Sj wrote:
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 16:31:54 -0400, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Well, if the goal is to preserve ancient texts in the language, I could see wikisource as being a better location. To have a viable Wikipedia, there needs to be an interest in using it as a living language, one in
I'm not sure we currently have a better way than a "Wikipedia" instance for people to build a new corpus in a language they are trying to preserve. Wikisource is for existing source documents...
I think there is a general consensus on Wikisource that is similar to the one in Wikipedia. It's not the place for the first publication of original research. Perhaps the only exception to that has been in the Source code section, and I admit that I often wonder whether it would be better placed in Wikibooks. Perhaps the problem here is that tech people tend to use the word "source" in a different way from the rest of us. It would be interesting to haver comments from Wikibooks people on how they consider the treatment of source code.
Annotations and translations of texts are certainly welcome on Wikisource, but I don't think that that particular feature can really take off in the absence of synchronized side-by-side edit boxes.
Ec