revisiting vetting of tutorials (on the website)
Hi Friends, Trying to make brief as possible. (Martin, specific question for you in this.) (But comments welcome from anyone.) Some few months ago, there was a request on this list to update the Video Tutorials page (https://inkscape.org/en/learn/videos/). After some discussion, it was decided it would be better to put the effort into getting better tutorials uploaded into the Tutorials section of the gallery (https://inkscape.org/en/gallery/=tutorial/?order=-edited). At that time, I mentioned my plan to re-contact all the tutorial authors, that I've already contacted once before, for the tutorials I have already curated (or vetted) on this page https://forum.inkscapecommunity.com/index.php, inform them, if they aren't already aware of the new website, and including instructions to upload their tutorials, if they are interested. This bug report covers several related ideas: https://bugs.launchpad.net/inkscape-web/+bug/1603669 (Someone else is going through a similar process for Inkscape extensions.) But I can't start on it, at least until the forum situation is settled. So I was thinking, if there would be some way to allow anyone to vet tutorials, which either are already uploaded, or which they want to upload; then anyone who wants to could get started already. I wrote some brief guidelines, which I thought to upload to both tutorial pages (text and video) (or maybe combine both pages into just the vetting guidelines page). However, in some discussion with Maren about moving forward with the plan, we've realized that this can't be done without some somewhat significant changes to the website. (For the record, when I say "we" it doesn't mean both of us are in favor of doing this. She actually isn't in favor of it, but is still helping figure out if it could be done, and how.) We can't have a tag such as "vetted" or "approved" for tutorials, because anyone, just anyone, could add such a tag, whether they actually have read or viewed or worked through the tutorial or not. Theoretically, even spammers could use it. Theoretically, if there's a way to disallow tags, maybe certain words should be disallowed, like "approved" for example. So there needs to be a way to either make a particular tag/filter ("vetted" or "approved" or other) available only for certain people, or only make it available for a certain user group. In discussions with Maren (who knows more about the inner workings of the website than I do), there doesn't seem to be any way to make any certain tags available (or not available) for only certain people to use. But there does seem to be some functionality, which has been planned for, but not actually functioning yet, to allow for resource uploads to be approved. Maren says that we have 2 database fields, called 'checked_by' (person) and 'checked_sig' (person's signature), which are specifically created for approving uploads. She suggests making a bug/wishlist report to request these fields be defined (and made functional). I would suggest attaching them to the Inkscape User account (or some other account which can be used for this). And then we would just give people who are interested in vetting tutorials (or other resources), access to that account. So question for Martin. Before I make the bug report, is there some reason why it would be a waste of time for tutorials? Could this be done before the forum issue is settled? Because if not, by then I'll be able to start on the vetting process that I've already been planning (see link to bug report above). But if it could be done before then, then other people could start vetting tutorials that I might not have even seen yet. (I've been putting off my twice yearly update of that page, while working on the new forum issue. So certainly there are plenty I haven't seen yet.) Or is there some other reason why this plan would not work? Or should something else be included in the report (in case I'm not understanding something correctly?
Thanks for any comments, brynn
Oh great, replying to my own message :-p I just realized something else.
This approval or vetting database fields need not only to be connected with either the Inkscape User account, or some other account for approving resources. It also needs to be available in the link upload feature.
And I'm not sure about this part. But besides being related to such an account, as well as the link upload feature; it probably needs to *not* be connected with the regular way of uploading (because the regular way is usually uploading your own resource, and it doesn't make sense for someone to approve their own resource - otherwise....well, I guess it's self-explanatory).
Does that make sense?
