December 2005 - gutvol-d - lists.pglaf.org

Announcing "Distributed Scanners" discussion group (Scanning public domain texts)
by Jon Noring 18 Dec '05

18 Dec '05

[Feel free to redistribute this announcement to other forums where on-topic, such as scanning, graphics, books and publishing, library and archives, etc. Thanks.] Everyone, Several people privately expressed interest in the "Distributed Scanners" (DistScan) idea I recently outlined to the Book People forum. So, I've taken the next step and created a Yahoo discussion group to further explore this idea -- to see if it has any legs. You are invited to join -- refer to the info at the end of this message.) To summarize the idea: Is there interest and need for a volunteer-driven, large-scale distributed scanning project of public domain books and other documents modeled after (where applicable) Distributed Proofreaders? The full group description, and the current expanded summary of the idea (which will undoubtedly change and improve over time as we better understand the various issues) is given at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/distscan/ To be clear, this group does not actually launch the project, but rather serves only to bring together sharp, like-minded people to explore the idea -- to see if there is a "working formula" that makes sense, and if we can assemble a core group of people with the needed skill sets and interest to be able to successfully launch the project. The goal, of course, is to accelerate the high-quality scanning of public domain texts. It is not intended to be competitive with other projects to scan the public domain, such as those managed by the Internet Archive (e.g. OCA), but rather to augment and possibly even work in cooperative fashion with those projects (including Distributed Proofreaders.) Please read carefully the group description at the above URL. If you wish to comment on this message, I encourage you to join the group and post your comment there. Or, email it to me in private and I may post it to the group (with your identity removed unless requested otherwise). Anyone interested in scanning the public domain (whether a private individual or representing an institution) is invited to participate. We definitely need people with expertise in a very wide range of areas. Since DistScan will likely have many components, you are probably expert in one of them! Do join and contribute to the discussion. Thanks! Jon Noring (p.s., there are three ways to subscribe to the DistScan group: 1) Use your YahooID and click on the "Join This Group!" button at the above URL. 2) Send a blank email to: distscan-subscribe(a)yahoogroups.com (No need to get a YahooID to subscribe this way.) 3) Ask me to subscribe you with the email address you want to use. No need to get a YahooID to subscribe this way.)

1 0

Re: [gutvol-d] Fwd: Cervantes Books
by Gutenberg9443＠aol.com 16 Dec '05

16 Dec '05

In a message dated 12/15/2005 8:26:29 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, sl y(a)victoria.tc.ca writes: Personally, I have no problem with keeping information about the source a pg text was derived from, as long as it is clear that is information about the _source text_ not the Project Gutenberg digital resource. (For instance, there are places where we call a book "Third edition"--when it is our first; or mention a lccn which applies to the source, but not the PG text. From a library sciences point of view this could be said to make as much sense as saying that a PG text has 416 pages, because that is what the source had.) --and that would be impossible to say accurately, because how many "pages" a PG text has depends on what size type the reader is using. I agree with all you have said here. Anne

1 0

Re: [gutvol-d] Fwd: Cervantes Books
by Gutenberg9443＠aol.com 16 Dec '05

16 Dec '05

In a message dated 12/14/2005 7:48:03 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, sly(a)victoria.tc.ca writes: "I have been making Mary E. Wilkins (Freeman) stories available on my website, and have completed proof-reading her novels. At one point, you had an interest in making them available on Project Gutenberg. I am still amenable to the thought." http://home.comcast.net/~jkaylin/jeff/Book/Book.htm Although it may take quite a while before I am able to get around to it... Anyone else interested in this? I went and looked at it. I find it extremely interesting, though like you, I don't know when I could get to it. As to the rest of the thread, concerning Cervantes and so forth, I'll probably bring down the wrath of the mailing list on my head, but may I point out that we specifically say that we do not depend on a single edition or whatever. In reality, where a lot of scholarly interest is likely, we DO have to depend on a single edition, although the MLA rules on documentation of Web sources make it unnecessary to retain page numbers from the specific edition. (Am I the only one who keeps track of changes in MLA documentation requirements?) What drives me to wanting to spit and bite is that our front matter usually fails to tell us when the book was written and/or published. I go to the LoC, and if I don't find it there I scream and bang my head against the wall for a while. (Not really. But I feel like it. Several times I really have cried from sheer frustration after looking in a few more places.) But as far as proofing goes, unless there is scholarly interest, just proofing so that the text makes sense should be adequate, as long as the proofreader is conscious of grammar, mechanics, and the changes that time and geography bring to correctness. In other words, I flatter myself that as I am a good writer and a good grammarian, and I have read and enjoyed texts from the last 600 years of writing in the English language, my version is re-edited rather than proofread, and should therefore be acceptable for all purposes other than scholarly interest. (I am aware that this paragraph does not make much sense. I am ill today and would neither write nor proofread anything for publication.) When I proofed MADAME DUBARRY I was aware that there might be scholarly interest, and therefore I followed the text exactly except for page numbers, inserting text notes where they might be needed for clarity. I already knew that the MLA does not need page number documentation when a person is quoting from a Web source, and I don't know enough about any other documentation system to know what it needs. But when I created the PG version of SWISS FAMILY ROBINSON I used five different public domain translations, and my own brain, to create the best reading text I could make. Someone asked me, in effect, why I had not created a variorum. I didn't create a variorum because (a) I was creating a reading text, not a scholarly text; and (b) because I have not the mental, physical, or financial resources to create a variorum, particularly considering that the book's length was tripled by its first translator into French; and (c) because I didn't think the variorum would be worth doing anyway. (This does not mean I disapprove of variorum editions. I was fortunate enough to have repeatedly read variorum editions of Emily Dickinson and the Rubiyat in late childhood, with the result that I often memorized the "wrong" version of a poem.) But we must decide, for any book, what we are creating, a scholarly edition or a reading edition? I am aware that a good many useful people prefer scholarly editions, and have scanned and proofed them. I too am a scholar. But I consider reading editions very useful, and far more important for me to do, because as a writer of popular fiction I grok the needs of the genre. None of us would be likely to have reached the status of scholar without first having read a whole lot of reading editions. In fact there IS some scholarly interest in Mary E. Wilkins, so we would have to do one of two things: (1) Either re-proof everything according to the text, which is probably not even possible without spending several years on it; or (2) re-edit it and post in the front matter a warning that this is a reading edition ONLY. Now I will pull in my soap box and go away. Anne

