[Wikisource-l] Proofreading

[ThomasV]

I will try to ignore the insults and still answer the message.

Your request simply mean that you do not want to use the
quality system of the Proofreadpage extension.

However, what you fail to understand is that nobody forces
you to use this quality system. I already explained to you twice
that it is perfectly possible to use the extension without these
quality levels. All you need is to modify your local javascript,
so that it adds quality categories to the pages. (de.ws will
not be counted in the stats if you do that, but I understand
you do not care).

This was a constructive proposal, and I do not know why you
keep ignoring it. Instead, you want me to make changes at
the extension level. This is not realistic; I will not modify the
extension just because you don't know how to configure your
wiki. Of course, my proposal implies some programmer work,
and any sensible programmer will realize that it would be
much less work to convince those two or three anonymous
users to login... but hey, this is your problem.

To answer your other question : Yes, there is evidence that
some pages at de.ws have been proofread and validated by
the same user, with spelling errors remaining after the page
is validated :
http://de.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Seite:De_Blanche.djvu/37&curid=178611&diff=719584&oldid=719449
(in this particular example the error was fixed after I told the
proofreader about it; it would otherwise have gone unnoticed).
For this reason, I do not believe that de.ws users are more serious
than others, and I do not think that the German Wikisource should
use different proofreading rules than the other Wikisources.

But again, this is my position, and not a diktat. If the de.ws
users collectively believe that they deserve different rules,
I respect this belief. As I already said above, nobody forces
you to use the quality levels of the proofreadpage extension.

You claim to be representing the consensus at de.ws; I agree
that you might be representing a majority of de.ws users, but
you certainly do not represent all of them. Some de.ws users
have already criticized the lack of quality control at de.ws, and
have questionned the fact that IPs should be allowed to validate pages :
see
http://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Skriptorium#Kn.C3.B6pfe_hin_-_Kn.C3.B6pfe_her
So, if you decide to get out of the common quality system,
I suggest that you first have a debate with these people.

btw, you claim to be defending the rights of anonymous users
against unfair discrimination. In general, I do not like it too much
when one category of people pretends to be defending the rights
of another category who are silent; but anyway, let us assume that
you are really defending them, and not your own power. The point
is, the de.ws rules have long required that users upload scans
with all new texts. This rule means that anonymous users are
de facto excluded from adding new texts. Curiously, you never
felt the need to complain about that. Is this not an intolerable
discrimination ? Did you ever request that IPs be allowed to
upload images at de.ws ? Please go for it, I would love to see
the answer you get (and do not forget to abundantly insult the
people who decided that IPs cannot upload images; it will certainly help).

Thomas




Michael Jörgens a écrit :
> Because nothing happened the last few days. I will draw a conclusion
> form our point of view
>
> We, from the german language wikisource want the following faults in
> the proofread extension patched.
>
> * IP-editing allowed, up to level 4: (ready). The reasons for that
> have been shown again from different views during the last postings.
> The obstuctions by the current iplementaion have been proven. 
>
> * The possibility for setting every level as needed.  as above
>
> There is no problem to make this configurable by two variables. A good
> software programmer can implement 
> this easily withour any faults and flaws. The two configuration
> variables should be on the level of common.js. 
> If common.js  is protected as it shold be there is no missuse possible.
>
> By this way the community of a wiki can decide wether they want to
> live in an Orwell like wiki or in  
> a wiki which is conform to the basic thinking of the wiki-idea.
>
> On the other hand
> The Orwellianer should prove that the integrity of the work has been
> ruined by vandaling IP's
> The Orwellianer should prove that the integrity of the work has been
> ruined by members setting the wrong state. 
> In a good community we can trust in the work of the members.
>
> If they can prove that, we could start a new discussion based on the
> reality.
>
> Greetings
> jöergens.mi
>
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Wikisource-l mailing list
>     Wikisource-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>     <mailto:Wikisource-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
>     https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikisource-l mailing list
> Wikisource-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
>