November 2004 - gutvol-d - lists.pglaf.org

Re: Did this get slipped in without discussion? (was Re: [gutvol-d] Cleaning up messes)
by Greg Newby 14 Nov '04

14 Nov '04

(I redirected to gutvol-d(a)lists.pglaf.org. Who sent this to Lyris @ listserv.unc.edu? That server is broken, the list there is defunct. I have been trying to delete the list there for months, but the software is perpetually non-responsive) This will probably be my last response to Jon. Clearly, some people can't take "yes, go for it!" as an answer. Jon wants to tell other people how they should do things, but is unwilling to make things happen himself. He insists there is a "right" way of doing things, and belittles the efforts of those who don't fit his notions. My view is that Jon will not be content until all the people working on PG are ousted, in favor of his preferred organization, governance, fundraising, production rules, and collection guidelines. This is not going to happen anytime soon, and other than being critical of the status quo, Jon has contributed nothing towards making it happen anyway. Instead, Jon has repeatedly been offered the ability -- with support and encouragement -- to create the organization or content he so strongly desires. Some people can't take "yes" for an answer, or are not content with the ability to control their own domain without controlling others. A few more comments: On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 01:35:04PM -0700, Jon Noring wrote: > Greg Newby wrote: > > > I have only a few brief things to say about this. Jon, and other > > interested persons, are very much welcome to start their own projects, > > sub-projects or related activities to pursue this agenda, or other > > agendas. We (the messy ones) will provide encouragement and support. > > > > We have pretty extensive wording on this philosophy and encouragement > > in the "FAQ" items Michael and I wrote, online at > > > > http://gutenberg.org/about > > I urge all the PG people reading this to read Michael Hart's statement > of the principles of PG governance given in > > http://www.gutenberg.org/about/faq1 > > (Notice the date of it from June, and edited in October, after much of > the discussion about the organization and governance of PG. As far as > I know, this was silently put up without any announcement to the > group.) > > Was this statement of principles run by the actual owners of PG, the > thousands and thousands of volunteers who have donated their untold > hours of time to further Project Gutenberg? Did they get a chance to > discuss and approve of this statement? There were announcements with requests for feedback in about 6 *months* of weekly & monthly newsletters, with advance copies going back to around May. There was a posting to the front page of gutenberg.org, for months and months. There were at least a few mentions on gutvol-d. > Or is PG a "benevolent" dictatorship, where the volunteers-at-large > are not given any real say? You know better. > So much for democracy and decentralization, where "less is more." > (Orwell?) I see PG primarily as a meritocracy. Always, the pattern is to enable, empower, support and encourage those who want to do things to further the mission - or related activities. The people who do the most are the most active in shaping policy and future direction. Your insinuation that there are central power brokers who are insulated from the many people who are contributing is inconsistent with how things -- *all* things -- get done. > Who owns Project Gutenberg, anyway? Until that is clarified, nothing > can be resolved. You know the answer to this, too. You are simply trying to stir up discontent and create an "us vs. them" atmosphere. For those who, unlike Jon, don't know: visit http://gutenberg.org/fundraising for a quick rundown. An even quicker rundown: - Michael created Project Gutenberg, and owns the trademarked name, "Project Gutenberg" - PGLAF was formed in 2001 as the legal entity that operates Project Gutenberg - PGLAF has four board members, including me. I'm also the CEO. - I am a volunteer for PGLAF, and have worked with PG since 1992. The extent to which Michael, or I, or PGLAF, has sway over the daily activities of PG is limited. Set direction: yes. Control some of the technologies: to some extent. Get people to do stuff: only as they agree & desire. The ability of Jon or anyone else to take leadership and make things happen is just as strong as mine, or anyone's. Flinging mud because so few people subscribe to your view of reality is certainly not going to create progress towards your goals. > > Finally and most importantly, I utterly reject Jon's accusation that > > the lack of source matter or other metadata (or formatting, or > > anything else) makes the Project Gutenberg content of today or > > yesterday "corrupt." > > Let me clarify (again) below, what I wrote in a separate message. You > may still reject it, but PG's past carelessness and looseness leads to > legitimate questions about the accuracy and acceptance of the pre-DP- > era