Dear all, as you probably have heard, a process for writing the strategy of Wikimedia has started in these days. It's a complex and collective process, and if you are confused, don't be: everyone is ;-)
Conversations are starting to pop everywhere on Meta, on Wikipedias, on Wikisources, probably even on Facebook.
Here you can find a briefing, an initial overview of potential topics that may come up across various strategy conversations. I suggest you give it a look to understand the scope of this whole plan: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Process/Bri...
The question we are asked to answer is this: ***What do we want to build or achieve together over the next 15 years?***
I'd like you to go back in your community and join (or start) this conversation, but also share *here* some of your insights and opinions. We'll polish these thoughts afterwards: this is the time of speaking your mind and dream big.
Aubrey
To my mind, the ~15-year focus invites us to think big (i.e. not a feature here or there, but to imagine Wikimedia's role in the world in 2030, and in our context here, what Wikisource might be within that role).
This, in turn, brings me back to a point I brought up in Vienna in 2015: Wikisource's identity question, vis-a-vis other digital libraries. In particular, assuming not just business-as-usual in coming years (i.e. Project Gutenberg adding more books), but also obvious and long-awaited developments like national libraries becoming more serious and more effective in digitizing *and making accessible* their out-of-copyright collections. In such a world, what might Wikisource's unique value be?
My own answer, in line with our Vienna answer to the identity question, is that it is our human curation and meticulous attention to detail that sets our project apart from other (better funded and larger-scale) digitization efforts. We are able to create high quality, hyperlinked (and semantically-linked, i.e. Wikidata) metadata to describe the texts we produce.
If we accept this line of reasoning, what might be the significant role our unique advantage might play in 15 years? What might we work towards to get there? I don't have a clear vision, myself, but I have a strong intuition/belief that it is to do with our curation and metadata production, more than with our raw transcription production. This would imply a fairly radical shift, in both labor and technological attention, and I am not at all sure the Wikisource communities are interested or ready to make such a change. I have sketched one example of the immense value our volunteer communities might produce with our parallel and multilingual volunteer labor in The Aboutness Project and the Table of Contents of Everything project, documented here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Massively-Multiplayer_Online_Bibliography (which I have alas not made progress on in the last year.)
I'd be very interested to hear other opinions about the future I painted above, or other futures you see vis-a-vis Wikisource with a ~15-year perspective.
Cheers,
A. (volunteer hat)
On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 10:11 AM Andrea Zanni zanni.andrea84@gmail.com wrote:
Dear all, as you probably have heard, a process for writing the strategy of Wikimedia has started in these days. It's a complex and collective process, and if you are confused, don't be: everyone is ;-)
Conversations are starting to pop everywhere on Meta, on Wikipedias, on Wikisources, probably even on Facebook.
Here you can find a briefing, an initial overview of potential topics that may come up across various strategy conversations. I suggest you give it a look to understand the scope of this whole plan:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Process/Bri...
The question we are asked to answer is this: ***What do we want to build or achieve together over the next 15 years?***
I'd like you to go back in your community and join (or start) this conversation, but also share *here* some of your insights and opinions. We'll polish these thoughts afterwards: this is the time of speaking your mind and dream big.
Aubrey
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
I do happen to agree a lot with you, Asaf.
I do think wikisource mainly as a library, and then a place where we transcribe books. It happens that books are paper-based, and that we want the text to be available, searchable and readable. We want to create books and texts for people to read and use.
"Books are for use" is the first law of Library Science, developed by Ranaganathan. [1]
What Wikisource do and can do is to make texts more accessible, linking them with authors, other texts, maybe in the future even other Wikipedia articles, or places on OpenStreetMap. We can make the entire literature a place like Wikipedia: an interwoven, intertwingled structure of texts and data and links.
It really strucks me that, historically, we have mainly two metaphors for "the sum of human knowledge": the encylopedia, and the library.
The encyclopedia is a single work, with a neutral point of view on "facts", and we are trying to achieve that with Wikipedia.
The library is a much more complex "object", full of contradictory books and views and interpretations. What I'd love to do is a Wikimedia "universe" that goes beyond the encyclopedic metaphor, and embrace the idea of a more rich galaxy of connected projects, which provide everything: NPOV articles, free books, OERs, media, data, and maybe, in the future, other ways of representing knowledge and comments and opinions of knowledge.
