IMHO, even if I'm testing the BGB as a personal script, I'm not satisfied
by it, since - ironically - I don't agree fully with Andrea: I think that a
good look to wiki code is mandatory, I want to see if transclusion codes
are OK, I want see templates and their use and so on. Unexperienced but
interested users need to look at code to learn by example. Often
experienced users need too (but they are aware of such a need).
It would be great IMHO that the raw code of the page would be uploaded by
default into some system variable in view mode too, so that it can be
reviewed immediately by a click. It is a really simple job to do by
extension. I think that server and browser load would be very low.
2015-08-17 15:07 GMT+02:00 Erasmo Barresi <erasmo_barresi(a)live.it>it>:
Hum... why should these "button validations"
count less, so that four or
five of them are needed to change the page status? Certainly not because
"the code is not being checked", since the code stays unchecked no matter
how many "button validations" are done.
Possibly it would be better if the button(s) opened a flyout telling users
what to do: create an account if they do not have one yet, then click edit,
[correct what's wrong,] change the page status and save. I think it is
better that new users begin to take part in the main editing workflow
rather than operating on a separate one that is designed for them.
Whether to make the _next_ page appear after saving is entirely another
question, and one to which I would answer "yes". This cannot be done for
the very last page of an index, of course.
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 15:46:31 +0200
From: Andrea Zanni <zanni.andrea84(a)gmail.com>
To: "discussion list for Wikisource, the free library"
Subject: Re: [Wikisource-l] Better way to validate pages
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 2:06 PM, zdzislaw <zdzislaw.wiki(a)gmail.com>
> In the view mode of the yellow Pages (sic! :-)), we can add the "Thin
> long) Green Button" (TGB) described:
"I read and carefully compared the
> contents with the scan - there's no mistakes." :) Users who "DO read
> books" (and they do not want / do not
have time / skills... to edit)
> 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
> an immediate change of the Page status. If
for a given page will be
> three??, four?? such clicks (this amount
would have to have the
> configure for each WS - community could
determine their "quality
> - for "one click" it will became
into BGB), then the Page status would
> change automatically from "yellow" to "green". Of course, it
> configurable, to whom show TGB (ip,
registered, autopotrolled ...).
> Such a solution would have be implemented directly in the proofread
> "TGB" would allow adjustment of the level of "quality" and would
> acceptable by most the community. If it is true that " a lot of users
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?
Wikisource-l mailing list