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.