Rough but running code of BGB is ready, and
Andrea can test it to find
bugs and/or drawbacks by now, if he likes.
To lower the risk of a nonsense-click, BGB should pop out after some
reasonable delay - something less than the time needed to carefully compare
the page text and its image. To make simpler to monitor its use, a
standard message could be added to edit, so that BGB edits could be fastly
selected in RecentChanges.
Alex
2015-08-11 21:21 GMT+02:00 Nicolas VIGNERON <vigneron.nicolas(a)gmail.com>om>:
2015-08-11 20:39 GMT+02:00 Wiera Lee
<wieralee(a)gmail.com>om>:
On pl.wikisource each correction level means that another person did
the
correction again. The green status means the page was corrected three
times by three another persons.
The colours are just for marking the status page, it's not per se a
correction and only two people are actually needed ; but yes, it's the more
or less the same on each wikisource with the proofred system.
Corrected, not read.
Uh? Correcting without reading?
In my opinion Big Green Button Correction is
useless. New users can
click only for stats, not for proofreading. And nobody would
check it
again, because the book would be finished.
Please dont bite the new users or imagine that they're all evil. Maybe
you had a bad experience on plwiki but that's not always true.
Think about it: When you were new users, did you edit only for stats?
I check *a lot* the green pages since *sometimes* there is still little
correction to do (a new and better templates, some strange typo like «
word » - with invisible hyphen - or « wоrd » - with a cyrillic о - instead
of « word », ).
We are asking new users to validate the pages for
the second time
(from red to yellow level): new users can learn how the templates
and raw
codes are working, but when they do something wrong, an experienced user
would check it one more time -- to make it green. If they would not edit
the page, they would never know how the templates works. So they would not
become a better editors...
Can't they do both?
And should we really make the life of users (new and old) hard when it's
not needed ?
We all can do only red pages, why not. We'll
get a "perfectly readable
and functional book" with some errors. But
should we give its the same
status as a proof-read three times book? Green status means "almost
perfect". We shouldn't make green pages automatically, only to make our
stats better.
No, only red pages is not "perfectly readable and functional book.
How many is « almost » perfect? 80%? 90% 95%? 99%? that's a tricky
question.
And if a book made of 500 yellow pages already at 99% perfect, isn't the
BGB usefull?
Correction without correction is not a good idea.
It's a lie.
Very true but the BGB is not about correction, it's about marking as
correct something that already is.
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