Talk:Wikisource

Libraries Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Libraries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Libraries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LibrariesWikipedia:WikiProject LibrariesTemplate:WikiProject LibrariesLibraries articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wikisource (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikisource, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.WikisourceWikipedia:WikiProject WikisourceTemplate:WikiProject WikisourceWikisource articles

Wikipedia Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Wikipedia.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Websites: Computing Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

This article was nominated for deletion on April 21, 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Consult database[edit]

I can´t find a way to consult Wikisource by itself. Wouldn't it be a good idea, to have a general table of contents with links to areas of the library? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.139.92.107 (talk) 17:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions[edit]

It would be nice to know how recent a document can be to qualify for inclusion to Wikisource. That way people know that while they can find Lysastrata, they can't expect Gone with the Wind any time soon.

Comment: This page needs to describe more clearly what Wikisource is. Although it deals well with the history of the project, it does little to tell a newcomer what he might find there. The opening summary with its link to the Primary_source page seems to suggest it's exclusively an historian's tool. May I suggest adding a more informal and thorough description of what a surfer might find at Wikisource? David Wigram 3:20 GMT 12th December 05

Logo[edit]

I don't know, I rather like the logo. I thought it was meant to connote a vast wealth of information backing up the more common "public face" that is Wikipedia. I'm not sure how much "enthusiasm" one can expect a logo to generate, but I like the idea, in my own personal interpretation of it.

I was gonna come in here and say all kinds of stuff about the logo, but you hit the nail on the head. You said exactly, I mean exactly, what I was gonna say!! Jaberwocky6669 04:00, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

I second Jaberwocky6669's seconding. The logo is right-on! -- BD2412 ^talk June 30, 2005 01:54 (UTC)

Question[edit]

If someone would edit this page to give me a way to get to the directory of Wikisource source texts, I doubt I'd be the only one who was grateful? Every path I've taken takes me OUT of WikiSource. Apologies for clumsy post formatting... new wikite.

go to wikisource home page click on top left tool bar tag "article" / scroll down to "milestones" paragraph/ click on "englush wikisource" in first sentence of text [doubtless there are other more formal ways but that got me there after a lot of searching also]

Wikisource as a "source"[edit]

Can Wikisource be cited as a source for the previous publication of a work ? Can a wikipedia article cite a wikisource publication as the way to *verify* the contents of the article? Wjhonson 06:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In order for wikisource to be used as a source to verify previous publication it would be necessary that the specific source in question has its source noted (which we try to encourage). For wikisource to be used as a source, which can be cited, for a work it would be best if the work in question (the source document on wikisource) has been proofread and verified as complete and accurate (in which case it should be protected to save it from vandalism/'corrections'). Otherwise there is no guarantee that the source is infact accurate or non-fictitious. We have a procedure for proofreading our sources, noting any changes from the printed source, noting origin of the work, for verifying their level of completeness and for protecting the source (as well as a range of other things) but this is just a recent addition so most of the sources we have are unverified & unsourced. You could cite them but you'd be taking the risk that they aren't consistent with the originally published work. AllanHainey 15:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can wikisource be cited as the source for the elements of an article on wikipedia? If someone states that an article on wikiPEDIA is unverifiable, can a wikisource document be pointed to as the source from which the elements of the wikipedia article can be verified? 20:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the same criticism could be applied to wikisource, that it is unverifiable, unless the source in question had gone through the process noted above. AllanHainey 12:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project Guttenberg[edit]

Well?

Can we get this article to show the difference between Wikisource and Project Guttenberg? Are they conflicting, cooperating, etc.? As an outsider it is unclear. Thanks. GuyFromChicago 21:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quantity = Quality?[edit]

"The English Wikisource passed 20,000 text-units in its third month of existence, already holding more texts than did the entire project in April (before the move to language subdomains)." Well, congratulations. But since quality standards seem to be set on "plain text mainly without reliable sources, and forget about scans", I prefer Gutenberg. 82.83.35.12 14:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at some of the special projects, which are great examples of how Wikisource can provide added value to readers and editors of texts in ways that Project Gutenberg cannot. The amazing multilingualism of the project is also far greater than at Gutenberg. Dovi 18:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

like omigod good info yo!

