Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/Feb 2005 - Apr 2005

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Front page[edit]

Can someone update the front page so it's more in line with the new wikipedia.org design? Currently it's very confusing. (I'd do it myself but it appears to be protected.)

it looks better indeed, go ahead. --ThomasV 07:00, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
however, I do not know how you will be able to sort the different entries. it would make sense to sort them according to the number of pages, like other wikimedia projects. but here, for a reason that is very impolite to question in the scriptorium, the only wikisource for which we know the number of pages is the hebrew wikisource. My guesstimate is that the english wikisource has more articles than the hebrew one, but I cannot be sure. :-) --ThomasV 07:09, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Funny think, but it's not so easy to know the number of He: articles either. 2-3 weeks ago there was a mass move of about 50 texts to new titles for technical reasons. Not deleting them, just moving them. But after the move took place, the total article number went down by 50 and since then has never gone back up. I don't know why... But actually there are well over 200 articles. Dovi 09:45, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have no objection to changing the front page in a manner that reflects the design for the Wikipedia front page. I know that there was some voting going on about several possible designs, so I would wait until the dust settles about that before doing anything here. So please Thomas don't insinuate that there is anything more to our differences of opinion than what they are.

In fact I have never felt much attachment to all the introductory paragraphs on the front page; people have just felt the need to write them when they start a new language. I have also never felt the need to say "Welcome" in what are guessed to be the most frequent languages just before the links are repeated again with all the others in the next paragraph.

What do we want on the front page? The per langage count may still be a difficulty in the short run, but I suspect that solutions are available. Please note that any category page includes the statement, "There are xxx articles in this category." Eclecticology 02:24, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Resurrecting the logo vote[edit]

See Wikisource:Logo

I was skimming through all of the topics in the Scriptorium, and one I came across was #Logo selection procedure. Maybe it is time to bring the Logo selection back into discussion so we can once and for all get the logo question decided. Zhaladshar 16:34, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

it would not hurt if somebody could make the rules a bit clearer. the page where all the votes are gathered seems quite anarchic. Who should vote? Many voters are no real contributors, and they could be sockpuppets. Some voters seem to use a right to 'oppose' to a logo, but this right has never been documented; how many different logos can I oppose to, and how is that going to be counted? --ThomasV 23:39, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Most of us here tend to be very much text minded, to the point that graphic design issues tend to get a "Whatever" reaction, even if we favour a particular design. As things stand only two designs have received any significant number of votes. Some of these may indeed have been sockpuppets, but for this early informal stage that was not important. Two major options present themselves at this point: (1) Do we call for further design proposals? (2) Do we have an "official" run-off vote between the two leading candidates? Other possibilities may be there if people wish to propose them. Eclecticology 05:39, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I would personally rather just have the entire thing done with. Calling for more designs will mean waiting even longer on the logo vote, and we might forget that there is a vote going on, as has already happened. I give a kind of "whatever" response to this sort of stuff, but I also like to see things finally finished. It might be best if we go ahead with choice (2). Zhaladshar 14:32, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I've left messages with HappyDog and Zanimum asking them to indicate their willingness to transfer any rights they may have in the designs to the Wikimedia Foundation. The copyright status of the stylized Sourceberg is particularly unclear, but we will at least want some certainty about the trademark. Assuming that we are proceeding according to option (2) above I would propose a two-week voting period beginning shortly after the vote is set up. Any comments about who should be allowed to vote? Will a simple majority be enough to decide this question? I do not plan to cast a vote myself unless it is needed to break a tie at the end. Eclecticology 21:24, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hi there - sorry I've been off-line for so long. Real life's been catching up with me :). I've put a note on my user page indicating that I am happy for my designs to be used by the foundation. Regarding what to do next, I feel that if we announced the vote without announcing the submission request we may get a load of people trying to submit logos and confusing the issue. On the other hand, anyone who regularly contributes here will have seen the earlier announcements, so maybe we shouldn't worry about the it too much. I agree that it would be good to get it out of the way soon... --HappyDog 09:49, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply HappyDog. We still haven't heard from Zanimum on this, and unless he indicates his consent we cannot use his proposal. How long should we wait for him? If we drop his proposal because of this we would be left with only one serious contender, and a simple accept/reject vote may be the way to go if we ever want to be rid of this issue. Eclecticology 21:24, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I say we give him a week before we drop his proposals and go ahead with the vote. While it won't be ideal to only have one major contender, waiting for a possibly non-existent reply is even less ideal. This is something that we should get off our plate once and for all. Zhaladshar 22:24, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As a response to User:Christiaan I've added a new logo idea to the proceedings - one based on the sun. --HappyDog 16:04, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Arrrghhh! Thank you for your new effort HappyDog, but it comes at a time when some of us were hoping to put this issue behind us. The final vote was about to be a simple yes or no about the "stack of books". Unless there is serious demand to include your new proposal, I think we should go ahead. Eclecticology 00:49, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Oops! I deliberately held off making it for that very reason, but I saw that Zanimum had added some designs and assumed that he had given the appropriate permission for his logo to be used, therefore necessitating a more complicated vote. So far nobody has reacted to the design, so we can ignore it if you like (though I personally think it's better than the books ;-) ) --HappyDog 02:55, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I just looked at Zanimum's further additions. They are variations on the same design rather than something substantially different from what he put before. He did not address the question of releasing legal rights at all, and I would hate to choose a design that could easily fall into that legal limbo. Eclecticology 05:31, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well, for two of them, he did address legal rights. For Image:Wikisource.jpg and Image:Wikisource zanimum no-31FD4.png, on their discussion pages he added "(C) Wikimedia Foundation." Now, I don't know if this is enough to release the copyright to Wikimedia should one of those two logos win or not, but I just wanted to point that out in case you didn't notice them. The other three logos, however, don't even bear anything talking about handing the copyright over. Zhaladshar 13:13, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, I hadn't seen them. I'm less concerned about copyright than about trademark. Just putting the design on this site may have had the effect of putting it under GFDL. The important thing is that the winner should be prepared to sign a legal document (with his real name) in a form that the directors will find acceptable. If the winner fails to do this I am prepared to consider a winning vote to be void. My dilemma now has to do with how to reconcile the democratic wishes of the community with the need to have this issue settled. This is not one of those issues where there are a lot of strong POVs on either side. Eclecticology 19:54, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

vandalism[edit]

Vandalism is increasingly becoming a problem; just for today, I had to revert 3 edits by 3 different IPs. Some occurences of vandalism are also difficult to detect, especially when they are not in your own language. And with the overall level of activity increasing, they tend to disappear from the radar quicker than ever. I wonder what we should do about that (besides having language subdomains, of course). One possibility would be to forbid anonymous edits, which would probably deter 90% of them. Another possibility, that was mentioned on the german page, could be to freeze pages once they have been reviewed and are believed to be error-free. This is actually the advantage of wikisource over other projects such as wikipedia: here it is possible to say objectively that a page done, at least with regard to its content. The drawback, of course, is that we won't be able to modify the layout of frozen pages... So maybe we should consider a way to protect the content without freezing the form, eg if we put the content in a frozen template... --ThomasV 20:45, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Interdire les i.p. ne semble pas une bonne idée. En revanche, je suis d'accord pour bloquer certaines pages, quand le texte a été certifié relu. Sinon, tu pourrais aussi devenir administrateur pour reverter plus facilement. Caton 20:58, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Restricting edits from anonymous IPs probably isn't the best way to go. Yes, it's not difficult at all (it takes two seconds) to create an account, an account should not be required to make changes to Wikisource (although non-account changes are scrutinized far greater than changes by logged-in users, for obvious reasons). I've been increasingly leaning toward freezing pages once it has been decided that they are "done." This is stemming from my own frustration with the United States Constitution. Vandalism is constantly happening on that page, and it would be nice if I didn't have to keep a look out for any entry on the Recent Changes page. But I still think that freezing pages would not likely happen, since it would mean that people could not freely edit any page--unless we can show that there is a lot of vandalism resulting from not freezing the pages. I wonder if there is another way we haven't thought of yet... Zhaladshar 15:59, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
as Caton says above, once a text has been proofread and is certified correct, it should be protected. Suggestions for layout changes etc. would then have to go to the talk page. Unlike Wikipedia, we are dealing with given texts that cannot be further improved once we got them correct. The constitution is a prime example. There is no reason to edit it, because the text is fixed, correct, and will not change. 130.60.142.65 16:24, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I think we generally agree that restricting edits to logged in users is contrary to the usual Wiki ways. The idea of freezing pages seems more workable and increasingly more attractive. A notice at the top of a page telling users where they might go if they want to suggest amendments, add in annotations or begin a translation might even encourage people to start doing this. Eclecticology 05:20, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I support the idea of protecting pages, when the texts have been properly proofread and corrected. Caton has done some work on a system to indicate text progress and quality, based on the system used at wikibooks, see Wikisource:Qualité des textes. This idea appeals to me, and perhaps we can freeze a text when it reaches stage 3 (proofread and corrected by one user) or 4 (proofread by several users). Some texts may never (or at least not in any near future) reach stage 4 due to the rarity of the original source, so I think that freezing a text in stage 3 is OK, at least for rare texts/sources. Catons work seems promising and should be translated into English, but my poor knowledge of the French language does not allow me to do it properly myself. --Christian S 16:02, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Puisqu'il semble y avoir un accord sur cette question, je peux peut-être commencer à bloquer au moins les poèmes que j'édite en ce moment, vu que je les lis et relis tous et que j'en ai vérifié un certain nombre avec plusieurs éditions sur internet ou une édition papier. Marc 08:01, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Tout jeune recrue du Wikisource mais "jeune ancien" du Wikipedia, je n'ai sans doute pas l'expérience suffisante pour apporter de bons conseils. Cependant, la différence fondamentale entre les deux projets étant que l'un doit être complètement ouvert pour apporter régulièrement des améliorations aux articles alors que l'autre, de part les "matériaux" proposés, doit pouvoir geler une contribution une fois celle-ci finalisée. Je trouve donc tout à fait normal qu'il y ait une procédure de blocage des contributions validées (cela limitera grandement le vandalisme). Je pense cependant que, nul n'étant à l'abri d'une erreur, il faut quand même qu'un mécanisme de modification non dynamique puisse être mis en place : par exemple que l'édition de la version validée pour effectuer des modifications soit possible et qu'une sauvegarde temporaire de cette version modifiée soit réalisable par n'importe quel contributeur. L'auteur du blocage ou un autre administrateur, ou un "comité de lecture" pourrait valider ces nouvelles modifications s'il(s) les trouvai(en)t justes. Prenons l'exemple des Misérables : il est impossible à quiconque de valider cette oeuvre, c'est à dire de vérifier que l'intégralité du texte est présent et qu'aucune faute de "lecture de scan" n'a été laissée. Il faut donc pouvoir le modifier si besoin est. Or, un texte aussi long est facilement vandalisable, et il faut aussi le bloquer. D'où ma proposition. Mais peut-être est-ce déjà le cas. François Rey 21:42, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

About the sentence that 211.76.97.228 and 211.76.97.229 contributed[edit]

It is the sentence that 211.76.97.228 and 211.76.97.229 contributed, but will it be the sentence that there is in the world? --kahusi - (Talk) 15:11, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem. Eclecticology 04:40, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Shizhao deleted it. 謝謝. One more, how will be 中國憲法 which I proposed to Wikisource:Proposed deletions? --kahusi - (Talk) 16:11, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK. Nobody has come to support it, so I'll take your word for it since I don't understand Japanese. There are two other links to it. Should those be fixed too? I'll delete it in a day or two to give you a chance to look at the links. Eclecticology 19:27, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • ja: 私は、誰かがそれらのリンクを修復しなければならないと思います。「中國憲法」は、中国の憲法という意味です。中華人民共和国という名前が国号となった事はありますが、中国という名前が国号になった事はありません。そのため、私は[[中國憲法]]がこの世に存在しない文章であると考えました。過去にどこかで発表された作品であるという事では無い場合、この文章は削除されるべきです。ところで、彼(女)がまた投稿しているようです。
  • en: I think that somebody must fix those links. "中國憲法" is a meaning of a constitution of China. A name such as the People's Republic of China (中華人民共和國) has become name of a country, but it is not that a name to say Zhongguo (中國; Pretense of China) became name of a country. Therefore I thought that [[中國憲法]] was the sentence that there was not in the world. When there is not it that it is a work announced somewhere in the past, this sentence should be deleted. By the way, (s)he seems to contribute it again.
  • kahusi - (Talk) 23:07, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC) % A other language is difficult....
    • Thank you for the explanation. I have deleted both links, and hope I have understood correctly that 'It makes sense that there would be constitutions for the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China (as the Taiwan people want to call themselves), but not for "China" alone. The article will also be deleted. If the person puts it in again someone should explain this to him in Chinese. Eclecticology 01:42, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

貴方の仕事に感謝します。もしも自分が説明を受けるならば日本語の方が良いです。 / I thank for your job. If I receive explanation, Japanese is better. --kahusi - (Talk) 03:52, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Database error[edit]

Aquinas' Treatise on Law that I contributed has an older version [Jan. 6, 2005] at the top of the history list which is three days older than the final version [Jan. 9, 2005]. Whom should I talk to to have this fixed? 64.154.26.251 21:38, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is peculiar, but the only difference appears to be a minor one in the Table of Contents. I would be inclined to leave it alone until whatever next amendment is done in the normal course of things.
I do note that the Treatise on Law is a part of the Summa Theologica. I would suggest that the article be broken up on the basis of one separate article for each question, as has been done for the French version. Each of these could then be named Summa Theologica - Part 2a, Question 90 etc. The article under the present title would then be reduced to an explanation of the position of the Treatis in the general scheme of the Summa and a series of links to the relevant questions. Eclecticology 04:38, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The error seems to be fixed now. If you had a hand in it, thank you.

