Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/Jul 2004 - Oct 2004

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search

Moved Discussions / Verschobene Diskussionen / Discussions déplacées / verschoven besprekingen / 移动的讨论[edit]

Archives / Archive / 存档[edit]

Language Domain Proposal / Vorschlag für eigene Sprachdomänen / Proposition pour des domaines de langue / Overleg voor domeinen van de taal[edit]

Various Older Topics / Verschiedene ältere Themen[edit]


Summarized Discussions[edit]

  • Mike Storm's image display problem seems to be fixed.
  • Domain is now at, can be auto-split into many languages.
  • Images disappeared but came back.

Style: Abstracts[edit]

I just wondered if it would be a good idea to post an short abstract in english of not-english-texts at the bottom of the pages or in an infobox at the top. So, what I think about ist: I´m writing on th complte edition of Brehms Thierleben in german. I don´t think, that everyone in here is able to read what this text will mean, so I thought about a box where a short description in english tells everyone about that Text. For example, I would like to know what is written on 臺灣前途決議文, so a short box can tell me. Just an idea, -- Necrophorus 21:52, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It sounds like an excellent idea. I like the idea of info boxes too. See the top of this page where it was attempted for Communist Manifesto and Huckleberry Finn. Too bad that the people who started that didn't stay long enough to develop the idea. The abstract might still be too big for the info box, and the abstracts could be wanted in other languages too. I don't know if an abstracts sub-page would be a good idea. Eclecticology 23:10, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Abstracts sounds great. An abstract sub-page seems like the best way to do it, at least if the abstracts are of considerable length or in multiple languages. If the abstract is just a few lines in one or two languages then it may be better just to put it at the top of the text, perhaps in an infobox (I definitely support infoboxes). Putting abstracts at the talk-pages is a possibility, but, if extensively developed, abstracts may then "drown" other comments and questions about the text. Abstract sub-pages could also be a place for developing user-translations of texts (just an idea). Should suct abstract pages have their own [Abstract] pseudo-namespace to distinguish them from actual sources?--Christian S 16:26, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Some good ideas. On talk pages for contentious items the reverse could happen, and the abstract would be drowned by the debate. Talk pages are also a place for greater freedom of expression, while we would want relatively more stability in abstracts. The translation developments are also another forward looking idea. The pseudo-namespace idea is also workable and easy to implement, but I would wait until we have enough abstracts by different people to convince us that the idea has caught on. The community of regulars is still small: that's great for arriving at a working understanding on many operational issues, but it leaves us short of the manpower needed to make these things happen. Eclecticology 17:20, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

O.k., how about this combination of the infobox shown at top of this page with a field for a short abstract or description (placed in Brehms Thierleben). If the abstract is more than these lines we can make a page like Brehms Thierleben/Abstract as i will do it for the chapters too (and have done it with the chapters of Robinson Crusoe). Comments? -- Necrophorus 17:26, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The discussion in this thread changed to one about infoboxes, and is now at Help talk:Infobox Eclecticology 06:39, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Categorization progress report[edit]

Since I've undertaken to develop a coded category system using the LOC classification as a starting point, I thought it best to report how that has been progressing. So far, so good. There is still the problem of people understandably not feeling the need to memorize a lot of codes, which I admit are too many for even me to remember. I am still convinced that pages named [Subject:xxx], or its equivalent in other languages, which redirect to the appropriate code will work. Hopefully it will be enough to overcome the difficulty of remembering long lists.

The development status of the categories is thus:

  • Most of the top level categories have been specified at Category:LC-
  • The country lists are essentially done. See Help:LC-D, Help:LC-E and Help:LC-F. The only countries not yet specified are the islands of the South Pacific, and a decision still needs to be made for how to refer to Antarctic islands.
  • A first draft outline of the Law category can be found at Category talk:LC-K. This still needs a bit more organizing before the letters are assigned. Please feel free to add comments; help and the ideas of others are always welcome.
  • I've done some work on the literature half of the language and literature class. The principal Romance and Germanic literatures can be coded, and I'm wanting to separate language and literature for the others more than is the case in LOC. My next priority will be in the PN class to identify the different genres of literature.
  • Help needed. The LOC system was first set up over 100 years ago, and only allowed a small section of the mathematics class for mechanical calculating machines. This is wholly inadequate for the modern computer age. I am proposing to use the otherwise unused TB class for Software engineering, programs, source code, etc. We already have a fair amount of this material, and I am very much at a loss about how best to organize this. Any ideas will be appreciated at Category talk:LC-TB.

Eclecticology 22:54, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Dupe Entries[edit]

I'll address each of these separately. Ec

I note that: Woodrow Wilson declares war on Germany is the same speech as: President Wilson's War Address Although the two articles do not agree as to the date of the speech. Further, both versions seem the have several acre-feet of typos. What shall we do? Is there an expert on this in the house? [[PaulinSaudi 14:01, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)]]

I'm inclined to favour the first title, but before I dispose of the alternate version, can you look into the correct date, and possibly resolving the typos in the one we keep. Eclecticology 19:48, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Also: George W Bush's First State of the Union Speech and State of the Union address, 2002 [[PaulinSaudi 14:12, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)]]

Also: George Washington's First Annual Message to Congress is the same as State of the Union address, 1790 [[PaulinSaudi 14:20, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)]]

"What is Wikisource?"[edit] Doesn't exist as of five seconds ago, according to my browser. This is bad, since it's linked from . I apologize that I'm a new user and don't yet know how to make intrawiki links. Phthoggos 04:41, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Danish and French versions (Wikisource:Hvad er Wikisource and Wikisource:Qu'est-ce que Wikisource) are gone as well. The histories of these pages have also disappeared. They don't show in the deletion log, so they have not been deleted the ordinary way. I have no idea how these pages have disappeared.
For editing help see Wikisource:How does one edit a page or just follow the "editing help" link at the bottom of the edit page (opens a new window and does not disturb your edit). There you can find technical instrucions on editing (markup, internal links etc.)--Christian S 05:39, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Setting up a new language[edit]

Hello. I want to investigate the possibility of setting up a Hebrew WikiSource. Is there any sort of step-by-step guide to setting up a version in a new language? (I am fluent in both English and Hebrew, and contribute mostly to the English Wikipedia despite living in Israel.)

