Lars Aronsson wrote: Could you please stay focused on Wikisource.
I stay focused on Wikisource and on the very first fact that Wikisource is part of the Wikimedia project, and not an independent private wiki.
It may be interesting to think and work together with the sister-projects rather than trying not to look like Wikipedia, not to link Wikipedia, not to speak about Wikipedia...
What exactly is intended to be "created" in Wikisource?
I totally agree with Birgitte about the fact that we are creating firstly a new kind of library: "adding value to text by wikilinks", even when there are people who are against visible interwiki links between Wikisource and Wikipedia or Wiktionary.
Regarding the translations, I don't really know where they should be: "a free library of educational textbooks" doesn't seem the best place for a French translation of "Free as in Freedom", but we can try to redefine Wikibooks (even if we are not staying focused on Wikisource). John has pointed out some interesting ideas in his last mail.
The whole purpose of Wikisource is to present source texts, as they
were written.
The whole purpose of Google Books, of Internet Archive, of Gallica,... is to present source texts as they were written... more precisely, as they were published.
For a while, some of us have copied many texts from other web sites (as they were published? who knows...), some others have typewritten the texts (no new edition? who knows...), and now we have the ultimate tool: we pick up the source texts from digital libraries and dream about having an exact copy of the text in html/wiki format.
It's not really up to us to modify that content, is it?
It cannot be denied that, every time, we will modify that content: * we will try to copy the errata from old paper editions while adding new errata... or is the dummy typewriter a machine?... perhaps it should be... * we will try to copy all the characters as they are and, eventually, we will discover that many old characters don't exist in Unicode... modern transcription?... in any case, time to make decisions. * images at the end of books, images in separate plates... more decisions.
It doesn't matter if we add changes unwittingly or intentionally, we are doing new editions, if you wish: "creating the text" or "modifying the content", but I think these are not the appropriate terms, because these imply some negative connotations that are totally fictitious. Anyway, in my opinion it is better to face the facts than dreaming about the perfect text.
How many "useful bits around the texts" make the text become a new edition? only wikilinks? plus web typography and colours? plus the navigation headers? plus the layout? plus some decisions about the text? about images?
In the publishing world there are only two kind of works based on old works: facsimiles and new editions, and we have not done any facsimile.
LaosLos