The format for the Summa that you suggest is already available at the New Advent web site. I have noticed some problems with that format. There are numerous cross-references in the Summa and a great many of them refer to questions within the same treatise. Therefore when you follow the cross-references that are hot-linked, a new page has to load each time the link is referenced. And since the questions often build their reasoning from one question to the next, all the intermediate arguments are unavailable, should one take an interest in following the reasoning.

In the treatise by treatise format, one can immediately refer to the headings of the questions and articles in between as well as the local table of contents presented in logical order to see if there is any relevant topics that would help one understand the reasoning. So after wikifying the cross-references in the future, I hope to provide the benefit of that combination of immediate and intermediate references to the reader.

I do like a variant of your idea of renaming the pages--the idea of naming them Summa Theologica - Treatise on Law, as opposed to just Treatise on Law.

There also exists an on-line Summa at http://www.ccel.org that has the whole work on one web-page. While this affords faster linking access, it's nearly impossible to quickly scan through the questions using the scroll bar to find the beginnings of divisions in the work, which are helpful places in the Summa which do present some kind of an overview, while it is possible to do this at Wikisource. So the Wikisource version of the Treatise on Law is really unique in that it presents a happy medium between the two other online, hot-linked versions. 216.119.136.167 02:54, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Steal this book[edit]

I would love to see a copy of Abbie Hoffman's Steal This Book on Wikisource. I think that it's been released into the public domain. What do you think? GeorgeStepanek 02:55, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The thesis that this book is in the public domain has been raised before, and the results have been inconclusive. Simply thinking that the book is in the public domain is not evidence. I believe that the person adding such a work would have the obligation of establishing some sort of justification for that point of view. In this case the book is already available at the site that you link. That diminishes the importance of including this work ourselves. Eclecticology 04:48, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

New templates for wikisource in german wikipedia[edit]

Hello, please have a look to german Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Wikisource, there are new templates for interproject links. Please use these new ones in the future. To explore the advantages of the new style see Albert Einstein. Thanx a lot. --Bdk 04:07, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Transliteration[edit]

Does the transliteration from Cyrillic to Latin and spelling corrections (according to current spelling standards) of a public domain work grants the publisher a new copyright ? Bogdan 15:19, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's arguable. Although a translation gives rise to a new copyright, a new transliteration is a mechanical act that does not require a lot of creative mental effort. Two persons independently transliterating the same text according to the same rules should arrive at identical results. This suggests to me that the best answer is probably no. Eclecticology 01:46, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Copyright question[edit]

There's this book which was published in 1894 in Romania. However, according to Romanian copyright laws, it is still protected by copyright. (70 years after the death of the author -- in 1953) Should this book be in Public Domain in the US or should the laws of Romania apply in this case ? Bogdan 19:56, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Since the server is in the United States it is the laws of that country that must first be applied. At the same time one cannot ignore the laws of other countries. As a first practical rule of thumb then, I treat anything published before 1923 as being in the public domain. For anything published after 1922 I go on the basis of the laws in the author's own country.
Que faut-il penser de Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus ? Est-ce que les œuvres de Henri Bergson d'avant 1923 sont aussi dans ce cas ? Caton 10:06, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Le projet "Gutenberg Australie" (qui a les serveurs en Australie) a plus des livres que le "Gutenberg Etats Unies" parce qu'ils usent les lois Australien. (la vie plus 50 ans). Bogdan 10:24, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
À mon avis la loi nous permettrait ces oeuvres de Bergson (mort 1941) et Wittgenstein (mort 1951). Ce qui ne serait pas permis serait un site mirroir dans un pays dont la loi est vie plus 70 ans. L'Australie vient de changer sa loi pour vie plus 70 ans, mais sans effet retroactif. Je prévois que Gutenberg aura besoin de changer ses serveurs auxilliares pour un pays qui continue avec vie plus 50 ans.


Autor[edit]

In English it's "Author", in French it's "Auteur", in German it's "Autor". However, in Romanian it's also "Autor". So, in Autor:Karl Marx, where should be the Romanian page, it's already the German page.

Any idea how should I solve this problem ? Bogdan 06:31, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is also the same word in Spanish and Portuguese, and probably in some other languages. My suggestion is that you request the creation of a Romanian subdomain, ro.wikisource.org, on this page. Once we have subdomains, there will be no conflicts in namespace. It will not even be necessary to add the prefix Autor: to the author page.
Now, I agree that my suggestion will not solve your problem very quickly. For now, maybe you could use Autor:Ro:Karl Marx, or something like that.
--ThomasV 21:52, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Writer of poems would like to contribute, but he also sells his work[edit]

Hi, I have a contact with a writer of Neapolitan poems - talking about the possibilities the wikimedia projects offer he said he would give his poetry to insert it here, but he still publishes books and sells them through an editor. So what about the license problem? Is there a way to insert poems here to give the disposal to people to read (they are also published in his blog, so they can already be found on the web), but to reserve the right to publish and sell copies of his books containing these works? Is there someone knowing enough about licenses to tell me if there is this possibility? Thank you!!! --SabineCretella 12:51, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The problem here is that the GFDL allows anything here to be copied and used by anybody for any reason including selling the work for money. This does not stop him from continuing to publish his books, but it does undermine their commercial market to some extent. His contract with his editor can sometimes be a problem. If he has granted certain rights to the editor, that editor may consider the publication of his poems in Wikisource to be a breach of contract by him. Eclecticology 5 Mar. 2005

Copyright law submissions[edit]

This matter came up on the mailing list, and may be of greater interest to Wikisourcerors than to participants in other projects. The U.S. Copyright Office is looking at the issue of "Orphan works", which it defines as "copyrighted works whose owners are difficult or even impossible to locate". Some of us may be interested in making submission. These must be submitted by March 25, 2005. See http://www.orphanworks.org/ for further details and links. Eclecticology 05:03, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

With only five minutes to spare, I have made a submission. See here for a copy of this. Eclecticology 22:04, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Body Ritual among the Nacirema[edit]

This article has been restored based on new information. Comments previously found here have been moved to the article's talk page. Eclecticology 23:34, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wikisource n'est pas un éditeur de jeune talent[edit]

J'ai ajouté les poèmes de Auteur:Gérard Le Blouch à la liste des violations possibles de copyright. Le contributeur n'a laissé qu'une adresse IP. Cependant, je suppose que c'est l'auteur lui-même, ou bien un membre de sa famille, qui a placé ces poèmes sur wikisource (ces poèmes viennent d'un autre wiki, et Google ne retourne que 2 résultats pour ce nom).

Ma première réaction a été de commencer à écrire un mail à l'auteur, pour lui demander si il plaçait ces poèmes sous GFDL. Puis je me suis ravisé, en pensant que si l'auteur répond positivement, ça ne résoudrait pas tous les problèmes. En effet, comme Caton l'a écrit il y a quelques jours, Wikisource n'est pas un éditeur de jeune talent. Et si je lui écris, ça m'engage à accepter de publier ces poèmes.

Que faut-il faire? A partir de quel niveau de notoriété devons-nous accepter de publier un auteur? Il me semble que c'est une question terriblement compliquée... Pour les oeuvres tombées dans le domaine public, il est facile de tout accepter, car ces oeuvres ont été éditées sur papier, et leurs éditeurs ont fait un tri à l'époque de leur publication.

Pour les oeuvres récentes (et donc sous GFDL), c'est beaucoup plus compliqué. Faut-il se restreindre aux oeuvres qui ont trouvé un éditeur papier? Il me semble que non. Par exemple, un texte comme La Cathédrale et le Bazar est paru sur Internet, et n'a pas été publié sur papier à ma connaissance.

Wikisource contient très peu d'oeuvres sous GFDL. Peut être qu'il serait utile de les recencer, et de justifier leur présence sur Wikisource

--ThomasV 13:32, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Pour info, La Cathédrale et le Bazar a été publiée sur papier par O'Reilly, au moins en anglais. Yann 11:06, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
La question est compliquée, et pour ma part je n'ai pas vraiment de réponse. Je veux juste signaler que ma phrase n'avait pas exactement une valeur de jugement, et qu'elle ne reflète pas vraiment mon opinion sur ce sujet, car elle s'adressait ironiquement au contributeur du texte, connu sur la Wikipédia pour ces contributions agaçantes, et que je venais de bloquer sur Wikilivres.
Certains des liens du texte que j'ai supprimé dirigeaient d'ailleurs vers des pages problématiques de ce contributeur sur Wikilivres. Caton 16:32, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Je suis toujours bloqué (pour la cinquième fois depuis le 24 décembre) sur le wiki français mais cela ne m'a pas empêché d'apprécier positivement l'humour de Caton. Il serait dommage d'établir une jurisprudence ;-))) sur ce qu'il convient de mettre ou non ici à partir de sa remarque ironique. 82.224.88.52 11:16, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Eh oui, tu es toujours bloqué ; remarque, vu ce qu'est en train de devenir la Wikipédia, ils vont bientôt finir par te regretter... Mais, pour revenir à ce problème de texte, il apparaît que Wikisource, dès le départ, et contrairement à ce que je pensais, devait exclure des écrits non publiés ailleurs. Caton 12:57, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Ben justement, je ne regrette pas de ne plus y être, vu, comme tu dis, ce qu'est en train de devenir la Wikipédia ; j'ajoute juste que, depuis le premier janvier, je n'ai jamais eu le sentiment d'être en conflit là-bas avec qui que ce soit ; en revanche, je m'amusais bien des vannes que l'on me balançait auxquelles je répondais, certes, mais plutôt mollement ; quant à avoir viré ici aussitôt ma nouvelle dont j'ai en effet eu tort de ne pas préciser si elle avait été publiée ou non, là non plus, je ne regrette rien : si l'un des principaux responsables d'ici a jugé qu'il s'agissait d'une niaiserie c'est que, de toute façon, ma nouvelle sous forme de conte télépatho-phonique n'avait rien à y faire non plus. 82.224.88.52 17:41, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Tu ne regrettes pas Wikipédia ? pourtant l'ambiance actuelle pourrait te plaire... Le tort de ta nouvelle, c'est d'abord qu'elle comportait des liens vers Wikilivres, et nous savons pourquoi. Caton 22:44, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Tu me juges sans doute à travers mon trollage sur wikibooks où tu aurais pu prolonger plusieurs semaines mon exclusion sans qu'il y ait à redire.
En revanche, si tu parcours http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=82.224.88.52 tu t'apercevras que, quand je ne contribue pas aux articles, je me livre surtout à des travaux de maintenance rarement passionnants et que, statistiquement, mon trollage concerne très très peu de posts... alors que, ces derniers temps, même les plus sérieux trollent à qui mieux mieux sur le wiki français principal. 82.224.88.52 23:16, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Je ne te juge pas ; je m'amuse un peu, peut-être parce que Wikipédia me déçoit de plus en plus. Je suis bien d'accord avec toi en ce qui concerne l'encyclopédie. Si on considère les raisons de ton bloquage, je pense que certains contributeurs devraient être bloqués depuis longtemps. Pour moi, je tourne la page ; Wikisource me semble un projet autrement plus sérieux. Caton 23:33, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)


