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.

[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".