The strategic planning seems to have only few proposals for Wikisource: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Proposals_for_Wikisource . I think that Wikisource deserves more, so give a look aat the exissting proposals, comment them, fix them, add more!
Nemo
Federico Leva (Nemo) a écrit :
The strategic planning seems to have only few proposals for Wikisource: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Proposals_for_Wikisource . I think that Wikisource deserves more, so give a look aat the exissting proposals, comment them, fix them, add more!
I have read your "make wikisource scalable" proposal. There is one point that is commonly missed about the function of Extension:Proofreadpage.
People often think about it as a tool for transcribing text, similar to the tool they use at Gutenberg. Well, that is how it looks like, and that's technically true.
However that is just just one side of the story. The point is, we are on a wiki, where anyone can edit a text, and introduce changes that are difficult to check. Readers know this, and they have a priori no reason to believe that Wikisource texts are faithful to their claimed source. In this context, we need something to ensure that Wikisource is reliable and trustworthy.
Try to imagine that you are introduced to Wikisource and to the wiki concept for the very first time. You are told two things :
"This is a text by Plato. You may edit it if you wish".
Your first reaction will be to think that the text might have been modified since Plato wrote it, and that you have no way to know about it. If you are curious, you will probably try to see what it actually takes to modify the text. If the text is provided without Proofreadpage, you will realize that it is not so difficult to introduce a small change in a text, and that this change might go unnoticed, mostly because admins do not have scans, or do not have the time to look for the relevant page in scans. So your first impression will be confirmed :-)
This is the true goal of this extension. It does two things : * it allows us to easily tell apart vandalism (or mistakes mades in good faith) from true corrections. * and most importantly, it shows to people that we can easily tell appart vandalism from corrections, and that it is not so easy as they think to introduce a mistake in our texts. It is a trustworthiness tool.
Thomas
ThomasV, 03/09/2009 11:48:
Federico Leva (Nemo) a écrit :
The strategic planning seems to have only few proposals for Wikisource: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Proposals_for_Wikisource . I think that Wikisource deserves more, so give a look aat the exissting proposals, comment them, fix them, add more!
I have read your "make wikisource scalable" proposal. There is one point that is commonly missed about the function of Extension:Proofreadpage.
People often think about it as a tool for transcribing text, similar to the tool they use at Gutenberg. Well, that is how it looks like, and that's technically true.
However that is just just one side of the story.
[...]
I'm not a Wikisourceror, but I did actually know this. :-) I hope there are no major errors, however I encourage you to modify, expand or whatever my proposal, e.g. to make clear what's the purpose of the extension (which I didn't want to misrepresent; perhaps somebody who doesn't know what it is may be confused, you're right) and to clarify the technical differences from Distributed Proofreadeaders tools. Thank you,
Nemo
I just added something inherent the "metadata" problem: due to the "trustworthiness" issue (which I completely support), we should become more accurate and academic in presenting our books with good metadata and bibliographic records. We could develop an Extension that could use metadata standard as DublinCore (or others).
If you speak 5 minutes with a librarian, we will ask you about you records, classification/catalog system and similia. We are not librarians, (maybe I'll be some day ;-)) but we can't avoid this fundamental issue.
Aubrey
2009/9/3 Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com
ThomasV, 03/09/2009 11:48:
Federico Leva (Nemo) a écrit :
The strategic planning seems to have only few proposals for Wikisource: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Proposals_for_Wikisource .
I
think that Wikisource deserves more, so give a look aat the exissting proposals, comment them, fix them, add more!
I have read your "make wikisource scalable" proposal. There is one point that is commonly missed about the function of Extension:Proofreadpage.
People often think about it as a tool for transcribing text, similar to the tool they use at Gutenberg. Well, that is how it looks like, and that's technically true.
However that is just just one side of the story.
[...]
I'm not a Wikisourceror, but I did actually know this. :-) I hope there are no major errors, however I encourage you to modify, expand or whatever my proposal, e.g. to make clear what's the purpose of the extension (which I didn't want to misrepresent; perhaps somebody who doesn't know what it is may be confused, you're right) and to clarify the technical differences from Distributed Proofreadeaders tools. Thank you,
Nemo
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Andrea Zanni, 03/09/2009 19:17:
We could develop an Extension that could use metadata standard as DublinCore (or others).
Currently we have http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:OAIRepository installed. Does domebody know what it does?
Nemo
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 3:36 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo)nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
Andrea Zanni, 03/09/2009 19:17:
We could develop an Extension that could use metadata standard as DublinCore (or others).
Currently we have http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:OAIRepository installed. Does domebody know what it does?
It is used for searching and mirroring, but it is password protected. It does provide dublin core, and I have documented what it provides.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:OAIRepository
There is also dublin core RDF functionality in the core product, but it is disabled on wikimedia.
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgEnableDublinCoreRdf http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/RDF_metadata
e.g.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hastings?action=dublincore
Wikisource and Commons need the object (book, photo) to be described rather than the wiki page to be described.
I have started a new proposal for this.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/strategy/wiki/Proposal:Dublin_core
-- John Vandenberg
wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org