En principe, Wikisource devrait accepter tous les textes, dès lors qu'ils sont placés au moins sous GFDL. Tout autre critère conduit manifestement à des considérations subjectives (ce qui ne veut pas dire arbitraires), telles que la notoriété, l'édition du texte, etc. Je ne vois pas en fait ce qui permettrait de refuser l'édition d'un texte, à part lorsque le contenu relève de la propagande sectaire, de l'incitation au crime, etc. Et encore, ces derniers documents pourraient être placés dans des catégories spéciales et pourraient être utiles à des lecteurs qui voudraient faire des études sociologiques, psychologiques, etc. Le problème de cette ouverture, je suppose, est que Wikisource risque d'être submergé par des textes sans intérêt (critère subjectif), qu'ils s'agissent de textes récents, ou de textes anciens sortis des poubelles de la littérature universelle ; on doit bien pouvoir de cette manière éditer des dizaines de millier de textes oubliés souvent à juste titre. Mais, si pour les textes anciens, une édition peut encore se justifier d'un point de vue historique, la même justification ne peut-elle pas être utilisée en considération de l'avenir de Wikisource ? Du coup, il semble que nous devrions tout éditer. Caton 09:59, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A mon avis l'acceptation de textes par Wikisource devrait rester sur deux principes: le repect des droits d'auteur et la pré-édition. Le premier concerne les questions de domaine publique, "fair use" et GFDL. Inutile d'en dire plus ici parce qu'il y a déjà eu beacoup de discussion sur ce sujet ailleur.
D'une façon la doctrine de pré-édition a un parallel en Wikipédia dans le règlement interdisant la recherche originale. On empèchait l'entré des articles scientifiques bêtes. Je suis d'accord que nous sommes pas éditeurs de jeune talent. Il vaut la peine de demander où le texte a déjà été publié. Ça nous donne confiance aussi que nous acceptons un oeuvre complet et non quelques chapitres d'un effort vaniteux qui ne sera jamais fini. Eclecticology 00:25, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Oui, j'ai finalement trouvé - par hasard, une page qui explique cela, et je ne pense pas qu'il y a lieu d'en redébattre. Caton 13:00, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

salut a tous! c est mon père l auteur de ces poemes que vous avez retiré, qui mettait ses poemes sous GFDL. donc puis je les republier(ou vous les réparez) ou non? (elle s'adressait ironiquement au contributeur du texte, connu sur la Wikipédia pour ces contributions agaçantes) vous parlez de qui? ciao. vev sur WP --Vev 09:56, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mémoire de fin d'études[edit]

Bonjour,

je suis étudiant Belge à l'université UMH. Étant en dernière année, je suis en train de faire mon mémoire de fin d'études. Je l'ai bientôt fini, il doit encore subire deux-trois modifications mineures et être relu pour être sûr que le français est correcte et sans faute. Je me demandais s'il est possible de mettre mon travail sur wikisource lorsqu'il sera terminé. Il sera placé sous licence GFDL ainsi que tous les schémas qui l'accompagne.

Si j'ai le droit de le mettre, comment transformer du Latex en Wiki ? Devrais-je tout reformater ? J'utilise beaucoup de commande créées par moi et je n'ai pas trop envie de tout changer à la main. Mais bon, si je n'ai pas le choix, je le ferai.

Merci de vos réponses. bye

Tous les travaux de ce type sont bienvenus, du moment que vous le placez en connaissance de cause sous GFDL. Pour les autres questions, je ne saurais dire. Caton 10:09, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

il existe bien un convertisseur wiki2latex, mais je ne l'ai jamais essayé. je suppose qu'il n'est pas capable de gérer des commandes non standard. --ThomasV 17:15, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Quelques statistiques[edit]

On peut consulter des statistiques intéressantes à Alexa.com. Caton 12:40, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ça serait intéressant de voir quelles pages sont les plus visitées. Eclecticology 21:01, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Oui. D'ailleurs existe-t-il pour Wikisource des statistiques comme pour les autres projets ? Caton 22:50, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Having a common category and using Template:CategoryTOC[edit]

Import HOWTOs and docs from The Linux Documentation Project?[edit]

([1]) is a very nice thing, but I notice a lot of the HOWTOs and documentation is pretty out of date. This could be a result of the single-author policy on all the documents, no changes and updates go into the documents if not the author is around or have the interest in updating the docs.

I don't want to fork TLDP, but wouldn't it be worthwhile to import the HOWTO collection and some of the documentation into Wikisource? I'm sure this would boost the update process, and the authors could also import the updates done here into their documents at tldp.

Or would this be a disfavour to TLDP? -- sunny256 2005-03-12 13:56Z

I'd say wikibooks is more appropriate for that. --ThomasV 13:58, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. I've posted a copy there too, we'll see how it turns out. -- sunny256 2005-03-13 06:58Z


100 most important writings[edit]

I´m from Spanish wikisource and I´ve started a new project: Create a list of articles that all wikisource must to have. There is in User:FAR/Lista de artículos que todo wikisource debería tener a begining.

Please Can you colaborate? I know enough about Spanish Literature but I will be really pleased if someone can tell me what are the most important writes in his/her Language.

Thanks indeed and excuse my English--FAR 14:39, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would like any Franch or German wikipedian suggest some text in his/her idiom.
Thanks--FAR 19:39, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Caton has helped with Franch Is there any german here?
Thanks--FAR 14:02, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
There is certainly a value to this initiative, but inclusion on this list is very subjective. A "Wikisource's list of the World's 100 most important writings" would have great publicity value. The page would then accept perpetual votes for inclusions on that list, and track the progress of their inclusion in various languages. The list should be limited to works that are clearly protected by copyright. Pablo Neruda, for example, should be removed from the list because his works are still protected. Eclecticology 19:12, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
We are working in it, it isn´t finished. Neruda has copyright, it is true, but I only put him because I can´t remember any other poet. I repit it isn´t finished. Add more and improce it!
for example, traslate it to English and make a link from English to english can write. I´ve written here because I think it must be in several lenguages.
But it isn´t a list of the best articles, I do it to help the diferent languages to has the most importantant writing--FAR 15:27, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Y a-t-il une liste en français et en anglais ? / Is there a list in English and French ? Yann 09:45, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
J'ai commencé une liste : User:Marc/Projet de bibliothèque universelle. Je suis contre l'idée d'une liste des livres les "plus importants". Wikisource n'est pas le top 50. Marc vers 12h35 (je ne m'enregistre pas, je ne suis pas chez moi).

Wikisource or Wikipedia?[edit]

hello, can someone fill this section: Wikisource or Wikipedia? -- kocio 15:11, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Una reflexión[edit]

Soy colaboradora de Wikipedia, Wikiquote y Wikisource en español. Es mi idioma nativo y el que manejo a diario. He efectuado alguna colaboración en wikis de otros idiomas poniendo interwikis. Puedo entender el inglés, pero no me atrevo a redactar algo en ese idioma. Así que haré esta reflexión en español, aunque interiormente imagino que no muchos puedan entenderme.

He visto el artículo Wikisource:New vote on language subdomains y entiendo que las reglas son, aceptar votaciones de usuarios registrados y que tengan un número mínimo de ediciones. Otra regla es la de aceptar un número mínimo de votantes para tener un dominio propio. Dicha cifra se ha fijado en 20.

Yo me pregunto si cuando se inició Wikipedia, se fijaron estas mismas reglas. ¿Hubo una votación para que wikipedia, wikiquote, wikinews y wiktionary, tengan su dominio propio? ¿Comenzaron éstas con 20 colaboradores o empezaron con muchos menos?

Seguramente esto empezó con menos de 20 personas. Entiendo perfectamente que para sostener un proyecto y hacerlo funcionar se necesitan muchos colaboradores. Y los colaboradores van y vienen. Hoy pueden ser pocos y mañana muchos.

El hecho de obligarnos a juntar 20 votantes por cada idioma es un problema para la gente de algunas wikis. Quizás Wikisource en español no logré dicha cantidad, pero los que estamos colaborando lo estamos haciendo con muchos deseos de que otras personas se nos unan, pero el hecho de que Wikisource sea un proyecto multilingüe, puede no resultarles interesante.

Lamento profundamente que nos nieguen la posibilidad de tener el dominio por idioma por no poder satisfacer las pretensiones en esta votación.

Respetuosamente, --LadyInGrey 16:46, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ya sabes Milady, que estoy contigo en todo lo que sean relaciones exteriores. Y cómo no, aquí te apoyo.
Tuyo--FAR 19:29, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bonjour,

J'espère avoir bien compris ton propos, et j'espère que tu comprends le français... Le nombre de votants requis n'est pour le moment qu'une proposition. D'autre part, est-ce que ce nombre signifie qu'il doit y avoir 20 contributeurs pour un projet ? je ne pense pas. L'intention est d'avoir en tout plus de 20 votants, indépendemment du domaine demandé, pour que l'ensemble du vote représente l'avis de la communauté de Wikisource. Donc par exemple, moi qui participerait au domaine français, je serai d'accord pour voter pour la création d'un domaine en espagnol. Mais peut-être qu'un tel système de vote est défectueux. C'est un point à discuter sur Wikisource talk:New vote on language subdomains. Caton 18:30, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I did mean 20 voters at all, not 20 per language. However, we should keep in mind that it does not belong to us to decide whether the vote is valid or not. The final decision will be taken by the Wikimedia board. So maybe we should not care about this condition. I proposed to drop it on the page about the vote. please post your comments there. ThomasV 20:54, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
En ce qui concerne le board, je ne suis pas certain qu'il aie vraiment son mot à dire. A partir du moment où une volonté claire de la communauté est exprimée, il me semble que le fondateur a pour principe de la respecter. Caton 21:02, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
oui, en effet. mais le vote n'est qu'un moyen de mesurer si il y a un consensus. il leur revient d'apprécier si une volonté claire s'est exprimée ou non. ThomasV 21:10, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Compilation of public domain articles[edit]

There's a book published in 1974 which is a compilation of public domain articles -- all with a certain theme -- written in the 1900s and 1910s.

Could it be considered a derived work and therefore elligible for copyright or not ? I should note that all the text is written by one author and in public domain, the only thing original is the selection of material.

So, is it eligible for copyright or not ? Bogdan 18:12, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Generally no. Whether the collection is of works by one author or many should not matter. It is often the case that when such compilations are published a copyright notice is put on the verso, and that it appears to be general in application. It should really be read as "Copyright to the extent that it can be copyright." This would make the specific arrangement of material copyrightable. New introductions, annotations and indexing would also be copyright. The selection may be copyright, but it should be easy to find a different selection by adding material from other sources. A derived work requires more than that. It would apply to something like a translation or a dramatic adaptation of a novel. Eclecticology 18:52, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The book makes apparently makes no reference to copyright, but that was mainly because it was published during the communist era, when all publishing houses were owned by the state. I won't include the introduction. Bogdan 20:59, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Actually, the idea of a copyright notice derives from a now repealed part of the 1909 US Copyright law. US trade law has always been highly protectionist, and it is only relatively recently that the US has started to conform to international copyright conventions. AFAIK It was never a part of any other country's law. The notice is no longer required in order to have copyright protection. Still we have the unusual situation that something that was published in the US before 1989 may have lost its protection if it failed to include a copyright notice. This does not apply to material that was first published in any other country. Eclecticology 21:36, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Chirac encourage la diffusion des œuvres sur internet[edit]

Trouvé sur le bistro de la Wikipédia : http://www.liberation.fr/page.php?Article=282985

Je parle pour le cas de la France : dans un pays qui a fait de la culture une affaire d'État surtout depuis le régime de Vichy et ensuite avec le règne de Malraux (voir L'État culturel de Marc Fumaroli), je trouve que nos politiques ont pas mal de retard, mais cela s'explique sans doute par une manière bien française d'envisager la culture et en particulier la littérature. Pour ceux que cela intéressent, on peut y réfléchir en considérant que la diffusion de la littérature francophone par le moyen de sites comme Wikisource est une manière de lutter contre une politique culturelle française assez navrante et qui repose sur une conception de l'homme aux origines assez douteuses. Marc 10:13, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

oui, il y a eu aussi 2 articles dans le monde d'hier.
http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3246,36-401857,0.html
http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3246,36-401828,0.html
j'ai été affigé de lire que chirac envisageait de faire appel à bill Gates pour "contrer l'offensive de Google" (sic).
ThomasV 10:19, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Malheureusement, c'est bien dans la logique des choses. Ce qui est effrayant, c'est de parler d'humanisme pour ce genre de projets, alors que bien des projets culturels français ont des effets anti-humanismes assez évidents. En ce sens, c'est un gros mensonge de plus malgré les intentions. L'utilisation des mots est ainsi typique d'un certain genre de compréhension de la "culture" : projet industriel qui est aussi un rêve humaniste, L'enjeu culturel de ce projet est énorme, etc. Envisager la culture comme une concurrence prise en charge par l'État pour le bien de tous... Marc 10:32, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
La proposition de Chirac renforce bien l'idée que les français seraient les américains si les américains ne l'étaient pas déjà. Faire appel à Bill Gates pour nous aider contre Google me semble un peu comme demander l'aide de Satan pour nous protéger contre Lucifer. Il n'y a rien d'humanistes dans les industries culturelles américaines. L'objectif pur et simple est le profit. Cet agressivité est toujours le mieux connu dans le domaines des films.
L'initiative de Google n'est pas le seul. Regardons par example:
"Internet Archive project"
"Google isn't the only game in town. Last month, the San Francisco–based not-for-profit Internet Archive (archive. org) announced partnerships with a number of international libraries as part of an ongoing effort launched in 2003 to scan books into "open access archives." Included are the Library of Congress, University of Toronto, and Carnegie Mellon University, as well as the Bibliotheca Alexandria in Egypt, Zhejiang University in China, and Netherlands-based European Archive."
"Supported by a range of public and private grants, the Internet Archive has pioneered digital archiving efforts for all formats, including audio and moving images. Currently, over one million public domain or "appropriately licensed" books have been committed to the archive, and over 27,000 are already available."
Bien entendu Google, Microsoft et archives.com sont toutes des entreprises américaines. Alors en ça elles sont égales. Wikipédia aussi se base aux États-Unis. Ça seul ce n'est pas grande chose. Si le but n'est que de faire face à la dominance anglophone des américains on n'accomplit rien. Il y a aussi dea anglophone d'autres pays qui s'inquiète des américains. L'individu américain est autant victime do son système de consomation que les autres personnes. Eclecticology 00:13, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC).