We have yet to tap the idea of letting people comment, customize and personalize our content for studying and learning, annotating, sharing and creating educational material directly on our websites. There will be probably time, but we must recognize we are just at the beginning.
Aubrey
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_laws_of_library_science
On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 9:44 PM, Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org wrote:
To my mind, the ~15-year focus invites us to think big (i.e. not a feature here or there, but to imagine Wikimedia's role in the world in 2030, and in our context here, what Wikisource might be within that role).
This, in turn, brings me back to a point I brought up in Vienna in 2015: Wikisource's identity question, vis-a-vis other digital libraries. In particular, assuming not just business-as-usual in coming years (i.e. Project Gutenberg adding more books), but also obvious and long-awaited developments like national libraries becoming more serious and more effective in digitizing *and making accessible* their out-of-copyright collections. In such a world, what might Wikisource's unique value be?
My own answer, in line with our Vienna answer to the identity question, is that it is our human curation and meticulous attention to detail that sets our project apart from other (better funded and larger-scale) digitization efforts. We are able to create high quality, hyperlinked (and semantically-linked, i.e. Wikidata) metadata to describe the texts we produce.
If we accept this line of reasoning, what might be the significant role our unique advantage might play in 15 years? What might we work towards to get there? I don't have a clear vision, myself, but I have a strong intuition/belief that it is to do with our curation and metadata production, more than with our raw transcription production. This would imply a fairly radical shift, in both labor and technological attention, and I am not at all sure the Wikisource communities are interested or ready to make such a change. I have sketched one example of the immense value our volunteer communities might produce with our parallel and multilingual volunteer labor in The Aboutness Project and the Table of Contents of Everything project, documented here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Massively-Multiplayer_Online_Bibliography (which I have alas not made progress on in the last year.)
I'd be very interested to hear other opinions about the future I painted above, or other futures you see vis-a-vis Wikisource with a ~15-year perspective.
Cheers,
A.(volunteer hat)
On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 10:11 AM Andrea Zanni zanni.andrea84@gmail.com wrote:
Dear all, as you probably have heard, a process for writing the strategy of Wikimedia has started in these days. It's a complex and collective process, and if you are confused, don't be: everyone is ;-)
Conversations are starting to pop everywhere on Meta, on Wikipedias, on Wikisources, probably even on Facebook.
Here you can find a briefing, an initial overview of potential topics that may come up across various strategy conversations. I suggest you give it a look to understand the scope of this whole plan: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_ movement/2017/Process/Briefing
The question we are asked to answer is this: ***What do we want to build or achieve together over the next 15 years?***
I'd like you to go back in your community and join (or start) this conversation, but also share *here* some of your insights and opinions. We'll polish these thoughts afterwards: this is the time of speaking your mind and dream big.
Aubrey
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Asaf Bartov, 19/03/2017 21:44:
In such a world, what might Wikisource's unique value be?
https://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Make_Wikisource_scale
Nemo
On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 9:44 PM, Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org wrote:
what might be the significant role our unique advantage might play in 15 years?
There are some circumstantial aspects that might be relevant for Wikisource: - With the emergence of machine learning, do volunteers really need to spend so much time formatting? Or will we able to use our data to train a system to do some pre-formatting for us? - With the existing flood of data, can we consider ws as a relevancy setter? If a document has been transcribed/imported into wikisource, is that enough to make the document relevant? - Considering that not all libraries might have the resources to develop their own platform, can Wikisource be used as a neutral platform by external agents as a complement to their own infrastructure?
Regarding the 15 years time frame, it might be a good exercise to examine different scenarios. Yes, one could be to think big, to expect growth and a favorable environment. But what about the opposite? What if there are *less* people able to contribute?
Cheers, Micru
Glad to see this discussion. Pinging Alex Stinson for this discussion in case he has any insights to add from a GLAM perspective.
Pine
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 7:48 AM, David Cuenca Tudela dacuetu@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 9:44 PM, Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org wrote:
what might be the significant role our unique advantage might play in 15 years?
