Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/Feb 2004 - Jun 2004

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Sources headers[edit]

Please check out the header of Manifesto of the Communist Party to see if it's appropriate. I advise to add a head part like "English > Texts > XXXXX" to every text so that we can return to the right mainpage as fast as possible. --Samuel 02:51, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What you have done at the Manifesto is just fine. It started off with all the text in one place, and is now being divided by "chapters". I'll leave it alone while the person doing that is working on it. I am, however, changing Frederick Engels to Friedrich whereever I see it. Your idea of a tracings statement is a good one, but I doubt that people will do it. I would probably even omit the piping for this. My Primary Categories scheme would fit very well with that. Eclecticology 07:49, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Great idea! I like it and even used it in The Story of an Hour. :) --Maio 02:46, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
(A small quibble: isn't it more useful to list texts with a title of the form "The X" as "X, The"?) MrJones 19:33, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Well, i just find it inconvenient if we don't have these headers: every time when i want to go back to the mainpage, i need to go back mutil-language mainpage first, then English... this idea is not new, which is used by Chinese sources at the first beginning, and is adopted from Wikipedia Esperanto. i don't know if everyone likes to do that, but if that's convenient for people, sysops have to do their jobs. ;) --Samuel 01:39, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I've had similar frustrations. I wonder if links to the other languages could be in the sidebar. I don't oppose tracings; it's just a matter of developing new habits. Eclecticology 05:43, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Well... personally, I think that it's visually unattractive. I'd be much more inclined toward providing meta-information in an infobox, along the lines of many series of Wikipedia articles.

Page size/breaking up texts / Seitengröße / Texte aufteilen[edit]

Is there a current consensus or argument for/against breaking up "large" works? I notice that this has been unevenly done: some long works have chapters divided into separate articles, others have everything in one single article (my initial preference). -- Jehanne 22:44, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Details at Wikisource talk:Style guide#Long texts

Markup question[edit]

Hello! I wasn't able to figure out how to insert raw html anchors in to the text. I am mainly interested in inserting "clickable" footnotes, something like

<a href="#footnote1">1</a>

but as you see it does not work. Apparently the program automatically escapes the "angle" characters, is there a way to "de-escape" them?

Is this the right place to ask such questions BTW? Dr Absentius 05:58, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

We don't currently have a pretty way to do this, but you can put an id attribute on one of the HTML tags we do allow, such as at 1. --Brion VIBBER

Thank you for your answers and sugestions 2. I think that this is an important issue for wikisource: if we have long, complicated and dated works, we need a lot of notes to make them accesible to the modern reader and it is not always possible or even advisable to refer to encyclopaedia articles -- sometimes all that is needed is a short explanation. And of course all the sources here will eventually become dated, so that the future "wikisourcians" will need to add notes to make the texts available to their contemporaries. Dr Absentius 16:56, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)


  1. <li id="footnote1">
  2. And the suggestion does work!

Verification procedure[edit]

I believe there should be a procedure that each page goes though of checking. Maybe some pages to log it (Wikisource:Verification). The procedure will go something like this:

  1. Data entered |Source of information|
  2. Data conflict checks |Sources of information|
  3. 1st Verification by person 1
  4. 2nd Verification by person 2
  5. 3rd Verification by person 3
  6. Data Verified.

Possbly on each page cold have a note saying what procedure the data is at:

The source below is currently being verified for the second time.

The data below has not yet been checked for possible errors.