History writing[edit]

I think the current article could benefit from grouping several sections (Early history, Language subdomains, Logotype) into one large, strictly chronological History section. I think the very origin of the project was a branch out from Wikipedia, caused by the "Wikipedia is not" policy. In 2005 both language subdomains and proofreading of scanned texts (s:de:Meyers Blitz-Lexikon, s:The New Student's Reference Work) were introduced, and probably several other things. About the same time, the new Page module was introduced. It's not at all obvious that the language subdomains is the most important change that calls for its own subsection. But history writing should always come second. The top of the article should describe (in more detail than it does now) where the project now. --LA2 18:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All seem like good suggestions, go for it! Has the Page module really been around since 2005? If so, I guess it was in German. Dovi 20:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the article would benefit from being brought up to date. And, no, I don't want to work on this article. I came to this one as a "reader" and can't say I learned much I didn't already know. - Jmabel | Talk 20:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. 74.32.229.23 (talk) 15:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability?[edit]

It has been six months since this was nominated for deletion and all we have still are self-references. I've just looked on google and can't see a single external source in the first 50 pages of results. Shouldn't this be deleted, given that sources simply haven't been found? Merging it into Wikimedia Foundation might be an idea. Richard001 (talk) 05:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Wikisource is a notable project and should have it's own page describing exactly what it is.Wjhonson (talk) 06:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

This article is very poorly sourced. So many of the references go to Wikisource itself, or to blogs, or to pages that refuse to open to ascertain if they are accurate, that the entire thing is just a self-referential hodgepodge. What a shame! GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see a link to Alexa and then a bunch of links to WikiTech, Wikisource, and Meta. This article desperately needs secondary sources. Reach Out to the Truth 01:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You removed the only reliable source in this article. [1] That article is 100% about Wikisource. Someone at the WMF told the reporter they could use 'Wikipedia' instead of 'Wikisource'. There are 202 google news hits for "Wikisource -Wikiquote -Wikinews" including [2] about French Wikisource, and there are some journal articles as well. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not vanity press - citation needed[edit]

The article says: "Wikisource does not host "vanity press" books or documents produced by its contributors".

It may be true, but i couldn't find this policy written anywhere. --132.64.35.157 (talk) 07:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Wikisource watchers, I have an original Ramsey Clark 1986 Libya Bombing Raid Complaint[edit]

I have an original Copy of Ramsey Clark regarding the 1986 Libya Bombing Raid from the desk of Ramsey Clark with his hand written penciled in page numbers on each page stamped by his law clerk Jackson when he was suing Ronald Reagan , Margaret Thacher and Admiral Crowe and many others. It is of historical value and would like for it to be considered into Wikisource. Thank You For Your Ear And PatienceQui Tam Relator 08:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qui Tam Relator (talk • contribs)

Help! How to wikilink from WP article to Wikisource text[edit]

Can't find the answer to this question, surely it must be possible, without treating it as an external link and giving full URL? Thanks for any help on this. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

It's described at Help:Interwikimedia links - use a normal wikilink but prepend with either "s:" or "wikisource:", as in s:The Life of Captain Matthew Flinders, R.N.. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This really needs to be placed somewhere more accessible or obvious, I would suggest as a section heading in this article. I couldn't get that piece of info I needed except by this appeal! (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 22:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Now done, see new section "Linking from Wikipedia" (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 22:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

This was close to being a Wikipedia:SELFREF issue, so I moved your text to Wikipedia:Wikisource (after creating that page). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mother Shipton Prophecies and Nostradamus[edit]

I was wondering if possibly, to add more of the full version of Mother Shipton prophecies, and Nostradamus prophecies, unless you might know something else to come.--GoShow (............................) 05:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wikisource. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110929162757/http://www.wikimedia.fr/wikim%C3%A9dia-france-signe-un-partenariat-avec-la-bnf to http://www.wikimedia.fr/wikim%25C3%25A9dia-france-signe-un-partenariat-avec-la-bnf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Big shortcoming: public domain texts are just as good as copyrighted ones[edit]

There are some works (not all) in which different editions differ quite significantly. Scholarly editors (producing copyrighted texts) study these differences and explain how they concluded what an accurate text should contain. With public domain texts, especially those with no statement of what version has been digitized, their accuracy is unknown, and their uncritical use as sources is a sign of ignorance and will in some cases lead to pretty erroneous conclusions. deisenbe (talk) 10:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]