I noticed as I was fixing up one article that we appearently have a tag bibleverse that links to *one specific* website.
I'm not comfortable with that sort of approach. It seems to highly favor a particular bible website over other similar ones.
Don't we have a similar issue when linking to a book citation? That is, we provide several sources for the ultimate underlying book citation, not just a single link to amazon for example.
Will
************** Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000005)
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
I noticed as I was fixing up one article that we appearently have a tag bibleverse that links to *one specific* website.
I'm not comfortable with that sort of approach. It seems to highly favor a particular bible website over other similar ones.
Where appropriate, links to Wikisource should be preferred. The Zondervan/Harper-Collins site has a TOS that claims copyright on everything; it applies "regardless of whether your access or use is intended". Claiming copyright on every version of the Bible that they host vaguely resembles copyfraud.
Some of the more recent versions may indeed be copyright encumbered, but it would be a good beginning if some of these 2000+ bibleverse links that are for the King James version or some non-specific version were pointed to Wikisource.
Ec
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Ray Saintongesaintonge@telus.net wrote:
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
I noticed as I was fixing up one article that we appearently have a tag bibleverse that links to *one specific* website.
Its not "one specific website." See comment: (script being removed from deprecated site: http://php.ug.cs.usyd.edu.au/~jnot4610 to http://bibref.hebtools.com. See [[Template_talk:Bibleverse#PHP_script_moving]]
-Steve
2009/7/5 WJhonson@aol.com:
I noticed as I was fixing up one article that we appearently have a tag bibleverse that links to *one specific* website.
I'm not comfortable with that sort of approach. It seems to highly favor a particular bible website over other similar ones.
Don't we have a similar issue when linking to a book citation? That is, we provide several sources for the ultimate underlying book citation, not just a single link to amazon for example.
Our ISBN links go to a page which generates about twelve thousand links to different booksellers, libraries, etc.
For things like biblical quotations, it would seem that this is a marvellous niche for Wikisource, if we can figure out an elegant way to do it and keep the user functionality.
Andrew Gray wrote:
For things like biblical quotations, it would seem that this is a marvellous niche for Wikisource, if we can figure out an elegant way to do it and keep the user functionality.
Wikisource has a complete translation in modern English, and it already seems to be annotated with IDs for verses, e.g.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible_(American_Standard)/John#3:16
Bible links on Wikipedia don't uniformly use the bibleverse template, editors just link to any random website. I think the vast majority of links could go directly to the most recent PD translation on Wikisource. The relevant template can be updated once every decade or so as new works come into the public domain.
A lot of bible references don't have a link at all. Maybe we could add a magic link feature, like we have for RFC and PMID. Then whenever someone types something that looks like a bible verse reference in plain text, MediaWiki would automatically convert it to a link. For cultural neutrality it would obviously have to be internationalised and support a number of other religious texts. Not impossible though.
-- Tim Starling
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 8:31 PM, Tim Starlingtstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
Wikisource has a complete translation in modern English, and it already seems to be annotated with IDs for verses, e.g. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible_(American_Standard)/John#3:16
Hm. Of course, Tim is right - if its public/open domain then wikisource should host it and we will then link to it. The issue with the hebtools site/script is that most of its links go to BibleGateway. Obviously the current script's sources need to be changed to include both other gateways like bible.cc and of course wikisource. A choice of gateways would be preferable.
The current hosted translations/versions on wikisource are: * Bible (Wycliffe) (1380s) * Bible (Tyndale) (1526) * Douay-Rheims Bible (1610) * King James translation, or “Authorized Version” (1611) * King James translation, Oxford Standard (1769) * American Standard translation (1901) * Bible (Jewish Publication Society 1917) * World English translation (in progress since 1997) * Wikisource translation (in progress since 2006)
Note that one of the benefits of using the proprietary portals, aside from heads-up comparison and better navigation, is that they are licensed to publish the newer proprietary versions. Cutting off the proprietary portals means cutting off the proprietary translations. The NIV for example is highly popular and referenced (among Protestants). Hence we have to of course include but not depend on the proprietary portals.
