> 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
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
* 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
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?
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.