|
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:
|
|
|
|
Abd |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
|
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. You are expecting politeness? (Wild, hysterical laughing) I'll note on Wikisource that you claim to have done the scanning, and I'll provide the evidence you've provided, perhaps I'll link to here. At least it will be on the Talk page. And we'll see what those who put up the pages say. It's not illegal for them to have put it up, and I won't be screaming at them, so let's see what they say about it, if they are around. This post has been edited by Abd:
|
|
|
|
Posts in this topic
Peter Damian Links to MyWikBiz thekohser
This seems more a vendetta against Kohs than anyt... Cock-up-over-conspiracy Look ... come on ... you are facing a Nintendo pla... Peter Damian The discussion is continued by someone called Flow... jayvdb
The discussion is continued by someone called Flo... Peter Damian
[quote name='Peter Damian' post='183061' date='Sa... jayvdb
I'm sorry, I missed the comments on your WP t... Peter Damian And there they go, moving the precious work across... thekohser
And there they go, moving the precious work acros... jayvdb
[quote name='Peter Damian' post='184411' date='Th... Peter Damian
I seriously doubt that there are any rights in th... jayvdb [quote name='jayvdb' post='184459' date='Fri 17th ... Peter Damian Time to resurrect this one.
http://en.wikipedia.o... thekohser
Time to resurrect this one.
http://en.wikipedia.... Jon Awbrey
[quote name='Peter Damian' post='252155' date='Su... Jon Awbrey
Of course, maybe the scanners burped on the same... Peter Damian
Work, as in Labor.
Jon Awbrey
Admittedly I di... Jon Awbrey
Work, as in Labor.
Jon Awbrey
Admittedly I di... Abd Well, there is no question that the external link ... Peter Damian
The discussion on Talk there shows how not to app... Jon Awbrey My guess is MrOllie will be along pretty quick to ... Peter Damian To show exactly how much it is to correct these pa... Abd Okay, I posted it., permanent link.
I see that my... Jon Awbrey MrOllie is a self-appointed BADLINKS vigilante and... Abd MrOllie is a self-appointed BADLINKS vigilante and... tarantino
Someone should nail MrOllie. These guys cause eno... Abd
[quote name='Abd' post='252318' date='Tue 14th Se... tarantino
Tarantino, how did you connect Ehheh to MrOllie?
... CharlotteWebb
MrOllie's first edit was to Frankenstein as w... Abd [...]Ehheh's [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/in... EricBarbour Personally, I don't care if someone uses multi... Jon Awbrey
MrOllie has posted that stupid warning on hundred... EricBarbour It appears to me that [wpuser]MrOllie used to be k... Abd
It appears to me that [wpuser]MrOllie used to be ... Jon Awbrey MrOllie got into the act right after the Last Big ... The Joy Another DennyColt/David Spart weirdo? :unsure:
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |