[Wikisource-l] Proofreading

[Birgitte SB]

--- On Sun, 10/11/09, Michael Jörgens <joergens.mic at googlemail.com> wrote:

> From: Michael Jörgens <joergens.mic at googlemail.com>
> Subject: [Wikisource-l]  Proofreading
> To: wikisource-l at 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.
> 
> https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20812
> 


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