Selecting editions sectionEdit
The way the 'Selecting editions' section currently reads seems contrary to some the basics outlined before it.
First, if a scientific work incorporates new findings, etc., since it's initial publication - doesn't that make it a new-revision of an evolving work rather than later-edition of the same work? If so, it should not be offered as a caveat justifying the selection of a later edition over the selection of the earliest possible/available edition(s). To the contrary, it should support the notion of hosting as many revisions as worthwhile to the possible reader in spite of the fact that would contradict the principle excluding evolving works from being hosted. Either way, it should be reverted/removed.
The other bit about works "...[that] may be revised or partly rewritten by their authors, and released in a revised form that supplants the original", seems like the same variation on a theme as above. I get the point that it is possible for a later-edition to wind up as the definitive work in the career of some particular author but thats generally not our call to make. Again, it seems to justify selecting the 'older' over the 'earlier' (or even the 'original') rather than a rationale given for hosting multiple incarnations with multiple flavors (first, worst, best & last for example) of a work. It also seems redundant given the fact [Author] Revisions is given in the Why? section up top.
And, I believe the intention behind mentioning a few simple caveats in that section in the first place was to leave us some wiggle-room to deviate from the guideline/principle at some point in the future for a good reason. I believe 'less is more' applies here & its better than trying to predict those points in some laundry list (imho). -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- We can lose that entire section if we need to. It was only meant as useful supplemental guidance; I consider the preceding sections as more important. Alternatively, perhaps we can simplify the wording to a preference for the "most significant" edition, and leave the interpretation up to the contributing user. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- No, I think you had it right to begin with and Billinghurst wisely left a crack open in case there was good enough reason to deviate from that (Not that there is not enough going in Scriptorium as it is). I'd rather keep the section and loose the listing of possible reasons that could justify such deviatiosn - keeping the stipulation that whatever the User's reasoning might be, he/she should document that "somewhere" even if they don't seek out our advice in the process. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Coverage vs DepthEdit
It seems to me there are conflicting arguments going on here. Shouldn't we decide up front which is the overarching policy on WikiSource? Either we want:
1. Broad coverage of as many distinct works as reasonably possible.
2. Comprehensive in-depth coverage of all variants of works already in WS.
Surely to attempt to be all things to all people simply dilutes the pool of available effort too much; with the inevitable result nothing is ever completed.
- I don't see these as mutually exclusive at an project level. Ideally, given infinite time and resources, Wikisource will one day contain a copy of every single thing that has ever been published in the English language (deep and broad). Wikisource is a volunteer-driven project, in which individuals tend to work on their personal projects. At an individual level, if a user wants to contribute towards a comprehensive collection of every single edition of Dickens' "A Christmas Carol," it would be largely redundant and use up time that could be used on a broader range of works (both mentioned in the guideline) but it is the user's time to spend however they see fit. If they want to pursue that goal then I see no reason to stop them (beyond "Are you sure you want to do that?"). There is no guarantee that they would spend their effort broadening our coverage if deepening it were discouraged. Broad coverage will happen by itself anyway through the medium of hundreds of different users wandering chaotically through the English corpus (in jargon: an emergent property of the behaviour of autonomous agents). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Umm. No argument. (I was implicitly assuming the absence of "infinite time and resources"; but if it is safe to assume this I totally agree.)
- In any case, I intended my comments as being guidance for encouragement of the "what can I do (next)?" crowd; rather than ham-fisted compliance directives to discourage the enthusiasts. The first group are almost always going to appreciate suggested activities; the latter will likely always resent any kind of interference with their "pet project(s.)" Guidelines should ideally hit a happy medium between the two. MODCHK (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- If we can avoid duplicate or frivolous efforts through the passage of this policy then I'm in agreement with Adam. But at this point, I'm more concerned with getting things setup right and in full from the point of upload than policing "most significant" editions. There is a lot of stuff on here that will never get done in our lifetime as it is so I can't really oppose the further edition of one thing or the other for whatever reason but I'm really starting to fume over how much of that is "junk" from a quality or completeness standpoint on day one. I welcome any policy or practice that [re]states the basics of uploading workable, complete and error-free source files and not worry so much about if they get abandoned for years after only two dozen or so pages of proofreading getting done. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
"Note that Wikisource should not have more than one copy of a specific edition." Adam, is there a precedent for this suggested policy, or do you just think you are stating the obvious? ResScholar (talk) 06:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Some discussions on Wikisource:Proposed deletions imply that this practice is a de facto policy already. Duplicates lead to redirection or complete deletion. Personally, I do think its redundant to have multiple identical copies of the same thing (not just unnecessary but also confusing for readers). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- "Should" is the recommendation, it is not imperative nor declarative (shall). It guides our thinking and allows someone to bring a second work to proposed removals, and it allows the community to keep it if they so decide. I feel that it is adequately stated, and really shouldn't be a light bulb moment. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)