View source for Wikisource:Wikisource and Wikibooks/pl

{{Important pages}}
<languages />
<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">
'''Wikisource and Wikibooks''' are two collaborative projects managed by the Wikimedia Foundation.
</div>

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">
==The general distinction==
</div>

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">
In most cases, distinguishing between '''content''' appropriate to '''Wikisource''' and '''[http://www.wikibooks.org Wikibooks]''' is relatively easy:
</div>
* <span lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">Wiki'''source''' is a collection of public domain texts that have already been published elsewhere in the past. Most of the texts at Wikisource are old books whose copyright has expired.</span>
* <span lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">Wiki'''books''' (<code>*.wikibooks.org</code>) are new texts written collaboratively by the contributors themselves in wiki fashion.</span>

<span lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">The '''goals''' of the two projects differ:</span>
* <span lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">Wiki'''source''' is essentially a '''library''' for all kinds of published texts.</span>
* <span lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">Wiki'''books''' specifically hosts '''instructional materials''', such as:</span>
** <span lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">Classroom texts</span>
** <span lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">Study guides</span>
** <span lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">Annotated texts</span>

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">
==Annotated texts==
</div>

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">
It is the last category, '''annotated texts''', that lends itself to a certain amount of overlap with Wikisource. Annotated texts are orginal-source texts '''supplemented''' with helpful study aids: Introductions, summaries, notations, charts, links, indexes, illustrations, topical essays...
</div>

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">
The '''original''' source-text is included within the '''annotated''' text, the latter being written by the contributors on Wikibooks. Annotated texts, since they are a kind of study guide with aids newly written by the contributors themselves, normally belong on Wikibooks rather than on Wikisource. This is '''despite''' the fact that they also contain the original source-text. Several source-texts are hosted at Wikibooks which contain annotations, or which are planned to have them in the future (such as the works of Shakespeare). See [[:b:Wikibooks:Annotated texts|Wikibooks:Annotated texts]] for further information.
</div>

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">
Even for annotated texts, the distinction between Wikisource and Wikibooks is clear in most cases. When there is a significant amount of original annotation contributed by the users themselves, the text belongs on Wikibooks. When the source-text is more-or-less presented "as is" the text belongs at Wikisource. This is a common sense distinction.
</div>

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">
Nevertheless, there are some borderline cases and gray areas. These are mostly a result of the fact that even a "pure" source-text held at Wikisource may not be entirely what it seems. Here is a brief explanation of the phenomenon:
</div>

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">
:''When we talk about the "original text" of Charles Dickens (to be kept on Wikisource), everyone knows pretty much exactly what is meant by that. However, when dealing with pre-modern texts it is much less clear. Nearly every edition of a text from ancient, classical or medieval times involves a huge number of editorial decisions regarding textual criticism, formatting, punctuation, and numerous other details, often subjective decisions which can turn even the "original text" into a somewhat new creation.''
</div>

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">
Here is where the border between '''Wikibooks''' and '''Wikisource''' becomes blurred. The more editorial decisions there are, and the more formatting or other features are added in order to make the text "user-friendly" - the more it begins to resemble an "annotated text"! Where exactly should the line be drawn?
</div>

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">
The following are some suggestions, though the very best guide is, of course, common sense:
</div>
* <span lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">An '''exact''' representation of a '''previously published edition''' of a classical text should clearly be kept at Wiki'''source'''.</span>
* <span lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">When the source-text remains prominent '''despite''' minor editorial features such as punctuation, division into paragraphs, removal of archaic spelling, etc., the text should probably be kept at Wikisource.</span>
* <div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">
Every translation is also a commentary (no matter how literal or how basic). Nevertheless, translations unaccompanied by further annotations are likely to belong here at Wikisource.
*Annotations within the flow of the original source-text: The more expansive they are, and the farther removed from the flow of the primary text, the more likely they are to be considered an independent commentary, and the work is more likely to belong at Wiki'''books'''. Very brief notes on technical issues in the primary text (such as textual criticism) are more likely to belong at Wiki'''source'''. Other examples of minor annotation that would clearly be unproblematic at Wikisource might include:
</div>
** <span lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">Adding '''wikilinks''' inside the document to relevant Wikipedia articles, Wiktionary definitions, other Wikisource docs, etc.</span>
** <span lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">Linking to relevant external articles (corresponding Wikipedia article, Wikibooks commentary and analysis, etc).</span>
** Krótkie streszczenia sekcji.
* <span lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">If supplementary text is clearly subordinate to the source text, then the text as a whole may still be appropriate for Wiki'''source'''. However, the more the added text stands on its own, and the more it resembles study material for classroom purposes, the more likely it is to belong at Wiki'''books'''. An example of the latter would be something along the lines of ''A Step-by-Step Guide to Reading Shakespeare's Sonnets'' (even though it also includes the source texts). In cases like these, always remember that the primary goal of Wiki'''books''' is the creation of '''instructional materials'''. Anything designed for steady classroom use almost certainly belongs on Wiki'''books''', not Wiki'''source'''.</span>

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">
Despite the above suggestions, the most important factors in deciding whether an annotated text belongs at Wikisource or Wikibooks are common sense and good will. There will always be a few borderline cases, a few gray areas between Wikibooks and Wikisource, but this needn't be a problem. '''The main thing is that the location of each text-project should be decided on its own merits, and any <u>reasonable</u> decision by its contributor(s) should be respected.'''
</div>

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">
==Clean texts and objectivity==
</div>

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">
Though there are some differences of opinion among Wikisource users as to how much supplementary material can or should be added to an original source text, there is agreement two major policies (see the [[Wikisource talk:Wikisource and Wikibooks|talk page]]):
</div>
# <span lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">Even if supplementary materials are added to Wikisource texts, the future reader must '''always''' be given the option to view a "clean" version of the text. This means an '''objective''' version of a previously published edition '''without''' the possibly subjective additions of Wikisource contributors. Technically, this can be accomplished by providing parallel texts, but the best method is through the use of templates.</span>
# <span lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">Any supplementary materials must be kept NPOV. This is no more difficult to do here than at Wikipedia, and is probably easier in most cases. However, it makes sense to be '''more''' stringent about this on Wikisource when these materials are used alongside authoritative versions of source texts. The problem is that if the supplementary materials are biased or skewed, that could also lower the respect for our source texts, which we need to prevent.</span>

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">
==Falling through the cracks==
</div>

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">
Special text projects require a certain amount of annotation or supplementary material for '''some''' of the texts included, but not others. I.e. a text project with a unified goal and the need to be on the same wiki may contain many texts that properly belong here on Wiki'''source''', while other parts of the same project may fit best on Wiki'''books'''. In cases like these, there is a danger that valuable text projects may find it difficult to find a single home not because they are inappropriate for the current Wikimedia projects, but to the contrary because they fit '''too well''' on '''more''' than one project!
</div>

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">
Rather than forcing such a project to exist piecemeal on two separate wikis (which prevents the use of templates and even worse forces the duplication of source texts that will not automatically be updated together), the contributors should make a serious initial decision about what the '''primary''' goal of the project is: Source texts or instructional materials. As long as the major goal of the project matches Wikibooks or Wikisource, that should be enough.
</div>

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">
This may be especially important for multilingual text projects, where one language focuses more on source texts and the other on supplementary materials. In these and all other cases, the most important factor is as above: '''The main thing is that the location of each text-project should be decided on its own merits, and any <u>reasonable</u> decision by its contributor(s) should be respected.'''
</div>

[[Category:Wikisource]]