Le 16/08/2012 14:51, Dovi Jacobs a écrit :

>Sound to me like a big mistake. Wikisource is a source, not an editor ;

>we have not to decide what is more valuable for the public. And soon or
>later there will be wars edit.

Why is it a "big mistake" to provide valuable, useful editions of classic works to

the public under a free license?

This is not the question ; as I said : who decide what is a good
critical edition ?

Almost all "sources" require good editing, and any good library requires quality

editions. If a good edition is not in the public domain, then just proofreading OCR

won't produce a quality edition for your "free library".

Again, you talked about critical editions ; who decide what is a good edition then ? The quality of Wikisource can not be based only on what contributors think to be good. This is a cercle, and that doesn't make Wikisource reliable.

Beyond that, there is no need to declare that Wikisource is THIS and not THAT.

A more generous view of things will better serve both the project and the public.

I still wonder who decide what is good for the public. Beside, there is some rules that define Wkisource, what it is, and what it is not.

And like I said, we've never had an edit war (in about 8 years). I tend to think that

is because the people who edit texts and the process of editing texts are both less

prone to edit wars than are Wikipedia articles. It is a different culture. Of course it

could still happen, but then maybe it would be better not to have Wikipedia either

since edit wars happen there?

If Wikisource publishes critical editions, there will be wars edit, because there is no critere to this kind of editions except what the contributors decide.