Disputatio Paginae:The poems of Gaius Valerius Catullus - Francis Warre Cornish.djvu/7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
E Wikisource

Is this text notable?[recensere]

OrbiliusMagister made some interesting comments here about the value of looking for authoritative editions. A comprehensive treatment of Catullus on Vicifons would require a range of historical editions representing steps in the refinement of the text over the last seven-hundred years. I am not sure that this particular text is notable enough to be included. Francis Warre-Cornish’s book is never, so far as I know, included among the principal editions and commentaries of Catullus, and I fear that proofreading it would not be time well spent. Should we establish standards of the notability for texts included here? My instincts tell me that this one does not belong. Aramgar 18:55, 2 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa! I'm truly flattered to have started such an important thread, so I'll put some more bytes about it.
We are facing a problem concerning effort more than value. I'll say it clearly:
In a "real world" library are all editions authoritative? *no*. In a good library we can find either good or bad edition (and in old and rich libraries sometimes we find both).
I see that this Catullus is not the latest and the best philological effort, but has a great advantage over any other "online" edition: it presents (or will show when transcription shall be done) an authoritative transcription, which other sites can only grant as an actus fidei. Let's think in perspective: one day we'll have more editions of Catullus, and let scholars study, choose and analyse which one fits them. Of course it'd be a great idea if someone puts online a modern and established text, but my philological studies taught me that th "perfect critical edition" shall be outdated by a more accurate one, so it's not our real concern.
When i work on Wikisource I think of myself as an amanuensis, seldom understanding what I'm copying, but feeling that no book is completely useless. And I'm still thanking those savant monks who saved Ovid, Petronius, Plautus despite their personal beliefs.
I see no problem in having multiple editions of the same work/author if the effort is done. Let scholars define their value, our job is transcription (as for scanned texts we needn't write, it's enough when pages are uploaded in Commons for others to transcribe them).
My main concern is about sources: a text without trace of its printed edition is beyond any chance of proofreading. tht is the real plague to eradicate.
Excuse my ubertas. Hope to make this discussion profitable. - εΔω 20:55, 2 Iulii 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Prioritising volunteers is like herding cats. If someone wants to work on a poor quality or unimportant text, we must let them. As long as it is a legitimately published work it is notable enough. Hesperian 23:27, 2 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Printed editions are very important, even if they are not notable editions. Properly attributed they provide information about the author/editor, and they also assist us demonstrate that our texts which do not have pagescans are not outlandishly wrong. i.e. the casual reader can see that here is a printed edition, and it is at least similar to the edition that we dont have scans for, so that increases the readers trust in our editions without pagescans.
John Vandenberg
I agree 100% with OrbiliusMagister! Insert any printed text, but everyone should know the source. I hope in the future wikisource will have multiple edition for each text. --Accurimbono (disp) 08:18, 3 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]