texts. "Corrupt" may be a strong word (and inaccurate), but not > placing "textual integrity" as #1 (including the perception of textual > integrity) is simply wrong. Note that perceptions are just as real as > reality itself. > > I take it PG's official position, then, is that PG will continue > with the policy of not requiring the source information to be included > in the metadata associated with each PG text? If this policy is to Yes. There is very little that is required, and as the FAQs mentioned above say quite clearly, we intend to keep it that way. > continue, why? If this policy been changed, then that calls into > question those texts where the pedigree is unknown. Question them all you want. Or don't even read them. But if you want to fix them, get started, rather than talking about careless, inaccuracy, lack of textual integrity, etc. As I mentioned, I'm tired of saying "yes" to you, and then having you argue about it. You have all the freedom you could possibly want to do things your way. What you cannot have is control of the past or present of PG. > I'm pretty certain that the vast, overwhelming majority of PG > volunteers who do take a position either way on this issue want the > full source information to be included in the metadata. > > As I said in the followup clarification: > > "A clarification... > > "Note that certainly any third-party can attempt to verify the > authenticity of a PG text even if the source information is not known > and no scans are given. However, not giving the source work (and not > making the scans immediately available), the third-party has a much > more difficult time in verifying the text. You are envisioning frustrated scholars and others who care about such things. Those are not our target audience, and never have been. While it's likely that some such scholars have "turned off" to PG, I can tell you that there are close to zero requests for such pedigree information that come in on a monthly basis. In short, you are trying to portray your pet peeve as a universal truth, desired by all. First, again (and as stated in literally *every* PG header, for decades): we do not try to keep our books in accord with any particular print edition. We are not catering to scholars who care about particular dead trees sources. Second, I do not accept your idea that this is a major impediment to use and acceptance by scholars, or anyone else. This is pure speculation on your part (regardless of whether it's backed up by a few personal stories), and counter-indicated by the uses and support requests we hear about. Finally, and perhaps most importantly from your point of view, I'm still saying "yes," not "no." I will be perfectly happy, overjoyed even, to have better tracking of source information, richer markup, and available scans for more of our eBooks. I expect that part of our cataloging discussion outcomes will be better facilities for doing this -- as will the outcomes of the PGTEI markup. But as I keep saying, (a) the lack of pedigree, scans, etc. are not going to stop us from adding submitted eBooks; (b) people who want to retroactively work on existing eBooks are welcome to do so. > "PG, by identifying the source document, *and* providing scans, adds a > lot of credibility (and greater usability) of the digitized texts it > produces and distributes. This action effectively says: "We are proud > of our work, and stand behind it fully. We even provide you, the user, > with full information about its pedigree, and the original page scans > are available for your use and easy verification." Once again, you are belittling the efforts of everyone who created these works. Did you ever hear the story about flies, honey & vinegar? > "Of course, it also aids in copyright clearance having the original > scans and full source information available. Scholars and researchers, > too, will now find the collection to be sufficiently authoritative for > their purposes, where now it is NOT. If PG wishes to become Big League, > it has to begin playing Big League ball." Your view of Big League ball for eBooks seems to include the following: - stating that all the work of past & current volunteers is crap. Or was it just "corrupt," or "careless?" Or "loose" and "messy?" - dictating that all new content from all sources must include pedigree information and scans, and may only remain true to the printed dead trees edition - only accept complete markup allowing for re-creation of the original printed word In my final words, I again encourage you to start your own effort to make such things happen. Use the PG mailing lists & newsletter to solicit like-minded participants. Work with DP to spin off your own projects there, or your own independent DP-like effort. Play in the big league. Cater to scholars. Include only the works you think pass muster. Build your own constituency. Meanwhile, you might want to review the documents in http://gutenberg.org/about and see again why your efforts to belittle past efforts or pursue your agenda to restrict current activities are rejected. -- Greg