There are some circumstantial aspects that might be relevant for Wikisource:
- With the emergence of machine learning, do volunteers really need to
spend so much time formatting? Or will we able to use our data to train a system to do some pre-formatting for us?
- With the existing flood of data, can we consider ws as a relevancy
setter? If a document has been transcribed/imported into wikisource, is that enough to make the document relevant?
- Considering that not all libraries might have the resources to develop
their own platform, can Wikisource be used as a neutral platform by external agents as a complement to their own infrastructure?
Regarding the 15 years time frame, it might be a good exercise to examine different scenarios. Yes, one could be to think big, to expect growth and a favorable environment. But what about the opposite? What if there are *less* people able to contribute?
Cheers, Micru
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
@Micru: of course, as you say, machine learning is the elephant in the room. I dream of something we could call "Wikisource as a platform": meaning an environment with structured data and workflows where you can have APIs and tools for interact with humans and machines, both for input and for output. We could have OCR software that learn from our human proofreaders, and ideally we could even have OCRs tailored for determined centuries or types of books. We could ue machine learning to look for citations within books (for example other cited books or authors).¹ This could improve heavily our library: on Internet Archive or Google Books we have millions of books that just wait for us to make them readable and accessible, and, of course, connect them to Wikipedia, to Wikidata, to other Wikisource books.
IMHO, this is obviously important for GLAMs: we could be much more usable and easy for libraries, archives and museums that want to upload into Wikisource their texts and books, and make them part of our hyperlinked library. They could import easily on Wikisource, and could export as well. Now, this is impossible or at least very very difficult.²
I'm not sure that all these features could go in just one project, but it's probably worth trying.
Aubrey
[1] I remember I explored the idea with Amir, but I couldn't follow up. [2] To get all the data I needed from Wikisource books, I had to basically scrape the website.
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 8:14 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Glad to see this discussion. Pinging Alex Stinson for this discussion in case he has any insights to add from a GLAM perspective.
Pine
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 7:48 AM, David Cuenca Tudela dacuetu@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 9:44 PM, Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org wrote:
what might be the significant role our unique advantage might play in 15 years?
There are some circumstantial aspects that might be relevant for Wikisource:
- With the emergence of machine learning, do volunteers really need to
spend so much time formatting? Or will we able to use our data to train a system to do some pre-formatting for us?
- With the existing flood of data, can we consider ws as a relevancy
setter? If a document has been transcribed/imported into wikisource, is that enough to make the document relevant?
- Considering that not all libraries might have the resources to develop
their own platform, can Wikisource be used as a neutral platform by external agents as a complement to their own infrastructure?
Regarding the 15 years time frame, it might be a good exercise to examine different scenarios. Yes, one could be to think big, to expect growth and a favorable environment. But what about the opposite? What if there are *less* people able to contribute?
Cheers, Micru
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Anyone else? It would be very good to know the gist of the discussions/opinions you are having in your local Wikisource.
The Italian Wikisource for example is summing this up here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Sources/Ita...
For us, there is a bit of a disagreement about the idea and goal of being a "library", and being a "typography": being a library is more focused on access, on services build upon texts (text analysis, text mining, searching, hyperlinking, annotation) and the transcribing/proofreading part, which needs a whole different level of tools and interface.
Maybe you are having a similar discussion? Do you possibly see a "fork", in the future, of Wikisource in 2 different projects, or at least 2 different interfaces?
Aubrey
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 10:54 PM, Andrea Zanni zanni.andrea84@gmail.com wrote:
@Micru: of course, as you say, machine learning is the elephant in the room. I dream of something we could call "Wikisource as a platform": meaning an environment with structured data and workflows where you can have APIs and tools for interact with humans and machines, both for input and for output. We could have OCR software that learn from our human proofreaders, and ideally we could even have OCRs tailored for determined centuries or types of books. We could ue machine learning to look for citations within books (for example other cited books or authors).¹ This could improve heavily our library: on Internet Archive or Google Books we have millions of books that just wait for us to make them readable and accessible, and, of course, connect them to Wikipedia, to Wikidata, to other Wikisource books.
