Mailing List Archive

Yann Forget wrote:

> I started a proposal on the Strategy Wiki:
> http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Building_a_database_of_all_books_ever_published
>
> IMO this should be a join project between Openlibrary and Wikimedia.


Again, I don't understand why. What exactly is missing in
OpenLibrary? Why does it need to be a new, joint project?

The page says "There is currently no database of all books ever
published freely available." But OpenLibrary is a project already
working towards exactly that goal. It's not done yet, and its
methods are not yet fully developed. But neither would your new
"joint" project be, for a very long time.

Wikipedia is also far from complete, far from containing "the sum
of all human knowledge". But that doesn't create a need to start
entirely new encyclopedia projects. It only means more
contributors are needed in the existing Wikipedia.


--
Lars Aronsson (lars@aronsson.se)
Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Not only can the OpenLibrary do it perfect well without us.
considering our rather inconsistent standards, they can probably do it
better without us. We will just get in the way.

There is sufficient missing material in every Wikipedia, sufficient
lack of coverage of areas outside the primary language zone and in
earlier periods, sufficient unsourced material; sufficient need for
updating articles, sufficient potentially free media to add,
sufficient needed imagery to get; that we have more than enough work
for all the volunteers we are likely to get.

To duplicate an existing project is particularly unproductive when the
other project is doing it better than we are ever going to be able to.
Yes, there are people here who could do it or learn to do it--but I
think everyone here with that degree of bibliographic knowledge would
be much better occupied in sourcing articles.

David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG



On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 2:21 AM, Lars Aronsson<lars@aronsson.se> wrote:
> Yann Forget wrote:
>
>> I started a proposal on the Strategy Wiki:
>> http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Building_a_database_of_all_books_ever_published
>>
>> IMO this should be a join project between Openlibrary and Wikimedia.
>
>
> Again, I don't understand why.  What exactly is missing in
> OpenLibrary?  Why does it need to be a new, joint project?
>
> The page says "There is currently no database of all books ever
> published freely available."  But OpenLibrary is a project already
> working towards exactly that goal.  It's not done yet, and its
> methods are not yet fully developed.  But neither would your new
> "joint" project be, for a very long time.
>
> Wikipedia is also far from complete, far from containing "the sum
> of all human knowledge".  But that doesn't create a need to start
> entirely new encyclopedia projects.  It only means more
> contributors are needed in the existing Wikipedia.
>
>
> --
>  Lars Aronsson (lars@aronsson.se)
>  Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Lars Aronsson wrote:
> Yann Forget wrote:
>
>> I started a proposal on the Strategy Wiki:
>> http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Building_a_database_of_all_books_ever_published
>>
>> IMO this should be a join project between Openlibrary and Wikimedia.
>
> Again, I don't understand why. What exactly is missing in
> OpenLibrary? Why does it need to be a new, joint project?
>
> The page says "There is currently no database of all books ever
> published freely available." But OpenLibrary is a project already
> working towards exactly that goal. It's not done yet, and its
> methods are not yet fully developed. But neither would your new
> "joint" project be, for a very long time.
>
> Wikipedia is also far from complete, far from containing "the sum
> of all human knowledge". But that doesn't create a need to start
> entirely new encyclopedia projects. It only means more
> contributors are needed in the existing Wikipedia.

You just give again the same arguments, to which I have answered.
Did you read my answer?

Regards,

Yann
--
http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
http://fr.wikisource.org/ | Bibliothèque libre
http://wikilivres.info | Documents libres

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hello, I have already answered some of these arguments earlier.

David Goodman wrote:
> Not only can the OpenLibrary do it perfect well without us.
> considering our rather inconsistent standards, they can probably do it
> better without us. We will just get in the way.

The issue is not if OpenLibrary is "doing it perfect well without us",
even if that were true. Currently what OpenLibrary does is not very
useful for Wikimedia, and partly duplicate what we do. Wikimedia has
also important assets which OL doesn't have, and therefore a
collaboration seems obviously beneficial for both.

