Please keep up this good discussion :-)

We have the Wikisource contest on it.source right now,
so this mail is not going to be as long and detailed as I hoped.

I agree with Vigneron that the Survey report is a good start:

having written it myself, I'm well aware that it's not perfect, and that questions were not bulletproof, as well the methodology.

Nonetheless, we tried hard to make it and many results are as good and trustworthy.

I personally agree that a VE integration with the Proofread extension would be much needed:

if you think about it, Wikisource is the right place for the VE.

We could simplify enormously the life of new proofreaders, and formatting on Wikisource is ten times more difficult than in Wikipedia.

I'm sure it's one of the best thing to do right now.

At the same time, I agree with Lars (who always has great insights)

that we still need to do the big leap in digital libraries.

For me, one of the thing Wikisource offers that nobody does is *hypertextuality*,

and connections and integration with other projects as Wikidata (hopefully) and Wikipedia.

I agree with him that algorithmic learning of Wikisource is an amazing idea: just think about having a Tesseract instance for every Wikisource, and the tesseract learns from every page the community proofreads... In few years, we could even think about tell our Tesseract to distinguish between XII century Italian vs XIX century... We could have amazing open source OCRs to give to the world.

Another greataccomplishment could be *giving back proofread OCR* to GLAMs: think about libraries (or Internet Archive!) give us ancient texts, and us giving them back a perfect djvu or PDF with mapped text inside... 

I'm sure we could have many GLAMs coming to us then :-)
We cannot give them back almost anything, right now, a part from our HTML pages.

Aubrey