[Foundation-l] Wikisource and reCAPTCHA

• Previous message: [Foundation-l] Wikisource and reCAPTCHA
• Next message: [Foundation-l] Wikisource and PGDP
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On 24 June 2010 15:37, Samuel Klein <meta.sj at gmail.com> wrote:
> I love those proofreading features, and the new default layout for a
> book's pages and TOC.  Wikisource is becoming AWESOME.

Ahem. Even more awesome, you mean. :-)

> Do we have PGDP contributors who can weigh on on how similar the
> processes are?  Is there a way for us to actually merge workflows with
> them?

Disclaimer - my PGDP account dates from 2004, but I only get involved
in fits every couple of years. This should be seen mostly as an
"outsider's" viewpoint. :-)

IME, PGDP's processes are /seriously/ heavy-weight, burning lots of
worker time on 2nd or even 3rd-level passes, and multiple tiers of
work (Proofreading, Formatting, and all the special management levels
for people running projects). The pyramid of processes has grown so
great that they have seemed to crash in on themselves - there's a huge
dearth of people at the "higher" levels (you need to qualify at the
lower levels before the system will let you contribute to the
activities at the end). It's generally quite "unwiki".

I think Wikisource's model is a great deal more light weight that
PGDP's - and that we really don't want to push Wikisource down that
route. :-) Unfortunately I think that this means linking the two up
might prove challenging - and there's also a danger that people may
jump ship, damaging PGDP still further and making them upset with us.

J.
-- 
James D. Forrester
jdforrester at wikimedia.org | jdforrester at gmail.com
[[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]]

• Previous message: [Foundation-l] Wikisource and reCAPTCHA
• Next message: [Foundation-l] Wikisource and PGDP
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]