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]

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.