IMHO, even if I'm testing the BGB as a personal script, I'm not satisfied by it, since - ironically - I don't agree fully with Andrea: I think that a good look to wiki code is mandatory, I want to see if transclusion codes are OK, I want see templates and their use and so on. Unexperienced but interested users need to look at code to learn by example. Often experienced users need too (but they are aware of such a need).

It would be great IMHO that the raw code of the page would be uploaded by default into some system variable in view mode too, so that it can be reviewed immediately by a click. It is a really simple job to do by javascript, but I think that wiki code should be uploaded by default/by an extension. I think that server and browser load would be very low.

Alex

2015-08-17 15:07 GMT+02:00 Erasmo Barresi <erasmo_barresi@live.it>:

Hum... why should these "button validations" count less, so that four or five of them are needed to change the page status? Certainly not because "the code is not being checked", since the code stays unchecked no matter how many "button validations" are done.
Possibly it would be better if the button(s) opened a flyout telling users what to do: create an account if they do not have one yet, then click edit, [correct what's wrong,] change the page status and save. I think it is better that new users begin to take part in the main editing workflow rather than operating on a separate one that is designed for them.

Whether to make the _next_ page appear after saving is entirely another question, and one to which I would answer "yes". This cannot be done for the very last page of an index, of course.

Erasmo

> Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 15:46:31 +0200
> From: Andrea Zanni <zanni.andrea84@gmail.com>
> To: "discussion list for Wikisource, the free library"
> <wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wikisource-l] Better way to validate pages
> Message-ID:
> <CAC=VxyZZG0vNpOhkqN52bqYS-48U0PVopax9PuPoWpqRd_8-0g@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 2:06 PM, zdzislaw <zdzislaw.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In the view mode of the yellow Pages (sic! :-)), we can add the "Thin (but
> > long) Green Button" (TGB) described: "I read and carefully compared the
> > contents with the scan - there's no mistakes." :) Users who "DO read our
> > books" (and they do not want / do not have time / skills... to edit) click
> > on this button and simply go to the view mode of the next page. Such a
> > click would be counted (extra field in the mw database), but did not cause
> > an immediate change of the Page status. If for a given page will be counted
> > three??, four?? such clicks (this amount would have to have the ability to
> > configure for each WS - community could determine their "quality threshold"
> > - for "one click" it will became into BGB), then the Page status would
> > change automatically from "yellow" to "green". Of course, it would be also
> > configurable, to whom show TGB (ip, registered, autopotrolled ...).
> > Such a solution would have be implemented directly in the proofread
> > extension.
> > "TGB" would allow adjustment of the level of "quality" and would be
> > acceptable by most the community. If it is true that " a lot of users DO
> > read our books," even for 5-4 "clicks" the status would change quickly.
> >
> >
> I do like this approach, and I'd love to see some tests.
> I really believe that is good to do tests and experiments, as we are
> sometimes convinced by things that are not really proven.
>
> A 3 step validation passage as you suggest could maybe be easy enough for
> new users and casual readers, and we could gain some validations we could
> not have had otherwise.
>
>
> I also would like to repeat my question about the Visual Editor: are we
> close tho that or nobody is working on it?
>
> Aubrey

_______________________________________________
Wikisource-l mailing list
Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l