Je suis d'accord avec toi. Je parlais du cas de la France, car c'est le cas que je connais le mieux, et j'étudie en ce moment l'histoire de la politique culturelle française. Je ne connais pas très bien l'histoire "culturelle" des autres pays, mais je vois bien que dans de nombreux pays l'on fait subir à l'esprit de nombreuses humiliations. J'aime beaucoup la littérature anglophone, et je conçois par le mot culture toutes les littératures du monde. Maintenant, dans le cas de Chirac, c'est l'aspect politique que je voulais souligner : qu'un pays comme la France réagisse ainsi, c'est-à-dire d'une manière étatique, cela n'a rien de surprenant, mais c'est une déception de plus pour tous ceux (anglais, américains, européens, etc.) qui comprennent que la culture ne peut être qu'indépendante. En France, on croit depuis l'après-guerre que la culture a besoin d'une administration d'Etat. A partir de là, il est clair pour moi que mon pays ne réprésente plus rien et que son image dans le monde est une imposture intellectuelle. Car envisager sérieusement de faire appel à Bill Gates, cela montre qu'en France, quand on parle de culture, de littérature, etc. on ne sait plus de quoi l'on parle. Ce qui est remarquable aussi, c'est cette athmosphère de concurrence ; on va bientôt nous faire régresser jusqu'à une lutte pour la culture...

L'avantage de projets comme Wikisource c'est de pouvoir être auto-financés ; à partir de là, le fait que le fondateur soit américain n'a pas d'importance. L'essentiel est de parvenir à une indépendance matérielle réelle, pour éviter ces projets qui font de la culture une industrie et qui n'ont aucun scrupule à se présenter comme des projets humanistes, alors qu'ils sont soumis aux intérêts économiques et politiques de gens qui ne vivent pas pour la culture, et qui n'en ont d'ailleurs rien à faire. Marc 10:17, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Il y a aucun française que peut traducire au Anglais ou Espagnol? Merci--FAR 22:18, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

traduire quoi? / to translate what?ThomasV 22:20, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

La notice Queést que chirac a dit?--FAR 22:26, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

a few weeks ago, the president of our national library said that the initiative by Google to digitize millions of books will lead to a domination of English. So he said that the French need to do something about this. Chirac said more or less the same thing, and that our national library could collaborate with bill gates to counter the evil google project. ThomasV 09:17, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks indeed! I think he has reason, other languages (not only English) must do something like that.

Cheers--FAR 09:57, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would say ALL languages need to do the same. Besides Economical or Political reasons, whole Cultures will vanish once their languge, and History (being that History has to be written), vanishes. Ojmorales0002 16:59, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Tu confonds culture et société. Il n'y a aucune nécessité à ce que la culture se perpetue. La preuve... Marc 07:49, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The issue is not really about language even if puts it in those terms. In many respects it's not even about the Americans in any general sense. As I said above in French when Chirac calls on Bill Gates to overcome the influence of Google it's like asking Satan to help in the battle against Lucifer. The nationalist appeal plays very well in France, and George Bush has certainly helped to encourage French nationalism. That being said, you can't escape the reality of Chirac's political roots. His willingness to create a link with Bill Gates says more about his political roots than about French nationalism. It's perhaps more about solidifying the industrialization of knowledge at a time when open source movements would prefer its being available. To a large extent this issue plays a large role in motivating my stand for maintaining one unified Wikisource. I firmly believe that dividing something like this project plays right into the hands of those who see the ownership of knowledge as a means to massive profits. Eclecticology 11:16, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Great to see you entering the debate. Please note that I have added a new page where we can centralize this discussion. Maybe you could repeat/elaborate on this on that new page. ThomasV 14:55, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hierarchy of Documents[edit]

I have read some of this page and I think that many of us would want some of the visual and operational aspects of wikipedia, wikibooks and wikisource be alike. To this i am adding:

  • Hierarchy naming scheme Which even adds auto navigation within a book. Ojmorales0002 16:55, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Getting the same thing across all projects may be difficult because each project deals with issues differently and has different problems. This project publishes books which are already large and need to be broken down into manageable segments. We also need to disambiguate between works by different authors which may have the same title. Thus I have promoted using parentheses as disambiguators, and dashes to designate the subdivisions of a book. I have not worked enough with Wikibooks to know how they deal with this. Eclecticology 02:40, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Finished[edit]

Above I´ve talked about a list of articles that all wikisource should to do. In User:FAR/Lista de artículos que todo wikisource debería tener we are near the end. Its necesary alittle more work but it tis nearly to finish. Can anybody traslate it to Franch or English.

J´ai parlè de la liste de articles que les wikisource avons to avoir. In User:FAR/Lista de artículos que todo wikisource debería tener nous sommes finis. Ce reste just a peu de travaille. pouvez-vous taducire au Franch or Anglais? +

thanks and merci--FAR 22:27, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Il est fini! It has been finished!

Please--FAR 10:02, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is an interesting idea. The biggest problem with it now is that it is on a user sub-page where nobody ever looks. It should probably go in the Wikisource: namespace and linked from each main page that will be featured. The other thing that I would do is put a maximum number on the list and have something like "The Wikisource list of the 100 most important books (or authors) of world literature" Maybe an open voting system could be used to keep the books there. Having such a list, and then having all these books together here in the world's most important languages could make this an attractive resource. Eclecticology 11:59, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I´ve put a copy in Wikisource:List of articles that every wikisource must have: Please, traslate the list to other languages--FAR 17:39, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have create a list in french : User:Marc/Projet de bibliothèque universelle. Marc 18:07, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Linking to Wikipedia[edit]

I apologize if this issue has already been brought up and dismissed in this forum, but why is it not common practice to "wikify" (create linked versions) of texts on Wikisource? For instance, an article such as Arusha Peace and Reconciliation Agreement for Burundi would be infinitely more valuable if it had links within the article to Wikipedia articles such as and articles about other parties mentioned in the article. We would essentially be creating annotated versions of the texts; anyone who wanted extra information on a particular topic mentioned could just click on the topic and be transferred to Wikipedia. Does anyone else think this would be useful? Sun King 06:20, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think it's very important—especially for older texts. For example I am current working on the Diary of Samuel Pepys and as you will see from the page Diary of Samuel Pepys, January 1660 I have tried to link in the names of important people/places to help readers understand it further. I think of it like a better version of footnotes! The ability to cross-link is an advantage we have over Project Gutenberg (PG is still great however). Takes some mind you to read all the text! GregRobson 10:12, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The only issue I think that people would have with it is that crosslinking would possibly make articles more difficult to read. Some people might still prefer to have nonlinked, basically just text, versions of articles. Perhaps this could be circumvented by creating a separate namespace under the article for nonlinked versions of texts? Anyone have any thoughts on this? Sun King 21:49, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree that they should be kept separate. Our primary aim is to catalogue the sources in their original form, therefore they should not be wikified (although links already present, e.g. for internet documents, should of course be retained). The one exception to this would probably be references to other source texts contained within WikiSource (e.g. Bibliographies, government directives mentioning prior directives, etc.) Therefore I would say that the original unlinked version should be in the main namespace, with the linked version stored elsewhere (separate namespace or sub-page). Thinking about it, this is part of the wider issue of 'modified versions' of source texts (annotated versions, translations, modernised versions, etc.), which should all be dealt with in the same way. -- HappyDog 00:37, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Copyright on Einstein's works[edit]

As I mentionned in the [[Talk:Author:Albert_Einstein|Albert Einstein Talk page]], I'd like to know if Albert Einstein's text can be considered as a public domain, since he died in 1955 (so we're now at 50 years only) and german copyright laws fix the duration of copyright at 70 years post-mortem. I believe the copyright belongs to the Hebrew Univerity of Jerusalem.

Do I have to ask the Hebrew University for permission to scan and submit La théorie de la relativité réstreinte et générale (translation into french of the existing english source Relativity: The Special and General Theory)? --Fageer 21:28, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For the sake of simplicity I've been using the rule of thumb that U.S. law should apply to anything published before 1923. On the author page you indicated that this translation was published in 1923. Einstein's original was published before that so I would not object to it on that basis. There are, however, derivative rights that belong to the translator, to whom French law would apply, assuming that he was a resident of that country. Thus we need to ask: Who was the translator? When did he die? Eclecticology 02:21, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

distribution of languages in wikisource[edit]

Ever wondered how languages are distributed in wikisource ? I have run a little poll ("Random page" was clicked 150 times). Here are the results :

english 45% (with a massive amount of poems by Emily Dickinson)
french 13%
romanian 9%
spanish 7%
german 7%
polish 5%
asian 4% (cn+ja)
russian 2%
italian 2%
latin 1%
danish 1%
esperanto 1%
others 2%

The computation of error margins is left as an exercise to the reader.

ThomasV 22:22, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

bot[edit]

For the past week, I've been using a bot to automate a couple mundane tasks. ThomasV pointed out that this obscures the Recent Changes history. So I have requested status as a bot, which can be hidden from the RC list. Does anyone object to this status request, or to me running such a bot? If so, please let me know & indicate objections here.

About me: I've been working on setting up a template structure for copyright status notices, which is why I became interested in having a bot. I've been registered here since August & have made several text contributions. I have many thousands of edits on wikipedia.

About the Bot:

  • Inserts the same template/category on large numbers of articles. For example, see eg Category:Sherlock_Holmes_plates for one example of 100+ such repetitive insertions of a copyright/category template.
  • Formats (ugly) Project Gutenberg texts see e.g. The Pickwick Papers or Moby Dick, which would be quite insane to format by hand. Use the "Classic" skin to get the full effect, see the User:Wolfman/format template. The most recent version (after much work) automatically gets about 99% of formatting decisions correct on prose works I have tested, with the 1% requiring human intervention.
  • The bot does display all changes for me to review before inserting them.
  • I have made repeated runs (~5) on a few works experimentally to identify bugs/imperfections. Obviously I have found a few, fixed them, and used them to improve the bot. If anyone finds errors I miss, let me know & I will clean it up or revert it.
  • If anyone has a reasonably simple repetitive task for a large number of articles, I will be happy to run it on request.

Wolfman 18:06, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think there is no objection to this request. Marc 20:32, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I definitely don't disagree with having a bot. I'd rather it be a bot so I can keep its changes out of the Recent Changes list, but having something that can automatically do certain mundane tasks would be great. Zhaladshar 21:46, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I do not object to this; however I think it would be good that you explain somewhere the rewrite rules used by this bot, as well as the list of pages where it is allowed to go. For example; this could go on its userpage... it would also be good not to use a bot with your other account. atm the list of recent changes is really obscure. recent changes are important to us because they are pretty much the only weapon we have against vandalism. ThomasV 10:05, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

copyright tags[edit]

