Re: Bible websites
|
View:
New views
20 Messages
—
Rating Filter:
Alert me
|
| < Prev | 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 | Next > |
 |
Re: Bible websites
by WJhonson
::
Rate this Message:
I noticed as I was fixing up one article that we appearently have a tag
bibleverse that links to *one specific* website. I'm not comfortable with that sort of approach. It seems to highly favor a particular bible website over other similar ones. Don't we have a similar issue when linking to a book citation? That is, we provide several sources for the ultimate underlying book citation, not just a single link to amazon for example. Will ************** Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000005) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@... To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |
|
|
Re: Bible websites
by Ray Saintonge
::
Rate this Message:
WJhonson@... wrote:
> I noticed as I was fixing up one article that we appearently have a tag > bibleverse that links to *one specific* website. > > I'm not comfortable with that sort of approach. It seems to highly favor a > particular bible website over other similar ones. Where appropriate, links to Wikisource should be preferred. The Zondervan/Harper-Collins site has a TOS that claims copyright on everything; it applies "regardless of whether your access or use is intended". Claiming copyright on every version of the Bible that they host vaguely resembles copyfraud. Some of the more recent versions may indeed be copyright encumbered, but it would be a good beginning if some of these 2000+ bibleverse links that are for the King James version or some non-specific version were pointed to Wikisource. Ec _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@... To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |
|
|
Re: Bible websites
by stevertigo-2
::
Rate this Message:
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Ray Saintonge<saintonge@...> wrote:
> WJhonson@... wrote: >> I noticed as I was fixing up one article that we appearently have a tag >> bibleverse that links to *one specific* website. Its not "one specific website." See comment: (script being removed from deprecated site: http://php.ug.cs.usyd.edu.au/~jnot4610 to http://bibref.hebtools.com. See [[Template_talk:Bibleverse#PHP_script_moving]] -Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@... To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Bible websites
by Andrew Gray-3
::
Rate this Message:
2009/7/5 <WJhonson@...>:
> I noticed as I was fixing up one article that we appearently have a tag > bibleverse that links to *one specific* website. > > I'm not comfortable with that sort of approach. It seems to highly favor a > particular bible website over other similar ones. > > Don't we have a similar issue when linking to a book citation? That is, we > provide several sources for the ultimate underlying book citation, not just > a single link to amazon for example. Our ISBN links go to a page which generates about twelve thousand links to different booksellers, libraries, etc. For things like biblical quotations, it would seem that this is a marvellous niche for Wikisource, if we can figure out an elegant way to do it and keep the user functionality. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@... _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@... To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |
|
|
Re: Bible websites
by stevertigo-2
::
Rate this Message:
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 11:02 AM, <WJhonson@...> wrote:
> http://bibref.hebtools.com is > one specific website. > > How is that not one website ? Hm. But is it a local sort of "website?" From [[Template_talk:Bibleverse#PHP_script_moving]]: ---- "I have to move the PHP script dependency from its current location at http://php.ug.cs.usyd.edu.au/~jnot4610/bibref.php. It will now be available at http://bibref.hebtools.com/. I will try to avoid removing the old location for a few weeks. jnothman talk 01:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC) PS: The new server is slower than the previous, and ideally, we should hope to acquire space on a **Wikimedia toolserver,** etc., as requested here. Assistance in moving the script to Wikimedia servers would be appreciated. **Toolserver hosting has been approved!** Let me know if you need any help with the toolserver. And it would be nice if Wikisource was used where possible; BirgitteSB and I can help with that. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC) --- -Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@... To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Bible websites
by stevertigo-2
::
Rate this Message:
> stvrtg@... writes:
>> Hm. But is it a local sort of "website?">> <WJhonson@...> wrote: > What are you implying by that? > I have no idea what you mean. The discussion I quoted from a few months ago says something about moving it to a "toolserver," and then someone indicated there had been approval for that usage. From there, I suppose the questions are 1) did the move take place and is it now on a toolserver? 2) is only the work end on the toolserver such that the interface itself is on a private site - and thus we are sending traffic to a private site? -Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@... To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |
|
|
Re: Bible websites
by foxyloxy.wikimedia
::
Rate this Message:
On Monday, 6 July 2009 2:30 am, stevertigo wrote:
