I think we should avoid storing *any* texts like these, including the "Origin of Species" book which is still online at the pedia (and I say so even though I am a biologist! ;)

Instead, there should be a link to another web page that has the original text (like Project Gutenberg), and that is to be expected to be around for a while.

Magnus

I understand the "citability" concern, and also the concern that source texts being editable can be a problem. I also think it's fine to not include a text and merely reference it. But I also think we should give authors the power to use their own judgment here.

Why would we be doing this project at all if we didn't think that Wikipedia will be around longer than other sites, and that we will be able to present texts in a superior way? Project Gutenberg, for example, suffers from the problem that its texts are ancient ASCII. We can already do a bit better, because we can include images from the original, original italics, etc. Ours are also searchable, and we can include links to commentary.

I do, however, strongly feel that we shouldn't include texts unless they are in fact annotated. So I think the right thing to do in this case is for "Yes, Virginia,..." to be an article about the essay, at the end of which is a large subhead "Full Text" or something, then an introductory paragraph (offset somehow--perhaps intented and italic) that explains that the original text appears below, possibly with links or notes added.

I'd really love to see, for example, "Origin of Species" with links to notes about modern research confirming or rejecting specific passages, or providing background for readers. 0