IMHO, this is obviously important for GLAMs: we could be much more usable and easy for libraries, archives and museums that want to upload into Wikisource their texts and books, and make them part of our hyperlinked library. They could import easily on Wikisource, and could export as well. Now, this is impossible or at least very very difficult.²
I'm not sure that all these features could go in just one project, but it's probably worth trying.
Aubrey
[1] I remember I explored the idea with Amir, but I couldn't follow up. [2] To get all the data I needed from Wikisource books, I had to basically scrape the website.
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 8:14 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Glad to see this discussion. Pinging Alex Stinson for this discussion in case he has any insights to add from a GLAM perspective.
Pine
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 7:48 AM, David Cuenca Tudela dacuetu@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 9:44 PM, Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org wrote:
what might be the significant role our unique advantage might play in 15 years?
There are some circumstantial aspects that might be relevant for Wikisource:
- With the emergence of machine learning, do volunteers really need to
spend so much time formatting? Or will we able to use our data to train a system to do some pre-formatting for us?
- With the existing flood of data, can we consider ws as a relevancy
setter? If a document has been transcribed/imported into wikisource, is that enough to make the document relevant?
- Considering that not all libraries might have the resources to develop
their own platform, can Wikisource be used as a neutral platform by external agents as a complement to their own infrastructure?
Regarding the 15 years time frame, it might be a good exercise to examine different scenarios. Yes, one could be to think big, to expect growth and a favorable environment. But what about the opposite? What if there are *less* people able to contribute?
Cheers, Micru
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Another thing I would be very happy to see in the future is a greater, systematic collaboration with Internet Archive. I'm convinced that it's a vital part of our ecosystem, because it allow easily a lot of things that should be done by skilled users (like create a PDF/djvu, OCR, etc). When a I explain Wikisource I always explain Internet Archive first, teaching people to upload there their files, then into Commons/Wikisource via the "IA Upload" tool.
This is why the Italian Wikisource community created a dedicated collection on IA: https://archive.org/details/itwikisource
To create a collection, you need at least 50 items, and then you can ask Internet Archive to give you permission. Right now, Alex brollo is writing some scripts that will allow a better maintenance of the metadata, we'll share them when they are ready.
If you create a collection, please tell us: we could even have a greater "Wikisource" collection, that contains all the linguistic collections.
Maybe this is a bit OT for the strategy, but I think it suggests way to improve the collaboration between us and IA.
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Andrea Zanni zanni.andrea84@gmail.com wrote:
Anyone else? It would be very good to know the gist of the discussions/opinions you are having in your local Wikisource.
The Italian Wikisource for example is summing this up here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_ movement/2017/Sources/Italian_Wikisource_Village_pump
For us, there is a bit of a disagreement about the idea and goal of being a "library", and being a "typography": being a library is more focused on access, on services build upon texts (text analysis, text mining, searching, hyperlinking, annotation) and the transcribing/proofreading part, which needs a whole different level of tools and interface.
Maybe you are having a similar discussion? Do you possibly see a "fork", in the future, of Wikisource in 2 different projects, or at least 2 different interfaces?
Aubrey
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 10:54 PM, Andrea Zanni zanni.andrea84@gmail.com wrote:
@Micru: of course, as you say, machine learning is the elephant in the room. I dream of something we could call "Wikisource as a platform": meaning an environment with structured data and workflows where you can have APIs and tools for interact with humans and machines, both for input and for output. We could have OCR software that learn from our human proofreaders, and ideally we could even have OCRs tailored for determined centuries or types of books. We could ue machine learning to look for citations within books (for example other cited books or authors).¹ This could improve heavily our library: on Internet Archive or Google Books we have millions of books that just wait for us to make them readable and accessible, and, of course, connect them to Wikipedia, to Wikidata, to other Wikisource books.
IMHO, this is obviously important for GLAMs: we could be much more usable and easy for libraries, archives and museums that want to upload into Wikisource their texts and books, and make them part of our hyperlinked library. They could import easily on Wikisource, and could export as well. Now, this is impossible or at least very very difficult.²
I'm not sure that all these features could go in just one project, but it's probably worth trying.
Aubrey
[1] I remember I explored the idea with Amir, but I couldn't follow up. [2] To get all the data I needed from Wikisource books, I had to basically scrape the website.
