Summary

Scriptorium/Archives/2008-05

“ I dont mind having to build better tools, but it is insane to require a developer to build tools to cater for each persons different approach. That does not scale. We need to have minimal standards in order to answer questions like that. Having only text from a single work on each page, and using a common prefix for each collection of pages: those are the minimal standard that are used throughout our collection, with the only exceptions being really old pages, really new pages, and your recent work. The common practise is the sign of community approval. ”
Source: Wikisource

Scriptorium/Archives/2008-05

“ I get the impression that no modern editions will use a single source for any given play. So it may be best to leave the editing to the scholars, and choose a modern edition, rather than going with a pure first folio transcription. This is especially true of plays where they really have to do a lot of cutting & pasting from different sources to come up with a coherent text. Yes, and any scholarly modern edition will do (not expurgated school editions) . This can be determined on a play by play version. Primary proofreading could then be based on that "canonical" edition. ”
Source: Wikisource

Scriptorium/Archives/2008-05

“ Content is for the benefit of users, and I doubt that any of them give a damn about the number of works. If my work is making such a chore of your counting algorithm it doesn't bother me that you don't count it. To say that community approval is determined by inertia does not strike me as very sound. Without getting into semantic distinctions between "imposition" and "interpretation" there remains no community decision to the effect that your way is the only way. ”
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature