While suggesting how the Andrea's ideas coud be implemented (in the
meantime, I wrote some js rows to upload quietly localStorage.rawCode,
localStorage.pageUser, localStorage.pageLevel, an localStorage.validable
too when reading any page in view mode), I was perfecly aware of what a
similar tool could cause.
But... is there so deep a difference between the validation of a page by a
newbie in Edit mode, and the validation by the same user clicking the Big
Green Button? For sure, it's much simpler and comfortable to review a text
in view mode: isn't it the idea of VisualEditor?
Alex
2015-08-11 12:28 GMT+02:00 Nicolas VIGNERON <vigneron.nicolas(a)gmail.com>om>:
I'm not sure we're all talking about the same
thing.
First, this tool is just a tool. If someone is misusing a tool, don't
blame the tool, blame (and block) the user of the tool !
Then it seems that the quality level has not the same meaning on every
wikisources. Typo such as « rn » intead of « m » are usually removed on the
red or yellow step on fr.ws (and such obvious error can be seen before
editing, reviewing the final render code seems enough to me).
When I'm thinking of raw code review on yellow to green step, I'm thinking
of formatting and things like html code replace by ws templates, Unicode
encoding mistakes, and little things like that ; for me all typo should be
gone at the previous stage (and personally, I don't go from red to yellow
if there is still such typo mistakes).
The GGB is a tool (and just an idea of a tool right now) and one of many
solution to one of many problems Andrea pointed ; but there is many other
problems. Especially, the navigation arrows could use some improvement. «
validate this and go to next page » is definitively something we need.
Since the VisualEditor is coming, we would be dumb no to cease this
opportunity to do some clean-up and renovation.
We should think too to an other category of tools : global detection of
possible mistakes. On frws, there is some little things like
https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Gadget-Erreurs-communes.js
(intern gadget) and
https://tools.wmflabs.org/dicompte/index.php (extern)
but here too there is huge room for improvement. Proofreading page by page
is great and necessary but we should multiply the approachs to reach the
best quality.
We're speaking of new users but such tools (the GGB and much more others)
can be useful for old users too. Maybe we can test them for some old user
first, see how it goes and then offers them (or not) to new users.
Finally, new users are not all the same. The director of Rennes Library is
a new user on frws but she's defintively better at proofreading than most
wikisorcerers ;)
Cdlt, ~nicolas
_______________________________________________
Wikisource-l mailing list
Wikisource-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l