Talk:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica
|Information about this edition|
Encyclopædia Britannica, eleventh edition, 1911
This edition of the Encyclopaedia was published in two forms — the regular quarto size, and a "Handy Volume" edition (pub 1915) in octavo, where the text was photo-reduced. The latter had different preliminaries, but the texts were otherwise identical. They are included here for completeness.
|Contributor(s):||See project page.|
|Level of progress:||Largely incomplete text.|
- 1 New Wikisource Wikiproject
- 2 Focus?
- 3 Long articles - Ballistics
- 4 En Wikipedia 1911 project
- 5 public domain notice
- 6 Article about the history and value of EB1911
- 7 Transfer of articles from Wikipedia
- 8 index for volume 27 (T)
- 9 remarks that the usage/meaning, scientific view has changed since 1911
- 10 Current Orphaned EB1911 Pages
- 11 Titles of articles
- 12 Encyclopaedia scans in DJVU
- 13 shortcut EB1911
- 14 Three Update Volumes of the 12th Edition of EB and Older Editions
- 15 Sources
- 16 Added djvu of 1/4 of first volume
- 17 Volume 1 djvu
- 18 Missing Persons
- 19 Copyright Status for Different Countries?
- 20 Full set of DJVUs now at Commons
- 21 New volume list
- 22 Wikipedia quotation
- 23 Using the Page: technique
- 24 Wikipedia:Template:1911
- 25 Capital letters in headings
- 26 Copying from Project Gutenberg?
- 27 New OCR
- 28 Searchability
New Wikisource Wikiproject
This is more FYI if you happen to come across this first without knowing about this Wikiproject first:
Wikisource:WikiProject 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica is discussing the organizational aspects of the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica project as a whole. This talk page should be reserved more for discussions about the formatting of this particular page or issues about this page only, not subcontent. We won't bite if you put something that belongs on the main project page or talk page, but it is likely that it won't get as much attention as you may feel it deserves. Robert Horning 05:11, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Hi, had a question about the focus here in relation to what this page says. On Wikipedia a previous proposal for a similar idea it was made clear the only goal was to proofread the 1911 text until it looked exactly like the EB with no OCR errors. It that the goal here, or is the 1911 trying to be improved? The intro to this page isn't clear on that point. Maybe that's already clear from Wikisource policy, but I'm not familiar with that, and thought this was worth pointing out. - Taxman 14:59, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
- As far as I am concerned the text of the WS EB11 will be exactly as printed, with the addition of navigation links to articles in Wikipedia. I would hope that once the texts have been processed and confirmed as being as exact as practicable with the limitations and conventions of Mediawiki they will be locked and unable to be altered. The aim of the project is to have an accurate resource for Wikipedia editors. Anything more that will will open a major can of worms which will be impossible to monitor properly. --Apwoolrich 19:05, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Long articles - Ballistics
I see somebody has added this. It is actually 17 columns long, stuffed with tables, graphs, some images and masses of mathematical formulae - a proper dog's breakfast to edit IMHO. Seriously, I am not clear if notice ought to be taken of this entry to the list, and wonder if it in fact a case of vandalism. Indeed I wonder at the need for a special category of 'long articles'. Is there any reason why we do not have a similar list of 'short articles'! Apwoolrich 07:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
- We have! Special:Shortpages
The long articles category originally started off on wikibooks as "articles of intrest". And I can see a clear purpose for it, in that therer are some important ot intresting articles that we should attempt to put up instead of waiting for Project Gutenebrg to complete it. As for the particular article ballstics I could see how an article expaining the mathematic principles of artillery could be of intrest especially comparing it to the modern paragraph given by today's Brittanica. As for the dog's mess of tables and charts eventually we weill ahve to tackle those issues and we shouldnt rely on Project Gutenberg to do everything for us.--LEMPERERUR1988 23:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
En Wikipedia 1911 project
- This project actually relates to identifying EB1911 articles that WP does not have, so it is lists of topics. I have posted a note there about what we are up to. Might get some more editors. Apwoolrich 14:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
public domain notice
The public domain notice should be on the 1911 articles and not on the parts belonging to wikisource. --184.108.40.206 15:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Article about the history and value of EB1911
- It is worth a read, but don't rely on it to any great degree. He's not particularly expert, and has some things wrong to varying degrees. And in particular, people might want to resist the urge to say the 11th is the "best"; it's perhaps the best of it's type, but the (very different) 9th is "best" in other ways. 220.127.116.11 16:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Transfer of articles from Wikipedia
There is an article, Admiralty administration, that I feel is unsuitable for inclusion on Wikipedia, so I have nominated it for deletion. Is it of any use to you? By the way, I do not see the article in the contents. Thanks, Kjkolb 04:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I will have a look at my copy of EB1911 and see where this has come from. If its an unaltered chunk of an EB article we should, have it, I feel. Apwoolrich 08:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
