Great news! Let's test this thesis. I'm currently working through the very first Britannica project ever - The Project Gutenberg Encyclopedia, Volume 1 of 28. It's etext # 200, dated "1995-01-01". It's in sad shape. Text only, many errors apparent to the casual eye. I'd like to reprocess it. Can anyone from DP tell me how to get the scans? On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 2:29 PM, <Bowerbird@aol.com> wrote:
dakretz said:
Summary of the situation (as it seems to me). DP is currently taking too long to produce texts that are are either less (plain-text) or more (DP-style HTML) than the supply chain is able to convey to the end-readers to deliver the experience intended.
"less" and "more" are value-laden terms. _and_ incorrect. please re-summarize...
Upload in as complete form as possible the matching image and text files so future modification and adaptation is possible. There's no loss to DP by doing so
d.p. has, in their hands, the scans from all the books that have gone through their system. so they _could_ have pushed them to project gutenberg at any time...
indeed, charlz originally intended that d.p. itself would mount the scans. he called it the "online library system", and at one point in time, it actually came into existence. (it's probably still there, with some 6,000 scan-sets in it.)
why hasn't it been maintained?
well, _i_ happen to think that it's pretty obvious.
but maybe that's because of what i do with those scans: i use them to point to unequivocal evidence of _errors_ in the "final product" emerging from the d.p. workflow.
and that's what other people might do with them, too...
does d.p. want us unequivocally pointing out their errors?
no.
ergo, they are keeping their scans to themselves...
the myth of d.p. accuracy is one that keeps d.p. going... the powers-that-be over there do not want to put that myth up against _any_ solid evidence to the contrary...
and it's not that hard to understand, either. rfrank was eager to see the results of my check on the "sitka" book, at least when he thought that check would be _positive_. but when it was less than flattering, he clammed right up. it's hard for some people to admit they make mistakes... even if they can do it in a "general" way, when it comes to close-eyed examination of specifics, they're uninterested, and might even go to great lengths to suppress evidence...
and the risk is that over time they are quite capable of losing track of them.
they have the scans firmly in their grasp now, and they wish to retain control, so they simply are not worried about "losing track of them"...
-bowerbird
_______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d