-Steven
stevertigo wrote:
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 8:31 PM, Tim Starlingtstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
Wikisource has a complete translation in modern English, and it already seems to be annotated with IDs for verses, e.g. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible_(American_Standard)/John#3:16
Hm. Of course, Tim is right - if its public/open domain then wikisource should host it and we will then link to it. The issue with the hebtools site/script is that most of its links go to BibleGateway. Obviously the current script's sources need to be changed to include both other gateways like bible.cc and of course wikisource. A choice of gateways would be preferable.
The current hosted translations/versions on wikisource are: * Bible (Wycliffe) (1380s) * Bible (Tyndale) (1526) * Douay-Rheims Bible (1610) * King James translation, or “Authorized Version” (1611) * King James translation, Oxford Standard (1769) * American Standard translation (1901) * Bible (Jewish Publication Society 1917) * World English translation (in progress since 1997) * Wikisource translation (in progress since 2006)
Those are only the ones on English Wikisource.
Note that one of the benefits of using the proprietary portals, aside from heads-up comparison and better navigation, is that they are licensed to publish the newer proprietary versions. Cutting off the proprietary portals means cutting off the proprietary translations. The NIV for example is highly popular and referenced (among Protestants). Hence we have to of course include but not depend on the proprietary portals.
I'll happily concede the point about comparison and navigation. They may very well host the newer proprietary versions but they also engage in massive copyfraud about the many versions that are in the public domain. Is that the sort of site that a community dedicated to open access should be supporting?
The NIV may be the flavour of the day, and if one of our references makes a specific reference to that version, then and only then should we link to it. Failing that our links should be to PD versions. We are certainly not in a position to judge the accuracy of any translation of the Bible. Even the KJV has serious limitations; nevertheless, it is a known quantity. Links to it carry an implicit note of caution that is not so evident in a modern translation. In addition, its long history make it the version that would have influenced many English authors of the past. It would make no sense in those cases to reference a version that was only published after their death. There is much to be said for having the KJV as the default version.
I also question the value of having scripts and toolservers for this task when a simple wikilink would work perfectly well. The way this has developed is just another way of being too clever by half. It would be worth the effort to change most usages of this template to a simple link to Wikisource.
Ec
2009/7/6 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:
Hm. Of course, Tim is right - if its public/open domain then wikisource should host it and we will then link to it. The issue with the hebtools site/script is that most of its links go to BibleGateway. Obviously the current script's sources need to be changed to include both other gateways like bible.cc and of course wikisource. A choice of gateways would be preferable. The current hosted translations/versions on wikisource are: * Bible (Wycliffe) (1380s) * Bible (Tyndale) (1526) * Douay-Rheims Bible (1610) * King James translation, or “Authorized Version” (1611) * King James translation, Oxford Standard (1769) * American Standard translation (1901) * Bible (Jewish Publication Society 1917) * World English translation (in progress since 1997) * Wikisource translation (in progress since 2006)
Is there anything that will show the same verse in several translations at once? That would be ideal - highly educational. That would require something less like wiki pages and more like a database at the other end. Or someone laboriously compiling wiki pages of the form en.wiki---.org/wiki/John/3/16 .
- d.
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 1:08 AM, David Gerarddgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/6 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:
Is there anything that will show the same verse in several translations at once? That would be ideal - highly educational. That would require something less like wiki pages and more like a database at the other end. Or someone laboriously compiling wiki pages of the form en.wiki---.org/wiki/John/3/16 .
Try the online parallel Bible.
If you are talking about a new skin or a separate CSS mode, such that Wikisource could use it for concurrent comparative reading, I dunno. We still use the same monobook we've had for over five years.