> There is sufficient missing material in every Wikipedia, sufficient
> lack of coverage of areas outside the primary language zone and in
> earlier periods, sufficient unsourced material; sufficient need for
> updating articles, sufficient potentially free media to add,
> sufficient needed imagery to get; that we have more than enough work
> for all the volunteers we are likely to get.
>
> To duplicate an existing project is particularly unproductive when the
> other project is doing it better than we are ever going to be able to.
> Yes, there are people here who could do it or learn to do it--but I
> think everyone here with that degree of bibliographic knowledge would
> be much better occupied in sourcing articles.

It is clear that you didn't even read my proposal.
Please do before emitting objections.
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Building_a_database_of_all_books_ever_published

I specifically wrote that my proposal is not necessarily starting a new
project. I agree that working with Open Library is necessary for such
project, but I also say if Wikimedia gets involved, it would be much
more successful.

What you say here is completely the opposite how Wikimedia projects
work, i.e. openness, and that's just what is missing in Open Library.

> David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.

Regards,
Yann
--
http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
http://fr.wikisource.org/ | Bibliothèque libre
http://wikilivres.info | Documents libres

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I have read your proposal. I continue to be of the opinion that we are
not competent to do this. Since the proposal says, that "this project
requires as much database management knowledge as librarian
knowledge," it confirms my opinion. You will never merge the data
properly if you do not understand it.

You suggest 3 practical steps
1. an extension for finding a book in OL is certainly doable--and it
has been done, see
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Book_sources].
2. an OL field, link to WP -- as you say, this is already present.
3. An OL field, link to Wikisource.A very good project. It will be
they who need to do it.


Agreed we need translation information--I think this is a very
important priority. It's not that hard to do a list or to add links
that will be helpful, though not exact enough to be relied on in
further work. That's probably a reasonable project, but it is very
far from "a database of all books ever published"

But some of this is being done--see the frWP page for Moby Dick:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moby_Dick
(though it omits a number of the translations listed in the French Union
Catalog, http://corail.sudoc.abes.fr/xslt/DB=2.1/CMD?ACT=SRCHA&IKT=8063&SRT=RLV&TRM=Moby+Dick]
I would however not warrant without seeing the items in hand, or
reading an authoritative review, that they are all complete
translations.
The English page on the novel lists no translations; perhaps we could
in practice assume that the interwiki links are sufficient. Perhaps
that could be assumed in Wiksource also?


David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG



On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 1:17 PM, Yann Forget<yann@forget-me.net> wrote:
> Hello, I have already answered some of these arguments earlier.
>
> David Goodman wrote:
>> Not only can the OpenLibrary do it perfect well without us.
>> considering our rather inconsistent standards, they can probably do it
>> better without us.  We will just get in the way.
>
> The issue is not if OpenLibrary is "doing it perfect well without us",
> even if that were true. Currently what OpenLibrary does is not very
> useful for Wikimedia, and partly duplicate what we do. Wikimedia has
> also important assets which OL doesn't have, and therefore a
> collaboration seems obviously beneficial for both.
>
>> There is sufficient missing material in  every Wikipedia, sufficient
>> lack of coverage of areas outside the primary language zone and in
>> earlier periods, sufficient unsourced material; sufficient need for
>> updating  articles, sufficient potentially free media to add,
>> sufficient needed imagery to get;  that we have more than enough work
>> for all the volunteers we are likely to get.
>>
>> To duplicate an existing project is particularly unproductive when the
>> other project is doing it better than we are ever going to be able to.
>> Yes, there are people here who could  do it or learn to do it--but I
>> think everyone here with that degree of bibliographic knowledge would
>> be much better occupied in sourcing articles.
>
> It is clear that you didn't even read my proposal.
> Please do before emitting objections.
> http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Building_a_database_of_all_books_ever_published
>
> I specifically wrote that my proposal is not necessarily starting a new
> project. I agree that working with Open Library is necessary for such
> project, but I also say if Wikimedia gets involved, it would be much
> more successful.
>
> What you say here is completely the opposite how Wikimedia projects
> work, i.e. openness, and that's just what is missing in Open Library.
>
>> David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
>
> Regards,
> Yann
> --
> http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
> http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
> http://fr.wikisource.org/ | Bibliothèque libre
> http://wikilivres.info | Documents libres
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

