[WikiEN-l] Bible websites

[Ray Saintonge]

stevertigo wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 8:31 PM, Tim Starling<tstarling at wikimedia.org> wrote:
>   
>> Wikisource has a complete translation in modern English, and it
>> already seems to be annotated with IDs for verses, e.g.
>> <http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible_(American_Standard)/John#3:16>
>>     
>
> Hm. Of course, Tim is right - if its public/open domain then
> wikisource should host it and we will then link to it. The issue with
> the hebtools site/script is that most of its links go to BibleGateway.
>  Obviously the current script's sources need to be changed to include
> both other gateways like bible.cc and of course wikisource. A choice
> of gateways would be preferable.
>
> The current hosted translations/versions on wikisource are:
>     * Bible (Wycliffe) (1380s)
>     * Bible (Tyndale) (1526)
>     * Douay-Rheims Bible (1610)
>     * King James translation, or “Authorized Version” (1611)
>     * King James translation, Oxford Standard (1769)
>     * American Standard translation (1901)
>     * Bible (Jewish Publication Society 1917)
>     * World English translation (in progress since 1997)
>     * Wikisource translation (in progress since 2006)
>   

Those are only the ones on English Wikisource.
> Note that one of the benefits of using the proprietary portals, aside
> from heads-up comparison and better navigation, is that they are
> licensed to publish the newer proprietary versions.  Cutting off the
> proprietary portals means cutting off the proprietary translations.
> The NIV for example is highly popular and referenced (among
> Protestants). Hence we have to of course include but not depend on the
> proprietary portals.
>   
I'll happily concede the point about comparison and navigation. They may 
very well host the newer proprietary versions but they also engage in 
massive copyfraud about the many versions that are in the public domain. 
Is that the sort of site that a community dedicated to open access 
should be supporting?

The NIV may be the flavour of the day, and if one of our references 
makes a specific reference to that version, then and only then should we 
link to it. Failing that our links should be to PD versions.  We are 
certainly not in a position to judge the accuracy of any translation of 
the Bible.  Even the KJV has serious limitations; nevertheless, it is a 
known quantity.  Links to it carry an implicit note of caution that is 
not so evident in a modern translation.  In addition, its long history 
make it the version that would have influenced many English authors of 
the past.  It would make no sense in those cases to reference a version 
that was only published after their death.  There is much to be said for 
having the KJV as the default version.

I also question the value of having scripts and toolservers for this 
task when a simple wikilink would work perfectly well.  The way this has 
developed is just another way of being too clever by half.  It would be 
worth the effort to change most usages of this template to a simple link 
to Wikisource.

Ec