-Steven
David Gerard wrote:
2009/7/6 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:
Hm. Of course, Tim is right - if its public/open domain then wikisource should host it and we will then link to it. The issue with the hebtools site/script is that most of its links go to BibleGateway. Obviously the current script's sources need to be changed to include both other gateways like bible.cc and of course wikisource. A choice of gateways would be preferable. The current hosted translations/versions on wikisource are:
- Bible (Wycliffe) (1380s)
- Bible (Tyndale) (1526)
- Douay-Rheims Bible (1610)
- King James translation, or “Authorized Version” (1611)
- King James translation, Oxford Standard (1769)
- American Standard translation (1901)
- Bible (Jewish Publication Society 1917)
- World English translation (in progress since 1997)
- Wikisource translation (in progress since 2006)
Is there anything that will show the same verse in several translations at once? That would be ideal - highly educational. That would require something less like wiki pages and more like a database at the other end. Or someone laboriously compiling wiki pages of the form en.wiki---.org/wiki/John/3/16 .
The use of transclusion by section on Wikisource would make it technically simple to bring the existing verses (or chapters) together on pages for parallel reading. Of course it would be a lot of work ... and I suppose it should be done chapter-wise. (Verses are at best a convenience - chapter divisions have I think a wider acceptance, and are at least historically older.)
Charles
2009/7/6 Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com:
Is there anything that will show the same verse in several translations at once? That would be ideal - highly educational. That would require something less like wiki pages and more like a database at the other end. Or someone laboriously compiling wiki pages of the form en.wiki---.org/wiki/John/3/16 .
The use of transclusion by section on Wikisource would make it technically simple to bring the existing verses (or chapters) together on pages for parallel reading. Of course it would be a lot of work ... and I suppose it should be done chapter-wise. (Verses are at best a convenience - chapter divisions have I think a wider acceptance, and are at least historically older.)
Indeed - and newer translations that use paragraphs, with the verse numbers as superscripts for historical reference.
Technically however we do this won't be hard. So it's a matter of what bible scholars on Wikipedia and Wikisource think would present it best.
- d.
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 3:10 AM, Charles Matthewscharles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
The use of transclusion by section on Wikisource would make it technically simple to bring the existing verses (or chapters) together on pages for parallel reading. Of course it would be a lot of work ... and I suppose it should be done chapter-wise. (Verses are at best a convenience - chapter divisions have I think a wider acceptance, and are at least historically older.)
Transwiki transclusion translation discrete-level differential interface? I think our techie lurkers just said kthxbye.
-Steven
Should be "discrete-section transwiki transclusion translation differential interface" actually.
-Stevertigo
stevertigo wrote:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 3:10 AM, Charles Matthewscharles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
The use of transclusion by section on Wikisource would make it technically simple to bring the existing verses (or chapters) together on pages for parallel reading. Of course it would be a lot of work ... and I suppose it should be done chapter-wise. (Verses are at best a convenience - chapter divisions have I think a wider acceptance, and are at least historically older.)
Transwiki transclusion translation discrete-level differential interface? I think our techie lurkers just said kthxbye.
It's as hard as pasting in markers like <section begin=Genesis 1/> on pages translating Genesis 1, and creating a master page to marshall the bits.
Charles
We were actually dealing a bit with the idea of a heads-up verse comparison/translation interface. Its not just about linking, its about compiling a page that displays the content of two separate articles (different selected versions) but the same verses in parallel.
The Navpop tool can show text from a particular section when mouseovering a section link, so I suppose a little of that would work. Then what would a parallel link look like? Something like [[source:Bible:Douay:Genesis|1|3|compare:Bible:KJV]] ? And a url scheme like http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible:Douay:Genesis%C2%A7ion=1&compare=Bib...
I guess templating could work too.
-Steve
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 3:47 AM, Charles Matthewscharles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
stevertigo wrote:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 3:10 AM, Charles Matthewscharles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
The use of transclusion by section on Wikisource would make it technically simple to bring the existing verses (or chapters) together on pages for parallel reading. Of course it would be a lot of work ... and I suppose it should be done chapter-wise. (Verses are at best a convenience - chapter divisions have I think a wider acceptance, and are at least historically older.)
