- gutvol-d - lists.pglaf.org

re: toasted-cheese sandwich
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 04 Oct '04

04 Oct '04

michael said: > If the original source you use turns out to have errors, > as nearly all books do, do you want the errors preserved? me? nope. i want 'em corrected, with a note to that effect. but that's if you're _sure_ it's an error. it's not always that clear. if you _suspect_ something _might_ be an error, but aren't sure, even after detective work, i would want a note made to that effect. *** > However, we have tried to avoid the arguments that > come with this sort of thing, as per a previous discussion > about this, when we argued about the punctuation in > "To be or not to be." in such cases, make note of the arguments. :+) *** skippi said: > XML karl said: > TEI DTD ... > CSS scott said: > XML that x.m.l. it's good for _everything_, isn't it? :+) i just heard there's a new thing out now where x.m.l. can actually make you a toasted-cheese sandwich, no kidding, and you can even specify -- with a tag -- how dark or light you want the bread toasted. i gotta get me that thing, man, because i'm jonesin' for a toasted-cheese sandwich right now... -bowerbird

2 1

re: Re: [gutvol-d] Indexing Editors, etc.
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 04 Oct '04

04 Oct '04

marevalo said: > > it would be great to have the complete bibliographical record > > of the book (or books) used as source for the digital edition anne said: > Or at least the date of original publication > and the name of the original publisher. this is a recurring request, of course. it might be interesting to have a public forum, like a wiki, where requests like these could be made, so we could see the cumulation. as it is, i get the distinct impression these go in one ear and out the other, and we go along in ignorant bliss thinking that all of our users are completely happy... -bowerbird

6 5

Re: [gutvol-d] Indexing Editors, etc.
by D. Starner 04 Oct '04

04 Oct '04

Michael Hart writes: > If the original source you use turns out to have errors, > as nearly all books do, do you want the errors preserved? Yes. That's way too unconditional, and there's a lot of minor errors in texts that we can just correct; but I've been reading a book on Beowulf which talks about one of the first published transcriptions that "corrected" a lot of things and screwed with work on Beowulf for 50 years. I hate to imagine us adding anacronistic spelling to a work or making a work harder to understand. On DP, people frequently ask about obvious errors that turn out to be correct. If we want to be editors, let us be editors and take full responsibility for checking other editions and writing introductions and bibliographies and keeping notes about what we've changed. -- ___________________________________________________________ Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm

2 1

Re: [gutvol-d] Indexing Editors, etc.
by Gutenberg9443＠aol.com 02 Oct '04

02 Oct '04

In a message dated 9/19/2004 10:38:22 AM Mountain Standard Time, marevalo(a)marevalo.net writes: And it would be great to have the complete bibliographical record of the book (o books) used as source for the digital edition on every new text. Or at least the date of original publication and the name of the original publisher. Not having those makes it difficult to cite the book in research work. I usually resort to going to the Library of Congress record to get that, and then include the fact that this is an on-line edition etc. etc. etc. Anne

4 3

[Fwd: Project Gutenberg Featured on October Ibiblio page]
by Marcello Perathoner 30 Sep '04

30 Sep '04

-------- Original Message -------- Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 16:11:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Sean Slovney <epyon(a)metalab.unc.edu> To: webmaster(a)gutenberg.org Subject: Project Gutenberg Featured on October Ibiblio page Ibiblio is pleased to announce that Project Gutenberg is selected be featured on the main page on ibiblio.org for the month of October. We wanted to notify you ahead of time incase you need to make changes in preparation for the potential increase in traffic on your site, and to congratulate you for your contributions to ibiblio. If you need anything from us or if being featured on the main page is a problem, please let us know before the end of September. Thanks. -- Sean Slovney epyon(a)ibiblio.org (919) 962-5646 -- Marcello Perathoner webmaster(a)gutenberg.org