Dovi 15:34, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Welcome. Anybody can do it! (as long as they understand Hebrew) Go to the project's Main Page. Edit the list of languages at the top of the page to include Hebrew; this will create a link to the new Hebrew main page that you will be writing. You should also create a new "HE" section at the appropriate place where you essentially translate the the material that is already there for other languages.
Once you have created the links on the Main Page go to the new Main Page:Hebrew and begin writing. Feel free to use the layout on the English Main Page as a basis for design. I hope this helps you to get started. Eclecticology 06:30, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Thank you very much!Dovi 04:10, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm now trying to make sense of the domain names. Are they planned to stay as they are now, or to be moved to "en", "es" etc. like in the other projects?Dovi 04:14, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I hope that it stays as it is now! I look at Wikisource as a unique for all the languages to work together in a single project. That is a very interesting challenge. Eclecticology 05:00, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
OK, so I'll try to ahead and set it up where you suggest. Let's see how this goes (and if I have enough time for it). Thanks for the help.Dovi 07:53, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Succeeded in setting up a draft Main Page as you suggested. Right-to-left doesn't work right (not surprising) so I went to check how it was done in Arabic, but then I noticed there isn't yet any Arabic WikiSource (so that can't be of help). Any suggestions on how to do right-to-left? In addition, how would one go about changing the languages of the sidebar, etc. (I notice that none of the other languages have done that.)Dovi 08:41, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'm surprised that it isn't working automatically. The RTL encoding is implicit when you are using UTF-8. When ℵ is used in a mathematical environment it is treated as an entirely separate character (#8501) to prevent triggering the RTL feature. On my machine the cursor changes to show a little bump at the top right. Also the click and drag function behaves differently when I try it on the Hebrew text that you added. Is it possible that you succeeded without realizing it? :-)
Perhaps your browser is not set up for UTF-8. It would not surprise me if your browser were set up using ISO-8859-8, or Windows 1255, or IBM 962, or MacHebrew. The results could be unpredictable in a UTF-8 environment. Computer merchants tend to set systems up based on what most people want in your locality. How many people in Israel would want to be able to read Korean on their home computers? To make a long story short check the charater coding features in your computer. Eclecticology 17:41, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
People who are used to typing a RTL language language in a LTR environment or vice-versa notice that all kinds of funny things happen with regard to paragraph formatting and punctuation (which appears inthe wrong places at the end of lines). These things are happening here, and it doesn't seem to be connected to UTF-8 or my browser (currently Mozilla). I suspect it is connected to the programming of the various languages in the MediaWiki software (to see what I mean, do a comparison between the English and Hebrew Wikipedias by trying each language in the other's domain). I am going to ask some of the high-level tech people if they can give a definitive answer on this.
There is also, of course, also the problem of language and orientation (LTR or RTL) in the interface itself.Dovi 05:35, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I apologize that my technical skills do not allow me to take this matter further. I look forward to your sharing the results of your discussions with the high-level tech people. I suppose that I should be happy that the Mongolians are not insisting on the proper TTB orientation for their script. :-) Eclecticology 05:36, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks to some information that Brion Vibber graciously passed on through Tim Starling, we have at least a temporary stopgap to deal with the problem. Look at the Hebrew mainpage now, and you will the see RTL formatted properly by using: <div dir="rtl"></div>. Although if you look at the source code you will see that typing in the edit box is still inconvenient. (I.e. inside the edit box LTR has priority, but you can "fix" the page presentation by adding the dir=rtl code.) This is likely to be useful in a great many WP contexts, but I don't think it is a healthy long-term solution for uploading WS texts; rather, I am strongly leaning towards a language-specific domain. (Also for translating the user interface.)Dovi 09:21, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Could people look at the adaptation of the infobox at KV 545. Angela has started (with some reason) to have songs and music included in Wikisource. User:Raul654 has started working on moving material here. I'm hoping to forestall having a lot of orphaned music files dumped on us. Eclecticology 05:00, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I was wondering what the Wikisource policy was for creating author pages of composers and putting their sheet music on here. It's not technically a text but it was something previously published. I notice that we already have something like that going with Mozart's page and which has music to listen to (which for some reason it's not working--the links don't link to any file, but to the main page; are those files deleted?) and with J. S. Bach's page which has sheet music. If we begin to put composers on here, it would definitely take Wikisource to a new level, since we've been mostly concerned with published texts (of course, it would also drastically increase bandwith and space requirements, too) Zhaladshar 16:42, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

deletion requests / Löschanträge[edit]

Where should deletion requests be listed? Sj 00:20, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Deletion request can be put at Wikisource:Proposed deletions (non-copyvio reasons) or Wikisource:Possible copyright violations (copyvios).--Christian S 07:51, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Kurzfassung: Löschanträge können unter Wikisource:Proposed deletions gestellt werden, bei Urheberechtsverletzungen unter Wikisource:Possible copyright violations.


After raising the matter on the Wikitech mailing list to make sure of what I was seeing, I would propose deleting the noted and currently blank article. It is a sourcecode article which is used to send out a virus or vandalism to other computers. Even a person like myself with a fairly wide tolerance for a great range of articles, feels that this is too much, and unless there is a storm of protest within the next 24 hours, I will proceed to delete that article. Eclecticology 08:11, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I support that harmfull source codes (virus etc.) should NOT be tolerated here.--Christian S 10:47, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hacker Manifesto[edit]

Hey, I wanted to put the Hacker Manifesto onto Wikisource, but first of all I don't know how to submit things, secondly, the page that Wikipedia gives ( says that its copyrighted by a Professor at Dayton Law School, in which case it probably couldnt be legally put on Wikisource anyways. Just wondering if anybody could help out, thanks Biggins 19:03, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Welcome! The Hackers Manifesto is copyrighted, and it will thus be illegal to publish it here without permission from the copyright owner, which we have not got at the moment. In fact, the Hacker Manifesto has been deleted several times for this wery reason! (also see Wikisource:Copyvio archives). So, unless you can get permission from the copyright owner it would be a waste of time to upload it here again, as it will be deleted quickly without such a permission. You're of course welcome to contribute with other texts that are public domain. Submitting texts works in much the same way as creating new articles in wikipedia. In general go to the main page of a language you speak, check if the autor already has an author page (f.x. at Wikisource:Authors), if it exists create a link to the text from that author page and submit the text by following the link you made, if the author page does not exist, create the author page first. Take some time to look around to see how things are done.--Christian S 19:55, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Book of Mormon questions[edit]

Okay, I'm starting to post The Book of Mormon onto wikisource, but I have a few questions and requests for feedback before I really start the main book. I have already posted the introductory pages that appear before the actual 'book' per se. First question is about naming convention: I've started using [[Book of Mormon, Introduction]] or [[Book of Mormon, Moroni, 10]] for the pages. Any objections, perhaps to include language or version a la Bible, or say The Book of Mormon? Reasons I did it this way: no other language calls it the Book of Mormon, this is the only official version used by the LDS church, and I was too lazy to type a 'The' at the beginning of every link, but other opinions welcome.

As long as "The" is included in the overall title, I wouldn't worry about lazy liberties on the dependant pages unless LDS people themselves complain about this sort of thing. There is no need to show the language if the specific term "Book of Mormon" is not ambiguous with the version in some other language. Eclecticology 02:17, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The question of Author: the book itself claims to be written by a series of ancient prophets and historians from the American continent, and their accounts then abridged and engraven by Mormon; however non-believers might contend that it was written by Joseph Smith. Any thoughts?

The book is typically known by its title, even by those who never heard of Joseph Smith. Old listings use the phrase "translated by John Smith"

Also, I was thinking about just putting the contents of the Title Page on the main page for The Book of Mormon instead of just having that page be a table of contents, and perhaps put the TOC on its own new page? Then ther's the view that it was really written by Solomon Spalding, and that Smith just plagiarised that. Eclecticology 02:17, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Next thing: think it would be easier to read if the introduction, testimony of three/eight witnesses/joseph smith/explanation were all put on one page? (although technically separate and listed as such on the Church's official website, they appear all together at the beginning of printed versions.)

None of this stuff is very long, so putting it all on one page would make sense. Eclecticology 02:17, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Finally, the navigation bar that I put at the bottom of the first three pages was just thrown together, is there any format or a template I should follow? KJV Bible just kinda links back to TOC from each chapter and Le Libro de Mormon has a little bar at the bottom to navigate with (btw, does anyone know what language that is??).

