On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Thibaut Horel <thibaut.horel(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
3. The current system with 4 quality levels to
represent the proofreading
state of a page is not sufficient to represent the diversity of
proofreading scenarios. Indeed, there is a distinction to make between the
*correctness* of the text and its *formatting*. In the case of a scanned
edition which has been OCRed, we do need several passes before reaching a
satisfying level of confidence about the correctness of the text as well as
a suitable formatting (proper use of the wikicode, etc.). For digital-born
documents however, as billinghurst said, we can automatically assume that
the extracted text is correct, but that still doesn't mean that the text is
correctly formatted and ready to be transcluded in the main namespace.
Maybe we should add another level meaning "text is correct, still needs
formatting"? Ideally, we should have to scales of quality levels: one
dealing with the correctness of the text, and one dealing with its
formatting. This would probably be too heavy and confusing though...
I couldn't agree more.
I think this could be an opportunity also to make task *smaller* and
*clearer*
(in the direction of "microtask", which are contributions in crowdsourcing
projects which are small, definite and simple. eg GalaxyZoo, reCAPTCHA).
We could define some tasks as
* corrected the page
* proofread the text
* formatted the page
* validated the formatting
* OPTIONAL added optional templates/links/annotations
*...
We could even have qualifiers (all/part of the page, ...)
Is this idea crazy, or somewhat doable?
Aubrey