This is a good plan, Aubrey. We shouldn't be putting too much effort
into supporting systems or tools that are not *fundamentally* going in
the right direction. Of course, that's easy to say, but it's hard to
know which is what.
So, I'd say for example that storing this metadata in Index pages is not
sensible now that we've got wikidata: work type (e.g. book, journal),
title, language, author, translator, editor, illustrator, school,
publisher, year of publication, place of publication, ISBN, OCLC, LCCN,
ARK, and National Archives identifier.
So let's not build things that further cement the use of Index pages
for that stuff. (I don't mean that anyone has suggested anything
I think the *proofreading* side of things is going well and we're
getting better at doing more and at higher quality. There are many
smallish things that we can do that will help in this realm.
But there are two other aspects that I think need a bit of a re-think
(or at least where we need to always keep the bigger picture in mind),
as Aubrey suggests:
1. the "project management" (for want of a better term) of getting a
work into wikisource and shepparding it through the various stages
until it's ready and green and done;
2. making things brilliant for *readers*! things like having
export/download options big and clear, and the same with links to
wikipedias and other language wikisources. And getting feedback
(especially about typos etc.); that should be simpler.
I don't really have any answers yet (am still reading through lots of
the stuff about https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Book_management ) but
perhaps a narrowing down of proofreadpage to focus on proofreading
methodology only, and a new bookmanger extension that can give us lots
of the other stuff.
Am I sort of on track with you Aubrey (and others)?
PS The proposal phase of the Wishlist Survey finishes in about four
days, so come and edit proposals to make em great. :-)
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016, at 07:23 PM, Andrea Zanni wrote:
> I made a draft on a proposal here:
> Please edit, it's a draft and I think it's a problem many of us know
> from a long time.
> The idea is that, if we had a system for MediaWiki to know what a
> book is,
> we could
> * better metadata management system, thus a better integration with
> * we could develop better tools, for example create automatic Indexes
> and navigation templates, which would maybe enable us to "import"
> EPUBs directly on Wikisource
> * have a better workflow, making it easier to new users to use us
> * have even better statistics and analytics: which are the *books*
> (not the pages!) which are read o WIkisource?
> IMHO, the Community Wishlist is a great opportunity to push for a
> systemic development of Wikisource: I'm convinced we don't need little
> tools here and there, but a systematic overview of what Wikisource
> framework, workflows and software.
> I'm open to discuss the merging of different proposals in the
> Wikisource-l mailing list