See: Help:Infobox. Can this idea apply to your work? Much of that question is still open. The mystery language in interlingua. Eclecticology 02:17, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

sorry for all the questions, but this is my first actual contribution of a source and I don't want others or me to have to come back and fix it later. thanks Biggins 23:08, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No problem. It's often better to pause after you have provided a sample of your work. It avoids arguments. Eclecticology 02:17, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Author index[edit]

Has anyone noticed that we've had to copy and paste the author list for every one of the Wikisource author pages? (See Wikisource:Authors-A, Wikisource:Authors-B, and so on.) I just created a template page called Template:Author index that expands to the following:


With the blessing of the community, I shall proceed to replace the existing lists with it, so that any changes we wish to make to the list will only have to be done in a single place. All opposed? --[[User:Ardonik|User:Ardonik(talk)]] 20:00, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It seems to be working well. Thanks. Eclecticology 04:43, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Transition complete. --[[User:Ardonik|User:Ardonik(talk)]] 21:42, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
How will this be multilingualised? Aliter 01:44, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Presumably by translating the phrase "{{Author index}}" and the alphabet into each respective language, and then adding all such pages to the template namespace. Is this something that must be uniformly adopted across the languages? --[[User:Ardonik|User:Ardonik(talk)]] 03:02, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
This all depends where you want the multilingual appearance to take place. In the general case the page titles are the only things on these pages that are in English. If that much should change I'm open to suggestions about how that might be done. There may be bits of ienglish text on some individual pages, but that too is open to discussion. These pages are intended to be a master list of author pages in all languages found on Wikisource. We should not need similar pages in many languages. Individual author pages can be titled in any language. The links can reflect that, and be piped in the author index to show only the authors name. For authors this seems to be the most efficient place to make the transition from the general list to the individual authors.
I am well aware that the key question in any large multilingual project involves balancing efficiency with respect for all member languages. What would you suggest? Eclecticology 04:43, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I have made a test at the danish author list Wikisource:Forfattere-B, testing the template Template:Authors-B. If such templates are generally used it is possible to update all author list simultaniously and keeping them up to date in all languages. I have made an independent "edit author list"-link at the page and not in the template to keep the possibility of translation of "edit author list" ("Rediger forfatterlisten" at the Danish page). Do we want to go on with this?--Christian S 17:29, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
That's an imaginative and intriguing solution! Can anyone see any potential problems? Eclecticology 19:02, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The idea of using an "Authors-B" template is intruiging to me and a step in the right direction, but do we add Александр Пушкин (Alexander Pushkin) under the Russian name, the English name, or both? I fear that we're going to need an Authors-letter template for every language in the same way we'll need an Author index template. --[[User:Ardonik|User:Ardonik(talk)]] 21:42, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I see your point about names in non-latinised languages, but this is also a problem at present. The way we have done it so far does not solve this problem. If an Authors-letter template is needed for each language they will all need to be updatet individually for each language, that is, we loose the possibility of simultanious update of all pages, and then we're back to square one. In that case we might as well keep the author lists as they are, with out of sync language versions due to lack of maintainance (I don't think the maintainance level of these pages will improve much in any near future). I think we should go on with the Authors-letter templates as I have suggested - at least they can keep all pages updated in languages with shared alphabets, which would be a great improvement to the present condition of these pages. And then we need a brainstorm on how to solve the "inter-alphabet" problem - any suggestions are welcome.--Christian S 07:45, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Non-latin scripts present an interesting challenge, but I could imagine something like [Автор:Александр Пушкин|Aleksandr Pushkin]. This would link to his Russian titled author page but would appeaR on the listing in properly transliterated form in the proper alphabetical position. A nearer term issue might involve how to deal with the additonal three letters at the end of the Danish alphabet. There would be a [Template:Authors-A] type of page for each letter, and a [Template:Authors] page for each language. We'll need to be careful with our linking at first since we would need to make links to the template. Initially the existing Author-letter pages should be moved rather than copied. This will help to preserve existing links. Eclecticology 08:02, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I dont quite follow you - what linking are you referring to? I intent to keep the author list at their present lokation (e.g. Wikisource:Authors-A) and just exchange the content with the templates: [Template:Author index] (language dependant - is this what you mean by [Template:Authors]?), the relevant letter-template and an edit link to that letter-template. Which links are not preserved by this? --Christian S 08:39, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Fixing the out of sync pages from different languages will be the biggest benefit. I think that many contributors think it's enough just to include an author in their own language. We need to move the English pages first, and gradually integrate the others. Eclecticology 08:08, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
In the interest of full disclosure, I should note that I made a slight change to the appearance of the author index. I can standardize the author indices for other languages as soon as I become familiar with their alphabets.
As for having a single, multi-language "Author-letter template," I still can't see how it will work. If "Alexander Pushkin" links to the Russian-language article, won't that deny non-Russian speakers of a chance to read his works translated into their own language? Perhaps the "A" page could have a link that looked like "Alexander Pushkin (en, fr, eo, de)", but that would quickly become difficult to update, and we would still need a page for the Cyrillic letter "А" (it is emphatically not the same as the Latin capital "A".)
In the end, I think we'll need author templates both per language and per letter. --[[User:Ardonik|User:Ardonik(talk)]] 23:09, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The changes to the author indeks looks fine. It's got my approval.Cyrillic and other special letters (æøåüö ect.) may need their own pages, then Pushkin could be put at both latin and cyrillic "P". Maybe we could make a cyrillic author index at the "authors front page" leading to cyrillic letter-pages? I can start implementing the author-letter templates, that may be the best way to see/show how and if it works. If nobody disapproves during the next few days I will start implementation - if it doesn't work out well we can always change back to "the old way of doing it". --Christian S 13:08, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Ardonik's changes look just fine. I would put off the Cyrillic issue for a while until we have the bugs out of the Roman ones. What makes the special letters tricky is that some languages treat them as separate letters, while others interfile them with the underlying letter(s). It may be necessary to put the an author whose name begins with a "Æ" on both lists. Another interesting problem arises when we link authors to their index page. Should we link to Wikisource:Authors-A or to Template:Authors-A. I'm inclined to support the latter because it is amendable. A newcomer who wants to amand an author index may be confused when thwe only thing that shows up on the edit box is a pair of links to templates. Eclecticology 00:09, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Wouldn't newcomers reach Wikisource:Authors-A from Wikisource:Authors just as often as from a specific author page? Or should we put everything in Template:Authors-A to make it the same as Wikisource:Authors-A, and link to those templates from the author index as well as from the author pages? In that case we may as well keep the english authors-letter pages and link to those from all languages - that would be fine with me, as nothing more than the titles of those pages are translated as it is now, and that situation wouldn't be much different from linking directly to the templates. Translating the Wikisource:Authors page is still be a good idea, as this page is the introduction to what the authors-letter pages are. Index pages for special letters can be created when the nessecity arice. We don't nessesarily have to put these authors on both list, instead we could make a note at Wikisource:Authors-A that names beginning with "Æ" is listed at Wikisource:Authors-Æ, like it has been done at Wikisource:Authors-D for french names starting with "de". To summarise: Translate Wikisource:Authors and use the english letter indexes for all languages. How does that sound? --Christian S 19:56, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Although I can certainly live with using the English letter indexes, we would also like to bring those people in who have been happily generating these letter indexes in other languages without regard to what's happening in English. That's why I so strongly support your originally idea. The technical issues are tricky, especially on the uplinks. If we can merge the other language author letter pages with the English, without causing a lot of complaints, maybe it will work out. Your suggestion can still be something that is available as a future option. I can also go along with your suggestion about the special letters; the number of affected authors should be fairly small. Eclecticology 23:55, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Is that a go to implementing the templates? In that case I will start with the english and danish author pages. With a clear "edit author list" link at the top of the page I don't think there will be much trouble with confused newcomers wanting to amend the author list. --Christian S 14:36, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I would say yes. Of course, human nature being what it is, I don't expect a lot of complaints until after you have done your work. :-) A lot of work has been done in French that does not conform with these standards. See Bibliothèque de philosophie. I should have a lot of work trying to get that right. I set up an author page for Plato, but to be correct that should probably be in Greek. Eclecticology 19:43, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

On Formally Undecidable Propositions[edit]

I've discovered that there's an English translation of Kurt Gödel's "On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica and Related Systems" in the public domain. This is the paper in which Gödel originally published his incompleteness theorems, so I think that this is certainly significant enough to belong here on Wikisource. I've never contributed to a Wiki before, though -- how do I go about posting this here?