> From there, I suppose the questions are 1) did the move take place > and is it now on a toolserver? 2) is only the work end on the > toolserver > such that the interface itself is on a private site - and thus we are > sending > traffic to a private site? The toolserver is a Wikimedia DE hosted project, with approval from the WMF. People who wish to develop tools for WMF projects can apply for webspace/shell environment on it somewhere on Meta. (I have webspace at http://toolserver.org/~fl/ for example). Plenty of enwiki projects are run off it, for example the account creation requests interface is located at http://stable.toolserver.org/acc/. See [[m:Toolserver]] and http://toolserver.org/ for more details. -- fl administrator @ enwiki <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/user_talk:fl> _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@... To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |
|
|
Re: Bible websites
by Tim Starling-2
::
Rate this Message:
Andrew Gray wrote:
> For things like biblical quotations, it would seem that this is a > marvellous niche for Wikisource, if we can figure out an elegant way > to do it and keep the user functionality. Wikisource has a complete translation in modern English, and it already seems to be annotated with IDs for verses, e.g. <http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible_(American_Standard)/John#3:16> Bible links on Wikipedia don't uniformly use the bibleverse template, editors just link to any random website. I think the vast majority of links could go directly to the most recent PD translation on Wikisource. The relevant template can be updated once every decade or so as new works come into the public domain. A lot of bible references don't have a link at all. Maybe we could add a magic link feature, like we have for RFC and PMID. Then whenever someone types something that looks like a bible verse reference in plain text, MediaWiki would automatically convert it to a link. For cultural neutrality it would obviously have to be internationalised and support a number of other religious texts. Not impossible though. -- Tim Starling _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@... To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Bible websites
by stevertigo-2
::
Rate this Message:
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 8:31 PM, Tim Starling<tstarling@...> wrote:
> Wikisource has a complete translation in modern English, and it > already seems to be annotated with IDs for verses, e.g. > <http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible_(American_Standard)/John#3:16> Hm. Of course, Tim is right - if its public/open domain then wikisource should host it and we will then link to it. The issue with the hebtools site/script is that most of its links go to BibleGateway. Obviously the current script's sources need to be changed to include both other gateways like bible.cc and of course wikisource. A choice of gateways would be preferable. The current hosted translations/versions on wikisource are: * Bible (Wycliffe) (1380s) * Bible (Tyndale) (1526) * Douay-Rheims Bible (1610) * King James translation, or “Authorized Version” (1611) * King James translation, Oxford Standard (1769) * American Standard translation (1901) * Bible (Jewish Publication Society 1917) * World English translation (in progress since 1997) * Wikisource translation (in progress since 2006) Note that one of the benefits of using the proprietary portals, aside from heads-up comparison and better navigation, is that they are licensed to publish the newer proprietary versions. Cutting off the proprietary portals means cutting off the proprietary translations. The NIV for example is highly popular and referenced (among Protestants). Hence we have to of course include but not depend on the proprietary portals. -Steven _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@... To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |
|
|
Re: Bible websites
by Ray Saintonge
::
Rate this Message:
stevertigo wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 8:31 PM, Tim Starling<tstarling@...> wrote: > >> Wikisource has a complete translation in modern English, and it >> already seems to be annotated with IDs for verses, e.g. >> <http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible_(American_Standard)/John#3:16> >> > > Hm. Of course, Tim is right - if its public/open domain then > wikisource should host it and we will then link to it. The issue with > the hebtools site/script is that most of its links go to BibleGateway. > Obviously the current script's sources need to be changed to include > both other gateways like bible.cc and of course wikisource. A choice > of gateways would be preferable. > > The current hosted translations/versions on wikisource are: > * Bible (Wycliffe) (1380s) > * Bible (Tyndale) (1526) > * Douay-Rheims Bible (1610) > * King James translation, or “Authorized Version” (1611) > * King James translation, Oxford Standard (1769) > * American Standard translation (1901) > * Bible (Jewish Publication Society 1917) > * World English translation (in progress since 1997) > * Wikisource translation (in progress since 2006) > Those are only the ones on English Wikisource. > Note that one of the benefits of using the proprietary portals, aside > from heads-up comparison and better navigation, is that they are > licensed to publish the newer proprietary versions. Cutting off the > proprietary portals means cutting off the proprietary translations. > The NIV for example is highly popular and referenced (among > Protestants). Hence we have to of course include but not depend on the > proprietary portals. > I'll happily concede the point about comparison and navigation. They may very well host the newer proprietary versions but they also engage in massive copyfraud about the many versions that are in the public domain. Is that the sort of site that a community dedicated to open access