I could see this happening on Wikisource.
I mention it as another project because it would eventually involve importing and organizing freely available metadata on roughly ten million books, and defining a style guide for helping organizing citations and comments about each as a source -- very different from the current work going on at WS.
We need to publicly think about what each of the Projects will look like when they fully cover their scope... or at a few major milestones along the way. That view would also help define what long-term notability standards will look like for projects that currently reject free knowledge about certain topics.
John V writes:
99% percent of "every published work" are free/libre. Only the last 70 years worth of texts are restricted by copyright, so it doesnt make sense to build a different project for those works.
It's closer to only 10% that is free/libre -- the rate of publishing has been growing geometrically for a number of decades, and it's the last 85 years for some texts.
--SJ
On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 6:32 AM, John Vandenbergjayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Samuel Kleinmeta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Also... *A wiki for book metadata, with an entry for every published work, statistics about its use and siblings, and discussion about its usefulness as a citation (a collaboration with OpenLibrary, merging WikiCite ideas)
Why not just do this in the Wikisource project?
99% percent of "every published work" are free/libre. Only the last 70 years worth of texts are restricted by copyright, so it doesnt make sense to build a different project for those works.
i.e. Wikisource could still have a page about a source even if the text is not present.
But before that is feasible, we need a bigger Wikisource community, otherwise it will end up as a mess.
-- John Vandenberg
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l