Talk:Wikisource
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Wikisource is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images. |
It would be nice to know how recent a document can be to qualify for inclusion to Wikisource. That way people know that while they can find Lysastrata, they can't expect Gone with the Wind any time soon.
Comment: This page needs to describe more clearly what Wikisource is. Although it deals well with the history of the project, it does little to tell a newcomer what he might find there. The opening summary with its link to the Primary_source page seems to suggest it's exclusively an historian's tool. May I suggest adding a more informal and thorough description of what a surfer might find at Wikisource? David Wigram 3:20 GMT 12th December 05
I don't know, I rather like the logo. I thought it was meant to connote a vast wealth of information backing up the more common "public face" that is Wikipedia. I'm not sure how much "enthusiasm" one can expect a logo to generate, but I like the idea, in my own personal interpretation of it.
- I was gonna come in here and say all kinds of stuff about the logo, but you hit the nail on the head. You said exactly, I mean exactly, what I was gonna say!! Jaberwocky6669 04:00, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
- I second Jaberwocky6669's seconding. The logo is right-on! -- BD2412 talk June 30, 2005 01:54 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] =
If someone would edit this page to give me a way to get to the directory of Wikisource source texts, I doubt I'd be the only one who was grateful? Every path I've taken takes me OUT of WikiSource. Apologies for clumsy post formatting... new wikite.
go to wikisource home page click on top left tool bar tag "article" / scroll down to "milestones" paragraph/ click on "englush wikisource" in first sentence of text [doubtless there are other more formal ways but that got me there after a lot of searching also]
[edit] Wikisource as a "source"
Can Wikisource be cited as a source for the previous publication of a work ? Can a wikipedia article cite a wikisource publication as the way to *verify* the contents of the article? Wjhonson 06:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- In order for wikisource to be used as a source to verify previous publication it would be necessary that the specific source in question has its source noted (which we try to encourage). For wikisource to be used as a source, which can be cited, for a work it would be best if the work in question (the source document on wikisource) has been proofread and verified as complete and accurate (in which case it should be protected to save it from vandalism/'corrections'). Otherwise there is no guarantee that the source is infact accurate or non-fictitious. We have a procedure for proofreading our sources, noting any changes from the printed source, noting origin of the work, for verifying their level of completeness and for protecting the source (as well as a range of other things) but this is just a recent addition so most of the sources we have are unverified & unsourced. You could cite them but you'd be taking the risk that they aren't consistent with the originally published work. AllanHainey 15:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Can wikisource be cited as the source for the elements of an article on wikipedia? If someone states that an article on wikiPEDIA is unverifiable, can a wikisource document be pointed to as the source from which the elements of the wikipedia article can be verified? 20:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, but the same criticism could be applied to wikisource, that it is unverifiable, unless the source in question had gone through the process noted above. AllanHainey 12:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Can wikisource be cited as the source for the elements of an article on wikipedia? If someone states that an article on wikiPEDIA is unverifiable, can a wikisource document be pointed to as the source from which the elements of the wikipedia article can be verified? 20:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Project Guttenberg
- Well?
- Can we get this article to show the difference between Wikisource and Project Guttenberg? Are they conflicting, cooperating, etc.? As an outsider it is unclear. Thanks. GuyFromChicago 21:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Quantity = Quality?
"The English Wikisource passed 20,000 text-units in its third month of existence, already holding more texts than did the entire project in April (before the move to language subdomains)." Well, congratulations. But since quality standards seem to be set on "plain text mainly without reliable sources, and forget about scans", I prefer Gutenberg. 82.83.35.12 14:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Look at some of the special projects, which are great examples of how Wikisource can provide added value to readers and editors of texts in ways that Project Gutenberg cannot. The amazing multilingualism of the project is also far greater than at Gutenberg. Dovi 18:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
like omigod good info yo!
