Better way to validate pages

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

Re: [Wikisource-l] Better way to...

Re: [Wikisource-l] Wikisource...

Andrea Zanni

10 Aug 2015 10 Aug '15

11:48 a.m.

As you all probably do, I sometimes go and proofread/validate pages in Wikisource. The validation (going from a 75% to a 100% level) is probably the simplest of Wikisource tasks, and it's especially fit to teach fist to WS beginners. When we do (in it.ws) the Proofreading contest, validated pages count in thousands. The point is: as of today, the procedure is pretty cumbersome. It's easy to read one text on the right column, and on the left column. What is not easy is to navigate through the pages: * our indexes are not easily findable, nor understandable * the arrows for navigating are small * for validating or proofreading a page, I have to click on Edit, and then proofread, click on the right radiobutton, then save. I was wondering if some of your communities has tried to ease the procedure, and make life more easy (and *QUICK*) for beginners and experts alike. For me, I usually go to the Index Page, open in different tabs different pages, then start reading. But I'm sure we could come up with a different, easier procedure, when a user *just reads, occasionaly edit and save the page as he progresses*. A quicker, easier way to flip pages and reading. Aubrey

Attachments:

attachment.htm (text/html — 1.5 KB)

Show replies by date

Alex Brollo

10 Aug 10 Aug

3:37 p.m.

First point is: is it a safe practice to validate a page without reviewing its raw code? A second point: is it a safe practice to validate a page without carefully reviewing its transclusion into ns0? Alex 2015-08-10 10:48 GMT+01:00 Andrea Zanni <zanni.andrea84(a)gmail.com>om>:

...

Nicolas VIGNERON

3:47 p.m.

2015-08-10 15:37 GMT+02:00 Alex Brollo <alex.brollo(a)gmail.com>om>:

...

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

Alex Brollo

4:29 p.m.

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(a)gmail.com>om>:

...

2015-08-10 15:37 GMT+02:00 Alex Brollo <alex.brollo(a)gmail.com>om>:

First point is: is it a safe practice to validate a page without reviewing its raw code?

A second point: is it a safe practice to validate a page without

Alex

Cdlt, ~nicolas _______________________________________________ Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l

Andrea Zanni

6:14 p.m.

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(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

2015-08-10 15:37 GMT+02:00 Alex Brollo <alex.brollo(a)gmail.com>om>:

First point is: is it a safe practice to validate a page without reviewing its raw code?

A second point: is it a safe practice to validate a page without

Alex

Cdlt, ~nicolas _______________________________________________ Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l

_______________________________________________ Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l

Alex Brollo

11:31 p.m.

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(a)gmail.com>om>:

...

2015-08-10 15:37 GMT+02:00 Alex Brollo <alex.brollo(a)gmail.com>om>:

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

Alex

Cdlt, ~nicolas _______________________________________________ Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l

_______________________________________________ Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l

Thomas Tanon

11 Aug 11 Aug

4:15 a.m.

That's a very good idea. 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 août 2015 à 14:31, Alex Brollo <alex.brollo(a)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(a)gmail.com>om>: 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(a)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(a)gmail.com>om>: 2015-08-10 15:37 GMT+02:00 Alex Brollo <alex.brollo(a)gmail.com>om>:

First point is: is it a safe practice to validate a page without reviewing its raw code?

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(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l _______________________________________________ Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l _______________________________________________ Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l _______________________________________________ Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l

zdzislaw

9:41 a.m.

2015-08-10 14:47 GMT+01:00 Nicolas VIGNERON <vigneron.nicolas at gmail.com>:

...

2015-08-10 15:37 GMT+02:00 Alex Brollo <alex.brollo at 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

Probaby yes?? you're kidding?!... Of course, that is not safe! during the validation (Proofread -> Validated level) it is particularly important to review the wikitext (the raw code). "Work of literature" that we submit proofreading is not just content, is also a FORM, and how to ensure that the form is correct without checking typography, layout, used templates... "it's unrealistic to expect the raw code to be review for all page"?? kidding again?! for all (~95k on pl. ws) the "green" pages - source code (wikitext) has been revised, and not once, but three times!, at each change of the status. A big green button (!) "validate" 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. I propose simultaneous addition a special level for such sites: "pseudovalidate" - best in pink - will be able to easily pick out a "revised" page in such a way... and to check it again - it will facilitate the work of administrators. Z.

Andrea Zanni

10:14 a.m.

Ideally, yes, the user should proofread the wikitext. We use wikitext to shape and format the text, we put templates and italics and headers. But I agree with Vigneron that for many, many pages in our books this is not worth it, or, to explain me better: * many pages are really simple, and if expert users have done the 75%, they just need to be read in the text * many, many users are not aware of our system and procedures, do not know wikitext, and we *lose* their contribution. If 1000 users read a whole 75% book but never click on Edit, we lost valuable contributions. So, I think this is a problem that needs to be fixed. In a very good book about crowdsourcing ("Reinventing Discovery", from Michael Nielsen) the author argues that the more you "low the barrier for contribution", the more contributions you will have. It's a very simple but very effective idea. I strongly believe that the validation (75 >100) is our silver bullet for this. We would need a way to "mark" one page as a "simple page to be proofread" directly by users who are not WIkisource experts, who just need to look at the text. Unfortunately, our formatting is IN the text (as in many part pf the web), but we all now that text and layout can be separated: in the validation process, they are blurred, and a user validates it corrects both the text and the occasional templates. It's technically difficult to separate "the layout" from "the content itself", so we'll have to live with that. Other communities (like Distributed Proofreaders) have a different way of working, and they ask one user to think about the text and another to think about the layout and markup. We can't do that, I think, for us being wiki and free and all. I much prefer the freedom to a more rigid but effective structure. Still, we could maybe add a new layer ("pseudovalidation" seems promising) or invent other ways to cope with the same problem. I think the problem is: make the life of the user easier, and in this specific case it is about harnessing *casual readers who read the book for fun but can easily spot a typo and correct the text*. Aubrey On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 9:41 AM, zdzislaw <zdzislaw.wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

2015-08-10 14:47 GMT+01:00 Nicolas VIGNERON <vigneron.nicolas at gmail.com

: 2015-08-10 15:37 GMT+02:00 Alex Brollo <alex.brollo at 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 Probaby yes?? you're kidding?!... Of course, that is not safe! during the validation (Proofread -> Validated level) it is particularly important to review the wikitext (the raw code). "Work of literature" that we submit proofreading is not just content, is also a FORM, and how to ensure that the form is correct without checking typography, layout, used templates... "it's unrealistic to expect the raw code to be review for all page"?? kidding again?! for all (~95k on pl. ws) the "green" pages - source code (wikitext) has been revised, and not once, but three times!, at each change of the status. A big green button (!) "validate" 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. I propose simultaneous addition a special level for such sites: "pseudovalidate" - best in pink - will be able to easily pick out a "revised" page in such a way... and to check it again - it will facilitate the work of administrators. Z. _______________________________________________ Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l

3175

days inactive

3176

days old

wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

8 comments

5 participants

tags (0)

participants (5)

Alex Brollo
Andrea Zanni
Nicolas VIGNERON
Thomas Tanon
zdzislaw