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 8:14 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Glad to see this discussion. Pinging Alex Stinson for this discussion in case he has any insights to add from a GLAM perspective.
Pine
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 7:48 AM, David Cuenca Tudela dacuetu@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 9:44 PM, Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org wrote:
what might be the significant role our unique advantage might play in 15 years?
There are some circumstantial aspects that might be relevant for Wikisource:
- With the emergence of machine learning, do volunteers really need to
spend so much time formatting? Or will we able to use our data to train a system to do some pre-formatting for us?
- With the existing flood of data, can we consider ws as a relevancy
setter? If a document has been transcribed/imported into wikisource, is that enough to make the document relevant?
- Considering that not all libraries might have the resources to
develop their own platform, can Wikisource be used as a neutral platform by external agents as a complement to their own infrastructure?
Regarding the 15 years time frame, it might be a good exercise to examine different scenarios. Yes, one could be to think big, to expect growth and a favorable environment. But what about the opposite? What if there are *less* people able to contribute?
Cheers, Micru
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
One issue sometimes raised about Wikisource is how we know that we're working on the "right" books. Internet Archive is planning to textbooks starting from those which are most frequently assigned in USA schools: http://blog.archive.org/2017/03/29/books-donated-for-macarthur-foundation-10...
I was surprised to learn a project like OpenSyllabus exists and works, I emailed them to ask what it would take to do the same for other languages/geographies.
Nemo
Hi Nemo,
We may establish a list a the "1000 works that every Wikisource should have" (with translation possibly needed).
What metric could we use to define such a list? Maybe reference frequency, but it requires statistics whose availability is unknown to me.
Statistically, psychoslave
Le 29/03/2017 à 08:30, Federico Leva (Nemo) a écrit :
One issue sometimes raised about Wikisource is how we know that we're working on the "right" books. Internet Archive is planning to textbooks starting from those which are most frequently assigned in USA schools: http://blog.archive.org/2017/03/29/books-donated-for-macarthur-foundation-10...
I was surprised to learn a project like OpenSyllabus exists and works, I emailed them to ask what it would take to do the same for other languages/geographies.
Nemo
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
A maybe simpler metric: the top 1000 Wikipedia articles about works per page view.
Thomas
Le 11 avr. 2017 à 09:42, mathieu stumpf guntz psychoslave@culture-libre.org a écrit :
Hi Nemo,
We may establish a list a the "1000 works that every Wikisource should have" (with translation possibly needed).
What metric could we use to define such a list? Maybe reference frequency, but it requires statistics whose availability is unknown to me.
Statistically, psychoslave
Le 29/03/2017 à 08:30, Federico Leva (Nemo) a écrit :
One issue sometimes raised about Wikisource is how we know that we're working on the "right" books. Internet Archive is planning to textbooks starting from those which are most frequently assigned in USA schools: http://blog.archive.org/2017/03/29/books-donated-for-macarthur-foundation-10...
I was surprised to learn a project like OpenSyllabus exists and works, I emailed them to ask what it would take to do the same for other languages/geographies.
Nemo
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
You can always start with the lists per country (if they exist). So for example I made an article about the first 500 of such a "1000 most important works of literature" list compiled for the Netherlands here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_of_Dutch_Literature
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Thomas PT thomaspt@hotmail.fr wrote:
A maybe simpler metric: the top 1000 Wikipedia articles about works per page view.
Thomas
Le 11 avr. 2017 à 09:42, mathieu stumpf guntz <
psychoslave@culture-libre.org> a écrit :
Hi Nemo,
We may establish a list a the "1000 works that every Wikisource should
have" (with translation possibly needed).
What metric could we use to define such a list? Maybe reference
frequency, but it requires statistics whose availability is unknown to me.
Statistically, psychoslave
Le 29/03/2017 à 08:30, Federico Leva (Nemo) a écrit :
One issue sometimes raised about Wikisource is how we know that we're
working on the "right" books. Internet Archive is planning to textbooks starting from those which are most frequently assigned in USA schools:
macarthur-foundation-100change-challenge-from-bookmooch-users/
I was surprised to learn a project like OpenSyllabus exists and works,
I emailed them to ask what it would take to do the same for other languages/geographies.
