ThomasV is working as author, I think mainly at fr.wikisource.
He has his personal ideas how things have to be done, there is no communication of him, at least to german wikisource, - what things and how he will change them - in advance. From one day to the next, things which have been working, doesn't work any longer. Because of two definite reasons
- The will of the author. - Bugs in his code. There has been NO update of his code without bugs!
From the very beginning of his work on his proofread extension, he tried to
exclude everybody he personal doesn't like. Especially IP's he dislikes and treats them the same way as vandals.
There has been at least 3 major updates of his extension, every time he found new ways to discourage people to work with his extension and to complicate the work of author. Every time we had big discussion with him after his buggy changes and must find ways to get around his blocking methods.
We have a lot of texts (thousands of pages) proofread two times before his extension was developed. We try to convert most of them to the proofread extension. But even Administrators are not capable of setting a 2 times proofread text to the ready state. When we begged him to assist us with this problem he wasn't willing to, we found away around his restriction. Now there is an update and we have the same problems again, an this not by an accident.
Because when he sees that we find solutions in the js part which is configurable, he moves more and more of his SILLY IDEAS into parts of the code we can't change.
There has been a lot of experiments to get a common working interface with ThomasV but he is not willing to cooperate.
In my opinion it would be very easy, to incorporate parameters, to give the project the chance to implement their community consensus of for example IP editing (including second proofreading), setting completed pages to the ready state, ...
And to Brigitte SB It's not so easy to call take another developer if this one is not willing to cooperate. Would it be accepted that there are two different (but extremely similar) pr extensions, active on all wiki's?
And I don't think that ThomasV is willing to accept any consensus which is not according to his way of thinking Have a look at the other ws. Has there been any question of ThomasV what the consensus in this ws is - or is there only his dictate!
Have a look here.
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20812
Sincerly
--- On Sun, 10/11/09, Michael Jörgens joergens.mic@googlemail.com wrote:
From: Michael Jörgens joergens.mic@googlemail.com Subject: [Wikisource-l] Proofreading To: wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Sunday, October 11, 2009, 4:20 PM ThomasV is working as author, I think mainly at fr.wikisource. He has his personal ideas how things have to be done, there is no communication of him, at least to german wikisource,
- what things and how he will change them - in advance.
From one day to the next, things which have been working, doesn't work any longer. Because of two definite reasons
- The will of the author.
- Bugs in his code. There has been NO update of his
code without bugs!
From the very beginning of his work on his proofread extension, he tried to exclude everybody he personal doesn't like. Especially IP's he dislikes and treats them the same way as vandals. There has been at least 3 major updates of his extension, every time he found new ways to discourage people to work with his extension and to complicate the work of author. Every time we had big discussion with him after his buggy changes and must find ways to get around his blocking methods. We have a lot of texts (thousands of pages) proofread two times before his extension was developed. We try to convert most of them to the proofread extension. But even Administrators are not capable of setting a 2 times proofread text to the ready state. When we begged him to assist us with this problem he wasn't willing to, we found away around his restriction. Now there is an update and we have the same problems again,an this not by an accident. Because when he sees that we find solutions in the js part which is configurable, he moves more and more of his SILLY IDEAS into parts of the code we can't change. There has been a lot of experiments to get a common working interface with ThomasV but he is not willing to cooperate. In my opinion it would be very easy, to incorporate parameters, to give the project the chance to implement their community consensus of for example IP editing (including second proofreading), setting completed pages to the ready state, ...
And to Brigitte SBIt's not so easy to call take another developer if this one is not willing to cooperate. Would it be accepted that there are two different (but extremely similar) pr extensions, active on all wiki's? And I don't think that ThomasV is willing to accept any consensus which is not according to his way of thinking Have a look at the other ws. Has there been any question of ThomasV what the consensus in this ws is - or is thereonly his dictate!
Have a look here.
Yes it would be acceptable to have two different but similar extensions on different Wikisources. It is being done with Flagged Reviosions on Wikipedias. This is the best way to experiment with different solutions.
With the sort of bad faith accusations you make towards ThomasV, I suggest you start looking for another developer to assist you. It obvious that you do not trust for ThomasV. He is a volunteer and not obligated to do whatever you might demand because of community preferences. It is rather you who are not obligated to use his code if that is what the community prefers. The update to the code included many things that other people are happy to have. The idea that updates to ProofreadPage should be stopped on all Wikisources because one wiki can't get along with the guy who developed the extension is not practical. No one is forcing de.WS to use ProofreadPage. If you want something else entirely, no one will stop you from disabling it. If you want to modify ProoreadPage slightly, it is open source.
Birgitte SB
ThomasV is awaiting deadministering in German Wikisource, see
http://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Skriptorium#Code_Update
* It will be the first time that such a thing is done in our community.
* The whole German community is against ThomasV. These are the same people (including me) which have made German Wikisource since 2006 to the leading Wikisource project (concerning quality standards).