Also, in response to a potential objection: Yes, this already exists online in one place. [[1]]. However, that website is a so-called "White Nationalist" (read: Neo-Nazi) website, and it is currently the only place online that the full text of Gödel's paper can be found in English. This is fairly disturbing to me, and I'd like to see it available elsewhere.

I don't see your argument for the claim that the work is in the public domain. Gödel died in 1978. Thus under German law his copyright subsists until 2048. Even if it turns out that the copyright was not renewed on the English translation, it is a derivative work. Thus you must pay attention to the original German copyright.
I don't find that the argument that something already on another site is determinative of whether we should include it. If it already exists free in a reasonably accesible site though our time would be better spent on something else. The simple fact that the e-text is on a neo-Nazi website should not be relevant unless the operators of that site are distorting the text for some sort of political aim. If they want to take the risk on the copyright issue, that's their choice. Eclecticology 06:18, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Gödel may have died in 1978, but the original paper was published in 1931 (when Gödel was 23). The German copyright act you speak of did not take effect until 1966. Correct me if I'm wrong (and I may well be) but I don't think that any legal system that the paper was copyrighted under survived World War Two. Nor do I think there are any provisions in the 1966 law for retroactive copyrighting (ex post facto and all that jazz). The fact that Gödel's paper is rather widely available in the original German supports the conclusion that it is in the public domain.

As for the English translation, it was first published in 1962 and the copyright was not renewed, and is therefore in the public domain as well. The translation was reprinted by Dover in 1992, but they do not (and cannot) claim any copyright over the material themselves, and more importantly, they do not state that they have received permission from anyone to publish the work. This is most likely because they did not have to do so -- in other words, because the work is in the public domain.

The Neo-Nazi site does not overtly pervert the text of the document to any particular end, but the HTML-ization of the work is rather inept, and could be done in a much cleaner and more accurate manner here (especially if LaTeX is used for the math). Furthermore, due to the Wiki nature of this site, any typos or errors in the work could be easily corrected (there are several typos on the Neo-Nazi site). Also, the person running the site has copyrighted his HTML presentation of the work. If it really is in the public domain, I'd like to see Gödel's paper on a site where it can be accessed, reproduced, and distributed easily without worrying about copyrights. (Not to imply that Wikisource doesn't care about copyrights -- I just mean that if it is in the public domain, and it's posted here, nobody will have to fret about copyright infringement if they want to reproduce it off of this site so long as they follow a few simple rules.)

Obviously, I'm not an expert on copyright in any way, and I could be entirely wrong about everything I've just said. But I don't think I am, and if it does turn out that I'm an idiot, I'd like to know why, in hopes that my idiocy might be rectified.  :)

What this comes down to is your theory that pre-WW2 German copyrights did not survive the war. The fact that the paper is widely available in German proves nothing.
The Dover reprint does strongly suggest that that English edition was very much in the public domain in 1992. I seriously doubt that that company would have neglected its due diligence before publishing. The United States was not yet a party to the Berne Convention so it could safely ignore the underlying German copyright. Did Dover publish any reprints in 1996 or later?
I agree that we could probably do a better job with this material that the Neo-Nazi site, and we have no need for their HTML work so breach of their copyrights is not relevant.
Copyright are a significant issue for Wikisource. Establishing that something is in the public domain is important before we use the work. FDL licences can still apply, but they tend to be less important given the nature of our material. Copyright laws can be very complicated on the international scene, and each case must be viewed on its own merits. I very much believe that the contributor has the burden of proof for establishing that a work is in the public domain. You can't expect the rest of us to do that work for you. There may very well be circumstances where we can and should accept copyrighted works for inclusion, but an informed discussion to define those circumstances has not yet happened. Eclecticology 04:38, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I certainly didn't mean to imply that you should do the footwork for me in terms of determining the copyright status of a work, and I'm sorry if I came across that way. I did quite a bit of digging around on this before I came here, but the issue of the German copyright did escape my attention at first. Thank you for alerting me to it -- I should have thought of it before. Now, it appears that Dover did not actually come out with any new "reprints" after 1992, but the 1992 reprint itself went through more than one printing, and is in fact still being printed. I have physical proof of this -- the copy of the Dover edition that I am currently holding in my hand has the URL of Dover's website on the back cover. That website didn't exist until 1999. And if you go to that website [[2]], you'll see that the book is still listed in their catalog, which would seem to indicate that they still print the thing. And you're probably right about Dover -- they're a big company with a lot of money and plenty of lawyers (presumably) and I think that they wouldn't publish it in this form if it were not in the public domain. So I think this is fair game for Wikisource.

OK, go ahead. You've at least shown that you have made some effort to research the matter. I'll develop a Template:Copyright impaired notice that can be added to your top page. I've been wanting to develop some discussion in the broader Wikimedia community about just when we might safely use material like this. Eclecticology 02:57, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This brings me back to my original question: how do I go about posting it here?

That's easy. Go to Wikisource:Authors-G and set up a link to Autor:Kurt Gödel in the manner of the others. Another current discussion suggests that the German form "Autor" should be used in that link. Use that link to create a further link to the title that you want to use. In line with my previous comment, you can still copy and paste from the N-N site without whatever HTML they may have added. Use your discretion in determining the layout that you want; proofread on the basis of the physical copy of the work that you have. How you break the work up into digestible chapters is also a matter of your discretion. Your top page, however, should include links to all the subsidiary pages. I hope this helps. Eclecticology 02:57, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Great! This definitely helps. Thank you so much. I guess this leaves me with just one more question: there's no pressure to do this quickly, is there? This could take me a few weeks to do properly, even if I copy-and-paste the text. Readmeback 05:37, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)


As this logo has little relation (other than historical) to the current Wikisource project, is there a new one currently being created anywhere? Porge 07:27, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There is no new logo under development as far as I know. You are welcome to start creating a new logo and present a suggestion to the community, just remember that there is no guarantee that a suggested logo is accepted. I agree that a new logo with a more direct relation to the project is a good idea. Christian S 10:14, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Ok, just as an example I've created: [3], hopefully the symbolism is clear enough without an explanation, I'm quite tired :) Porge 13:47, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Interesting. I would lighten the colour of the central ovum to which the sermatozoa are racing to improve contrast with the writing. Eclecticology 13:53, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I for one like the iceberg. A lot. [[PaulinSaudi 14:02, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)]]
That's understandable from where you are. :-) Eclecticology 21:30, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Hah, I didn't notice those connotations :P Hopefully some others can mock up some logos too. Porge 23:55, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
the logo looks nice, and the symbolism is clear. but is it appropriate for Wikisource? It looks rather like *Wikimpregnation or *Wikiseed. You would expect arrows to point away from a "source". Also, I think that the iceberg is a very good choice: As long as the main objective of the project is to provide original texts pertaining to Wikipedia articles, I take it to mean, the article is the tip of the iceberg, and the orginal text itself is "the real thing".