2 1

Re: [gutvol-d] Fwd: Cervantes Books
by Gutenberg9443＠aol.com 15 Dec '05

15 Dec '05

In a message dated 12/15/2005 1:07:57 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, joshua(a)hutchinson.net writes: Ok, it's official ... We need a PG/DP jargon file! Thank you for volunteering. I LIKE "Raiders of the Lost Art." Anne

1 0

Re: [gutvol-d] Fwd: Cervantes Books
by Joshua Hutchinson 15 Dec '05

15 Dec '05

Ok, it's official ... We need a PG/DP jargon file! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Hart" <hart(a)pglaf.org> To: "Project Gutenberg Volunteer Discussion" <gutvol-d(a)lists.pglaf.org> Subject: Re: [gutvol-d] Fwd: Cervantes Books Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 12:05:24 -0800 (PST) > > > > On Wed, 14 Dec 2005, Robert Cicconetti wrote: > > > Generally, proofraiding (or the new PC term, harvesting) > > Sorry, PG has been using the term "harvesting" for at least as long > as the world is been becoming PC. > > _I_ might have been somewhat responsible for the term raiding, > as I used to call the harvesters "The Raiders of the Lost Art" > > ;-) > > Happy Holidays! > > Give eBooks!!! > > Michael S. Hart > Founder > Project Gutenberg > > _______________________________________________ > gutvol-d mailing list > gutvol-d(a)lists.pglaf.org > http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/gutvol-d

1 0

Re: [gutvol-d] Fwd: Cervantes Books
by Joshua Hutchinson 15 Dec '05

15 Dec '05

----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Cicconetti" <grythumn(a)gmail.com> > AFAIK, we don't simply repackage existing text-only copies available on the > web. > > R C Actually we do and have, Robert. Ok, DP doesn't, but PG volunteers do. We even have a name for it. Proofraiding. ;) The hard part is making sure it is well proofed and to our formatting standards and that it is clearable by our standards. Josh (JHutch at DP)

3 4

Re: [gutvol-d] Fwd: Cervantes Books
by Joshua Hutchinson 15 Dec '05

15 Dec '05

----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Cicconetti" <grythumn(a)gmail.com> > On another note, how do you clear these texts without a physical copy (or > page images) and the relatively lengthy comparison described here: > > http://www.gutenberg.org/howto/cconfirm-howto > In my case, I'm pulling texts from the actual copyright owners who gave us permission to do so. In other cases, sometimes the original site made the original scans for the title page available. In the hardest cases, someone had to do the leg work described in your link. Josh

1 0

re: [gutvol-d] Fwd: Cervantes Books
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 15 Dec '05

15 Dec '05

robert said: > AFAIK, we don't simply repackage > existing text-only copies > available on the web. i'm sure robert means "distributed proofreaders" rather than "project gutenberg" when he says "we". :+) that's why he's looking for page-scans of cervantes' books. because i would think that someone at project gutenberg would be quite happy to "repackage" offered .txt books... -bowerbird

2 1

re: [gutvol-d] Fwd: Cervantes Books
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 14 Dec '05

14 Dec '05

robert said: > Grabbing only text is seldom worth it.. > nothing to compare it against. um, i would disagree. it is your job to create something to compare it against. if you can't find page-scans, then do the scans yourself, and run those scans through distributed proofreaders. then compare the d.p. output against that other text. (because this is the goal, you'll want to make sure the p-book you scan is the same edition as the other text.) this is absolutely the best way to obtain accurate text, by comparing two independently-produced versions... and yes, i know y'all know that. as we speak, even, a version of "the secret garden" is going through this. it just seemed like this little reminder was being called. -bowerbird

1 0

Fwd: Cervantes Books
by Greg Newby 14 Dec '05

14 Dec '05

Has anyone checked these ones out before? -- Greg

2 1