index for volume 27 (T)
Hello nice to meet you. Today i have included the index of volume 27 (T). We need templates for
- Articles which are "political incorrect" as of present age
- Articles which are scientifically outdated
These templates are to inform that the data should not be processed without verification. Nikemoto2511 12:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with the need for special templates on these topics. WS exists to host texts as they are, not to try and second guess what texts might or might not be acceptable and note them. The introductory pages to EB1911 on both WS and WP make plain the problems of using these texts uncritically, and I feel this is sufficient. Apwoolrich 07:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, it can produce a health risk if somone spreads outdated scientific information on diseases. Not everyone (especially underdeveloped countries) knows present age political situation, and together with poor english might misunderstand something generally. The templates shall explicitely inform that "the article data is not intend for unprocessed copying into new articles, research etc". It should only be required for a fraction of 5 percent of the articles. I.e. the "torpedo" article might glorify torpedos using specific language, which has become "politically incorrect". I have not yet taken a look at it, but guess this one might be a "template" candidate. Nikemoto2511 07:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree. I think it is quite clear the info is from 1911 and also every page has a link to the modern WP article which should give anyone accurate and up to date info. The only way WS can host all the material it does without being biased to not make these sorts of judgements about what is politically correct. --BirgitteSB 11:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, personally i see a need to disclaim "scientifically outdated", i.e. major diseases. Otherwise i am not in the situation to re-type it personally. Probably there are legal needs, i strongly feel there might be some. Instead of "politically incorrect" "offensive" or "racial biased" is also thinkable. I do not believe it is always obvious. Most articles do not need any disclaimer. I just disclaim that i am not going to re-type certain articles without such a disclaimer. Probably other will do, no pun intended... I do not plan to vehicle this EB1911 project to promote the concept of "political correctness". Nikemoto2511 08:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. There is definitely a need (of what depth is up for discussion), to label (not alter) some articles as being inappropriate for today's needs. Whilst the reader may be aware that the information is historically old they may not be aware that it is inaccurate. As people get referred to us via search engines most of the time, I'd rather they didn't see these articles and think that things had not changed since, especially in fields such as medicine and science. I believe it would add to the work if we added in categories as well to the mix, you could see how attitudes/science have changed over the years. Let's just not go over teh top with it! GregRobson 10:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- I still think it inappropriate, but if people are going to do it, I suggest that instead of messing with the categories of individual articles,(which will involve judgememt on the part of individual editors) the article headers template is modifed to add a few words saying about possible inaccuracy and pointing to the WP page where this is spelt out in some detail. We are about to introduce the original EB1911 categorisaton scheme as a finding aid to the articles, and I fearful for the results if we begin to add new categories to it. Apwoolrich 11:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- I do not know if special categories are required (i do not have much editoral experience). I see a need for at worst 5 percent of the articles "to add a disclaimer spelling a few words", "that the understanding of this topic has changed since 1911". I have added another tiny article (Treble), and underlined a formulation, which i believe is outdated, and should not be spread into new work "without consideration". Your opinion about "chief melody" (probably it is not out-dated anyway)? Nikemoto2511 08:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- 'Chief melody makes sense to me'.(But I am married to a singer!) What you could do in this case is to write a WS annotation to explain the meaning. I will dig into the archive later today and find you the pointers about our policy on this. Kind regards. 18.104.22.168 12:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Why not update the existing disclaimer? - that takes all judgment out of it. Something like this :
- "This document is based upon the knowledge available in 1911 and may be inaccurate - especially in the areas of medicine and science. Readers should only use the information as an historic reference. DO NOT USE IT FOR MEDICAL GUIDANCE." Banjee ca 11:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- I've updated the existing disclaimer to cover as above. It may not be the final solution, but it doesn't hurt as a stop-gap measure & is easily undone. Banjee ca 10:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
remarks that the usage/meaning, scientific view has changed since 1911
An example for an editoral remark. EB1911 might get incorporated in 3rd world countries for study purpose. The meaning accents are subtle, but sometimes impossible to detect for non-natives, because it still reads valid/actual language.
