Yann Forget wrote:
Beside the articles count, the issue here is how do we
evaluate the
"quality" of a work? Texts proofread from a scan can be considered as
good quality, but what about imported texts from other reliable sources?
Is our process equivalent to these sources? Seeing that other projects
like Gutenberg and Distributed Proofreaders have a long history of
quality evaluation and proofreading, it is seems presomptuous to me to
consider that the texts proofread within WS are of better quality than
texts proofread there.
I agree: if a text has been seriously proofread at Project Gutenberg
and then imported on Wikisource without a reference scan, there is
no reason to believe that is will remain of good quality on Wikisource,
because further edits done on WS will probably be done without looking
at the original scan.
Therefore when we copy PGDP texts without scans, it is presomptuous
to assert that our copies are always as good as the texts found on PG.
If we edit without scan, then the original on PGDP should be considered
of better quality, because the PGDP editors use scans.
Thomas