
--
John Vandenberg
Wikisource-l mailing list
Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
Wikisource-l mailing list
Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikisource-l mailing list
Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
Wikisource-l mailing list
Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikisource-l mailing list
Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
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 don't think the impossibility of perfection is an argument against better accuracy.
Birgitte SB
--- On Thu, 10/15/09, Cecil cecilatwp@gmail.com wrote:
From: Cecil cecilatwp@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Wikisource-l] Pages without text To: "discussion list for Wikisource, the free library" wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Thursday, October 15, 2009, 1:16 AM Birgitte SB: please read ThomasV's statement a little bit up this thread, the one where he explains why and for what level 0 was introduced in the beginning. That is one of the problems. Each community considers something different to fall among that state.
With the last PR2-update it suddenly was no more possible to switch already finished projects to PR2, because it was disabled for a person to immediately select 'finished'-state. As an example (I did that switch to PR2 just a few days before): http://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Seite:De_Neue_Thalia_Band1_385.jpg was immediately set to finished because the poem was already proofreaded twice (http://de.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Das_Bildni%C3%9F&action=histo...). But it belonged to a large story collection (http://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Index:Neue_Thalia,_Erster_Band) which also is just a part of seven such books. They are part of our currently most important community project which should be finished until November 10th. Because of the short time left all books were switched to PR2 so that more people can work on them and also have a better overview which poem/story/... in which book is already finished and which not. I finished the whole switch just a few days before the mediawiki-update. A few days later I would not have been able anymore to set the pages to 'finished'.
When I complained about that to ThomasV, he suggested to use level 0 for it, since it is a finished page and no more proofreading needs to be done. He would even rename the 'without text' to fit it better and the pages still would land in category 'finished'.
Does this sound to you like the statistics of this level would be useable to determine how many pages a project has finished and how many there are that are just empty? Not to me. So those people who for some reason need statistics wouldn't be able to get a real result out of it anyway, because one projects uses it for really empty pages, the other one also for those with less than ~10 words and the next one for pages that do not need proofread for some or the other reason, even if they are full of text.
Cecil
(The other solution suggested by ThomasV would have been to create a list of all pages and which state they are and then let a bot or a second user correct the state of those pages that I would not be able to do. The 7 Thalia-bands have 3279 pages full of text and a few more with index, introduction, headers and first pages, so you can imagine how difficult it would have been to maintain those lists without any chaos and always obtain a format that the bot can deal with.)
2009/10/14 Michael Jörgens joergens.mic@googlemail.com
Birgitte SB that was the reason, why my text wasn't as polite as it should be. It sounded off-topic for me.
joergens.mi 2009/10/14 Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com
Thank you for explaining, this discussion would have been off-topic in the other thread. I am not someone that finds statistics to be a big deal, but I have learned that others feel deeply about such issues. The statistics total all pages marked "4" and report this as the number of pages a subdomain has proofread and validated. So when compared to other subdomains which mark empty pages with "0" the numbers of de.WS are slightly inflated. The current state of things is that other subdomains do not count empty pages in their totals while de.WS does. I appreciate your introducing the situation to the local community.
Birgitte SB
--- On Wed, 10/14/09, Michael Jörgens joergens.mic@googlemail.com wrote:
From: Michael Jörgens joergens.mic@googlemail.com
Subject: Re: [Wikisource-l] Pages without text
To: "discussion list for Wikisource, the free
library" wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Wednesday, October 14, 2009, 2:29 PM
Sorry, that was my fault, I
didn't read
the topic right, i thougt this discussion is still
part of
the topic [Wikisource-l]
Proofreading.
From
my personal point of view, there is no difference
between
this pages. I see no need to distinguish empty und
full
pages. The final state means, all work needed is done
with
this page.
In
general I like statistiks, but never mind, I would
never
count empty pages.
On
the other hand if others like to do, no problem in
general.
I
think we will introduce this question to our community
and
we will make a decision. Changes can be done by bot,
as I
understand.
sincerly
joergens.mi
2009/10/14 Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com
I sorry you find the concerns other people have to be
"empty" and "silly". Perhaps in
the
future you could ignore the threads on smaller issues
without comment. It would really help keep things
more
congenial.
Birgitte SB
--- On Wed, 10/14/09, Michael Jörgens joergens.mic@googlemail.com
wrote:
From: Michael Jörgens joergens.mic@googlemail.com
Subject: Re: [Wikisource-l] Pages
without text
To: "discussion list for Wikisource, the
free
library" wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Wednesday, October 14, 2009, 12:15 PM
Is there a need for
this
''empty discussion'' about empty
pages
here,
The main point ist to find an for all acceptable
way of working together with Thomas. In a way
that Thomas is satisfied and feels comfortable,
taking the
problems he see's into concern and the
problems
some
projects have.
And it should be a compromise that all can
accept,
without feeling overruled by others.
With this in the background the other discussion
is simply silly. Some are talking about some
pages,
which
in total are below 1%, there are bigger issues
to
solve.
sincerly joergens.mi
2009/10/14 Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com
I
disagree in general with the idea that everyone
must
conform. There is room for the communities to
develop
their own solutions. Hopefully when one
community
proves
that some solution has good results others will
learn
from
their experience and adopt it. But there needs
to be
room
for experimentation.
In this specific case, it seems to me this is
more of
legacy issue on de.WS rather than a deliberate
choice.
If
they (as well as every other subdomains) conform
to
the
standards the majority of Wikisources use then
the
comparative numbers between Wikisources will be
more
accurate. I don't see a strong reason for
de.WS
deciding to not conform here. But it is a bunch
of
tedious
work and it should be thoroughly discussed. It
would
be
very nice if de.WS took the time to consider the
issue
and
let us know what the consensus turns out to be.
