Hello,
This is now off topic for foundation-l.
Better to continue this on wikisource-l.
Klaus Graf wrote:
Hello,
I agree with Ray here, and I think that Klaus' mail does not report
exactly the reality. The French Wikisource has the greatest numbers of
scanned texts so far,
Is there a proof for this claim?
http://wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:ProofreadPage_Statistics
lists 40,043 pages for fr.ws and 16,939 for de.ws.
http://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Livres_disponibles_en_mode_page
lists 62,326 scanned pages (not yet all ocred and proofread, and I am
not sure that this page is up to date).
but does not make mandatory to have them to
publish a text there. It is only a suggestion,
which many contributors
follow.
I think that the important point is not scanned texts, but notation on
whether and how the texts are proofread by editors, whatever means the
editors use to proofread the texts.
I am monitoring discussions on digitization projects as archival
professional since years. It's standard to give not only e-texts but
scans. Wikisource demands no scans when a permanent web adress (e.g.
library project) for the scans outside Commons is given.
I think the average quality of other Wikisource branches is very poor.
In most cases there is no source given: one cannot know which source
is used, and for scholarly purposes the e-text is worthless.
I think we already have had this discussion earlier, but the
misunderstanding continues.
There are two different issues here. It is important not to mix them:
1. Scans provided alongside texts.
2. Notation of quality.
Quality is not an absolute value. It is relative to the sources
available for a given text. Quality does not have the same meaning for a
text from 1920 and a text from the 15th century. So one should not talk
about quality, but about notation of quality.
I agree that giving the source is important and should be part of a
quality notation. The most important is to have a clear notation so that
readers know how and by whom the texts have been proofread. Scans alone
are not a proof of quality, but they help getting a better quality. They
are not the only way to get good quality texts. Some texts may be
proofread by several contributors, so of very good qualilty, but
Wikisource might not be able to have scanned images if a public domain
edition is not easily avalaible.
Klaus Graf
Regards,
Yann
--
http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
http://fr.wikisource.org/ | Bibliothèque libre
http://wikilivres.info | Documents libres