John Vandenberg wrote:
To be honest, this blogger is spot on. Our editions
for these
stories are terrible, usually being uploaded by one person from
a crappy online edition, altered to partial conform to another
crappy online edition of unknown provenance :- rinse and repeat,
until we have a very crappy edition indeed.
That kind of criticism has also been voice against Google Book
Search. But libraries still refuse to burn these inferior books.
They're kept on shelves, side by side with good ones. Library
catalogs seldom indicate the difference.
So, should Wikisource behave like a library or like a publisher
that prints a new edition (with up-to-date foreword) of the book?
My opinion is that digitization projects should be digital
libraries. But many readers seem to assume that digitization
projects are publishers that try to "promote" every book they
digitize.
--
Lars Aronsson (lars(a)aronsson.se)
Aronsson Datateknik -
http://aronsson.se