Le 17/08/2012 12:57, Andrea Zanni a écrit :
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).
[...]
Aubrey
The comparison with proofreading is irrelevant, because when you
proofread a text, you follow a edition, and you do not choose what is
the text. If you choose (variantes for exemple), then you are doing a
critical edition. But with what criteres ? If the contributors establish
texts, then Wikisource is a scientific editor. This will be as if
wikipedians claim that wikipedia's articles are exactly like
scientifical articles published with peer-review. But they do not claim
this. In the same way, Wikisource is not a scientific editor. If we
pretend that Wikisource publishes critical editions, in reality we will
have some texts publish for some reasons by some unknow contributors on
some wiki.
_______________________________________________
Wikisource-l mailing list
Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
