This entire email is very interesting Lars. Let me put that aside for now as reference. If anyone on wikisource develop a strategic explanation, an article on the topic, please let me know ! I am interested.
Thanks for this long explanation Ant Lars Aronsson wrote: > On wikipedia-l Florence Devouard wrote: > >> During that event, I mentionned that the French chapter has >> several ongoing discussions with various museums to set up >> content partnerships. > > Wikisource is really a much larger project than Wikipedia. > Consider any public library: The encyclopedia shelf or quick > reference section (Wikipedia) is less than one percent of the > whole library (Wikisource). After seven years of writing > Wikipedia, we are now getting useful results in many languages. > Wikisource might take 70 years. > > What we can expect during 2009 is some small step forward on this > longer path. Taking a single step might sound easy, but it's hard > enough to know which direction is forward. > > If you can achieve real, practical, pragmatic cooperations that > actually result in more free content, even if it is not very much, > that is probably the best step forward. But you must be prepared > that infighting and prestige among public institutions can be > tough, especially when it comes to competing for funding. > >> In Europe, at least in some countries, we meet several problems >> * many scholars have a rather bad image of Wikipedia (because >> written by amateurs, anonymous members, plagued by vandals >> etc...) > > There is a clear risk that this bad image is enforced. Our > message that "anybody can contribute" is hard to combine with the > prestigeous thinking among the institutions where you seek > cooperation. > > ---- > > I'd like to recommend an article in the October 2008 issues of the > open access journal "First Monday", "Mass book digitization: The > deeper story of Google Books and the Open Content Alliance" by > Kalev Leetaru, > http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2101/2037 > > This article is just one in a ton of literature on how to scan (or > microfilm) books, that have appeared in the last 20 years. But it > is interesting because it evaluates two large-scale projects of > the last few years, and compares them to each other. Even though > "digital libraries" is a new science, it is already full of > established truths. Perhaps this is due to the high involvement > of public institutions. One such truth is that image compression > (with JPEG artifacts) must be avoided at all cost. > > Both Google Books and the Open Content Alliance (Internet Archive) > break this rule, by using consumer-grade digital cameras and JPEG > compression, and should thus be considered a waste of time, > according to conventional wisdom (or "best current practices"). > Still, nobody can avoid being impressed with their results, and so > the scientific world needs to revise its understanding of the > current state of the art. The author of this article goes to > great lengths (in the "Discussion" section) to explain that what > these projects do is "access digitization", which is described as > something completely different than traditional book scanning: > > "Before one can compare the two projects, it is important to > first realize that both projects are really only access > digitization projects, despite the common assertion of OCA > captures as preservation digitization. Neither initiative uses > an imaging pipeline or capture environment suitable for true > preservation scanning. The OCA project outputs > variable–resolution JPEG2000 files built from lossy > camera–generated JPEG files. A consumer area array digital > camera is used to produce images ..." > > Needless to say, neither Project Gutenberg nor Wikisource are > mentioned in this article. Their goals are just too different > (what? free content?), their achievements not impressive enough. > They are not potential future employers of "digital library" > scholars. If you help them or cooperate with them, you will only > help mankind in an altruistic fashion (what fools!), you will not > help your own professional or academic career. > > In the article, the Open Content Alliance already plays the role > of the fools. They have only (!) digitized 100,000 books, while > Google Books has millions. They do not provide the same search > capability. And so it goes on. The next time the Internet Archive > (OCA) applies for funding or tries to establish cooperations with > more institutions, such arguments might be used against them. > > ---- > > What Wikisource really needs to do, is to provide an explanation > of what it does, and how this goes beyond Google Books' "access > digitization". In Europe, this must be set in the perspective of > ongoing French, German and EU initiatives (Gallica, Theseus, > Quaero, Europeana, ...). When one of those projects applies for > funding, it will need to show that it is successful in attracting > cooperation partners and that it is a leader among similar > projects. We should be prepared that they take any opportunity to > define Wikisource as a loser, amateurish, clueless project. This > is not because they are evil, only because they do what they can > to get the funding they need. > > Why should museum X or library Y or archive Z cooperate with > Wikisource, when it risks being associated with such descriptions > of failure? The alternative for that institution might be to > cooperate with the successful Google or Gallica. So why is > Wikisource superior? This is what we need to explain. > >> * develop arguments for museums etc... > > Exactly. > > > _______________________________________________ Wikimediameta-l mailing list Wikimediameta-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediameta-l
