[Foundation-l] A Wikisource Definition (was: RfC: A Free Content and Expression Definition)

[Ryan Dabler]

On 5/4/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This is an excellent question.  It leads to another one: Why does
> Wikisource, as a project, exist? People will have many different
> answers to that. Here's mine.
>
> 3) Translate and collaborate. I cannot emphasize enough how strongly I
> feel translations should become part of Wikisource's core mission.
> This is where wikis, with some additional functionality (easier
> processes for managing documents and assignments), could really shine.
> There is tremendous value in free translations. Many, many books which
> are in the free Wikisource archive are not available as free
> translations even in languages like German, Italian, French, let alone
> Russian, Farsi, or Japanese.
>
> Wikis are well-suited for this kind of work, because you can both
> split the work into packages, and collaborate on refining the
> consistency of the end result. The same is true for proofreading
> scanned documents, but here, the "Distributed Proofreaders" project is
> already doing an admirable job. We'd have to do a lot of work on
> further software extensions to compete with them.


This is a great objective, and I don't know of a Wikisource that would be
against it.  The problem, though, is that we are small.  We've got a
dedicated user base of only a very few editors, and these editors can only
do so much in a given day.  One of Wikisource's main goals is "added value"
of texts (i.e., trying to distinguish ourselves from other digital libraries
like Gutenberg) of which translations are a portion.  But we need many more
editors who are bilingual and willing to take on the long task of
translating works, otherwise this will never get off the ground.

4) Limited scope archive. We cannot possibly archive every single
> document that might be of interest to someone in the future. Similarly
> to Wikimedia Commons, we need to develop criteria of usefulness. One
> such criterion is freedom of the content. This already drastically
> reduces the scope to a much more manageable amount. The material
> should also have been published at some point and meet  general
> criteria of notability.


Sadly, this is true.  But, darn it, we can try!  :-)

5) Incentivize freedom. Through 2) and 3), I hope that we can create a
> real incentive for authors to release published works freely,
> especially after they have gone out of print. I have decided to put
> the first edition of my own book under a GFDL/CC-BY-SA dual license. I
> did so with the hope that it might be archived and translated on
> Wikisource. However, de.wikisource.org has neither decided whether it
> wants to do translations, nor whether it wants modern texts.


This would be of great benefit to Wikisource, but I don't see this happening
for quite a long time.  So long as people can cash in on allowing others to
use what they created, people will (understandably) want to make money off
their creations.  But, should a trend of licensing works with free licenses
take hold, this would be an area where Wikisource could shine brighter than
other digital libraries.  Of course, part of this still revolves around
Wikisource having users willing to translate...

I see no principal reason why Wikisource should not archive many
> different ''kinds'' of material as long as they meet criteria as
> defined in 4). For instance, I think it would be great if Wikisource
> became an archive for "open access" scientific content (and even data)
> that meets the free content definition.


Wikisource has chosen to no longer accept this material, the biggest problem
being verifiability.  Such material would better fit databases far removed
from being editable by anyone other than those who are experts in the field,
lest Wikisource start publishing and distributing faulty information.  This
would be a step backwards from the direction we want to be going.

But with the exception of 2), all of the points above suggest
> implementing a strict standard of freedom on Wikisource.
>
> ...



> All of our projects will eventually need clear definitions. There is
> some need for Board oversight here, or there will be what we call
> "semantic drift" in the WiktionaryZ project: people developing their
> own meanings, and implementing them as they see fit. Some will take
> the project away from its free content nature. Others will be too
> strict in limiting the scope of documents. Some will argue that a
> collaborative translation is a form of "original research" and should
> not be allowed. Again others might see annotations as unacceptable
> alterations of the source material.
>

I'm getting the feeling that this clear definition of Wikisource will be
proposed by people who are not very active (if at all) in the project and
are only imposing their own personal visions of what Wikisource *should* be
on the community and group of editors who have been involved for months and
years.  If there is to be a definition, it should be formulated with a large
amount of help and input from those people who know Wikisource like the back
of their hand.  It should be done with Board oversight, of course, as it is
ultimately responsible to them and is but one of many projects of a
Foundation they are in charge of.

But I cannot stress how much the Wikisourcerors should be involved in
formulating this definition.  Wikisource is no longer "Project Sourceberg"
and its URL is not "sources.wikipedia.org" anymore.  It is a Wikimedia
project, on par with Wiktionary, Wikiquote, and the rest.

 We have seen this with Wikibooks. Intended as a place to
> collaboratively write textbooks, this definition clashes with a much
> more inclusive practice that has long tolerated materials such as game
> guides, jokes, or dating tips. How much do we know about the way the
> meaning of Wikibooks or Wikisource is interpreted in other languages
> than English, when we don't have a shared definition of its mission
> which itself is literally translated into these languages?
>

I suggest getting in touch with those projects sounds like a good first
step.

 Volunteers like Birgitte can be forgiven for being frustrated when
> their own ideas clash with those which are seemingly well-understood
> by a small group of people who have little to do with the project
> itself, ideas which are not well-communicated to its editors. It needs
> to be clear why Wikisource exists, and what core policies it should
> follow. Certainly such a definition can be developed through a process
> of community consultation (as we're doing with the FCD), but it still
> has to be done.
>

I highly suggest that these "core policies" be as general as possible,
allowing much freedom in their implementation.  I do not see the need for
having more than just a small handful of any core policies, either.  These
policies need to be written so that they can apply to all the current
projects and to any new projects that might be created.  Otherwise, by
custom-tailoring all the policies/definitions/requirements on a
project-to-project basis it might seem that WMF would be moving away from
its wiki model of allowing the community control over its own future to one
of prescribing policies which overly dictate (and perhaps put a damper on)
life and growth of the project.

Z