Wikisource:Bar/Archivio/2010.07: differenze tra le versioni
Contenuto cancellato Contenuto aggiunto
→pagequality and SAL: + link |
|||
Riga 306:
:As for the proofreading activity... I'm surprised: it's my main activity (besides ordinary admin work) even [[:en:user:OrbiliusMagister|in other wikisources]], and it should be the main activity for many users. We are also giving scanned source to many works previously uploaded in the main namespace, and we've been making this for almost a year. Alex brollo keeps uploading entire books in the Pagina namespace. I'm trying to understand what originates the statistics you're reading: my only answer could be... we're always few users, very motivated and active (the same two-three users in turn load, transcribe, proofread and validate), but always too few. Obviously no comparison can be made between fr. and it. in terms of growth or activity, and a comparison between it. and ca. or hy. could give a less alarming signal. I'd rather be concerned about de.source current results.<small>by the way, should I read from [http://toolserver.org/~thomasv/Wikisource_-_pr_texts.png this image] that during roughly one month at the end of 2009 we transcluded 5000 pages and the we have almost stopped for six months? That's hardly believable! </small>
:As for SAL 25% you're right: pages should have SAL 25% only if incompletely transcribed or showing utter OCR gibberish. SAL 25% is useful for index and main namespace. As for the remaining grades, we'll work on them. - '''[[Utente:OrbiliusMagister|<span style="color:orange;">ε</span><span style="color:blue;">Δ</span>]][[Discussioni utente:OrbiliusMagister|<span style="color:brown;">ω</span>]]''' 11:54, 27 giu 2010 (CEST)
::The 5000 pages that were transcluded at the end of 2009 were created by a robot. Actually, the proofreading statistics reflect activity much better than the transclusion statistics, because they do not contain robot activity. The graph I showed displays the number of pages marked as "proofread" per day. The Germans recently focused on "validation" [http://toolserver.org/~thomasv/Wikisource_-_validated_pages_per_day.png], this is why their "proofreading" activity dropped a bit.
::As you said, you guys are very motivated and active, but you are ''few''. If proofreading has been achieved here by the same 2-3 users for the last 2 years, it clearly means that there is a problem; other Wikisources have been able to attract lots of new proofreaders during that time. I guess that category names such as "Pagina SAL 50%" are too obscure. They do not mean anything to someone who has not read the help, and this probably deters new users from joining. If a page has been proofread, it should be indicated clearly, in a language that everybody understands. Note that clarity has other benefits : it also contributes to the level of trust that a website inspires to its readers.
::[[User:ThomasV|ThomasV]] ([[User talk:ThomasV|disc.]]) 12:34, 27 giu 2010 (CEST)
| |||