On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <[email protected]>wrote:
> Yes but that's not a problem, it's a feature. Wikisource is (currently) > not for browsing masses of books like archive.org or Google Books (which > do that job very well); it's for choosing a subset of those books and > working on them more intensively for interlinking, proofreading etc. There > may be thousands of "unused" books on Commons, but there are millions more > out there: Wikisource uses and encourages work on those which makes most > sense to work on (in theory). > I don't think this relates to splitting/reunifying that much, but Alex is > right in pointing out how there are some aspects that we *could* want to > solve; once you define what you want to solve, it's easier to decide tools > for it. > I agree with Nemo here. Commons and IA store a lot of files just for saving them, but not *everything* is worth working on, or (the other way around), we don't find users who want to work on them. For the Global usage, I still think we could implement tools like that in Wikidata and Wikisources, to track file/text usage and have a more coordinated set of translations and original texts. Nowadays, it's probably the lowest hanging fruit. Beside, we still have wikisource.org, and we can use that for storing books. Synchronization of data between Commons adn Wikisource, via Wikidata, will have to happen anyway, so I would not go in the direction fo actually using Commons for transcribing books. Aubrey
_______________________________________________ Wikisource-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
