Le 16/08/2012 14:51, Dovi Jacobs a écrit :
Sound to me
like a big mistake. Wikisource is a source, not an editor ;
we have not to decide what is more valuable for the public. And soon or
later there will be wars edit.
Why is it a "big mistake" to provide valuable, useful editions of
classic works to
the public under a free license?
This is not the question ; as I said : who decide
what is a good
critical edition ?
Almost all "sources" require good editing, and any good library
editions. If a good edition is not in the public domain, then just
won't produce a quality edition for your "free library".
talked about critical editions ; who decide what is a good
edition then ? The quality of Wikisource can not be based only on what
contributors think to be good. This is a cercle, and that doesn't make
Beyond that, there is no need to declare that Wikisource is THIS and
A more generous view of things will better serve both the project and
I still wonder who decide what is good for the public. Beside, there is
some rules that define Wkisource, what it is, and what it is not.
And like I said, we've never had an edit war (in about 8 years). I
tend to think that
is because the people who edit texts and the process of editing texts
are both less
prone to edit wars than are Wikipedia articles. It is a different
culture. Of course it
could still happen, but then maybe it would be better not to have
since edit wars happen there?
If Wikisource publishes critical editions, there will be wars edit,
because there is no critere to this kind of editions except what the