Le 16/08/2012 15:32, Dovi Jacobs a écrit :
I think we are forgetting that Wikisource is a WIKI!
This is not the question ; as I said : who decide
what is a good
critical edition ?
The community decides through collaboration and discussion.
We are a wiki.
I think you don't see the point, and it's perharps because I don't write
English very well. As a wiki, we decide what we can edit or not, but we
can not decide how a edition must be made without reference. If the
contributors decide what is a good critical edition, then Wikisource
will be unreliable.
"The quality of an encyclopedia cannot be based
only on what contributors
think to be good. This is a circle, and that doesn't make Wikipedia
reliable.
That is why Britannica is a much better idea."
The content of the articles
must not be the reflect of what contributors
think : contributors have to follow the neutrality. So there is no
cercle. Critical editions made by contributors don't follow neutrality.
We are a wiki. In any Wikimedia project, the community
needs to think
about and
decide how it can best serve the public. The rules that define
Wikisource are created
by the Wikisource community and such things are discussed (which is what
I hope we are doing here).
Again, the content is not what we decide.
So go argue with 8 years of experience instead of
trying to learn from
it... :-)
Have to go...
Well, I see what happen on Wikipedia when contributors claim to know
what is the good content of an article.