“ If we track all translations on a process or project page (a watered down version of a suggestion above) , that might be a useful place to include exceptions and meta information such as this. I'm thinking of something like Wikipedia's assorted suggestion and deletion systems (Did You Know, for example) , where each item starts with a template on its own subpage and gets displayed on a main page or an archive page by transclusion. That could both include this information, allow for discussion and provide some oversight on the whole process. ”

“ Spinning off from some points under Wikibooks: they only annotate as part of their educational scope. If we are to annotate, I think our annotations should focus on just reading and understanding the text as it is. In part, this is covered by wikilinking difficult or unusual words. However, it might be useful for a floating box on Wikisource to give some basic information without needing to go anywhere (eg. "Constantinople is Istanbul", with better wording, where it is relevant to the text) especially where it would have been common knowledge at time of writing but obscure now. ”

“ There are many cases of older, popular works where all of the accessible public domain texts are corrupted due to many printings and modernizations, but an edition of an authoritative edition has been reprinted with some kind of apparatus that can be easily blanked. Perhaps in the case of notes within such a text the deannotation would not be worth the effort, but for shorter works perhaps it would. Anyway, such a deannotation does not seem outside the scope and purpose of wikisource. ”

“ Should Wikisource host Comparison pages? If so, what policies and guidelines should apply?
Comments The only way I see the comparison of different versions of the same texts being "allowed" to exist is if the comparison (s) being made is user selected and initiated on the fly. Creating a static page containing some kind of comparison between version or versions forces the subjective selection (s) made by the page's creator upon the potential reader without the reader's input and typically without any tangible supporting authority to make that determination on his or her own. ”

“ At the risk of jumping further into something that I'm not a part of (but taking this comment as a bit of an invitation) , I'd just like to point out a resolution of the above problem that works in our experience at Hebrew Wikisource. In essence our experience agrees with both Prosfilaes and George Orwell III. It works like this: Whenever there is a reader generated edition or translation whose guidelines are complex (this is a small minority but it concerns some very important works) , what we do is dedicate a special page to the editing guidelines for that work in the "Wikisource" namespace. ”

“ My impression of Wikisource is that the aim of the project is to preserve works for future generations. I suggest to that end, the aim of annotations at English Wiiksource be to aid people in understanding any history and culture that may be of significant influence in the source text. If Wikisource decides to allow interwoven annotations too, I think an untouched copy of the original text should be preserved on Wikisource as well. FWIW I came here in response to Wikisource discussion about annotated texts. ”

“ Even if somebody believes they are to be considered an authority on any given subject matter - enabled only by some construct of self-logic cooked-up in their own little absurd fantasy world & little else - the amount of expertise needed to remove an existing annotation is quite the opposite to the generation of a completely new, never-before-seen annotation based on somehow being convinced one is actually qualified enough to do so.
The only caveat here being the complete removal of all the annotations and not just selectively some of them. ”

“ Blanket attribution to 'Translation Project' or 'Wikisource' as a means to circumvent actual collaboration (hashing out different interpretations before creation so the end product is static) is exposed for the farce its always been as soon as content is no longer stable nor static (attacking one unproven, unverifiable and allegedly group agreed upon interpretation by replacing it with another just as unproven, unverifiable and obviously only single-minded interpretation is not a sign of common intent, effort or aims reached through group consensus) . ”

“ Wikisource user translations are appropriate for Wikisource. They will be hosted in their own names space (per Special_namespace) . There should only be a single translation to English per original language work. A scan supported original language work must be present on the appropriate language wiki, where the original language version is complete at least as far as the English translation. There was much conversation about language competence, but a clear definition and measure was not achieved. ”

“ If translators hesitated before the effort of translating such a significant work, it's natural that they would want to make it accessible as possible with translator annotations. But it's the original text which is historically significant, not the commentary about it. It's more important that we get significant primary sources on to the internet that are absent from the internet, than the faithful reproduction of the scans which contain them. ”

“ In Resident Scholar's case here, the debate has been fairly narrowed down to what amounts to the De-Annotation type of derivative annotation and mostly deals with "extremely historical" works in nature (think Socrates or Plato here) . WikiBooks has already voiced an opinion that such complete or partial de-annotations (where the User: is also not adding or substituting his or her own "new" annotations in place or along the existing ones) are not really considered hostable there. ”

“ Microannotations are most likely to get created and used if they're in the copy of the work that's used, not in a separate work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC) Using box template forms for annotations would visually and structurally intrude into a number of works, especially in cases where the box cuts into formatted poetry. It also physically separates the information contained in the annotation from the location where it is mentioned, and thus requires a reader to determine (a) what is that box doing there? and (b) where is the referent in the text? ”

