My 2 cents.
I think that Wikisource communities could decide to *try* implementing
"critical editions" of texts.
I would think it is better to have a proper namespace for that, or at least
a clear template which warns users about the collaborative nature of the
I would also think that these critical editions would be for just few
texts, compared to the thousand of printed texts Wikisource
provides. And, of you think about, "neutrality" does not exists neither in
our proofreading work, there is always interpretatation (of course, there
are shades and proofreading an ancient manuscript is different to
proofreading a XX centurt printed document).
I'm interested in Wikisource critical editions (as I am in annotation and
and as I explained before I think a layer system should be better, but we
are technologically far from that.
2012/8/17 Marc Galli <marc.galli35(a)orange.fr>
Le 17/08/2012 07:54, Dovi Jacobs a écrit :
Ah, now I understand what you meant! But why do you think the editing
guidelines will be "without reference"? Just like a Wikipedia article can
and should be based on sources, the Wikisource guidelines for editing a
text should be written by people familiar with the scholarship on that
text, while referencing both that scholarship and the relevant editions and
manuscripts. Which is exactly what we try to do. And it works quite well.
I understand that in fact you do not strictly critical editions (I have
try to see what you do on he:, but I am absolutely not familiar with this
langage), but compilations of sources, which is quite different. In that
sense, I have nothing to say.
Wikisource-l mailing list