I have created copyright templates & associated categories listed below. The template image is displayed in each category. If you are knowledgeable about copyright, please have a glance at the links below to make sure the templates are accurate. Template names are the same as the category, e.g. {{GPL}}. Using the template automatically assign the category. Wolfman 23:42, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

for author pages

These are strange. Why does the copyright status need a category tag? How is this useful? Templates are fine as a temporary indicator of copyright status, but replacing these with the details of why this material is in the public domain right on the page.
The reference to US case law is totally irrelevant to the Sherlock Holmes pages. That case related to reproductions of pictures that hung on gallery walls. The Sherlock Holmes illustrations were published with the stories. The only illustrator that I looked up was Sidney Paget, and he died in 1908 with the effect that his illustrations went into the public domain at the end of 1978. It would be preferable to give Paget his due credit with the stories that bear his illustrations. In eny event case law is an interprtation of law; it does not operate in its own right to put anything into the public domain.
The bare PD template should not be applied unless there is an identification of which of the three indicated reasons applies in the particular case.
The PD-old refers to authors that have been dead for 100 years. Mexico is the only country with a life + 100 law (altough Cote d'Ivoire) does have life + 99). Only three others (Colombia, Guatemala and Samoa) have terms greater than life + 70. These longer terms are only enforceable within those countries, for residents of those countries.
There should also be a PD-50 marker for residents of countries who follow the Berne Convention provision of life + 50.
The US listings should be subdivided to show which provision in US law has been applied to put them in the public domain: pre 1923, non-renewal, absence of copyright notice, etc.Eclecticology 02:31, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing these. I should mention that the various categories mimic those in the commons. I've had a very difficult time finding a good discussion of copyright issues. Do you know of a good online reference?
As to the usefulness of templates, I think there are arguments for them. First, it provides a consistent discussion of licensing issues across articles. This allows someone knowledgable, such as yourself, to easily provide relevant information to all articles in a class. Second, by visually highlighting this information in other articles, I think contributors of new items are more likely to provide licensing information. Third, I think it's rather complicated for an ordinary user to know what licensing/copyright discussion to put into an article. I'm a reasonably smart guy, and as you can see, I don't have it all figured out even after hunting around the net for a couple hours. But once this is correctly in place, a contributor can easily go to the copyright page, scan the choices, and slap on the correct template. Maybe that's not optimal, but at least it's something. And right now, most contributions I've seen provide no information. Even Project Gutenberg often provides no public information as to why their works are allowable, and in what countries — though they clearly do investigate these issues.
As to images, most producers of these claim that the act of digital reproduction is a creative act subject to copyright. Many museums even in the U.S. incorrectly assert copyright over reproductions of works in their collections and charge licensing fees. As to the Holmes plates, someone has clearly digitally scanned them. I see no reason why that's any different than scanning a museum piece. While this issue appears to be settled in the U.S., it also appears to not be settled everywhere. Or if it's not actually settled in the U.S., should we disallow such images? Again, I grabbed this copyright category from the commons. As the servers are in the U.S., local status is quite pertinent.
I agree that the Holmes illustrators should be properly credited. But, I'm not clear what that has to do with these templates. They aren't meant as a replacement for crediting authors, but as a way to clearly indicate why we are allowed to host the images. And, by extension, why someone else may or may not be able to host a local copy of a wikisource item.
I competely agree that the bare PD template is undesirable, and state so in the category description. But, I copied it from the commons. It's now removed, along with PD-US which had the same problem.
I have added Category:PD-old-50, Category:PD-1923, Category:PD-US-no-notice, and Category:PD-US-no-renewal as you indicated. Any others?
The copyright status don't need a category. But someone might find it useful, and it comes free with the template — so why not. Also, my understanding is that the developers intend at some point to add user-accessible database functionality based on categories. This would allow, for example, someone who wants to host a local copy of these works in a country with non-standard copyright laws, such as Mexico, to easily grab only the locally permissable ones, without having to visually examine the status of each article. But if you want to remove them, that's ok with me. I agree that at present they're not of obvious use other than to provide an obvious link to the relevant template.
Feel free to make any other adjustments as well. I freely admit my ignorance of the various laws, though I have looked around. Wolfman 03:15, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for responding so quickly.
Copyright law can get very complicated in an international setting, and I admit I have not looked at what Commons is doing with this at all. The reference that I use most is at http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/okbooks.html#whatpd . That page also has a number of useful links. My simplest rule of thumb is to US law to justify including anything published before 1923; for works published after 1922 use the law in the author's own country. Combine that with the principle that the copyright of a foreign work is not increased by the application of the law of one's own country, nor does it operate to give greater rights than would be available to the citizens of one's own country.
As for the templates, I am less concerned about their usefulness than about the usefulness of the categories. Having these quick notices is definitely better than nothing.
Bridgeman v. Corel dealt with a situation where Bridgeman sought to protect a copyright of photographs of portraits from various English museums. The portraits were already in the public domain before they were photographed. The case did more than consider the matter under US law; it also included a determination that the photographs were also not copyrightable under UK law. The judge cited British cases to arrive at this conclusion.
The only bearing that the Bridgeman case could have on the present issue of the Sherlock Holmes illustration would arise if the German site from which the illustrations were copied were to claim that it somehow acquired copyrights in these pictures. We can safely iignore any such copyright claim by the Germans because it is invalid. For A Case of Identity, the one that I reviewed it would be sufficient to say the both the text of the story and the illustrations came from the 1891 issue of The Strand that carried them. Unlike the museum pictures, which were relatively recently first "published", the Holmes drawings were published long ago.
It is correct that Life +70 is the rule in the EU. The US adopted the life +70 rule in 1976 for works published in that year and later. For practical purposes this have little apparent effect until the end of the year 2046. The Sonny Bono extension 1n 1998 increased the term for works that were currently copyright protected from 75 to 95 years from the date of publication. This was an act of artificial respiration for the benefit of a popular rodent. The 1923 works whose copyright would have expired in 1998 had their copyright frozen until 2018.
For categories generally my concern is with using them for information that cannot easily be obtained elsewhere. For these copyright categories the list can be easily generated by going to the template in question and clicking on "What links here" I suppose that I could have been bold and just removed them, but I would be disrespectful if I did so without first raising the issue with the person who generated them. Eclecticology 07:11, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Ok thanks. I'm not sure what harm the cats do. But it won't bother me if you remove them from the templates. The real point was to have templates, adding categories to them was just an afterthought. I changed the PD-US-art template to PD-art, since it seems to be an international thing. The distinctions on images confuses me, but just edit Template:Sherlock Holmes plates with whatever is appropriate PD-70? Wolfman 08:45, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
One small point to make sure we're co-ordinated now that the basic Category:PD is no longer a direct category. It can still be used as a meta-category for all public domain templates. This is simply a matter of co-ordinating whether we use the abbreviation or the word spelled out. Either will be acceptable to me, and the other can be deleted. Eclecticology 20:07, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Feedback on Diary of Samuel Pepys (a beginning)[edit]

I'm looking for feedback on the first three days of entries (I know there are a lot more than that!) of the Diary of Samuel Pepys. I have test page (User:GregRobson/pepys/test) and have set up two templates (see User:GregRobson/pepys) - all feedback is welcome on the discussion pages. GregRobson 00:18, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Modernized versions of texts? (proposed template)[edit]

I was wondering if there are any guidelines on archaic vs. modernized style.

Specifically, for existing WS texts that are old enough to be hard to read due to archaic spelling, punctuation, etc., is it OK to create a new page for a modernized version? It seems like this should be legit, since this is basically a kind of translation (which is legit), but I thought I'd ask in case anyone knows of any existing guidelines.

It seems like having modernized versions of things would add to the usefulness of WS, as long as people don't do it frivolously, for texts that don't really need it.

An example of what I'm thinking of:

...or "(Modern English)" or something equivalent.


Followup question:

If the above is OK, I see no reason why modernized versions can't be generated wiki-style. Someone could generate a page for the modernized version, which would start as simply the original version, and other users can make modernizations later. I just made a template that could be put at the top of such pages: (Template:Modernize)


Please feel free to modernize the spelling, capitalization and punctuation of the following text.
Clarifying notes in [square brackets] may also be added sparingly, such as for obselete words.
Please leave the text otherwise as it is.

What do people think? Any suggestions are v. welcome. Zach Alexander 00:52, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The page Canterbury Tales alone should probably be for the original version, and something like Cantebury Tales (Modern English) for the modern version. Note that omitting "The" from the title should present no problem since this can always be resolved in the introductory material on the page itself.
Modernizing by just changing the text on the page may not be the best idea. This has the effect of removing the old original for translated selections, thereby making a different translation more difficult. My own preference would be for a two column arrangement where the two versions could be seen side by side. Eclecticology 02:03, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Original research on Wikisource[edit]

Hi, I've uploaded an essay i wrote about Wikipedia to Wikisource here. I have just heard from an active Wikipedian that original research might be banned from Wikisource, just as it is in Wikipedia. Is this the case? Actually, what prompted me to upload my essay was another essay about WP here, which was mentioned (and linked to) in the latest edition of Quarto. Could someone clarify for me what the actual position is?

I'd also like to know about setting up a page that has limited editability so that I can write my dissertation there while getting feedback as it progresses. I feel this is a new form of researching that wikis offer and that might interest other wikipedians. Let me know what you think. Cormaggio 18:24, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for my english. There is no problem, because your essays, if I understand, are works for a master. See : Wikisource:What is Wikisource? : previously published texts by any author. Original research aren't banned from Wikisource. Texts which aren't previously published are banned. But it's not your case. I hope that you can understand what I say, my english is very bad ! Marc 18:41, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thank you Marc, that's interesting. So how do you differentiate between academic work and something that hasn't been published before? I mean, my essay wasn't 'published' as such, it was just given to my lecture tutors! Cormaggio 20:54, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I suppose that your works are published in the university, or that it can be consulted by everyone, and that these are not works that nobody wants... Marc 21:20, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
There isn't a feature (to my knowledge at least) that allows you to limit editability, the best you will do is having admin rights to reverse any changes that other people make. I would be very cautious about using on open system to write a dissertation. Any changes they advise on my be considered plagiarism in the eyes of those marking the dissertation. Unless you quote the source in every instance. I don't think a Wiki is what you're looking for in this instance. GregRobson 19:22, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Please see #vandalism for this problem. It seems that some users agree to limit editability. Marc 19:38, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think that maybe admin status was what I was thinking of. Is it possible to set up a project that only I have admin rights to? (without necessarily giving me admin rights to the whole of wikisource?) I agree that plagiarism would be a big problem if I was to get people to add to my dissertation themselves - what i was more thinking of was the ability to get feedback on the talk page. I'm trying to have it as as much of a debate as possible. If you're still confused, you can contact me on my various talk pages - see my essay above. Cormaggio 20:54, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Marc's English is not as bad as he believes it to be.
As a project, we can of course define "publish" in any way we agree. In doing that we can say that the submission of a master's or a doctoral thesis to the appropriate university authorities is "publication". Many universities will keep files of these theses available to researchers in their libraries. Once you start tinkering with your text, or otherwise modifying it based on what is on the talk page it begins to lose the features of a published text. Wikibooks might be a better place for that sort of thing.
There has been talk about limiting the editability of texts, but that has been for the very different reason of protecting the integrity of these texts.
Eclecticology 06:53, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yes, hadn't thought of Wikibooks. Thanks to all for your help - that's about as much as i need to discuss here. I have been modifying my essay only in so far as improving layout - I'm deliberately leaving the content as it is, much as I'd like to change it now! Oh, and yes, Marc, no need to apologise for your English, I understood you perfectly :) Cormaggio 08:17, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

雙十協定[edit]

中国国民政府蒋主席于抗战胜利后，邀请中国共产党中央委员会主席毛泽东先生，商讨国家大计。毛先生于八月二十八日应邀来渝，进见蒋主席，曾作多次会谈；同时双方各派出代表，政府方面为王世杰、张群、张治中、邵力子四先生，中共方面为周恩来、王若飞两先生，迭在友好和谐的空气中，进行商谈，已获得左列之结果，并仍将在互信互让之基础上，继续商谈，求得圆满之解决。兹特发表会谈纪要如下：

一、关于和平建国的基本方针，一致认为：中国抗日战争业已结束，和平建国的新阶段，即将开始，必须共同努力，以和平、民主、团结、统一为基础，并在蒋主席领导之下，长期合作，坚决避免内战，建设独立、自由和富强的新中国，澈底实行三民主义。双方又同认蒋主席所倡导之政治民主化、军队国家化、及党派平等合法，为达到和平建国必由之途径。

二、关于政治民主化问题，一致认为应迅速结束训政，实施宪政，并应先采必要步骤，由国民政府召开政治协商会议，邀集各党派代表及社会贤达协商国是，讨论和平建国方案及召开国民大会各项问题。现双方正与各方洽商政治协商会议名额、组织及其职权等项问题，双方同意一俟洽商完毕，政治协商会议即应迅速召开。

三、关于国民大会问题，中共方面提出：重选国民大会代表，延缓国民大会召开日期及修改国民大会组织法、选举法和五五宪法草案等三项主张。政府方面表示：国民大会已选出之代表，应为有效，其名额可使之合理的增加和合法的解决，五五宪法草案原曾发动各界研讨，贡献修改意见。因此，双方未能成立协议。但中共方面声明：中共不愿见因此项问题之争论而破裂团结。同时双方均同意将此问题提交政治协商会议解决。

