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.

[thekohser]

This seems more a vendetta against Kohs than anything else.

Seems?

Welcome to my world, Peter Damian.

Actually deleting this particular link gives them revenge not only on me, but on you, as well. It's a double whammy for them. And it goes to underscore what I and others have been saying for a couple of years now -- Wikipedia is the world's largest online revenge platform.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Look ... come on ... you are facing a Nintendo playing Trekkie whose other area of expertise includes South Park, and you are arguing over the authenticity of a Medieval Latin philosophical text?

Its obvious who is going to win. Its the Wikipedia!!!

You could try pointing out the non sequitur in his logic but I think you would be wasting your time. This one is putting the smell of cack into his cack-handed handling of the matter.

[Peter Damian]

The discussion is continued by someone called Flowanda, on the talk page of the Summa article,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sum_of_Logic

and on Flowanda's talk. He says "link appears to be a self-published site not noted for its authority or expertise and to non-English content" - meaning the Logic Museum (which is a directory of MWB). Outrageous! And John Vandenburg has re-linked the first parts of Book III to the Wikisource version

http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Summa_logica...smo_simpliciter

which is a simple scanned in version, not corrected. For instance, it contains the following horrendous spelling mistakes.

Alia regula est qnod nollns terminus in praemissis uel conclusione somator aequiuoce.

"qnod nollns" should be 'quod nullus' and 'somator' should be 'sumatur'. These are elementary spelling mistakes which are common in scanning. For example, search for the misspelled 'qnod' in the Wikisource version - scanners often confuse 'n' with 'u' and as they don't have Latin spellcheckers (this is something I am working on this as a separate project) the result is often a mess.

I take a lot of time clearing up these sorts of errors. I can't guarantee 100% but it is a lot better than Wikisource. The usual problem of a lot of attention paid to format and rubbish like that, no attention to basic content.

[edit] Even the chapter headings are wrong "3-1.02 DE QUIBUSDAM PPAEAMBULIS QUAE PRAEMITTENDA " - the scanner confused the 'R' of 'PRAEAMBULIS' with 'P'. How dare they say my site is not 'noted for its expertise'. Spellchecking without mechanical aids takes days. If they take my corrected version (as Vandenberg has threatened) I shall really go mad.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[jayvdb]

The discussion is continued by someone called Flowanda, on the talk page of the Summa article,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sum_of_Logic

and on Flowanda's talk. He says "link appears to be a self-published site not noted for its authority or expertise and to non-English content" - meaning the Logic Museum (which is a directory of MWB). Outrageous! And John Vandenburg has re-linked the first parts of Book III to the Wikisource version

http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Summa_logica...smo_simpliciter

which is a simple scanned in version, not corrected.

...

If they take my corrected version (as Vandenberg has threatened) I shall really go mad.

Don't take it so personally; I take accurate public domain text from everywhere, and I marry them up with the original page scans on Wikisource. If there is no public domain text available on the internet, I spend days correcting OCR, and I don't care who makes copies of my work.

The Latin Wikisource content appears to have originated from here, which was listed on the Wikipedia article until today. Latin Wikisource doesnt have many maintenance tags, however I tagged this page with {{Infectus}} back in September 2008, which gives the reader a sense that it isnt reliable. Wikisource has a text quality system to help readers know when a text is accurate, and the texts slowly gravitate towards perfection, when people like you and I have time to work on them. It isn't always obvious that a text is low quality, however it is quite obvious when a text is good quality. Take for example The Myth of Occam's Razor, which I did "take" from your site, and I made a few corrections along the way. The pages of that text are yellow, which indicates they are proofread. Another person needs to come along and "verify" the pages, which will result in the pages turning to green, by which stage we are hoping that all errors have been removed.

[Peter Damian]

The discussion is continued by someone called Flowanda, on the talk page of the Summa article,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sum_of_Logic

and on Flowanda's talk. He says "link appears to be a self-published site not noted for its authority or expertise and to non-English content" - meaning the Logic Museum (which is a directory of MWB). Outrageous! And John Vandenburg has re-linked the first parts of Book III to the Wikisource version

http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Summa_logica...smo_simpliciter

which is a simple scanned in version, not corrected.

...

If they take my corrected version (as Vandenberg has threatened) I shall really go mad.

Don't take it so personally; I take accurate public domain text from everywhere, and I marry them up with the original page scans on Wikisource. If there is no public domain text available on the internet, I spend days correcting OCR, and I don't care who makes copies of my work.

The Latin Wikisource content appears to have originated from here, which was listed on the Wikipedia article until today. Latin Wikisource doesnt have many maintenance tags, however I tagged this page with {{Infectus}} back in September 2008, which gives the reader a sense that it isnt reliable. Wikisource has a text quality system to help readers know when a text is accurate, and the texts slowly gravitate towards perfection, when people like you and I have time to work on them. It isn't always obvious that a text is low quality, however it is quite obvious when a text is good quality. Take for example The Myth of Occam's Razor, which I did "take" from your site, and I made a few corrections along the way. The pages of that text are yellow, which indicates they are proofread. Another person needs to come along and "verify" the pages, which will result in the pages turning to green, by which stage we are hoping that all errors have been removed.

I'm sorry, I missed the comments on your WP talk page which were quite sensible.

And you did indeed take my myth of Ockham's razor from here

http://uk.geocities.com/frege@btinternet.c...ythofockham.htm

It is of course public domain so you are welcome - and you didn't take the introduction which I wrote, which is OK. However Google will probably 'redirect' any traffic to Wikisource, which is a shame because the point of my Logic Museum is to put things in context and generally explain things. Oh well.

[jayvdb]

I'm sorry, I missed the comments on your WP talk page which were quite sensible.

And you did indeed take my myth of Ockham's razor from here

http://uk.geocities.com/frege@btinternet.c...ythofockham.htm

It is of course public domain so you are welcome - and you didn't take the introduction which I wrote, which is OK. However Google will probably 'redirect' any traffic to Wikisource, which is a shame because the point of my Logic Museum is to put things in context and generally explain things. Oh well.

Wikisource has a mechanism for recording additional information about the transcription, such as where the text was obtained from, or who did the transcription (if it wasn't done by Wikisource contributor). I haven't done that with this text (yet) as I was intending to set it up as an example, and discuss it with you in detail privately. One example I can find quickly is Balade to Rosemounde, but there are others where we acknowledge the original transcriber by name. I wasn't sure if you wanted that.

Page 5 has now been corrected, and is now "validated".

[Peter Damian]

And there they go, moving the precious work across

http://la.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title...&action=history

Do I mind? A little bit: it was several weeks work, and it puts me off because Google will prefer that version. My version will include many links within MWB to other medieval philosophers and medieval terms, and the net will be a little poorer. Wikisource is completely rubbish at the moment.

[thekohser]

And there they go, moving the precious work across

http://la.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title...&action=history

Do I mind? A little bit: it was several weeks work, and it puts me off because Google will prefer that version. My version will include many links within MWB to other medieval philosophers and medieval terms, and the net will be a little poorer. Wikisource is completely rubbish at the moment.

First, are they "stealing" from your labor without attribution, or is this stuff (being a transcription, really) not protected by any rights?

Second, I wouldn't be so sure that Wikisource (much less "la.Wikisource") will out-do Wikipedia Review in the search engine competition -- especially if, as I always plead with you, you enhance your pages with the semantic attributes (minimally, "keyword") that are available to you on Wikipedia Review.

Greg

[jayvdb]

And there they go, moving the precious work across

http://la.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title...&action=history

Do I mind? A little bit: it was several weeks work, and it puts me off because Google will prefer that version. My version will include many links within MWB to other medieval philosophers and medieval terms, and the net will be a little poorer. Wikisource is completely rubbish at the moment.

First, are they "stealing" from your labor without attribution, or is this stuff (being a transcription, really) not protected by any rights?

Second, I wouldn't be so sure that Wikisource (much less "la.Wikisource") will out-do Wikipedia Review in the search engine competition -- especially if, as I always plead with you, you enhance your pages with the semantic attributes (minimally, "keyword") that are available to you on Wikipedia Review.

Greg

I seriously doubt that there are any rights in the original text, however Hiroshige looks like a sock of some sort, which I think it is still a rude way of handling this. I had hoped to work with Peter Damian to bring it across with his agreement.

Wikisource vs Wikipedia Review would be an interesting battle - I expect you are right about who would win because Wikisource doesnt do much to promote itself. Rather than fight, I would prefer to link back to the original website, as I have mentioned in an earlier post on WR or WP.

Wikisource only wants to have a copy; I hope that any competition between Wikisource and other depository is friendly, as there are sources throughout the ages for everyone to have a chunk of the pie, and still some left for the next generation to digitise. Aggressive competition is only warranted against the commercial depositories who have ads, or who use proprietary formats which prevent copying, or who add assert copyright over their etexts when they are actually in the public domain.

[Peter Damian]

I seriously doubt that there are any rights in the original text, however Hiroshige looks like a sock of some sort, which I think it is still a rude way of handling this. I had hoped to work with Peter Damian to bring it across with his agreement.

This was clearly retaliation for the link from the article in Wikipedia.

Wikisource vs Wikipedia Review would be an interesting battle - I expect you are right about who would win because Wikisource doesnt do much to promote itself. Rather than fight, I would prefer to link back to the original website, as I have mentioned in an earlier post on WR or WP.

I hope that any competition between Wikisource and other depository is friendly

So would I but recent events haven't made it so.

I seriously doubt that there are any rights in the original text

Wrong, this text (both book III and books I and II) are taken from the 1974 critical edition originally begun by Boehner who, having died in 1953 is probably out of the radar, but the main work was completed by Gedeon Gal and Stephen Brown. Brown is still alive.

Note that a critical edition by definition is a synthesis of different manuscripts which in theory may not resemble exactly any primary source. Arguably copyright does exist there. The Franciscan Institute are generally very relaxed about this and gave permission for use of a digitised text for Bonaventura's works which I was involved with.

[jayvdb]

I seriously doubt that there are any rights in the original text

Wrong, this text (both book III and books I and II) are taken from the 1974 critical edition originally begun by Boehner who, having died in 1953 is probably out of the radar, but the main work was completed by Gedeon Gal and Stephen Brown. Brown is still alive.

Note that a critical edition by definition is a synthesis of different manuscripts which in theory may not resemble exactly any primary source. Arguably copyright does exist there. The Franciscan Institute are generally very relaxed about this and gave permission for use of a digitised text for Bonaventura's works which I was involved with.

Indeed; until the text is accompanied with proper bibliographic and provenance data, it isnt possible t o be certain that it is not a copyright violation. Many of the texts on Wikisource lack these important details. We are slowly fixing that problem on English Wikisource, however the German Wikisource decided that they needed to remove all etexts that did not have accompanying page scans, which also removed the legal uncertainty about their etexts.

An important distinction to make here is that the Latin Wikisource text may be infringing the copyright of the recent authors, but it is not infringing your copy.

On Wikisource we often have copyright violation discussions where there is doubt. English Wikisource has the most active forum for these discussions, and the participants there are usually very keen to remove all uncertainty, or find a replacement text, which means the discussions can remain open a long time, and many of the administrators prefer to err on the side of caution. Two examples are De Anima and Categories.

Latin Wikisource does not have many copyright discussions, and does not have a separate copyvio forum, mostly due to the active community being very small, and most of us have other projects which dominate our time. The only copyright discussion that I recall is here, where the person who published the original source claimed copyright, and we did remove the text. Sometimes it is worth investigating whether there is any serious copyright claim to be made, but in other cases it isn't feasible and the best approach is deletion or replacement.

I have initiated a discussion about this possible copyright problem.

[Peter Damian]

Time to resurrect this one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=379600116

[thekohser]

Time to resurrect this one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=379600116

The Wikipedia page about Sum of Logic gets about 10 or 11 page views per day, on average. If maybe 3% of viewers click through to Wikipedia Review, that's about 9 or 10 hits on Wikipedia Review per month. This would constitute about 0.0167% of all my site's monthly page views.

Therefore, I am almost certain this will become a point of grave importance to Wikipediots, that they will snuff out this effort of yours, Peter.

[Jon Awbrey]

Time to resurrect this one.

en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sum of Logic&action=historysubmit&diff

The Wikipedia page about Sum of Logic gets about 10 or 11 page views per day, on average. If maybe 3% of viewers click through to Wikipedia Review, that's about 9 or 10 hits on Wikipedia Review per month. This would constitute about 0.0167% of all my site's monthly page views.

Therefore, I am almost certain this will become a point of grave importance to Wikipediots, that they will snuff out this effort of yours, Peter.

There were a few people expressing an interest in Classic Lit over at OpenStudy. You might try and start a study group on Medieval Logic or Scholastic Philosophy and see what happens.

Jon Awbrey

[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]

Well, there is no question that the external link to Wikipedia Review is appropriate, unless that material is truly duplicated at Wikisource. I tried to figure out what was what, it wasn't easy to compare these. I restored the link to Wikisource.

The discussion on Talk there shows how not to approach a content dispute, Peter, you rather quickly resorted to "childish," etc. That really never belongs on an article talk page, if anywhere. If this was common, it's easy to see why you were banned. Yes. I know, it is very tempting to call stupidity "stupid" and childishness "childish." Sometimes I have to sit on my hands, sometimes I fail, but ... I do redact at the drop of a complaint, I'd have struck that immediately....

Old stuff, though.

But the Wikisource link wasn't discussed, just the Wikipedia Review link, with the usual bogus arguments.

RSN was the wrong place to address this issue, the issue for external links isn't reliable source, and external links are not required to be reliable sources, merely to be of likely interest to readers without being grossly biased, or ''known'' copyright violation, or maybe just likely violation, and an allegation of gross bias here is probably preposterous, likewise copyvio, unless the Wikisource is copyvio.

If one of the links duplicates information in the other, with no independent value, then probably preference would be given to Wikisource. Otherwise, removing the Wikipedia Review link is damaging the usefulness of the encyclopedia.

Yes, this was a coatrack on which to hang complaints about Wikipedia Review or perhaps Peter Damian.

[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.

[Jon Awbrey]

My guess is MrOllie will be along pretty quick to fixit.

The question is — Whose sock is MrOllie?

Jon (IMG:http://wikipediareview.com/stimg9x0b4fsr2/1/folder_post_icons/icon9.gif)

[Peter Damian]

The discussion on Talk there shows how not to approach a content dispute, Peter, you rather quickly resorted to "childish," etc. That really never belongs on an article talk page, if anywhere.

I know, I should have said 'asshole' or something like that.