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.