Lars Aronsson wrote:
jkbwiki wrote:
insufficient how the activity is beeing measured.
The number of
pages is a very bad method. In the past, many projetcs used this
to get more on the top by bot edits (e.g. the sk.wiki did some
more thousands pages of Czech villages or meteorits, everything
one line), and also some Wikisource domains did: I remeber one
that published the Bible on some more hundred od thousand pages
(just one page a verse), now the cs.source published some 770
pages of The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam (four verse a page in
all).
The number of wiki pages is indeed a bad measure for an e-text
project, exactly because each page could contain a whole book, a
chapter or a single verse. But for a book scanning project, the
number of book pages (pages in the Page: namespace, facsimile
images) is a very good measure, since it gives equal weight to one
thick book of 400 pages as to two thinner books of 200 pages each.
Yes, I agree, but I would have reservation to use the nomber of
uncorrected pages and only that, as it doesn't show the real work done,
only how much bots work ;o). So I see several possibilities:
1. number of proofread pages;
2. number of validated pages;
3. a mix from the 3 numbers, f.e. (number of validated pages X 4) +
(number of proofread pages X 2) + total number of pages
Regards,
Yann
You can also roughly translate 20,000 book pages (or
100 books of
200 pages each) to one metre of shelving, which is a measurement
that any librarian or archivist can immediately understand.
The New Student's Reference Work in 5 volumes has 2516 pages,
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_New_Student%27s_Reference_Work
That was 5-6 times more work than Meyers Blitz-Lexikon with 443
pages,
http://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Meyers_Blitz-Lexikon
--
http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
http://fr.wikisource.org/ | Bibliothèque libre
http://wikilivres.info | Documents libres