[Foundation-l] Universal Library

[David Goodman]

I have read your proposal. I continue to be of the opinion that we are
not competent to do this. Since the proposal  says, that "this project
requires as much database management knowledge as librarian
knowledge," it confirms my opinion. You will never merge the data
properly if you do not understand it.

You suggest 3 practical steps
1. an extension for finding a book in OL is certainly doable--and it
has been done, see
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Book_sources].
2. an OL  field,  link to WP -- as you say, this is already present.
3. An OL field, link to Wikisource.A very good project. It will be
they who need to do it.


Agreed we need translation information--I think this is a very
important priority.   It's not that hard to do a list or to add links
that will be helpful, though not  exact enough to be relied on in
further work.  That's probably a reasonable project, but it is very
far from "a database of all books ever published"

But some of this is being done--see the frWP page for Moby Dick:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moby_Dick
(though it omits a number of the translations listed in the French Union
Catalog, http://corail.sudoc.abes.fr/xslt/DB=2.1/CMD?ACT=SRCHA&IKT=8063&SRT=RLV&TRM=Moby+Dick]
I would however not warrant without seeing the items in hand, or
reading an authoritative review, that they are all complete
translations.
The English page on the novel lists no translations;  perhaps we could
in practice assume that the interwiki links are sufficient. Perhaps
that could be assumed in Wiksource also?


David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG



On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 1:17 PM, Yann Forget<yann at forget-me.net> wrote:
> Hello, I have already answered some of these arguments earlier.
>
> David Goodman wrote:
>> Not only can the OpenLibrary do it perfect well without us.
>> considering our rather inconsistent standards, they can probably do it
>> better without us.  We will just get in the way.
>
> The issue is not if OpenLibrary is "doing it perfect well without us",
> even if that were true. Currently what OpenLibrary does is not very
> useful for Wikimedia, and partly duplicate what we do. Wikimedia has
> also important assets which OL doesn't have, and therefore a
> collaboration seems obviously beneficial for both.
>
>> There is sufficient missing material in  every Wikipedia, sufficient
>> lack of coverage of areas outside the primary language zone and in
>> earlier periods, sufficient unsourced material; sufficient need for
>> updating  articles, sufficient potentially free media to add,
>> sufficient needed imagery to get;  that we have more than enough work
>> for all the volunteers we are likely to get.
>>
>> To duplicate an existing project is particularly unproductive when the
>> other project is doing it better than we are ever going to be able to.
>> Yes, there are people here who could  do it or learn to do it--but I
>> think everyone here with that degree of bibliographic knowledge would
>> be much better occupied in sourcing articles.
>
> It is clear that you didn't even read my proposal.
> Please do before emitting objections.
> http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Building_a_database_of_all_books_ever_published
>
> I specifically wrote that my proposal is not necessarily starting a new
> project. I agree that working with Open Library is necessary for such
> project, but I also say if Wikimedia gets involved, it would be much
> more successful.
>
> What you say here is completely the opposite how Wikimedia projects
> work, i.e. openness, and that's just what is missing in Open Library.
>
>> David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
>
> Regards,
> Yann
> --
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>