13 36

Scholarly use of PG
by David Newman 14 Nov '04

14 Nov '04

As a credentialed conflict avoider, I've been loathe to stick my head into this fray. Indeed, this battle about meeting the needs of academia appears to be waged at times with an ideological fervor to rival that of the recent US election. It seems to me that the fervency with which people approach this issue has made it difficult in some cases for the arguments to follow a path towards resolution. It is perhaps also complicated by the wide assortment of changes being proposed to remedy the perceived problems. Some arguments for change suggest that PG should direct its energies towards making its library suitable for scholars by including more information in the files, particularly pagination and provenance, presumably packaged with XML. I have no problem with including such information. However, I don't think it should be required of all texts, nor do I believe that it really solves the scholarship issue. Including page scans _would_, to the degree that a solution is possible, and requires approximately 0% extra work for most of our valiant volunteers. And, PG has made it clear that this is acceptable, and has already done so for some projects. I feel that Marcello gave the most persuasive and concise summary of the situation, and I didn't notice any overt disagreement. Marcello Perathoner wrote: >The best value for Academia (and the least work for us) would be just to >include the page scans. Any transcription you make will fall short of >the requirements of some scholar. I think we should use our time for >producing more books for a general audience instead than producing >Academia-certified editions of them. HSH's comments justify such an approach. Her Serene Highness wrote: >I need to know EXACTLY when the original >was published, who published it, and where, since there are variant texts >out there. Even a single word change that might have occurred in the >copying process could change the meaning of a vital sentence. Of course, there is a simple, if unsatisfactory, answer to all these questions for PG texts: they were published by PG, on the PG website, and each file states when it was published. Each work we publish is the "PG variant" of that text. As an academic, I find it dishonest and unhelpful for a scholar to cite a physical volume when the volume they consulted is an electronic edition. It is virtually impossible to guarantee that "even a single word change" was not introduced in the transcription process. Even with DP's careful processes, I would not wager that most of our books enter PG completely error free (or correction free, for that matter.) Page scans allow for an additional layer of safety for any scholar concerned about the adherence to a given print edition, though a certain level of trust in the provider is still required. Thus, while I hope that PG's holdings are as accurate as possible, it would also be my hope that scholars using PG would cite PG. Evidently this is not always the case. Michael Hart wrote: >I've also heard that many of those who complain, actually use our >eBooks in secret, and ONLY want the provenance so they can steal >them without giving credit where credit is due. This suggests to me two things. 1) We can include page scans and information about provenance, _when available_, with the files so that academics can feel confident in the reliability of those PG holdings. Not so that the original sources can be dishonestly cited, but to provide the necessary data for certain scholars to confidently cite PG's edition. We can point to this in our documentation to enhance our scholarly credibility. 2) We can prominently suggest an appropriate style of citation of works in PG's holdings. (I've seen this done with other digital collections.) Perhaps if the citation style also takes into account the original source, some otherwise reluctant scholars would be appeased. Is this something we can all agree on? -- David Newman www.davidnewman.info

7 7

I'm sorry, I don't get it [Was: Perfection, PG Audience, etc.]
by John Hagerson 14 Nov '04

14 Nov '04

#define SOMEWHAT_PEEVED 1 I'm a student (or a researcher). I'm writing a paper. I'm planning to cite an e-book. Why don't I just DOWNLOAD the eBook to my computer and append it to my paper? Then, it doesn't make any difference what happens to the eBook left in the ether. TEACHER, HERE IS THE COPY *I* USED. I'm just a lowly volunteer slogging my way through DP producing books. If Jon Noring wants to go off and create "Distributed Definitive Editions," I don't see anything stopping him. I, personally, am not at all interested in that effort, but I'm just a lowly peasant (an *anybody* doing proofreading). What am I missing? #define SOMEWHAT_PEEVED 0 John

5 5

Re: [ebook-community] Ask The eBook Community: Page Scans versus Real eText?
by Michael Hart 14 Nov '04

14 Nov '04

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004, Michael Ward wrote: > > Jon, two major reasons to convert from page scans: > > 1. File size, text vs. jpeg. > 2. Access to the -content- [semantics, meanings, words] > a. Search > b. Indexing > c. Quoting > d. Footnoting > e. Links > > > Michael Ward > Hidden Knowledge Let's not forget the following: 3. Changing the -content- a. Correcting typos and other errors b. Adding footnotes, comments, prefaces, intros, epilogues from other public domain sources; or your own. c. Machine Transltion d. Inserting missing lines, paragraphs, etc.

