On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Amir E. Aharoni <amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il> wrote: > 2011/6/17 John Vandenberg <jay...@gmail.com>: >> An interesting question was posed on foundation-l a few minutes ago. (see >> below) >> >> On English Wikisource, I think there is an unwritten "guideline" that >> the people who start a project do have a limited right to "OWN" that >> project. >> >> As it is an unwritten rule, I might just be dreaming this. >> >> I would write it up something like: >> >> Wikisource contributors dont enforce our own view of policy unless >> someone else is undeniably breaking policy. >> Wikisource contributors dont intentionally interfere with each others >> projects unless requested, or unless a project is breaking widely held >> communal expectations. >> >> Do other Wikisourcerers dream the same dream? > > I'm on this list, too :)
;-) I think Wikisource needs its own discussion about this, precisely because our project is so different in this regards. > I made a lot of edits in the English Wikisource, mostly to Gesenius' > Hebrew Grammar and to some Britannica 1911 articles, but i actually > don't know much about its policies, written or unwritten. > > It is a fact that i do feel that i "own" Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar in a > way, but i would gladly give this up to have more people join its > proofreading. Wikisource work can be very lonely. > In Wikisource, unlike in Wikipedia, the text is not > supposed to be controversial, but there can be argument about > presentation, division into pages, headers, usage of links and > templates etc. This is one of the reasons why we are so different to other projects. Wikipedia *needs* a wide array of contributors to any given topic, otherwise that is how most POV problems are eliminated. The other reason is that any two sources may be for a completely different audience. A chapter of a childrens book should have different presentation to an EB1911 page. > I invested literally months in creating the > infrastructure for this book, but i am nevertheless willing to see > someone come and change it into something better without asking me. In > other words, i wish more people would "interefere" in my work, even if > their vision of it is different from mine. I wouldn't consider this > interference, but help - as long as it's constructive, of course. constructive participation in your project wouldnt be what I can interference. interference is where you are unable to continue working on your project because it has been undermined, or no longer achieves what you intended for it to achieve. for example, what would you do it I insisted that your text uses Comic Sans font. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comic_Sans The "OWN" principle on Wikipedia is solely about what happens when you do consider it interference. On Wikipedia, the OWN principle says that main author must accept undesirable edits by default, unless the new edits break policy. On Wikisource, I think the main author *can* reject undesirable edits by detail, unless the new edits are *required* by policy. The main author will usually welcome any new edits, and may even choose to leave the undesirable edits and talk to the newcomer, hoping to understand the "undesirable" edits a bit better before rejecting them. -- John Vandenberg _______________________________________________ Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
