Annotations are a brilliant idea. Would simple links
in a page break the concept of a document? Text in
view mode doesnt copy the links at all, so it should
But more basic than that, however would be that people
who are in the process of digitizing a useable book or
other document can do so in the rough, allowing some
minor and methodical prepwork to be done in the wiki
world. People with similar copies can collaborate,
like Bittorrent transfers. (not to make any
Heck -- it could replace the way Gutenberg does its
work (well... theyve got a 25 year head start, but...
) and replace Gutenberg altogether -- which would mean
that they would be free from the confines of their
current existence and take that cruise theyve been
--- Brion Vibber <brion(a)pobox.com> wrote:
Karl Eichwalder wrote:
under the Wikimedia trademark thats what.
I thought "wiki" is about dynamic texts, but
printed PD books are
(okay, you can tweak the layout ad infinitum, but
The thing that would make a Project Sourceberg
worthwhile is wiki-style
annotation of the texts.
Annotations could include cross-links to Wikipedia
and Wiktionary as
well as within the document, and we could have a
relatively sane system
for linking from Wikipedia and Wiktionary to
*particular spots* in the
texts, for instance to provide context for a quote.
Now, that would require some special coding if we
want to make it a
clean system (ie, one where visitors can edit
annotations but not
original text); or one could just dump Gutenberg's
ASCII texts straight
into giant wiki pages and do it all by hand.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software