Good idea, unfortunately due to the nature ofs, I don't think it is feezable; as anyone can edit a source at any given time. There are not too many sources right now, but when it grows how do you plan to verify each one of them when you rely on volunteer/hobbie work? By the way, all sources are covered for No Guarantee of Validity by Wikisource's Disclaimers. --Maio 01:48, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I'm not going to hold my breath while I dream about this great idea. For now I would be satisfied with getting people to put enough data to allow verification that what they are adding is in the public domain. Eclecticology 01:52, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It would be quite easy for people to put "proof read by X on Y" notices on the discussion page having compared the text with a print copy and corrected any typographical errors. MrJones 19:41, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think that not only would that be easy but that it could likely get done on it's own if people just start doing it. also, want to point out , the more documents are here, the more people will be as well.
It seems pretty evident that people around here aren't slow to roll up their sleeves, aren't unwilling to read huge amounts of materials, and that there are those of us just nutty enough to do a word for word comparion of Anna Karenina or whatever against a printed version, by committee if necessary...
I think more than on wikipedia, that adding to the discussion page is helpful to future editors. If someone I recognise as 'good' has said a text is correct, I'd be less inclined to 'need' to look it over myself. So making the notation could save effort, community wide, I think its a good optional custom that would catch on once it's worth is demonstrated.
People ARE going to double triple and quadruple check some of this stuff, anyway, regardless of any policy that we aren't responsible for accuracy. We're pretty much all accuracy freaks, from what I can see so while it's nice to not be responsible I'm open to anything that will help improve easy attainment of accuracy.Pedant 08:17, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Another possibility is to make a "proofread by" entry in the infobox (if the text has got one). In any case, the proofreader should sign the proofreading notice with four tildes (~~~~) so that a time stamp is included, verifying that the last edit before that timestamp is the one that has been proofread. Christian S 18:34, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Proposal: Wikimedia Commons[edit]

As Angela noted above, I have written a proposal to share media among the various Wikimedia projects, and to develop a central repository for freely licensed content. I call it the Wikimedia Commons. I have posted the proposal to the wikipedia-l mailing list:

I invite all interested parties to participate in the discussion about whether we want to do this. The discussion about and roadmap for the implementation will be moved to Meta-Wikipedia if a consensus develops that we do.

This project would have significant overlap with Project Sourceberg, which would probably end up being merged into the Commons. The key differences between PS and the Commons:

  • All types of media are allowed
  • Easier interfaces for use of these media within the various Wikimedia projects
  • Not just public domain and FDL, but other free content licenses as well (although FDL/PD recommended for texts)

Your project would be greatly affected by this change, so I realize that I need your cooperation more than anyone else's to pull this off. I am very much interested in reaching a consensus with you, and please do not believe that this is somehow intended to be decided over your head.

Please read the whole proposal before you read on.


Thanks. Now that you have a better idea of what I am trying to accomplish here, I'd like to address some possible concerns. Again, if you find these silly, these are just the ones I can think of.

"PS is about texts. This will lead to an invasion of multimedia that has nothing to do with what we are trying to do."

On Wikipedia, mathematicians work happily together with Star Trek fans and political activists. People with different goals generally do not need to cross their ways. Sure, Special:Recentchanges will become less text-centric, but we can come up with filters here to make it work better (adding filters on top of RC is no big deal, we already have lots of them). The same goes for the structure - there will be different spaces within the commons for text, images, music etc.

"This will become a file dump for anything people consider valuable."

The same concern could be leveled at the current Sourceberg, or at Wikipedia, or any other wiki. We will of course develop rules for inclusion. The key guideline I have proposed is: "of possible interest to any Wikimedia project".

"Keeping texts and other material separate is good, as the people who work on these things are different."

My experience with Wikipedia is that people will often work on subjects that they have had no visible interest in before, because they notice them on Wikipedia or are just looking for something to do. Uniting media will enlarge the current community substantially, and I believe that the text content that is here will inevitably benefit greatly from that. What is currently a relatively small community could eventually become as gigantic as Wikipedia itself. Frightening, perhaps, but also very promising.

"Allowing different licenses will lead to incompatibility."

We will have to carefully choose which licenses we want to allow. Maybe we will agree that only the FDL and the public domain are acceptable for texts, but I believe that, for example, the Creative Commons Share Alike license should be compatible with the FDL. For images, the situation is slightly different, as these are separate works, and the FDL allows aggregation with materials that are non-FDL. Of course we only want free material to be on the commons, although for artistic works it might not always be possible to get permission to create derivative works, so I believe that is perhaps a freedom that we have to sometimes do without.

"We have worked hard to build this community, we shouldn't have to give it up."

Abandoning what has been done so far will not be necessary. The name change can be largely automated, and let's face it, "Project Sourceberg" is not a killer brandname. Beyond the software changes, what would effectively happen is that things like the Main Page would have to be redesigned to accommodate different media, but current content could in many cases simply be moved to new locations. Compared with, say, the change of the Italian Wikipedia from UsemodWiki to Phase III, the changes would be mostly cosmetic, especially thanks to the great internationalization work you have already done here.