四、关于人民自由问题，一致认为政府应保证人民享受一切民主国家人民在平时应享受身体、信仰、言论、出版、集会、结社之自由，现行法令当依此原则，分别于以废止或修正。

五、关于党派合法问题，中共方面提出：政府应承认国民党、共产党及一切党派的平等合法地位。政府方面表示：各党派在法律之前平等，本为宪政常轨，今可即行承认。

六、关于特务机关问题，双方同意政府应严禁司法和警察以外机关有拘捕、审讯和处罚人民之权。

七、关于释放政治犯问题，中共方面提出：除汉奸以外之政治犯，政府应一律释放。政府方面表示：政府准备自动办理，中共可将应释放之人提出名单。

八、关于地方自治问题，双方同意各地应积极推行地方自治，实行由下而上的普选，惟政府希望不以此影响国民大会之召开。

九、关于军队国家化问题，中共方面提出：政府应公平合理地整编全国军队，确定分期实施计划，并重划军区，确定征补制度，以谋军令之统一。在此计划下，中共愿将其所领导的抗日军队由现有数目缩编至二十四个师至少二十个师的数目，并表示可迅速将其所领导而散布在广东、浙江、苏南、皖南、皖中、湖南、湖北、河南（豫北不在内）八个地区的抗日军队着手复员，并从上述地区逐步撤退应整编的部队至防海路以北及苏北、皖北的解放区集中。政府方面表示，全国整编计划正在进行，此次提出商谈之各项问题，果能全盘解决，则中共所领导的抗日军队缩编至二十个师的数目，可以考虑。关于驻地问题，可由中共方面提出方案，讨论决定。中共方面提出：中共及地方军事人员应参加军事委员会及其各部的工作，政府应保障人事制度，任用原部队人员为整编后的部队的各级官佐，编余官佐，应实行分区训练，设立公平合理的补给制度，并确定政治教育计划。政府方面表示：所提各项，均无问题，亦愿商谈详细办法。中共方面提出：解放区民兵应一律编为地方自卫队。政府方面表示：只能视地方情势有必要与可能时，酌量编置。为具体计划本项所述各问题起见，双方同意组织三人小组（军令部、军政部及第十八集团军各派一人）进行之。

十、关于解放区地方政府问题，中共方面提出：政府应承认解放区各级民选政府的合法地位。政府方面表示：解放区名词在日本投降以后，应成为过去，全国政令必须统一。中共方面开始提出的方案为：依照现有十八个解放区的情形，重划省区和行政区，并即以原由民选之各级地方政府名单呈请中央加委，以谋政令之统一。政府方面表示：依据蒋主席曾向毛先生表示：在全国军令政令统一以后，中央可考虑中共所荐之行政人选。收复区内原任抗战行政工作人员，政府可依其工作能力与成绩，酌量使其继续为地方服务，不因党派关系而有所差别。于是中共方面提出第二种解决方案，请中央于陕甘宁边区及热河、察哈尔、河北、山东、山西五省委任中共推选之人员为省府主席及委员，于绥远、河南、江苏、安徽、湖北、广东六省委任中共推选之人为省府副主席及委员（因以上十一省或有广大解放区或有部分解放区），于北平、天津、青岛、上海四特别市委任中共推选之人为副市长，于东北各省容许中共推选之人参加行政。此事讨论多次，后中共方面对上述提议，有所修改，请委任省府主席及委员者改为陕甘宁边区及热、察、冀、鲁四省，请委省府副主席及委员者，改为晋、绥两省，请委副市长者改为平、津、青岛三特别市。政府方面对此表示：中共对于其抗战卓著勤劳，且在政治上具有能力之同志，可提请政府决定任用，倘要由中共推荐某某省主席及委员，某某省副主席等，则即非真诚做到军令政令之统一。于是中共方面表示可放弃第二种主张，改提第三种解决方案：由解放区各级民选政府重新举行人民普选，在政治协商会议派员监督之下，欢迎各党派、各界人士还乡参加选举。凡一县有过半数区乡已实行民选者，即举行县级民选。凡一省或一行政区有过半数县已实行民选者，即举行省级或行政区民选。选出之省区县级政府，一律呈请中央加委，以谋政令之统一。政府方面表示：此种省区加委方式，乃非谋政令之统一，惟县级民选可以考虑，省级民选须持宪法颁布，省的地位确定以后方可实施。目前只能由中央任命之省政府前往各地接管行政，俾即恢复常态。至此，中共方面提出第四种解决方案：各解放区暂维持现状不变，留待宪法规定民选省级政府实施后再行解决，而目前则规定临时办法，以保证和平秩序之恢复。同时，中共方面认为：可将此项问题，提交政治协商会议解决。政府方面则以政令统一必须提前实现，此项问题久悬不决，虑为和平建设之障碍，仍亟盼能商得具体解决方案。中共方面亦同意继续商谈。

十一、关于奸伪问题，中共方面提出：严惩汉奸，解散伪军。政府方面表示：此在原则上自无问题，谁惩治汉奸要依法律行之，解散伪军亦须妥慎办理，以免影响当地安宁。

十二、关于受降问题，中共方面提出：重划受降地区，多加受降工作。政府方面表示：参加受降工作，在已接受中央命令之后，自可考虑。

中华民国三十四年国庆纪念日于重庆

王世杰 张群 张治中

邵力子 周恩来 王若飞

Hi, Can someone make a short summary of what is this about ? Just curious. Thanks in advance. Yann 12:08, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Policies and guidelines[edit]

(English below)

Bonjour,

Je propose d'améliorer les pages concernant les Principes et recommandations, qui devraient aussi être traduites dans plusieurs langues. Il serait utile de faire des liens entre les pages respectives de chaque langue. Yann 18:41, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi,

I propose to improve the Policies and guidelines, which should be translated in sevral langages. It would be good to link these pages to the respective equivalent in other langages. Yann 18:41, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Qu'est-ce que tu veux améliorer ? Marc 19:05, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

where is Ạṣtādhyāyī :o([edit]

what the hell happened to [2]? did it fall prey to some deletionist iconoclast? For heaven's sake, people, it's an ancient, venerable text, you might as well go around deleting the bible. Plus I need it to expand en:Ashtadhyayi. Can some admin please restore it?? I'm sorry I don't spend a lot of time on ws, and I don't know how you handle VfD and stuff, but this is supposed to be a daughter project to Wikipedia, right? So you shouldn't just delete texts under my ass while I'm working on an article, right right? 80.218.88.6 20:44, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC) en:User:Dbachmann

are you sure it was deleted? some texts have been difficult to relocate since the last software update, for Unicode reasons. that does not mean they have been deleted. ThomasV 20:53, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Ạṣtādhyāyī
Il semble que le s se modifie quand on fait une manipulation. Marc 21:22, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The page was never deleted. Someone did move it. I found the link on his user contribution page with a different set of diacritics. It is also an orphan text which hasn't been altered since November. A person who can't remember where he put an article should be apologetic to the sysops in general for his complaints; this attitude did not assume good faith. Eclecticology 08:23, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dbachmann: Here is your text: [3]. I did not know we were a "daughter" project to wp. I tend to consider ws as a "sister" project :-) ThomasV 09:12, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For those not in the known, this is a Sanskrit grammar, and maybe the oldest grammar of the world. I added the Devanagari version of this famous work in अष्टाध्यायी. Yann 12:05, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

weird. thank you all. I did, however, not "forget" where I put the article. An interwiki link points to it from en:Ashtadhyayi. Somebody removed it on grounds of being "dead" [4]. I checked this, at the time sitting at some windows box, and sure enough the link didn't work. What was I to assume, knowing that it had worked earlier? Is it possible that due to some Unicode issue on en:, the link would not work on certain platforms? Wikisource is of course innocent of all this, it is either Microsoft's fault, or en:'s. 130.60.142.65 16:05, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC) en:User:Dbachmann

Offline Wikisource Backup?[edit]

I am extremely excited to see an effort like this one working to collect so many works in digital form that, over the years, may become otherwise lost or decaying in moldering basements.

In order for an effort like this to survive the ages no matter what becomes of the internet or the service hosting this excellent site, I believe it is important to include an offline backup of the entire contents of the site. This backup would help ensure that the knowledge captured here will survive no matter what becomes of the team currently maintaining it.

Is there any way to download a backup copy of Wikisource? Is there a way to make a static copy that requires no database or server-side code to show? Is there a way to get a copy of the Wikisource data that runs on a local machine or perhaps future PDAs?

Wide and open distribution is a very effective method to ensure that the excellent information stored here isn't lost from the knowledge of the world due to some small technical issue. I'm very interested in learning more about how the contents of Wikisource can be backed up, archived, and redistributed elsewhere.

Thanks!

Mike Shea

backups are done, I believe on a hourly basis. you may ask the wikimedia foundation for that.

(#mediawiki channel on freenode.irc.net )ThomasV 20:57, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Thank you for the response. I think the key to my concern is: how can I and other concerned readers get a full copy of the work here to spread it even further? I am trying to think of ways to keep this material around for 50, 100, even 500 years. Only through highly distributed copies in an open and accessible format can we hope for the work here to survive that long.

RC bot on IRC[edit]

Hi,

I asked on #mediawiki if we could have a RC bot on IRC. JeluF said that he will take care of that. So we should have a RC bot soon. Yann 12:15, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Still not down, so I made a bug report. See http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1841 Yann 10:10, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Now done. The channel is available on #rc.wikisource Yann 14:08, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Syntax for texts in verse[edit]

Hi,

This is something quite specific to Wikisource. This is no Wiki code for easy syntax for texts in verse. I was proposed to use <pre style="background: #ffffff; border: 1px solid #303030; padding-left: 2em; margin: 0em;">text</pre>, which is, I think, the best we can have so far. What do you think having something like <verse> which would do the same ? Yann 12:22, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Je trouve que c'est une très bonne idée. Marc 12:28, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I think it looks better with border: 0. I think <verse> is a great idea tho. CSN 23:56, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I made a bug report. See http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1842 Yann 10:01, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
arrrgh!! I am totally opposed to the use of <pre> for texts. This is because it overrides the browser's default fonts. in some recent texts I have found a syntax for verses that goes like this: <pre style="background: #ffffff; font-family:georgia; border: 0px solid #303030; padding-left: 2em; margin: 0em;">. I guess Marc did this becauses he uses a georgia font in his browser, or something similar. I do not. And let me tell you that it does not look good on my system. And it could be worse if someone uses a browser that does not have the font at all. More generally, I think we should not impose a font to the reader. People should be able to read texts with the font they like. I am not opposed to a special formatting for verse, but please do not use <pre> for that. ThomasV 16:27, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

En fait, avant d'insérer font-family:georgia cela m'affichait une police vraiment très moche que je ne pouvait changer ; en l'insérant, j'ai remarqué que cela permettait ce changement automatiquement par rapport à la police du navigateur. Donc, en réalité, ce n'est pas cette police que j'utilise, et elle ne s'affiche pas pour les poèmes que j'ai fait ainsi. A partir de là, j'ai pensé que le problème était résolu... Marc 16:33, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Le problème, c'est qu'une police donnée n'est pas affichée de la même manière par chaque système. ca dépend du systeme d'exploitation, du navigateur, et des polices installées sur le système. il est donc très difficile de généraliser aux autres ce qu'on voit sur son propre écran. c'est pourquoi je pense qu'il vaut mieux éviter de toucher aux polices. ThomasV 16:41, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Thomas. Using <pre> in verse really screws up the display. While it's really tempting to use because it requires less formatting on the submitter's part--everything lines up nicely and weird indentations are made much easier--such things like italics can't be done, which are commonly found in poems. I usually end up removing the <pre> tag and formatting it wiki-style anyway, which gives much more freedom for manipulating the text. Zhaladshar 16:44, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

D'accord, je ne m'y connais pas beaucoup dans ce domaine. Est-ce qu'il y aurait un autre moyen de simplifier l'édition des poèmes ? Marc 17:04, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That means even more than we need a specific syntax for texts in verse. This <pre ...> in IMO some intermediate code which could be replaced once we have what we need. It's still the best that exists, although not perfect, because of other wiki codes are disable inside the <pre>. That can be done with a bot, however a bot could not replace the wiki syntax by a new <verse>. Could someone make a more precise technical definition to the developers of what we need ? Yann 17:23, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

why don't you do that? you are the one who proposed this in the first place, so you should explain to us what you need, and why. ThomasV 17:59, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I added a new class in MediaWiki:Monobook.css, which allows to write:

<pre class="verse"> text in verse </pre>

with the same effect of the code above. Already much easier. ;o) Yann 13:03, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We really need to come to some consensus on this <verse> thing. I agree <pre> is not ideal but what else can we do for long works? Putting <br/> at the end of each line is tedious and is discouraging people from contributing. <br/> tags also create a line-height that is different from the line-height of a paragraph. Okay thats not very clear. When I look at a 10 line paragraph versus 10 single lines with <br/> at the end, the later takes up more space becuase there is a slight gap between the lines. This is using the default skin and a rather large font size. Using <div style="line-height:whatever;"> doesn't fix this problem. Is it possible to request that a tag like <verse> be added to mediawiki that turns off the autowrapping of consecutive lines? CSN 14:01, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Brion turned down my request. :(
He suggested instead to create a class in the style sheet for that. Not tested yet. See bug report above. Yann 15:06, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
A class would be fine but again the <pre> tag just doesn't work. Aside from not being able to style stuff within a <pre> block, it causes the font problems mentioned above. If it were something that could be solved through CSS then we would have it fixed already I think. The problem is that the feature of mediawiki that ignores single line breaks ruins verse text and there is apparently no way around that except for <pre>. At least no way that I know. Sorry, apparently style="white-space:pre" works. Thanks Brion. CSN 16:06, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I tried wrapping Eloisa to Abelard in a <div style="white-space:pre"> and it still didn't break the lines up correctly. It did some line breaks and then ignored others. Is anyone else seeing that effect? CSN 16:24, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • An interesting little "feature" that I stumbled on: Styling may not work using <pre> by itself, but it will work if you use <pre style="border:none">. See The Red Cross Spirit Speaks as an example. The 16th line is "I am you, doing what you would" with the first you italicized. (It isn't very obvious with the font I'm using on my computer, but it might be for you.) 
    I can ''italicize'' and '''bold''' within <u>pre</u> tags.
    —Mike 20:30, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Stats for Wikisource[edit]

Hi,

There is now statistics for Wikisource, thanks to Erik Zachte : [5] Yann 07:21, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ah, enfin... Merci à Erik Zachte. Ça nous permet d'apprendre plein de choses sur Wikisource. Marc 08:15, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Splitting long books[edit]

Hi,

After the Bhagavad Gita, I look for other religious books, i.e. the Bible and the Qur'an, especially French translations of these. I found some French translations of the Bible in the public domain, see Talk:Bible (fr). Just need to be copied over. ;oP I also found several French of the Qur'an, and I got an authorisation to copy one of them, see Talk:Coran.