Nemo
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
In it.source we made a similar Canon: https://it.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Canone_delle_opere_della_letteratu...
Ideally, we should have an item (a "work" item, so basically the one with a Wikipedia article) on Wikidata for each one. Than we can count how many Wikipedias have an article on it. Basically it's Tpt's idea using wikidata and sitelinks.
Aubrey
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 11:50 AM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
You can always start with the lists per country (if they exist). So for example I made an article about the first 500 of such a "1000 most important works of literature" list compiled for the Netherlands here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_of_Dutch_Literature
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Thomas PT thomaspt@hotmail.fr wrote:
A maybe simpler metric: the top 1000 Wikipedia articles about works per page view.
Thomas
Le 11 avr. 2017 à 09:42, mathieu stumpf guntz <
psychoslave@culture-libre.org> a écrit :
Hi Nemo,
We may establish a list a the "1000 works that every Wikisource should
have" (with translation possibly needed).
What metric could we use to define such a list? Maybe reference
frequency, but it requires statistics whose availability is unknown to me.
Statistically, psychoslave
Le 29/03/2017 à 08:30, Federico Leva (Nemo) a écrit :
One issue sometimes raised about Wikisource is how we know that we're
working on the "right" books. Internet Archive is planning to textbooks starting from those which are most frequently assigned in USA schools:
http://blog.archive.org/2017/03/29/books-donated-for-macarth
ur-foundation-100change-challenge-from-bookmooch-users/
I was surprised to learn a project like OpenSyllabus exists and works,
I emailed them to ask what it would take to do the same for other languages/geographies.
Nemo
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
The 500 most important (as in, number of Wiki sitelinks) literary works that are (at least partially) in "original language" German, according to Wikidata: http://tinyurl.com/mzhd8na "The Big Bang Theory" item might need some review, but the rest look good... Just change the Q188 and the language code for your favourite language!
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 10:58 AM Andrea Zanni zanni.andrea84@gmail.com wrote:
In it.source we made a similar Canon:
https://it.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Canone_delle_opere_della_letteratu...
Ideally, we should have an item (a "work" item, so basically the one with a Wikipedia article) on Wikidata for each one. Than we can count how many Wikipedias have an article on it. Basically it's Tpt's idea using wikidata and sitelinks.
Aubrey
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 11:50 AM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
You can always start with the lists per country (if they exist). So for example I made an article about the first 500 of such a "1000 most important works of literature" list compiled for the Netherlands here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_of_Dutch_Literature
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Thomas PT thomaspt@hotmail.fr wrote:
A maybe simpler metric: the top 1000 Wikipedia articles about works per page view.
Thomas
Le 11 avr. 2017 à 09:42, mathieu stumpf guntz <
psychoslave@culture-libre.org> a écrit :
Hi Nemo,
We may establish a list a the "1000 works that every Wikisource should
have" (with translation possibly needed).
What metric could we use to define such a list? Maybe reference
frequency, but it requires statistics whose availability is unknown to me.
Statistically, psychoslave
Le 29/03/2017 à 08:30, Federico Leva (Nemo) a écrit :
One issue sometimes raised about Wikisource is how we know that we're
working on the "right" books. Internet Archive is planning to textbooks starting from those which are most frequently assigned in USA schools:
http://blog.archive.org/2017/03/29/books-donated-for-macarthur-foundation-10...
I was surprised to learn a project like OpenSyllabus exists and works,
I emailed them to ask what it would take to do the same for other languages/geographies.
Nemo
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Ca.source has a similar Canon list:
https://ca.wikisource.org/wiki/Viquitexts:Els_50_essencials_de_la_llengua_ca...
In my opinion, it's too hard to make a consensus multilingual list.
2017-04-11 12:23 GMT+02:00 Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com:
The 500 most important (as in, number of Wiki sitelinks) literary works that are (at least partially) in "original language" German, according to Wikidata: http://tinyurl.com/mzhd8na "The Big Bang Theory" item might need some review, but the rest look good... Just change the Q188 and the language code for your favourite language!