Transwiki transclusion translation discrete-level differential interface? I think our techie lurkers just said kthxbye.
It's as hard as pasting in markers like <section begin=Genesis 1/> on pages translating Genesis 1, and creating a master page to marshall the bits.
Charles
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Charles Matthews wrote:
The use of transclusion by section on Wikisource would make it technically simple to bring the existing verses (or chapters) together on pages for parallel reading. Of course it would be a lot of work ... and I suppose it should be done chapter-wise. (Verses are at best a convenience - chapter divisions have I think a wider acceptance, and are at least historically older.)
The really glaring exception to the chapter divisions tradition being hard and fast fixed is Book of John. In that case there is a scholarly argument that not only are the chapters not unambiguously divided, but that there is plausible evidence that the order of textual passages has been re-arranged.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanencimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
Charles Matthews wrote:
The use of transclusion by section on Wikisource would make it technically simple to bring the existing verses (or chapters) together on pages for parallel reading. Of course it would be a lot of work ... and I suppose it should be done chapter-wise. (Verses are at best a convenience - chapter divisions have I think a wider acceptance, and are at least historically older.)
The really glaring exception to the chapter divisions tradition being hard and fast fixed is Book of John. In that case there is a scholarly argument that not only are the chapters not unambiguously divided, but that there is plausible evidence that the order of textual passages has been re-arranged.
No problem, Rome just has to look at the edit history, revert to the last sensible version, and start again...
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 6:08 PM, David Gerarddgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/6 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:
Hm. Of course, Tim is right - if its public/open domain then wikisource should host it and we will then link to it. The issue with the hebtools site/script is that most of its links go to BibleGateway. Obviously the current script's sources need to be changed to include both other gateways like bible.cc and of course wikisource. A choice of gateways would be preferable. The current hosted translations/versions on wikisource are: * Bible (Wycliffe) (1380s) * Bible (Tyndale) (1526) * Douay-Rheims Bible (1610) * King James translation, or “Authorized Version” (1611) * King James translation, Oxford Standard (1769) * American Standard translation (1901) * Bible (Jewish Publication Society 1917) * World English translation (in progress since 1997) * Wikisource translation (in progress since 2006)
Is there anything that will show the same verse in several translations at once? That would be ideal - highly educational. That would require something less like wiki pages and more like a database at the other end. Or someone laboriously compiling wiki pages of the form en.wiki---.org/wiki/John/3/16 .
Wikisource does this whenever someone can be bothered adding the necessary glue. e.g.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible/Jude/1/1
see here for more:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex/Bible/
-- John Vandenberg
Here is the current list: http://bibref.hebtools.com/biblesrcs.txt
Replacing BG links with wikisource links would be the first thing to do. Choosing other portals instead of BG would be the next - giving fair distribution, until the script can be modified to offer a selection.
And when all else is in order, this has to go in: http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Main_Page
-Steve
Tim Starling wrote:
A lot of bible references don't have a link at all. Maybe we could add a magic link feature, like we have for RFC and PMID. Then whenever someone types something that looks like a bible verse reference in plain text, MediaWiki would automatically convert it to a link. For cultural neutrality it would obviously have to be internationalised and support a number of other religious texts. Not impossible though.
The technical hurdles are undoubtedly less onerous than the socio-cultural ones. For the English Bible agreement on one version would be tough. There are other situations where the desired version may be very specific.
Wikisource also hosts the Qur'an.
Ec
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 1:16 AM, Ray Saintongesaintonge@telus.net wrote:
The technical hurdles are undoubtedly less onerous than the socio-cultural ones. For the English Bible agreement on one version would be tough. There are other situations where the desired version may be very specific.
Hm. Techies might disagree - the socio-cultural hurdles can be just sort of swept away while engineering stuff takes actual work. What do we sociologists have to figure out?
And technically speaking, Ray, neither the technical nor cultural aspects of the issue are actually "onerous."
-Steven