I see a clear need for remarks on administration, science, politics. In the worst case what might happen is that (for instance) chinese people begin to talk/write in structures of 1911, which have long been abandoned. A data collection "without obligatory purchase price" might get used for study/reference more quickly than it is possible to "make changes later".
Probably a generic template, which refers to the entry of "present age" wikipedia is sufficient. Nikemoto2511 08:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Current Orphaned EB1911 Pages
This is a list I generated from the current LonelyPages list. If someone from this project wants to take a look at these and figure out whether they need to be deleted or linked to, it would be helpful. Thanks. - illy 01:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Electrokinetics
- 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/France
- 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Hydraulics
- 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Hydrozoa
- 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Hyena
- 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Hyperbaton
- 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Hyperbole
- 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Ishim
- 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Ishpeming
- 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Protista
- 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica:Gutenberg Disclaimer
- 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica:IndexB1
- 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica:IndexM1
- 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica:IndexU1
- They don't need to be deleted. Once we get to those sections of the encyclopedia, they will fall right into place.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 02:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Good. I just wanted to make sure they hadn't been lost track of. - illy 13:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- What about duplicating the index structure, which already exists for A?
- They don't need to be deleted. Once we get to those sections of the encyclopedia, they will fall right into place.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 02:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I have done it for volume XXVII, it is possible, however a lot of detail work. I believe it is freedom of editing to re-arrange the start/end words, but i would not insist on it. It is possible to merge the above entries into the index.. Nikemoto2511
Surely what we want on gthe EB1911 main page is a hyperlinked list of the volume numbers and articles covered, eg Vol 8 Dem-Edw. Clicking on the link gets into the volume details as we now have it on the main page for Vol 1 and beginning to get for vol 27. The orphan entries can be listed under the right volumes and as new artcles are added they can be slotted into place. If no one objects I will do it. Some really keen editors might like to go through adding all the article names to await the texts. Hint, Hint! :) Apwoolrich 17:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- The dysteleogoly page needs to be moved to the proper page title. Apwoolrich, if you start that project, that would be amazing. I should have enough time (i.e., hours of time on end), to devote to helping you soon.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 17:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Main page now re-jigged along the outline above. Now awaitihg any orphan articles! I will add a note to Scroptorium about it. Apwoolrich 10:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- All of those orphans have been added to an index, and these old indexes are now all redirects to the appropriate Volume. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Titles of articles
I frequently Google for historical people. If I were to Google for "Herbert Baxter Adams" (to pick a name at random), I would not find this site easily as the article on him is headed "Adams, Herbert Baxter", unlike the Wikipedia article. Is there anything that can be done to include a supplementary title and method of linking? --PeterR 19:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Encyclopaedia scans in DJVU
I've converted the 4 Gb of scans to DJVU format in 29 volumes, which occupy only 1 Gb without any loss of quality. I could upload them to uploadingit.com, but please let me know here if you're interested. Magnentius 08:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Done, thanks! John Vandenberg 03:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Three Update Volumes of the 12th Edition of EB and Older Editions
