Talk:The Source and Aim of Human Progress

From Wikisource
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Wakari07
Jump to navigation Jump to search

the date of the document needs to be added! 115.240.67.60 11:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

done (1919, as per this source document. Wakari07 (talk) 09:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Wakari07: I've tried converting this work over to the ProofreadPage system that we use for newer works using the facsimile you provided a link for above. The text is the same, it's just been split by page of the book. If you can take a look and see if there are any problems that would be helpful. If there are, or it this disrupts your efforts with this work, it can be reverted back to how it was when you last left it easily enough. Prosody (talk) 21:40, 1 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I see we had the same idea. Heh. I should have tried asking you about it first, sorry. Prosody (talk) 23:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Prosody: Thank you for your effort, I was stuck for a while. Now proofreading :-) Wakari07 (talk) 20:21, 15 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
On the two versions, there is an article and a book version. I'm aware that the first version was sourced on the article version. But I found only a source for the book version. As far as I know, I'm the person who compared both versions. I can ascertain that the editorial differences are really minor. But probably the distinction between the two versions is notable. I'm not sure on how to handle this. Wakari07 (talk) 09:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
For now, I linked both entries to this document on the author page. Wakari07 (talk) 14:34, 27 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Wakari07: English Wikisource welcomes multiple editions of the same work if you have an interest in doing it. Prosody (talk) 05:18, 28 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
I made The source and aim of human progress (A study in social psychology and social pathology) based on stable version 4844846 from 30 March 2014. Since I can find no (free) source for it, the one-part article version lacks pagination and a way to ascertain editorial differences from fixed typos, so I'm afraid no way to improve it, unless someone buys the source for $11.95 [1] and shares it. Until then, I think I'm done. Wakari07 (talk) 18:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Wakari07: Does this look right? Prosody (talk) 02:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
This looks perfect, nice find! Wakari07 (talk) 03:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)Reply