David Goodman wrote:
> I have read your proposal. I continue to be of the opinion that we are
> not competent to do this. Since the proposal says, that "this project
> requires as much database management knowledge as librarian
> knowledge," it confirms my opinion. You will never merge the data
> properly if you do not understand it.

That's all the point that it needs to be join project: database gurus
with librarians. What I see is that OpenLibrary lacks some basic
features that Wikimedia projects have since a long time (in Internet
scale): easy redirects, interwikis, mergings, deletion process, etc.
Some of these are planned for the next version of their software, but I
still feel that sometimes they try to reinvent the wheel we already have.

OL claims to have 23 million book and author entries. However many
entries are duplicates of the same edition, not to mention the same
book, so the real number of unique entries is much lower. I also see
that Wikisource has data which are not included in their database (and
certainly also Wikipedia, but I didn't really check).

> You suggest 3 practical steps
> 1. an extension for finding a book in OL is certainly doable--and it
> has been done, see
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Book_sources].
> 2. an OL field, link to WP -- as you say, this is already present.
> 3. An OL field, link to Wikisource. A very good project. It will be
> they who need to do it.

Yes, but I think we should fo further than that. OpenLibrary has an API
which would allow any relevant wiki article to be dynamically linked to
their data, or that an entry could be created every time new relevant
data is added to a Wikipedia projects. This is all about avoiding
duplicate work between Wikimedia and OpenLibrary. It could also increase
accuracy by double checking facts (dates, name and title spelling, etc.)
between our projects.

> Agreed we need translation information--I think this is a very
> important priority. It's not that hard to do a list or to add links
> that will be helpful, though not exact enough to be relied on in
> further work. That's probably a reasonable project, but it is very
> far from "a database of all books ever published"
>
> But some of this is being done--see the frWP page for Moby Dick:
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moby_Dick
> (though it omits a number of the translations listed in the French Union
> Catalog, http://corail.sudoc.abes.fr/xslt/DB=2.1/CMD?ACT=SRCHA&IKT=8063&SRT=RLV&TRM=Moby+Dick]
> I would however not warrant without seeing the items in hand, or
> reading an authoritative review, that they are all complete
> translations.
> The English page on the novel lists no translations; perhaps we could
> in practice assume that the interwiki links are sufficient. Perhaps
> that could be assumed in Wiksource also?

That's another possible benefit: automatic list of
works/editions/translations in a Wikipedia article.

You could add {{OpenLibrary|author=Jules Verne|lang=English}} and you
have a list of English translations of Jules Verne's works directly
imported from their database. The problem is that, right now, Wikimedia
projects have often more accurate and more detailed information than
OpenLibrary.

> David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG

Regards,

Yann
--
http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
http://fr.wikisource.org/ | Bibliothèque libre
http://wikilivres.info | Documents libres

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I have been re-reading their documentation, and they have it well in
hand. We would do very well to confine ourselves to matching up the
entries in the WMF projects alone. Some of the data in WMF is more
accurate than some of the OL data, but I would not say this to be a
general rule. Far from it: the proportion of incomplete or inaccurate
entires in enWP is probably well over 50% for books. (for journal
articles it is better, because of a project to link to the pubmed
information) The accuracy & adequacy -- let alone completeness-- of
the bibliographic information in WS is close to zero, except where
there is a IA scan of the cover and title page, from which full
bibliographic information might be derived, but cannot necessarily be
taken at face value.