I look how the English translation of the Qur'an was uploaded and was suprise to find everything in one page. This is absolutely unmanageable for a book with 114 chapters (sura). So please split long books in several pages. I wonder how to call each of the page, either Sourate 1, Sourate 2, etc. or by the name of the sura. Please comment. Yann 21:55, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

if you are looking for long books to split, just check here ThomasV 07:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oops yes, there is lot of work to do. Any page with more 200 KB is very difficult to read. Yann 08:06, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikimania![edit]

Registration for Wikimania, the first international Wikimedia conference, is now open. It will be brilliant fun. Everone is invited to join the event this summer.

Wikimania will take place from August 4-8, 2005 in Frankfurt am Main, Germany. The event will combine Wikimedia community discussions and software hacking with academic research, presentations of current implementations, and user/community panels. Wiki fans, community members, and developers are all invited to attend.

Feel free to submit presentations and other content for the conference; for more information, see the call for papers.

For translations, see our internal announcement. Please pass this message along to all Wikimedia projects, in English or in translation. You can also use our public press release.

If you want to help or have great ideas for the conference, please write us via the meta-feedback page, or just ask on the foundation mailing list. Attendees can coordinate travel plans and other informal events on the Wikimania community pages.

Wikimania is an event from the community and for the community - it will be brought to life through your participation and suggestions... hoping to see some of you this summer,

Sj 23:08, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC), on behalf of the Wikimania organization team.

Straightforward page deletion request[edit]

My silly mistake for not double checking, I spotted it as I put in templates for the Diary of Samuel Pepys.

Thanks — GregRobson 12:00, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deletet. It is generally better to use Wikisource:Proposed deletions if you need a page deleted in the future :) Christian S 12:55, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, but I couldn't find the appropriate place - the Community portal page only brings you to this discussion - there are no obvious links to the day-to-day management pages (unless I have missed something obvious)? GregRobson 18:48, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, you didn't miss anything obvious. Wikisource doesn't do a very good job when it comes to making maintenance pages known to new users. We should put those links out on the Main Page. Zhaladshar 19:36, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They are under Wikisource:Utilities, for your information. Just found them. Zhaladshar 19:40, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Perhaps this is something that can be worked on like Wikipedia's community portal. Something for requests, listing of any templates etc. GregRobson 21:22, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Search message is broken.[edit]

http://wikisource.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=foo&go=Go

When on-site search is disabled, the message shown is "For more information about searching Wikisource, see $1." Either a parameter isn't being passed, or

the message needs to be changed. See Bugzilla:1706. Needs a sysop to fix. 20.137.14.50 19:30, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Qualité des textes[edit]

J'ai trouvé la remarque suivante du fondateur de http://www.ebooksgratuits.com :

«Pendant que j'y pense, un autre projet «Open Source» a vu le jour, dans le sillage de Wikipedia, c'est WikiSource (http://wikisource.org/wiki/Main_Page:Français). L'initiative est intéressante (nous la soutenons également), mais elle pose le problème de la qualité des textes produits dans un cadre totalement «décentralisé», sans contrôles successifs de la qualité des textes. Dans ce cas, tout dépend du sérieux du contributeur... Et même ainsi, je me demande... alors que nous sommes de notre coté obligés d'appliquer 3 niveaux de correction successifs, par trois personnes différentes, pour obtenir un niveau acceptable d'édition.»

Je crois que l'image de Wikisource risque de souffrir des objections qui sont souvent formulées contre la Wikipédia. A mon avis, ces objections sur la qualité s'appliquent beaucoup moins à Wikisource, mais les principes de ce projet font que le lecteur a naturellement des doutes. Pourtant, pour prendre un exemple personnel, les textes que je copie ici viennent souvent de sites de qualité (gallica et autres) et les textes que je scanne ne doivent pas être de mauvaise qualité non plus. Je pense que nous devrions faire un effort pour faire comprendre que des remarques comme celle ci-dessus ne sont pas aussi valables que l'on pourrait le croire, notamment parce qu'il est admis je crois que l'on puisse bloquer des textes. En bref, il me semble que les principes de ce projet font que l'on a facilement une fausse image de Wikisource, surtout si l'on compare avec le fonctionnement de la Wikipédia (alors que par exemple, sur la Wikipédia, par principe, il est impossible de bloquer un texte). Marc 22:16, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Il y a également une remarque sur le site de cette personne : http://www.ebooksgratuits.com/adresses.php (avec au passage la remarque fantaisiste sur les nombreux textes inédits repris de ce site) (remarque supprimée). Marc 22:30, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ce site publie entre autres des textes de Colette hébergés sur free.fr. Ces textes ne sont pas dans le domaine public en France. Étonnant qu'il ne se soit pas déjà fait tapé sur les doigts. Yann 23:03, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
L'hébergement de quelques textes de Colette sur Free.fr est tout à fait temporaire, suite à un problème de bande passante avec notre hébergeur Ebookslib. Dés la fin du mois, les textes en question seront hébergés sur des serveurs US ou canadiens, selon leurs dates de parution. Coolmicro 16:26, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Pour ceux que cela intéresse, le lien de la discussion : http://www.01net.com/outils/forum/voirforum.php?forum=271408 Marc 14:50, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Bah, c'est exactement les mêmes reproches que l'on fait à Wikipédia. Ce qui fait la différence, c'est le nombre de contributeurs. Ebooksgratuits annonce une quarantaine de contributeurs actifs. Ce n'est pas beaucoup. Wikisource peut facilement dépasser ce nombre. Yann 16:11, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Je ne fais pas du tout de reproches, ce n'est pas mon genre; je me pose seulement des questions. J'ai fait un autre mail à Marc pour expliquer mes doutes, en prenant des exemples précis, notamment pour les sources utilisés. Même si nous sommes plutôt une cinquantaine de contibuteurs actuellement, c'est effectivement très peu, et la situation est nettement pire au niveau de Project Gutenberg (pour les contributeurs francophones). J'espère de tout coeur que Wikisource aura rapidement beaucoup plus de contributeurs que nous. Mais, il sera souhaitable de nous coordonner, comme nous le faisons déjà avec PG et DP, pour ne pas travailler en même temps sur les mêmes textes... (je parle là uniquement des textes inédits dont il faut faire le scan et/ou l'ocr.Coolmicro 16:26, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
J'ai lu votre message et je pense que nous sommes d'accord : l'aspect qualitatif de Wikisource n'est pas encore assez développé ; je pense aussi que vos critiques sont constructives, et je vous en remercie ; il nous faudra travailler encore beaucoup pour parvenir à quelque chose de satisfaisant. Il est effectivement souhaitable de travailler ensemble, et je vous remercie pour les précisions données sur votre travail de correction, et pour votre invitation à recopier les textes que vous éditez. Marc 16:31, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Pour connaître la liste de tous les livres publiés et de tous les livres en cours de travail, pour ELG : http://www.ebooksgratuits.com/liste_livres.htm Il existe une liste, mise à jour de temps en temps par un membre de DP, qui reprend les travaux en cours et publiés de PG, les notres, ainsi que les textes que j'ai en réserve sur mon disque dur, de provenances diverses : http://www.eleves.ens.fr/home/blondeel/PGDP/catalog/French-Books.zip Coolmicro 16:46, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Pour un exemple d'utilisation de symboles pour signaler la qualité d'un texte, par exemple : Le Crépuscule des idoles, que je n'ai pas fini de scanner. L'utilisation de ces symboles est encore marginale (mais cela existe), du fait qu'il y a encore peu d'éditions de ce type (pour les textes recopiés, cet usage est presque inexistant). Je crois qu'il serait bon de créer sur Wikisource une page listant ces textes inédits (ou sur une page signalant les textes protégés) qui pourrait être recopiés par vous (ou par tout autre site), et que vous pourriez relire, ce qui sera utile aux deux sites, et à tout le monde. Marc 17:00, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Norme pour le chapitrage[edit]

Bonjour à tous,

Je me présente : je suis inscrit depuis hier à wikisource, mais ait une petite expérience de Wikipedia. Je trouve le projet très intéressant, puisqu'il permet d'avoir "autre chose" que ce que proposait Gallica, qui a pour moi deux inconvénients : la plupart des textes sont en mode image (certes, cela protège la typo et la graphie de la version papier, mais cela n'est pas simple à utiliser), et les oeuvres en "mode texte" sont franchement mal présentées, ce qui complique grandement la lisibilité. Un projet comme Wikisource permet d'obtenir une lisibilité (une navigabilité interpage) très intéressante. Question : existe-t-il une "norme" pour le chapitrage ? De ce que j'ai pu voir dans le bistro et ses archives, j'ai l'impression que non. Existe-t-il une réflexion à ce sujet ? J'avais en effet l'intention de commencer mes contributions à Wikisource non pas par l'importation de nouveaux textes, mais par l'amélioration de la présentation des textes déjà présents. a tout seigneur tout honneur, puisque "au commencement était le Verbe", je serai intéressé par travailler sur un meilleur chapitage de la Bible, et de son premier livre en particulier, La Genèse. J'ai vu que Marc était sur le dossier, et il est normal pour moi de lui proposer mes services sans provoquer de collision avec le travail qu'il a en cours sur ce livre. Donc, si Marc est d'accord ... sachant que je pourrai pas débuter cela avant quelques jours. Pour revenir aux chapitrages, j'ai remarqué plusieurs possibilités, telles que celle de Iliade, qui me plait bien, mais il existe d'autres idées comme Le Tour du monde en quatre-vingts jours. J'aimerai connaître le point de vue des contributeurs actuels sur le "chapitrage" ou "découpage" de longs textes avant d'entamer les travaux. Merci d'avance pour vos réponses. François Rey 11:54, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bonjour et bienvenue. Il existe bien une réflexion sur le sujet, mais pas encore de consensus clair. Pour les noms de chapitres, va voir aussi là: Vingt_mille_lieues_sous_les_mers. les liens vers les chapitres ont juste un numéro, il me semble que c'est plus propre. ThomasV 12:04, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Bonjour,

En ce qui concerne la Bible, j'ai surtout eu pour objectif de placer là le texte, livre par livre, avec des tableaux et des catégories. Je t'invite donc à y apporter les modifications que tu juges nécessaires. Marc 12:09, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