Thanks again :-)
-----Original Message----- From: brynn Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2017 7:40 AM To: Inkscape-Docs ; Martin Owens Subject: [Inkscape-docs] revisiting vetting of tutorials (on the website)
Hi Friends, Trying to make brief as possible. (Martin, specific question for you in this.) (But comments welcome from anyone.) Some few months ago, there was a request on this list to update the Video Tutorials page (https://inkscape.org/en/learn/videos/). After some discussion, it was decided it would be better to put the effort into getting better tutorials uploaded into the Tutorials section of the gallery (https://inkscape.org/en/gallery/=tutorial/?order=-edited). At that time, I mentioned my plan to re-contact all the tutorial authors, that I've already contacted once before, for the tutorials I have already curated (or vetted) on this page https://forum.inkscapecommunity.com/index.php, inform them, if they aren't already aware of the new website, and including instructions to upload their tutorials, if they are interested. This bug report covers several related ideas: https://bugs.launchpad.net/inkscape-web/+bug/1603669 (Someone else is going through a similar process for Inkscape extensions.) But I can't start on it, at least until the forum situation is settled. So I was thinking, if there would be some way to allow anyone to vet tutorials, which either are already uploaded, or which they want to upload; then anyone who wants to could get started already. I wrote some brief guidelines, which I thought to upload to both tutorial pages (text and video) (or maybe combine both pages into just the vetting guidelines page). However, in some discussion with Maren about moving forward with the plan, we've realized that this can't be done without some somewhat significant changes to the website. (For the record, when I say "we" it doesn't mean both of us are in favor of doing this. She actually isn't in favor of it, but is still helping figure out if it could be done, and how.) We can't have a tag such as "vetted" or "approved" for tutorials, because anyone, just anyone, could add such a tag, whether they actually have read or viewed or worked through the tutorial or not. Theoretically, even spammers could use it. Theoretically, if there's a way to disallow tags, maybe certain words should be disallowed, like "approved" for example. So there needs to be a way to either make a particular tag/filter ("vetted" or "approved" or other) available only for certain people, or only make it available for a certain user group. In discussions with Maren (who knows more about the inner workings of the website than I do), there doesn't seem to be any way to make any certain tags available (or not available) for only certain people to use. But there does seem to be some functionality, which has been planned for, but not actually functioning yet, to allow for resource uploads to be approved. Maren says that we have 2 database fields, called 'checked_by' (person) and 'checked_sig' (person's signature), which are specifically created for approving uploads. She suggests making a bug/wishlist report to request these fields be defined (and made functional). I would suggest attaching them to the Inkscape User account (or some other account which can be used for this). And then we would just give people who are interested in vetting tutorials (or other resources), access to that account. So question for Martin. Before I make the bug report, is there some reason why it would be a waste of time for tutorials? Could this be done before the forum issue is settled? Because if not, by then I'll be able to start on the vetting process that I've already been planning (see link to bug report above). But if it could be done before then, then other people could start vetting tutorials that I might not have even seen yet. (I've been putting off my twice yearly update of that page, while working on the new forum issue. So certainly there are plenty I haven't seen yet.) Or is there some other reason why this plan would not work? Or should something else be included in the report (in case I'm not understanding something correctly?
Thanks for any comments, brynn
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-docs mailing list Inkscape-docs@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-docs
Hi Brynn,
On Sun, 2017-03-26 at 07:40 -0600, brynn wrote:
But there does seem to be some functionality, which has been planned for, but not actually functioning yet, to allow for resource uploads to be approved. Maren says that we have 2 database fields, called 'checked_by' (person) and 'checked_sig' (person's signature), which are specifically created for approving uploads. She suggests making a bug/wishlist report to request these fields be defined (and made functional). I would suggest attaching them to the Inkscape User account (or some other account which can be used for this). And then we would just give people who are interested in vetting tutorials (or other resources), access to that account. So question for Martin. Before I make the bug report, is there some reason why it would be a waste of time for tutorials?
I'm a little unsure of the question. But I'm going to try and answer what I think the question is:
checked_by is a user object, checked sig is a gpg signature against the content. A bug report asking that all moderators be allowed to "check" any resource would be a very good idea and I imagine it being a fairly high priority as it allows us to enable a useful feature.
Hope this helps!