“ Some discussion about requiring a formal or Semi-formal project for each translation, but a clear consensus on a requirement was not reached. Ban on purely decorative illustrations regardless of context. Informative illustrations fall under the annotation rules and must relate directly the text in question. Some types of annotation are specifically allowed or disallowed by Wikisource annotation policy. Other wiki projects have differing policies, Wikisource is under no obligation to host any type of annotation, based solely on the argument that it is out of scope for all other wiki projects. ”

“ The translation of single words or phrases counts as an annotation. Annotations in general are allowed in Wikisource. Wikilinks are annotations and are allowed in Wikisource. The creation of wikilinks is optional, where created they should be based on context, the type of work and the likely reader. There are a number of ways wikilinks could be miss-used (interpretative vs. non-interpretative) and a separate discussion will identify acceptable types of wikilinks. Translations as original works of Wikisource contributors to be hosted in a new Translation name space. ”

“ A clarification of the status in the Hebrew Wikisource: (a) The Hebrew namespace is called "ביאור", which is literally "commentary". (b) Self-made derivative works that are not commentary on existing works are usually hosted in the main space. For example, a user created an index of terms for קדמות היהודים - נגד אפיון (a PD Hebrew translation of Against Apion by Josephus Flavius) , and after discussion the index was placed in main-space, at the end of the original work, and not in the "ביאור" namespace. ”

“ It has also been mentioned in a few places like ZooKeys and the Wikimedia Research Newsletter blog. Micro-translation. We have decided (at time of writing) that any translation of foreign language words and phrases count as an annotation. It would be within Wikisource's scope to support the reading of its texts. In this case, enabling people who are not fluent in the other language to understand what it says (without using a separate website or dictionary, and without requiring the user to know how to do that) ; ie. enhancing the readability of the text. ”

“ Are there any existing example on the wikis of one person (or specific group) having ownership of an original work? Jeepday (talk) That's not the point and we're focused just on translations here on Wikisource. What makes a formally published translation of some pre-existing public domain work any different than a "WikiBunch" collaborative translation of some pre-existing public domain work? Answer: Not much, its all about the license the translator or translators winds up using. In the first case - we typically have a dual license applied to the work ”

“ Annotations where allowed, must meet the expectations of neutrality and verifiability. Interpretive annotations are never allowed. Deannotation (stripping the annotation out of an published version) is allowed in very limited situations; 1. The work has never been published without annotations (or no originals are believed to exist) . 2. The complete original version to be deannoated is hosted on Wikisource. 3. All annotations are removed, leaving only the unannotated work. No community support for Derivative and/or Annotation Name Space. Translation namespace is discussed elsewhere. ”

“ Overarching policy should be that annotations (other than internal wikilinks) must be clearly and completely separated from the text. Integration should be forbidden. The reader's experience of annotations should not be one of reading an annotated work; it should be one of reading an original work with a CliffsNotes to refer to if needed. We're not changing the original work in any way; we are simply making available a body of distinct annotations that the reader may access if they wish. ”

“ What I'm speaking to are works attributed to date much like by Catullus, translated by Wikisource in particular. I'm glad the hypothetical point on possible perpetual flux is not lost on you but at the same time the only equitable solution for 4 different users with 4 different interpretations over the same supposed translation of a single non-English work would be to have all of them individually attributed as separate translators in 4 separate and distinct derivative works. Nobody wants that do they? ”

“ I think checking cross-wiki edits could be part of the process of confirming any suspicions of a user entering machine-translations (that is, after the fact rather than before hand) . NB: I would be OK with Google translations as the first stage of a translation project, equivalent to "Not proofread" (red) , and the guideline that work of this quality should not be transcluded to the mainspace. Any machine-translated works pasted direcctly into the mainspace should be grounds for deletion, on top of not being backed by scans. ”

“ PS, regarding rules in general, see Help:Beginner's guide to reliability: "Texts without scans should still be proofread. This is harder than using Wikisource's proofreading system but still possible." In other words: There is not even a strict requirement to have scans of English language works, so how can there be such a strict requirement for translations? So if we change our rules, we should change them everywhere. ”

“ They are the most difficult because they deal with the most difficult problems that men can face, and they deal with them in terms of the most complex ideas. But, treating the most difficult subjects of human thought, the great books are the clearest and simplest expression of the best thinking that can be done on these subjects. ”

“ Jeepday (talk) 02:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC) Surely it is more of a compromise. A validation made to early risks becoming foolish in the context of later work; one made much later risks never being made at all. Surely the best path is to make the annotation, and (perhaps others may) remove it if it ever ceases to he helpful. (This also raises another concern of mine: are annotations solely intended to be oriented toward the final product [whatever that may be] ; or should they be considered aids to the validation process itself, and thus of less import later on?) ”