Someone published the 1911 britannica online:
Someone published the 1911 britannica online:
All right, now we're talking!
Conversion scripts to the ready....
On Thu, 14 Mar 2002 16:20:41 kband@www.llamacom.com wrote:
Someone published the 1911 britannica online:
All right, now we're talking!
Whilst this is very good news, on my limited sampling it's not something I'd be sucking into the Wikipedia using a conversion script.
The first article I examined was one about W.G. Grace (19th century English cricketer who revolutionised the game). Only the first paragraph of what appears to be a much longer article is there, and it is laden with typos - some probably from the scanning process, others from the original.
Still, it's an outstanding resource and I look forward to incorporating a lot of material from it.
On Thu, 14 Mar 2002 16:20:41 kband@www.llamacom.com wrote:
Someone published the 1911 britannica online:
All right, now we're talking!
Whilst this is very good news, on my limited sampling it's not something I'd be sucking into the Wikipedia using a conversion script.
The first article I examined was one about W.G. Grace (19th century English cricketer who revolutionised the game). Only the first paragraph of what appears to be a much longer article is there, and it is laden with typos - some probably from the scanning process, others from the original.
What was the process for adding the A's? Were the A's all complete, without typos?
--tc
On Thu, 14 Mar 2002 kband@www.llamacom.com wrote:
On Thu, 14 Mar 2002 16:20:41 kband@www.llamacom.com wrote:
Someone published the 1911 britannica online:
All right, now we're talking!
Whilst this is very good news, on my limited sampling it's not something I'd be sucking into the Wikipedia using a conversion script.
The first article I examined was one about W.G. Grace (19th century English cricketer who revolutionised the game). Only the first paragraph of what appears to be a much longer article is there, and it is laden with typos - some probably from the scanning process, others from the original.
It seems that the scanning was just done column-wise and that there were not enough efforts to separate the entries. But it may be useful as a source anyway.
HJH
At 04:40 PM 3/14/02 +1100, Robert Graham Merkel wrote:
Whilst this is very good news, on my limited sampling it's not something I'd be sucking into the Wikipedia using a conversion script.
The first article I examined was one about W.G. Grace (19th century English cricketer who revolutionised the game). Only the first paragraph of what appears to be a much longer article is there, and it is laden with typos - some probably from the scanning process, others from the original.
It looks like the rest of the article on W.G. Grace is at the beginning of the next page; http://97.1911encyclopedia.org/G/GR/GRACES_THE.htm
I noticed something similar with the mount circeo article which I pasted across, too; they did a very poor job of chopping the source text up, but I think it's all here.
Still, it's an outstanding resource and I look forward to incorporating a lot of material from it.
Me too. It's just a little more labor-intensive than simple copy-paste or scripting can manage. :)
-- "Let there be light." - Last words of Bomb #20, "Dark Star"
I'm even more encouraged than ever that the 'pedia can earn a reputation as an authoratative source after having skimmed through http://1911encyclopedia.org/. Not only is this particular Web site's content a junk pile (scanning errors and sloppy cataloging), but it reminded me that some of the 1911's entries are surprisingly thin. Surely we can do better! (I think we already have -- http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Brilliant_prose.)
<>< Tim
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - live college hoops coverage http://sports.yahoo.com/
On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Tim Chambers wrote:
I'm even more encouraged than ever that the 'pedia can earn a reputation as an authoratative source after having skimmed through http://1911encyclopedia.org/. Not only is this particular Web site's content a junk pile (scanning errors and sloppy cataloging), but it reminded me that some of the 1911's entries are surprisingly thin.
Well these are a bit harsh words. At least it is a valuable source of open content we can use. And to use it means to integrate edit them and integrate the content which is still valuable. For various issues the 1911 edition is valuable. It will help to come up with let's say 10'000 additional entries more easily.
Surely we can do better! (I think we already have -- http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Brilliant_prose.)
_yes_
HJH
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org