The unification of editions is non-trivial, as using the algorithm you
suggest, you will also have all works related to Verne, and
additionally a combination of general and partial translations,
children's books, comic adaptation, and whatever.
Modern library metadata provides for this to a certain limited
extent--unfortunately most of the entries in current online catalogs
do not show full modern data--many catalogs never had more than
minimal records; Dublin core is probably not generally considered to
be fully up to the problem either, at least in any current
implementation.

Those working on the OL side are fully aware of this. They have made
the decision to work towards inclusion of all usable & obtainable data
sets, rather than only the ones that can be immediately fully
harmonized. This was very wise decision, as the way in which the
information is to be combined & related is not fully developed, and ,
if they were to wait for that, nothing would be entered. There will
therefore be the problem of upgrading the records and the record
structure in place--a problem that no large bibliographic system has
ever fully handled properly--not that this incarnation of OL is likely
to either. Bibliographers work for their time, not for all time to
come.


David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG



On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 6:38 AM, Yann Forget<yann@forget-me.net> wrote:
> David Goodman wrote:
>> I have read your proposal. I continue to be of the opinion that we are
>> not competent to do this. Since the proposal  says, that "this project
>> requires as much database management knowledge as librarian
>> knowledge," it confirms my opinion. You will never merge the data
>> properly if you do not understand it.
>
> That's all the point that it needs to be join project: database gurus
> with librarians. What I see is that OpenLibrary lacks some basic
> features that Wikimedia projects have since a long time (in Internet
> scale): easy redirects, interwikis, mergings, deletion process, etc.
> Some of these are planned for the next version of their software, but I
> still feel that sometimes they try to reinvent the wheel we already have.
>
> OL claims to have 23 million book and author entries. However many
> entries are duplicates of the same edition, not to mention the same
> book, so the real number of unique entries is much lower. I also see
> that Wikisource has data which are not included in their database (and
> certainly also Wikipedia, but I didn't really check).
>
>> You suggest 3 practical steps
>> 1. an extension for finding a book in OL is certainly doable--and it
>> has been done, see
>> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Book_sources].
>> 2. an OL  field,  link to WP -- as you say, this is already present.
>> 3. An OL field, link to Wikisource. A very good project. It will be
>> they who need to do it.
>
> Yes, but I think we should fo further than that. OpenLibrary has an API
> which would allow any relevant wiki article to be dynamically linked to
> their data, or that an entry could be created every time new relevant
> data is added to a Wikipedia projects. This is all about avoiding
> duplicate work between Wikimedia and OpenLibrary. It could also increase
> accuracy by double checking facts (dates, name and title spelling, etc.)
> between our projects.
>
>> Agreed we need translation information--I think this is a very
>> important priority.   It's not that hard to do a list or to add links
>> that will be helpful, though not  exact enough to be relied on in
>> further work.  That's probably a reasonable project, but it is very
>> far from "a database of all books ever published"
>>
>> But some of this is being done--see the frWP page for Moby Dick:
>> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moby_Dick
>> (though it omits a number of the translations listed in the French Union
>> Catalog, http://corail.sudoc.abes.fr/xslt/DB=2.1/CMD?ACT=SRCHA&IKT=8063&SRT=RLV&TRM=Moby+Dick]
>> I would however not warrant without seeing the items in hand, or
>> reading an authoritative review, that they are all complete
>> translations.
>> The English page on the novel lists no translations;  perhaps we could
>> in practice assume that the interwiki links are sufficient. Perhaps
>> that could be assumed in Wiksource also?
>
> That's another possible benefit: automatic list of
> works/editions/translations in a Wikipedia article.
>
> You could add {{OpenLibrary|author=Jules Verne|lang=English}} and you
> have a list of English translations of Jules Verne's works directly
> imported from their database. The problem is that, right now, Wikimedia
> projects have often more accurate and more detailed information than
> OpenLibrary.
>
>> David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
>
> Regards,
>
> Yann
> --
> http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
> http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
> http://fr.wikisource.org/ | Bibliothèque libre
> http://wikilivres.info | Documents libres
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

You two seem to be talking past each other. Might I suggest that perhaps the quality of information on OPL and/or Wikipdia/Wikisource sites is rather different depending on whether you are reading in French or English? I don't know if this is the case but it could explain the discrepancies between your experiences.