These are the arguments I can think of. I will follow any responses here, but would also invite you to participate in the mailing list discussion if at all possible.- - Erik Möller

The principle is good, but the approach isn't the better one IMO. First of, I have never understood why the fuck do we have to register for every fucking project of MediaWiki: they should all be integrated, which is what I think you are alluding to (is that right?). I beleive that WikiSource should remain as a project of its own, with a future possibility of either (1) sharing content with Project Gutenberg or (2) totally merging the two projects. There is a lot of people that like to contribute in editing free sources, and the only reasons why WikiSource has remained occult is because of its poor integration to the Wikipedia Project and its troglodyte interface for source editing.
See Manifesto of the Communist Party for one of our best examples of what can be done in WikiSource that can't be done in Gutenberg. By combining the project to a larger repository, it loses its unique characteristic. The ideas are good, creating a repository of files, media, etc. However, from my experience, it seems that the user (the general public) likes to use sites that are specific to one thing, because they provide a team that is focused on one theme only, working on it heavily. See Wikipedia for an example and the dotcom crisis for another.
From my point of view, Wikipedia should be the parent project, encompassing all the other smaller projects under its tutelage. In other words, Wikipedia should become the Wikimedia Commons that you have proposed: a broad project as main root that gives birth to many smaller projects: sources, images, lyrics, musical compositions, whatever.
In other words, Wikipedia should provide a way to automatically link all the smaller projects automatically. Lets say that for example, Shawn Michaels has an FDL lyric: Wikipedia should automatically provide a link to the image gallery and lyrics of Shawn Michaels on its encyclopedia article. The same thing should happen when the users visits Michael's image gallery: it automatically links back to the encyclopedia. This is something that should be handled by the software, not by the editors.
To refute your argument, yes mathematicians work together with Star Trek fans on Wikipedia, because afterall they are all working for a common goal: an encyclopedia. A "repository of all types media" implies a goal too bride. See Google Image Search for an example — it is unidirectional in a sense but incorporates all the other Google projects.
This could very well be a primitive interface of your proposed Wikimedia Commons:

This is the encyclopedia article of Shawn Michaels.

Image Gallery

This is the image gallery of Shawn Michaels.

Private, unpublished papers......[edit]

Moved to Talk:The Charles Henry Gauss Family Papers

Bible / Bibel[edit]

For discussion on naming Bible texts see Wikisource:Bible

Diskussion über die Benennung von Bibeltexten siehe Wikisource:Bible.

Source code / Quelltexte[edit]

Would certain algorithms and such be appropriate to include here? Would they have to be GPL'd or what licenses would the code have to be released under? Dysprosia 05:04, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Algorithms and other mathematical procedures in principle would certainly be welcome. The specific term "source code" may be somewhat narrow in describing what that section is all about.
I assume that the algorithms that you have in mind are copyrightable in the first place. If not they would be in the public domain, and there is no problem. That would also be the case if you had the right to put the material into the public domain, and chose to do that. The general licensing regime with the various Wikimedia projects has been the Free Documentation License, which is in some respects similar to the GPL, but I would not want to mislead you about what could be my misunderstandings of the similarities. In principle we want the downstream users to be able to use the material in whatever way they wants. Copyright issues are a matter of ongoing, and mostly inconclusive debate. Eclecticology 07:42, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Ok, if I'll contribute these algos and such, they'll be in the public domain :) Dysprosia 10:26, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Kurzfassung: Quelltexte von Algorithmen sind hier prinzipiell erwünscht, sie müssen jedoch unter der GNU-FDL stehen oder Public Domain sein.

Style: Naming change in articles / Änderung der Artikelbezeichnungen[edit]

I've proposed at Meta:Babel that we change the names of most modules to avoid conflicts between different language versions; in the most part of cases, this might involve adding "(English)", "(Français)" etc., or some other tag, to the end of the article titles. I tentatively propose that we discuss the topic until 20th April 2004: if the result is in favour, we can start then. See m:Renaming Wikisource and Wikibooks modules. -- Gabriel Beecham 00:17, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I haven't participated in the development of these things in Wikibooks, so what happens there is up to the participants in that project, and I will keep out of that debate.
That being said, I don't see the problem being as big as you fear. I have no problem adding a language name tag when there is a conflict, unless there is a better option available in those particular circumstances. Except for some very short names, the titles in the language itself will provide natural disambiguators. In general I don't see much of a problem. Some areas may still need special attention, and I've raised one such point at Wikisource:Bible. Eclecticology 01:33, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I agree, the problem isn't huge. It's just to keep things tidy for the future. And as you say, it isn't a huge problem at Wikisource given the nature of the titles here. -- Gabriel Beecham 15:26, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Interwiki links / Interwiki-Links[edit]