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 10:58 AM Andrea Zanni zanni.andrea84@gmail.com wrote:
In it.source we made a similar Canon: https://it.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Canone_delle_ opere_della_letteratura_italiana
Ideally, we should have an item (a "work" item, so basically the one with a Wikipedia article) on Wikidata for each one. Than we can count how many Wikipedias have an article on it. Basically it's Tpt's idea using wikidata and sitelinks.
Aubrey
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 11:50 AM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
You can always start with the lists per country (if they exist). So for example I made an article about the first 500 of such a "1000 most important works of literature" list compiled for the Netherlands here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_of_Dutch_Literature
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Thomas PT thomaspt@hotmail.fr wrote:
A maybe simpler metric: the top 1000 Wikipedia articles about works per page view.
Thomas
Le 11 avr. 2017 à 09:42, mathieu stumpf guntz <
psychoslave@culture-libre.org> a écrit :
Hi Nemo,
We may establish a list a the "1000 works that every Wikisource should
have" (with translation possibly needed).
What metric could we use to define such a list? Maybe reference
frequency, but it requires statistics whose availability is unknown to me.
Statistically, psychoslave
Le 29/03/2017 à 08:30, Federico Leva (Nemo) a écrit :
One issue sometimes raised about Wikisource is how we know that we're
working on the "right" books. Internet Archive is planning to textbooks starting from those which are most frequently assigned in USA schools:
macarthur-foundation-100change-challenge-from-bookmooch-users/
I was surprised to learn a project like OpenSyllabus exists and works,
I emailed them to ask what it would take to do the same for other languages/geographies.
Nemo
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Interesting query, thanks! How odd that "sitcom" is a subclass of "literary work"! I never thought of it that way :)
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Magnus Manske <magnusmanske@googlemail.com
wrote:
The 500 most important (as in, number of Wiki sitelinks) literary works that are (at least partially) in "original language" German, according to Wikidata: http://tinyurl.com/mzhd8na "The Big Bang Theory" item might need some review, but the rest look good... Just change the Q188 and the language code for your favourite language!
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 10:58 AM Andrea Zanni zanni.andrea84@gmail.com wrote:
In it.source we made a similar Canon: https://it.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Canone_delle_ opere_della_letteratura_italiana
Ideally, we should have an item (a "work" item, so basically the one with a Wikipedia article) on Wikidata for each one. Than we can count how many Wikipedias have an article on it. Basically it's Tpt's idea using wikidata and sitelinks.
Aubrey
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 11:50 AM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
You can always start with the lists per country (if they exist). So for example I made an article about the first 500 of such a "1000 most important works of literature" list compiled for the Netherlands here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_of_Dutch_Literature
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Thomas PT thomaspt@hotmail.fr wrote:
A maybe simpler metric: the top 1000 Wikipedia articles about works per page view.
Thomas
Le 11 avr. 2017 à 09:42, mathieu stumpf guntz <
psychoslave@culture-libre.org> a écrit :
Hi Nemo,
We may establish a list a the "1000 works that every Wikisource should
have" (with translation possibly needed).
What metric could we use to define such a list? Maybe reference
frequency, but it requires statistics whose availability is unknown to me.
Statistically, psychoslave
Le 29/03/2017 à 08:30, Federico Leva (Nemo) a écrit :
One issue sometimes raised about Wikisource is how we know that we're
working on the "right" books. Internet Archive is planning to textbooks starting from those which are most frequently assigned in USA schools:
macarthur-foundation-100change-challenge-from-bookmooch-users/
I was surprised to learn a project like OpenSyllabus exists and works,
I emailed them to ask what it would take to do the same for other languages/geographies.
Nemo
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Hoi, Classification as we have it is a wonder. It is there and it cannot be explained. It does serve a purpose though. Thanks, GerardM
On 11 April 2017 at 12:44, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Interesting query, thanks! How odd that "sitcom" is a subclass of "literary work"! I never thought of it that way :)
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Magnus Manske < magnusmanske@googlemail.com> wrote:
The 500 most important (as in, number of Wiki sitelinks) literary works that are (at least partially) in "original language" German, according to Wikidata: http://tinyurl.com/mzhd8na "The Big Bang Theory" item might need some review, but the rest look good... Just change the Q188 and the language code for your favourite language!