Birgitte SB

--- On Thu, 9/3/09, David Goodman <dgoodmanny@gmail.com> wrote:

> From: David Goodman <dgoodmanny@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Universal Library
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Thursday, September 3, 2009, 2:19 PM
> I have been re-reading their
> documentation, and they have it well in
> hand.  We would do very well to confine ourselves to
> matching up the
> entries in the WMF projects alone. Some of the data in WMF
> is more
> accurate than some of the OL data, but I would not 
> say this to be a
> general rule. Far from it: the proportion of incomplete or
> inaccurate
> entires in enWP is probably well over 50% for books. (for
> journal
> articles it is better, because of a project to link to the
> pubmed
> information)  The accuracy  & adequacy -- let
> alone completeness-- of
> the bibliographic information in WS is close to zero,
> except where
> there is a IA scan of the cover and title page, from which
> full
> bibliographic information might be derived, but cannot
> necessarily be
> taken at face value.
>
> The unification of editions is non-trivial, as using the
> algorithm you
> suggest, you will also have all works related to Verne,
> and
> additionally a combination of general and partial
> translations,
> children's books, comic adaptation, and whatever.
> Modern library metadata provides for this to a certain
> limited
> extent--unfortunately most of the entries in current online
> catalogs
> do not show full modern data--many catalogs never had more
> than
> minimal records;  Dublin core is probably not
> generally considered to
> be fully up to the problem either, at least in any current
> implementation.
>
> Those working on the OL side are fully aware of this. They
> have made
> the decision to work towards inclusion of all usable &
> obtainable data
> sets, rather than only the ones that can be immediately
> fully
> harmonized. This was very wise decision, as the way in
> which the
> information is to be combined & related is not fully
> developed, and ,
> if they were to wait for that, nothing would be entered.
> There will
> therefore be the problem of upgrading the records and the
> record
> structure in place--a problem that no large bibliographic
> system has
> ever fully handled properly--not that this incarnation of
> OL is likely
> to either. Bibliographers work for their time, not for all
> time to
> come.
>
>
> David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 6:38 AM, Yann Forget<yann@forget-me.net>
> wrote:
> > David Goodman wrote:
> >> I have read your proposal. I continue to be of the
> opinion that we are
> >> not competent to do this. Since the proposal
>  says, that "this project
> >> requires as much database management knowledge as
> librarian
> >> knowledge," it confirms my opinion. You will never
> merge the data
> >> properly if you do not understand it.
> >
> > That's all the point that it needs to be join project:
> database gurus
> > with librarians. What I see is that OpenLibrary lacks
> some basic
> > features that Wikimedia projects have since a long
> time (in Internet
> > scale): easy redirects, interwikis, mergings, deletion
> process, etc.
> > Some of these are planned for the next version of
> their software, but I
> > still feel that sometimes they try to reinvent the
> wheel we already have.
> >
> > OL claims to have 23 million book and author entries.
> However many
> > entries are duplicates of the same edition, not to
> mention the same
> > book, so the real number of unique entries is much
> lower. I also see
> > that Wikisource has data which are not included in
> their database (and
> > certainly also Wikipedia, but I didn't really check).
> >
> >> You suggest 3 practical steps
> >> 1. an extension for finding a book in OL is
> certainly doable--and it
> >> has been done, see
> >> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Book_sources].
> >> 2. an OL  field,  link to WP -- as you say, this
> is already present.
> >> 3. An OL field, link to Wikisource. A very good
> project. It will be
> >> they who need to do it.
> >
> > Yes, but I think we should fo further than that.
> OpenLibrary has an API
> > which would allow any relevant wiki article to be
> dynamically linked to
> > their data, or that an entry could be created every
> time new relevant
> > data is added to a Wikipedia projects. This is all
> about avoiding
> > duplicate work between Wikimedia and OpenLibrary. It
> could also increase
> > accuracy by double checking facts (dates, name and
> title spelling, etc.)
> > between our projects.
> >
> >> Agreed we need translation information--I think
> this is a very
> >> important priority.   It's not that hard to do a
> list or to add links
> >> that will be helpful, though not  exact enough to
> be relied on in
> >> further work.  That's probably a reasonable
> project, but it is very
> >> far from "a database of all books ever published"
> >>
> >> But some of this is being done--see the frWP page
> for Moby Dick:
> >> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moby_Dick
> >> (though it omits a number of the translations
> listed in the French Union
> >> Catalog, http://corail.sudoc.abes.fr/xslt/DB=2.1/CMD?ACT=SRCHA&IKT=8063&SRT=RLV&TRM=Moby+Dick]
> >> I would however not warrant without seeing the
> items in hand, or
> >> reading an authoritative review, that they are all
> complete
> >> translations.
> >> The English page on the novel lists no
> translations;  perhaps we could
> >> in practice assume that the interwiki links are
> sufficient. Perhaps
> >> that could be assumed in Wiksource also?
> >
> > That's another possible benefit: automatic list of
> > works/editions/translations in a Wikipedia article.
> >
> > You could add {{OpenLibrary|author=Jules
> Verne|lang=English}} and you
> > have a list of English translations of Jules Verne's
> works directly
> > imported from their database. The problem is that,
> right now, Wikimedia
> > projects have often more accurate and more detailed
> information than
> > OpenLibrary.
> >
> >> David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Yann
> > --
> > http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la
> non-violence
> > http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
> > http://fr.wikisource.org/ | Bibliothèque libre
> > http://wikilivres.info | Documents libres
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>





