I just added something inherent the "metadata" problem:
due to the "trustworthiness" issue (which I completely support),
we should become more accurate and academic
in presenting our books with good metadata and bibliographic records.
We could develop an Extension that could use metadata standard as DublinCore (or others).

If you speak 5 minutes with a librarian,
we will ask you about you records, classification/catalog system and similia.
We are not librarians, (maybe I'll be some day ;-))
but we can't avoid this fundamental issue.

Aubrey

2009/9/3 Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki@gmail.com>
ThomasV, 03/09/2009 11:48:
> Federico Leva (Nemo) a écrit :
>> The strategic planning seems to have only few proposals for Wikisource:
>> http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Proposals_for_Wikisource . I
>> think that Wikisource deserves more, so give a look aat the exissting
>> proposals, comment them, fix them, add more!
>>
>>
> I have read your "make wikisource scalable" proposal.
> There is one point that is commonly missed about the
> function of Extension:Proofreadpage.
>
> People often think about it as a tool for transcribing
> text, similar to the tool they use at Gutenberg. Well,
> that is how it looks like, and that's technically true.
>
> However that is just just one side of the story.

[...]

I'm not a Wikisourceror, but I did actually know this. :-)
I hope there are no major errors, however I encourage you to modify,
expand or whatever my proposal, e.g. to make clear what's the purpose of
the extension (which I didn't want to misrepresent; perhaps somebody who
doesn't know what it is may be confused, you're right) and to clarify
the technical differences from Distributed Proofreadeaders tools.
Thank you,

Nemo

_______________________________________________
Wikisource-l mailing list
Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l