Luiz Augusto: "Rough but runing code of BGB is
ready".
This is not a discussion. They had decided.
We can change nothing. Well... Why go to Vienna?
Wieralee
2015-08-12 1:26 GMT+02:00 Luiz Augusto <lugusto(a)gmail.com>om>:
("Didn't read the entire thread; too
long" warning)
I must agree with PL folks: the BGB isn't an improvement. Probably the
OCR quality is great on English, Italian and French for doing such thing,
but it certainly isn't also for Portuguese (PT).
A good improvement will be if a Yellow Big Button wold be implemented.
Maybe you don't find it useful, as many pages are reviewed on creation, but
it is because we, experienced users, do it in this way.
Simply putting an Index page or an external link to get the digitization
is the worst thing we currently do.
Why not our bots starts extracting all and every pages, to make Page
namespace working in similar way that Google Book Search works (you can
choose if you need to browse on image view or OCR view on that platform).
If a random Internet user goes to Wikisource after doing a Web search due
to the correct recognized portion of text (as he go to GBS), he can start
immediately to fix the OCR and, voila! A new user just discovered an
ancient text and a promising website that collects ancient texts!
This approach makes sense on attracting new user and presenting how to
work on Wikisource, and not downgrading our compromise to flag pages fully
reviewed.
Side note: Portuguese language still is "unstable" on orthography and how
to spell words. From time to time we change our conventions (Brazil and
Portugal are yet implementing the Acordo Ortográfico de 1990 and some are
arguing on a new one change). PD-old digitizations came in A VERY OLD
ORTHOGRAPHY CONVENTION. Creating the Big Green Button will make us unable
to do a last check if the wikitext follows the way that words are on
digitization or in the current way of writing. So, it isn't an improvement,
only a trouble finding.
[[User:555]]
Em 11/08/2015 7:09 PM, "Alex Brollo" <alex.brollo(a)gmail.com> escreveu:
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>
:
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
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
_______________________________________________
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