This might be a simple question. Is there an interwiki link for Wikisource? I have linked articles to pages here and used the full path, but an interwiki would be better. I just haven't been able to find it. -- Mic 08:31, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Kurzfassung: Um von anderen Wikimedia-Projekten nach Wikisource zu linken, kann man [[Wikisource:Powers of 2]] eingeben.

Texts of Ivan Illich[edit]

I am wondering about the possibility of posting texts, Deschooling Society and Tools for Conviviality on wikisource. They were made publicly accessible at Penn State until his death in 2002 when they were taken off line. Electronic copies of these two works and others continue to float around the web but have a number of errors. [1] [2] [3] [4]

Copyright has never been formally alienated (as far as I can tell), however Illich certainly approved of the dissemmination of his out-of-print texts and must have authorized the Penn site. I'm trying to follow up with Carl Mitcham, who administered the Penn Ivan Illich Studies Web Site to determine how they were able to post his texts. So, what do you all think?

You raise some very important issues that whose potential go well beyond the importance of this Wikisource project and its sister projects. You have evidently considered the copyright issue, and this alone makes your comments worth cautious attention. My experience here has been more commonly with the oblivious who are scarcely able to answer the simple question, "where does this come from?" and lack the skills to make a meaningful comment about the copyright status of the passage in question.
The prima facie situation is that these works are copyright. Piercing that veil requires that all the appropriate homework MUST be done. Looking at the hard copy of Deschooling Society that I have I see that the copyright is in Ilich's own name rather than that of the publisher. That's good. What licensing arrangements did he have with the publisher? Did he have a will, and if so could that will be interpreted to determine the disposition of copyrights? Did his religious order require a vow of perpetual poverty which would require that all his property (which would include copyrights) belonged to the order. In case of an intestacy were there any relatives in a position to claim these rights? Whose law applied to the distribution of his estate? There is a need to address these questions and probably more.
I believe that much of copyright law has come to favour those few whose greed is in the best position to be recompensed. It is simplistic to base a copyright status solely on the age of publication. My contention is that a copyright is a property right, and that such a right is a nullity in the absence of a person to own it. This would effectively throw many writings by deceased persons, or owned by a bankrupt and disolved corporate entity into the public domain. If no-one has the standing to challenge a copyright it should be possible for anyone to re-publish the work with impunity.
Given Ilich's philosophical views, I think that his work would provide an excellent collection for testing this hypothesis. Before proceeding, however, the factual support for this must be rigorously in place. Eclecticology 02:55, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Namespaces and Modules / Namensräume und Module[edit]

for further discussion of namespace issues, see Wikisource talk:Namespaces

Topics addressed so far:

  • New namespace - Country:XXX or State:XXX?

Diskussion über das Thema Namensräume siehe Wikisource talk:Namespaces

Bisherige Themen:

  • Neue Namensräume - Land:XXX oder Staat:XXX?

Style: Proposed Naming Convention[edit]

Forgive me if this has been done already. I see Eclecticology is making minor capitalization corrections to "my" presidential speeches. I certainly do not mind, but it seem to me to a waste of time. Certainly the difference between "Grant's Second Inaugural Address" and "Grant's second inaugural address" is small.

Still one or the other must be "right." There needs to be a system. Let me spew out my thoughts on this.

First it does not matter what we call the page itself as long as we have lots of redirects, author's lists and other means of finding documents. Ideally typing in either "Grant's Second Inaugural Address" variant should get the user to the same place. Each page should have a half-dozen or so links

Second, we should use established naming conventions. There is no need to reinvent the wheel.

  • The AP Stylebook & Libel Manual makes these rules.....

1. Capitalize Principle Words, including Prepositions and Articles of more than four letters.

2. Capitalize any word that begins the name of a composition.

  • I would add these rules:

3. Use the title the user is most likely to know. I Have a Dream Speech not Martin Luther King's Address to ...

4. Use redirects for common alternative spellings, alternative names and alternative capitalizations.

5. Each document should link to an author's page at least. The more links the better. [[PaulinSaudi 08:42, 28 May 2004 (UTC)]]

Sorry, but I didn't realize that they were "your" presidential speeches; I thought they were made by the named president. Congratulations on your election. :-)
When you complained about my deletion of redirects in the course of re-naming titles, I stopped doing so for most cases. If you want to add more redirect pages, go ahead. For me the principle access to these speeches will be through the author pages.
I agree with using established naming conventions. This is not a problem with your point #2. The two principal identified conventions agree on this. Your #1 does present problems.
The Chicago Style Manual recognizes that titles can be in "sentence style" or "headline style". What Paul describes is the latter. The biggest advantage of the sentence style is that it conforms with what is done in other languages. That being said I still support showing the original capitalization when we are dealing with previously published books.
In the specific area of major speeches CSM states at 8.82, "A very few speeches have attained the status of titles and are thus traditionally capitalized. Others are usually lowercased.
Washington's Farewell Address
the Gettysburg Address
the annual State of the Union address
Franklin Roosevelt's second inaugural address
the Checkers speech
Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I have a dream" speech"
I admit that I was not familiar with the tradition connected to the first item on the list. I haven't done anything with the MLK item, but copyright violation is a bigger issue with that one.
I generally agree with having the material under the best known names, but it is not always clear just what the most common name is. There is even room for argument in the case of some presidents about what the most common name is, though I would avoid diminutive names. Adding middle initials and expanding those initials is certainly debatable. On the other hand but for the entry that Paul has set up I would never have known that Coolidge's first name was John until I was ready to work on that entry.
On #4, go ahead and create all the redirects that you want. Just don't expect me to do it. On #5, I can't argue against something that I've been promoting myself.
Finally, I agree that a system is needed. It's been on my mind for a long time. I should make a priority of starting something. Eclecticology 19:25, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
  • If nominated, I will not run. If elected I will not serve.
You know I think I have given up on any hope on imposing uniformity. That is not to say I am upset. It is simply that there are too many good arguments on how to do almost anything in any particular way.
I suspect that is we simply use a bucket load of redirect pages we will be halfway to where we need to be. It is more work for those who compile, but of course this project is really "about" the users. For them this should be a seamless and natural exercise.

Paul in Saudi's Inaugural Address I like how that sounds.

[[PaulinSaudi 11:55, 29 May 2004 (UTC)]]

It's hard to impose uniformity when everyone wants to wear a different uniform. I do like to look on the positive side of things. Of the five points above, we only seriously disagreed on one. I think we also agree that some level of uniformity would be a good thing. It can sometimes resemble an exercise in herding cats. It is about the users, but if we are to consider whether a particular redirect should be used we need to consider whether a user could reasonably be expected to search with that format.

You have been providing some excellent content. That's the important part of your effort, and I have seen very little need to change the content. Our differences have been over the way these things are formatted and linked. I've agreed with some of your proposals, but not others. Attaining uniformity will be a matter of long term convergence rather than imposition. Eclecticology 18:17, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

Style: New default style[edit]

Someone has changed the default style of Wikisource.  And this is very unfortunate, because:

  1. the default style should use the default browser font, and nothing else
  2. the style sheet lists Verdana as the font to use (after Bitstream). This is totally unacceptable, because of a serious bug in that font (see Verdana). — Monedula 21:38, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia and Categories / Wikisource und Kategorien[edit]

A couple of weeks ago we discussed creating a new pseudonamespace. However, now Wikipedia has come along and implemented something better, with its category feature. Would it be possible to get that here as well? Ambivalenthysteria 07:40, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

for more on Wikisource and Categories, including a different approach suggested by Christian S, see Wikisource:Categories

Über Kategorien in Wikisource und einen Alternativvorschlag siehe Wikisource:Categories

Historical American Governmental Documents and Their Organization[edit]

I'm certainly not new to the Wikimedia world, but I'm realitvely new to Wikisource. In any case, I've been looking at some sources that might be particularly worthy to import, and of the sources that Wikisource appears to be lacking at least in regards to American History, two primary groups of texts seem missing:

  • The Federalist Papers
  • Important Supreme Court Cases

In any case, I was wondering if anyone had ideas as to how best to organize them currently (pending newer organizational schemes a-la Categories, mentioned above) -Pipian 20:37, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The nature of these documents is certainly such that they would have a place on Wikisource. I do regularly suggest that contributors prefer providing less accessible documents. The Federalist Papers are paramount to understanding US constitutional law, but I would imagine they are widely available already. The Supreme Court Cases may be more useful, but their accessibility is likely to vary.

