See my up-and-running early attempt at
http://magnusmanske.de/stuff/test.php
This reads and writes directly from/to the single source file that can
be found under
http://magnusmanske.de/stuff/source.txt
The acript does some automatic markup, but that's just a demo and can be
changed or turned off.
I propose that, for wikisource, we replace the display component with
something similar to my above proposal, at least for certan pages, e.g,
all articles with a '()' in it, like "A midsummer night's dream (Act 1)"
We could still edit the source (to fix OCR bugs etc.) just by clicking
"Edit this page"...
Comments? Suggestions? Penalties for yet again
implementing-before-discussing? ;-)
Magnus
--- On Tue 09/02, Magnus Manske < magnus.manske(a)web.de > wrote:
"Daniel Mayer wrote: No separate project needed (a sub-project of Wikibooks might be needed though)."
There's no such thing as a sub-project, at least not on the software level. Either it is one project, or two. Two projects could be accessing the same database, but I don't see a reason for that, as we'd have two interfaces to show and do exactly the same thing. Two projects could be *presented* as project and subproject, though. If we call the two projects wikibooks.org and wikisources.org, or rather textbooks.wikibooks.org and sources.wikibooks.org, doesn't make a difference, at least not to me.
_______________________________________________
I didn't read Daniel's the same way you did. I assumed his 'sub project' referred to a kind of effort like the countrty or biography template ''projects'' within Wikipedia. If you look at his comments that way they make a lot more sense. A common wiki, data store, and set of software techniques that support a variety of books with somewhat different natures.
_______________________________________________
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!
Magnus Manske wrote:
>We'd have only two different LocalSettings files
>instead of one, so no big work here. But, we probably
>don't want to enable all options for annotation when
>writing a new book, and probably some other options
>from there in the source project.
That's why there would be a source namespace; anything in the source namespace
would have special annotation functions above and beyond that allowed for
other modules.
>Don't get me wrong, if that was already decided a long
>time ago (can't remember...) then never mind.
Yes, Wikibooks has already decided to host source texts and to annotate them.
>I won't go berserk if I'd find that biochemistry book
>next to some annotated Shakespeare text.
It won't be any closer than an article on Larry Flint is from quantum
mechanics on Wikipedia.
>It just seems to be something different by concept
>to me.
No, not at all. The whole point of Wikibooks is to host books that are used by
students to learn. Part of that is source texts and the other part is
textbooks. We plan to add value to those source texts by adding annotation.
No separate project needed (a sub-project of Wikibooks might be needed
though).
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Daniel Mayer wrote:
>Targuin wrote:
>
>
>>What does it take for things to HAPPEN around
>>here? I've not seen any decent objections, and
>>we all seem to agree on the fundamentals.
>>
>>
>
>OK, I'll come out against having a separate Wikisource project since that is
>part of the whole reason of having Wikibooks.
>
I thought the purpose of Wikibooks was to create original, freely
licensed (FDL) textbooks.
If annotated public domain works are within this mission, then great,
start putting in them books! But it's a bit of a surprise to me, and
probably to many others. Perhaps we need a clearer WikiMedia Project Map
of some sort so the left hand knows what the right is doing. :)
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Wikiverity (or WikiU) is a potential project being discussed for inclusion at Wikimedia. The Wikiversity discussion has had several threads. I have attempted an outline proposal for a Wikiversity project, and placed it on the <http://textbook.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikibooks%3AWikiversity> page.
Maveric will move this page to Wikimedia towards the end of the week, but it could certainly be improved by your thoughts and input before then.
While this thread can be used, it might be better to just use the Wikibook page, or its talk page.
Thanks,
Lou Imholt (LouI at Wiki)
_______________________________________________
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!
Magnus wrote:
>Because it's something different. Like wikibook is
>something different than wikipedia, annotating
>public domain texts and summarizing copyrighted
>ones is something different than writing a completely
>new book on, say, biochemistry, or Spanish.