I actually liked Porge's suggestion despite the connotations that I remarked. I've never particularly liked the old one, which was something quickly made up in the early Project Sourceberg days. But I'm totally incompetent in graphic arts, so I won't ever be the one to propose a new design. -) Eclecticology 14:44, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Are improvements outlawed?[edit]

Yesterday I tried to improve the Wiki by cleaning up the main page, the English main page, and the authors index. I spent hours adding the category tags to author pages. All of this was reverted. Nobody talked to me about it first and there was little in the way of explanations. Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought one of the major benefits of a wiki was that anyone could make improvements without waiting for a vote. Consensus was achieved by a system of continuous improvement, each person working to make the page a little better until everyone was satisfied. Was I mistaken?

If there are problems with my changes, I'd love to work them out. But throwing my work away seems a little rude. Am I off-base here? Do we need to take a vote before fixing things? AaronSw 21:10, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Maybe the source of my error is that I thought we ran by the same rules as Wikipedia, where a major principle is Be bold in editing pages:

Wikis develop faster when people fix problems... For the most part, the instinctive desire of an author to "own" what he has written is counterproductive here, and it is good to shake up that emotional attachment by making sweeping changes at will when it improves the result. And of course, others here will boldly and mercilessly edit what you write. Don't take it personally. They, like all of us, just want to make Wikipedia the best it can be.

Other guidelines include "work toward agreement" and "avoid reverts and deletions"[4]. Do any of those principles apply here? AaronSw 21:29, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What you say is all true, though to an extent. A couple of factors made it more likely for your work to be reverted. First of all, some of what you did was to completely change some of the structure of how Wikisource is being organized by making an Authors category and the like. I think that changes like that which affect the whole project really do need to be discussed beforehand, even if they were an uncontroversial improvement, just so that people will know that we are changing our policy and not keep adding pages the old way etc etc. Secondly, as far as I know these were your very first edits at Wikisource which, at least to me, made it seem possible that you were some kind of troll (although you have clearly proved yourself sincere by very politely discussing things here now). I guess it could be considered un-Wiki-like, but if a completely unknown user comes in and makes sweeping changes without any discussion it's not as likely to be well-received. Finally, using a bot without any authorization is not the best way to go either.
However you do have a good point about many of your edits which were probably too hastily reverted. Your version of the author index template is really not much different except stylistically than the previous one. I for one agree with you that edits such as these do not need to be, and should not be, reverted on sight; they should be integrated into the previous version to make the best of all possible viewpoints (although I think that the things I mentioned in the above paragraph probably made others more likely to revert all your recent contribs in cases where they might not have done so normally). I personally prefer your arrangement of the English Main page and we are now discussing changes there.
I am all for editing to improve style and layout, but I think you should agree that some of your more radical changes (i.e. the main page) should have been at least mentioned if not fully discussed so as to not just overrun a page that has been worked on very hard for a long time. Overall I think your contributions and ideas are going to be very valuable to this project and I hope you don't take offense at the somewhat rocky start you've had here. To all: lets remember that not every change has to be discussed--Wiki should not be an endless bureacracy but a place where new ideas are welcomed and integrated. At the same time, radical changes should be reasoned out. Hope everybody can agree on everything and cool down. - Biggins 01:00, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The word "improvement" is sometimes a subjective one. Several of your changes yesterday I did not mind (in particular the author categorization), and for the rest, I explained why I did not feel that they were improvements and then clamored on our talk pages for us to find community consensus instead of engaging in revert wars. This worked for the author index, I think--I would not mind right now if we switched to your version now that it links to other languages. We would both do well to remember that the flip side of (I was the one who added Wapcaplet's image to that page!) is not being reckless, though "reckless" is too harsh a word to describe your changes, which were obviously made with the best of intentions in mind.
Nevertheless, any page that is on dozens of watchlists ought to at least get an update on the talk page during a major edit. That's what I did (here in the Scriptorium) for Template:Author index, for table generation in, for cleanup on and, and in several other articles. The more drastic my change, the more explicit my request for comments, and the more willing I am to accept (justified) reverts. If push comes to shove, I make proposals to change policy (see for a particularly long discussion that doesn't appear to be headed anywhere.) This is just what I tend to do, and my opinions are not "official policy" (heaven forbid the thought!)
On a final note, I would like to say that I am sorry if my reverts yesterday made you feel less than welcome here on Wikisource, AaronSw. That wasn't my intention in the slightest, and I hope you'll stay and contribute further. We're both new at this thing; perhaps we can learn together. --[[User:Ardonik|User:Ardonik(talk)]] 03:00, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Improvements are definitely allowed, and I believe that some of the pages you wantet to improve can be improved. I agree with Ardonik that the word "improvement" is often subjective, and I must say that if your edits at the main page had been the only edits of an anonymous IP i wouldn't have hesitated to categorise it as pure vandalism (no offence). I do agree with you that the main page could use a cleanup, but not as radical as what you did. I think we can work together and make a productive discussion at Talk:Main Page, as well as the talk pages of the other pages you wantet to improve. Apart from that I don't have much to add to the statements above. I hope that I have not been too hard on you, I would like us to work together, not against each other. Christian S 18:22, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wikisource documents: Public Domain or GFDL?[edit]

I've been reading up about the GFDL and as I understand it, to modify or publish works released under the GFDL you have to include a copy of the text of the GFDL as well as give credit to where you got your copy from. Do these restrictions apply to documents on Wikisource? Because on Wikisource:General_disclaimer it says "Please make sure that you understand that most of the information provided here is in the public domain. You are free to reproduce it freely and gratuitously just as we are doing" which sounds like you can use everything freely without including any copies of the GFDL or anything else. So which is it? - Biggins 19:03, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As I see it, the texts which were in the public domain when they were published here will always be in the public domain and can thus be used freely as any other PD text that has not yet been included here, as long as any (local) laws regarding the use of PD texts are followed. The rest of the texts such as project pages, texts published with permission from the copyright holder, user translations, etc. are published under the GFDL, and thus GFDL rules applies to these. Christian S 20:11, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
To the extent that certain texts are covered by GFDL the link to the licence at the bottom of each page serves that purpose. The author credits are in the article's history page. Eclecticology 20:33, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rules regarding division of long texts[edit]

At present, the rules relating to division of lengthy texts are rather unclear (the 100K rule noted above). Varying practices are adopted throughout. Separate pages are used for each chapter of each book of The Book of Mormon; single pages are used for all the chapters of each book of Bible, English, King James; separate pages are used for each Act of As You Like It, but not for other Shakespearean plays. So what exactly is the rule currently enforced? -- Lord Emsworth 00:18, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Common sense is the best rule, and what works will often depend on the book in question. The largest page has 2.7 Mb, and that is far too long. I raised the idea of a 100K guidline some time ago, then divided As You Like It in the hope that someone would get the message. No-one did, nor did anyone try to discuss the possible alternative of dividing the plays by scene. Sometimes I even think that the 100K limit is too high, but it's pointless trying to reduce that limit when nobody is putting much of an effort into at least trying to get things down that far. There are currently 382 articles whose length exceeds 100K, of which a dozen are more than a magabyte in lengh. See Special:longpages. The problem is not one of having a rule, but of having people to do the work. Eclecticology 20:06, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

PI ERROR[edit]

8 9 4

Hallo there -

I write to let you know of an error in your citation of the number pi to 10000 places. In the sixth line, running from the 251st to 300th decimal point, in the third column, the 477th to480th digits are you give them, they read 454326 4-8-3-2. This is incorrect, and the correct sequence is 454326 6-4-8-2, as is shown in several reliable sources. I trust you will correct this!

Best wishes,

Paul Michelet

( e-mail )

You may go to the article and make the correction yourself. Eclecticology 20:24, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Glad to see that we have people looking out for things like that! --[[User:Ardonik|User:Ardonik(talk)]] 21:08, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Free Culture[edit]

Free Culture originally Licensed Under the Creative Commons License. vfd?--Shizhao 01:27, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Which Creative Commons license? I know that cc-by-sa (used by Wikitravel) is incompatible with the GFDL, but I'm not sure about anything beyond that. --[[User:Ardonik|User:Ardonik(talk)]] 22:16, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • It's licensed under the cc-by-nc license [5], which prohibits commercial uses of it which would make it incompatible with the GFDL. However, this question is related to one that I raised earlier on the Scriptorium (tho I don't think I was very clear about my question there) about whether we're actually re-releasing texts under the GFDL or just collecting different texts in one place where they can be edited. Christian S seemed to be of the opinion that public domain documents posted here would remain in the public domain (which I hope to be true--otherwise using previously PD stuff from Wikisource would require bundling it with a copy of the GFDL). Could this also apply to posting Creative Commons by-nc copyrighted works and keeping them under their original license? I think that would be great, but I realize that there is a fundamental difference between PD works and cc-by-nc ones in that PD is compatible with the GFDL whereas cc-by-nc isn't. Oh well, any other thoughts? - Biggins 04:19, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
PD status is a condition specified by law, and hence if a text has reached PD status that status cannot be changed by us or anybody else. This is why the PD texts remains PD even if we publish it here - it has nothing to do with being GFDL compatible, as the PD status overrules any limiting license we may try to publish a PD text under. This does not imply that any text published here automatically keeps the license it was previously published under. As I see it, anything copyrightable is as a standard published under the GFDL when published here, this means that previous licenses must be GFDL compatible or permission to publish under GFDL must be obtained (but of course, IANAL). I'm not sure that it is possible to publish texts here under non-GFDL licenses, or what should be done to make it possible, but it is not done as a standard. Christian S 11:26, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The FDL and the GPL[edit]

I have been told that from a number of sources that the FDL is not the same as the GPL. I emailed the GNU and they haven't emailed me back about what steps to take. I need to know if Wikisource takes GPLed information. I know wikipedia takes GPLed photos and CCed photos even though they are not under FDL. I want to know if Wikisource can do this with documents. --Sunborn 01:48, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • I don't think it's a problem. I'm all but certain that anything released under the GPL (e.g. source code, program documentation, icons, data files, and the like) is GFDL-compatible. Of course, IANAL. --[[User:Ardonik|User:Ardonik(talk)]] 04:25, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • The GPL is not compatible with the GFDL. Angela 22:50, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • The GPL is not compatible with the GFDL. Thanks (serious sarcasm), Angela you already told me that on wikipedia, I want to know if I can put something in here under the GPL like we put GPL images in wikipedia. --Sunborn 04:08, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure whether previous discussions have reached any conclusions about this, but imo wikisource should accept things under compatible licenses, allowing some kind of GPL-template to be placed at the bottom of an article. Sj 05:21, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What about images? / Bilder in Wikisource einstellen?[edit]

I am looking to collect astronomy images that have been released under the GPL for an open source project. It would be nice if I could add them to a central repository for resue by others. It would seem at first that wikisource would be a good place for that, but I see not mention of archiving images.

Any suggestions?


Try Wikimedia Commons. If not, we have a lot of astronomy images that are public domain used across the different articles on their respective Wikipedia article. My guess would be to start in the Wikipedia category for astronomical objects and check out which objects have an image and if that image is on the public domain. You could also try the Wikipedia category of images released under the GPL and the category for images by copyright status. Maio 05:03, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Kurzfassung: Wer Bilder hat, die Public Domain sind oder unter der GNU-FDL-Lizenz stehen, der kann sie bei Wikimedia Commons einstellen, oder in die entsprechenden Wikipedia-Artikel (wenn es dorthin passt).

Project Guttenburg / Projekt Gutenberg[edit]

Has anyone hear heard of Project Gutenburg? Anyone have the idea to move most of their free sources to Wikisource? just a thought.

It's a very well known project. It's aims of making a wide range of texts available to a larger audience is certainly consistent with what we do here. It also appears to be a very healthy project. A number of things have already been copied from there. Still, a wholesale transfer of material from them would be pointless. It would be much more worth while to scan in material that is not already in the net, material from sites that are in danger of going out of business, or from sites that create difficulties for the user with such things as pop-ups, excessive advertising or difficult file structures. Eclecticology 07:40, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
For some older discussions about our relations to Project Guttenberg see Wikisource:Wikisource and Project Gutenberg. Christian S 18:24, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Kurzfassung: Die Texte von könnten übernommen werden, sinnvoller ist es aber, Texte hier einzubringen, die nicht ohnehin schon im Internet stehen. Weitere Diskussion dazu unter Wikisource:Wikisource and Project Gutenberg.

Measure for Measure[edit]

A recent anonymous contributor changed "Splits" to "Split'st" in Act II, Scene II of this Shakespeare play. Reading the variation in context suggests that the change is more correct in context, given the second person singular subject to the verb. This is a known variant in the text, which my edition of Shakespeare's works mentions in footnotes. This kind of variation is common in Shakespeare's texts. The problem lies in that we can't treat either variant as the "right" one, and if people were to regularly make this kind of correction it could go on forever. Does anyone have any idea about how we could deal with these textual variants in Shakespeare in a more efficient way? Eclecticology 18:20, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

An easy way to deal with this problem would be to make the nessesary number of text copies each representing a textual variant. I would suggest the title format [[Measure for Measure (1604 edition)]] or [[Measure for Measure (1604 version)]] substituting the year of publication for each textual variant (specifying month if nessesary). The "primary title" ([[Measure for Measure]]) could then perhaps be made a disambig. page linking to the different versions. If there's no "right" version (usually there's not), then lets have all versions. This can be seen as a general suggestion for dealing wiht textual varians as Shakespeare is not the only author with this problem. Christian S 18:53, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I don't know if that will be the best solution. It isn't just a simple matter of two widely variant texts. The large part of most texts would remain the same. As with the example that triggered this discussion, a user would want to see immediately what variants are available without having to switch to a completely different version of the text. I would also like to be able to show line numbers; references to passages in Shakespeare often include line numbers that have been established over the years. Many editions also explain unusual uses of a word. At the same time, if one wants, one needs to be able to read the text without having to be interrupted by a lot of unwanted notes. Eclecticology 17:02, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Your answer has clarified some of the problems. When I wrote the above I was aware that the versions would contain only small differences, but I don't see that as a problem, as we have all the serverspace we need. I understand from your answer that what we need is a single version with comments/explanations and a clear way of making textual variants explicit to the reader, I see no reason not to make such a version. But I can't see any good way to make it readable without interruptions - making notes inside the text will cause interruptions for readers who don't want them, but footnotes will result in a lot of scrolling back and forward (read: interruptions) for the reader who wants the notes. What I will suggest in the ligth of your answer is a version with notes in the text and a "clean version" without notes. The line numbering is "just" a technical problem, I will try to find a solution to that. If made properly line numbering does not interrupt anything, so that line numbering can be used in both versions. Christian S 14:59, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Language subdomains again / Nochmal zu Länderdomänen[edit]

There was some discussion on this back in September, but it didn't reach a solid conclusion. Please vote on the proposal at Wikisource:Scriptorium/Language domain proposal#Vote -- Tim Starling 09:21, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Darüber gab es schon im September Diskussionen, aber ohne Ergebnis. Bitte stimmt über den Vorschlag unter Wikisource:Scriptorium/Language domain proposal#Vote ab.