should be supporting? The NIV may be the flavour of the day, and if one of our references makes a specific reference to that version, then and only then should we link to it. Failing that our links should be to PD versions. We are certainly not in a position to judge the accuracy of any translation of the Bible. Even the KJV has serious limitations; nevertheless, it is a known quantity. Links to it carry an implicit note of caution that is not so evident in a modern translation. In addition, its long history make it the version that would have influenced many English authors of the past. It would make no sense in those cases to reference a version that was only published after their death. There is much to be said for having the KJV as the default version. I also question the value of having scripts and toolservers for this task when a simple wikilink would work perfectly well. The way this has developed is just another way of being too clever by half. It would be worth the effort to change most usages of this template to a simple link to Wikisource. Ec _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@... To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |
|
|
Re: Bible websites
by David Gerard-2
::
Rate this Message:
2009/7/6 stevertigo <stvrtg@...>:
> Hm. Of course, Tim is right - if its public/open domain then > wikisource should host it and we will then link to it. The issue with > the hebtools site/script is that most of its links go to BibleGateway. > Obviously the current script's sources need to be changed to include > both other gateways like bible.cc and of course wikisource. A choice > of gateways would be preferable. > The current hosted translations/versions on wikisource are: > * Bible (Wycliffe) (1380s) > * Bible (Tyndale) (1526) > * Douay-Rheims Bible (1610) > * King James translation, or “Authorized Version” (1611) > * King James translation, Oxford Standard (1769) > * American Standard translation (1901) > * Bible (Jewish Publication Society 1917) > * World English translation (in progress since 1997) > * Wikisource translation (in progress since 2006) Is there anything that will show the same verse in several translations at once? That would be ideal - highly educational. That would require something less like wiki pages and more like a database at the other end. Or someone laboriously compiling wiki pages of the form en.wiki---.org/wiki/John/3/16 . - d. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@... To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |
|
|
Re: Bible websites
by Ray Saintonge
::
Rate this Message:
Tim Starling wrote:
> A lot of bible references don't have a link at all. Maybe we could add > a magic link feature, like we have for RFC and PMID. Then whenever > someone types something that looks like a bible verse reference in > plain text, MediaWiki would automatically convert it to a link. For > cultural neutrality it would obviously have to be internationalised > and support a number of other religious texts. Not impossible though. > The technical hurdles are undoubtedly less onerous than the socio-cultural ones. For the English Bible agreement on one version would be tough. There are other situations where the desired version may be very specific. Wikisource also hosts the Qur'an. Ec _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@... To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Bible websites
by stevertigo-2
::
Rate this Message:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 1:08 AM, David Gerard<dgerard@...> wrote:
> 2009/7/6 stevertigo <stvrtg@...>: > Is there anything that will show the same verse in several > translations at once? That would be ideal - highly educational. That > would require something less like wiki pages and more like a database > at the other end. Or someone laboriously compiling wiki pages of the > form en.wiki---.org/wiki/John/3/16 . Try the online parallel Bible. If you are talking about a new skin or a separate CSS mode, such that Wikisource could use it for concurrent comparative reading, I dunno. We still use the same monobook we've had for over five years. -Steven _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@... To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |
|
|
Re: Bible websites
by stevertigo-2
::
Rate this Message:
Here is the current list:
http://bibref.hebtools.com/biblesrcs.txt Replacing BG links with wikisource links would be the first thing to do. Choosing other portals instead of BG would be the next - giving fair distribution, until the script can be modified to offer a selection. And when all else is in order, this has to go in: http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Main_Page -Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@... To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |
|
|
Re: Bible websites
by stevertigo-2
::
Rate this Message:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 1:16 AM, Ray Saintonge<saintonge@...> wrote:
> The technical hurdles are undoubtedly less onerous than the > socio-cultural ones. For the English Bible agreement on one version > would be tough. There are other situations where the desired version may > be very specific. Hm. Techies might disagree - the socio-cultural hurdles can be just sort of swept away while engineering stuff takes actual work. What do we sociologists have to figure out? And technically speaking, Ray, neither the technical nor cultural aspects of the issue are actually "onerous." -Steven _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@... To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |
| < Prev | 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 | Next > |
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
