Le 17/08/2012 07:54, Dovi Jacobs a écrit :
Ah, now I understand what you meant! But why do you think the editing guidelines will be "without reference"? Just like a Wikipedia article can and should be based on sources, the Wikisource guidelines for editing a text should be written by people familiar with the scholarship on that text, while referencing both that scholarship and the relevant editions and manuscripts. Which is exactly what we try to do. And it works quite well.
I understand that in fact you do not strictly critical editions (I have try to see what you do on he:, but I am absolutely not familiar with this langage), but compilations of sources, which is quite different. In that sense, I have nothing to say.
Good weekend.
My 2 cents.
I think that Wikisource communities could decide to *try* implementing "critical editions" of texts. I would think it is better to have a proper namespace for that, or at least a clear template which warns users about the collaborative nature of the edition.
I would also think that these critical editions would be for just few texts, compared to the thousand of printed texts Wikisource provides. And, of you think about, "neutrality" does not exists neither in our proofreading work, there is always interpretatation (of course, there are shades and proofreading an ancient manuscript is different to proofreading a XX centurt printed document).
I'm interested in Wikisource critical editions (as I am in annotation and hyperlinks), and as I explained before I think a layer system should be better, but we are technologically far from that.
Aubrey
2012/8/17 Marc Galli marc.galli35@orange.fr
Le 17/08/2012 07:54, Dovi Jacobs a écrit :
Ah, now I understand what you meant! But why do you think the editing guidelines will be "without reference"? Just like a Wikipedia article can and should be based on sources, the Wikisource guidelines for editing a text should be written by people familiar with the scholarship on that text, while referencing both that scholarship and the relevant editions and manuscripts. Which is exactly what we try to do. And it works quite well.
I understand that in fact you do not strictly critical editions (I have try to see what you do on he:, but I am absolutely not familiar with this langage), but compilations of sources, which is quite different. In that sense, I have nothing to say.
Good weekend.
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Le 17/08/2012 12:57, Andrea Zanni a écrit :
I would also think that these critical editions would be for just few texts, compared to the thousand of printed texts Wikisource provides. And, of you think about, "neutrality" does not exists neither in our proofreading work, there is always interpretatation (of course, there are shades and proofreading an ancient manuscript is different to proofreading a XX centurt printed document). [...] Aubrey
The comparison with proofreading is irrelevant, because when you proofread a text, you follow a edition, and you do not choose what is the text. If you choose (variantes for exemple), then you are doing a critical edition. But with what criteres ? If the contributors establish texts, then Wikisource is a scientific editor. This will be as if wikipedians claim that wikipedia's articles are exactly like scientifical articles published with peer-review. But they do not claim this. In the same way, Wikisource is not a scientific editor. If we pretend that Wikisource publishes critical editions, in reality we will have some texts publish for some reasons by some unknow contributors on some wiki.
Le Fri, 17 Aug 2012 14:51:42 +0200, Marc Galli marc.galli35@orange.fr a écrit:
Le 17/08/2012 12:57, Andrea Zanni a écrit :
I would also think that these critical editions would be for just few texts, compared to the thousand of printed texts Wikisource provides. And, of you think about, "neutrality" does not exists neither in our proofreading work, there is always interpretatation (of course, there are shades and proofreading an ancient manuscript is different to proofreading a XX centurt printed document). [...] Aubrey
The comparison with proofreading is irrelevant, because when you proofread a text, you follow a edition, and you do not choose what is the text. If you choose (variantes for exemple), then you are doing a critical edition. But with what criteres ? If the contributors establish texts, then Wikisource is a scientific editor. This will be as if wikipedians claim that wikipedia's articles are exactly like scientifical articles published with peer-review. But they do not claim this. In the same way, Wikisource is not a scientific editor. If we pretend that Wikisource publishes critical editions, in reality we will have some texts publish for some reasons by some unknow contributors on some wiki.
(I’m only an occasional contributor, so perhaps I miss some subtleties.)
I have the sensation we don’t have the same definition about what is a "critical edition", at least about from what degree of difference to the "original" version some edition become a "critical" edition.
On the French WS there are some minor corrections I personally don’t consider as "too major" to qualify these of critical edition: - modernized (but not too much) version, e.g. the replacement of long S (ſ) by a modern S (s) (see e.g. [1] there is a gadget on the left column to change that: Options d’affichage > Texte modernisé) -- I have more concerns about rewritings of Ancient French to modern French and I even have concerns about rewritings of old spellings to modern spellings (e.g. in [1] a modern version could replace "toy" by "toi"), I don’t know the opinion/policies of the French community about that - very very obvious spelling mistakes (mostly typography errors I guess); there is a template on fr.ws for that
[1] https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Le_Loup_et_l%E2%80%99Agneau
Sébastien
wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org