Klaus Graf
2009/10/12 Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com:
--- On Sun, 10/11/09, Michael Jörgens joergens.mic@googlemail.com wrote:
From: Michael Jörgens joergens.mic@googlemail.com Subject: [Wikisource-l] Proofreading To: wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Sunday, October 11, 2009, 4:20 PM ThomasV is working as author, I think mainly at fr.wikisource. He has his personal ideas how things have to be done, there is no communication of him, at least to german wikisource,
- what things and how he will change them - in advance.
From one day to the next, things which have been working, doesn't work any longer. Because of two definite reasons
- The will of the author.
- Bugs in his code. There has been NO update of his
code without bugs!
From the very beginning of his work on his proofread extension, he tried to exclude everybody he personal doesn't like. Especially IP's he dislikes and treats them the same way as vandals. There has been at least 3 major updates of his extension, every time he found new ways to discourage people to work with his extension and to complicate the work of author. Every time we had big discussion with him after his buggy changes and must find ways to get around his blocking methods. We have a lot of texts (thousands of pages) proofread two times before his extension was developed. We try to convert most of them to the proofread extension. But even Administrators are not capable of setting a 2 times proofread text to the ready state. When we begged him to assist us with this problem he wasn't willing to, we found away around his restriction. Now there is an update and we have the same problems again,an this not by an accident. Because when he sees that we find solutions in the js part which is configurable, he moves more and more of his SILLY IDEAS into parts of the code we can't change. There has been a lot of experiments to get a common working interface with ThomasV but he is not willing to cooperate. In my opinion it would be very easy, to incorporate parameters, to give the project the chance to implement their community consensus of for example IP editing (including second proofreading), setting completed pages to the ready state, ...
And to Brigitte SBIt's not so easy to call take another developer if this one is not willing to cooperate. Would it be accepted that there are two different (but extremely similar) pr extensions, active on all wiki's? And I don't think that ThomasV is willing to accept any consensus which is not according to his way of thinking Have a look at the other ws. Has there been any question of ThomasV what the consensus in this ws is - or is thereonly his dictate!
Have a look here.
Yes it would be acceptable to have two different but similar extensions on different Wikisources. It is being done with Flagged Reviosions on Wikipedias. This is the best way to experiment with different solutions.
With the sort of bad faith accusations you make towards ThomasV, I suggest you start looking for another developer to assist you. It obvious that you do not trust for ThomasV. He is a volunteer and not obligated to do whatever you might demand because of community preferences. It is rather you who are not obligated to use his code if that is what the community prefers. The update to the code included many things that other people are happy to have. The idea that updates to ProofreadPage should be stopped on all Wikisources because one wiki can't get along with the guy who developed the extension is not practical. No one is forcing de.WS to use ProofreadPage. If you want something else entirely, no one will stop you from disabling it. If you want to modify ProoreadPage slightly, it is open source.
Birgitte SB
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
--- On Sun, 10/11/09, Klaus Graf klausgraf@googlemail.com wrote:
From: Klaus Graf klausgraf@googlemail.com Subject: Re: [Wikisource-l] Proofreading To: "discussion list for Wikisource, the free library" wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Sunday, October 11, 2009, 5:10 PM ThomasV is awaiting deadministering in German Wikisource, see
http://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Skriptorium#Code_Update
- It will be the first time that such a thing is done in
our community.
- The whole German community is against ThomasV. These are
the same people (including me) which have made German Wikisource since 2006 to the leading Wikisource project (concerning quality standards).
These are good reasons why you should be looking for another developer to assist you.
Birgitte SB
Michael Jörgens wrote: ...
And I don't think that ThomasV is willing to accept any consensus which is not according to his way of thinking Have a look at the other ws. Has there been any question of ThomasV what the consensus in this ws is - or is there only his dictate!
Have a look here.
While I agree that working with ThomasV is sometimes difficult, he is right here: allowing IPs to mark pages as proofread defeat the purpose of the tool. This notation is intended as a certificate by an account that proofreading is done. Because IP are not constant, the same person could proofread, and then validate the page. At the very least, IPs should not be allowed to validate pages. I don't know if this distinction is possible. And if people are able to proofread articles, they are certainly also able to login.
Sincerly
Regards,
Yann
We have in German Wikisource the best quality of all Wikisources and absolutely no problems with IPs. I would like to say "SHUT UP" until you reach the German standards.
Klaus Graf
2009/10/12 Yann Forget yann@forget-me.net:
Michael Jörgens wrote: ...
And I don't think that ThomasV is willing to accept any consensus which is not according to his way of thinking Have a look at the other ws. Has there been any question of ThomasV what the consensus in this ws is - or is there only his dictate!
Have a look here.
While I agree that working with ThomasV is sometimes difficult, he is right here: allowing IPs to mark pages as proofread defeat the purpose of the tool. This notation is intended as a certificate by an account that proofreading is done. Because IP are not constant, the same person could proofread, and then validate the page. At the very least, IPs should not be allowed to validate pages. I don't know if this distinction is possible. And if people are able to proofread articles, they are certainly also able to login.
Sincerly
Regards,
Yann
http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net http://fr.wikisource.org/ | Bibliothèque libre http://wikilivres.info | Documents libres
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Klaus Graf wrote:
I would like to say "SHUT UP" until you reach the German standards.
