Summary

Scriptorium/Archives/2021-03

People read fiction for entertainment, people read the news-articles because they are researching someone for a Wikipedia article or a Wikidata entry or a class paper, or a Ph.D. thesis. The links are part of being scholarly. No one is forced to click through to Wikidata, I have been reading from the Wiki Universe for about 20 years and I never felt compelled to click on a link I had no interest in, or was distracted by a word in blue instead of black.
Source: Wikisource

Scriptorium/Archives/2021-03

The whole point of Wikisource:Scriptorium is to bring issues to the community without judgement. Being told I am getting my "knickers in a twist" is definitely not the way to handle a question, if you feel the need to insult the person asking a question, then let someone else answer it. Past practices should always be reexamined, especially when they create a selection bias. If the policy was clear and universally accepted, we wouldn't have half of the people responding to my inquiry come to opposite conclusion as you.
Source: Wikisource

Scriptorium/Archives/2021-03

Inductiveload—talk/contribs 11:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC) I passionately loathe all except No. 1 to the point that I don't work on texts with any of the others forced on me. I don't believe that we should be dictating to the end user a constrained width of what's displayed. By all means, have a couple available for readers to use as they choose. Every work that we make available should work and behave under Layout 1 (including playscripts) . It doesn't help that I find the others to be ugly and stale in their design. Also, sidenotes are bad enough in Layout 1, they're dreadful in the others.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature