Wikisource talk:What is Wikisource?

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Sources available elsewhere[edit]

Though I certainly think we should develop an extensive body of source text and material for Wikipedia and other sites to link to, I do not think we should abhor making links to other sites with more extensive material prominent on the pages (as is currently occuring on the page for Prime Numbers), and perhaps even in many of the introductory notes.
I believe we should be a source of many major and important text documents even if they are available elsewhere on the internet, especially if we can provide some form of useful alternative formats; that we should of course provide links to Wikipedia, and provide a place where many public domain or GFDL documents that are not yet available or difficult to find on the internet can be provided. (I am at work at providing some text of this sort by George Eliot and some others, but have only been able to apply myself sporadically to formatting and proofreading these, because of other activities and duties.)
I think Wikisource, in collaboration with Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects, can thus become a primary and preferred Nexus for many people to access many types of information.Kalki 19:59, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I agree that we should develop an extensive body of texts, and if I say that it would be advisable to include something because it is commonly found elsewhere that's far from saying that I would delete that text. Not useful and not allowable are very different ideas. All I'm saying is that I would give a clear priority to rare texts over common ones.
Long items have additional problems, which suggest that those items should be divided into smaller chunks. The Prime numbers page is 282kb long, and can be stressful for some browsers which may just hang in the cours downloading. Shakespeare's Hamlet has 191kb, and that too can stress a browser. Eclecticology 23:09, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Original computer source code[edit]

The page stipulates that source articles should not contain original writing by a Wikipedia contributor. This is problematic in relation to computer source code, where the balance of probability is that they are original writing in order to bypass any form of copyright violation. Sjc 07:52, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be a well thought-out comment. The reason they don't want original contributions is because that presents the possibility that people will include their own works, which others may not find useful. Disallowing self-submission guarantees at least one other person finds a work valuable in some way. You say that someone must be the original writing to bypass any form of copyright violation. That is not necessarily true. There is a fair amount of public domain source code available, and that would probably be welcome. However, they don't want original programs any more than original speeches for the reason noted.

Legal clarifications[edit]

I've updated this to correct some legal inaccuracies:

  • "violation of copyrights". Copyrights aen't violated, they are infringed.
  • "Fair use depends on using only a part of a text". This is simply wrong. Fair use is aided by using no more than is required of the text. If the use requires all of the text, the use can be fair. The probability of a use being fair is likely to be reduced if a full text is used. Jamesday 18:43, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Verbatim import[edit]

THis looks like it was copied verbatim from w:Wikisource. There's nothing technically wrong with doing that, but I would have preferred to have an external link to the Wikipedia article and write our own thing in here. This would have also been a great place to discuss What Wikisource is not (e.g., a dumping ground for political manifestos.) --[[User:Ardonik|User:Ardonik(talk)]] 22:19, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree that it is verbatim import, and you are welcome to delete it, rewrite it or whatever you like. Somebody had put it at Wikisource:What is Wikisource? and I just moved it here in the hope that somebody has the time to incorporate it properly one way or another. If that means a link to Wikipedia thats fine with me. The other page is now a redirect. Wikisource:What is Wikisource? is an orphan here, but probably some Wikipedia links to it, so I think we should keep the redirect as it is.
Personally I have no problem with the political manifestos - why shouldn't we have a collection of those like we have collections of speeches by american presidents, religious texts, UN documents etc.? I believe the manifestos are sources as well... Christian S 10:06, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A question on exclusions[edit]

Original writings by a Wikipedia contributor? So if, to pick a name at random, Bill Clinton registers for Wikipedia and starts contributing (as unlikely as it may be) his speeches are no longer considered fair game for wikisource, despite the fact that they would otherwise qualify? That seems like a very strange policy to me. ShaneKing 14:46, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Not exactly. His speeches would have been previously published. I do prefer a broader interpretation of the term "published" in the sense of having been made generally known to the public. The important thing about this is that there must be evidence of the legitimacy of the material. Being published in print can be very strong evidence of this, as can submission of a doctoral thesis to the proper academic authorities. Material that exists only in self-published works or vanity websites would be seriously questioned. We do not want to be a repository for crackpot theories, or to encourage the generation of new bad poetry. Since we are not in a position to directly evaluate the worth of new writing it helps us to know that someone else has accepted it. In the Bill Clinton scenario that you outline we would be quite happy to continue accepting the speeches and writings that he had produced before that time, but may question any new material. Had he chosen to publish his autobiography with us he might not have found it as profitable as his current arrangements. Eclecticology 16:57, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wikisource or Wikipedia?[edit]

Hello, what are the guidelines to this item? -- kocio 20:43, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

project gutenberg[edit]

what is the difference in goals between wikisource and project gutenberg? - en:User:Omegatron 03:54, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is classical erotic literature allowed ?[edit]

I'd like to know if it could be possible to add some french literature works, which are in public domain, even if they contain some erotic content ? (I'm talking about old french authors like Diderot, Voltaire, Mirabeau, Verlaine...) Yohan (August 20th)

yes it is. but please check first that the works you want to add are not already there... ThomasV 05:52, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Collaborative translations[edit]

Is Wikisource the right place to promote collaborative translation of otherwise not available classical texts into, say, portuguese? If it is, how should I do it? --MMSequeira 10:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Wikisource is the right place for this. Check also . Thanks for your participation. Yann 12:09, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Awesome job[edit]

Awesome job making a whole wiki project without explaining what it is anywhere. It takes multiple clicks from the homepage just to find this page, and even it nowhere clearly defines what a "source" is. Is a "source" just any public domain text? If so, what distinguishes this project from the many other similar projects on the web? Also, needs more pictures of kittens. unsigned comment by (talk) 00:04, 22 April 2014‎.

Very simple. You look at the Recent changes, then it is the very first link on the top left (Wikisource: About). This links you to Wikisource:What is Wikisource?. OK? -jkb- (talk) 11:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Where is the promised definition?[edit]

"This page attempts to define what Wikisource is". I found lots of things about it, but there is no statemwnt of what it is. Tgis is my first visit. Deisenbe (talk) 11:18, 24 April 2021 (UTC)