Links to MyWikBiz, Summa Logicae Options

[Peter Damian]

I raised the issue on the RS noticeboard here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Rel...WikiBiz_deleted

There is a concerted effort to remove a link on the Summa Logicae article to a version of book III (the only version on the internet) I placed there.

The logic is that it is a 'personal website'. As I have pointed out, that logic would remove 90% of links from medieval articles, and nearly all the links on that particular article.

It was many weeks work to check the scanned in Latin version - there are currently no Latin spell-checkers on the market, and it all has to be done by eye. This seems more a vendetta against Kohs than anything else.

[trenton]

It occurs to me that since Wikipedia Review is a wiki, should it not be afforded wikipedia's interwiki links rather than plain external links. After all, Jimbeau's wikia project uses interwiki links (and therefore benefits in the google rankings)

[Abd]

It occurs to me that since Wikipedia Review is a wiki, should it not be afforded wikipedia's interwiki links rather than plain external links. After all, Jimbeau's wikia project uses interwiki links (and therefore benefits in the google rankings)

Don't even go there. Incorrect, anyway. If interwiki links, i.e., "See also," is being used for wikia, that's probably improper, "See also" should be reserved for Wikipedia links, not even links to Wikiversity, for example. The reason is that See also should be reserved for material covered by and governed by Wikipedia content policies.

As a reader of Wikipedia, I think of See Also as part of the encyclopedia, and External Links as material deemed of interest, with a caveat that this material may not be neutral. (That doesn't mean that Wikipedia material is guaranteed to be neutral, but it is, at least theoretically, required to be, whereas External link material is not such a requirement. The error is often make of objecting to external links as not meeting RS requirements.

Where there is duplication, links to sites that are RS are preferred, that's all.

[Peter Damian]

As a reader of Wikipedia, I think of See Also as part of the encyclopedia, and External Links as material deemed of interest, with a caveat that this material may not be neutral. (That doesn't mean that Wikipedia material is guaranteed to be neutral, but it is, at least theoretically, required to be, whereas External link material is not such a requirement. The error is often make of objecting to external links as not meeting RS requirements.

The irony, as I pointed out, is that most of the version in Wikisource is the one that I originally scanned in and checked, and which someone copied from Wikipedia Review. I know this because the first version contains a number of scanning errors which I subsequently corrected. See e.g. chapter 45

http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Summa_logica...CUNDA_FIGURA.5D

where 'convertibile' was incorrectly read by the OCR as 'convertible' (Latin OCR is frustrating because no one has built a spell checker, and the OCR tries hard to convert everything to English spelling). There are dozens of such errors in the Wikisource version.

[Abd]

As a reader of Wikipedia, I think of See Also as part of the encyclopedia, and External Links as material deemed of interest, with a caveat that this material may not be neutral. (That doesn't mean that Wikipedia material is guaranteed to be neutral, but it is, at least theoretically, required to be, whereas External link material is not such a requirement. The error is often make of objecting to external links as not meeting RS requirements.

The irony, as I pointed out, is that most of the version in Wikisource is the one that I originally scanned in and checked, and which someone copied from Wikipedia Review. I know this because the first version contains a number of scanning errors which I subsequently corrected. See e.g. chapter 45

http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Summa_logica...CUNDA_FIGURA.5D

where 'convertibile' was incorrectly read by the OCR as 'convertible' (Latin OCR is frustrating because no one has built a spell checker, and the OCR tries hard to convert everything to English spelling). There are dozens of such errors in the Wikisource version.

That's rude, eh? Of course, maybe the scanners burped on the same glitches. What's missing on Wikisource is provenance for the scans.

Yes, I noticed you'd called attention to this. What I couldn't tell quickly, and what is more important, is which of the copies is more complete. I don't think Wikipedia should get into the issue of whether or not the material on Wikisource is legitimate, that should be handled at Wikisource. If the copies are complementary, then both should be linked to. If one includes the other, then the larger one. Except that if the smaller is more correct, then, once again, maybe both.

[Peter Damian]

Of course, maybe the scanners burped on the same glitches. What's missing on Wikisource is provenance for the scans.

If they burped on the same glitches, then the 95% of glitches that I manually cleared up would be still there in the Wikisource. But not so. The Wikisource contains both my corrections, and the errors I failed to detected first time round. On the provenance, Books I and II were copied from a scan on Peter King's website (which he in turn took from an old scan that had been doing the rounds in academia). Book III is mine. I noticed that Book II part 2 and book IV have been scanned in by some Wikisourcer, which is a development at least.

This is all academic. I have no copyright over the work I did on correcting a scan, laborious as it was. It's more the politeness thing. I go to all that work, perhaps they could let me link to it? That's what gets me.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: