In reference to the discussion about citations, we're recently added a 'Wikipedia citation' link to Open Library. For example:
http://openlibrary.org/books/OL17963918M/An_inland_voyage
At the bottom of the page on the right is this:
Download catalog record: RDF / JSON | Wikipedia citation
The Wikipedia citation link will give you a citation template to copy and paste to Wikipedia. We would welcome any comments about this citation template.
We would like to have a list on the page, "what cites this book" for citations in Wikipedia and elsewhere on the web.
Why would anyone cite this particular edition? It's not the first ed., which is, I think, http://openlibrary.org/books/OL23411638M/inland_voyage.
it's not even the first american edition. It's not a standard scholarly edition. It's not an earlier collected edition. It's not an edition which is currently in print. What's more, it's a defective record, because the date on the displayed cover does not match the date of the edition on the catalog record--which is the date on the title page of the actual copy scanned, which does not have the original cover. The cover was selected by an automatic algorithm, which got it wrong.
If we're going to standardize citations, we should standardize a correct record to an appropriate version, not any version that happens along. Of course, that's considerably harder. But I dod not see the point of setting up an elaborate system based on bad data. .
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Edward Betts edward@archive.org wrote:
On 22 Jul 2010, at 00:30, David Goodman wrote:
Why would anyone cite this particular edition?
Either because it's the copy they have in their hand, or because they're talking about the material/cultural conditions surrounding it. (Significant differences from other editions, things special about who/when/why/how it was published, knowledge that a copy of this edition was used by a particular person at a particular time.)
It's not the first ed., which is, I think, http://openlibrary.org/books/OL23411638M/inland_voyage.
it's not even the first american edition. It's not a standard scholarly edition. It's not an earlier collected edition. It's not an edition which is currently in print. What's more, it's a defective record, because the date on the displayed cover does not match the date of the edition on the catalog record--which is the date on the title page of the actual copy scanned, which does not have the original cover. The cover was selected by an automatic algorithm, which got it wrong.
Funny, the cover that I'm looking at matches the title page internet archive edition: http://www.archive.org/stream/inlandvoyage01stev#page/n13/mode/2up
And all the dates I'm seeing (title page, 'published' data, catalog dates) say 1878.
If we're going to standardize citations, we should standardize a correct record to an appropriate version, not any version that happens along. Of course, that's considerably harder.
Mostly it's hard to know what "appropriate" means. To know whether two things are the same or different, we need to know the purpose/intended use.
But I dod not see the point of setting up an elaborate system based on bad data. .
-Jodi
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Edward Betts edward@archive.org wrote:
-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
yes, for this one the cover does match,.--I'll have to go back and find the unmatched one Iwas thinking of.
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 6:35 AM, Jodi Schneider jodi.schneider@deri.org wrote:
wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org