Weighted voting / Gewichtete Abstimmungen[edit]

It can be a source of some irritation when the one person one vote approach puts as much value on the vote of a person who has come here only to cast a vote on a current issue, as on that of a person who has already put considerable effort into the development of the project. Participation levels in this project should be considered in evaluating the result of a vote. Even a person who has put tremendous effort in Wikipedia may not be familiar with the views and practices in Wikisource. The following edit level scheme would reflect a person's contributions. The numbers are based on those levels that are already available on the User contributions page.

  1. zero edits, has appeared for the sole purpose of the vote
  2. 20 or fewer edits
  3. 21 to 50 edits
  4. 51 to 100 edits
  5. 101 to 250 edits
  6. 251 to 500 edits
  7. 501 or more edits

The maximum level is 7, even for a person with several thousand edits. It is also possible that the first group's votes should not be counted at all, in which case all the other levels would be reduced by one. Eclecticology 20:09, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Kurzfassung: Vorschlag: Bei Abstimmungen soll danach gewichtet werden, wieviele Bearbeitungen ("edits") ein Benutzer gemacht hat. Benuter mit mehr als 500 Bearbeitungen sollen siebenfaches Gewicht bei Abstimmungen haben, weitere Abstufungen siehe oben.

People who don't participate much in Wikisource, because they are not satisfied with it should hardly have the chance to change it? What edits should count? From the beginning of the vote or when the person votes? Minor edits or major edits only? Reverts? Wikifying also or only new texts? Texts simply dragged and dropped from freely availible internet sources or hand-copied texts from private only? What if users change their accounts after 500 edits? I couldn't see that there were persons, who used a new user name, just to be able to vote several times. This would be a problem. But if people don't participate because they don't like it or can't handle it, because of the way it is and can't change it, because they don't participate, then it becomes difficult. 21:51, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)(+2=MESZ)
Diejenigen, die bei Wikisource kaum mitarbeiten, weil sie mit der Art wie es jetzt ist nicht zufrieden sind, sollen kaum noch die Möglichkeit haben das zu ändern? Welche Bearbeitungen sollten gezählt werden? Auch kleine Änderungen und Revertierungen? Auch das Formatieren von Texten oder nur neue Texte? Texte, die einfach aus dem Internet kopiert wurden, oder nur abgeschriebene Texte aus privatem Besitz? Was ist, wenn ein Benutzer nach 500 Bearbeitungen sein Benutzerkonto wechselt? Ich konnte nicht beobachten, daß jemand sich neue Benutzerkonten zulegte, nur um mehrfach abzustimmen. Das wäre ein Problem. Aber wenn Leute nicht teilnehmen, weil sie es nicht mögen oder nicht können in der Art, wie es jetzt ist, und es nicht ändern können, weil sie nicht teinehmen, dann wird es schwierig. 21:51, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)(+2=MESZ)
Additional: a person (..) may not be familiar with the views and practices in Wikisource.: So there are definitive rules in Wikisource, that can't be changed by new views and practices of new user? That's not the Wiki principle anymore. 22:07, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)(+2=MESZ)
Zusatz: Es kann sein, daß jemand sich nicht auskennt mit den Ansichten und Praktiken in Wikisource.: Es gibt also feststehende Regeln in Wikisource, die nicht durch neue Ansichten und Praktiken neuer Benutzer geändert werden können? Das ist kein Wiki-Prinzip mehr. 22:07, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)(+2=MESZ)
People who have not spent time here have not made any effort to deal with the problems, and are probably not aware of the efforts that others have made. The way things are did not develop in one day. Counting all edits makes calculation much easier. Perhaps the calculations should be made at the end of the vote, but unless it is a close vote it's not likely to matter. If it IS a close vote, we should be looking for a better solution. As to having multiple accounts so as to vote more often, I prefer to believe that most people will act honestly. I already have over 3000 edits and have no intention of creating extra accounts. At the same time I believe that votes should be avoided because they divide communities even more. The power of the senior people is limited when they have a maximum number of votes.
Allowing rules to evolve is different from changing rules every time there is a new person. There needs to be a balance between new ideas and a reasonably stable work environment.
Thank you for providing the German translation of much of these discussions. Eclecticology 22:28, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Leute, die hier keine Zeit verbracht haben haben sich keine Bemühungen gemacht, mit den Problemen klarzukommen und möglicherweise nichts von den Bemühungen anderer mitbekommen. Der aktuelle Stand hat sich nicht an einem Tag entwickelt. Alle Bearbeitungen zu zählen macht die Berechnung viel leichter. Die Berechnung sollte vielleicht am Ende der Abstimmung gemacht werden, aber solange die Abstimmung nicht knapp ist, ist es nicht wichtig. Wenn es knapp ist, sollten wir nach einer besseren Lösung suchen. Was Mehrfach-Benutzerkonten um öfter abzustimmen angeht, glaube ich die Meisten sind ehrlich. Ich habe über 3000 Bearbeitungen und sowas nicht vor. Ich glaube außerdem, dass Abstimmungen vermieden werden sollten, weil sie Gemeinschaft auseinanderbringen. Die Macht der Älteren wird beschränkt, wenn sie eine maximale Anzahl Stimmen haben.
Die langsame Entwicklung von Regeln zu erlauben ist etwas anderes als die Regeln jedesmal zu ändern, wenn jemand Neues kommt. Es muss ein Gleichgewicht zwischen neuen Ideen und stabiler Arbeitsumgebung geben.
Danke für die deutsche Übersetzung einiger der Diskussionen.
Doubling the votes and more often makes a difference. If I knew this I could have logged in several days ago and would have hardly problems to come to 250 edits until the end of the vote (It's not my way to act, but others could). By now this would change the result of the vote. The rules wouldn't be changed completely, if a new person comes (it would make one vote), with the current system there has to be a majority.
The translations double the work, so I won't translate too much anymore. But somehow one hat to, so that not english-speaking people can read this. 23:16, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)(+2=MESZ)
Eine Verdopplung der Stimmen und mehr macht oft einen Unterschied. Hätte ich das gewusst, dann hätte ich mich schon vor Tagen anmelden können und hätte kaum Probleme bis zum Ende der Abstimmung auf 250 Bearbeitungen zu kommen (das ist nicht meine Art, aber andere könnten). Momentan würde das das Ergebnis der Abstimmung ändern. Wenn jemand Neues kommt, würden dadurch die Regeln nicht komplett geändert (es würde eine Stimme ausmachen), mit dem derzeitigen System braucht man dazu eine Mehrheit.
Die Übersetzungen verdoppeln die Arbeit, ich werde nicht mehr viel übersetzen. Aber man muss es irgendwie machen, sodass auch nicht-englischsprechende Personen das lesen können. 23:16, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)(+2=MESZ)

"People who have not spent time here have not made any effort to deal with the problems, and are probably not aware of the efforts that others have made. The way things are did not develop in one day... At the same time I believe that votes should be avoided because they divide communities even more..." (Eclecticolgy)