Best Regards, Martin Owens
Could this be done before the forum issue is settled? Because if not, by then I'll be able to start on the vetting process that I've already been planning (see link to bug report above). But if it could be done before then, then other people could start vetting tutorials that I might not have even seen yet. (I've been putting off my twice yearly update of that page, while working on the new forum issue. So certainly there are plenty I haven't seen yet.) Or is there some other reason why this plan would not work? Or should something else be included in the report (in case I'm not understanding something correctly?
Thanks for any comments, brynn
Thanks Martin, I'd be glad to make a bug report, asking for the ability for moderators to "check" any resource. But I'm a little unclear what you mean by "check". Moderators should be checking all new resources, that they don't violate the CoC. That's the definition of a moderator. So that's not exactly what I meant.
I'm trying to come up with a way for tutorials to be vetted or approved -- a way for users to know which tutorials are worth their time. Because I've seen a LOT of tutorials, I know that there are a lot of bad ones. Or maybe not so much "a lot" but it's just the bad ones are usually really bad.
So I would have appreciated having a list of tutorials which someone has already looked at, and found to be worthwhile. And plus it takes a long time to help someone understand a bad tutorial (where they don't need any help at all with a good tutorial). So having tutorials which have been reviewed is what I've tried to do on Inkscape Community, and I'd like to transfer that sense of trustworthiness to the tutorials on or linked on the Inkscape website.
In my discussion with Maren, it sounded like there might be a way to give a particular user group the ability to approve tutorials. I was hoping that could be done by making a particular tag available *only* to that group (and disallowed for everyone else).
But Maren mentioned these database fields. I'm not 100% clear what they are or do. But my understanding is that they would allow a certain user group to mark a resource as approved. I don't think a gpg signature would be needed for this. Maybe for coded resources like extensions. But when Maren mentioned "signature field" I thought it was their user signature or maybe avatar was attached to the resource somehow, to indicate who had approved it!
I don't know how the "checked" or "vetted" resources are marked as approved. Do the resources get some kind of icon, or any visual cue?
While moderators *could* approve tutorials, that probably goes above and beyond, for typical moderator tasks. I was thinking it would be a good entry point for more ordinary users to start getting involved in helping with the website. I was thinking the Inkscape User account could be used for this. Or some other account that's created specifically for this.
Thanks again, brynn
-----Original Message----- From: Martin Owens Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2017 5:34 PM To: brynn ; Inkscape-Docs Subject: Re: revisiting vetting of tutorials (on the website)
Hi Brynn,
On Sun, 2017-03-26 at 07:40 -0600, brynn wrote:
But there does seem to be some functionality, which has beenplanned for, but not actually functioning yet, to allow for resource uploads to be approved. Maren says that we have 2 database fields, called 'checked_by' (person) and 'checked_sig' (person's signature), which are specifically created for approving uploads. She suggests making a bug/wishlist report to request these fields be defined (and made functional). I would suggest attaching them to the Inkscape User account (or some other account which can be used for this). And then we would just give people who are interested in vetting tutorials (or other resources), access to that account. So question for Martin. Before I make the bug report, is there some reason why it would be a waste of time for tutorials?
I'm a little unsure of the question. But I'm going to try and answer what I think the question is:
checked_by is a user object, checked sig is a gpg signature against the content. A bug report asking that all moderators be allowed to "check" any resource would be a very good idea and I imagine it being a fairly high priority as it allows us to enable a useful feature.
Hope this helps!
Best Regards, Martin Owens
Could this be done before the forum issue is settled? Because if not, by then I'll be able to start on the vetting process that I've already been planning (see link to bug report above). But if it could be done before then, then other people could start vetting tutorials that I might not have even seen yet. (I've been putting off my twice yearly update of that page, while working on the new forum issue. So certainly there are plenty I haven't seen yet.) Or is there some other reason why this plan would not work? Or should something else be included in the report (in case I'm not understanding something correctly?
Thanks for any comments, brynn
participants (2)
-
brynn -
Martin Owens