But Wikipedia is more than just an encyclopedia; it also has supporting
almanac-like information and articles in it along with supporting
gazetteer-like information and articles in it. Wiktionary is also not just a
dictionary; it is also a thesaurus and a translating dictionary. Sometimes a
few to several different things are similar and complimentary enough to each
other that it makes sense to put them together. This tends to make one
larger, more active project vs several smaller weaker projects.
And it makes a great deal of sense to include the works of Shakespeare, for
example, in Wikibooks so that it can be used along side a literature textbook
(which will have lessons and questions specifically about particular plays).
>Advantages:
>* Easier for the "end consumer"
No it isn't. Having things separate will make it more difficult for
instructors to write questions based on the source text and to annotate that
text to suit the needs of the literature textbook. And the student will have
to go to two different places for his/her textbooks and his/her sourcebooks.
>* Easier to look at RecentChanges
Huh? How is having source text going to mess that up?
>* Easier to fine-tune the software to each project
Just enable a special namespace called "source" in Wikibooks. Done. Then
instead of two different installations to maintain, you only have one.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Magnus wrote
>Because it's something different. Like wikibook is
>something different than wikipedia, annotating
>public domain texts and summarizing copyrighted
>ones is something different than writing a completely
>new book on, say, biochemistry, or Spanish.
But Wikibooks has already decided to do this! Wikibooks /is not/ just about
textbooks. So please don't fork the project. This is completely unnecessary.
Wikibooks is supposed to be a free bookstore/library. So just about anything
you would expect to find in such a place you should find in Wikibooks.
Annotating public domain books /is/ in our mandate because it is part of the
instructional process of students.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Toby wrote:
>It is news to me that Wikibooks wants to have
>/unedited/ sources; I know that Wikibooks wants
>to have /annotated/ sources,
I'm of the opinion that importing the unannotated source will encourage
annotation much more than not having the source text on the wiki at all. It's
a bit hard to annotate something that is not there yet! If we expect each
Wikibooks source module to have annotation on it /before/ it is imported,
then I don't think much of anything will get imported. Thus nothing will get
annotated.
I don't see a problem with having many source texts go unannotated for a long
time; they will get annotated eventually.
>but since Wikipedia wants to have the very
>same thing, I don't think that storing original
>sources in Wikibooks is the right thing.
Why not? A Wikipedia article can just point to the Wikibooks source text. An
added plus is that the Wikibooks version of the text would have or at least
plans to have annotation. As more people read it, more people will add
annotation which makes the source text more and more useful. Pointing people
to a version of the text on Wikisourse that cannot be annotated, will prevent
them from adding value to the source text via annotation. Why not just point
them to a place that welcomes annotation?
>On Wikisource, they can be made use of by
>any other project, Wikibook /and/ Wikipedia
>(and even Wiktionary if it likes, although in that
>case I can't imagine why it would want them).
Why is a separate project needed for this?
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Brion wrote:
>I thought the purpose of Wikibooks was to create
>original, freely licensed (FDL) textbooks.
That is our main mission, yes. But anything else book-wise a student may be
required to have in the classroom is also fair game (shorter works, such as
speeches, could be organized into a book of speeches).
For example, if students are required to read The Scarlet Letter then
Wikibooks should have that and eventually annotate it (when to annotate is
still a bit controversial; IMO we shouldn't require annotation right away).
We also aim to create extensive booklet summaries of different works (akin to
Cliffs Notes), with an emphasis on works that are still under copyright.
>If annotated public domain works are within this mission,
>then great, start putting in them books!
We need three software features to make this successful in the long term; the
ability to create wiki books, an annotation feature, and a source:namespace
that limits edits to logged-in users.
But in the meantime we could place public domain books under "source:" page
titles, have boilerplate div-based annotation and limit hard-coding of
navigation links to a single link per module which links back to the
TOC/Index page of the book. Protection from anon edits isn't a real issue
right now, but may become more important as the number of daily edits
increases. This is a hack but it should work in the short term.
>But it's a bit of a surprise to me, and probably to many
>others. Perhaps we need a clearer WikiMedia Project Map
>of some sort so the left hand knows what the right is doing. :)
This is a great idea!
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)