I suggest the German Wikisource community elect another spokesperson than Klaus Graf, in order to avoid parallels to British TV parodies on World War II. The kind of wording he uses above is entirely counterproductive to what he wants to achieve.
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 12:21 PM, Klaus Graf klausgraf@googlemail.com wrote:
We have in German Wikisource the best quality of all Wikisources and absolutely no problems with IPs. I would like to say "SHUT UP" until you reach the German standards.
de.WS wants to allow IPs to validate pages. other Wikisource projects do not want this.
All we need is a patch to allow this to be configurable so that de.WS can configure the extension to suit their needs.
If someone creates a patch, and attaches it to the bug, the developers will need to review, and it should be approved unless code quality is not good.
-- John Vandenberg
Yann Forget wrote:
Because IP are not constant, the same person could proofread, and then validate the page. At the very least, IPs should not be allowed to validate pages.
The same person could do the same with two usernames. What should be allowed, should be a decision of the local community. The software should support the community, not force it to accept the developer's opinion.
is it that difficult to fork the proofread extension at the version prior to the last update and activate it at de.ws, while deactivating the current proofread extension? The de.ws spokespeople make it sound like ThomasV has nothing to do but dream up ways of jeopardizing their work at de.ws.
A wake up call to the de.ws quality guru's: where would your quality be without the proofread tool?
geez...
On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 7:45 PM, Lars Aronsson lars@aronsson.se wrote:
Yann Forget wrote:
Because IP are not constant, the same person could proofread, and then validate the page. At the very least, IPs should not be allowed to validate pages.
The same person could do the same with two usernames. What should be allowed, should be a decision of the local community. The software should support the community, not force it to accept the developer's opinion.
-- Lars Aronsson (lars@aronsson.se) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
It is nice to see that there finally is some communication between subdomains about this topic. I said several times that this issue should be discussed at an inter-wiki level, and not just in the de.ws scriptorium.
First I need to explain that the de.ws community is highly disciplined and organized. They have more rules than the other Wikisources, and these rules are well enforced by the community.
This high level of discipline and organization does not exist at other Wikisources, where users have more freedom to do what they like, rather than what the community has decided. For example, up to now, no other wiki has been able to make scans mandatory with new texts. Another example is that any new text added to the German wikisource must be supported by at least two separate users, who are committed to proofreading it twice. If a text is not properly proofread it gets deleted.
The "double proofreading" rule existed at de.ws before I implemented it in ProofreadPage. In the old system, the rule was not enforced by software, but by the community and its administrators. They used to check the history of a page in order to know if a page had been proofread by two different people.
I added the "two users" validation rule to ProofreadPage more than 2 years ago. A consequence of this rule is that anonymous users are not allowed to validate pages, and I guess everybody understands why. (although it would be possible to whitelist some fixed IPs, as I suggested in bugzilla)
As I said in the bug, the double proofreading rule of ProofreadPage is not meant to be secure or sockpuppet-proof. It is just meant to be unambiguous. If we removed it, then users would make their own interpretation of the meaning of the buttons, and this would break the current system. it is not a question of bad faith, it is a question of poor communication.
Of course the system would not break apart on de.ws, thanks to the very strict rules and good communication that exist there. But it would certainly break apart on other wikis, because they are more loosely organized and they do not have this high level of discipline. This is why I think it would harm Wikisource to remove the "two users" rule from the software. An any case, I will not change the proofreading system of all Wikisources just because de.ws wants it.
I am also not going to provide extra software for de.ws. I did this for quite some time, because they requested an horizontal edition layout, which is now available everywhere. During that time, it is true that software updates in the extension triggered more bugs at de.ws than elsewhere, because everytime I made an update to the main code, the javascript at de.ws was broken and had to be updated. It was kind of a nightmare in terms of management, and I received very little thanks for the time that I spent doing it. In addition, you guys should understand that I am not the person who decides when the code update goes live, so it was not possible for me to warn people in advance, or to update the de.ws javascript simultaneously with the code update.
However, the fact that I have decided to stop providing extra software solutions for de.ws does not mean that it is not possible to do what they want. It is perfectly possible to configure a wiki so that IPs can add the categories "proofread" or "validated". It is therefore unnecessary to fork the software, and it would even be quite stupid to do so. The germans used to use a template in order to validate their pages (Seitenstatus) before I introduced this buttons system. This should still work. Using local javascript, they can even create buttons linked to this template, so that users will not notice any difference from the current system. I already proposed this solution in the bug, but my suggestion was not considered, to say the least (see https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20812#c7).
I will not program this solution myself, for 2 reasons : - I am tired of working for de.ws and getting insults everytime something does not work as dictated by local admins. Some excuses and acknowlegdements of the work I did for de.ws would be first needed. - I think that it would be quite a bad thing for de.ws to start using different proofreading rules than the rest of the community; it would harm their reputation, and it would possibly create discord between subdomains. Some de.ws admins are happy to claim that they do not care about what other subdomains think, because they have superior quality standards; however I do not think that all the de.ws users share this point of view.
Even if I am not willing to program an extra solution for de.ws, I know that some de.ws admins are perfectly able to program the solution they want. They do not need me for that. They know it.
Thomas
wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org