On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 7:49 PM, Samuel Klein <[email protected]> wrote: > Andre, this is a great summary -- I've linked to it from the english > ws Scriptorium. > > Do you see opportunities for the two projects to coordinate their > wofklows better?
I don't understand your use of 'coordinate' in this context. Wikisource has a very lax workflow (it's a wiki), it publishes the scans & text immediately, irrespective of whether it is verified, OCR quality, or if it is vandalism. However, wikisource keeps the images and the text unified from day 0 to eternity. PGDP has a very strict and arduous workflow, big projects end up stuck in the rounds (the remaining EB projects are a great example), and they are not published until they make it out of the rounds. The result is quality, however only the text is sent downstream. Wikisource and PGDP don't interoperate. We *could*, but when I looked at importing a PGDP project into Wikisource, I put it in the too hard basket. Wikisource is trying to become a credible competitor to PGDP. However this isnt a zero-sum game. If the Wikisource projects succeeds in demonstrating the wiki way is a viable approach, the result is different people choosing to work in different workflows/projects, and more reliable etexts being produced. -- John Vandenberg _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
