[Foundation-l] A Wikisource Definition (was: RfC: A Free Content and Expression Definition)

Sat May 6 14:34:39 UTC 2006

amgine at saewyc.net wrote:

>This is all well and good to present your ideas of what this project is
>and should do. I tend to give weight to the people who are actually doing.
>The Foundation should (and did) describe the projects goals and missions,
>and approve any modifications of these. But changes from outside that
>process from people not involved in it?
>
The project goals and mission were pretty well set by the people who 
were among the earliest involved in the project.  This is not to say 
that these can't be changed at all based on subsequent information.  In 
retrospect it is easy to see that the series of software snippets should 
not have been in there at all.

>Wikisource doesn't have some of the things I see as part of their mission
>- Galleries of artwork (they are the proper repository for such), original
>research (transcriptions of oral histories, for example), or a legal
>library (collections of court decisions, to be used as references for a
>Wikibooks curriculum of law textbooks) to name just a few - but from
>outside the project and unwilling (-able?) to put in the work to add this
>content I have little or no basis to try to dictate to them.
>
Galleries of artwork have never been seen as belonging to Wikisource, 
unless, of course, they are illustrations to books that are already 
added.  Most of them belong in the Commons.  The others should indeed go 
there.  But just like anybody can edit Wikipedia, so too can anybody add 
this material to Wikisource.

Ec