On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 16:31:54 -0400, Delirium
<delirium(a)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