tiens, ça me fait penser qu'il reste Somme théologique - Partie 2a à formater. si il y a des volontaires... ThomasV 12:12, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Je veux rebondir sur un aspect annexe de l'intervention de François : Gallica, ou plutôt les livres en mode texte de Gallica. Vous avez du remarquer que tout ce qui est en mode texte sur Gallica, a été fait par des entreprises privées (Bibliopolis, Acamedia), ou pire (du point de vue qualité), provient de la base de données textuelles Frantext réalisée par l'Institut National de la Langue Française (INaLF). Non seulement la présentation est médiocre, non seulement les normes minimum de typographie ne sont pas respectées (il y aurait d'ailleurs un débat à avoir sur cette question, vu la typo des textes qui circulent sur le web...), mais le texte lui-même est bourré de fautes :
Pour Bibliopolis ou Acamedia, nous trouvons encore pas mal de fautes, même si les textes sont d'un niveau acceptable.
Pour les textes Frantext, c'est vraiment la catastrophe, le niveau étant parfois inférieur à ce que nous obtenons par ocr (avant correction) à partir des images de Gallica; nous avons d'ailleurs renoncé à les utiliser, pour le moment.
Conclusion : il est déconseillé de publier des ouvrages en mode texte de Gallica sans avoir effectué une relecture attentive. (Nota : le «nous» désigne Ebooks libres et gratuits) Coolmicro 16:22, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Merci pour ce conseil ; j'avais remarqué la mauvaise qualité de ces textes au point de vue de la forme en ce qui concerne la poésie (souvent très mal éditée), mais je ne pensais pas que c'était à ce point. Marc 16:37, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Merci à Coolmicro pour ces infos. C'est intéressant. Comment obtient-on une liste des documents en mode texte sur Gallica ? Ce qui serait vraiment bien, c'est de pouvoir obtenir les Larousses dans le domaine public en mode texte. Enfin, on peut toujours rêver... Y a-t-il d'autres documents qui ne sont pas disponibles, mais qui seraient utiles ? Ceci afin de préparer une demande à la BNF au nom de Wikimédia. Est-ce que "Ebooks libres et gratuits" serait intéressé pour se joindre à une telle demande ? J'espère qu'on pourra construire une collaboration fructueuse. Aussi, j'avais essayé de faire de l'OCR à partir de quelques livres que je possède, mais avec des résultats très décevants (avec GOCR et Clara sous Linux). Quelle est la bonne solution ? Yann 12:44, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
La liste des documents en mode texte de gallica : http://gallica.bnf.fr/textes.htm Malheureusement, il n'y a pas l'indication, dans la liste, de l'origine (Bibliopolis, Acamedia ou Frantext essentiellement)
ELG serait évidemment très intéressé par obtenir les Larousse qui sont dans le domaine public et nous nous joignons à toutes les demandes que vous voulez, mais je ne me fais pas trop d'illusions... Concernant les dictionnaires, il y a ceux de l'Académie Française : outre ceux présents sur notre site (5ème et 6ème édition - pour la 6ème, je peux joindre le concepteur de l'ebook, pour voir s'il l'a encore en mode texte), il y a ce site : http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wulfric/academie Le problème avec les dictionnaires, c'est qu'ils ne sont pas d'une grande utilité en mode texte : il faut les intégrer dans une base de données. Le résultat peut alors être génial. Vous connaissez probablement tous ce génial site indispensable à tout correcteur : http://atilf.atilf.fr/
Il y a des tas de livres importants qui ne sont pas encore sur Gallica, et cela pour tous les auteurs, à commencer par des auteurs tels que Verne et Dumas (il faut trouver les livres à scannner dans ces cas...). Il faudrait leur proposer une «boite aux lettres» où il soit possible de leur faire des suggestions de scan de livres importants absents de Gallica
Pour l'OCR, je ne peux parler que de Windows... Nous utilisons pour la plupart Finereader Pro, que nous trouvons efficace, et pas trop «lourd». Vous trouverez sur cette page de la FAQ de notre site : http://ebooksgratuits.com/faq.php?categ=%ABFabrication%BB+des+ebooks des conseils. Lorsque le scan est bien fait (j'utilise une résolution 300), à partir de livres bien imprimés, l'OCR donne de bons résultats, même s'il y a encore beaucoup de travail de correction; par contre, lorsque nous faisons l'OCR de scans de Gallica, le résultat est parfois assez catastrophique (pas toujours), et il y a alors un travail énorme... Dernière précision : tout travail de correction après OCR, est suivi de deux autres niveaux de correction dans notre groupe (phase 2 et 3 pour ceux qui regarderont notre FAQ).Coolmicro 17:59, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

La Bible[edit]

Merci pour vos réponses. J'ai commencé mes modifications sur la Genèse en chapitrant d'abord dans la page, je découperai ensuite le livre avec une page par chapitre. Quelqu'un peut-il me dire la source de la copie, cela n'est pas indiqué dans la page discussion ?François Rey 18:57, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Il y a plusieurs sources indiquées dans la page de discussion de La Bible. Marc 19:31, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Parmi les cinq livres du Peutateuque, quatre sont tirés de l'édition de la "Traduction Louis Segond, 1910", le cinquième (Le Lévitique provenant d'une autre édition (que je n'ai pas déterminé pour l'instant). Je pense qu'il serait souhaitable de prendre pour ce livre une copie du la "Traduction Louis Segond, 1910", ceci afin de garder la cohérence entre les différents livres. Etes-vous d'accord avec ce changement ? François Rey 10:36, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oui, il vaut mieux uniformiser les sources. Yann 12:33, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Il me semble que la version sur notre site (proposée notamment au format Word), est une traduction Louis Segond, 1910 (pas sûr à 100%, mais tu sembles suffisamment connaisseur pour vérifier) :
http://www.ebooksgratuits.com/ebooks.php?auteur=Anonymes%20et%20autres Coolmicro 18:29, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Marc avait indiqué ci-dessus la page discussion de La Bible, où cinq liens pointent vers les versions "supposées" de la "Traduction Louis Segond, 1910". Je n'ai pas fait de comparaison croisée entre ces liens (plus celui d'ebooksgratuits, plus celui de l'ABU, non listé, mais qui serait, selon Wikipedia, également une Louis Segond 1910). L'exercice vaut le coup d'être tenté, et j'essayerai de le faire dès mon retour de déplacement (je pars demain).
Merci bien pour votre aide et vos conseils. François Rey 19:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Publication de Pierre Laurent Wantzel[edit]

Bonjour, j'ai découvert une publication de Pierre-Laurent Wantzel de 1837 (ce sont des mathématiques) sur le site du cnam ici mais je ne connais pas la démarche à suivre (problème de droit, négociation avec le cnam) pour mettre ce texte dans les wikisources. Quelqu'un peut-il s'en charger ? Merci 12/04/2005 HB (sur wikipedia.fr)

Bonjour,

À partir du moment où l'auteur et le traducteur éventuel d'un texte sont morts il y a plus de 70 ans, tu peux le reproduire ici sans demande d'autorisation. Marc 18:10, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Je confirme ce que dit Marc. Le CNAM, comme plusieurs autres institutions françaises, ne respectent pas la législation sur le droit d'auteur et essaie d'imposer des restrictions sur des documents dans le domaine public. (cf. la pseudo-licence ABU). Yann 19:19, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

New Nahuatl Wikisource[edit]

Please see the new Nahuatl Main Page which links to 2 or 3 passages of original Nahuatl (in the original layout and formatting, with sporadic superscripts and varying orthography) from the 16th and 17th centuries. I have more in my copy of Lockhart's text; if you really want to see them uploaded soon, ping me via my talk page. Sj 01:04, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Audio recordings of texts...[edit]

Having seen the wonderful work that has been started over at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia I immediately thought of the possibilities of doing the same over here. Having the spoken version of political speeches and important books would add immense value to what we have here already. Would there be any copyright issues in doing this? I assume anyone can release reading of a text if the copyright has expired? GregRobson

The idea is interesting, and it would definitely increase the value of the project. I don't know much about the spoken wikipedia project, or how such readings should be implemented, but that is mainly a tecnical problem.
About the copyright: If the text is in the public domain, then anybody can produce a reading of it and release that reading. If you don't make the reading yourself, but intent to use readings produced by others, then there may be some copyright issues, as the reader/producer may have copyright on the specific reading, even if the text itself is PD. This does not mean that we can't produce our own reading and release it. --Christian S 07:28, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Cool, when I finish my degree I may see about doing some readings :) GregRobson 10:02, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Capitals in English[edit]

Hi,

I read some help from some proefficient English speaking contributors to define what is the right way to use capitals in English text. In Freedom's_Battle, some titles are all capitalized, some are not. It should at least be consistent within the document. Which words need to be capitalized ? Other cases in An Autobiography or The Story of my Experiments with Truth and The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi - Volume III. The originals have all titles in capitals. Thanks, Yann 12:52, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi,
When it comes to capitalization in titles, here are the rules: the first word of the title is always capitalized, and every word in the title except prepositions of four letters or less, conjunctions, and articles. Zhaladshar 15:31, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Limite du contenu[edit]

Bonjour à tous,

Je me pose une question "métaphysique" qui, peut-être, a déjà fait l'objet d'une (ou plusieurs) discussion antérieure. On connait tous la limite liée au droit d'auteur. Mais qu'en est-il d'une éventuelle limite sur le contenu lui-même, lorsque celui-ci a une portée polémique ?

Exemple : Le protocole des Sages de Sion.

C'est un faux réputé antisémite. Il a été utilisé, et est toujours utilisé, par des adversaires d'Israël ou des juifs en général, car ce texte est supposé avoir été écrit par des "sages juifs complotant contre le reste du monde". Il a donc une portée à la fois historique et géopolitique. La même portée qu'un texte contre les protestants pendant les guerres de religion (par exemple).

Question : Doit-on les publier ? Si oui, comment (c'est à dire avec ou sans avertissement) ? S'il doit être publié avec avertissement, quels critères doit-on prendre en compte pour définir un texte qui doit être averti d'un texte qui ne doit pas l'être ? Car la sensibilité de chacun d'entre nous est différente : par exemple, certains vont considérer que la Bible est un texte sacré, d'autres la verront cela comme un ramassis de conner..

Personnellement, je n'ai pas suffisamment réfléchi à la question pour avoir les idées claires à ce sujet. Cependant, la question se posera un jour ou l'autre, car des groupes pas toujours très fréquentables posteront des textes douteux ... dès que wikisource aura plus d'audience. François Rey 16:06, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Les seules critères de publication, à ma connaissance, sont le respect du droit et une publication antérieure. À partir de là, tout peut être publié, et on peut difficilement empêcher qu'un texte soit édité ici, quelqu'en soit le contenu. Cette liberté, à mon sens, est plus efficace pour désamorcer un texte dangereux (Mein Kampf, etc.) que la censure qui, au contraire, valorise ce qui est interdit.

La neutralité s'impose aussi à Wikisource, et je ne pense pas que nous puissions sans parti pris placer des avertissements. Je ne crois pas que nous puissions tenir compte de la sensibilité de chacun ; cela n'est pas nécessaire, et cela contredirait les principes d'édition de Wikisource. Sinon, on n'en finira jamais : attention, la Bible raconte n'importe quoi et contient des textes immoraux. Attention les textes de Sade sont susceptibles de pervertir l'esprit du lecteur, attention en lisant de la philosophie vous risquez de devenir plus intelligent, etc. Le seul avertissement raisonnable, semble-t-il, consisterait en une simple note historique : pour le Protocole, signaler qu'il est un plagiat des Dialogues aux enfers. C'est une information, et les liens vers la Wikipédia vont en ce sens. Marc 16:34, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oui, tout à fait. J'approuve ce que dit Marc. A mon avis, on peut ajouter des informations factuelles : (C'est un faux, etc.). Sinon, il n'y aucune raison de ne pas publier un texte cont le copyright le permet. Yann 09:54, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Texte intégral de pièce de théatre[edit]

Bonjour, je me suis attaqué à la pièce de théatre Lorenzaccio d'Alfred de Musset. Je pense avoir fini les gros travaux. Il faudrait peut-être encore mettre la première lettre d'une phrase en majuscule ça et là, corrige la ponctuation à certains endroits, mais ceci ne me tente pas trop comme tâche.

J'ai utilisé un fichier RTF que j'ai traduit en fichier texte brut via la commande unrtf. Au passage, j'ai corrigé ce programme pour qu'il prenne en compte les accents français (télécharger le patch, lien temporaire).

J'ai ensuite écrit un programme Perl (télécharger ce script, lien temporaire) pour convertir ce texte brut dans le format Wikisource. Si vous êtes intéressés, contactez-moi ;-)

Que dites-vous de la mise en forme de Lorenzaccio ?

--Haypo 03:41, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Elle est très bien. Personnellement, j'aime bien découper les textes en "chapitres" (Pour une pièce de théatre, cela pourrait être comme "un acte = un chapitre", avec des outils de navigation entre les "chapitres", pour permettre à l'utilisateur d'accéder rapidement au chapitre choisi. Voir par exemple La Genèse pour un exemple.
Quand au script PERL, c'est une bonne idée ... il va falloir que je m'y mettre, à ce langage. Petite question à propos des scripts : serait-il possible qu'un script (ou un robot) puisse scanner un texte Wikisource pour y retirer tous les "tirets de liaison" récupérés sur un texte word (mais sans retirer les tirets normaux ?)

François Rey 07:00, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bonjour,
La mise en page est bien. Oui, on peut découper en chapitres si le texte est très long (là c'est encore raisonnable). J'ai ajouté le titre. Pour faire des modifs automatiques, j'utilise (sous Linux) un navigateur en mode texte (w3m) et VI qui a des possibilités de recherche/remplacement très avancées. Yann 07:10, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Je n'avais plus pensé à vi ! Merci.
Concernant le chapitrage, j'avoue que j'ai souvent du mal à lire un long texte sur écran ; le fait d'être découpé en partie me permet d'entamer une lecture sans avoir peur d'être "noyé" dans la masse du texte. De plus, pour la Bible (mais cela peut s'appliquer à d'autres cas comme les pièces de théatre), cela peut permettre plus tard de faire des liens directs d'une critique ou d'une étude de la bible (ou d'une pièce de théatre) au plus près du texte référencé. Ce que je fais en général est de proposer les deux modes : une page contenant l'ensemble des chapitres, pour ceux qui préfèrent obtenir un texte complet ; un chapitrage, avec des outils de navigation pour accéder rapidement aux autres chapitres ou aux autres tomes, s'ils existent.

François Rey 17:25, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/Feb_2005_-_Apr_2005&oldid=269062"