1 1

Page Scans versus Real eText?
by Jon Noring 14 Nov '04

14 Nov '04

[I posted the following to The eBook Community. But clearly most of the real experts in digitizing texts are found right here on gutvol-d, so I'm reposting the message here. I'm especially curious in the economics associated with commercially doing what Michael Hart and PG has done for years and years.] There are essentially two ways to digitize and place online textual works which exist only on paper. This applies, for example, to older public domain books. 1) Digitally scan the publication, and place the resultant page scan images online as the final product. Optionally, these page scans can be OCR'd to produce a raw (uncorrected) searchable index to search for page scans that may be of interest to the user. Additionally, the scanned images can be "packed" into a PDF document for online distribution and viewing, and for offline printing. 2) The publication is converted into real digital text, using either OCR or keying in by hand to produce the raw text. Then, significant human effort is expended to proofread and correct the digital text for any transcribing/OCR and other errors. The resultant cleaned-up text can either be kept in plain text form (traditional Project Gutenberg text), or marked-up into XML documents using some markup vocabulary. (Optionally, the original page scans can be kept along-side the cleaned-up/marked-up text, thereby accruing whatever advantages the first method gives.) Clearly, digital text is superior in many respects to page scan images. The biggest downside is the need to do the laborious human proofing. Online proofing systems such as Distributed Proofreaders have made proofing much easier to do, mobilizing many willing volunteer proofers and providing a convenient Internet interface. However, in discussions with various people on this topic I've not been able to explain, in a cogent and compelling way, all the reasons why the additional effort should be expended to produce high-quality digital text. Some of these people believe that putting the scanned page images online is more than sufficient. So, this is an "Ask TeBC" request for better arguments to use. I hope, too, that it catalyzes interesting discussion on the various aspects associated with the general issue of getting our printed heritage online, which is obviously an ebook-related topic. And this not only applies to books, but to periodicals, newspapers, and many other types of historical documents. ***** Another related question: If I have a typical printed book (say a 300 page fictional work), and I hire a commercial company to convert it into a clean, high-quality digital text with XML markup (e.g., using TEI-Lite), how much would it cost? In the U.S.? Overseas (such as in India)? Anyone know? ***** Jon Noring

2 1

future of ebooks + Scholarly use of PG + books to take to bed
by Gutenberg9443＠aol.com 14 Nov '04

14 Nov '04

In a message dated 11/13/2004 3:37:14 PM Mountain Standard Time, shalesller(a)writeme.com writes: >>You >>told us we couldn't find a quote in a large body of text, >>you tell us >>that typeface is important when no printed book cares, >>you complain >>that an ebook in Courier is hard to read, which is a bit >>like saying >>that it's hard to read this book because it's upside >>down. Right on. I loathe Courier, so I don't read my ebooks in Courier; I read them on the computer in Times New Roman, and I read them on my ebook reader in Arial, because that's the default. I could change it if I wanted to. As for books to read in bed . . . well, good people, I have wonderful news for you. A version of the Rocket has been revived. FictionWise now has one available for $99 and is actively working on newer versions. Go here for more information: _eBookwise_ (http://www.ebookwise.com/) As for me, why would I (or anybody else) reading in bed want to read a paper book, which has only one right-side-up and doesn't care what position I'm in and how uncomfortable I am trying to read it in that position, when I have a lovely little device that will change its orientation so that if I want to hold it in my left hand or in my right hand or longwise with either side up, it agreeably makes its buttons available to whatever hand I want to use, and it will let me decide which of four positions is "up" right now? Oh yes, and it's backlit, so I don't have to keep an overhead light on. Believe me, you read this kind of book in bed for one hour and you will NEVER want to go back to tree books for reading in bed. (Back to the quotation I started with, I CAN read my book upside-down, because upside-down becomes right-side-up at the click of a button.) As yet, eBookWise does not sell a program for turning your own material into.rb format, but you go to the site below and download the second program, the one that supports USB or serial port, and you can turn your Gutenberg books into .rb books. Then use your eBookWise librarian to import the .rb books and put them into your eBookWise reader. _Rocket eBook Site_ (http://www.rocket-ebook.com/Readers/Software/) In fact, I will make a rash promise that I probably will live to regret, and promise you that when you buy your eBookWise ebook reader, let me know what five PG books you want the most and I'll convert them myself, though they're probably already at Blackmask in .rb format. You can also get .rb books at _Phoenix-Library - A worldwide multiformat ebook library._ (http://www.phoenix-library.org/) Among its other offerings, it has an excellent selection of translating dictionaries from and to several different languages. These are not searchable; instead, when you start to read a book that you know is likely to have words in different languages, you also load the different language, and then whenever you come to a word you don't know you tell your reader what language it is and to look it up, and most of the time the word will be present. I keep French-English and Spanish-English on my reader at all times, and add other dictionaries (which I keep in my ebook library) when I need them. So--you want a good look at the future of ebooks? Brothers and sisters, it's here. Of course technology will improve. It is the job of technology to improve. But every time it does, there will be a sufficient span of time for PG and its descendants to change the filing system into one that can remain readable. Someone used the example of Beowulf. Uh, yeah. That's a good one. I can't possibly read it in its original language, but I can read it in my original language whenever I want it. Some people find Chaucer unreadable. I don't, but I'm glad it's available in modern English for people who can read it only that way. After all, you can't understand Shakespeare unless you read him in the original Klingon. Anne