The categorization of this type of material remains to be addressed. Until now I have focused on categorization by countries. Thus Subject:United States and Category:LC-E are warranted. Subject:Supreme Court is a likely subject too as are subjects relating to the particulare area of law treated in the particular case. I would prefer to avoid compound subjects as "United States Supreme Court"; there is more scope for expansion when that expression is treated as two subjects.

I would suggest that you begin with a selection of the most significant cases with subject headings that you consider might best describe the documents. These could very well be changed later as the topic develops, but it will at least give me a better impression of what is needed in the area of law. Eclecticology 09:03, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That sounds fairly reasonable, and I'll begin working on trying to gather full texts of important cases. Should I link cases here temporarily, so that it's easier to gather them into a US Supreme Court category in the future?
Incidentally, with regards to usefulness, The Federalist Papers may be less important (due to several sites, such as the University of Oklahoma, having full archives.) they might still be interesting if they were also categorized by subject matter of each paper. On the other hand, it seems to me that while there are some sites featuring full write-ups on the Supreme Court cases, the great majority of them appear to only be excerpts.
As a side note as well, OYEZ has a nice subject directory for cases. In addition, while they don't have the written opinions, they do have oral arguments, and thus it might be nice to link to them as they have some (possibly copywrited) source materials.
-Pipian 02:35, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I've set up a "Court Decisions" section on Wikisource:Historical documents. This would be a good place to start first linkings to these cases. As more of these appear that heading can be sub-divided in a way that supports what is actually contributed.
Your idea about suject categorization is very good. It's the sort of thing which, if done right, can make our version of the Federalist Papers superior to the other versions. There's nothing special about dumping the same plain text that everybody else has. Eclecticology 04:28, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've currently added a list of major court cases I intend to port over from The Legal Information Institute which already has a digitized copy of the texts of these major cases. I've currently ported and wikified two cases (Marbury v. Madison and McCulloch v. Maryland) which remain to be proofread (as it appears that there are some minor transcription errors in the digitized copies available at the LII). I intend to do this, and add more cases' texts tomorrow.

As soon as categories can be worked out, I'll add those to the text as well. It may also be interesting to crosslink to the text of the Constitution and other documents when referenced in each case's text, though I imagine it would be better to figure out on a case by case basis as some texts may not exist in the wiki yet, and others don't have a direct name that is referenced and thus easy to make into a link, or do not have suitable internal links that can be used when linking to them. - Pipian

Volunteers wanted: Wikimedia Embassy / Freiwillige für "Wikimedia Embassy" gesucht[edit]

Hello, at meta:Wikimedia Embassy we have a list with people of the different wikipedias to contact for questions about their projects. It would be fine to have someone from Wikisource there, too. If you like to do the job, please fill in your name there. --Elian

Bei meta:Wikimedia Embassy gibt es eine Liste von Personen von verschiedenen Wikipedia, die man bei Fragen zu den Projekten ansprechen kann. Es wäre schön, wenn auch jemand von Wikisource sich dort eintragen würde.

State Government Election Form Copyrights?[edit]

I'm currently investigating a fairly full-featured election details for US Presidential Elections (starting with 2000 US Presidential Election). See that page and the prototype Alabama detail page for more information, but some things I stumbled upon while digging up this research were images of Certificates of Ascertainment and Certificates of Votes. As these appear to be state documents (despite their relation to a national election) does anyone know what copyright restrictions there would be on the text or scans of these? Or do I have to do major research into state law codes to find this out? -- Pipian 23:16, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

My first observation was that this material was from a U. S. federal government website. My understanding has always been that these are freely usable unless a restriction is specified. Eclecticology 01:03, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)