Summary

Scriptorium/Archives/2021-11

“ By contrast, once a text is proofread on Wikisource, it will never need to be proofread again. Therefore, Wikisource is the best platform for long-term preservation. Wikisource is free and does not impose access restrictions. This makes it much easier and cheaper to provide access to works. To be blunt, digital content providers are bleeding institutions dry. They have figured out how to transform the public domain into a goldmine. Across the globe, institutions are paying billions of dollars annually to gain access to texts that are in the public domain. Access to Wikisource is free. ”
Source: Wikisource

Scriptorium/Archives/2021-11

“ Importing texts into libraries will require lots of grunt-work to fix metadata. This should be paid for. Pay proofreaders. It’s impossible to expect volunteers to digitize the entire world library in any reasonable amount of time or to have the same interests as libraries. For some rough economics, it takes about 15-20 hours to proofread a novel of around 300 pages. Therefore, the cost of proofreading a book will be this amount of time multiplied by the hourly wage. To make any economic sense, the hourly rate would have to be quite low. ”
Source: Wikisource

Scriptorium/Archives/2021-11

“ If scan backing can be a transcription of a transcription, then what is the difference between transcluded and non-transcluded texts? Languageseeker (talk) 11:56, 20 November 2021 (UTC) Whether the "scan" (loosely used) is "valid" is not our problem. We don't make any claim that a work is automatically "better" because it's "scan backed". It really depends on what it's scan backed by. I don't like these "scans", and I think they're completely pointless and wrong-headed, but there is no basis to forbid them specifically. ”
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature