On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 11:46 PM, Amir E. Aharoni <[email protected]> wrote: >> > But since Milos asked: In Wikisource changing the original is indeed >> > vandalism, but somebody must notice that it's vandalism. AFAIK > Wikisource >> > doesn't have a proper way to authenticate that the document is in its >> > original form. > >> Could you elaborate on this? If you open the links in my email, you >> will see that the text can be verified against the edition on file, > > Do you mean the side-by-side ProofreadPage view?
Yes. If the original is uploaded, we can keep the Wikisource copy in line fairly easily. If necessary, we could even fully protect the pages. The proection policy on en.ws allows for that. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Protection_policy >> and Wikisource projects typically have *revision* patrolling enabled >> to help catch incorrect changes. > > Revision patrolling is less bulletproof than a checksum, but if it is > enough for the people who care about this normative grammar's integrity, > it's certainly enough for me. How could checksums help? -- John Vandenberg _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
