|
Links to MyWikBiz, Summa Logicae |
|
|
|
|
Replies
Abd |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
|
QUOTE(trenton @ Sun 12th September 2010, 1:04pm) 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 |
|
I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined:
Member No.: 4,212
|
QUOTE(Abd @ Sun 12th September 2010, 6:10pm) 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.5Dwhere '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 |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
|
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 12th September 2010, 3:56pm) QUOTE(Abd @ Sun 12th September 2010, 6:10pm) 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.5Dwhere '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 |
|
I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined:
Member No.: 4,212
|
QUOTE(Abd @ Mon 13th September 2010, 4:34am) 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:
|
|
|
|
Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Mon 13th September 2010, 4:41pm) QUOTE(Abd @ Mon 13th September 2010, 4:34am) 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. “Credit Where Credit Is Due†applies to any use of another's work. Work, as in Labor. Jon Awbrey
|
|
|
|
Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Mon 13th September 2010, 5:08pm) QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Mon 13th September 2010, 9:56pm) Work, as in Labor.
Jon Awbrey
Admittedly I did write a macro to make the obvious and clear-cut corrections. E.g. 'cst' is always 'est' and 'ctiam' always 'etiam'. Still, it took the best part of a week. And of course this has put me off putting anything else onto the net. What's the point? A small reward, such as recognition of the fact it was your work, is a small price. But if they won't allow that, why bother? This is all harming 'free knowledge'. It goes way beyond what people owe to any one person. It goes to what people owe to the truth. It's bad enough that Wikipediots so arrogantly flaunt their intellectual dishonesty, but they deform developing characters to fit in with a whole culture of intellectual dishonesty. That is a gross disservice, not only to the individuals involved but to the entire society. Jon Awbrey
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |