On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 1:24 PM, John Vandenberg <jay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Good question! ;-) > Storage is one issue. > It would be interesting to estimate the storage requirements of > Wikisource if we had produced the PGDP etexts. I think it is the main reason; however, a back-of-the-envelope calculation (20.000 books, 300 pages, 100k per page; the first is quite a good estimate, the other two could be a factor 2 off) tells me that the total storage requirements would be measured in 100s of gigabytes - which means that one or two state of the art hard disks should be enough to contain it. > They don't have an 'export' function, and I doubt they are going to > build one so that they can interoperate with us. > > My 'import' function was a scraper; not something that can be used in > a large scale without their permission. On the other hand, if you _do_ get permission, there might well be a more elegant ftp-based method. > The wikisource workflow is a *symptom* of it being a "wiki", with all > that entails. There is a lot more than merely the workflow which > distinguishes the two projects. Certainly. I think the deeper-laying difference is one of attitude, which as you write is for WS a symptom of being a wiki. As a wiki, WS uses such attitudes/principles as "make it easy for people to contribute", "publish early, publish often", "let people do what they want, as long as it's a step, however small forward". PGDP on the other hand derives its attitudes/principles from a wish to create high quality end products. As such it uses "check and doublecheck", "limit the amount of projects we work on", "quality control" and "division of tasks". -- André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
