critical edition ?
The community decides through collaboration and discussion.
We are a wiki.
>Again, you talked about critical editions ; who decide what is a good
>edition then ? The quality of Wikisource can not be based only on what
>contributors think to be good. This is a cercle, and that doesn't make
>Wikisource reliable.
"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."
>I still wonder who decide what is good for the public. Beside, there is
>some rules that define Wkisource, what it is, and what it is not.
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).
>If Wikisource publishes critical editions, there will be wars edit,
>because there is no critere to this kind of editions except what the
>contributors decide.
So go argue with 8 years of experience instead of trying to learn from it... :-)
Have to go...