However we can always make a footnote when
people
choose to
count things differently and estimate with data
crunching.
(i.e. Of 1000 validated pages on the top three
non-de.WS
subdomains the average number of empty pages is
X
(A%),
therefore an estimate of de.WS validated
non-empty
page is
the given total minus the A% of the given total)
This is
not an unsolvable issue and I am sure sooner of
later
some
subdomain will discover a good reason to do
something
differently.
Birgitte SB
--- On Wed, 10/14/09, Syagrius syagrius@gmx.fr
wrote:
From: Syagrius syagrius@gmx.fr
Subject: Re: [Wikisource-l] Pages without
text
To: "discussion list for Wikisource,
the
free
library" wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Wednesday, October 14, 2009, 10:47 AM
#yiv579852079 html, #yiv579852079
{}#yiv579852079 html
{width:100%;height:100%;margin:0px;padding:0px;}#yiv579852079
{font-size:100.01%;font-family:Verdana,
Geneva,
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;background-color:transparent;background-image:none;margin:0px;padding:5px;}#yiv579852079
p {margin:0px;padding:0px;}#yiv579852079
{font-size:12px;font-family:Verdana,
Geneva,
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;background-color:#FFFFFF;}#yiv579852079 p
{margin:0;padding:0;}#yiv579852079
blockquote
{padding-left:5px;margin-left:5px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-top:0px;}#yiv579852079
blockquote.quote {border-left:1px solid
#CCC;padding-left:5px;margin-left:5px;} If
the
Wikisources have adopted
some common rules, every sublanguage
should follow it. On
the other hand, I don't understand why
you
don't
want to transform these empty pages, since
en.ws
and fr.ws
already did it and a bot could do it very
easily.
There
would be absolutely no loss of quality or
credibility...
Syagrius
----- Message
d'origine -----De : John
VandenbergEnvoyés : 14.10.09 02:03À :
discussion list for Wikisource,
the
free
libraryObjet : Re: [Wikisource-l] Pages
without
text On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 10:12
AM, Cecil
wrote:
Syagrius, could you please explain why
this
would
be
"irrespectuous toward
other wikisources" when we mark
them as
part
of a
'finished' project?
It is not a part of the same work.
Advertisements are a _different_ work, and
it has
not
been
transcribed.
It should be marked as a incomplete.
Advertisements are also sources....
:-)
--
John Vandenberg
Wikisource-l mailing list
Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
Wikisource-l mailing list
Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikisource-l mailing list
Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
Wikisource-l mailing list
Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikisource-l mailing list
Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
Wikisource-l mailing list
Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org
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
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Cecil a écrit :
books. They are part of our currently most important community project which should be finished until November 10th. Because of the short time left all books were switched to PR2 so that more people can work on them and
I don't think that setting yourself deadlines for finishing to proofread a book is a good way to improve quality
When I complained about that to ThomasV, he suggested to use level 0 for it, since it is a finished page and no more proofreading needs to be done. He would even rename the 'without text' to fit it better and the pages still would land in category 'finished'.
This is not accurate. I suggested to use level 0 because I thought that you were talking about pages without text, or with very short text (image caption or chapter title). When I realized that you were talking about pages full of text, I said that they should not be using level zero, but level 4. I said that it was acceptable to use a robot to reach level 4, because the pages had already been proofread before. http://de.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Skriptorium&diff=p...
2009/10/16 ThomasV thomasV1@gmx.de
Cecil a écrit :
books. They are part of our currently most important community project which should be finished until November 10th. Because of the short time left all books were switched to PR2 so that more people can work on them and
I don't think that setting yourself deadlines for finishing to proofread a book is a good way to improve quality
Nobody ever said anything about finishing. We want to have as many works as possible to be finished until Schillers 250th birthday (who after all is one of the most important German poets ever), that's why many people now have stopped the other projects for this one, but that does not mean we would let suffer quality for it by trying the impossible. Please don't insult us that way.
When I complained about that to ThomasV, he suggested to use level 0 for it, since it is a finished page and no more proofreading needs to be done. He would even rename the 'without text' to fit it better and the pages still would land in category 'finished'.
This is not accurate. I suggested to use level 0 because I thought that you were talking about pages without text, or with very short text (image caption or chapter title). When I realized that you were talking about pages full of text, I said that they should not be using level zero, but level 4. I said that it was acceptable to use a robot to reach level 4, because the pages had already been proofread before.
http://de.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Skriptorium&diff=p...
You said so many different things after the update (not all of them
understandable), who should still now what you meant. The bot is no real option, even if you think it is acceptable to create that kind of chaos and damage quality just to keep some weird kind of security by forbiding even established users to set correct statuses but would allow it to programs where just one little part of a command needs to be incorrect to create chaos and hours of extra work trying to figure out how to correct it (which one again has to be done by programs, since people have no right to do it anymore). I'm a programmer too, but I learned already at university that it is stupid and careless to let machines do everything. They are only as good as the programmer and should never work alone. And a bot always works alone. The only way a user can interact is to stop the bot. And it sure looks good for readers if they check the version history and see that a bot did the second proofreading. Or will you manage to put the whole explanation why a user set a state and then a bot corrected it in the short line in a way the reader can understand and accept. It would not even be possible for me to revert vandalism or accidents if I had done the first proofreading-round and somebody damages the page after the second one. Or did you fix that? The last time I checked I had to delete all the pages and then restore all except the vandalised one to remove the error.
Cecil
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org