3 2

What do scholars want?
by John Hagerson 14 Nov '04

14 Nov '04

>From the prospective of a peasant. It appears that the most important thing that scholars want is immutability. A dead tree copy of a book can't be changed, so they can go on endlessly about which dead tree copy is "better" than any other dead tree copy (I know where all of the errors are, and you don't, so there!). Even though, eventually, dead tree copies wear out, are burned up in fires, are carelessly discarded, or sold off to make space, etc., etc., they don't change. Therefore, an electronic copy is unacceptable because: 1. Maybe it is not the exact representation of a dead tree copy. This is entirely unacceptable because "my" dead tree copy is better than all of the others. 2. Its URL might change and then I couldn't find it. 3. Worse yet, the URL doesn't change but the text does. (See point 1.) It appears that we need to modify the PG web site to include checksum and CRC data on each of our files to provide a mechanism of verifying that they have not been nefariously modified after download, so "my" electronic copy can be judged the same as "your" electronic copy. I fall back to my earlier point: What would be better when you're submitting research than to include a copy of every item of source material? This is not done with dead trees because we do not have a mechanism to instantly create an exact duplicate of a given piece of material for free in the dead tree world. Such a mechanism does exist in the electronic world. When academia wakes up to this fact, maybe their negativity toward electronic copies will lessen somewhat.

4 3

Gone with the wind i s "Gone with the wind"
by Norm Wolcott 14 Nov '04

14 Nov '04

Sayonara. Apparently all versions of GWTW have disappeared from the net. nwolcott2(a)post.harvard.edu Friar Wolcott, Gutenberg Abbey, Sherwood Forrest

2 4

Re: Marking bold & italics in .txt (was Re: [gutvol-d] a few questions that i don't know the answer to)
by Jim Tinsley 14 Nov '04

14 Nov '04

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 22:34:52 -0500, Joshua Hutchinson <joshua(a)hutchinson.net> wrote: >Jim Tinsley wrote: > >> >>Where bold does need to be rendered in plain text, the current >>most common usage (from DP) is *bold text*. There are times when >>it is appropriate to signify bold, but I have seen some texts >>coming from DP where it has been used unnecessarily -- mostly >>to indicate a sub-heading or chapter title in the book. In >>such a case, where a chapter title is clearly a chapter title >>and on a line by itself, there really is no need to mark it in >>the plain text version as having been bold face in the original. >>I think this practice comes from people pre-marking the text for >>later conversion to HTML, rather than any intent to clutter the >>plain text. >> >> >> >Actually, it is probably there from the OCR pre-processing and was never >removed through all the rounds of proofing and post-processing... why I >feel this is important enough of a distinction that I needed to make a >post about ... I have no idea. Well, at least you cleared up a mystery for me! Thanks! And since I have now been asked twice within the last couple of weeks about bold, I guess that's Frequently enough to go into the FAQ. It's now on the list for the next update. jim

1 0

Re: [gutvol-d] I'm sorry, I don't get it [Was: Perfection, PG Audience, etc.]
by Gutenberg9443＠aol.com 14 Nov '04

14 Nov '04

In a message dated 11/13/2004 5:16:55 PM Mountain Standard Time, j.hagerson(a)comcast.net writes: Why don't I just DOWNLOAD the eBook to my computer and append it to my paper? Then, it doesn't make any difference what happens to the eBook left in the ether. TEACHER, HERE IS THE COPY *I* USED. Jon, as one who has graded many college papers, I beg and plead and implore that you provide the teacher the complete URL, not the ebook itself. However, this is a great idea. Anne

1 0