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 10:58 AM Andrea Zanni zanni.andrea84@gmail.com wrote:
In it.source we made a similar Canon: https://it.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Canone_delle_opere _della_letteratura_italiana
Ideally, we should have an item (a "work" item, so basically the one with a Wikipedia article) on Wikidata for each one. Than we can count how many Wikipedias have an article on it. Basically it's Tpt's idea using wikidata and sitelinks.
Aubrey
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 11:50 AM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
You can always start with the lists per country (if they exist). So for example I made an article about the first 500 of such a "1000 most important works of literature" list compiled for the Netherlands here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_of_Dutch_Literature
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Thomas PT thomaspt@hotmail.fr wrote:
A maybe simpler metric: the top 1000 Wikipedia articles about works per page view.
Thomas
Le 11 avr. 2017 à 09:42, mathieu stumpf guntz <
psychoslave@culture-libre.org> a écrit :
Hi Nemo,
We may establish a list a the "1000 works that every Wikisource should
have" (with translation possibly needed).
What metric could we use to define such a list? Maybe reference
frequency, but it requires statistics whose availability is unknown to me.
Statistically, psychoslave
Le 29/03/2017 à 08:30, Federico Leva (Nemo) a écrit :
One issue sometimes raised about Wikisource is how we know that we're
working on the "right" books. Internet Archive is planning to textbooks starting from those which are most frequently assigned in USA schools:
http://blog.archive.org/2017/03/29/books-donated-for-macarth
ur-foundation-100change-challenge-from-bookmooch-users/
I was surprised to learn a project like OpenSyllabus exists and
works, I emailed them to ask what it would take to do the same for other languages/geographies.
Nemo
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Yes I agree - totally wonderful. And there are more ways to make a more meaningful query out of this (In Dutch #1 is Barbapapa and in English the Simpsons take 1st place), by either specifying it can'be a film, or just filtering for inception date before 1970
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 12:51 PM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, Classification as we have it is a wonder. It is there and it cannot be explained. It does serve a purpose though. Thanks, GerardM
On 11 April 2017 at 12:44, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Interesting query, thanks! How odd that "sitcom" is a subclass of "literary work"! I never thought of it that way :)
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Magnus Manske < magnusmanske@googlemail.com> wrote:
The 500 most important (as in, number of Wiki sitelinks) literary works that are (at least partially) in "original language" German, according to Wikidata: http://tinyurl.com/mzhd8na "The Big Bang Theory" item might need some review, but the rest look good... Just change the Q188 and the language code for your favourite language!
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 10:58 AM Andrea Zanni zanni.andrea84@gmail.com wrote:
In it.source we made a similar Canon: https://it.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Canone_delle_opere _della_letteratura_italiana
Ideally, we should have an item (a "work" item, so basically the one with a Wikipedia article) on Wikidata for each one. Than we can count how many Wikipedias have an article on it. Basically it's Tpt's idea using wikidata and sitelinks.
Aubrey
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 11:50 AM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
You can always start with the lists per country (if they exist). So for example I made an article about the first 500 of such a "1000 most important works of literature" list compiled for the Netherlands here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_of_Dutch_Literature
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Thomas PT thomaspt@hotmail.fr wrote:
A maybe simpler metric: the top 1000 Wikipedia articles about works per page view.
Thomas
Le 11 avr. 2017 à 09:42, mathieu stumpf guntz <
psychoslave@culture-libre.org> a écrit :
Hi Nemo,
We may establish a list a the "1000 works that every Wikisource
should have" (with translation possibly needed).
What metric could we use to define such a list? Maybe reference
frequency, but it requires statistics whose availability is unknown to me.
Statistically, psychoslave
Le 29/03/2017 à 08:30, Federico Leva (Nemo) a écrit :
One issue sometimes raised about Wikisource is how we know that
we're working on the "right" books. Internet Archive is planning to textbooks starting from those which are most frequently assigned in USA schools:
http://blog.archive.org/2017/03/29/books-donated-for-macarth
ur-foundation-100change-challenge-from-bookmooch-users/
I was surprised to learn a project like OpenSyllabus exists and
works, I emailed them to ask what it would take to do the same for other languages/geographies.
Nemo
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org