On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, lcrocker@nupedia.com XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX wrote: [snip]
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.
While I agree that Gutenberg could use some updating, I disagree on Wikipedia involvment. This is really for another project, and one that probably doesn't use wiki but some other system such as Zend which is more easily regulated.
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 do agree with all this. For instance, having the United States Constitution is very apporiate because we can annote various articles and amendments, and other articles can easily refer to them.
But I think we should remember that Wikipedia is being constantly edited, so I don't think we should worry too much about just linking to various documents, since dead links can be easily fixed. There should be some reason to actually bring the text in - such as already existing commentary with large quotes.
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
The fact this really hasn't happened make me dubious of the ability of this idea to work, at least with entire books.
Ian Monroe http://ian.webhop.org
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.
While I agree that Gutenberg could use some updating, I disagree on Wikipedia involvment. This is really for another project, and one that probably doesn't use wiki but some other system such as Zend which is more easily regulated.
IMHO such a project *could* work with the wiki system, especially for OCRed pages that need manual work. This could be done by a community rather than by a single person, especially if, e.g., a book is broken into chapters taht can be edited seperately. There would have to be some special features, though, like subpages for the chapters (back to square one;) , a better diff system maybe, and access for logged-in users only to cut down troll activity. Another advantage would be that it could be easily interlinked with wikipedia ([[source:The Origin of Species]]...)
Magnus
________________________________________ Zeitschriftenabos online bestellen - jetzt neu im Infoboten! http://www.epost.de
On 18 Apr 2002, at 9:07, magnus.manske@epost.de wrote:
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.
While I agree that Gutenberg could use some updating, I disagree on Wikipedia involvment. This is really for another project, and one that probably doesn't use wiki but some other system such as Zend which is more easily regulated.
IMHO such a project *could* work with the wiki system, especially for OCRed pages that need manual work. This could be done by a community rather than by a single person, especially if, e.g., a book is broken into chapters taht can be edited seperately.
It's already been done without a wiki see,
http://charlz.dns2go.com/gutenberg/
Imran
IMHO such a project *could* work with the wiki system, especially for OCRed pages that need manual work. This could be done by a community rather than by a single person, especially if, e.g., a book is broken into chapters taht can be edited seperately.
It's already been done without a wiki see,
Cool! Seems all they need is a better interface to present their proofread books;)
To Jimbo: How about setting up a [[wikipedia:Support wikipedia]] page, with a PayPal link like the above site has? That's no advertisement, and the money (if any;) could go to a special account for the Nupedia foundation (coming up, right?).
To Jimbo: How about setting up a [[wikipedia:Support wikipedia]] page, with a PayPal link like the above site has? That's no advertisement, and the money (if any;) could go to a special account for the Nupedia foundation (coming up, right?).
Right. But, there's no pressing need for money at the present time, I think. But I think we will be set up soon so that people can donate to the nonprofit.
My thinking on this is that we can come up with several different proposals, and let people earmark the funds for whatever they most want to support. New hardware, advertising in academic-oriented publications, editor salaries, investment in the production of a paper version, whatever people find worthwhile.
Imran Ghory wrote:
IMHO such a project *could* work with the wiki system, especially for OCRed pages that need manual work. This could be done by a community
It's already been done without a wiki see, http://charlz.dns2go.com/gutenberg/
Actually, I have done this _with_ the wiki-like component, for the Scandinavian e-text project that I run, "Project Runeberg". If you want to help me proofread the Swedish translation of Poe's "The Raven", you don't need to know Swedish, you only have to visit http://www.lysator.liu.se/runeberg/rydbdikt/0060.html and scroll down til you see the OCR text below the facsimile image.
I'm afraid you'll get an error when you try to "save" (I should fix this bug soon), but you should get the idea. There's so much that can be done by borrowing ideas from wiki into other projects. Note that this implementation is still a prototype, and should be developed further and bugfixed before it is launched publicly.
There's even a "recent changes" with diffs and all on http://www.lysator.liu.se/runeberg/rc.pike
Hi
I was just looking at the page http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Public+Domain+Resources
I did not find references to public domain French-English / English French dictionaires.
Does anybody know if such a thing exists? Even a short dictionary with 3000 .. 8000 well chosen entries would already be helpful.
Regards
Hannes Hirzel
Hannes Hirzel wrote:
Hi
I was just looking at the page http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Public+Domain+Resources
I did not find references to public domain French-English / English French dictionaires.
Does anybody know if such a thing exists? Even a short dictionary with 3000 .. 8000 well chosen entries would already be helpful.
Try:
http://octopus.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/magic-dic/
http://www.travlang.com/Ergane/erganeen.htm
Joao http://www.nonio.com
Hannes Hirzel wrote:
Hi
I was just looking at the page http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Public+Domain+Resources
I did not find references to public domain French-English / English French dictionaires.
Does anybody know if such a thing exists? Even a short dictionary with 3000 .. 8000 well chosen entries would already be helpful.
See also the Wikipedia Machine Translation Project:
http://meta.wikipedia.com/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia+Machine+Translation+Pro...
Joao http://www.nonio.com
How about a special:RecentPageViews which displays the top 50 (or 100, or 200 etc.) recently _read_ pages -- like a sort of mini Google Zeitgeist for Wikipedia.
Unlike special:PopularPages it would be the equivalent of a very-short-term memory.
Perhaps a good name would be "Recent picks"?
-- Neil Harris
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org