The EB 1911 was the Public Domain printing of the complete EB. However, the 12th edition is in essence the 28 volumes of the 1911, plus three "update" volumes. According to the Wikipedia EB Article, these updates where printed/copyrighted between 1921 and 1922, and therefore still public domain. Has consideration been given to adding these updates to Wikisource as well? What about preserving older editions prior to the 11th? —Wikijeff 21:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Sources are listed at Wikisource:WikiProject 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica.--Dan Polansky 07:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed; the page scans at User:Tim Starling are the only source I use. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Added djvu of 1/4 of first volume
It's on:image:1911 Encyclopedia Britanica vol-1a-ad valorem .djvu The Index is available on Index:1911 Encyclopedia Britanica vol-1a-ad valorem .djvu
Ok I'm frustrated with this. The Pages on Wikisource is based on topics wile the scans are not. I can split all of the djvus and upload them but need to know if this is good for wikisource. --Diaa abdelmoneim 12:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand your comment about Wikisource being organised by topics. Alphabetical listings for example start here 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Vol 1:1. The issue of using djvu for 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica has been discussed on the Scriptorium recently here where you have commented, so I guess discussion will carry on there. However, overall, thanks for your edits to Wikisource - its great to see other people keen on getting our copy of EB1911 up to standard. Suicidalhamster (talk) 15:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- I mean that the scanned pages of britanica have multiple articles on one page, but the design of britanica on wikisource has just one article per page. --Diaa abdelmoneim 17:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- Well its very useful for each article to have its own page on Wikisource as links coming from Wikipedia etc can be specific and it also makes good sense organisationally. However its still not hard to transclude each section to a seperate article, which is done for bits of the The New Student's Reference Work such as here. Suicidalhamster (talk) 22:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Volume 1 djvu
- I added the first volume as 5-parts. It can be found on wiki commons in Category:1911 Encyclopedia Britanica ScansI added the corresponding indexes:
- Index:1911 Encyclopedia Britanica-vol01-alaric II-almoner.djvu
- Index:1911 Encyclopedia Britanica-vol01-almonry-ancestor-worship.djvu
- Index:1911 encyclopedia britanica-vol01-anchises-androphagi.djvu
- Index:1911 Encyclopedia Britanica vol-1a-ad valorem .djvu
- Index:1911 Encyclopedia Britanica-vol01-advancement-alaric.djvu
We need to find a way to connect all of those and I need a confirmation that this is useful.--Diaa abdelmoneim 19:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- Louis Braille (1809-1852); he gets a small mention in the article on "Blindness"
- Cochise (c.1815-1874)
- Emily Dickinson (1830-1886)
- William Pitt the Elder (1708-1778); he's there, listed as Chatham, 1st Earl of
- Henri Rousseau (1844-1910)
- Sequoyah (c. 1767-1843)
- Léon Dumont (1837-1877) ;many other French and German notables
Copyright Status for Different Countries?
- There would be no restriction on participating on the work. The only concern would be the sale of the product. Being the 1911 work, it is almost a theoretical argument. billinghurst sDrewth 05:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Full set of DJVUs now at Commons
I uploaded the full set of scans from the Internet Archive (http://www.archive.org/details/Encyclopedia_Britannica_1911_Complete) at about 80-90MB per volume, these seem the least compressed versions (highest quality?) that fit in the commons limit.
Volumes that were missing from there (numbers 4, 13, 21, 27) came from http://www.archive.org/details/EncyclopaediaBritannica1911HQDJVU, at around 30MB per volume.
- These can now be found at the Commons gallery here.
- A list of them with links to the relevant scan index can found at Wikisource here.
I will ask Phe to add the lacking OCR layers, as he seems good at that. I hope these are useful!