_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 6:58 AM, Birgitte SB<birgitte_sb@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You two seem to be talking past each other.  Might I suggest that perhaps the quality of information on OPL and/or Wikipdia/Wikisource sites is rather different depending on whether you are reading in French or English?  I don't know if this is the case but it could explain the discrepancies between your experiences.

That could be it. We cant hide the fact that the French Wikisource is
leaps and bounds ahead of English Wikisource. ;-)

I also suspect that David is heavily biased due to his predominately
English Wikipedia experience.

The underlying problem is that OL is approaching this from a
traditional library perspective, and so is opening up slowly, and
progress is slow and methodical. Wikisource is approaching the same
goal with openness as a core philosophy, and progress is rapidly
increasing.

To some, it seems that OL will reach the holy grail first, however
they have seeded their database with lots of junk records, and they
don't have digital items for these. The reality is that there is a
lot of bibliographic entries which are wrong, and this data is usually
fixed once the object represented has be reviewed. Without digital
objects, there is no way for the world to know which are duplicates
and which are slightly different editions which should have different
records. Even if someone out in the real world knows that there was
only one edition in a given year, there is no mechanism for the
"community" to merge records. Without digitial objects, OL is
_directory_ of works held in other locations; but it is not a library.

OTOH, Wikisource only has records for items that it has the full text
for, which means it rarely has duplicates, and is much more like a
"library" because people can actually read the text. And of course it
has already has figured out a lot of the community process problems.

I dont think Wikisource is on a logarithmic growth yet overall,
however there are spurts of logarithmic growth like you can see on the
Hebrew Wikisource.

http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikisource/EN/PlotsPngArticlesTotal.htm

Keep in mind that the stats for Wikisource domains need to be
_combined_, as French works are on the French WS, and English works
are on the English WS. The total growth is the sum of all of the
projects - this isnt like Wikipedia where each project is intending to
have the same content in different languages.

