4 ms·

How does it compare with Wikisource? It looks like Project Gutenberg is older, but given https://www.gutenberg.org/help/errata.html https://www.gutenberg.org/h

by hiq 5y ago

How does it compare with Wikisource? It looks like Project Gutenberg is older, but given https://www.gutenberg.org/help/errata.html https://www.gutenberg.org/help/errata.html is looks like the UX (as a contributor) is better on Wikisource.

ZeroGravitas 5y ago
Gutenberg was a pioneer and sits at the centre of an ecosystem. Distributed Proofreaders and others like Standard ebooks build on Gutenberg texts and upstream fixes and corrections to them. https://www.pgdp.net/c/ https://www.pgdp.net/c/
- zozbot234 5y ago
  DP proofread from book scans and upload the proofed and processed text to Gutenberg. Standard ebooks takes the Gutenberg texts and further enhances them. So they're operating on opposite stages of the pipeline.
  - ZeroGravitas 5y ago
    Yeah, but DP feed the text (including corrections) downstream and standardebooks (while adding their own extras) may spot things that slipped through and get them reported and fixed upstream. They don't need to, but they do.
adhesive_wombat 5y ago
Wikisource (at least the English one) has a slightly different take on it in that they (now) generally expect proofreading to proceed according to a PDF or DjVu scan of a specific original edition (and you can have multiple editions). There's a page-by-page proofreading interface. Project Gutenberg world are usually non-specific editions and might be a mish-mash or contain editorial fix-ups. Projects like Distributed Proofreaders also operate on a top-down basis where there's a project manager for each book. On Wikisource, you can just get stuck in where you like. No one technically "owns" anything. The Monthly Challenge [1] is quite a fun new innovation where there's a bit more community activity, as a lot of people like to plug away on their own projects, which some people think is a bit boring. [1]: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Community_collaboration/Monthly_Challenge https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Community_collabor...
- zozbot234 5y ago
  The "ownership" model on DP means that they're left with a huge backlog of fully-proofread drafts stuck in the "post-processing" stage that never see the light of day on PG. On WS the equivalent to post-processing is a community-driven process, there's no fixed ownership but only the do-ocracy of those who put in the work.
  - adhesive_wombat 5y ago
    Wikisource does also have a lot of unfinished works, but it has that advantage that literally anyone[1] with an interest can come along and push them into a proofread state. In fact, the Monthly Challenge is also deliberately trying to promote this, as well as converting very old copy-paste drive-bys (often from PG, actually, from before Wikisource had the page-by-page proofreading) into modern editions verifiable against a specific original. [1]: You don't even need do to register an account to enter the text, but you do to mark a page as proofread, since there's a two-pass validation system and it works by accounts. It doesn't require an email.

by hiq 5y ago

ZeroGravitas 5y ago

Gutenberg was a pioneer and sits at the centre of an ecosystem. Distributed Proofreaders and others like Standard ebooks build on Gutenberg texts and upstream fixes and corrections to them. https://www.pgdp.net/c/ https://www.pgdp.net/c/

zozbot234 5y ago
DP proofread from book scans and upload the proofed and processed text to Gutenberg. Standard ebooks takes the Gutenberg texts and further enhances them. So they're operating on opposite stages of the pipeline.
- ZeroGravitas 5y ago
  Yeah, but DP feed the text (including corrections) downstream and standardebooks (while adding their own extras) may spot things that slipped through and get them reported and fixed upstream. They don't need to, but they do.

adhesive_wombat 5y ago

Wikisource (at least the English one) has a slightly different take on it in that they (now) generally expect proofreading to proceed according to a PDF or DjVu scan of a specific original edition (and you can have multiple editions). There's a page-by-page proofreading interface. Project Gutenberg world are usually non-specific editions and might be a mish-mash or contain editorial fix-ups. Projects like Distributed Proofreaders also operate on a top-down basis where there's a project manager for each book. On Wikisource, you can just get stuck in where you like. No one technically "owns" anything. The Monthly Challenge [1] is quite a fun new innovation where there's a bit more community activity, as a lot of people like to plug away on their own projects, which some people think is a bit boring. [1]: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Community_collaboration/Monthly_Challenge https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Community_collabor...

zozbot234 5y ago
The "ownership" model on DP means that they're left with a huge backlog of fully-proofread drafts stuck in the "post-processing" stage that never see the light of day on PG. On WS the equivalent to post-processing is a community-driven process, there's no fixed ownership but only the do-ocracy of those who put in the work.
- adhesive_wombat 5y ago
  Wikisource does also have a lot of unfinished works, but it has that advantage that literally anyone[1] with an interest can come along and push them into a proofread state. In fact, the Monthly Challenge is also deliberately trying to promote this, as well as converting very old copy-paste drive-bys (often from PG, actually, from before Wikisource had the page-by-page proofreading) into modern editions verifiable against a specific original. [1]: You don't even need do to register an account to enter the text, but you do to mark a page as proofread, since there's a two-pass validation system and it works by accounts. It doesn't require an email.