New volume list
I made a new volume list that doesn't use the unattractive all-caps that the current one has, and uses links to "/Volume XX" as this is more in line with the convention on other works (and lets you flip volume by changing just one number. These currently are all redirects to the "/Vol XX A to ANDROPHAGI" type pages.
Below is a the proposed new TOC (
redlinks are caused by this being on the talk page):
#[[/Volume 1|Volume 1: A — Androphagi]] #[[/Volume 2|Volume 2: Andros — Austria]] #[[/Volume 3|Volume 3: Austria — Bisectrix]] #[[/Volume 4|Volume 4: Bisharin — Calgary]] #[[/Volume 5|Volume 5: Calhoun — Chatelaine]] #[[/Volume 6|Volume 6: Châtelet — Constantine]] #[[/Volume 7|Volume 7: Constantine, Pavlovich — Demidov]] #[[/Volume 8|Volume 8: Demijohn — Edward]] #[[/Volume 9|Volume 9: Edwardes — Evangelical Association]] #[[/Volume 10|Volume 10: Evangelical Church — Francis, Joseph]] #[[/Volume 11|Volume 11: Franciscans — Gibson]] #[[/Volume 12|Volume 12: Gichtel — Harmonium]] #[[/Volume 13|Volume 13: Harmony — Hurstmonceaux]] #[[/Volume 14|Volume 14: Husband — Italic]] #[[/Volume 15|Volume 15: Italy — Kyshtym]] #[[/Volume 16|Volume 16: L — Lord Advocate]] #[[/Volume 17|Volume 17: Lord Chamberlain — Mecklenburg]] #[[/Volume 18|Volume 18: Medal — Mumps]] #[[/Volume 19|Volume 19: Mun — Oddfellows ]] #[[/Volume 20|Volume 20: Ode — Payment of Members]] #[[/Volume 21|Volume 21: Payn — Polka]] #[[/Volume 22|Volume 22: Poll — Reeves]] #[[/Volume 23|Volume 23: Refectory — Sainte-Beuve]] #[[/Volume 24|Volume 24: Sainte-Claire Deville — Shuttle]] #[[/Volume 25|Volume 25: Shuválov — Subliminal Self]] #[[/Volume 26|Volume 26: Submarine Mines — Tom-Tom]] #[[/Volume 27|Volume 27: Tonalite — Vesuvius]] #[[/Volume 28|Volume 28: Vetch — Zymotic Diseases]] #[[/Volume 29|Volume 29: Index]]
I have somewhat boldly removed the Wikipedia quotation:
- The Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition (1910–1911) is perhaps the most famous edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica. Some of its articles were written by the best-known scholars of its time. The articles are still of value and interest to modern scholars as cultural artifacts of the 19th and early 20th centuries; however, they contain a number of problematic areas for the modern scholar using them as a primary source.
It made the page, which is already too busy, even more busy and longer. It added a text that was in italics, and that had a part in boldface. I understand that some may disagree with the removal, hence this note here.
If the quotation needs to be there, it would be better to drop all the boldface and italics, and format the quotation using blockquote. But I think the quotation does not really need to be there. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
- I put a link to the Wikipedia article, and restored the "Look it up" graphic, which you removed awhile back for good reason, to the talk page. I did similar edits to these to NSRW where I moved a graphic and a lot of text from the notes in the header to the notes and sources in the textinfo on the talk page. Seems a good idea to keep the home pages of encyclopedia articles uncluttered, and leave detailed editor notes and source links for the talk page. The "about this edition" link on the content page I think is enough to prompt the interested reader. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 14:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Using the Page: technique
I for one find using the "Page:" technique inconvenient. It breaks the source texts of articles into single pages, making it impossible to copy the source text of a complete article into a plain text editor, and edit it there. Checking source texts of articles against Tim Starling's User:Tim Starling/ScanSet PNG demo without the "Page:" technique has worked really well for me. If there is going to be a movement to switch EB1911 to this techique, I am going to be opposed.