--
John Vandenberg

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

John Vandenberg wrote:

> The underlying problem is that OL is approaching this from a
> traditional library perspective, and so is opening up slowly,
> and progress is slow and methodical.

But they are not. They are starting from the Internet Archive
(Brewster Kahle) perspective. "Real" archivists and librarians
have complained that the Internet Archive is not enough of an
archive, and OpenLibrary is not enough of a library. This is of
course very similar to people complaining that Wikipedia is not
enough of an encyclopedia. Both OpenLibrary and Wikipedia are
primarily Internet projects. Perhaps the most interesting
criticism of OpenLibrary was launched by Tim Spalding, founder of
LibraryThing.com (another Internet project, but a commercial one,
albeit with some volunteer vibes). He meant (my interpretation)
that OpenLibrary asks a lot from libraries (a copy of their
catalog database) but doesn't give much back, and giving something
back would help OpenLibrary to win more allies among libraries,
http://mail.archive.org/pipermail/ol-discuss/2009-August/000638.html

The first website to appear on the domain www.openlibrary.org was
an online viewer for books scanned by/for the Internet Archive, so
if "being able to read" is a requirement for a library, then it
did have that function from the start. Later another website
appeared on demo.openlibrary.org, containing catalog records. The
demo website is what you now find as openlibrary.org. It is as if
the online viewer and the bibliographic database are two different
projects, and the Internet Archive put the new project under the
old domain. But the online viewer is still there, for the books
that have been digitized.

> To some, it seems that OL will reach the holy grail first,

The OpenLibrary has a head start. Any project started now will
have to spend much time to catch up. Any good ideas that might go
into a new project, could be used in the existing Openlibrary.

For example, a new project might download the database dump from
OpenLibrary and start to weed out the "junk records". But that
junk sorting could also take place inside OpenLibrary. Why not?

If a new project goes to a library to ask for a copy of their
catalog, they might get the question "we already gave (or didn't
give) that to OpenLibrary, so how is your project any different?"
And what should the new project answer to that?

I want to encourage wikipedians and wikisourcerers to join the
OpenLibrary project, just like you should also join OpenStreetMap
and other good projects for free knowledge and information. Bring
your experience. If you get tired of one project, as I do
sometimes, work on another one for a while.

OpenLibrary has author pages for 6.5 million author names. Some of
these are "junk" duplicates that should be merged, but still there
are quite a large number of authors there. These have a field for
a Wikipedia URL, but only 1100 records have a value. Connecting
author pages in OpenLibrary to Wikipedia biographies is just one
way where we can do a lot, without needing to start a new project.


--
Lars Aronsson (lars@aronsson.se)
Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 7:21 PM, Lars Aronsson<lars@aronsson.se> wrote:
> ...
> For example, a new project might download the database dump from
> OpenLibrary and start to weed out the "junk records". But that
> junk sorting could also take place inside OpenLibrary. Why not?

Because metadata without digital objects are next to useless. Worldcat
already provides a directory of where physical books are held.

A database of metadata with lots of duplicates and no means for the
reader to fix them, and discuss them, is disrespectful.

> If a new project goes to a library to ask for a copy of their
> catalog, they might get the question "we already gave (or didn't
> give) that to OpenLibrary, so how is your project any different?"
> And what should the new project answer to that?

See above. I dont see any value in going back to the libraries.
Doing that would only end up with the same result that OpenLibrary
has; it would be simpler to take the OpenLibrary dump.

> I want to encourage wikipedians and wikisourcerers to join the
> OpenLibrary project, just like you should also join OpenStreetMap
> and other good projects for free knowledge and information. Bring
> your experience. If you get tired of one project, as I do
> sometimes, work on another one for a while.

