As we are short on medical topics, I went to [[Requested articles]] and created a stub on [[Ethmoid bone]]. Then I realized that there's [[Gray's Anatomy]] from 1908, in the public domain, according to the article.
So I copied the text and the images from www.bartleby.com, who claim to have the original thing. I didn't copy HTML but only the text, so no bartleby markup here.
Questions: * Can we use these? AFAIK, scanning&OCR is not a copyrightable thing. * Should we use these? Wikified, of course, as I did. They'd cover plenty of topics in the medical area, but may be a little old and heavy. OTOH, this is wikipedia; if you don't like the style, edit!
Magnus
Magnus Manske wrote:
As we are short on medical topics, I went to [[Requested articles]] and created a stub on [[Ethmoid bone]]. Then I realized that there's [[Gray's Anatomy]] from 1908, in the public domain, according to the article.
So I copied the text and the images from www.bartleby.com, who claim to have the original thing. I didn't copy HTML but only the text, so no bartleby markup here.
Questions:
- Can we use these? AFAIK, scanning&OCR is not a copyrightable thing.
- Should we use these? Wikified, of course, as I did. They'd cover
plenty of topics in the medical area, but may be a little old and heavy. OTOH, this is wikipedia; if you don't like the style, edit!
I have no problem with your doing this. Unlike most of science, the basics of human anatomy have not significantly changed since Gray's book was produced. The illustration style is somewhat dated in the way that it uses shading, but I guess that will do until someone with the appropriate skills can improve them.
As a whole Gray's Anatomy could be a useful candidate for inclusion on Wikisource. It is an objective topic where NPOV issues are not going to be as big a factor as they might be elsewhere. As an English original, it does not lead to immediate translation problems, though if others want to translate it they should feel free to do so. It certainly provides a lot of work to do for those who want to wikify the text. It is a text which could easily fit potential annotation models and how they might be developed; that is to say it contains many individual sub-headings where people could find something to say or improve or compare or ...whatever? As a whole a good candidate for the experimental development of the relationship of wikisource with other members of the Wikimedia Kingdom.
Ec
Magnus Manske wrote:
As we are short on medical topics, I went to [[Requested articles]] and created a stub on [[Ethmoid bone]]. Then I realized that there's [[Gray's Anatomy]] from 1908, in the public domain, according to the article.
No different from a 1911EB lift I would say. The "eternal verities" are still good, such as the shape of a bone, but beware of conclusions about structures' purposes and functioning, often new research data about those.
Stan
Stan Shebs wrote:
No different from a 1911EB lift I would say. The "eternal verities" are still good, such as the shape of a bone, but beware of conclusions about structures' purposes and functioning, often new research data about those.
As this is not my field of expertise, maybe a disclaimer at the top should help, like
''This article is based on [[Gray's Anatomy]]. Some information might be outdated.''
That would also help to locate all these articles, by choosing "What links here" on [[Gray's Anatomy]].
I'll add some more during the next few days. Help is always appreciated :-)
Magnus
Regarding the 1908 Gray's anatomy, Magnus wrote:
Questions:
- Can we use these? AFAIK, scanning&OCR is not a copyrightable thing.
Yes, we should be fine with that.
- Should we use these? Wikified, of course, as I did. They'd cover
plenty of topics in the medical area, but may be a little old and heavy. OTOH, this is wikipedia; if you don't like the style, edit!
It's sort of a mixed blessing like the 1911 Britannica stuff, isn't it?
Perhaps it would be best to add them slowly, perhaps in an automated fashion, but maybe a few per day, so that we have time to absorb them. It should be pretty easy for people to go through and update them to a certain extent. And some of that information, perhaps the bulk of it, is going to be pretty valid even today.
--Jimbo
Jimmy-
Perhaps it would be best to add them slowly, perhaps in an automated fashion,
Tricky, as we already have articles on most subjects. In these cases, there should always be an individual decision by a human on whether
- the existing text should be kept and no further action should be taken - the public domain text should be put somewhere (preferably on the talk page) - the stub should be replaced with the public domain text - the public domain text should be integrated into the existing article.
Regards, Erik
Magnus Manske said:
- Can we use these? AFAIK, scanning&OCR is not a copyrightable thing.
The content of the book isn't, which typically means text is free game... but actual scanned images can be copyrighted. (or so I recall the gist of it from Project Gutenberg and Distributed Proofreaders discussion- IANAL)
- Should we use these? Wikified, of course, as I did. They'd cover
plenty of topics in the medical area, but may be a little old and heavy. OTOH, this is wikipedia; if you don't like the style, edit!
The medical topics in Wikipedia are woefully under-filled (probably because people are wary about that whole thing of being considered a source of medical advice, and it's very heavy stuff)... I think this would be a tremendous boost. And yes, we can always clean it up as we go. It's easier to restyle and reformat something than to supply it in the first place.
So I'd suggest putting in as much text as possible, but I'm unsure about images from there. Alternatively, there might be a PD scan out there somewhere... and if not, it might be something relatively easy to find. I've got some used book contacts, I can look around and see if I can snag a copy cheap. If so, I can scan in any images needed.
-- Jake
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org