Believe it or not, on the second point I happen to agree with you! :-) I was quite surprised when Tim announced the vote, and would have prefered an eventual agreement one way or the other, even if it took a while. But on the other hand, maybe he was right, and things simply have to be decided sometimes one way or another. (I say that whether the proposal I support wins or loses in the end.)
On the first point, however, I strongly disagree with you, even harshly. I am sorry to have to write the following, and would never have written it at all had you yourself not made the above comments about "weighted voting": Maybe we should count and weigh the votes of heavy wikimedia contributors who have left Wikisource due to irreconciliable differences with you personally? Due to frustration at the way things are run here? Due to the fact that because this has remained a single small project, one very heavy contributer can basically veto anything he doesn't agree with (though it is usually true as he often says that he is basically "tolerant")?
Quite clearly, we are going to remain one-person, one-vote. None of us knows which side will win or lose. Too bad we will probably not have many votes from the people who have already left the project, or from people who have never joined it because it doesn't provide a good environment for their language. Dovi 05:07, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You seem to suggest that if the vote were to stop now the 9-8 results would be enough to allow such a major change that would be impossible to reverse. No one person has a veto here. The two of us who have voted with more than 500 edits would be limited in our influence, so where's the veto?
I meant veto on how the project is run in general, not regarding voting. But weighted voting fits in well with the general pattern.Dovi 16:28, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It's also not just English speakers who are opposing this change; the Chinese and Japanese speakers seem quite content with the way things are. They manage quite well using their own language most of the time within the project.
As to how many I have personally driven away through irreconcilable differences, that is a matter of speculation. There is no doubt that I have had confrontations with some, but then there are others with whom I can work very co-operatively. That's life. When we disagree we are willing to look for some common ground, a very significant element of the wiki way. Eclecticology 06:23, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I called a vote because people keep sending me messages saying things like "User:Kaiser Bob from WikiSource requested about 3 weeks ago. See [6] and [7]. Any chance this could be done already?" It seemed as if the discussion had stalled, so the usual next step would have been for me to make a judgement on its outcome -- in other words to try to determine what, if any, consensus had been reached. I reviewed the discussion and couldn't find a consensus either way.
The problem is that there's no compromise available without a significant amount of developer effort. It's a yes or no question, a situation which consensus decision making is very poor at handling. In the worst case, the majority want change and they are frustrated, and a minority resist change and they succeed. So progress stalls, useful changes are not made. This outcome does not occur when compromise positions are available. Based on a rough count of opponents and proponents on Wikisource:Scriptorium/Language domain proposal, that's what appeared to be happening here. Voting is a reasonably good way out of this rut, if indeed a majority do want change. -- Tim Starling 03:34, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Hmmmm... Maybe I made a mistake, but the truth is that I never saw this proposal as a determination of whether something like could be created. What the proposal says is that the wikisource community gives its "advance approval" to any user who wants to set up a language-domain for setting up texts. That's any individual user. But I never dreamed that if an entire language community agreed amongst themselves to set one up (as actually happened in German; and yes, Ec, they began discussing it amongst themselves before I got involved) that the "Wikisource community" could actually deny them permission to do so. Why should they need permission in the first place to use a tool that is already available?
This is especially unbelievable in light of the fact that the current system doesn't support all languages. Right now, if an Arabic writer wants to start a new Wikibook or Wikiquote, all he has to do is just start typing in the RTL Arabic domain that has already been set up for him there in advance. That's wiki all the way. Here, it seems that he will have to beg for permission first in order to get a domain. Dovi 16:28, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I totally agree with Eclecticology here. People coming here only to vote should not be counted. Yann 08:06, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

When I last checked 4 of those favouring the change had no edit on Wikisource other than their vote, another 2 had very few edits (less than 20); only one had over 250 edits. Among the opponents, 3 have over 500 edits, and another 3 had over 250 edits. Eclecticology 09:15, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
What we basically have is a more or less even balance between a small group of regular contributors who like things more or less the way they are now, versus a group of potential contributors (some of whom are very active on other projects) who want to work on texts as language communities, with the language domain tool. Which group is more "important" (and should be weighted or denied weight) depends on the your outlook, of course. Dovi 16:28, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
My observations about potential contributors is that many don't ever show up again, mostly for reasons that they don't reveal. If you examine the general list of members you will find that most of those did not stay around very long. Eclecticology 08:30, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Die Diskussion mit Ec ist sinnlos. Er will nicht begreifen, dass es Leute gibt, die nur deshalb nichts beitragen, weil sie mit dem ganzen Kuddelmuddel hier nicht zurecht kommen. Die Argumentation, dass die, die beitragen den Split nicht wollen, ist totaler Unsinn. Man gibt den anderen ja gar nicht die Chance, was beizutragen. Mir jedoch ist nach einigen Beiträgen hier das Grauen gekommen: erstens alle Diskussionen in Englisch, wobei ich vielen Diskussionen nicht ganz folgen kann, gerade wenn es um den Entwurf von Wikisource geht (obwohl ich selbst z.B. die deutsche Autoren-Box erstellt habe, was auf Grund nur englischer Erklärungen schwierig genug war). Also wie soll das klappen, wenn ich nicht in Englisch diskutieren will und kann (gerade um technische Probleme wie Kategorisierung, Sprachenumsetzung, ...) und andere aber nicht mit mir in Deutsch diskutieren. Macht dann jeder seins: die deutschsprachen treffen ihre Art der Kategorisierung, die englischsprachigen die ihrige oder läuft es doch (wie momentan) darauf hinaus, dass die englischsprachigen das Verfahren diktieren und die, die nicht mitreden können (weil ungenügende Englischkenntnisse) einfach außen vor bleiben und das schlucken müssen, was am Ende rauskommt. Also für mich verletzt das in übelster Weise den Wikipedia-Gedanken. Sorry, dann kann ich nur jedem abraten, hier bei diesem Projekt mitzuwirken. (Ich bezweifle, dass mehr als einer der Splitgegner dies überhaupt lesen kann :-( ) --B 17:07, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Licence / copyright question[edit]

I added a short story by Jean Giono, a French writer of the 20th century. According to a letter from Giono (see English rough translation), I believe that this text is in the public domain. However one company said that the rights belongs to them and denied that this text is in the public domain. What do you think? Yann 08:17, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)


je souhaite publier l'intégralité de ma thèse de 3eme cycle en FDL dans Wikisource (texte, tableaux, images). Comment faire (formats) et surtout sur quelle page ?? Thème de ce travail : chimie des polymères et catalyse.

Il faudrait créer une page sur le modèle Wikisource:Histoire pour le domaine qui vous concerne qui serait je suppose : Wikisource:Chimie, ou, peut-être Wikisource:science. Ce modèle devra être placé dans Main Page:Français. Caton 20:52, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

how to publish my thesis ?[edit]

I would like to publish my whole PhD lecture (around 230 A4 pages of text & pictures, + slides) with FDL and on wikisource (langage : french, abstract in english, topic : polymer chemistry and catalysis). How to do that (formats, number of pages) and first of all, on which pages ??

Begin by becoming a registered user. You can then set up an author page for yourself at Auteur:(your name), and from there link to the head page of your thesis. That page can be used to provide further links to the various chapters and subdivisions that you consider most appropriate. The other thing that should include on that head page is a statement that you are the author of the work, that you are resident of [country], and that you are releasing the material under the GFDL. Eclecticology 08:47, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)