Tell me _one_ thing that I can do at OpenLibrary that I can not do at
Wikisource.

> OpenLibrary has author pages for 6.5 million author names. Some of
> these are "junk" duplicates that should be merged, but still there
> are quite a large number of authors there. These have a field for
> a Wikipedia URL, but only 1100 records have a value. Connecting
> author pages in OpenLibrary to Wikipedia biographies is just one
> way where we can do a lot, without needing to start a new project.

_Most_ of them are duplicates.

http://openlibrary.org/search?q=Jules+Gabriel+Verne

I have an account at OpenLibrary, and I am responsible for 0.2% of the
Wikipedia links :P

I am not keen on becoming attached to a project that is littered with
so much crap, especially when I am not given the tools required to fix
the crap, nor do I have any say in whether more crap can be imported.

http://openlibrary.org/user/jayvdb

These two need to be merged.

http://openlibrary.org/a/OL2296708A/Charles-C.-Nott
http://openlibrary.org/a/OL2544127A/Charles-Cooper-Nott

Both of them look terrible, because I have no control over the
presentation of the pages. Dups, lack of sorting, etc.

I haven't found the OpenLibrary coolaid; I'll stick with Wikisource,
for good or ill.

--
John Vandenberg

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

John Vandenberg wrote:
>> I want to encourage wikipedians and wikisourcerers to join the
>> OpenLibrary project, just like you should also join OpenStreetMap
>> and other good projects for free knowledge and information. Bring
>> your experience. If you get tired of one project, as I do
>> sometimes, work on another one for a while.
>
> Tell me _one_ thing that I can do at OpenLibrary that I can not do at
> Wikisource.

Are you suggesting that in addition to collecting free texts, Wikisource
should also collect information about texts, free and nonfree, like
OpenLibrary does? If so, that is a very interesting suggestion, and I
support it.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 8:58 PM, Nikola Smolenski<smolensk@eunet.yu> wrote:
> John Vandenberg wrote:
>>> I want to encourage wikipedians and wikisourcerers to join the
>>> OpenLibrary project, just like you should also join OpenStreetMap
>>> and other good projects for free knowledge and information. Bring
>>> your experience. If you get tired of one project, as I do
>>> sometimes, work on another one for a while.
>>
>> Tell me _one_ thing that I can do at OpenLibrary that I can not do at
>> Wikisource.
>
> Are you suggesting that in addition to collecting free texts, Wikisource
> should also collect information about texts, free and nonfree, like
> OpenLibrary does? If so, that is a very interesting suggestion, and I
> support it.

Yes, that is my vision. We should have bibliographic information,
copyright details, list of chapter and summaries, list of older works
which are referenced and list of later works which reference it, etc.

However, the Wikisource community is not yet large enough to manage
that. A year ago the English Wikisource community changed the
restrictions on who can have an Author page.

Previously our rule was: the author must have at least one "free" work.

It changed to: the author must either have one "free" work, or they
must be deceased.

English Wikisource often includes modern works on the Author page of
deceased people, listing biographies, posthumous collections, etc.

As our community grows, managed by people who are focused on old
works, we can relax the inclusion criteria.

This is like the English Wikipedia becoming more inclusive as it has
grown, because there are more people policing the edges.

Organic growth.

If this doesn't happen, I wont fret as there are more than enough
public domain works to keep me learning for a few lifetimes. :-) I
think it is much more important that we revive interest in old works
which dont have a commercial publisher pushing new copies into
bookstores.

--
John Vandenberg

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

John Vandenberg wrote:

> I haven't found the OpenLibrary coolaid; I'll stick with
> Wikisource, for good or ill.

If that makes you happy, that's good for you. But now we were
talking about the need for a project (either OpenLibrary or a new
project) to list all the books ever published. When and how will
Wikisource contain that? After every book has been scanned?


--
Lars Aronsson (lars@aronsson.se)
Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l