My 2 cents. I think that Wikisource communities could decide to *try* implementing "critical editions" of texts. I would think it is better to have a proper namespace for that, or at least a clear template which warns users about the collaborative nature of the edition.
I would also think that these critical editions would be for just few texts, compared to the thousand of printed texts Wikisource provides. And, of you think about, "neutrality" does not exists neither in our proofreading work, there is always interpretatation (of course, there are shades and proofreading an ancient manuscript is different to proofreading a XX centurt printed document). I'm interested in Wikisource critical editions (as I am in annotation and hyperlinks), and as I explained before I think a layer system should be better, but we are technologically far from that. Aubrey 2012/8/17 Marc Galli <marc.gall...@orange.fr> > Le 17/08/2012 07:54, Dovi Jacobs a écrit : > > Ah, now I understand what you meant! But why do you think the editing > guidelines will be "without reference"? Just like a Wikipedia article can > and should be based on sources, the Wikisource guidelines for editing a > text should be written by people familiar with the scholarship on that > text, while referencing both that scholarship and the relevant editions and > manuscripts. Which is exactly what we try to do. And it works quite well. > > I understand that in fact you do not strictly critical editions (I have > try to see what you do on he:, but I am absolutely not familiar with this > langage), but compilations of sources, which is quite different. In that > sense, I have nothing to say. > > Good weekend. > > _______________________________________________ > Wikisource-l mailing list > Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l > >
_______________________________________________ Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
