I agree, Wikisource should be more appealing for external GLAMs.
A small thing we do at it.source is creating simple templates for "donated"
For the customized CSS, well, that's a general problem of MediaWiki, but
also I'm not sure if Wikisource would love to have different layouts for
different books. I think branding of a GLAM is important as far as the GLAM
itself understands that Wikisource is a "common/public good", a "digital
commons", and as you are probably aware the "spirit" of Wikimedia projects
is pretty towards neutrality, anonimity, gratuity.
Not saying that "branding" it's bad, but we wiki*edians are kinda sensitive
I think there's a bit of cultural clash here (but, again, IMHO): maybe it's
a thing worth trying.
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Ben Brumfield <benwbrum(a)gmail.com> wrote:
In a separate thread (sorry--digest mode bit me),
Many cultural institutions are developing their own crowdsourced transcription
projects. I think Wikisource can be a much more robust platform than these
one-off projects, with a more well-developed community that aggregates the
transcription efforts of texts from many institutions in a single place
with a proven process.
I'm a big fan of Wikisource, and have recommended it, but I don't think
that data extraction is the biggest barrier to adoption the GLAM sector
faces. Branding is a much, much bigger deal. I talked about this the ALA
this summer (
-- see the slide with a screenshot of Wiksource next to one of Letters
1916, which uses DIY History/Scripto as its platform):
"The first one is is the French-language version of Wikisource. Wikisource
is a sister project to Wikipedia that was spun off around 2003 that allows
people to transcribe documents and do OCR correction both. This is being
used by the Departmental Archives of Alpes-Maritimes to transcribe a set of journals
of episcopal visits
<http://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Livre:FRAD006_001J201.pdf>. The bishop in
the sixteenth century would go around and report on all the villages [in
his diocese], so there's all this local history, but it's also got some
"So they're using Wikisource
which is a great tool! It has all kinds of version control. It has ways to
track proofreading. It does an elegant job of putting together indiviual
pages into larger documents. But, do you see "Departmental Archives of
Alpes-Maritimes" on this page? No! You have no idea [who the institution
is]. Now, if they're using this internally, that may be fine -- it's a
"By contrast, look at the Letters of 1916
<http://dh.tcd.ie/letters1916/diyhistory/>. [Three sentences inaudible.]
This is public engagement in a public-facing site. "
There were a lot of nods in the room, and even more when I revisited the
slide in a crowdsourcing workshop a month later.
If an institution were able to attach a custom stylesheet to pages
displaying its 'project', if it were able to send users to an attractive
homepage for its 'project', showing the project's materials, and recent
activity on them, with ways for admins to monitor their volunteers'
questions or discussions on talk pages, or announce news -- that would drop
that barrier to entry. At the moment, a GLAM that points its users to
Wikisource effectively 'loses' them -- they're sending them off to a
different community and a different site that just happens to contain
copies of the institution's material, with no easy way for the users to get
back to the institution.
That said, think bulk export of transcripts would help, especially if
there were an easy way for the institution to match each transcript to the
identifier in its own system. Plaintext may be good enough for e.g. a
library that's using a CMS and just wants their docs to be searchable.
I've seen TEI recommended in the past, and while I'm a big fan, I suspect
it's of secondary importance.
Wikisource-l mailing list