Index talk:On the Atmospheric Bude-Light.pdf

As a general policy, it would be useful to link the master record on WorldCat. In this case, the JSTOR code may be also a bibliographical information interesting many WP users.Philosopher81sp (talk) 19:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@Philosopher81sp: This is done via a corresponding Wikidata item, which I have now created, as On the Atmospheric Bude-Light (Q98739533). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

thanks @Pigsonthewing:, I was supposing it could be automatically imported in Wikidata from external databases (like WorldCat, DOAJ, Google Books), in order to ensure w:en:WP:verifiability of the sources published in Wikisource. At a first sight, I don't find a similar policy which is so relevant for Wikisource. By way of a bibliographical record, anyone can verify by person in a public library or in a university library that scanned editions provided by volunteers of external project are strictly compliant with the original source (paper or manuscript).

Sometimes, scanned editions omit one or more parts, not to talk of possible image editing, in function of the available budgets or the personal needs and the conflict of interests moving fromm the subjects who sponsorize the work. A digitalized copy provided by an academic or statal library is a more reliable source, given that its falsification may -at least in some countries- exhibit to a crime penally persecuted. Therefore, a digitalized copy provided by a public subject has to be weighted as a more reliable source than an electronic copy that "anyone can edit" as he wants or as his sponsor pays. This is a concrete case, I think, since it would be simpleton to suppose good faith for all the external projects here cited. This has to be done for the members of Wikisource, expecially or exclusively for those who don't partner nor are sponsorized by external projects.

w:de:Grosses vollständiges Universal-Lexicon Aller Wissenschafften und Künste of de.wikipedia was the first where there exists a clear distinction between electronic texts (editable by anyone), digitized copies and Google Books. It is compared to the lowest of the reliable sources. That article seems to have received the contribution of specialized editors. In my modest opinion, the suggested hierarchy of reliable sources suggests to link a DOI, OCLC, ISSN code anytime it is possible.Philosopher81sp (talk) 14:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Philosopher81sp: Your concerns are not specific to this work, and would be better raised on a more general forum, such as Wikisource:Scriptorium. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing:, I will read the Wikisource:Scriptorium so as to move the discussion. Thanks for your reply.Philosopher81sp (talk) 16:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)