1 0

PG mentioned on usenet
by Andrew Sly 28 Sep '04

28 Sep '04

I periodically search usenet newgroups to see how and where Project Gutenberg is mentioned. Here's an excerpt from a recent posting to misc.writing which shows the kind of reaction I hope many people are having when they download a PG text. Andrew Note: LW=Little Women So I didn't actually read LW until I was an adult, and forced to read it out of professional obligation. I'm still not that horribly KEEN on it, but it introduced me to other works by Alcott, and she was one heckuva lady. The voice she uses in her "adult" books is totally different from her kid lit. As part of my recent research I just finished "Hospital Sketches"--based on her brief career as a Civil War nurse--and it's so like a precursor to M*A*S*H, sort of this horrifying tragicomic mix of bureaucracy and death. It's a short read, available at Project Gutenberg if folks are so inclined. (Warning, though: I opened up the text file just to make sure it didn't get corrupted and wound up dropping everything to read the whole thing.)

1 0

Hand Shadows to Be Thrown upon the Wall
by Andrew Sly 26 Sep '04

26 Sep '04

For those who are interested, the lastest download numbers for Hand Shadows to Be Thrown upon the Wall by Henry Bursill are 16027 (just from ibiblio) Not bad for a book that was only released two months ago. Andrew

1 0

re: re: Re: [gutvol-d] New Online Reader
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 23 Sep '04

23 Sep '04

joshua said: > If you are introducing a 2-7% error rate > into the texts (those are your figures) that is > absolutely and completely unacceptable. > You are making them WORSE than they were before. no, the texts are "in error" as they stand. those all-caps errors are no better than a no-caps error or an initial-caps error, even if you have become inured to them. and as long as the auto-changes are marked, anyone can reverse them, so there is no harm in making the "guesses". none at all. _zero._ -bowerbird

1 0

re: Re: [gutvol-d] New Online Reader
by Joshua Hutchinson 23 Sep '04

23 Sep '04

Wrong. If you are introducing a 2-7% error rate into the texts (those are your figures) that is absolutely and completely unacceptable. You are making them WORSE than they were before. Josh ----- Original Message ----- From: Bowerbird(a)aol.com Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 15:49:31 EDT To: gutvol-d(a)lists.pglaf.org, Bowerbird(a)aol.com Subject: re: Re: [gutvol-d] New Online Reader > marcello said: > > Bottom line: if information has been lost, > > never use guessing to recover it > > but go back to the source. > > wrong. > > in an ideal world, with unlimited resources, sure. > > but in the real world of project gutenberg now, > where no one seems even the least bit eager to > _ever_ "go back to the source" and correct that > practice of using all-caps to indicate emphasis? > > for _that_, a more-practical strategy is called for. > > if, by using guessing, the information that you "restore" > is right in the vast majority of the cases (e.g., 93-98%), > then you _should_ do that. you should also, of course, > clearly _mark_ all of the changes that you have made, > so the users know they need to be evaluated with care. > > then, as i have argued here quite extensively in the past, > you need to put into place a robust mechanism that will > encourage users to report errors, and then act on them... > > but you still want to go ahead and make those changes... > > -bowerbird > _______________________________________________ > gutvol-d mailing list > gutvol-d(a)lists.pglaf.org > http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/gutvol-d

1 0

re: Re: [gutvol-d] New Online Reader
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 23 Sep '04

23 Sep '04

marcello said: > Bottom line: if information has been lost, > never use guessing to recover it > but go back to the source. wrong. in an ideal world, with unlimited resources, sure. but in the real world of project gutenberg now, where no one seems even the least bit eager to _ever_ "go back to the source" and correct that practice of using all-caps to indicate emphasis? for _that_, a more-practical strategy is called for. if, by using guessing, the information that you "restore" is right in the vast majority of the cases (e.g., 93-98%), then you _should_ do that. you should also, of course, clearly _mark_ all of the changes that you have made, so the users know they need to be evaluated with care. then, as i have argued here quite extensively in the past, you need to put into place a robust mechanism that will encourage users to report errors, and then act on them... but you still want to go ahead and make those changes... -bowerbird

1 0