To clarify, I am referring to using pages found in the indexes listed at Wikisource:WikiProject 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Commons sources. An example page: Page:EB1911_-_Volume_01.djvu/9. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- And what about if we switch to Page: mode after the work is done in non-page mode? Phe (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I too have found the "Page:" technique inconvenient for smaller articles. I just go ahead and do them the old way. I think globbing the small articles together later into Page: mode is a reasonable idea. For multi-page articles, I think Page: mode is not so inconvenient. Page: mode is a bit techie, and I think if someone wants to contribute in the old mode, large articles or small, that seems preferable to not doing an article. Proofing and formatting is certainly a big part of any article, and storing the result in the old mode still moves things along I think and should not be discouraged, but no one should be surprised to find it later converted to Page: mode. As an end target, I think Page: mode is a good idea, and it is good to see the indexes working. From what I've seen, the scans seem inferior to Tim Starling's, so Tim's scans are still worth referring to. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- I prefer the page mode -- I edit by the page rather than by the article. That way not only I fix any problems with the article I am checking, I am also checking part of the article either side (either as an initial check or as a proofread of someone else's initial check). Once I have checked one page, if necessary I turn the page and check then next page completely. I think it is the most efficient way to help the project along. It also means that when someone reads the finished article they can see not only which volume the text comes from but also the page, which is information that is needed for a full citation. -- Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think that the page: mode is a poor idea even as an end target. Articles can be linked to their source scans on the talk pages of the articles, and there is no need of the page: mode to enable that. I can imagine many people are going to favor moving to the page: mode, but I am still voicing my disagreement, in case some more people share my sentiment. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
In other Wikisource projects like the German and Latin one, the corresponding Seite and Pagina modes are well established. As I understand, the German Wikisource even requires a scan for each text. It is convenient to have the scan displayed next to or above the edit window automatically. When editing EB1911, I always had to look up the scan myself, and copied the link to the talk page. Also, German Wikisource has by now the full text of Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie online, which is also a multi-volume work, and even printed in gothic letters, a nightmare for OCR. For Comparison: 1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Alaric_II. and ADB:Alarich_II. Use the button "Korrekturlesen" to display the scan (which might not work for unregistered users, though). I think the whole EB1911 project should be switched to the page mode style asap. --Matthead (talk) 19:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I am proposing to make major changes to the Wikipedia:Template:1911 (and two other related templates). I thought I would post a message here so that anyone interested can join in the discussion at Wikipedia:Template talk:1911#Proposal to replace code with a wrapper around cite encyclopedia -- Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Capital letters in headings
I propose that there should be no capital letters in headings at the beginning of each article (no RIVER but rather RIVER). I propose to discuss this at Wikisource talk:WikiProject 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Style Manual#Capital letters in headings. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Copying from Project Gutenberg?
Is it not allowed to copy the text from Project Gutenberg's edition of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica?
I assumed that this was not allowed based on the language in the disclaimer:
- Transcription errors
- These articles are transcribed from the originals by volunteers, sometimes directly and sometimes by correcting a preliminary OCR conversion. While we strive for perfect accuracy, there may be transcription errors in the articles.
I wanted to add the Thomas Chatterton article which I was just reading about in Project Gutenberg:
and in other places around the web.
It was interesting to read about him in wikipedia:
I saw the name in Dale Carnegie's book How to Win Friends and Influence People.
- There is no problem copying from Gutenberg that I know of. When available, I have provided links to the Gutenberg material in the header for each volume. The quality of the first volume is pretty atrocious, and I think should just be treated as OCR, but the other volumes are very good. Library Guy (talk) 16:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
In #Using_the_Page:_technique, I opposed using the page technique. An additional reason for opposing it is that it provides a very poor searchability AFAICT. The set of all EB1911 pages created without the page technique are easily full-text searchable using the search button now present on the main page: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)